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. 134
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 11, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 134
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, June 11, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 152)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dandurand
Danko
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Total: -- 165
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 157
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Fuhr
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 12
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26
Hon. Gregor Robertson (for the Minister of Transport)
moved: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-26, An Act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply, be disposed of as follows:
(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order;
(b) when the House begins debate at the second reading stage of the bill, one member of each recognized party, a member of the New Democratic Party, and the member of the Green Party, may each speak at the said stage for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member;
(c) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the second reading stage or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment;
(d) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall be deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed; and
(e) during consideration of the bill,
(i) after 8:30 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair,
(ii) the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown,
(iii) no motion to adjourn the debate may be moved except by a minister of the Crown.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to open the debate on Government Business No. 11 and to highlight the importance of Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.
The motion would allow for the quick passage of Bill C-26, putting our government in a position to make payments to the provinces and territories, up to a total of $1.7 billion, to support efforts that improve the housing supply across Canada. It is a targeted measure designed to get funding quickly to the provinces and territories for measures that get homes built, including reducing development fees or levies on new home construction and making incremental investments in provincial and territorial programming already in place to spur housing developments.
Far too many Canadians are struggling to find an affordable place to live. I believe every member of the House agrees that Canada is in a housing crisis. Solving that crisis requires a multitude of different tools and it requires immediate action. We need to bring down the costs, cut red tape, improve productivity and build more quickly. To meet the current and future housing needs of Canadians, we need to ensure that housing supply can keep pace with demand and that homes can be delivered at prices that are affordable for Canadians.
I want to speak to the urgency of the motion and the need to move quickly on the motion and the legislation. We need to move quickly to solve Canada's housing challenges by bringing down the costs, as I said, cutting red tape and building homes at a faster pace.
Bill C-26 has been designed to unlock housing supply across the country. The legislation would deliver a $1.7-billion federal investment to the provinces and territories to support measures that increase housing supply. These funds could, for example, help lower development fees or levies on new home construction, which are particularly significant in my home province of B.C. and in Ontario. They can also strengthen existing provincial and territorial programs that are already focused on building more homes through targeted, incremental investments.
In addition, the federal investment can provide support for provincial and territorial efforts to streamline regulations and boost productivity across the home construction sector. Ontario's recent announcement of an HST rebate on new homes is a key example of how these transfers would improve supply.
As part of tax relief efforts, the Ontario government, thanks to federal support tied to the bill, plans to rebate the full 13% harmonized sales tax in Ontario on new homes valued up to a million dollars, which would save buyers up to $130,000 on a new home at that $1-million price.
It is clear that strong partnerships with the provinces, territories and local governments are essential to building more homes and improving housing affordability for Canadians. Proceeding swiftly with Bill C-26 through this motion would get get these funds to the provinces, and all of the work could continue across the country at pace.
[Translation]
Last week, I spoke at the annual conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, where I shared my own experience as a mayor. I remember asking the federal government for the investments and support my community needed. I remember the years spent trying to get Stephen Harper's Conservative government to recognize this growing problem. I remember their many refusals to even sit at the table, let alone collaborate on finding and implementing solutions.
Today, things are different. Canada has a new government that is resolutely committed to taking action. Thanks to our government's investments, we are supporting the community infrastructure that people depend on every day, from community centres and recreational facilities to parks and cultural spaces. This includes new builds, expansions, renovations, retrofits, climate adaptations and project replacements.
Simply put, it is impossible to build housing without the road and water infrastructure needed to support it. Rather than let our municipal partners shoulder these responsibilities alone or pass on the cost of this infrastructure to homebuyers, we are making essential investments through the Canada housing infrastructure fund and now through our historic new build communities strong fund.
[English]
The result of these investments is real projects that will improve people's lives. Last April, we announced $25.9 million for water infrastructure in Regina, Saskatoon and Moose Jaw, enabling the construction of more than 29,000 homes. Last December, we announced $8.6 million for Charlottetown, P.E.I., to build the infrastructure needed to build up to 525 housing units. Just over a week ago, we announced our comprehensive partnership with the Government of Quebec on community, health and transportation infrastructure. Historic action is being taken to build stronger communities, with good neighbourhoods and homes people can afford.
These investments are complemented further by the important work of Build Canada Homes. Since launching in September, Build Canada Homes has already advanced six direct-build projects in Dartmouth, Longueuil, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton, and secured six major partnerships with the City of Ottawa and the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and B.C., and a tripartite agreement with the Nunavut Housing Corporation and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
As a dedicated agency with a mandate to build affordable housing, Build Canada Homes is already doing important work to move thousands of new homes forward. We announced 1,100 new homes, including 700 supportive and transitional homes, to be built within the next 12 months, in B.C. just this last February. Build Canada Homes will build up to 750 homes across Nunavut in partnership with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Through the partnership with New Brunswick, we will accelerate the delivery of up to 1,200 shovel‑ready affordable homes, with the potential to scale up to 1,500 new homes in New Brunswick. A few weeks ago, we brought together both the build communities strong fund and Build Canada Homes by delivering approximately $350 million in housing and infrastructure investments in the Yukon.
These are just a few examples of the partnerships and progress Build Canada Homes has accomplished in less than a year.
Yesterday, this House passed Bill C‑20, the Build Canada Homes act, at third reading, taking us one step closer to turning Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation, with even more tools to get more homes built. Whether it is through the build communities strong fund, Build Canada Homes or any of our other programs, now is the time to work together. Now is the time for all levels of government to get to the table and identify our priorities so that we can get building.
We are in uncertain times, but when we work together, we can give ourselves more than anyone can take away. That is why our government is taking action on these different fronts across the housing spectrum, reducing barriers, investing in housing-enabled infrastructure and catalyzing a more productive homebuilding sector. Bill C‑26 is an important tool within this broader effort.
The reality is that housing needs differ from region to region, and our response must be just as nuanced and targeted. The barriers faced in a fast-growing urban centre, like my home city of Vancouver, are very different from those in smaller or more remote communities. What Vancouver needs versus what Iqaluit, Chicoutimi or rural Canada needs generally differs significantly. Bill C‑26 reflects this reality by giving the provinces and territories the flexibility to find solutions that are best suited to the regional challenges that may impede housing supply and would best meet the housing needs of those jurisdictions. By empowering the provinces and territories to direct funding where it can be most impactful in addressing the housing supply barriers, we can help ensure that these federal investments align with the on-the-ground realities. This federal funding would be transferred to provinces and territories with the understanding that it will be used exclusively for measures that increase housing supply.
For instance, this could include but is not limited to reducing development fees or levies on new home construction. The funding could be used on new home construction. The funding could also be used to make incremental investments in provincial or territorial programming already in place to spur housing developments. Ontario's HST announcement on March 25 of this year is an example of how these transfers could help home supply in Ontario.
The key element here is partnership, which is also central to our broader housing approach. Strong collaboration among all levels of government, with indigenous partners and with non-profit organizations and private industry is needed to address the housing challenges that we face across Canada. Provinces and territories are well placed to determine how federal support can augment their provincial and territorial efforts to unlock additional supply across different regions, and Bill C‑26 would help enable that effort.
We are already seeing the effectiveness of partnerships. On March 23, the Prime Minister announced a partnership with Ontario to reduce development charges and support new housing supply, demonstrating how that collaboration can directly lower costs and accelerate building. As I outlined earlier, the federal government is also working with provinces, territories and indigenous partners to deliver more homes, affordable homes, through Build Canada Homes and the build communities strong fund.
These examples show what is possible when the Government of Canada works together with provinces, territories, local governments, indigenous groups and other key partners. Bill C‑26's approach complements the broader work that is already under way to increase housing supply across Canada. We are bringing partners together, aligning these efforts and ensuring that every dollar contributes to faster, more effective housing delivery.
[Translation]
This bill is tailor-made to meet those needs, but I also want to take a moment to talk about other important programs.
[English]
As I noted, our government is taking action to support building across the housing spectrum. The work of Build Canada Homes to scale up the supply of affordable housing nationwide is in full swing now. Other measures like targeted tax relief, such as removing the 5% GST on new purpose‑built rental construction, are lowering upfront costs and helping move projects forward.
Programs like the apartment construction loan program and the CMHC mortgage loan insurance products, MLI select being a great example, help builders secure financing. These programs are very significant across Canada. They are more on the market side of housing, but they are certainly enabling historic levels of rental housing to be built right across the country.
The apartment construction loan program is making needed capital available to make more apartment projects financially viable and get shovels in the ground. That is the key piece, particularly in these uncertain times. Recently, in the spring economic update, we announced that we would be kicking this program into even higher gear, accelerating over $7 billion in low‑cost financing to speed up rental home construction even further.
The housing accelerator fund is also a program that helps unlock supply, reducing barriers, reducing red tape and speeding up approvals at the local level. We have 241 housing accelerator fund agreements that were signed with local governments, and they are delivering tens of thousands of homes on pace that would not have been seen otherwise.
To conclude, right now there is momentum like never before to deliver on the housing issue, but we cannot do it alone. Our success relies on working together to tackle the housing crisis from every angle and deliver results for Canadians. By enabling targeted, flexible funding and reinforcing collaboration across provinces and territories, Bill C‑26 would help to ensure that we are not just investing more but investing smarter, together. This is how we will deliver the homes that Canadians need. This is how we will create more prosperous, resilient communities. This is how we will build Canada strong.
Mr. Speaker, the minister covered a lot of ground, but ultimately Bill C‑26 is a sham of a process. Why? It is because the minister and the government already have the ability to come to provincial agreements. He could go to the NDP government in our home province of British Columbia and do a deal, and then go to the Minister of Finance and have it funded through the estimates process.
To be wasting time in this chamber is, in my belief, more to address the minister's shortfalls when it comes to being seen as politically competent and when it comes to supplying housing, a priority that was made out in the last election.
Will the minister not just admit today that Bill C‑26 is a fig leaf for his government's lack of action and a waste of the time of this House?
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, we are in an affordable housing crisis across Canada. Canadians expect us to take action and deliver in every way possible.
For the last two days, Conservatives have been moving motions to shut down this House early and to send us home for the summer, with hours of work left to do and hours of debate left on important legislation like this that would deliver affordable housing for Canadians. If the Conservatives are interested in a longer process, more time for debate and circuitous routes that take forever to deliver for Canadians, that will not be supported by this side of the House.
We want to see action taken. We want to see partnerships advanced with provinces and territories, and investment in new affordable housing.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit ironic that they are having to impose a super closure motion on Bill C‑26 when it could have been passed much more quickly if the government had been more transparent.
The government refused to hold a briefing at the outset. We were not sure if the federal government was going to do what it usually does and impose a whole bunch of conditions that would delay and complicate the transfer of the funds. When the bill was introduced, we found out that the money would be transferred directly to Quebec so that it could use it as it sees fit for housing. That solved a lot of problems.
Why was the government not transparent from the start? The process would have gone much quicker.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we have been very transparent in all of our housing funding allocations and our partnerships. In particular with Quebec, we have an unprecedented partnership on housing through Build Canada Homes. We are contributing funding from the federal level in partnership and at a collaboration table with Quebec to get affordable housing built, including supportive and transitional housing, which is a big priority for many communities and for the province of Quebec, to help solve homelessness. This would be an additional investment that could be made to provinces and territories, obviously including Quebec, to get them funding to take next levels of action.
As I mentioned, there are many tools that we need to bring forward. This is one that needs to be expedited.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member has been at the municipal level before, and we know that we cannot build homes without cities and without partnerships with the provinces and municipalities. My city of London has been a great example of how those partnerships have yielded a lot of funding from the housing accelerator fund, yet we have seen the opposition take jabs at mayors.
Can you talk about the importance of partnerships with mayors and provinces to make sure that we can build the homes that are needed across Canada fast?
I will just remind the hon. member to address her questions through the Chair and not directly to the minister.
The hon. minister.
Mr. Speaker, having served for a decade at the local government level in both the city of Vancouver and the metro Vancouver regional government, I am obviously very familiar with the challenges faced not only on the housing front, but also in the relationships with the provinces and territories and the federal government. Historically, it has been very difficult for cities to work with other levels of government. That is why we are in the predicament we are in with housing.
Cities have a critical role to play, but in years past, certainly in my years as mayor, there was not direct support. A program like the housing accelerator fund did not exist, nor were there transfers or investments that enabled the cities to take action and build, nor were there adequate programs through the provinces and territories. In this case, we are working with all of these partners, collaborating and investing at historic levels, and we want to make sure that collaboration creates affordable housing.
Mr. Speaker, I am struggling with Bill C-20. I voted against it last evening. I am looking at Bill C-26. I am hoping the hon. Minister of Housing can explain to me why the good work done since September by Build Canada Homes, as a special operating agency, seems disconnected from the new Crown corporation. For Bill C-20, we do not even know who the responsible minister would be, because that hat could change based on what cabinet decides at any given time.
Can the hon. minister explain to me why we have put so much effort into transferring a special operating agency into a Crown corporation, with nothing new in Bill C-20 and work already under way?
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to see the member and members on the other side of the House oppose the Build Canada Homes act at third reading yesterday. This is an agency that will be 100% focused on delivering affordable housing in Canada. We have never had that before.
With respect to the rationale, as the housing minister, I will be responsible for the Crown corporation, as I am for the special operating agency currently. The special operating agency has very limited tools to do financing and land acquisition and to expedite bringing on human resources to get more housing built. The Crown corporation structure will get more housing built in the long run, and that is the goal overall. It is accountable to Parliament through the minister, so I see it as a very significant advancement for getting affordable housing built.
In this case, with Bill C-26, funding would also go to provinces and territories to enable and expedite the—
Mr. Speaker, the minister is promising 500,000 homes every year. According to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 homes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even though houses will be built, the new Liberal agency Build Canada Homes will add only 5,000 homes per year. That is 1% of the half a million homes promised.
How can the minister explain to Canadians that his plan is the right plan and the one that is going to deliver homes to Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify to the member opposite that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report related to Build Canada Homes was very much focused on Build Canada Homes, not on all of the tools that government has to get housing built, most of which reside within the national housing strategy and related programs. Build Canada Homes is at far beyond the number stated, with probably triple that right now in the pipeline for the construction of affordable housing.
There are many other programs. This initiative with Bill C-26 would get additional funding to provinces and territories and would expedite it to make sure they will have more tools and more opportunities, as Ontario has done, as an example, to bring down its HST and make it more affordable for homebuyers to buy homes of up to $1 million. It is helping Canadians get into their first homes. For first-time homebuyers, it is another opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, Mississauga—Erin Mills has a massive housing problem. We have over a 10-year waiting period for subsidized housing, and women fleeing violence have a difficult time finding housing.
Can the minister please help us understand how this bill will support those people in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for those concerns.
We have to get more supportive and transitional housing built, in particular for our most vulnerable Canadians. That is a big focus of Build Canada Homes. We want to see this funding expedite housing like that, and we need to not only do what Ontario is doing with the HST, but focus on the most affordable housing, first and foremost. We will be doing that.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to outline that the City of Abbotsford is launching its consultations this June on the Sumas River watershed flood mitigation plan. Earlier this month, the cities of Princeton, Merritt, Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford launched the west coast corridor resiliency partnership.
Excuse my skepticism today, but with the bill before us, Bill C‑26, and the corresponding programming motion, we would essentially be granting, without any parliamentary oversight, $1.7 billion to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to fund certain projects at their discretion without any parliamentary oversight. That is what we are debating today. I would encourage the minister to consider Abbotsford and the 2021 floods we had. When a minister takes action like this, I know that we can do the same for a region of British Columbia that is essential for the government to meet its own export and infrastructure goals.
Bill C‑26 is two paragraphs long. It basically would grant the minister unfettered spending abilities with $1.7 billion. Forgive my skepticism, but I do not want to authorize and will not support another dollar of taxpayer money's going to a government that has so resoundingly failed on the housing platform, starting in 2016, so with my time today, I am going to share a few remarks about fiscal accountability. I am going to outline some of the most egregious examples of how the government has mismanaged money. I am going to talk about flood infrastructure in the Fraser Valley. If the government can take quick action like this, why can it not take quick action on a project of national interest with clear accountability metrics?
Then I am going to go over the national housing strategy the Liberals launched in 2016, the National Housing Strategy Act, what they said at the time about these bills and what they hoped to accomplish. I look forward to reviewing federal program spending on housing affordability dating back to 2019 with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I will have some other comments tying all those points together. Finally, I might even bring a motion forward to amend the programming motion before us today.
Let us start with fiscal accountability. I want to start by speaking about a cornerstone of our democratic system, parliamentary accountability, specifically how it operates in the context of federal spending legislation in Canada. At its heart, parliamentary accountability ensures that the government, which exercises the power to tax and spend, remains answerable to the elected representatives of the people of the House. That duty goes to the very heart of our parliamentary system and why we are here.
The power of the purse is one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of Westminster democracy. It was hard fought over for centuries, from the struggles between Parliament and the Crown in the United Kingdom to the evolution of responsible government here in Canada. The principle is simple: Governments may propose spending, but only Parliament can authorize it, and that authorization must be informed, transparent and accountable. This is not a ceremonial role. It is not a rubber stamp. It is a safeguard on behalf of taxpayers.
At first glance, the bill appears straightforward. It would authorize $1.7 billion in payments to provinces and territories to address housing supply, but as parliamentarians, our responsibility does not end with the stated intent of a bill or the comments from one of the ministers responsible, during his remarks in the House. Our duty is to examine how public money is authorized, how it is spent and whether it is subject to meaningful oversight.
In Canada, this principle is embedded in our Constitution and operationalized through the financial procedures of Parliament. The House of Commons plays a central role in reviewing and approving federal expenditures. Standing committees examine departmental estimates and call ministers and officials to testify and justify their spending plans in detail, at least in an ideal world.
However, accountability does not end once funds are approved. In fact, it continues through the fiscal cycle. Mechanisms such as the Public Accounts of Canada and reports from the Auditor General provide retrospective oversight, enabling Parliament to assess whether funds were spent as intended and whether value for money was achieved. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts then reviews these findings, further reinforcing accountability.
Despite this robust framework, obvious challenges remain. One persistent concern is the complexity and timing of financial documents. Parliamentarians are often tasked with reviewing information within a limited time frame and with limited information. This task constrains effective scrutiny and at times shifts the balance of power to the executive branch from the legislative branch. We have seen the consequences of that in recent years, and it is only heightened now through the fabricated majority of the Prime Minister.
The current government has overseen a significant expansion in federal spending, accompanied by rising deficits and growing public debt. While some of that spending occurred during extraordinary circumstances, the pattern has continued well beyond those moments. Nowhere is that more evident than in housing. The government has announced and re‑announced billions of dollars in housing initiatives over the past decade.
Despite these commitments, housing affordability has deteriorated. The cost of buying a home has risen dramatically, rents have increased and supply has not kept pace with demand. If Parliament had been provided with clear metrics, stronger oversight tools and more transparent reporting, we might better understand where these programs fell short. Instead we are left with repeated announcements, escalating costs and performative motions such as the one before us today on more money.
A culture of accountability must be maintained and strengthened in the House. This is not solely about rules and procedures; it is also about a shared commitment to transparency, responsibility and respect for Parliament's role. Parliamentary accountability in federal spending is not an abstract concept. It is a living practice that underpins public trust in our institutions, which is diminishing. Each vote on estimates, each committee hearing and each audit contributes to ensuring that all Canadians have trust in the process, which right now they do not.
In 2017, the government unveiled Canada's national housing strategy. The initial investment was $40 billion over 10 years to tackle homelessness and housing supply through redesigned and expanded federal programs. At the time, former minister of fisheries, and member, Bernadette Jordan said that through these investments, “we will reduce chronic homelessness by 50%.” In 2017, the estimated number of chronically homeless shelter users was 28,900, according to Statistics Canada. In 2024, that number rose to an estimated 36,058 people experiencing chronic homelessness. The government made a promise to learn from the past, act with foresight and deliver real solutions, but nearly a decade later, the results tell a different story.
In October, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that an average home costs 34% more than what an average-income household can afford. CMHC's latest outlook projects that homebuilding could drop by as much as 18.1% over the next three years and forecasts that housing starts will be 55% below CMHC's own target to restore affordability. The federal housing advocate, and this is wild, reported that it would take more than 1,000 years to restore housing affordability under the current plan.
This is a systemic failure. One of the clearest constraints that do not get enough attention in the House is infrastructure. While the minister did outline a few projects about improving infrastructure for housing supply, the scale of the problem is much greater than the one-off announcements he has made. More than 11% of Canada's water infrastructure and waste-water infrastructure is in poor condition, with an estimated more than $100 billion in upgrades needed, according to Statistics Canada. Mike Moffatt, founding director of the Missing Middle Initiative, said, “communities simply don't open land for development at all because they know infrastructure cannot support it.”
While Canadians are told more housing is coming, the foundation required to build it is missing. Either it is outdated, or current systems and approaches cannot accommodate it. The government cannot deliver housing, partly because it cannot deliver infrastructure. Its track record proves it cannot manage large-scale investments at all.
Let us look at some examples. In the last Parliament, Conservatives were upheld in a Speaker's ruling on Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie held a beneficial interest in Cycle Capital, a Quebec-based venture capital firm that received tens of millions of dollars in SDTC grants without any checks and balances. A recording of a senior civil servant slammed the outright incompetence of the Trudeau government, which had inappropriately given 123 million dollars' worth of contracts to companies such as Cycle Capital. It was so bad, so egregious, that the former speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer, essentially shut parliamentary procedures down for almost a year.
The Auditor General found the SDTC fund did not follow conflict of interest policies in 90 cases. It spent nearly $76 million on projects connected to Liberal friends and appointees to run SDTC. It spent $59 million on projects that were not allowed to have been awarded any money. It spent $12 million on projects that were both in a conflict of interest and ineligible for funding. In one instance, Trudeau's hand-picked SDTC chair, Annette Verschuren, syphoned off $217,000 to her own company.
The Liberal government has a history of very poor decision-making. Other members of the House and members of the public have described it as corruption. The former speaker shut down Parliament for almost a year because the government at the time refused to comply with basic financial transparency and then tried to make the superfluous argument that it was a charter violation for the Conservatives to refer this information to the RCMP. What did the Liberals do? They prorogued Parliament, and Justin Trudeau is no longer prime minister.
The second example is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. With great fanfare, in 2017, the CIB was given $35 billion in federal financing intended to attract private sector investment into infrastructure. The government plan indicated that the Canada Infrastructure Bank would be responsible for delivering the capital over an 11-year period. Global News reported in 2021 that the CIB had committed over $4 billion for projects, but none involved funding from private investors, which was the original intent of the fund: public-private partnerships using federal dollars to scale private sector investment. It just was not happening. In July 2025, the PBO reported that the Infrastructure Bank was not on track to spend its sector-specific funding amounts by 2027-28. In other words, it was projecting complete failure.
A third example is electric batteries. This one really grinds my gears. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, the total cost of government support for EV investments in Canada was earmarked at $52.5 billion between October 2020 and April 2024, including the strategic innovation fund and special production subsidies for Stellantis, Volkswagen, Honda and Northvolt. Despite funding commitments, many federally backed auto sector projects have been delayed or have fallen apart altogether. Stellantis shifted Jeep Compass production from Brampton, Ontario, to Illinois; Honda's $15-billion EV supply chain project in Alliston is delayed; Volkswagen has deferred its production schedule in St. Thomas; Northvolt is slower than expected in its rollout in Quebec; and General Motors' termination of BrightDrop EV van production has taken place in Ingersoll.
To make matters even worse, despite significant promises, hours of debate and promises from the government that it was going to create an EV ecosystem like nothing we have ever seen before in Canada, taking advantage of our critical minerals, the advanced manufacturing in Ontario, new opportunities for mining in the Ring of Fire and new export opportunities, all through these investments that were so necessary, the Prime Minister just recently handed 30% of our electric vehicle market to China without guardrails. This is the very country that he said, just a year ago in the election, was the greatest threat to Canadian democracy. What in the world is this?
Example number four is ArriveCAN, which was originally budgeted at only $80,000 but ballooned to cost Canadians approximately $60 million. A year ago tomorrow, the Auditor General confirmed that GC Strategies, a dodgy IT firm that does not do IT work and is now under RCMP investigation for ArriveCAN, was awarded 106 contracts worth nearly $100 million under the Liberals. Despite the firm already receiving $64.5 million from the government, the Auditor General found that in 46% of cases, there was little or no evidence that work was actually performed. The Auditor General called the government bookkeeping for the project the worst she had ever seen. In an extraordinary, rare step, the contractor was formally censured in Parliament for its conduct, which is something almost never seen in federal procurement, underscoring just how serious and egregious these failures were.
Example five, another one that hits close to home, because I represent a sizable indigenous population, is the indigenous procurement policy. In August 2024, Global News reported that through the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses, the government awarded billions of dollars in contracts earmarked for indigenous enterprises without always requiring bidders to prove they were first nations, Métis or Inuit. Contracts awarded to indigenous businesses skyrocketed from $100 million in 2018 to $1.6 billion, which is 6.3% of all eligible federal spending at the time. Thawennontie Thomas, co-founder of LaFlesche, a plastics manufacturing company near Montreal, “said it's 'commonly known' among Indigenous executives that non-Indigenous businesses [were] taking advantage” of the procurement policies.
Example number six is a recent one, PrescribeIT. The Liberals spent nearly $300 million over a decade on prescribing software. The CEO of Canada Health Infoway was paid nearly $900,000 a year while the program failed across most of Canada. The agency has still not complied with a parliamentary request to provide unredacted documents on its PrescribeIT failure. Nearly $100 million went to Telus Health as the primary technology vendor, with unanswered questions about who owns the taxpayer-funded intellectual property. What a disgrace. We have just learned that the Minister of Health has now cancelled the program in disgrace despite repeated attempts for more transparency by Conservatives at the health committee, which were blocked by the Liberal members.
Example number seven is COVID-19 loans and the Canada emergency business account program. This is a big one. A 2024 Auditor General report estimated that $3.5 billion went to ineligible businesses. The Department of Finance Canada and Global Affairs Canada, according to the Auditor General, did not provide effective oversight to ensure that the CEBA program was managed with due regard for value for money. Export Development Canada notes that the Auditor General failed to exercise basic controls in contract management, such as monitoring that the amounts paid aligned with the work performed. This meant that the value for money was compromised.
Example number eight was a big one in the 2021 election, the WE Charity. It seems like ages ago. In June 2020, the WE Charity was chosen to administer the Canada student service grant, a $912-million program introduced by Justin Trudeau to provide financial relief for students during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a report to Parliament's ethics committee, Trudeau family members were paid more than $217,000 for speaking engagements and reimbursed $210,000, which included flights and hotels—
I would just ask the member to pause for a second.
Rising on a point of order, the hon. member for London West.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to see the relevance of my colleague's comments to Bill C-26. We have allowed him to continue for some time now, and it is getting completely out of hand.
I thank the hon. member. Just to clarify, we are actually not debating the bill. We are debating Motion No. 11, which provides for a great deal of latitude on relevance, particularly with respect to a government motion on this matter.
The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford may continue.
Mr. Speaker, these are only a few examples of how the government creates these big blocks of money without any accountability or transparency. What is the point of scrutiny when the Liberals are just going to turn a blind eye again and again to mismanagement? This is one of the most dangerous things Parliament can do: grant billions of dollars without any metrics of success, without any capacity to see how the money is being used. This is not the way our democracy or public accountability is supposed to work. When we hear promises of new spending, new funds, new programs and new announcements, I am required to ask, will it be any different this time?
In my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, these failures are not theoretical. They touch very close to home. In 2021, we experienced massive flooding that became one of the most expensive natural disasters in Canada. Later that year, Lytton, British Columbia, in my riding, was burned to the ground. No riding in Canada has ever faced devastation like Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon did in 2021.
The CN Rail line was washed out throughout the province. The CP Rail line was washed out all across the province. The Trans-Canada Highway was washed out and flooded. The Duffey, which connects Whistler and Pemberton to Lillooet, was washed out. The Lougheed Highway was washed out. The Southern Railway line was washed out. The port of metro Vancouver was completely shut off from the rest of Canada. We had to bring in military assistance from Quebec because there was no equipment cache in British Columbia to deal with the devastation we faced. The Sumas Prairie was flooded, compromising B.C.'s food supply. Homes were lost. People died. Our infrastructure failed.
I remember walking up to the Sir John A. Macdonald Building. It was at the time when the senator from Saskatchewan was kicked out of the Conservative caucus for a while, when Erin O'Toole was our leader, and some journalist asked me, “What do you think about this?” I had just come from a meeting with Bill Blair, now the high commissioner to the U.K. I said, “I can't believe you're asking me this. British Columbia is cut off from the rest of Canada, the port of metro Vancouver can't move any goods, and you're asking me about a senator?”
B.C. is often overlooked in this chamber. It is not an understood place. Since 2021, I have stood in this chamber and in committees and pleaded with ministers of housing and infrastructure to help British Columbia, to help our farmers and to help the government achieve its own objectives of doubling exports to Asia-Pacific markets. None of that can happen unless the government pays attention to my riding.
Most members in this chamber do not know that 37% of the oil from Trans Mountain goes through the Sumas transfer station in my community to the United States. Without that money, the Government of Canada would be bankrupt. Most members do not know that the Enbridge expansion and the Huntingdon transfer station are right in my riding. Canada cannot function without Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. My riding has one of the highest farm gates in all of Canada, and we are a key producer of berries, poultry, dairy and vegetables, on less than 1% of the land in B.C. We are an agricultural powerhouse, and we are also the confluence of the Trans Mountain pipeline, the Enbridge pipeline, the Trans‑Canada Highway, all three major rail lines in Canada, a border crossing and an international airport where the government just announced it is going to build Canada's new firefighting fleet through one of the best companies in Canada, Conair.
There is so much happening in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford and in the Fraser Valley that is essential to what the government needs to do to complete its objectives.
I ask the government when the dollars that Justin Trudeau promised at the photo ops in Abbotsford, in 2021, will come to fruition. I saw the high commissioner at the airport last week. I said, “Bill, I am still fighting.” He said to keep fighting, because they did not fulfill their promises to Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.
My number one duty in the House is to get that member who spoke before me to come clean and support my community, to support Canada, to support our export objectives and to support renewed interest in supply chains.
The Prime Minister went to New York and talked about looking to the future, about Canada's place in the global economy. We can agree that our future is not just a new trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. It is westbound, through British Columbia, because the next chapter of Canada's prosperity will be written in our relationships with the Asia‑Pacific markets, which are growing faster and demanding more food, more energy and a more reliable trading partner with expertise in engineering and services, with one of the most educated workforces in the entire world.
We cannot do any of that if we do not take the $3.83 billion in national economic activity through agriculture in my riding, the role of our international airport, the site of our firefighting fleet, the Enbridge pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, our international border crossing, the major arterial roads that connect British Columbia with all of Canada, our rail lines to the south, our rail lines to the port, and the breadbasket of British Columbia in my riding.
Every container heading to Asia, every shipment of agricultural product and every export moving through our Pacific gateway depends on the strength and reliability of the supply chains in the Fraser Valley. If Canada wants to be a serious player in the Indo‑Pacific and if we want to seize the opportunities of growing global demand, we must ensure that our gateways work.
I am going to repeat this time and time again. The government cannot accomplish its goal to double our exports abroad if it does not protect and maintain this critical infrastructure, not just on sunny days but in the face of floods, extreme weather and these growing infrastructure pressures.
It is worth noting that our competitors are not standing still. Other countries are investing heavily in trade routes and in climate‑resilient infrastructure. We are seeing it in Washington state, where they are going to start exporting more potash and other goods that Canada has, because we are not moving fast enough. Canada has to do the same.
The question before us is simple: Are we prepared to invest in the infrastructure that will define Canada's future, or are we willing to leave one of our most critical trade corridors vulnerable at the very moment the world is looking to Canada and the Pacific to provide some stability in light of global conflicts?
The Fraser Valley is not just about the past. It is about the future that the Prime Minister spoke about in his remarks in New York. It is about a future where Canada can feed global markets, power economies with responsibly developed energy and strengthen its place as a reliable trading nation. Everything the Prime Minister wants to do happens in the Fraser Valley.
However, to my key point, none of this is possible without resilient infrastructure, without protected corridors, without a federal government willing to act with urgency and ambition in a way it has not done yet. Yes, let us build homes, but let us also build the foundation of a country that can compete, that can trade and that can lead. When we invest in the Fraser Valley, it is not just about investing in a region. We are investing in Canada's future on the world stage.
This is an odd bill. It was not in the budget, and it does not appear to be part of a coherent plan based on the information before the House today. It feels more like a last-minute talking point, so the Liberals can say that the Conservatives voted against housing, rather than a serious effort to address the legitimate things the minister is trying to solve. Canadians do want to see investment in housing and infrastructure, but they also want to see improved processes, because what I will outline in the coming hours will show that the Liberals have not done that to date.
Before I do that, I would be remiss if I did not cover, just to reiterate the point, some of the comments that my constituents made in a recent mailer about what happened to them in the flood. Sometimes in this House, we need to bring in that personal perspective. These people matter, and they pay a lot of taxes. Their voice needs to be heard. I am going to refer to them just by their initials to protect their confidentiality.
J. and T. wrote me and said the following: “Our family was seriously impacted when the dikes of Sumas River blew out in 2021. This flooded the Sumas Prairie where we live on a five-acre hay farm. We lost everything in our home. We had to rebuild the entire inside of the house, from floor to ceiling, including all appliances, windows, doors, furniture, flooring and personal items. We lost three vehicles, tools and equipment for the farm. Federal help is needed to deal with international disaster with the floodwaters.”
This is a funny one. P. in Abbotsford wrote, “Instead of wasting time trying to get the Liberals to do something for the west coast, why not build a berm along the border? They can keep their water.” That is fair.
D.S. wrote, “It appears to me the federal government is not taking the flooding issue seriously. Merritt, Princeton, Sumas Prairie, all their constituencies are not listened to by the Liberal government. Is it because they don't have their party's MPs in these ridings? Five hundred pages of reposting is not sufficient to approve funding for flood-stricken families? We pay equally into the tax system in Canada. Citizens should be first.”
C. in Abbotsford wrote, “In 2021, our property flooded. We had a foot of water on the main floor of our house. We were displaced for six months from our home while we let it dry out. Gutted the main floor and renovated. We also have a barn, so animals, goats, horses and chickens, were relocated for a while. My husband has a landscaping business and his shop flooded, ruining equipment and storage areas. It has taken years to rebuild.”
C. from Abbotsford wrote, “I was unable to get to my workplace during the floods. My church took the opportunity to help Ripples Estate with their restoration, and the devastation to their land was exceptional. In a documentary recap I filmed, one of the owners makes the comment that, 'We receive alert messages all the time on our iPhones. How is it possible that there is a failure to use this kind of method to warn about the potential weather impact of flooding?'”
R. from Abbotsford wrote, “My wife with extreme Parkinson's and myself were evacuated for three weeks. We went to our son's in Calgary. I live in Sumas Prairie, where the dike broke. I helped move my neighbour as his barn flooded, as well as two homes past the bridge on Sumas River, which had to be replaced. My wife recently passed. This was an extremely difficult time. During the flood in 2025, I was stranded for three days, because all the roads around me were flooded. In this day and age, this problem must be resolved. Government, change. We need proper dyking in Sumas, Washington, and pump stations on Sumas River at Barrowtown.”
N. and L. wrote, “Our family has lived on this property since 1957, which my father and mother moved to because of the high location of the property. They lived in a lower area when they migrated here in the 1930s. They went through the 1948 flood threat and realized the situation back then, so until November 2021, our family felt confident that we did not have to worry, but to our amazement the dyke on the Sumas River breached, and that was that. We suffered water flooding in our basement, costing us over $8,000 and time away from home. At that time, I was suffering from cancer, which was very difficult.”
D. from Abbotsford wrote, “I used to live in Sumas Prairie in the flood zone, and the threat of flooding was a constant concern, so we moved to the Bradner area of Abbotsford, out of the flood zone. Our old house was badly damaged in 2021. The Canadian government must pressure the U.S. government to dredge out the Nooksack River to prevent flooding again. That is one of the only solutions, as I see it.”
R. from Abbotsford wrote, “Both the 2021 and 2025 floods cut off use of Highway 1 to the interior for a month. I lost access to my cabin at Hope, and what about the promised infrastructure? How come it is not happening? Let's get it done. Let's get it right this time. We can't go on like this.”
O. from Abbotsford wrote, “Yes, I saw many affected residents from the floods. We have to find a way to fix this from happening again by all means.”
E. from Abbotsford said, “We need the federal government to work constructively on the Sumas River watershed coalition and to work with our American partners to fix this issue. Where is the federal leadership?”
B. in Mission wrote, “I lived in Agassiz in 2021, near the fairgrounds. My crawlspace flooded. I had huge personal and material losses. I spent months sorting and paying for things that could not be saved.”
J. in Mission wrote, “Infrastructure needs to be built to stop this from happening again. We can't go on.”
T. in Abbotsford wrote, “I don't live on the Sumas flood plain, but do live on the hill above it. My lower level floods on occasion when our storm drainage system can't handle the extra water, because it has nowhere to go when the plains flood. When the freeway is flooded, my daughter can't go to work in Chilliwack.”
R. in Abbotsford wrote, “Thanks for pushing this, Brad. My friend's family's cattle were heavily impacted by the 2021 floods. There was incredible destruction and loss around Sumas Prairie.” He mentions the cattle, and in fact one of the few things people from outside the region remember is the cows swimming in the water during the floods.
G. and P. in Abbotsford wrote, “In addition to being cut off from the rest of Canada by the flooding in 2021, our region had to rely on shipments being rerouted through the U.S., Washington state, and then back into B.C. Given the trade tensions with the U.S. and our country's resolve to become less dependent on the U.S., do we really want to find ourselves in that position again when the flooding reoccurs? Please get the flood mitigation assistance that was promised in November 2021.”
S. H. from Abbotsford wrote, “We had to be evacuated in the middle of the night. We had to relocate our livestock. We missed work. Our property was damaged. The Trans-Canada Highway was flooded and closed. There was poor communication on road closures. We lost a lot of livestock due to the flood.”
S. in Abbotsford wrote, “While my property was not flooded, my friends had just recovered from the previous flood disaster. To have two floods so close together stinks of neglect and disinterest for the people of the Fraser Valley.”
R. in Abbotsford wrote, “The recent flood disrupted my work for most of a week. I head up construction for farmers, fresh mushrooms, these last 12 years. My work stopped because I had no access to gravel on Sumas Mountain. Three of my crew lost a week's worth of work, because all the roads were cut off.”
J. in Abbotsford wrote, “I don't live in the flood plain, but a percentage of our city does. It is terribly disruptive when the floods take place. I am only inconvenienced, but there are people in our city fighting for their homes, land and way of life. Do we have to have another fatality for Ottawa to notice? Thank you for your efforts.”
D. in Abbotsford wrote, “Again, Brad, you're looking out for your people. Thank you. Not impacted by the flood except by higher prices and groceries and other necessities because freight was held up. The poor farmers affected have been most heartbreaking. We knew the prime minister at the time, Justin Trudeau, would not keep his promise to help. He gave hope in one hand and snatched it up with the other hand. Typical of him. Also, go very hard on SOGI in our schools. God continue to give you strength.”
M. in Abbotsford wrote, “I haven't been affected personally, but my uncle was flooded in the 1975 flood. It has only gotten worse in the 1990s and in the 2020s. My dad had a friend who was a diking commissioner in the Nooksack in the nineties. He was hamstrung by bureaucracies there. It was an international problem that affects the local Americans as well. It missed federal government action on both sides of the border. The Nooksack needs dredging, and we need to improve our dikes. I agree. This problem can only be fixed if the federal government gets involved.”
P. from Abbotsford is a professor at the university, and she said they had to cancel exams and that the university was shut for a week because of the floods. She encourages the federal government to take leadership and dredge the Nooksack.
K. from Mission wrote, “I'm going to be 85 this spring. I have a caring heart. We've got to get this fixed. This is not acceptable.”
B. from Abbotsford wrote, “I received your letter, ‘Fix the Flooding Failure, Hold Ottawa Accountable’, in the mail this week.” This was a few months ago. “You asked how the 2021 and most recent flooding have affected our lives. Well, the Sumas Prairie flood was truly an experience for us. After spending the evening of November 15, 2021, and well into the morning moving files from our office into the shop and into the house, we tried to save our daughter's art studio, furniture and artwork, our other daughter's piano studio, located by the back of our garage, and anything we could from the basement by moving it to the main floor. We never expected the water to rise as much as it did.
“We moved items and mopped up water for 26 hours straight. By 4:30 a.m. on November 16, we were completely exhausted and cold. We rested until 6:30 a.m., when we heard police telling us to evacuate. In that short time, the water had rushed in and was already four feet deep in the basement. We couldn't reach the breaker panel or turn off the water or gas. We had only minutes to leave. The water continued rising faster.
“We waded through dirty, freezing water to reach our truck on the road. The road had disappeared, and the surrounding area looked like we were in the middle of a lake. Water was entering the cab of the truck. We were very fortunate to get out when we did. Trying to drive when no road is visible and avoiding deep farm ditches was extremely challenging.
“We headed south along the mountain, driving through the mudslides and downed branches, and made our way to Chilliwack. With the flooding and landslides, it felt like we were in a movie.
“Cold and wet, we were instructed to register with emergency evacuation services in Chilliwack. Our two daughters had stayed at their grandparents the night before because they couldn't make it home once flooding began at Whatcom Road. My husband and I ended up in Chilliwack.
“Chilliwack became chaotic as people panicked to get gas and food. Gas stations ran out of fuel, and fights were starting because of the long, frantic lineups. We were able to get clothes and food at Superstore since we had left many essentials at home, but later the store closed as shelves were emptied.
“Sumas Prairie and Highway No. 1 were closed, as were Highway No. 1 East past the Agassiz exit and Highway 7 due to mudslides. Exhausted and considering sleeping in the back of the truck, we searched for a place to stay, but nothing was available. It was November, and daytime temperatures were around five degrees. Thankfully, my mum made some calls, and we ended up staying with a distant relative.
“On Thursday, November 19, we were finally able to head back to Abbotsford via Highway No. 7. It took three hours, but we still couldn't reach our house. Flooding was everywhere, even though the water had receded three feet.
“By Sunday, we were able to pull up to our home and assess the damage. Wearing boots, we entered the house and quickly packed what we could from the main and upper floors. The smell permeated everything. Clothing and bedding that could be washed were washed, but it took a lot to remove the odour. We lost all of our office equipment and furniture, the furniture and appliances in our basement and anything we had placed on our shelves, thinking the water wouldn't reach the ceiling.
“We lost all our RV, our chickens and both coops, the art studio, the piano studio and four vehicles. Our business trailers were flooded, and we worked with ICBC to have them repaired.
“Seeing the damage was tough, but we had to move forward and do the hard work to get back to normal. We gutted, dried out and repaired our shop. We bought new tools and threw out damaged equipment. Our construction company's head office had to be relocated off the property.
“With the help of family and friends, the cleanup began. We ended up with six and a half feet of water, contaminated water containing septic waste, manure, chemicals, oils and gas. Anything touched by it had to be thrown out. Our house needed to be rebuilt, so we lived elsewhere for two and a half years.
“We are still dealing with the aftermath. Damage to the outbuildings is yet to be repaired because our focus and finances had to go towards the house and shop. Our older farmhouse had water up to the main floorboards, and after sitting in water for almost a week, the mould and structural damage made rebuilding necessary.
“Unfortunately, we had no insurance coverage for overland flooding. Intact Insurance had sent us a letter a year earlier stating that due to failing infrastructure, they would no longer cover floods. I tried to get insurance elsewhere for this, but no one would offer it.
“The recent flooding only affected our backyard field and ditches.” That's the one last year. “The house was spared this time. My daughter and I were evacuated at 12:30 a.m. but returned in the morning before Vye Road flooded. Our daughter had recently undergone surgery and was still using a hospital bed, so staying elsewhere was impossible. My husband remained at the house. The stress was still there, knowing how easily it could happen again.
“One of our neighbours completely emptied their house, appliances and all, fearing a repeat of 2021. We monitored the water constantly to see how quickly the yard was filling. We were still able to reach Chilliwack via back roads but were cut off from Abbotsford due to closures at Vye Road, Whatcom Road and Whatcom Road to Highway No. 1 from our work.
“In 2021, when our dike filled, we realized most of the water that flooded our home came from that failure. This time, we watched the direction of the water from the Nooksack, which has flooded before and follows the same path towards Highway No. 1.
“As landowners in the Sumas Prairie, it is deeply concerning that so little has been addressed since 2021. Thank you for taking the time to read our story and share our concerns.”
C. from Abbotsford wrote, “In 2021, we were greatly impacted by the flood. We lost many of our belongings and animals. We never received any relief funding or even dump fees waived because we were not put on alert. Our house was completely surrounded by water, but because it sits up high enough, we were able to stay. Not once did any first responders or law enforcement ever come to check on us. We continue to flood every winter, but the city refuses to help us in any way.”
R. and D. in Mission wrote, “I can't access the Fraser River from the Barrowtown boat launch anymore due to the level of gravel flowing through the Vedder Canal. The Chilliwack Lake watershed was overlogged decades ago but perhaps has recovered by now. However, the canal needs to be dredged. It's got nothing to do with the so-called climate change, as some try to suggest.”
I could go on, but those testaments are clear. My constituents have not received the type of federal support they deserve. They have not received the type of flexibility that the government is showing in Bill C-26 and in this programming motion to accomplish its goals. It has not done anything for the Fraser Valley region, which is integral to maintaining Canada's supply chains in 2026.
In my next hour, I am going to look a little more closely at what the government has done on housing since it was elected. It starts with the national housing strategy, which came out in 2016 or 2017.
The member for Québec Centre wrote a message as the minister of families, children and social development. He stated:
It is my great honour and pleasure to present Canada's first ever National Housing Strategy (NHS), an ambitious $40-billion plan to help ensure that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and that they can afford.
Bringing this Strategy to life has been a priority for the Government of Canada for the past 18 months. We are making historic investments in housing—and planning for transformational change—because we understand the value of home. Safe, affordable housing is a launch-pad for better socio-economic outcomes for our citizens, a more inclusive society where everyone has the opportunity to be well and to succeed, a stronger economy and a cleaner environment.
But for too many Canadian families, a decent home is simply not affordable. Across Canada, 1.7 million people are in housing need, living in homes that are inadequate or unaffordable. Another 25,000 Canadians are chronically homeless. This needs to change.
Building on investments announced in Budgets 2016 and 2017, [this strategy] signals a meaningful re-engagement by the federal government in housing. It is a key element of our Government's plan to help strengthen the middle class, promote growth for everyone, and lift more Canadians out of poverty.
Important learnings emerged from last year’s Let's Talk Housing consultations, and our Strategy is stronger for it. Now the work of implementing these ideas begins.
He continued:
We have set clear goals for the [national housing strategy], including removing 530,000 Canadian families from housing need and reducing chronic homelessness by half over the next decade. We will track and report on our success, and adapt our approach as needed as the Strategy unfolds. Our primary focus will be on meeting the needs of vulnerable populations, such as women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, veterans and young adults.
The release of the [national housing strategy] marks the beginning of a new era for housing in Canada. We have a Strategy that all Canadians can be proud of and support. I encourage you to become part of this nation-wide effort to ensure that all Canadians have the safe and affordable housing they need and deserve.
I consider the member to be an honourable one, but I will note that every metric and group outlined in his introductory letter to the national housing strategy has failed, every single one. Not one thing has been done as they said it would be done when the plan was announced.
The first-ever national housing strategy went on:
The Government of Canada believes every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable home. Affordable housing is a cornerstone of inclusive communities.... Canada’s first ever National Housing Strategy is a 10-year, $40-billion plan that will give more Canadians a place to call home.
Canada’s National Housing Strategy sets ambitious targets to ensure that unprecedented investments and new programming deliver results. This will include a 50% reduction in chronic homelessness, and as many as 530,000 households being taken out of housing need. The National Housing Strategy will result in up to 100,000 new housing units and 300,000 repaired or renewed housing units
Through new initiatives like the National Housing Co-Investment Fund and the Canada Community Housing Initiative, the National Housing Strategy will create a new generation of housing in Canada.
None of that has taken place.
Our plan will promote diverse communities. It will build housing that is sustainable, accessible, mixed-income, and mixed-use. We will build housing that is fully integrated into the community—close to transit, close to work, and close to public services.
Expanded and reformed federal homelessness programming, a new Canada Housing Benefit, and a rights-based approach to housing will ensure that the National Housing Strategy prioritizes the most vulnerable Canadians including women and children fleeing [from] violence....
I will note that since this strategy was implemented, violence against women in Canada has more than doubled. Cases of sexual assault and intimate partner violence have skyrocketed under the government. The Liberals said housing would fix it. They were wrong. They misled Canada. They misled our entire nation.
The statement continues:
The National Housing Strategy is truly a national project, built by and for Canadians. The success of our plan requires collaboration from many partners. The National Housing Strategy invests in the provinces and territories, so all regions can achieve better and more affordable housing. It invests in municipalities, to empower communities to lead the fight against homelessness. It also creates new opportunities for the federal government to innovate through [community] partnerships....
I could go on.
Page 5 of the report is about “A vision for housing in Canada”. It reads:
Canadians have housing that meets their needs and they can afford.
That vision has failed.
Affordable housing is a cornerstone of sustainable, inclusive communities and a Canadian economy where we can prosper and thrive.
I agree with that. The government has done the opposite.
The government notes in its strategy on page 5 that:
Housing is more than just a roof over our heads
It says:
Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable home
I agree. They have not done it.
Housing investments must prioritize those most in need, including: women and children fleeing family violence; seniors; Indigenous peoples...
I might read, later on, the Auditor General's report on the state of housing on first nations reserves. It is complete failure, again.
Housing policy should be grounded in the principles of inclusion, participation, accountability, and non-discrimination
I agree, but the government has completely failed on that, too.
Housing programs should align with public investments in job creation, skills training, transit, early learning, healthcare, and cultural and recreational infrastructure
I wish that were the case. It has not happened.
Housing investments should support Canada’s climate change agenda and commitment to accessible communities
I agree, but with regard to the impacts of natural disasters and what the government scientists have said about climate change in Canada and in my riding, there was never that alignment or prioritization, as I have outlined in the last hour. That is another big fail.
Communities should be empowered to develop and implement local solutions to housing challenges
I agree. I do not think it is happening, though.
Page 6 of the strategy outlines some targets, including “530,000 households removed from housing need”, “385,000 community housing units protected and another 50,000 units created through an expansion of community housing”, a “50% reduction in estimated number of chronically homeless shelter users”, “300,000 existing housing units repaired and renewed”, “100,000 new housing units created” and “300,000 households provided with affordability support through the Canada Housing Benefit”.
I do not think they have succeeded in any of those metrics.
On page 7, it says the $40-billion initial investment, which has since doubled, will be a “Once-in-a-Generation Joint Investment”. I find it sad that the government has spent so much money and has so little to show for what it said it wanted to do.
In chapter 1, the strategy outlines that:
Housing Rights Are Human Rights
Canadians deserve safe and affordable housing. That is why the federal government is taking these additional steps to progressively implement the right of every Canadian to access adequate housing. Our plan is grounded in the principles of inclusion, accountability, participation and non-discrimination....
None of that has taken place. The plan talks about new legislation, the National Housing Strategy Act, which I will get to in just a minute, and a new federal housing advocate. I will note, on a positive note, that at least the federal housing advocate has been willing to call out the government accordingly and hold it to account for some of its failures, like the 1,000-year statistic I gave earlier, which outlines that the plan is a complete failure.
The plan created a new national housing council, new initiatives, new public campaigns, new legislation and all sorts of new agencies and councils. None of it has made a difference. None of the metrics were met.
Chapter 2 talks about “Federal Re-Engagement Through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund”. I do not know what to say. It talked about 60,000 new units and new shelter spaces. Poverty in Canada has grown at such an exponential rate under the government over the last 10 years that even where the government might have made an incremental improvement, the foundation of our economy, our socio-economic status and the erosion of civil society that we have witnessed over the last 10 years have eroded any good that any of these policies could have completed. While more money was pumped, fewer results were achieved.
The plan talks about “Making Federal Lands Available for Affordable Housing”. The government is still talking about that. It still has not done anything. I do not think it has made any measurable difference. The only success we have seen on that is when we removed all federal barriers and granted federal lands to indigenous people, to the outcry of many residents in Vancouver. We have seen massive new housing developments take place. It is only when the federal government is not involved that we see results.
Chapter 3 talks about “Maintaining a Resilient Community Housing Sector”. I do not know what that means. I do not think it has made a difference.
Chapter 4 talks about “A New Canada Housing Benefit” for low-income people. The government is removing that benefit now.
Chapter 5 talks about “Progress Through Partnership: Enhanced Support to Provinces and Territories”. Again, what progress have we seen? The report mentions the same statistics I read at the beginning, over and over again.
Chapter 6 talks about “Letting Communities Lead”. I do not know what that means.
Chapter 7 is titled “‘Nothing About Us, Without Us’”. Housing starts for first nations have only eroded under the government.
Chapter 8 talks about “Evidence-Based Housing: Research, Data and Demonstrations”. They developed a research agenda around their own work. The research, as I will show, shows that the plan was an abysmal failure.
Chapter 9 is about “Improving Homeownership Options for Canadians”. In some of the debates, I will talk about how, in conjunction with this plan, the government's solution for that was allowing the Government of Canada to co-invest in mortgages or have a portion of Canadians' mortgages. That plan failed drastically.
Chapter 10 is about “Gender-Based Analysis Plus”. I do not know what that means or what it has done to improve housing affordability in Canada. I hope it has made some improvements but I do not think it has.
Chapter 11 talks about the government's journey to reinvest in housing. Great.
I could go on. There are more statistics, more failed investments, zero progress to date and a move in the complete opposite direction from the direction the strategy said it would go in.
The next document I will quickly take a look at is the National Housing Strategy Act. It was very big legislation for the government at the time.
I will outline what it says in the preamble:
Whereas housing is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to building sustainable and inclusive communities as well as a strong national economy in which the people of Canada can prosper and thrive;
Whereas access to affordable housing contributes to achieving beneficial social, economic, health and environmental outcomes;
Whereas improved housing outcomes are best achieved through cooperation between governments and civil society as well as the meaningful involvement of local communities;
Whereas national goals, timelines and initiatives relating to housing and homelessness are essential to improving the quality of life of the people of Canada, particularly persons in greatest need;
Whereas a national housing strategy would support a common vision, key principles and a coordinated approach to achieving...housing outcomes;
Whereas a national housing strategy would contribute to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations;
And whereas a national housing strategy would support the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Canada is a party;
Importantly, the legislation includes a housing policy declaration. In section 4, it reads:
It is declared to be the housing policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law;
(b) recognize that housing is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to building sustainable and inclusive communities;
(c) support improved housing outcomes for the people of Canada; and
(d) further the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In section 5, under “National Housing Strategy”, on page 3 of the bill, it states:
5 (1) The Minister must develop and maintain a national housing strategy to further the housing policy, taking into account key principles of a human rights-based approach to housing.
Content
(2) The National Housing Strategy is to, among other things,
(a) set out a long-term vision for housing in Canada that recognizes the importance of housing in achieving social, economic, health and environmental goals;
(b) establish national goals relating to housing and homelessness and identify related priorities, initiatives, timelines and desired outcomes;
(c) focus on improving housing outcomes for persons in greatest need; and
(d) provide for participatory processes to ensure the ongoing inclusion and engagement of civil society, stakeholders, vulnerable groups and persons with lived experience of housing need, as well as those with lived experience of homelessness.
The act sets out a national housing council. It states:
6 (1) A council, to be known as the National Housing Council, is established for the purpose of furthering the housing policy...by
(a) providing advice to the Minister, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister, including, among other things, on the effectiveness of the National Housing Strategy
This sounds familiar. Is it another bureaucratic body to do the job of the minister.
It talks about the membership of the council, which I will not go into, as well as ex officio members and the appointment terms. This was a very common thing under Trudeau. Every legislation had a corresponding council.
The legislation created a federal housing advocate on page 6, with specific duties to do the following:
(a) monitor the implementation of the housing policy and assess its impact on persons who are members of vulnerable groups, persons with lived experience of housing need and persons with lived experience of homelessness;
(b) monitor progress in meeting the goals and timelines...
(c) analyze and conduct research, as the Advocate sees fit, on systemic housing issues, including barriers...
(d) initiate studies, as the Advocate sees fit, into economic, institutional or industry conditions...
(e) consult with persons referred to in paragraph (a) and civil society organizations...
(f) receive submissions with respect to systemic housing issues;
(g) provide advice to the Minister;
(h) submit a report to the Minister on the Advocate’s findings...and;
(i) participate in the work of the National Housing Council as an ex officio member.
The act established a review panel, and it goes on and on about the review panel.
It talks about accountability on page 10, which states:
The Minister must respond to the annual report of the Federal Housing Advocate.
I would be remiss as a member of Parliament to not note that we ask general questions on the state of housing in Canada every day, and we never get clear responses. We hear only that everything is okay and Canada has never had it so good. That is essentially the strategy.
During the debates, because this was part of the budget bill in April 2019, many Liberals spoke highly about what they were doing. Jennifer O'Connell, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance at the time, talked about how the Liberal approach was going to help young Canadians who “want the chance to work in a good career, buy a home and build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities.” That was never realized.
She talked about their approach to housing, and stated:
Many Canadians might feel that because of high house prices in some of Canada's largest cities, buying a home is increasingly out of reach. We know that young people especially are being priced out of some house and condo markets. Average home prices today are about eight times larger than the average full-time income of Canadians aged 25 to 34. That is markedly different from a few decades ago, when they were about four times larger.
To address the difficulty that young families may be having in buying their first home, through Bill C‑97, budget 2019 proposes a new first‑time home buyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians can lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable.
I would note that the government scrapped that program pretty quickly. It was an abysmal failure.
She continued:
Through budget 2019 and Bill C‑97, our government is also increasing the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit for the first time in a decade.
I will admit that was a good policy, but none of the Liberals' measures improved affordability.
Budget 2019 talked about job experience and employer-relevant skills. None of that panned out.
This is interesting: The parliamentary secretary at the time talked about attracting more foreign students to Canada by promoting Canadian educational institutions as high-caliber places to study. One of the biggest and most negative impacts on housing affordability in Canada has been the immigration policies of the current government, where demand completely outstrips supply due to unfettered immigration targets. Just a few years ago, the members opposite praised the government for increasing those numbers. What a short-sighted policy idea that was.
Maryam Monsef, in May 2019, talked about more funding in budget 2019:
...we took our commitment to housing even further. We are investing an additional $10 billion in the rental construction financing initiative, which will help people who rely on rental and social housing to find more housing opportunities. We have introduced the first-time homebuyer incentive, which will help more Canadians achieve the dream of owning a home.
Thanks to these and other investments, the national housing strategy is now a...$55-billion plan, and we are seeing the fruits of our commitment in new and renewed housing units across the country.
Next year, the Canada housing benefit will come into effect. This is an additional $2,500 a year for low-income Canadians. It is a portable fund that will follow them wherever they choose to live to ensure they have greater access to affordable housing.
She talked about the National Housing Strategy Act, which I just read from and which:
...would create a national housing council supported by CMHC, which will act as a focal point for housing policy discussions on the national housing strategy and will advise the minister on how to improve housing outcomes. With [these] amendments, we are empowering the national housing council with even more freedom to support the federal housing advocate and to report on the findings to the minister responsible.
She talked about being very proud of the housing investments and about upholding the rights of Canadians.
The member for Surrey Centre also spoke about the 2019 budget with respect to housing. He stated:
By listening to the needs of Canadians and encouraging dialogue, I am proud to say this government has continued its commitment to improving housing affordability in this country, and this is exemplified in budget 2019....
The government is...committed to working in partnership with the province and the municipality to ensure a tri-levelled affordable housing strategy for Surrey residents. In conjunction with British Columbia's affordable...plan and Surrey's affordable housing strategy, the government's new homeowner incentive is a proactive measure to ensure that a future in Surrey is possible for young people and families.
He stated in his speech:
Our goal is to cut chronic homelessness in half, remove 530,000 families from housing need and invest in the construction of up to 100,000 new homes. However, our government knows that these changes cannot, unfortunately, take place overnight. This is why our government has introduced new measures in budget 2019 to help relieve the pressures on Canadians....
We will continue working hard to ensure that...middle-class Canadians [can afford a home, that] home ownership is not a pipe dream, but rather, an achievable goal.
The then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Development talked about this, saying:
Today in Canada, especially where my constituents live in Brampton West, once affordable properties are now out of reach due to high demand. Therefore, in budget 2016 and in budget 2017, we established Canada's first-ever housing strategy that would invest $40 billion over 10 years to build and repair affordable housing units. This gives future homeowners greater options when looking at the housing market and makes housing accessible to more people than ever before.
In budget 2019, we are taking another step to support first-time homebuyers, including new immigrant families in Brampton West. To help make home ownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers, budget 2019 introduces the first-time homebuyer incentive. This incentive would allow eligible first-time homebuyers, who have the minimum down payment of an insured mortgage, to finance a portion of their home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Later in her speech, she says:
It is unfortunate that the provincial government in Ontario is impeding the flow of federal dollars to our municipalities. This has been having a tremendous effect in my community in Brampton.
We are working directly with our municipalities to ensure that essential projects move forward. I am proud to be part of a government that is working with municipalities on behalf of Canadians and delivering for them.
Brampton will be receiving close to $50 million through this fund so that it can invest in services that Bramptonians rely on most, such as public transportation, recreation centres and our parks.
I could go on. The member for Humber River—Black Creek, on June 4, 2019, said:
We are not just talking about the homeless. We are talking about seniors who cannot sell their houses because they have nowhere to go, and they are struggling as it is. There are a lot of people who are struggling and looking for housing. I hope that the way we are doing it, under our new national housing strategy, is going to help decrease the number of homeless people. More important, it is to help people find alternative forms of housing compared to what they currently have.
The member for Humber River—Black Creek went on to prop up the first-time homebuyers incentive. She said that it:
will certainly help a lot of young people in their mid-thirties who are having significant difficulty just getting into the housing market. Once they can get into the housing market and stay employed, they will have lots of opportunity to build equity in that house and then can later on move into a larger house as their family grows.
The then parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, a member from Quebec, talked about many measures in budget 2019 as well. About Bill C-97, he said:
In concrete terms, it will require the federal government to give priority to the housing needs of the most vulnerable Canadians.
The government will also be required to report back to Parliament on the progress made in implementing the strategy and in achieving the desired results with respect to housing. These targets, such as cutting homelessness in half in this country and building 100,000 new units, as well as repairing and renovating another 300,000, will make a real difference in the lives of many Canadians....
I think it is time for the federal government to take responsibility for housing and make a bold, ambitious comeback. That is what the national housing strategy does.
The Liberals' housing agenda, first articulated in 2017 through the national housing strategy, was framed as a historic and transformational shift in federal policy. The quotes I just outlined from the budget debate in 2019 reinforce that.
The former minister from the Quebec region presented the strategy as a long-overdue correction to decades of federal withdrawal, promising not only significant new investment, but a reorientation of housing policy toward affordable, equitable and measurable outcomes. Housing was to be treated as a human right. Vulnerable Canadians would be prioritized, and hundreds of thousands of households would be lifted out of housing need.
The rhetoric was expansive and ambitious, setting expectations for systemic change rather than incremental improvement. However, when these promises are compared to the current trajectory of housing policy, particularly as outlined in the 2025 report by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a significant gap emerges between what was promised and what is now being delivered.
One of the most striking divergences lies in the trajectory of federal spending. The national housing strategy was built on the premise of sustained, long-term federal investment. In 2017, the government emphasized that consistent funding over a decade would provide stability, enable planning and ultimately improve affordability outcomes, yet according to the PBO's 2025 analysis, federal housing spending is not being sustained. It is actually declining sharply. Planned spending falls from $9.8 billion in 2025-26 to just $4.3 billion by 2028-29. It is almost as if the government is afraid to admit the fact that its strategy was not working.
The implication is clear: Despite earlier commitments to long-term leadership, the federal role in housing is set to diminish precisely when demand for intervention still remains incredibly high. This decline in spending is closely tied to the exploration of key programs under the national housing strategy. This creates some structural problems. The policy architecture that supported the government's original affordability goals is being dismantled faster than a new policy can be approached. As a result, the overall footprint of federal housing policy is changing without direction.
The flagship initiative under budget 2025, Build Canada Homes, exemplifies this shift. Rather than providing immediate relief to households struggling without housing costs, it focuses on financing construction, developing assets and encouraging new housing supply over time. In principle, increasing housing supply is an essential component of any housing strategy. However, the effectiveness of the shift depends on both the scale and the timing of the resulting construction.
On both counts, the PBO's assessment raises concerns. The report estimates that Building Canada Homes will generate approximately 26,000 new housing units over a five‑year period. While this is not insignificant in absolute terms, it is modest relative to the scale of housing shortages. The PBO notes that this output would increase housing completions by only 2.1% and addresses just 3.7% of the projected housing gap. These figures underscore a key limitation: The program's contribution to overall supply is incremental rather than transformative.
The government has also stated an ambitious goal of doubling the pace of housing construction, yet the PBO explicitly states that no detailed plan has been provided to achieve these objectives. This disconnect between stated targets and concrete policy mechanisms weakens the credibility of the government's approach and raises questions about its capacity to deliver meaningful results. The limited scale of new supply is further compounded by issues related to affordability targeting. Of the 26,000 units expected to be created under Building Canada Homes, only about 13% are projected to be affordable for low-income households. This represents a relatively small contribution in the context where millions of Canadians face affordability challenges.
More concerning is the definition of affordability itself. The PBO highlights that some units classified as affordable under the program may have rents significantly higher than historical market benchmarks. For example, illustrative calculations suggest that rents deemed affordable for median-income households could be substantially higher than the national median market rent observed in previous years. This raises a critical concern: The policy risks conflating affordability with relative pricing metrics that does not reflect the lived reality of low- and moderate-income households. In effect, units may be labelled as affordable without being meaningfully accessible to those most in need.
Another important aspect of the current policy direction is the trade-off between short-term support and long-term investment. By shifting resources toward capital development, the government is prioritizing supply over immediate affordability, which warrants more discussion. However, this does create a timing mismatch. Housing construction takes years to complete, and its impact on prices and rents is gradual. In contrast, affordability challenges are immediate and acute for many households. Renters facing high costs today cannot wait for long-term supply responses necessarily to materialize.
It is something to consider. The reduction or expiration of direct supports, many have argued, leaves a gap in the policy framework. The PBO explicitly notes that the addition of new units will only partially offset the decline in overall affordability support.
Compounding these issues are plan reductions in funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal agency responsible for administering many housing programs. The report identifies $2.4 billion in cuts to CMHC funding over several years. This raises concerns about the system's capacity to deliver effective housing support. Reductions in funding for programs, administration, financing tools and sector development can weaken the overall effectiveness of housing policy.
Taken together, these trends point to a broader pattern, a contraction in federal housing policy combined with a reorientation toward long-term supply measures. That is not all bad, but the national housing strategy is still the official policy of the government on the books and should be taken in the context of these changed policy metrics.
When viewed in the context of the government's original promises, the divergence becomes even more pronounced. In 2017, the Liberals committed to prioritizing vulnerable Canadians. These commitments implied not only increased spending but also a sustained focus on outcomes for those most affected by the housing crisis. By 2026, however, the policy framework appears to be moving away from these priorities.
This does not mean that all elements of the current approach are without merit. Investments in housing supply are necessary, and efforts to modernize construction methods or leverage public land can contribute to long-term improvements. However, the scale and design of these initiatives are critical. As the PBO analysis shows, the current measures are insufficient to address the magnitude of Canada's housing challenges. Ultimately, the gap between promise and reality reflects a deeper issue in policy design.
I think that warrants us to look at some of the PBO reports that have been issued by the Parliamentary Budget Officer on federal program spending on housing affordability. The first one was on June 18, 2019.
The executive summary, on page 1, states:
Canada’s 2017 National Housing Strategy...provided new funding for housing affordability programs over its ten-year term from 2018-19 to 2027-28. Taking into account existing and subsequent commitments, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) plans to spend an average of $2.8 billion/year on assisted housing programs over the [ten years] of the NHS. This represents a $0.4 billion/year (15%) increase in nominal spending over the 10-year historical average. Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) plans to spend $225 million/year on homelessness programs, which represents a $86 million/year (62%) increase in nominal spending over the five-year historical average.
In the overall allocation of funding between CMHC’s core responsibilities, there is a $325 million/year (14%) reduction in funding for Assistance for Housing Needs programs intended to help low-income households compared with the 10-year historical average. Within the Assistance for Housing Need portfolio, there is a $167 million/year (12%) reduction in funding for transfers to the provinces and territories and a $175 million/year (30%) reduction in funding for federal community housing. These reductions are partially offset by $200 million/year in new spending on rent subsidies. The decline in funding for Assistance for Housing Needs programs is offset, in terms of aggregate spending, by a $664 million/year increase in funding for Financing for Housing programs which are not necessarily targeted to low-income households.
It is not clear that the National Housing Strategy will reduce the prevalence of housing need relative to 2017 levels. Overall, Canada’s National Housing Strategy largely maintains current funding levels for current activities and slightly reduces targeted funding for households in core housing need. CMHC’s assumptions regarding the impact of NHS outputs on housing need do not reflect the likely impact of those programs on the prevalence of housing need.
From chapter 1, the introduction, under “Purpose of Report”:
This report is intended to help parliamentarians understand federal spending on affordable housing and the results that spending is likely to achieve.
[The] report is undertaken under the Parliamentary Budget Officers’ mandate to prepare reports concerning the government’s budget and estimates. It was also undertaken under the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s mandate to estimate the financial cost of a proposal over which Parliament has jurisdiction upon requests from a parliamentarian. In this case, a Member of Parliament requested an estimate of the incremental [financing] costs arising from Canada’s National Housing Strategy and the cost to achieve the targets of that strategy.
Then, under “Scope of Report”, it states:
The National Housing Strategy was announced in Budget 2017 and elaborated upon in a subsequent policy document.
This is something I have already read.
It was presented as an “ambitious $40-billion plan to help ensure that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and that they can afford” by making “unprecedented investments” in housing. The National Housing Strategy Act, found in clause 313 of the 2019 Budget Implementation Act...would require the government to maintain similar strategies and national goals.
The National Housing Strategy focuses on program expenditures by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). CMHC administers most program expenditures relating to housing affordability, while ESDC provides transfers to communities and service providers to help address homelessness. The focus of this report is direct federal expenditures by these two organizations outlined in the Strategy.
This report does not include federal tax expenditures. Details regarding federal tax expenditures related to housing can be found in the Department of Finance’s Report on Federal Tax Expenditures.
Expenditures by Indigenous Services Canada and Crown Indigenous-Relations and Northern Affairs Canada are not covered in this report. Expenditures of Infrastructure Canada were not examined since it does not provide significant funding for housing
Chapter 2 is called “How Much Does Canada Spend on Housing Affordability?” It states:
From 2008-09 to 2017-18, CMHC spent [on] average...$2.4 billion/year on the activities now included in its “Assisted Housing” business segment. From 2018 to 2027-28, CMHC plans to spend $2.8 billion/year on these same activities.
Under “National Housing Strategy Breakdown”, the chapter continues:
As noted previously, the National Housing Strategy was marketed as a “$40- billion plan” or as a “$40-billion federal investment”. In reality, the Strategy committed...$16.1 billion in new federal planned spending....
As shown in Figure 2-4—
This is on page 6 of the 2019 “Federal Program Spending on Housing Affordability” report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
—the “$40 billion” headline commitment in the National Housing Strategy policy document includes...loans..., new loans..., existing planned spending...and required Provincial‑Territorial cost matching.... Together with the $16.1 billion in new planned spending, this exceeds the “$40 billion” headline commitment. A full breakdown is attached as Appendix A....
CMHC’s total planned spending from 2018‑19 to 2027‑28 is $27.9 billion.
As we will note in future reports, it has gone up significantly since then, but in the interest of time, and having so many of these reports to get to, I am going to jump ahead to some of the findings they found in 2019.
Under “What will the [national housing strategy] achieve?”, the report states:
The primary outcome target of the National Housing Strategy is “530,000 households removed from housing need” or “up to 50% reduction in the housing need of renters.” However, it is not clear that the National Housing Strategy will reduce the prevalence of housing need relative to 2017 levels.
As shown above, the [national housing strategy] largely maintains current funding levels for current activities in nominal term and slightly reduces targeted funding for households in core housing need. Furthermore, CMHC’s assumptions regarding the impact of [the national housing strategy] outputs on housing need [to] reflect the likely impact of those programs on the prevalence of housing need.
This is something the report aptly does.
On to the report “Federal Program Spending on Housing Affordability in 2021”, this is a continuation of the review of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assessment of the national housing strategy. It reads:
The Government of Canada’s current plan to address housing affordability is the 2017 National Housing Strategy (NHS), which runs from 2018‑19 to 2027‑28. This plan is primarily administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). These department’s planned spending under the National Housing Strategy is $3.7 billion each year.
As we have noted, it has gone up from $2.8 billion in the 2019 examination already.
Average planned spending is driven up by time-limited programs implemented in response to COVID‑19, like the Rapid Housing Initiative.
Of the $3.7 billion per year in average planned spending, $221 million per year...is dedicated to indigenous housing in urban, rural and northern areas.
Since [the] 2019 report...Canada’s federal government has allocated $672 million per year in additional funding to address housing...and homelessness.
The report continues:
First, despite the increase in overall spending, funding for CMHC’s assistance for housing need programs intended to help low‑income households increased only by $192 million per year...in nominal terms, which represents a 15% decline in the real purchasing power of federal spending.
Second, a significant portion of the community housing supported under CMHC’s bilateral agreements with provinces reached the end of their operating agreements. This caused a [42%] reduction in the number of low-income community housing units supported under bilateral agreements between 2015 and the baseline established by CMHC’s new bilateral agreements.
These were outlined in the National Housing Strategy Act.
Third, CMHC’s capital contribution programs have faced implementation delays. Over the first three years of Canada’s National Housing Strategy, CMHC spent less than half the funding allocated for two key initiatives, the National Housing Co-Investment Fund and Rental Construction Financing Initiative. As of 30 October 2020, CMHC had made financial commitments towards the creation of 4,270 units of affordable housing committing [on] average [a] maximum of 52% of median market rent under the National Housing Co-Investment Fund. CMHC had made financial commitments towards the creation of 7,960 units of affordable housing committing to charge an average maximum of 72% of 30% of median household income under the Rental Construction Financing Initiative....
Finally, we project that in the absence of additional spending the number of households in housing need would have increased to approximately 1.8 million households with a $9.3 billion aggregate affordability gap by 2025‑26. Over the period of 2021 to 2025, incremental CMHC spending averages 16% of the projected affordability gap and about $63/month per household in housing need.
I am going to go on to the 2024 report because I have not even gotten to my analysis yet, after I read all of these reports last night, and that is the most important part.
In 2024, the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlights:
Spending on programs to address housing affordability averages $6.1 billion...over the term of Canada’s 10‑year National Housing Strategy (NHS).
This is a massive increase, we will note, from the 2021 numbers.
This represents a 50% increase in the purchasing power of federal spending compared with the prior 10 years.
Additional [housing] program spending has been primarily allocated to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporations’ Financing for Housing programs, which received a $1.3 billion per annum increase in funding.
Total spending on housing affordability is estimated to be $17.5 billion annually, with 65% attributable to tax expenditures.
After accounting for the impact of all relevant federal policies, [the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects] that 2.6 million households will be in housing need by 2027. This represents an increase of about 926,000 households in core housing need compared to the start of Canada’s [national housing strategy] in 2017.
Already, in 2024, we saw that the strategy was not working.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Brad Vis: I am getting there. Do not worry.
Mr. Speaker, the report goes on to say:
The overall target of Canada’s NHS is to remove 530,000 households from housing need by 2027‑28. After accounting for the impact of all relevant federal policies and economic trends, we estimate that 2.4 million households are currently in core housing need and we project that, by 2027, 2.6 million households will be in core housing need. We project that by 2027, there will be about 926,000 more households in core housing need compared to the start of [the national housing strategy] in 2017.
Let us go on to 2025. Then we are going to get to my speech. I have to do my research first.
In 2025, in “Build Canada Homes and the Outlook for Housing Programs under Budget 2025”, the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlights that:
Federal planned spending on housing programs is set to decline 56 per cent, from $9.8 billion in 2025‑26 to $4.3 billion in 2028‑29 due to the expiry of funding for existing programs and cuts set out in Budget 2025.
Within this spending plan, Budget 2025 prioritizes...the construction of new housing through a new federal agency called Build Canada Homes. Build Canada Homes plans to spend $7.3 billion over 2025‑26 to 2029‑30.
Here is the cliffhanger:
Build Canada Homes should be expected to make a modest contribution toward housing supply and affordability within the broader context of a large decline in support for housing affordability.
The report continues:
Build Canada Homes is presented as part of the Government’s efforts to double the pace of housing construction over the next decade. That said, the Government has not yet laid out an overall plan to achieve this goal.
Ouch.
We anticipate that the contribution of Build Canada Homes will likely be modest and estimate that the program will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to our baseline projection.
Build Canada Homes has sufficient funding to create approximately 13,000...units of housing affordable for low‑income households. However, this occurs within a context of declining spending and a shift away from immediate affordability supports such as the Canada Housing Benefit and support for existing social housing.
Let us walk through this and break down all of this important information because that was a lot of data. It even got me sweating, it was so suspenseful.
I want to walk through not just what the government promised on housing but what the evidence shows. This is now a question not only of policy performance but of whether the government is delivering on its own law, the national housing strategy, and ambition in policy.
As I have reiterated numerous times throughout my remarks this morning, the government promised to remove 530,000 households from housing need, cut housing need in half, create 100,000 new housing units, repair or renew 300,000 existing units, protect 385,000 community housing units and reduce chronic homelessness by 50%, a suite of commitments that the government presented as comprehensive, time‑bound and transformational under the national housing strategy in 2017. It committed to cutting housing need in half. These were not small commitments. They, in the government's own words, were meant to be transformational.
However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer made very clear early on that outcomes were already falling far short. As early as the first major PBO assessments of the national housing strategy, the evidence showed that the scale of program impacts was insufficient relative to the need, as the member from Winnipeg will note in my disposition of the 2019 report. Even before recent population pressures and interest rate shocks, by 2021, only a few years into its implementation, the PBO was already warning that the net reduction in core housing need was modest and that federal interventions were not on track to meeting stated targets.
In other words, the warning signs were visible well before the current crisis we find ourselves in today. The strategy was underscaled from the outset, heavily relying on slow-moving capital programs and incapable of delivering the rapid affordability improvements the government promised. Rather than correcting course when this evidence emerged, the government largely stayed on the path, allowing a predictable gap between ambition and outcomes to widen year after year.
The net reduction in core housing need is limited relative to the scale of the problem. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated in the 2021 analysis report. This was the first clue that something fundamental was not working, because when a plan is described as transformative, but its outcomes are described as limited, there is already a gap between promise and performance.
My second point is on the National Housing Strategy Act and ambition in law. It is also important to situate this legal framework in the context of the scale of the federal investment that accompanied it.
When the national housing strategy was launched, it was presented as a $40-billion plan. Over time, that figure was repeatedly increased and reframed as over $70 billion in federal commitments across grants, loans, financing tools and program spending. I believe that as of last night, it is over $80 billion in commitments.
Parliament was told that this level of investment, combined with a rights-based legislative framework, as I outlined in my review of the act, would fundamentally change housing outcomes in Canada. The act was therefore never intended to operate in isolation from funding. It was meant to discipline and guide very large public expenditures toward measurable outcomes. Indeed, all of the speeches I read from concerning Bill C-97 in the 2019 debates reinforced that very point.
In other words, the bargain was clear: unprecedented federal investment in exchange for clear goals, timelines, accountability and a focus on those in greatest need. That is why the failure to meet outcomes is so consequential. After years and years of record spending, program expansion and administrative growth, the evidence shows worsening housing needs rather than the progressive improvement the government labelled in its original housing strategy, as I outlined.
This context matters when evaluating the current policy choices before us and this programming motion today. Bill C-26 and budget 2025 do not emerge in a vacuum. They follow a decade of escalating financial commitments that have not delivered the promised results.
When the government seeks additional funds through ad hoc legislation while simultaneously reducing support under the existing strategy, it is not because housing lacked funding in the past. It is because large-scale funding, absent structural reform and accountability, has not translated into affordability or adequate supply.
Seen this way, the issue before Parliament is not whether more money should be spent, but whether spending is being governed by a framework that actually works. The National Housing Strategy Act was supposed to be that framework. The fact that the government is now bypassing it after committing tens of billions of dollars without achieving its objectives underscores the depth of the policy failure we are confronting.
However, this is not just a policy story. As I outlined earlier today, in 2019, Parliament passed the National Housing Strategy Act, and that changed everything because it legally requires the government, in section 5, to set out national goals, timelines and desired outcomes, and “focus on improving housing outcomes for persons in greatest need”. At its core, the act establishes not only a statement of principle, but a framework for action and accountability that is directly relevant to the government's current legislative choices, including Bill C-26.
This is where the government's position becomes most revealing. The National Housing Strategy Act was designed to ensure that federal housing policy is guided by outcomes, not announcements: clear goals and timelines, a focus on those in greatest need and mechanisms to measure whether progress is actually being made. New spending under that framework is supposed to advance those objectives and be evaluated against them.
Bill C-26 departs from that logic. Rather than strengthening or reforming the national housing strategy to correct its glaring shortcomings and complete failure, the government is proposing a parallel track, authorizing significant new payments for housing supply without anchoring that spending to the strategy's target or the act's obligations. There is no requirement in Bill C-26 to demonstrate how funds would reduce core housing need, no binding affordability thresholds and no alignment with the act's statutory focus on households in greatest need.
In effect, the bill asks Parliament to approve new money while suspending the very accountability framework that the Liberal government put in place in 2019. That choice matters. If the strategy and the act were working, new resources would logically flow through them, reinforced by tighter targets and clearer accountability. Instead, Bill C-26 would bypass that framework altogether.
This is not an accident. It reflects a tacit recognition that the existing approach cannot deliver outcomes it promised. However, rather than acknowledging that failure and proposing a redesigned strategy, the government is seeking flexibility without accountability, with more money now and fewer questions later. This approach risks repeating the same mistakes at greater cost.
Untied spending may move dollars, but without discipline and without parliamentary accountability, it does not guarantee homes that are affordable, nor the intended objectives of the minister. Bill C-26 therefore represents not a course correction, but an institutional workaround, one that would allow the government to claim action on housing while avoiding a candid reckoning with why its flagship strategies have fallen apart.
The National Housing Strategy Act establishes the right to adequate housing as a “fundamental human right”. These are not suggestions. They are regulatory obligations, which means that we must evaluate this policy not just politically but legally. Is it improving outcomes? Is it prioritizing Canadians most in need who are going to their local food bank and working two jobs? Is it moving things forward, as the principle that the Liberals outlined of progressive realization requires? No.
Let us turn to the data we reviewed in the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that I outlined earlier.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that housing need rose to 2.6 million households in 2024, yet only 78,000 households have been removed from need in that same 2024 report. This is not a small gap. This is a complete collapse in deliverology. The Liberals used to love talking about deliverology. That is a shortfall of more than 450,000 households. Barely one in seven who were promised relief will actually receive it.
Critically, the PBO concludes that housing need is expected to increase over the projected period despite program spending. It is very clear. Program spending is not working. What the government campaigned on in the last election is not working. This is perhaps the most damning finding in my entire analysis today, because it tells us that even after billions of dollars and years of programs, the system is not improving; it is deteriorating. Public, independent evidence makes clear that this deterioration is occurring despite the creation of a large federal housing bureaucracy and tens of billions of dollars in announced spending.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer is repeatedly showing us that while administrative structures, programs and reporting requirements have expanded, the measurable outcomes that matter, such as reductions in housing need, improved affordability and faster supply delivery, have not followed. In effect, the federal government has built a complex policy and administrative architecture, but that architecture has not translated into results on the ground. Rising housing need, declining affordability and missed targets demonstrate that process has outpaced performance and that the scale of bureaucracy and spending alone has not been sufficient to meet the Liberal government's stated objectives.
Let us look at some of the mortgage delinquency rates that are on the rise.
Mortgage delinquencies have increased significantly after nearly a decade of Liberal housing policy. CMHC reported in May 2026 that the national 90‑plus day mortgage delinquency rate rose to 0.2% in quarter four of 2025, up from 0.21% a year earlier. According to a 2026 Equifax report, the rate of delinquencies in Ontario sat at about 0.3% in the first quarter of this year, a jump of 52% year over year. In B.C., the number jumped 36% to 0.25%.
Rebecca Oakes, vice‑president of advanced analytics at Equifax Canada, said, “When we look kind of at the mortgage trend, it is just a really good indication of the severity of financial stress that’s happening in a region.” Ontario is experiencing record stress. The housing crisis is no longer even about affordability alone. It is becoming a mortgage payment crisis.
Equifax reported that mortgage delinquencies were up 52% year over year in Ontario during quarter one of 2026. In Toronto, mortgage delinquency rates increased by approximately 58% year over year. Data from CMHC showed that around 0.21% of homeowners in Hamilton had not made a full mortgage payment in at least three months as of late 2025, representing a 425% increase in that city's mortgage delinquency rate from mid-2022.
Homeowners are carrying larger and larger debts. When borrowers fall behind today, they are falling behind on much larger mortgages. The average delinquent mortgage balance reached approximately $355,000 in quarter one of 2026, a 13.2% increase from a year earlier. Total consumer debt reached $2.66 trillion nationally. Mortgage delinquencies are often the final stage of household financial distress. The Bank of Canada found that households heading towards mortgage delinquency typically increase credit card utilization roughly two years beforehand, begin missing consumer credit payments one or two years beforehand and experience rapidly worsening financial conditions in the six months leading up to mortgage delinquency.
Canada needs more homes, but the 2025 National Building Code risks making homes more expensive to build. The Canadian Home Builders' Association argues that housing affordability and supply are already in crisis and that the code changes should be evidence-based, cost-effective and implementable at scale. The CHBA has criticized the 2025 codes for insufficient consideration of their cumulative cost impacts.
The costs are so significant that in a February 2026 open letter to the Prime Minister, the Canadian Home Builders' Association calls for an immediate pause to that regulatory approach. The CHBA has cited federal impact analysis showing that high-energy performance tiers could increase construction costs by more than $40,000 per home. In total, the CHBA estimates that the 2025 National Building Code could add up to $100,000 in costs to a new unit.
Every policy should be tested against one question: Will it build more homes? Governments should be focused on removing barriers to construction and increasing supply. The association has warned that many regulatory responses to housing and climate objectives ultimately increase costs and reduce housing production.
Let me expand on my speech on budget 2025 regarding less support, not more. One might assume that worsening outcomes could be addressed simply by expanding funding, but the evidence shows that money alone is not the binding constraint. The problem is not a lack of announcements or headline dollars. It is that the underlying policy framework has failed to translate resources into results. Structural barriers, slow approvals and misaligned incentives such as those outlined by the Canadian Home Builders' Association outline that very fact.
Delayed project delivery, weak targeting and an overreliance on long-term capital programs have meant that additional funding has not produced proportional investments in affordability or a reduction in housing need. However, the PBO shows something more important: Outcomes have continued to worsen, not because funding was insufficient but because the government's approach failed to address structural constraints that determine whether homes actually get built and become affordable.
Spending's falling 56% is a signal that the government itself is implicitly acknowledging that simply layering additional funding onto the existing approach has not delivered results. Rather than openly reassessing the strategy and admitting that its core design has failed, the government appears to be quietly pulling back, reducing funding while maintaining the same policy framework. This halfway acknowledgement, though, stops short of the full consideration the evidence supports, which is that the approach itself, not just its funding level, has failed to meet its objectives.
I encourage everyone to look at the highlights on page 1 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's outlook for housing programs under budget 2025. Federal plan spending on housing programs, as I just noted, is set to decline 56%, a decline that reflects more than a fiscal choice. It follows years in which the government failed to meet the core objectives it set for itself under both the national housing strategy and the strategy act. Rather than acknowledging that its approach has delivered neither the promised reduction in housing need nor improvements in affordability, the government is scaling back federal supports while leaving the underlying strategy largely intact, effectively retreating from its own commitments without admitting its failure.
Let us be clear. Housing need continues to rise in Canada. Targets are being missed, and spending is being cut. This is not an adjustment. It is a quiet retreat from objectives the government has failed to meet under both the national housing strategy and the National Housing Strategy Act, an implicit acknowledgement that the approach has not worked, without the candour to admit failure or undertake a genuine course correction.
If I had another couple of hours today, I would probably delve into some of the comments made by the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing on his new approach and the new bureaucracies the government is covering. I just do not have enough time to get through all that in the time I have today.
I will talk about the supply strategy and Build Canada Homes for a bit. The government's response is to emphasize supply, to build more homes and to accelerate construction, but the PBO even offers a reality check where Conservatives and Liberals might agree on improving supply: “[Build Canada Homes] should be expected to make a modest contribution towards housing supply and affordability.”
As I asked earlier when I read that report, what does “modest” mean in practice? It would be about 26,000 units over five years, a scale of delivery that underscores the failure of the government's current approach. Put plainly, this represents roughly 5,000 units per year nationwide, at a time when Canada is adding hundreds of thousands of new residents annually and facing a huge housing gap measured in hundreds of thousands of units. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer characterized this contribution as “modest”, estimating it would increase housing completions by only about 2.1%, relative to baseline projections. That is not transformational. It is marginal change at best.
When a strategy promises to cut housing need in half but delivers a supply that addresses only a tiny fraction of that projected shortfall, this amounts to an admission that the policy levers being used are inadequate. The result is predictable: Housing needs continue to rise, affordability deteriorates, and the government declares success while the underlying problems worsen. In effect, the federal approach substitutes announcement and program branding for outcomes, producing numbers that are too small, too slow and too poorly targeted to reverse the crisis. According to the government's own independent budget officer's assessment, this level of supply cannot meet its stated objectives, confirming that the current strategy, as designed and funded, is failing to deliver the results Canada was promised.
Let us delve a bit more into a structural problem in policy design. The issue is not just scale. It is design. The strategy has shifted toward financing tools and long-term capital programs. That is not all bad, but the PBO warns that “this occurs within a context of declining spending and a shift away from immediate affordability supports”. I mention that in the context, because so many more Canadians are on the verge of being homeless. Homeless numbers are actually rising, while the government said they would do the opposite.
The government has failed to prioritize the people who are in greatest need. The National Housing Strategy Act requires a focus on those in greatest need, but the funding structure and approach tell a different story. Funding is being shifted from programs that provide current affordability supports toward capital contributions with benefits over many decades. I hope there are some improvements there.
Let us talk about generational impact. The consequences for the government's policy failures on housing are not evenly distributed. Young Canadians are bearing the brunt. They face higher rents, delayed home ownership, delayed family formation, rising debt burdens and other postponed life decisions. Even when new units are built, the PBO cautions, the addition of these units would only partially offset the decline in overall affordability support, so even new supply is not solving the overall affordability crisis so many Canadians face today. It barely offsets worsening conditions.
To add to these pressures, there is rapid population growth. Demand has surged. Supply has not kept pace, and policy failed to adjust fast enough. Over the last number of years, there have been historically low vacancy rates, rising rents and increased competition for entry-level housing. This is not an isolated policy failure. It is a system-level imbalance. It is therefore deeply ironic that the government is now taking credit for signs of easing in rental markets in some cities where rents have stabilized or grown more slowly. This change is far more plausibly explained by a reduction in housing demand, not by a sudden success of federal housing policy.
Over the past year, the federal government has tightened and reduced inflows of temporary residents, including international students and temporary foreign workers, as it celebrated in the 2019 budget implementation act. That shift has had an immediate and measurable effect on rental demand, particularly in urban markets that absorbed a large number of the new arrivals. Fewer new entrants competing for the same limited stock of rental housing naturally does ease upward pressure on rents. That is basic economics.
However, this is not a victory on housing policy, supply or affordability. It does not reflect new homes coming online at scale, faster approvals, lower construction costs or a more functional housing system. It reflects demand-side slowdown caused by changes in immigration and temporary resident policy, not the success of the national housing strategy.
Indeed, if the government's housing strategy were working as intended, rent moderation would be driven by increased supply, improved affordability outcomes and lower usage of the food bank, especially for low and moderate-income households, not by reduced population inflows. Claiming credit for lower rent growth under these circumstances risks confusing cause and effect. Slower rent increases caused by the arrival of fewer people does not mean housing has become more affordable. It means pressure has been temporarily relieved by constraining demand. This distinction matters.
A housing system that relies on dampening demand rather than expanded supply is not resilient. It does nothing to address the underlying shortage. It does not improve access for Canadians already locked out of the housing market, and it offers no assurances that affordability will be sustained if demand rises again. Without structural reform, faster approval, lower non-construction costs and a regulatory environment that enables builders to deliver housing at scale, any short-term easing driven by reduced demand will prove fragile and reversible.
In short, the recent moderation in rents is not evidence that the government's housing strategy is succeeding. It is evidence that the imbalance between supply and demand remains unresolved and that the system responds more quickly to changes in population flows than to years of federal spending and bureaucracy. That reality only reinforces the conclusion that the core problem lies not with the funding levels but with the policy framework that has failed to deliver sufficient housing supply.
At the same time, the government has not moved fast enough to improve the economic conditions required for private sector building. Developers have faced rising financing costs, regulatory delays, increased development charges and approval bottlenecks.
In fact, I think it is worth reading the February 18, 2026, letter to the Prime Minister. It states:
Dear Prime Minister...
The Canadian Home Builders’ Association (CHBA) continues to support building code development where it follows principles of clear and convincing policy analysis, where evidence-based decision-making happens in public meetings and where committees emphasize cost-effective (ideally cost-neutral) acceptable solutions that equally solve the climate and housing affordability crises in Canada. We estimate that the new 2025 code will add over $100,000 to the cost of a typical new home...this is completely untenable. To that end, we cannot support the 2025 model codes or their adoption and call for an immediate pause to redo them properly
CHBA has become seriously concerned over the last few years with how Canada’s new governance system for national codes and its updated code development process is neither transparent nor evidence-based anymore. These deficiencies are having a direct and negative impact on housing affordability, construction productivity, and the ability of industry stakeholders to contribute meaningfully to effective codes development and implementation while reaching your government’s priorities of additional housing supply and more climate change effective construction.
Further to that, by not addressing housing affordability in the national model codes, even though most provinces and territories call it a priority, there may in fact not be harmonization—the very reason model codes exist in the first place—because provinces may rightly reviewed and accepted by the time they are published, which negates harmonization by instead increasing the likelihood of provincial variations or non-adoption. Lack of harmonization at the provincial (and municipal) level is a key barrier to industry productivity.
A serious course correction is needed, and thus CHBA is urging the Government of Canada to immediately pause all changes to the National Model Construction Codes, as Australia has done with its code system. With that, and before seeking adoption of the 2025 National Construction Codes by the provinces, CHBA is calling on the government to improve the 2025 codes with the proper lenses of affordability, evidenced-based decision-making, and a view to regulations that will truly lead to the optimized outcomes that must be considered in today’s world. The 2025 codes should be paused, revisited, and re-issued once these issues are addressed, so that provinces can and should actually adopt them, and harmonization can be achieved.
Here are our key reasons for pausing all construction code changes and revisiting them with proper focus:
Reduced Productivity—The large amount of national priorities and the pace of developing the respective code changes leave insufficient time for proper review, simplification and resolution of outstanding constructability or affordability concerns by those who are most affected—the residential construction industry...and Canadians facing affordability challenges in trying to buy a home. The amount of new code requirements is overwhelming. Changes related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions, radon, and wind/seismic loads add significant costs and delays and will reduce the productivity of the sector, while in many cases not even delivering the right outcomes. Much better approaches to achieve these goals must be found through a revamping of the 2025 code, with timelines and solutions that support affordability.
Affordability Ignored—There is no formal requirement or code objective to protect housing affordability...
Again, the government's approach is not aligned with its national housing strategy or the National Housing Strategy Act.
The letter continues:
...not even a principle for committees developing the national codes. Economic concerns brought forward by the construction industry are being dismissed, and cumulative costs for all changes in the 2025 codes have not been calculated by those developing the code. Ultimately, it is Canadians bearing the brunt of the added cost of these changes. All changes should be properly revisited to look at their individual cost impacts, plus the cumulative cost impacts of the full suite of changes the 2025 code will require on each home. CHBA’s initial analysis of a typical 2500 sq. ft. home estimates increased costs from the 2025 code changes to be $56,364 (see Appendix A ) without any energy efficiency compliance cost. If provinces continue to mandate the progressive energy targets from the 2020 codes from Tier 1 to Tier 5 this would double those costs, bringing full implementation of the 2020 energy targets and 2025 codes to an estimated cost of $113,930 for each home built within the next few years. CHBA’s Housing Market Index shows material costs alone for that same house have gone up $100,000 from 2025. Canada’s housing crisis cannot handle these kinds of increases. A much more reasonable approach is needed.
Reduced Transparency—Recent changes to the governance and committee structure have reduced transparency and sidelined industry voices.
It would be interesting to see how many members of the Canadian Home Builders' Association are on any of the councils the government created in its National Housing Strategy Act.
The letter continues:
Decisions are increasingly made behind closed doors, with little rationale published or meaningful engagement with those most affected—Canada’s residential construction sector. The residential construction sector...can no longer be the target of poorly thought-out policies and regulations that take away from building more supply. If all levels of government hope to achieve building 500,000 new homes per year, they need to treat the sector as a partner, and excessive and ill‑conceived regulation is a key barrier to be addressed jointly.
The more I read this, the more the concerns outlined by the Canadian Home Builders' Association contradict the community-building partnership clauses of the National Housing Strategy Act. How dare they?
The letter continues:
Harmonization Failure—Without addressing affordability in national codes, which is a key priority for almost every province and territory, the national codes risk being not adopted, or being modified so much provincially that there isn’t in fact harmonization. To that end, the federal government should change the national code publication process such that provinces and territories have time to review a draft code for a year so they can collectively agree to a set of changes they can then adopt as fully harmonized national code at the time the code is published. Without this change, provinces will continue making their own amendments, which prevents harmonization and risks low adoption of costly changes in the 2025 codes. We are urging the federal government to take action now to avoid further fragmentation across Canada.
Fragmented Interpretation—Local interpretation of building codes varies significantly from municipality to municipality—even across the same city sometimes, causing delays and extra costs for the industry. This barrier to more housing faster has not been recognized by governments. As the government continues to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers, it also needs to resolve the fragmented interpretation of building codes that not only vary from province to province but also municipality to municipality. To that end, CHBA recommends a National Code Interpretation Centre be established at the National Research Council to publish code interpretations—provinces can in turn reference those interpretations, making them binding, and helping to end the endless variations on code interpretations that are a major barrier to industry productivity.
The roadblocks confronting the residential construction industry, such as rising costs, reduced transparency, and fragmented code interpretation will inevitably hinder the government’s pursuit of doubling housing starts, including affecting the government‑supported housing to be built under the Build Canada Homes initiative. Without urgent reform, these systemic issues will undermine all efforts to deliver housing Canadians can afford on the accelerated timelines needed.
Facing very similar challenges, the government of Australia recently paused changes to its National Construction Code until 2029, following a report from its own Productivity Commission. The report found that frequent code changes were slowing housing delivery and increasing costs. The pause is intended to provide stability, reduce red tape, and help the industry focus on building more homes. The parallels between Australia’s housing challenges and Canada’s are extensive, making a similar move for Canada justified and essential.
To that end, Canada should follow Australia’s lead and
immediately stop the adoption and implementation process of the 2025 National Construction Codes, and assess them, with a plan to only put forth for adopting cost-neutral changes for housing in Part 9 of the 2025 national codes...
pause all 2030 code development until critical reforms are made to the development approach, such as
restoring transparency, accountability, and meaningful stakeholder engagement within the codes system
adding an ex-officio seat for CHBA and other broad sector stakeholders at all CBHCC meetings (including in-camera meetings) to properly inform the development from an industry perspective
reinstating a coordination committee dedicated to NBC Part 9 (which deals directly with housing) rather than spreading it across 13 committees with nonresidential construction
reducing the priorities for the 2030 code cycles, focusing only on essential, cost-neutral requirements
making housing affordability a core principle in code development along with a robust structured process to assess and limit individual-change and cumulative costs for each future code edition
establish a National Building Code Interpretation Centre to achieve consistent local application of harmonized national construction codes, and work with the provinces to make published solutions binding.
Canada must act quickly to avoid the same problems identified in Australia and ensure our codes system supports safe, affordable, and climate-resilient housing.
CHBA remains committed to working with government towards a more effective and inclusive code development process. We would be happy to meet with you and your officials at your earliest convenience to continue this important conversation and inform immediate action.
That was written by Kevin Lee. That letter was cc'd to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, the minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the Minister of Internal Trade and minister responsible for One Canadian Economy, and the president of the National Research Council of Canada.
It also bears mentioning, reflecting on earlier words in the House of Commons today, that the minister responsible, when demanding $1.7 billion, unchecked, from the federal government, could not have referenced this very important letter outlined to him about what he needed to do to address housing affordability in Canada. It is from the very people the government depends on to build homes in the first place.
Getting back to my speech and the failure to enable private sector construction, it is not because builders refuse to build, but because conditions made projects unviable. This point has been repeatedly underscored by the Canadian home builders, and it aligns with the broader demand-side story now being mis-characterized as policy success. Builders have consistently warned that the primary barriers to increasing housing supply are not a lack of willingness or the capacity to build, but an accumulation of policy-driven costs, delays and uncertainty that makes projects financially impossible to proceed.
As Mr. Lee outlined in his remarks, just the regulatory additions from 2025 alone add over $100,000 to the cost of a 2,500-square-foot home in Canada. How is that a good thing? We have to also look at these building code requirements in the context of the rental market, which is now showing temporary easing during our reduced population inflows, but where we still need to see more rental construction.
In other words, recent moderation in rents does not signal that builders suddenly found projects viable. It signals that demand pressures ease when inflows of international students and temporary workers slow.
Builders have been clear that absent faster approvals, lower non‑construction costs and predictable timelines, supply will not respond at scale. Approval timelines stretching into years amplify financing risk. Development charges and levies imposed up front erode feasibility. Repeated redesigns across jurisdictions, as Mr. Lee outlined through the Canadian Home Builders' Association, add cost without adding homes. When these factors combine, projects stall or are cancelled, even as governments point to headline spending or short‑term rent data.
Canadian home builders have also cautioned that subsidies layered into this environment cannot compensate for structural barriers. Supply responds to certainty, speed and predictability, not to complex program criteria or untied transfers, as we see in Bill C‑26. Without reforms that fix approvals, fees and coordination across governments, additional spending risks flowing to a narrow set of projects or even, in some cases, sitting unused. The lesson from builders is consistent: Easing rents driven by lower demand is fragile and reversible; durable affordability requires making projects viable so homes actually get built.
Canadian home builders have pointed to approval timelines that stretch for years, during which carrying costs accumulate and financing risks rise. Zoning constraints, repeated designs and overlapping municipal, provincial and federal requirements add time and cost without adding homes. Development charges, parkland levies and infrastructure fees, often imposed up front, can represent a significant share of total project costs, particularly for multi-unit and purpose-built rental housing. Builders have been clear that when these charges rise faster than sale prices or rents, projects simply do not proceed.
If we look back on the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 housing construction policies outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we can also draw a correlation between rental construction financing and some of these constraints faced by home builders. While intended to reduce costs and provide affordability for homeowners or renters, those costs, in fact, are so great that government financing is outweighed by the regulatory requirements that have increased the cost of home production in the first place, so financing conditions have compounded these problems.
Builders have also emphasized that higher interest rates and tighter lending conditions disproportionately affect construction projects with long approval timelines. When approvals take years, interest rate risks alone can erase already thin margins, especially for rental projects where revenues are capped for affordability expectations. In that environment, even projects that align with public policy goals are delayed or cancelled because they no longer pencil out.
Critically, builders have also warned that federal programs layered on top of the system do little to address these fundamentals. Subsidies and incentives cannot compensate for regulatory systems that delay projects or for cost structures that exceed what the market can bear. As builders have repeatedly argued, supply responds to certainty, speed and predictability, not program criteria or slow-moving capital contributions. Without reforms that reduce approval timelines, lower non‑construction costs and align incentives across government, additional funding risks sitting unused or flowing to a limited number of projects rather than unlocking broad‑based supply.
In short, the evidence from those who actually build homes reinforces the conclusion reached by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The housing shortfall is not the result of building reluctance or market failure; it is the result of policy choices that have made building housing increasingly difficult. Until those structural barriers are addressed, no amount of new spending, whether under the national housing strategy or through ad hoc measures, such as Bill C‑26, will deliver the scale of housing supply Canadians urgently need. We now have a law requiring better outcomes, a strategy promising transformation and data showing deterioration.
The PBO's conclusion remains: The impact of federal housing programs is limited relative to the scale of need. That is our reality.
This is not just a policy failure. It is a failure to meet commitments, targets and statutory obligations. When the government promises to help 530,000 households in need and delivers only 78,000 units, when it plays around with its own budgets for housing and then, through Bill C‑26, asks Parliament to authorize new, untied spending for housing supply without reconnecting that spending to the outcomes, targets and timelines it established itself, it bears further scrutiny in Parliament.
Bill C‑26 and the programming motion I am debating right now reveal what Bill C‑26 does not do. It authorizes billions of dollars in additional payments to provinces and territories, but it does so outside the architecture of the national housing strategy. There are no statutory outcome requirements, no ties to reductions in housing need, no clear affordability thresholds and no measurable targets aligned with the act's obligations to focus on those in greatest need. In effect, the government is asking for more money now, while simultaneously retreating from the very framework that was supposed to ensure that money produced results.
This suggests a partial acknowledgement by the government that its existing approach is not working, but a willingness to go all the way in admitting failure is beyond any Liberal, in my opinion. Rather than reforming the strategy to fix its structural flaws or aligning new spending with the legal obligations Parliament enacted in 2019, the government appears to be sidestepping the problem. It is shifting away from the strategy through re-funding allocations while pursuing ad hoc spending through Bill C‑26 that is disconnected from its own commitments. This is not coherence; it is fragmentation.
If the national housing strategy were working, there would be no need to bypass it. If the act's frameworks were delivering results, new spending would logically flow through it, reinforced by clear targets, timelines and accountability. Instead, we see the opposite: declining support under the strategy, combined with new spending requests that avoid its constraints. That combination strongly suggests the government knows that its current approach has failed but does not want to formally acknowledge that failure or undertake the difficult work to redesign what is necessary to help build affordable homes in Canada.
The result that we have today, therefore, is the worst of both worlds. Canadians are told that housing remains a top priority, yet the strategy that was supposed to deliver results is being hollowed out. Parliament is asked to approve new funding, but without the guardrails that ensure effectiveness. The core problems, such as affordability, access to affordable homes for low-income households and the growing gap between need and supply, remain unaddressed. In short, Bill C‑26 does not represent a fix to a failing strategy. It represents a workaround. Workarounds are what governments turn to when they no longer believe their own plan can succeed. The conclusion is unavoidable: The strategy is not working, and Canadians are paying the price.
In conclusion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada now has approximately 2.4 million households in core housing need, and that figure is projected to rise to 2.6 million by 2027. That would mean nearly one million more households in core housing need than when the national housing strategy was launched in 2017. The very strategy that was supposed to make housing more affordable has coincided with a dramatic increase in the number of Canadians struggling to find suitable, affordable homes.
The Liberals have announced program after program, funding envelope after funding envelope, yet the results continue to move in the wrong direction. The PBO found that in 2023 Canada added approximately 460,000 new households while completing only 242,000 housing units. In other words, household growth vastly outpaced housing construction. The result is exactly what Canadians have experienced: rising prices, rising rents and fewer attainable housing options.
The same report estimates that Canada will require an additional 1.3 million housing units by 2030 above current projections simply to close the national housing gap. That means Canada would need, on average, roughly 436,000 completed housing units annually between 2024 and 2030, far beyond current construction levels. For renters, the situation is equally troubling. CMHC reported that affordability remains a major challenge. With turnover rents increasing by 23.5% in 2024, young Canadians, newcomers and working families are finding it increasingly difficult to secure housing they can afford.
What is most concerning is not simply the scale of the crisis, but the Liberal government's record. Canadians have heard the promises before. They were promised that the national housing strategy would improve affordability. They were promised that billions of dollars in spending would deliver results, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has concluded that housing needs continue to grow despite increased federal spending. Even the government's flagship housing accelerator fund deserves scrutiny. The PBO noted that very little funding was spent in its first year and that many of the housing increases observed in participating jurisdictions may have been driven by initiatives already under way before agreements were signed.
Trust is earned through results. After years of soaring home prices, rising rents, growing housing needs and repeated missed targets, Canadians have every reason to question whether the same government that helped this crisis can be trusted to solve it. Canadians do not need more announcements. Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford does not need more announcements. That is why, in the first hour of my remarks today, I related Bill C-26 to the flexibility the government was showing and the lack of action we have had in the Fraser Valley region.
It bears repeating, before I conclude today, that my riding is the confluence of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the National Pacific Railway and the Southern Railway. We have a border crossing. The Government of Canada has chosen the Abbotsford International Airport and an amazing Canadian company, Conair, to build the national firefighting fleet for our entire country. Conair already hosts one of the largest fleets of any aircraft provider in the country. We are using De Havilland aircraft built in Canada to supply that fleet. We have the Trans Mountain pipeline and the Sumas transfer station, which transfers 37% of oil from the Trans Mountain pipeline to the United States. The Enbridge pipeline expansion and the Huntingdon transfer station that the government just approved are in my riding. We have the arterial road connecting British Columbia with the rest of Canada.
As I outlined for over an hour in this speech, we have received no federal supports, no flexibility and no accountability from the previous prime minister, who said that he would help us. Even today, High Commissioner Bill Blair said to me the other day, “Yes, we broke the promises we made to you.” It is my responsibility to continue fighting for that and to continue saying in this House that the status quo is not okay, if the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure can come forward with Bill C-26, a two-paragraph bill, to say that he needs $1.7 billion in additional housing funding, after a fund of $80 billion over 10 years has already failed every metric pointed out in the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 Parliamentary Budget Officer reports.
Why can the federal government not support Abbotsford? I invite the minister to come to my community in good faith. I have never politicized this issue, because it is about Canada first, about the Government of Canada meeting its export objectives. Those export objectives run through the Fraser Valley. Canada cannot build if the Fraser Valley is not protected.
We are also the breadbasket of British Columbia. We are the heartland of dairy farmers, blueberry farmers and immigrants who have built their livelihoods supplying Canada with fresh produce, fresh vegetables and the best agricultural products we can find anywhere in this province, and we need help. I plead with the government to help us.
This June, we are launching the review process for the transboundary commission. The Minister of Emergency Management, in good faith, sent the parliamentary secretary to support it after I requested it. I will say that in good faith, and I invite the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to come and hear what people have said and about the suffering we have gone through. Our only request is to help Canada build, help improve those exports and help Canada meet its objectives.
We are in British Columbia. I know many Laurentian elites in Ontario and Quebec see it as just this place where they go on vacation and ski, sail and golf in a single day, but it is more than that. It is the export opportunity to the Asia-Pacific region. It is the future of Canada's economic prosperity and it completely aligns with all of the trade objectives set by the Prime Minister, so again, I plead with the government—
Madam Speaker, our wonderful colleague has been speaking for three hours, and he is putting a lot of good ideas and points out there for the government. Unfortunately, we have students out there, watching—
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I plead with the federal government in good faith. As I mentioned, I respect the Minister of Emergency Management, who has shown up in good faith so far. I ask that she comes to our consultation periods, held in conjunction with officials from the United States, to hear what we are proposing. I ask the Minister of Infrastructure to provide the same level of flexibility he provides for the bill to the infrastructure funding commitments we need in the Fraser Valley.
Canada needs this. British Columbia needs this. The Prime Minister cannot complete his objectives in the Asia-Pacific region until the problems in my riding are fixed, so to that end, I move:
That the motion be amended by:
(a) replacing paragraph (d) with the following: “(d) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.”; and
(b) deleting paragraph (e).
I reference this, because I want to see amendments at the committee stage that would put in flexibility for the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing to apply some of this funding—
Mr. Speaker, once a member has put forward a motion, they cannot continue debating it. He has to sit down now. The Speaker accepts the motion and then we ask the member questions.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Long-Term Care
Mr. Speaker, as we recognize Seniors Month, I rise today to highlight that this Saturday, June 13, marks Canada's National Long-Term Care Day. This year's theme, caring across Canada, celebrates the residents, families, staff, volunteers and advocates who make long-term care communities strong from coast to coast to coast.
Long-term care is an essential part of our health care system, but above all, it is home to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Our seniors deserve to live with dignity, respect and a strong sense of community. On behalf of the Canadian Association for Long Term Care, I thank all those whose dedication makes this care possible and invite all members to join me in celebrating the hard work of our essential workers this Seniors Month.
Philippine Independence Day
Mr. Speaker, on June 12, Filipinos worldwide celebrate Philippine Independence Day. As we celebrate, we recognize the rich history, culture and enduring spirit. Filipino Canadians have made remarkable contributions in every field, from health care and education to business, the public service and the arts, and certainly to charitable initiatives, helping to strengthen and enrich our country.
At the same time, we acknowledge the grief that many are experiencing following this week's devastating earthquake in Mindanao. Our prayers are with those who have been affected, and we stand in solidarity with those mourning and rebuilding.
Being married to a Filipina myself, I have seen first hand the values of hard work, resilience and commitment to family and community that define Filipino culture and enrich Canada. The day also reminds us of the value of freedom that inspired the Philippines' independence movement and continues to inspire people everywhere.
On behalf of Canada's Conservatives, I wish all Filipinos a happy independence day, and I look forward to joining in tomorrow's celebrations.
Maraming Salamat. Mabuhay.
Recognition of Service in Medicine
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dr. Arun Garg for his lifetime of leadership, service and dedication to improving public health in British Columbia. For more than 50 years, including several decades with Fraser Health, Dr. Garg has advanced culturally informed health care. He has championed prevention, healthy living and community-based care, while bridging traditional knowledge with modern medicine.
As the founder of Canada India Network Society and a leader of the South Asian Health Institute, Dr. Garg has brought together physicians, researchers and community leaders to improve culturally informed care and healthier living. Dr. Garg's vision, humility and commitment to teamwork have created a legacy for generations to come.
Please join me in thanking Dr. Arun Garg for his amazing service to our communities and to Canada.
RED Friday
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Waterdown, Ontario, celebrated its annual “remember everyone deployed Friday”, better known as RED Friday, which was hosted by the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 551 in the core of Waterdown.
On RED Friday, we wore red to show appreciation for veterans, active military and first responders and their families. This year, Waterdown saw a record crowd, with live music, activities and displays featuring first responder and military vehicles. The Waterdown Museum of Hope was also open. The museum hosts some amazing displays, showcasing Canadian heroes and peacekeepers, narrated by students from the Waterdown District High School.
The event would not have been possible without the leadership of Sheila Latner, president of the Waterdown Legion, and event co-hosts Bob Thomas and Judi Partridge.
I thank all who have served our country and all who continue to serve for their service. I thank them for keeping Canada strong and free.
[Translation]
Sylvain Bergeron
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to a true hero from my region, Corporal Sylvain Bergeron of the Lamèque RCMP detachment.
On June 2, in Chiasson Office, a teenage girl in severe distress entered the icy, choppy waters and was found more than 100 feet from shore. Upon arriving at the scene, Corporal Bergeron realized she was in imminent danger. Without a moment's hesitation, he jumped into the water to rescue her. Risking his own safety, he swam out to her, kept her from drowning and brought her safely back to shore, despite the extremely difficult conditions.
Sometimes, in the darkest moments, there are people who choose to act with remarkable composure. On that day, Corporal Bergeron embodied the best of what public service represents: dedication, compassion and courage.
On behalf of all the citizens of Acadie—Bathurst and the members of the House of Commons, I extend to him our most sincere thanks, our deep gratitude and our utmost admiration. I also wish the young lady a speedy recovery.
[English]
Men's Mental Health
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the fathers, grandfathers and father figures in our lives and the importance of men's mental health. June is Men's Health Month, a time dedicated to raising awareness, promoting prevention and improving the health and well-being of men and boys.
To support this initiative, I will be hosting and playing in our third annual Dodge for Dads dodge ball tournament in support of mental health on the Friday of Father's Day weekend, because there is no dodging the importance of mental health. For this fun evening of physical activity and team-building, I will be partnering with The Well Community Collective, which is one of several wellness hubs across the Perth, Huron and Wellington counties that connect families and individuals with the resources, advocacy and safe spaces that they need.
I am looking forward to getting out and throwing around a few dodge balls in support of men's mental health, because if someone can dodge a wrench, they can dodge a ball.
Khalid Usman
Mr. Speaker, we have lost a great Canadian. Khalid Usman was a legend for his leadership in and dedication to his community.
For decades, he served in countless senior roles in organizations in Markham and York region, including 14 years as a Markham councillor. A chartered accountant by profession, he was a champion of the Pakistani and Muslim communities and of interfaith and intercultural dialogue. The first time I visited a mosque, some 20 years ago, it was at Khalid's invitation. He helped raise funds in support of hospitals in Canada and Pakistan, including for the Markham Stouffville Hospital in my riding.
Always greeting people with an infectious smile, he gave in so many ways. With kindness, energy, passion and good humour, he was truly larger than life. Many of my colleagues here in this House and I are honoured to have known him and sad to have lost a friend. He will be sorely missed.
I give my sincere condolences to Abida, his daughters and their families, and so many friends.
Mel Zajac
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of an extraordinary British Columbian philanthropist and community builder, Mel Zajac, who passed away at the age of 98.
I had the privilege of knowing Mel and visited Zajac Ranch in Mission on several occasions, including just last month. It is an amazing place, and it is constantly improving.
What always struck me was that, right to the very end, Mel remained passionately committed to helping youth with disabilities. After the heartbreaking loss of two sons, Mel transformed personal tragedy into a remarkable legacy of hope. His vision gave life to Zajac Ranch, which is a fully accessible camp where children and young adults with complex medical conditions can experience joy, friendship, confidence and the sense of belonging that every child needs. Over the decades, thousands have been touched by Mel and Wendy's belief that barriers should never prevent a child from thriving.
Mel Zajac leaves behind a legacy of philanthropy and compassion. On behalf of the House, I extend my deepest condolences to Wendy, his family and the entire Zajac community.
[Translation]
Sophie Faucher
Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the great beyond, Sophie Faucher is listening to the outpouring of praise and kind words that followed the announcement of her premature passing.
The radiant and dazzling Sophie Faucher exuded a powerful and luminous energy that made her loved by all.
This great actress, the daughter of another great actress, could shift effortlessly from drama to comedy, from writing to voice acting, from Frida Kahlo to Maria Callas, drawn to these extraordinary women perhaps because she saw herself in them. We certainly saw her in them.
Everyone will talk about her ability to fly off the handle one moment and burst out laughing the next; to be moved to tears one moment and outraged the next. A true Quebec icon, she was the embodiment of what it means to live life to the fullest. It is a sad loss.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer her family and her many friends and admirers my deepest condolences.
[English]
James Ross Hurley
Mr. Speaker, let us honour the life and legacy of James Ross Hurley, the founding director of the parliamentary internship programme. Created in 1969 by Wellington MP Alf Hales, the program flourished under James Hurley's leadership as a unique, non-partisan opportunity for university graduates to experience parliamentary democracy.
[Translation]
Since then, more than 550 young Canadians have participated in the program, including members of this Parliament, members of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery, and alumni who have gone on to hold top positions in the public and private sectors and in non-profit organizations in Canada and around the world.
[English]
James Hurley devoted his life to public service as a Privy Council Office constitutional adviser to six prime ministers, a beloved mentor and a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa.
In March 2025, he left us. In a final act of generosity to the Hales and Hurley Parliamentary Foundation, he ensured that the program would continue in perpetuity.
[Translation]
His family, including his sister Ann Gibson, is with us today. James Hurley's legacy will continue to be an inspiration.
[English]
His legacy to youth, democracy, bilingualism and Canada will inspire generations to come.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal mismanagement, Canadians are paying the price. Under the Liberals, Canada is now the only G20 country in a recession, and families are feeling it at the kitchen table.
Do members want proof? A recent United Way poll shows that 38% are struggling with food insecurity, with one in five saying that all the food in their home was eaten with no money left over to buy more; 40% are losing sleep over how to stretch their paycheque just to afford groceries; and 22% of Canadians are experiencing poverty themselves.
Do members know who is not going hungry? It is our jet-setting Prime Minister; that it who. In just one year as Prime Minister, he spent almost a million taxpayer dollars on food for his private jet. That is enough money to feed 55 Canadian families for a full year.
Regular Canadians are barely scraping by. While the Prime Minister eats five-star meals on his private jet, his Liberal recession is causing financial insecurity, stress and hunger for everyone else.
[Translation]
Denis Mukwege
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the presence on Parliament Hill of a man whose courage commands respect: Dr. Denis Mukwege.
He is an internationally renowned gynecologist who has dedicated his life to treating survivors of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where such atrocities are all too often used as a weapon of war. As the founder of Panzi Hospital, he and his team have treated tens of thousands of women, helping them reclaim their health and dignity.
His extraordinary dedication earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018. Dubbed “the man who mends women”, he has become a leading voice for human rights and justice.
His presence among us today reminds us of our shared, collective duty to uphold and defend human dignity.
I invite my colleagues here today to join me in thanking him for his amazing work.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did not drive our economy into the ditch by accident. They took every wrong turn and ignored every warning sign, and now they want to blame everyone else.
After more than a decade of inflationary spending, red tape and anti-development laws, Canada is now the only G20 country in a recession. Families are not reading this in an economics textbook. They are living it at the grocery store, the gas pump and the kitchen table.
A new United Way survey found that 60% of Canadians are anxious about their personal finances and 38% are struggling with food insecurity, and one in five say that all the food in their home was gone with no money to buy more. That is not a talking point. That is an empty refrigerator.
Last year, a record 2.2 million Canadians lined up at food banks in a single month. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on luxury catering over 14 trips, enough to feed a family for 55 years.
The Liberals can blame the mud, the road or the weather, but everybody knows that they have been behind the wheel. Canadians deserve a government that stops—
40th Anniversary of Mi'kmaq Band
Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month, and I want to acknowledge the history I witnessed on Saturday when Mi'kmaq rock icons The Relatives took to the stage to celebrate their 40th anniversary as a band. Tom Johnson, Stan Johnson, Derek Johnson, Darren Stevens, Robert Stevens and Tom Sylliboy have been playing crowd-pleasing get-up-and-dance music across Cape Breton and Mi'kma'ki for four decades. With great original songs like Nutepaqn, Kweji'juow and Perfect Love Song, The Relatives are pioneers in singing songs in the Mi'kmaq language.
Not only are The Relatives talented musicians, but they have been exemplary members of the community, volunteering, mentoring, or performing for local causes. They have had deep and lasting impacts that reach far beyond their music. In some circles, the longevity of the band has earned them the moniker of the “Mi'kmaq Rolling Stones”. I am proud to recognize them.
[Member spoke in Mi'kmaq and provided the following text:]
Welukweyoq aq weltaql.
[Member provided the following translation:]
You are doing great, and the music sounds great.
[English]
I thank them for their 40 years of excellence.
Marc Pinizzotto
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to address a tragedy that struck the Toronto Police Service and our entire nation.
Early this morning, tactical officers from TPS and the RCMP executed a high-risk search warrant in North York. The search was related to a national security investigation into the March 2026 shooting at the U.S. consulate in Toronto. ETF Constable Marc Pinizzotto, age 43, a father of two from Oakville, Ontario, and an 18-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service, was shot and killed in the line of duty.
When civilians run one way from danger, the men and women in blue run the other way, into danger. Every day, police officers across our country put their life on the line to protect Canadians. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
We cannot fathom the grief of the family, friends and colleagues of Constable Pinizzotto, but we stand with them in mourning the loss of this Canadian hero. We will never forget Constable Pinizzotto, and we will pray for all of Canada's police officers, who risk their lives to keep us all safe.
May Marc's soul rest in peace, and may God bless his family and our entire grieving nation.
Marc Pinizzotto
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, because a member of the Toronto Police Service has died in the line of duty in my community of York South—Weston—Etobicoke.
Constable Marc Pinizzotto was an 18-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service and a member of its elite emergency task force, one of the most dangerous and demanding jobs in policing. He lost his life in service to Torontonians and to the people of Canada while working on an investigation into a number of shootings in the city, including at the United States consulate.
We cannot imagine the pain being felt by his family, friends and colleagues at the Toronto Police Service. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. We thank everyone in law enforcement for their service.
May Constable Pinizzotto rest in peace.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, this morning, I am sure every member of this House was devastated to learn of the Toronto police officer who was shot and killed in the line of duty. We grieve alongside the family, friends and colleagues of Constable Marc Pinizzotto, an 18-year veteran of the force who served his city with courage and devotion until his very final moments. To his loved ones and the men and women in uniform right across this country who put their lives on the line every single day, our gratitude is beyond measure.
In the wake of this tragic loss, will the Minister of Public Safety please update the House on the government's response?
Mr. Speaker, I am heartbroken in hearing of the passing of Officer Marc Pinizzotto. I was able to connect with the Toronto Police chief, the Toronto Police Association and the mayor of the city of Toronto, and I express our profound grief and condolences to the people of Toronto and all those who serve on the front lines.
Today is a day for all of us to come together and cherish those who serve us each and every day, risking their lives. To the families who sacrifice every day and hope that their family member will come home, I pray for them. I pray for all those in law enforcement and pray that Constable Pinizzotto's family have the peace they need to get through this very difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, we know, indeed, that it is a difficult time. We know that this is the second officer killed in the line of duty this week. That number is too high. Constable Pinizzotto was executing a warrant linked to several shootings, including one targeting the U.S. consulate in Toronto.
With an attack on a diplomatic mission on Canadian soil, a police officer now dead and a suspect at large, can the minister please tell the House whether security agencies are engaged and what the government is specifically doing to support the investigation and keep Canadians from coast to coast safe?
Mr. Speaker, from the outset, our INSET team, as well as RCMP personnel and senior leadership, has been fully engaged in this investigation. They have been supporting the Toronto Police Service, including deploying two special task forces in order to support the investigation as it unfolds. The work of the Toronto Police Service is part of the collaborative efforts of all of our law enforcement agencies in order to ensure that the safety and national security interests of Canadians are paramount.
We will work in collaboration to ensure that we get results and support those in frontline policing.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stuffed his face with $17,000 of salmon on just three taxpayer-funded flights. That is as much as a family will spend—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
In the interests of decorum in the House, perhaps the member can use other words, but he may continue.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spent 17,000 dollars' worth of salmon on just three taxpayer-funded flights. That is as much as a family will spend on groceries for the entire year.
While sending 2.2 million Canadians to a food bank every single month, is it fair that he stuffed his face with $94,000 of catering on just one flight to Rome, when that is how much five families spend on groceries for the entire year?
Mr. Speaker, people wonder why people look down on the antics in the House of Commons—
An hon. member: It's a $200,000 catering bill there, Steve.
That was a bit loud. Let us try to keep the noise to a certain level.
The hon. government House leader.
Mr. Speaker, on a day when we are mourning the loss of a first responder, people should really wonder, as they look on the House of Commons, why folks look down on some of the antics here, when we follow up such a constructive exchange with something penned quite obviously from the desk of the Leader of the Opposition.
I expect 30 more of those today. Let us just hope they can up their game a bit.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to politicize the loss of the police officer.
We are asking questions on behalf of the 2.2 million Canadians waiting in a food bank line because of failed Liberal policies, and now 40% of Canadians are losing sleep. Do members know who is not losing sleep? The Prime Minister, who is enjoying fine dining on the taxpayer dime, is not losing sleep.
Is it fair that the Prime Minister gets to live lavishly on the taxpayer dime while sending more Canadians to the food bank every single month?
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians know all too well, we are in the midst of a trade war. We are in the midst of negotiating some of the most signal world events that we have seen in a generation, including two wars, one in the Middle East and one in Europe.
Our Prime Minister is representing our country proudly on the international stage. When he goes there, he comes home with agreements, with deals and with investments that give opportunity to Canadians, that supply jobs to Canadians and that help us get things done for Canadians so we can ensure our prosperity.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister left his job as the chair of Brookfield in New York to come to Canada, he forgot that he was no longer working for a private company but for Canadian taxpayers.
Right now, Canadians are going through a recession. They are paying more for everything, and millions are struggling to make ends meet. Meanwhile, government documents show that the Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on inflight catering for just 14 trips.
While families have to watch every penny they spend at the grocery store, does the Prime Minister really think that spending $1 million on inflight meals is a responsible use of taxpayers' money?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians watch the proceedings of the House, and I do not think that they appreciate that accusatory tone. Canadians know full well that we are in the midst of intense trade negotiations. There are wars in Europe and in the Middle East. The Prime Minister proudly represents us. He is bringing back agreements, investments and opportunities for Canadians across the country.
We are proud of our Prime Minister. We are proud of the efforts that he is making on the international stage, and I hope he will keep going.
Mr. Speaker, I think the tone I used was appropriate, considering how wasteful the party across the way has been all these years.
I know that it must be hard for the Prime Minister to get used to life in the public service after having enjoyed the perks of working for a private company like Brookfield. However, it is important to understand that each trip costs an average of $70,000 in food and drink. That is not the cost of the plane, nor is it the cost of fuel; it is just the bill for food and drink.
At a time when food banks are seeing greater demand than ever, how can the Prime Minister justify this to Canadian taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to offer my sympathies to the family and friends of Constable Marc Pinizzotto. The thoughts of every member of the House go out to him and his family today.
To answer my colleague's question, our government is making generational investments in infrastructure, housing, competitiveness, innovation and defence. Every member of our government is working on attracting investment, and the Prime Minister is making Canadians proud not just here at home, but around the world.
Canadian Identity and Culture
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister sacrificed the future of francophone culture at the hands of Donald Trump. He is completely giving up on the 10-year struggle to get American web giants to help fund creative works and news. What has he gotten in return? All he has gotten is yet another escalation of hostilities from Washington.
After seeing Canada surrender on the culture issue, President Trump responded yesterday by saying that he is not looking to renew CUSMA.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he sacrificed culture for nothing?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, will respond in a moment, but we should reflect on how the Bloc Québécois has lost its way. Two weeks ago, OUI Québec—the “yes” camp, not the “no” camp—basically accused the sovereignist movement of being intolerant.
Mr. de Belleval, who is a former PQ transport minister, put it nicely when he said that the Bloc Québécois is now also giving up on its transportation hopes and dreams. I hope that the member for Repentigny will set the record straight, but for now, we are taking note.
Mr. Speaker, not only does that have nothing to do with my question, it has nothing to do with the business of the House either.
Contrary to Europe, the Prime Minister capitulated on streaming levies. Contrary to France, he capitulated on the digital services tax. He exempted American multinationals from the global minimum tax. He ended his countertariffs. He is trying to persuade the provinces to end their boycott of American alcohol. He is making every effort to appease Donald Trump, but the outcome is always more concessions. The renewal of CUSMA is now entirely off the table.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his weakness strategy is not paying off?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for reading her question with such conviction.
While the Bloc Québécois spends its time loafing about, we are taking action. In the last budget, we invested $772 million in arts and culture. During my last press conference, I announced $600 million for culture, including Quebec culture. I almost forgot the $100 million that was invested in the creative export strategy, which allows programs like Empathie and TV5MONDE programs, which include Quebec television programs, to reach foreign audiences.
Mr. Speaker, the word in French is not “programme”. The correct word is “émission” or “série”. While our media outlets continue to lose millions of dollars in revenue, the Prime Minister tried to placate Donald Trump by ending a decade-long campaign by the cultural sector to ensure that the tech giants pay their fair share. In response, Donald Trump has issued additional threats regarding CUSMA.
I would like to read a quote from a Quebec filmmaker, a certain Mr. Falardeau. I do not think the Prime Minister knows him. Mr. Falardeau said, “If you lie down, they will stomp on you. If you remain standing and resist, they will hate you, but they will call you ‘sir’.”
Is the Prime Minister not the least bit tempted to take that advice so he might actually be called “sir”?
[English]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, the NSICOP Act mandates that it must be reviewed before October 6, 2022.
Unlike in his response on January 29, could the House leader please provide the date the government intends to initiate the long-overdue review of the act? Further, will the Liberals support my motion, which would establish a joint committee to ensure that Parliament abides by this law?
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Speaker, $200 million is what Liberals gave a near-bankrupt company of well-connected Liberal insiders and family members for now three failed launches from a concrete slab spaceport. While Canadians pay for the most expensive science fair project in history, the only successful thing taking off is the bank accounts of Liberal insiders such as Sasha Jacob, who turned worthless shares of the company into a $1.8-million personal windfall after Liberals lit the fuse.
Will the Prime Minister just admit that this was all about greasing the palms of well-connected Liberal insiders?
Mr. Speaker, our investments in Canada's space capabilities, the member will know, will translate into new jobs, stronger supply chains, greater industrial capacity and a more resilient Canadian economy. We are taking decisive action to strengthen our security and sovereignty, and to reinforce the resilience and long-term strength of the country. We are strengthening Atlantic Canada's industrial capacity, growing Nova Scotia's role in Canada's defence industry and giving Canada the capability it needs to respond to evolving global security challenges, while supporting long-term economic growth.
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, well, that is no answer from the minister. We have 30 more of those. I sure hope they upped their game with the answers.
The CEO of Farm Credit Canada last year, Justine Hendricks, spent more than $213,000 just on travel. She spent another $53,000 on hospitality, including one meal for more than $6,500. This is more than a third of what a family of four spends on groceries for an entire year.
Can the minister tell me how much more out-of-control spending he is going to approve this year?
Mr. Speaker, FCC is an independent Crown corporation and operates at arm's length.
With that said, what I can say is that farmers and agriculture stakeholders around the country appreciate the good work that is done by FCC. We are working hard to grow the agriculture sector and the strongest economy in the G7, and FCC is an important part of our effort.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals themselves are warning that public investment in ag research and development has fallen by 15%. Private sector R and D outsourced to universities is down 77%. The number of firms conducting research in Canada has dropped by 30%. However, the Liberal agriculture minister is slashing $115 million in agriculture research. Science took the hit for 75% of the cuts in his department.
Did the agriculture minister personally approve these cuts, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we are spending less to invest more. We are maintaining our presence in every single province and remain the largest agricultural researcher in the country. By streamlining research and development, we can build a strong, collaborative science system that supports producer-strengthened competitiveness and positions Canadian agriculture for long-term success. That is what we are doing.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, that was not even close to an answer.
New documents reveal that the Prime Minister has spent $1 million on inflight catering since taking office last year. That is enough money to feed a Canadian family for 55 years. Let us look at the list: luxury butter cups, crème brûlée, Scottish salmon and smoked Gouda.
With millions of people lined up at the food banks, would the Liberals agree to stop their luxurious inflight catering bills?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives fail to recognize that when times are tough, what Canadians really want is a government that will stand up for them. In fact, that is exactly what we have done time and again, by cutting taxes for 22 million people, by making sure that people can have access to quality child care for a fraction of the price, by making sure people can access training programs and by making sure the social safety nets are there for when people are facing job loss.
These are all things, by the way, that Conservatives vote against. If they really want to help Canadians, why do they not stop voting against them?
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, again that was an answer that was not even close to the question.
All parties acknowledge that the salmon allocation policy must be aligned with the Ahousaht decision. However, while all Canadians have the right to fish, the minister keeps the public's lives and livelihood on hold, waiting for her to decide whether the public's current priority allocation for chinook and coho, before non-indigenous commercial, will be retained.
Will she confirm, today, that this priority will remain?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity for me to once again say that I have met with stakeholders in B.C., across all perspectives. We are working on the decision. There is space for recreational fishing and commercial, and the need for indigenous harvesting. We will balance the decision.
Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, northern indigenous communities paid the Liberal carbon tax when they bought their fuel in bulk. The tax has now been repealed, yet a year later these communities are still waiting for their refund.
On what date will these communities receive their money? I would like just the date, please.
[Translation]
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, the reform of the New Horizons program is putting community projects for seniors at risk. Our organizations have one month to submit their projects. In the meantime, Ottawa now requires them to register as a business, which can take up to 10 months. In addition, the criteria exclude small groups like some local FADOQs and Cercles de fermières; their parent organizations are registered, but they are not. Ottawa needs to give organizations time to meet the requirements and ensure that none of them are disqualified due to the new criteria.
Will the government postpone its reform?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in April, we introduced changes to the new horizons for seniors program, including requiring a CRA business number. For most seniors organizations, this change delivers clearer, fairer standards that increase the program's integrity. For organizations that do not have this number, Service Canada is available to assist all applicants. Members of Parliament are also available to assist applicants. That is why we provided a session to all members of Parliament, so that they could ask their questions, a session that, unfortunately, the hon. member did not attend.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, July 14 is just around the corner. No one asked for this New Horizons reform. This is a complete nightmare for volunteers working to improve the well-being of seniors. Community organizations that still do not have a business number will not have time to register by July 14, and that is not to mention the hundreds of others at the local level who simply cannot register because of their structure. That is something else we learned at the briefing. This reform is not designed to address the reality facing Quebec organizations and seniors.
Will the government extend the deadline so that the new criteria do not adversely affect seniors' projects?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, prior to these changes, the new horizons for seniors program was the only grant within the Government of Canada that was not subject to these integrity measures. We are putting this program in line with all other grants and contributions across the Government of Canada. By looking at the clock, I can see that it is June 11. There is lots of time for organizations, and we are there to help them. We will make sure they have what they need to apply for these programs because we want nothing more than to ensure that seniors have access to the important programs that prevent social isolation.
[Translation]
Rail Transportation
Mr. Speaker, the Alto train is not a gift. It places a perpetual burden on the backs of future generations. Yesterday, the Minister of Transport opened the door to the possibility of cost overruns, so the minister is prepared for it to cost far more than $90 billion and far exceed its budget.
Is the Liberal transport minister prepared to pour money down a bottomless pit?
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, that is not even an answer.
I heard something unbelievable. Why did the Liberals “liberalize” the New Horizons for Seniors program? Just a few days before the 2026 call for proposals was launched, the Liberals changed the rules and made it impossible for organizations to apply for grants. I have received about a dozen complaint letters from farm women in seniors clubs.
Will the Liberals have to create another program to help our seniors apply for the New Horizons program? That does not make any sense. I am going to share the minister's response with all of the Liberal ridings, and then we will see what those MPs have to say to the minister, who is telling members that they are not doing their job.
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the New Horizons for Seniors program, which benefits hundreds and even thousands of organizations across Quebec and Canada. We will continue to support this program. It is a program that works.
When my colleague talks to the seniors in his riding, I hope that he tells the over 39,000 healthy people, many of whom are seniors, that they will no longer have access to the Canadian dental care plan if he votes as he did to take it away from them. That is shameful.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the real shame is holding seniors' charities hostage. That is ridiculous.
The indigenous languages commissioner hosted a four-day conference that cost $10 million. That is $10 million for four days.
A University of Manitoba professor asked people to imagine how many indigenous students could have learned their mother tongue.
Does the minister agree with the professor?
Intergovernmental Relations
Mr. Speaker, there have not been any decent answers today, despite the fact that the questions being asked are incredibly simple.
Every time the Liberals are in power, tensions rise with Quebec, Alberta and the other provinces. Why? It is quite simple. It is because the Liberals do not respect the Quebec nation. They respect Alberta no more than they respect Quebec. They continue to centralize and overstep provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals believe that Canada is their country and it should be run their way.
Can the Liberal government finally mind its own business, respect provincial autonomy and understand that its role is to serve, not to control?
Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of things in the House. The member talks about respecting the Quebec nation, but where was he last Tuesday when, together with the Premier of Quebec, we announced $10 billion for infrastructure in Quebec?
The only time we see the Conservatives is when they are trying to deprive Quebeckers of the money needed for infrastructure, take $2.75 billion from Quebec City for the tramway or deny Quebec a high-speed rail project that will bring us into the modern era and that we should have undertaken decades ago.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, that is another meaningless answer. It is lost. The Liberals think they have control of everything, but they should be serving the people instead of using them.
After 11 years of this Liberal government and the passage of Bill C-83 in 2019, we are seeing the consequences in our prisons: increased violence, staff shortages, repeated inmate-on-inmate assaults and multiple murders. Donnacona's correctional officers have called for concrete tools.
When will the Liberal government fix its mistakes and restore safety in our prisons?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague will be pleased to learn that we are, in fact, working hand in hand with the Government of Quebec on these issues.
My colleague should know that we conducted a pilot project to remove cell phones from the various prisons and penitentiaries across the country. We will always be there to ensure the safety of correctional officers. We will continue to work with the Government of Quebec. We will continue to fight extortion and crime in this country.
[English]
Employment
Mr. Speaker, mining is already one of Canada's largest economic drivers, contributing billions of dollars to the Canadian economy annually, but the sector is experiencing a labour shortage right now, needing 250,000 new hires over the next 10 years.
Can the Minister of Jobs and Families please update the House on a national announcement that was recently held in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets about what is being done to ensure that Canadian workers can take advantage of these generational opportunities?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her hard work and her advocacy to bring the mining industry together to ensure we have the skills that we need for today and for tomorrow. Yes, this alliance is launched with great fanfare from the industry, which is praising the Government of Canada for taking action to make sure that the skills that are taught are aligned with what the industry needs. This is how we build Canada strong.
Health
Mr. Speaker, Canadians with documented, serious and permanent COVID-19 vaccine injuries have been waiting years for help. A government contractor was hired to provide that help. The government contractor got $54 million for little to no results. Two-thirds of that money went to administration and overhead. Only 252 out of tens of thousands of vaccine-injured people were given any help at all.
On what day are the victims going to get their money?
Mr. Speaker, the allegations against the previous vendor for the vaccine injury program were absolutely unacceptable. That is why we made the administration of the program internal, to ensure money is spent appropriately. We have directed the Public Health Agency to alter the program to ensure all our dollars are spent correctly, and we look forward to working with members across the House to make sure vulnerable Canadians are looked after.
Firearms
Mr. Speaker, in 2020, the Liberals demonized law-abiding gun owners and banned over 2,500 models of firearms. Since then, violent crime and gun smuggling have only increased. Now the Supreme Court of Canada has slapped the Liberals' wrists, extending their hard-line amnesty period on their ridiculous gun grab.
Since the Prime Minister loves off-ramps so much, will he take this one and abandon this billion-dollar boondoggle that even his own public safety minister admits does not work?
Mr. Speaker, our government's decision to extend the amnesty order respects the judicial process, and it provides greater certainty for firearms owners across Canada. To date, over 142,000 firearms have been declared, and firearms owners have already begun making appointments to drop off their prohibited weapons. We will keep working to keep communities across Canada safe.
Labour
Mr. Speaker, it has been well over a year since the Liberal government received evidence that federally funded infrastructure projects were using illegal and trafficked labour, violating funding agreements and leaving legitimate trades workers on the sidelines, unemployed. The Liberal response since then has been crickets.
When will the Liberals stop funding projects that are using illegal, trafficked labourers and instead ensure the work goes to legitimate Canadian trades workers?
Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, that was a serious question that deserved a serious answer.
Buried in the Liberals' omnibus budget bill is yet another ministerial power grab. Cabinet gives itself more powers to award contracts while allowing itself to muzzle the very watchdog, the procurement ombudsman, who is meant to monitor it.
Why are the Liberals rigging the rules so they can hand out contracts without anyone watching?
Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, I want to highlight and thank the procurement ombud for the work he has done over the years and for the work he is doing.
The Auditor General also has a role to play in helping us to make sure that as we go forward with procurement, all procurements respect the highest standard and that they are done transparently in an open and competitive process, which is the basic rule.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, in 2020, the Liberals told chiefs they would make first nations policing an essential service, with new legislation and expanded service and number of communities served. Six years later, nothing has been done, and we hear every week from first nations of how their people are dying because of these broken promises when it comes to safety.
On what date will the Liberals table that policing bill and keep their promises for once?
Mr. Speaker, we have been working with first nations and Inuit police in communities across Canada to ensure the safety and security of all those in the communities. We are increasing the number of resources available for infrastructure, and we continue to ensure that funding is applied throughout the year.
What I do want to say is that if the party opposite is serious about public safety, the number one issue that has been sought is lawful access, which is Bill C-22, which the party opposite is blocking and obstructing as we speak.
Mr. Speaker, that was another non-answer.
Joseph Murdoch-Flowers, executive director of the Qajuqturvik Community Food Centre in Iqaluit, said this week that the centre has seen its daily meal count go from around 58,000 in 2022 to almost 91,000 last year. It has served 37,000 meals so far this year in a town of 7,500 people. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years, yet 58% of people in Nunavut live in food-insecure households.
After 11 years, does the Prime Minister really think Nunavut has never had it so good?
Mr. Speaker, we know that a food subsidy alone will not solve the food insecurity issue. That is why we have been working to engage 124 of the nutrition north communities to ensure that we work with them to find the solutions for their communities. What we are working toward is moving from a food subsidy to a food economy. That means a whole-of-government approach. I continue looking forward to working with the member opposite to find solutions.
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, that was another non-answer.
The Liberal government has said that it is going to make life affordable for everyday Canadians. If this is true, can the minister please stand up and explain why seniors make up the fastest-growing group in the Waterloo region facing homelessness? The wait-list for individuals over 55 needing affordable homes in the region has increased by 700%.
Mr. Speaker, that was yet another question from a member of Parliament who continually votes against the very things that would help with housing and homelessness, things like the investment in Ontario of $3 billion through the national housing strategy. The member voted against those things.
If the member really wants to help people who are suffering from housing scarcity, what she should do is stop voting against the things they need.
Government Appointments
Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a serious question and she deserves a serious answer.
The position of Canada's independent ombudsman for responsible enterprise has sat vacant for a year. Open cases have stalled, and as a result, victims of modern slavery and exploitation are blocked from justice.
Can the minister tell then House the date for when this important position will be filled, and by whom?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for that very important question.
The national contact point does amazing work to make sure that our supply chains are protected against forced labour. We will continue making sure that it does this diligent work.
In terms of the CORE, we will make a decision in due course.
Telecommunications
Mr. Speaker, do any of the ministers over there know their files?
Telecom coverage maps rely on industry claims, but in Elgin County and across southwestern Ontario, these maps do not reflect actual service, with persistent dead zones in areas where companies claim full coverage.
What precisely is the industry minister doing to ensure that rural Canadians are getting the cell service they are paying for?
Mr. Speaker, for this government, rural connectivity is very important and affordability is very important. That is why the average cellphone rate has actually gone down 43% over the last three years, while companies continue to invest in their infrastructure. We work hard with these companies and through the CRTC to make sure investments continue, including in rural Canada.
Sport
Mr. Speaker, the eyes of the world are on Canada today as the 2026 FIFA World Cup kicks off. This tournament is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. My downtown Toronto riding of Spadina—Harbourfront is set to host matches, the Canadian FIFA World Cup opening celebration and the FIFA fan festival at the Bentway. Toronto is proud to welcome the world.
Can the Secretary of State for Sport tell us what this historic moment means for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, what an extraordinary moment we are at in sport in Canada. We are so proud and excited to be co-hosting the 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup with Mexico and the United States.
Tomorrow, Canada will play its first-ever FIFA Men's World Cup match in Toronto against Bosnia and Herzegovina. It will inspire countless young Canadians. It will bring $1 billion to our national revenue. It will be watched by five billion viewers around the world.
Sport is one of Canada's greatest nation-building projects, and we are so proud to be hosting the world's biggest event this year. Go, Canada, go!
Access to Information
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to make it easier to hide information from Canadians by no longer allowing government emails or text messages to be part of an information request. Even the independent Information Commissioner is opposed.
Will the President of the Treasury Board reverse this proposal and defend Canadians' right to know?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have never seen so much excitement from the Conservatives for an answer. We can see that summer is coming. They are awakening now.
The question is very serious, and I can assure members of the House and all Canadians watching that we have some of the strongest laws when it comes to government information and disclosure. We believe in an open government. We believe in providing information to Canadians. Canadians can be assured that we have some of the strongest laws in the G7.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, perhaps somebody on that side over there can answer this question. For weeks, the Prime Minister and government ministers have insisted that strong measures are already in place to combat the importation of products using forced labour into Canada. If that is the case, why did the government give the House notice that it is going to introduce a bill entitled “An Act respecting the prohibition of the importation of goods produced by forced labour”?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has some of the most rigorous forced labour laws in the world, and we have been clear that we condemn forced labour everywhere it exists. Every good that enters the country is subject to rigorous import controls and screening. For example, Canada's new government is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Let us be a little quieter.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs can continue.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Canada's new government is hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers and investing over $670 million in the CBSA to keep our borders secure.
We will continue to protect Canada's interests while upholding labour standards for all workers.
Mr. Speaker, one of those really great laws is Bill S-211, which requires companies selling or distributing goods in Canada to produce an annual report. The Liberals, contrary to the law, revised their directive and exempted a bunch of their corporate buddies from having to file the report. Now the U.S. is investigating Canada for not fighting forced labour and is threatening us in the CUSMA talks.
Why is the government putting the CUSMA talks in jeopardy so that it can pad the pockets of its corporate buddies instead of fighting slavery?
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Canada and the United States share the goal of keeping goods produced through forced labour out of our supply chains. Canada, right now, already has strong protections in place. We will take further action to strengthen them through new legislation. We will continue working closely with our partners to uphold high labour standards and ensure fair, rules-based trade.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are facing a housing affordability crisis, with too many people unable to find a home they can afford. Our government was elected with a clear mandate to build more homes and increase housing supply.
Yesterday, the House passed Bill C-20, transforming Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation focused on accelerating affordable housing construction. Will the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure explain how this legislation will help make housing more affordable and accessible for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peterborough for her great work in the community.
Yesterday was a great day for affordable housing. Despite the opposition of members opposite, who are against affordable housing, the government passed the Build Canada Homes act here in the House. This brings us one step closer to getting affordable housing built.
Build Canada Homes will become a Crown corporation with the support of the Senate. We are looking forward to working with our senators to secure the bill's final passage and get Build Canada Homes up and running and delivering affordable—
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, for the last 45 minutes, Canadians watching at home have known that this is not answer period. The Liberals do not have a single answer, and the ministers are out of their depth. Some are reading off their cellphones, and the President of the Treasury Board is still flipping through his binder, looking for an answer to the question.
This is serious. Canadians at home are going hungry. Seniors are living on the side of the highway because they cannot afford a home. When will the government reverse its disastrous policies that got us here in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, if the member calls feeding hungry kids a disastrous policy, I would like to introduce the member to some parents and some kids in my riding in the town of Marathon.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to talk about people who are fighting against Canadians and talk about disastrous policies, a disastrous policy would be pulling out the safety nets that this government has worked hard to put there for Canadians.
When Canadians are struggling, do members know what they do not wonder in bed? They do not wonder what they can take away from their friends and neighbours. Instead, they ask, “How do we stand up for each other? How do we help people? How do we make sure—”
Marine Transportation
Mr. Speaker, Canada's national shipbuilding strategy focuses on building and maintaining vessels, but there is no plan for responsibly retiring them. More than 900 derelict and end-of-life vessels sit off B.C.'s coast, threatening the marine environment. While aging navy and Coast Guard vessels approach retirement, Canada lacks the capacity to safely recycle them here at home.
Will the Prime Minister finally commit to investing in dry dock infrastructure, in world-class ship recycling facilities and in regulations, and make ship recycling a core component of the national shipbuilding strategy?
Mr. Speaker, ship recycling is a multi-billion-dollar, worldwide industry and also an opportunity. Indeed, as the member points out, there are many derelict vessels, including many owned by the people of Canada.
We will continue to work very hard on this file. I am very well aware of the interest in the Port Alberni area in engaging in this industry. We are extremely interested in it, and I will be very pleased to continue working with the member on that issue.
[Translation]
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we already knew that the cost of acquiring the F-35s had skyrocketed, going from $19 billion to $28 billion. However, we learned that, in addition to the 72 U.S. jets, the Liberals are thinking of buying another 72 fighter jets, the Gripen, for a potential fleet of 144 fighter jets. The questions are simple.
First, is that true? Second, how much will it cost? Lastly, could this money be better invested to meet the needs of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, we are acquiring a new fleet of fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The member knows that.
We are reviewing all procurement approaches so that they align with the interests of Canadians and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. We are committed to acquiring what the air force needs, while guaranteeing economic benefits for Canadians, including Quebeckers.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Oral Questions, the President of the Treasury Board was asked a question. Now that he has had a chance to find the page, would he like to provide an answer?
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Protecting Victims Act
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), be read the third time and passed.
It being 3:08 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading of Bill C-16.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 153)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Bonin
Boulerice
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
DeBellefeuille
d'Entremont
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
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
Total: -- 192
NAYS
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
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Small
Steinley
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 133
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Fuhr
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 12
[Translation]
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to ask this long-awaited question, as my colleague the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would say. As we know, millions of Canadians look forward to this every week. I have even heard that people in France are waiting for this moment. Apparently, we are quite popular.
Last night, an article on the Radio-Canada website stated that the Prime Minister had adjourned the House. Understandably, everyone is wondering why we are still here today.
Can my dear colleague from the government tell us if we are, indeed, here? Will we be here tomorrow? Will we be here next week? If so, what business does the government have planned for all those days?
I hope the government is not planning on using time allocation again and again. That said, if we are here, we will do our job. However, we have to actually be here.
Mr. Speaker, we are clearly entering the home stretch before we head back to our ridings to spend a little more time with our constituents. When Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day rolls around, I think people, especially those from la belle province, want to go home and be with their loved ones. I hope that will be the case, both for the deputy House leader of the official opposition and for myself. In the meantime, we have a lot of work to do.
I point this out as gently as I can to my esteemed colleague, but we were intrigued the other day when the Conservatives voted to extend sitting hours until midnight. I want to emphasize that it was until midnight. We thought we were going to work together and do things for Canadians, but three hours later, shortly after dinnertime, the Conservatives voted to adjourn the House. This contradiction puzzled us and left us a bit skeptical about their willingness to work. We shall see how things play out over the next few days.
[English]
This afternoon, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, followed by debate on the Senate amendment relating to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 12, which relates to the proceedings on Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. After question period, we will proceed to debate on the Senate amendments made to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, followed by second reading debate of Bill C-27, the final self-government agreement for the Tlegohli Got’ine act.
[Translation]
As for next week, on Monday we will resume consideration of Government Business No. 12, followed by consideration of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act.
Next Tuesday's meeting will be dedicated to the consideration of Government Business No. 11 concerning proceedings on Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.
As members can see, we are planning to race to the finish line, and we are optimistic that the Conservatives and all opposition party members will work with us and with Canadians to achieve great things.
[English]
Strong and Free Elections Act
Bill C-25—Time Allocation Motion
[Government Orders]
That in relation to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and
That, at the expiry of the five hours provided consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition but not to the exclusion of some members from the government.
Members should keep their interventions to approximately one minute, and they may speak more than once.
I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.
The hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.
Mr. Speaker, after 11 summers in the House, it is interesting to see what happens, typically, every year in June, under this government. The Liberals cannot manage their agenda throughout the entire year, so they fall so far behind. They have put us on late-night hours, where we are sitting until midnight, and even then they have to cut debate short with these time allocation motions because they cannot handle the fact that we are here to debate on behalf of Canadians who have sent us to this place to debate the government bills and to make sure they are the best they can possibly be.
I strongly oppose the time allocation motion, which will shut down debate once again, just as the Liberals have been doing in committees any time we try to hold them accountable for their failed attempts at governing this country.
Mr. Speaker, l first want to say to my hon. friend, in the spirit of the season, that I can well understand why anyone with the very evocative riding name of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies would be very anxious and excited to return to that place. It sounds like an amazing place, and I hope to visit the member someday.
However, in the meantime, we are here to work. The member, perhaps, did not hear my earlier answer to his deputy House leader, where I expressed my real surprise. Yes, indeed, we are asking members of Parliament to work a little harder so that we can get the job done for Canadians, but that member voted to extend the hours until midnight. He was for that. Three hours later, he voted to adjourn the House. We did not quite understand that. That sounded like a contradiction.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the fact that the minister responsible for democratic institutions is here to get his perspective on something that happened in the National Assembly. Yesterday, they passed a bill to protect certain electoral districts. As we are well aware, each time a redistribution happens, we try to reconcile—
I must interrupt the member, as a member participating by Zoom has their microphone turned on again, interfering with the business of the House.
I invite the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj to start his question or comment from the top.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a law to protect certain ridings in my region, the Gaspé Peninsula, as well as one in Montreal.
With every electoral redistribution exercise comes tension between, on the one hand, population growth and the need to ensure that each vote carries similar relative weight, and, on the other hand, the importance of ensuring that ridings do not become too large. The Quebec National Assembly chose to protect certain ridings.
Similar situations exist at the federal level. My riding, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, now covers 23,000 square kilometres. That is larger than the area of Djibouti. Several of my colleagues have even larger ridings.
What does my colleague think we can do to better balance these two requirements?
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat to the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj that he too must be looking forward to returning to his riding.
He does indeed represent a very large riding. I admire all members, all elected officials, who drive long distances, often very late, and in all kinds of conditions, including winter conditions. It is obviously very challenging to represent people who are spread across a vast area and who, in his case, are separated by the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I really commend my colleague for that.
That said, in a democracy, we must do everything in our power to ensure that every vote carries equal weight, whether it is cast in Montreal or in Percé. We always try to respect that fundamental principle, one that is actually recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express that this is my first full year in the House, and I find it a bit disappointing, in fact a lot disappointing, that the government had all year to get this work done, yet it is imposing closure. A bill such as this, which arguably does not have a lot of controversy attached to it, would have been very easy to pass with the process that we had allowed, yet we have these games from the Liberal government.
We are here to work as long as possible to make sure that we shine the light of transparency onto everything the government is doing, and I really would appreciate a comment from the government as to how transparency is served by closure.
Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine how beautiful the panorama of the Bow River is this time of year. The member has only been here for a year. I have been here 11 years and have witnessed the very imaginative ways the Conservatives conceive of to delay, stall and otherwise obstruct the passage of legislation, even, as the member points out, legislation as non-controversial and consensual as this bill is.
I do want to take a moment to express my appreciation, in terms of the development of this bill, for the co-operation that I have received from all parts of this House. It is a signal testament to this country that, at the very minimum, we can all agree on the rules of the game and change the Elections Act without rancour.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words about Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which is an absolutely wonderful place.
I would like to ask him another question.
The action that the Quebec National Assembly took to reconcile these two principles, or in other words to guarantee equality of voting power and ensure that the ridings are not too big, led to an increased number of MNAs. The number of members of the Quebec National Assembly is going to increase from 125 to 127.
Is my colleague prepared to consider that type of solution to ensure that federal ridings remain manageable in size so that citizens truly have access to their MP?
Mr. Speaker, that is a very important principle, particularly for those of us who like to be close to our constituents.
It is clear that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that I mentioned allows for some variation in the populations of ridings, as well as in terms of distances and riding size.
However, in a democracy, we need to ensure that one vote carries roughly the same weight as another vote cast elsewhere. It is a matter of finding the right balance. I think the members of the Quebec National Assembly also recognize that they have merely identified a problem, not solved one. They reached a compromise.
I do not have much to say about the action that the Quebec National Assembly is taking, other than to note that it is very important in a democracy for every vote to carry roughly the same weight.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the minister's response to the Thursday question, because I think it is important for Canadians who watch the debates to see the games that the Conservatives play on an ongoing basis, whether by obstructing, by wasting time or by sending conflicting messages.
A good example of that is what the House leader made reference to. One day, the Conservatives said, “Yes, we want to sit late”, but later the same day, they proposed that we adjourn in the early evening. The following day, there were two adjournment motions on Bill C-16, which is important crime legislation for protecting Canadian victims and making our communities safer. The Conservatives again, and not once but twice, moved adjournment. It seems to me that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives to try to prevent legislation from passing.
Can the House leader provide his thoughts on why it is so important that we deliver for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have a very ambitious agenda. You have been in the chair for much of it. We have a very wide-ranging series of crime bills, including the bill that my hon. friend just mentioned on protecting victims, protecting children and warning against child pornography. These are very important measures.
To go back to the question from my friend from Bow River, all this work culminates at the end of a session. Of course the government wants to move forward on things that have been debated, and in fact obstructed, in many creative ways throughout the session. That is what we are doing currently. To have the opposition vote, three hours later, against its very solemn vote to prolong the hours of the House so we could work harder and get more done for Canadians was intriguing, to say the least.
Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleagues and I have zero issue with putting in the work and putting in the hours. We will work on weekends. We will work during the summer. We will do whatever we can to support Canadians.
The problem we have is that the bill is about elections. All 343 members of the chamber would be affected. All the millions of people whom we collectively represent would be affected. It is a bill about the nature of democracy. The Liberals have allowed, I believe, two members to speak to the bill about the most fundamental institution in a democratic country, and now they are trying to shut down debate. They are trying to silence members of Parliament who may have a lot of things to offer about this. This is perhaps not surprising, given the way the Prime Minister has decided to try to circumvent Parliament, circumvent the House of Commons and not rise during question period.
Is the member the House leader because he shares the Prime Minister's contempt for Parliament?
Mr. Speaker, the member is perhaps unaware of the very constructive, long hours, and Canadians should know that in this place, a lot of work goes on behind the scenes. Sometimes parties do not find it to their interest to let on that they are co-operating with other parties. I would put to the member that in the case of Bill C-25, we have worked very hard, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. I want to commend once again his colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River for his very hard work on this and for his very constructive suggestions.
The bill has been the subject of much co-operation and of long committee meetings. Indeed, we will come to, I suspect, a very strong majority of parliamentarians voting for the bill. I think it is very important that Canadians see, at the very minimum, that parliamentarians, the House of Commons, can agree on the rules of the game.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question for my colleague. I really enjoyed his answer, and we read the same Supreme Court decision.
My question is this: Is he ready to consider increasing the number of federal ridings to ensure that they retain their human scale?
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we voted during the last Parliament to protect the number of seats in Quebec and keep the number of Quebec electoral ridings at 78. Parliament has therefore taken concrete measures to ensure Quebec's representation. Unless I am mistaken, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act contains a formula that provides for increasing the number of seats after each census and after each redistribution.
Obviously, we will need a day to debate whether a sufficient number of parliamentarians has been reached. Seats will then have to be redistributed, but that raises a good question and it will certainly have to be debated.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up riding size as an issue. He said that his riding is about 20,000 square kilometres. Mine is 83,600 square kilometres, so I feel that it is an even worse situation.
The hon. member said he wanted all the votes to be equal. Would he endeavour to have the review a little more often? I know that in Alberta, we each represent 115,000 people on average, far more than members in some of the other provinces do. Would the Liberals consider shortening the time for the review rather than having it every 10 years?
Mr. Speaker, as the member may know, there is a law in place that establishes the number of seats, how they are distributed and so on. I think he said there are about 115,000 people in his riding, which is about the same number as in my own riding of Gatineau.
For the most part, I think that with respect to ridings, other than the constitutional obligations we have at the founding of the country, we have achieved a very good balance and a very good way of dividing constituencies. That, of course, means that Yellowhead is a very large riding because of its vast, beautiful spaces, with people distributed all around the territory. That is, of course, a challenge for anyone who seeks to represent that incredible part of our country, but it is one we need to continue to address by following the Supreme Court's guidance that, while we should deviate a little bit, one vote in one place should equal what one vote in another place is worth.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to note that the Bloc Québécois members share all the sentiments that have been expressed today regarding the police officers who lost their lives in Ontario. I think that is important.
I also want to acknowledge my dear friend Normand Branchaud, who is celebrating 60 years as a musician this weekend. He is an extraordinary individual who bought his first harmonica with three and a half dollars that he earned by running errands. I congratulate him.
I have a question for my colleague. Is music a big part of his life?
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to invite Mr. Branchaud to come to Gatineau to entertain us at one of our many festivals this summer, including the hot air balloon festival. I want to wish Mr. Branchaud a happy anniversary. I would love to hear him play someday.
Music is an essential part of my life. Whether we are talking about Québécois music, francophone music or music in general, I am a big fan of music, and I would be happy to talk about it with the Bloc Québécois whip at some point.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the strongest democracies in the world, but we can never take that for granted. We need to protect the independence of our judiciary. We need a strong parliamentary system, and we need strong journalism. Obviously we can never take our democracy for granted. We need to strengthen those institutions.
I know that one of the measures that struck me as being particularly important in this legislation is reviewing the ways people can make political donations, including the use of crypto. I wonder if the minister wants to speak to the importance of knowing where the money that fuels our democracy comes from.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know that we have one of the most successful and most rigorously managed election contribution systems in the world. It is completely transparent and strictly limited with respect to donation amounts, and it is one that does not permit corporations, unions or others to participate directly in the financing of political parties or of candidates.
Cryptocurrency, and its rise, has obviously presented, in the context of those very efficient and well-run systems, as in other areas such as money laundering and the like, ways of getting around the laws. We have taken measures in the bill to make sure that cryptocurrency would play no part in the funding of our political process or of candidates.
Mr. Speaker, let us expand on what the government House leader just said. Given the fact that the proposed changes in Bill C-25 would do nothing for the inter-writ period as far as election financing is concerned, and given that the government has complained so much about other pieces of legislation dealing with economic and crime issues, I find it kind of odd, since the ill-gotten majority the Liberals have means that the next election, in theory, is not going to be for another three years. Why would they use the extended hours at the end of the session to discuss an election bill, when it would not do anything in the inter-writ period?
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, after every election, the Chief Electoral Officer, the commissioner of Canada elections and, in this instance, the inquiry into foreign interference all presented recommendations, as our election officials do after every election. They present their views. Because of the last Parliament's minority status, we are actually catching up on the recommendations from the prior election.
We are very happy to have worked with our friends across the aisle on those very recommendations to find a consensus on making the fixes, doing the tweaks and making the reforms necessary to make sure our elections administration stays as it currently is: among the finest, most reputed and reputable in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple.
I would like to know if my colleague opposite, the government leader, has seen or read the remarks by the National Assembly's cybersecurity lead, Stéphane Le Bouyonnec, and if he noticed any red flags. In committee, Mr. Le Bouyonnec talked about the risks associated with insufficient digital sovereignty.
In the case before us, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs held 70 meetings before finally securing an independent public inquiry that confirmed there has been interference in our elections.
If Quebec says it is not sufficiently equipped, how can we think we have nothing to worry about here when 85% of the infrastructure is owned by south-of-the-border interests?
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I am not claiming we have solved everything, but I can say one thing. We held a public inquiry into foreign interference, and although some instances of interference were identified and named, the commissioner concluded that, on the whole, Canadian democracy is in good shape and that it is Canadians who determine the outcomes of elections.
That said, when it comes to digital sovereignty, it is true that we must protect our institutions. This bill contains specific provisions on security and cybersecurity, and we will continue to implement them. Elections Canada has become very effective in this area.
I would be happy to continue this discussion with my colleague. We are always ready to explore ways to protect our sovereignty and our institutions through various measures, including legislative ones.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal government scandals, foreign interference concerns and loss of public trust, the government wants Parliament to rush through the bill and change the rules governing federal elections. This process deprives Canadians of a fulsome debate. Why is the government focused on rewriting election laws instead of rebuilding the trust that Canadians have lost? They need trust brought back to democratic institutions.
That is not what the Liberals are doing. They have spent years undermining that trust. Why do they not work on affordability, crime prevention and economic growth so Canadians can once again trust what their government is doing?
Mr. Speaker, we are working. In fact, we are trying, in the face of Conservative obstruction, to pass a very sweeping set of criminal justice measures and affordability measures. The Conservatives are filibustering two of them right now, the spring economic statement bill and the lawful access bill, that we are very much hoping to accomplish for Canadians.
I do want to suggest that the member's question might be a little off tone. I have worked very closely with his colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River and parliamentarians from all sides of this House so that we can do just that: ensure trust in our democratic institutions.
Elections Canada is the pride of this country. It runs efficient and fair elections. No one ever questions its methods. It suggests many ways, after elections, that we can reform, tweak or change some of the rules. We do that together with all parties, and we agree on the rules of the game. That is the very basis of achieving trust in our democracy.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this time I will ask my colleague a question that relates to the topic at hand. That said, I really liked his previous answer, which I am sure will be greatly appreciated.
My colleague referred earlier to the vote we took during the previous Parliament to maintain Quebec's political representation at 78 ridings. We know that the demographic weight of the Quebec nation will continue to decline in the federal Parliament. There are groups currently putting pressure on the government to introduce some form of proportional representation in the electoral process. There is the issue of multiple candidates. Bill C-25 directly addresses the issue.
Does my colleague think that, because the Constitution cannot be amended in Canada, it would be realistic at some point to embark on a process to introduce an element of proportionality into our voting system? That would certainly reassure our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, but first I want to come back to my colleague's previous question about music. I want to recommend that he listen to Le Diable à Cinq, a group that has done La Petite Nation proud. This band just released a new album and I would invite my colleague to get a copy and listen to it all summer long.
As for the issue of proportional representation or democratic reform, we tried to bring about democratic reform here and it became quite clear that there was a lack of consensus, both among parliamentarians and among Canadians. We have a great democracy. In my opinion, we have one of the best democratic systems in the world. It is not perfect, but that is why we are making a few changes today. We can be proud of our democracy.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada as an organization is recognized virtually around the world as a first-class institution that does a great service for Canadians in terms of its conduct and the manner in which it administers national elections. It is something that we can all be proud of.
The member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River provided his comments on Bill C-25, and in listening to him, I got the sense that, yes, there may be some changes in the future, but the legislation as we see it today has been achieved through consensus, whether through committee discussions or by listening to all the stakeholders, who have ultimately helped put in changes. Some of these changes are going to have impacts that will occur between elections.
I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on that.
Mr. Speaker, it is very satisfying to work on ensuring trust in our democratic institutions. We need to remain vigilant. I need not explain all of the reasons why and how society, social media and other things have influenced and impacted our democracy.
As many stakeholder groups have pointed out, we need to be watching and on guard for things like misinformation, disinformation and deepfakes, and need to continue to be vigilant so that Canadians can always make an informed choice based on truth and facts. That is our goal. I am sure that is the goal of all members of the House.
We are going to continue working through Elections Canada to make sure that fair elections are a defining characteristic of our country.
Mr. Speaker, by moving this motion, the government is shutting down debate about the very underpinnings of our democracy: our elections. There are a number of concerns that I could have raised. There are some positive things in here. For example, when it comes to foreign influence, there are some positive steps, but it still remains open in terms of so-called third parties being able to bring in foreign influence to engage in partisan activity.
Does the member find it ironic that the government is shutting down debate on the very underpinnings of our democracy in an anti-democratic way like this?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend did not hear my earlier answer to his colleague when I spoke of the great collaboration.
I want to end where I began, by thanking colleagues from all corners of the House of Commons for coming together on this very important bill, which I am sure will get a very important number of votes as we go through third reading.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, Public Safety; and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Science and Innovation.
The question is as follows. May I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of motion to House]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 154)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dandurand
Danko
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Total: -- 167
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAlbas
Allison
Anderson
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 156
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Fuhr
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 12
[Translation]
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are leaving for what we hope are greener pastures. I imagine most of them are heading to committee meetings. Hopefully they will go well. There are not many meetings left before the session ends.
I would like to say a few words about Bill C-25. Since we are nearing the end of the process having debated it in the House and discussed it at length in committee, I am not going to leave people in suspense. The Bloc is going to vote in favour of Bill C-25, which has moved forward with relative consensus in both the House and in committee. Everything went smoothly, that much is true. Furthermore, once I have outlined the bill's objectives, I will highlight its strengths. I will save the less positive aspects for last, because there are some.
Bill C-25 amends the Canada Elections Act and addresses various issues.
More specifically, it seeks to prevent large numbers of candidates from registering, as the protesters from the longest ballot committee have done. The hope is that we avoid ending up with ballots featuring 290 candidates that have to be unfolded like road maps and clog up the ballot boxes. We have worked to find solutions to prevent this from happening again.
The bill also aims to strengthen the integrity, security and transparency of federal elections, but once again, there are a few minor pitfalls that I will address later. The bill seeks to update the electoral framework to address the risks of disinformation, foreign interference and cybersecurity. These issues were not yet as prominent during the last review of the Canada Elections Act.
The bill also seeks to formally change the names of certain electoral districts. I will take the liberty of going over the changes affecting my colleagues. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will now have a much easier riding name to remember. She will become the hon. member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. The member for Jonquière's riding name will get a little longer, but it will make his constituents happy. He will now be known as the member for “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. The Bloc Québécois already has the maple capital in one of its ridings. Now we officially have the blueberry capital too.
The member for Rimouski—La Matapédia is heading in the opposite direction of the future member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. From now on, he will be the member for “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. That name includes every single RCM in his riding.
As I was saying, the goals of the reform introduced by Bill C-25 are broad and entirely legitimate, but in our view, they have not been fully achieved. I said we would be generous, so we will talk about the positives. One of the changes to the Canada Elections Act is the end of anonymous donations. The new version of the act will no longer allow it.
It used to be allowed. People may not know this, but it used to be possible to make a donation completely anonymously, including through prepaid credit cards or cryptocurrencies that are impossible to trace. The new version of the act states that, should a member of Parliament happen to receive this type of donation, the money would be returned to the donor or destroyed if the donor could not be identified.
This prevents funding from being received from obscure sources, such as donations from foreign entities. Attempts are being made to interfere with our elections. This is one aspect of the bill that helps counter this interference, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly common. Just look at the work carried out by Justice Hogue, who chaired the foreign interference commission.
There are also stricter guidelines for nomination contests. In the wake of what is known in Quebec as the brownie scandal, we expected to see an equivalent measure put in place at the federal level, because Quebec had already quickly stated that it would close this loophole allowing fundraising for certain people in an electoral process, including leadership candidates and nomination contestants.
In stronghold ridings, the question is not so much who will win the riding as who will win the nomination contest. If a party is contributing money to a nomination contestant, there is a reasonable expectation, in some cases, that they would then become the member of Parliament.
That was not covered, but Quebec acted swiftly. We were happy to see the federal government follow suit. We were prepared to introduce a bill to that effect, but everything we were prepared to introduce was included in Bill C-25. We applaud the initiative.
As for the work that is also being done on disinformation and other forms of interference, we know that interference can be done through social media and online publications, among other things. The bill already prohibits deepfakes, which mislead people and cause them to unduly vote against a candidate or favour a candidate by manipulating the content of a post or publication. We have seen examples of members of Parliament being victims of deepfakes that encouraged people to invest in certain products, which was completely misleading. Therefore, the bill prohibits creating or disseminating AI-generated content that falsely claims to be authentic and is in fact intended to deceive voters about a political actor or even the electoral process itself.
We are also banning disinformation specifically regarding the electoral process. Unfortunately, among our neighbours to the south, we are seeing more people growing to distrust the integrity of the process. Bill C-25 addresses exactly that. It aims to expand existing provisions to further crack down on the publication of false or misleading information regarding voting procedures, such as voter eligibility, the various candidates and the nomination process. For example, a publication urging people to vote the day after the election would be subject to penalties now provided for in the bill.
Bill C-25 also addresses issues related to hacking. There are new offences related to hacking and the unauthorized use of a computer, among other things.
One of the issues that has interested us greatly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is the idea of preventing a large number of candidates from running. We know that the right to run for office is a fundamental right, but unfortunately we have seen in the past that this right has been used to subvert democracy. It was a highly militant act to attempt to break the record for the longest ballot.
Every member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed on the importance of addressing this issue, to the extent that we even moved a motion to conduct a study in committee specifically on the longest ballot. Most of the recommendations that emerged from that study are reflected in the bill. For example, it is now impossible for an official agent in a riding to serve as the official agent for multiple candidates. The longest ballot committee had a single official agent for 290 candidates. This is nonsensical considering the fact that legitimate candidates are meant to compete against one another.
Bill C-25 also establishes a new offence intended to deter individuals from encouraging voters to sign multiple nomination forms. We know that approach taken by the longest ballot committee involved group signing sessions where everyone would gather together and sign numerous nomination forms in a single sitting.
The bill also makes it an offence for a candidate to provide false or misleading information on their nomination forms or to encourage people to sign unidentified nomination forms. One of the things the committee pointed out was that, in order to recruit candidates, their nomination forms are already provided for them. Blank forms are already signed and given to them so that they can apply.
Various offences have also been added in this respect, but something has been added that we do not agree with. I am referring to prohibiting a voter from signing more than one nomination form. I talked about group signing sessions earlier, when a hundred or so forms are signed in a single sitting. That is one thing. However, a voter may legitimately want to or wish to sign more than one nomination form. Adding this limit, in our opinion, does not solve the problem. That is what the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, confirmed. The CEO does not have sufficient resources to cross-reference the data between the nomination forms to see whether there are indeed multiple signatures. In any case, candidates would not de disqualified on that basis.
Canada's Chief Electoral Officer has been very clear on this point. Allowing multiple signatures would not disallow certain candidates, in part because it would be impossible to determine which signature was obtained first in order and then establish which ballot is valid or invalid. This therefore places an unnecessary burden on the voters—not on the candidates—as they must limit themselves to signing only one nomination form. In our view, this also runs counter to the principle of the ballot secrecy.
If a voter is limited to a single signature, they might legitimately conclude that they are indirectly supporting a candidate and that, since they can sign only one nomination form, they will sign the nomination form of someone they are interested in. This could harm candidates from smaller parties. Indeed, if a candidate from a small party or even an independent candidate has to inform people that they can sign only one nomination form, that person may want to reserve their signature for someone from a larger party. It becomes difficult for someone from a smaller party to get signatures.
This could be seen as undermining ballot secrecy, but perhaps individuals who have not yet made up their mind might want to support two candidates running against each other so that they can make a more informed decision between the two later on. They might then want to sign two nomination forms, which would now be prohibited under the new legislation, which, as I mentioned, does not compel them one way or another. It might be a deterrent, but given the other offences created, particularly those targeting individuals who induce others to sign more than one nomination form, in this case the offences would apply to a voter. In certain cases the voter might mean well by signing more than one nomination form, and in any event, the various candidates would be accepted. That was the part that bothered us.
I also spoke about the fight against foreign interference. There is no denying that when it comes to elections, what really matters is money. Deepfakes, bribes and misinformation were all looked at. When it comes to fundraising, an attempt was made to address the matter of foreign funds, but the issue has only been partially dealt with, because it is still possible to circumvent the intent of the bill. I will explain what I mean.
Under the new legislation, a third-party entity that might want to promote an idea during an election campaign without being a political party may do so only with Canadian funds. So far, so good. However, we were told that for smaller entities, it becomes a bit complicated to sort out which funds are exclusively Canadian and which of their own funds come from various sources. To avoid complicating matters by requiring such entities to maintain separate bank accounts, the idea was to allow third parties to use up to 10% of their funds, regardless of the source of those funds, in order to participate in an election. It is worth mentioning that the Conservatives did a good job on this issue.
The problem is that for a third-party entity with vast resources, 10% can amount to a significant sum. For example, if several small entities were to join forces and raise a fund of $200 million, $20 million could still be spent without the source of the money being identified. We would have preferred to maintain the principle that only Canadian funds can be used to campaign in an election on behalf of a third party, rather than having this loophole that ultimately allows donations from outside the country to be accepted without additional scrutiny.
We are also disappointed that parties will no longer be required to provide five days' notice of a fundraising event and post it on their website. The report submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada would remove the exact addresses of those participating in the fundraising event for entirely valid security reasons, and I understand that. However, virtually all information about the donors is removed. We would have liked to at least retain the location and time of the event, as well as the postal codes of those who attended.
All of this comes in the wake of what happened with Wealth One Bank. There was a fundraising event in the Papineau riding that Chinese stakeholders had participated in. In the days that followed the fundraising event, the 46 donors from the Toronto area who had participated in it secured federal approval for the creation of their chartered bank, giving them the right to operate in Canada.
It was a form of pay to play. As a result, in 2018, the government created more transparency surrounding fundraisers by requiring the names of attendees to be disclosed. However, these provisions have been removed from the bill, which we believe is an unwarranted step backward when the goal is more transparency.
Another shocking irritant is the fact that the Liberals voted against our recommendation. The bill removes the requirement to return funds to donors when a violation occurs in the filing of the report within 30 days of a fundraising activity. For example, someone might neglect to file a report. It would then never be known who attended a fundraiser. The party would be fined, which it could pay out of the funds raised at that very event. This means that there is no deterrent to committing a violation when people hold a fundraiser, because they could reimburse themselves using the funds collected during that event if the rules are not followed. That is something that the Liberals removed from the original legislation. We tried to restore it through an amendment, but unfortunately it did not pass. That was certainly disappointing.
As I also mentioned, we would have liked to see more transparency in the reports. Both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois tried to achieve this. Unfortunately, their efforts went nowhere.
Another issue was raised, and that is privacy. We know that this is a very sensitive issue these days. Our digital identity is becoming increasingly prevalent and increasingly important. Governments must follow suit and ensure that organizations collecting sensitive information protect it adequately.
Bill C-25 takes a small step in the right direction by requiring parties to adopt formal privacy policies. However, it does not go any further, and that creates problems. The idea that parties will self-regulate when it comes to protecting privacy is flawed. For example, different parties will likely have different policies, and there is no federal framework to ensure consistency among them. This is essentially self-regulation, which is problematic.
Furthermore, last June, we passed Bill C-4. This bill allows political parties to be exempt from privacy protection measures implemented in Quebec and the other provinces. For example, a province may adopt a rigorous data protection regime that it wishes to impose on organizations such as federal political parties. This is precisely what British Columbia did, and that is what prompted the decision regarding Bill C-4. However, Bill C-4 exempts federal parties from the application of these measures.
We wanted to reinstate this requirement in the new version of the Canada Elections Act, but it was not included. Several witnesses told us that, pending a national federal privacy policy for political parties, ensuring that parties are at least subject to provincial regulations was the lesser of two evils. If a province has strict regulations, one can assume that the parties will comply with them. At the very least, in the meantime, while we wait for a genuine national policy, this would help unify data protection systems, rather than letting the parties regulate themselves.
I see that my time is almost up and that I have just a few seconds left. I just want to point out that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill even though it could have been improved more than it was. This is a little like someone telling us they are going to repaint the house, but they end up painting just one room and dirtying the floor in the process. It is better than it was, but it is not perfect.
Anyway, we will vote in favour of the bill even though it is somewhat disappointing, unfortunately. We hope that, in the near future, we will have an opportunity to revisit those shortcomings and fix them.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting when the member was talking about the longest ballot issue. I am in full agreement on how we are moving forward with the official agents, because it makes absolutely no sense at all to have a multitude of candidates being represented in one riding by one official agent. That is a positive.
The area that caught my interest was her explanation of getting the nomination form signed. When I go to the doors, I will often say it does not mean they are supporting me. All it means is that I am able to get my name on the ballot. Generally speaking, people of all political stripes are very sympathetic to that. I am somewhat concerned about the Bloc's looking for an alternative to it.
Because Elections Canada has a mechanism to enable party feedback, has the Bloc party's representative provided that sort of feedback on the issue? If not, maybe that is something they could review in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, to answer the parliamentary secretary's question, it is important to remember that the measure has still not been adopted. In fact, it does not exist until the bill receives royal assent.
We made these recommendations in committee proactively and asked the Chief Electoral Officer some questions directly. Who better to answer our questions than the Chief Electoral Officer himself? He confirmed that, in any case, there is no way to implement an enforcement mechanism to prevent someone from signing more than one nomination form.
He told us very openly that he hoped this measure would act as a deterrent, but that, otherwise, we could not hope to solve the problem with this measure alone. Our argument is that all the other measures, such as the single official agent that the parliamentary secretary mentioned and the sanctions imposed on those who encourage someone to sign multiple nomination forms, would be enough.
In other words, there is no added value in the requirement to have a single signature, although there are several disadvantages.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech, which was clearly very well researched. I also want to congratulate her, not only on her new role, although she has been in that role for a while, but also on a wonderful year, both personally and professionally. In fact, all our colleagues I talk to about are very happy for her. Everyone is pleased with the work done by my colleague.
Speaking of election laws, as parliamentarians we are in an extraordinary conflict of interest, since that is our job. That is our job and the reality we face. Our organizations, meaning political parties, are directly affected by the rules we adopt.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on her party's experience over the past year. This is a unique situation, not unlike the well-known 50%-plus-one debate, where a single vote made a difference and the courts were called upon to rule on it.
Can my colleague share the lessons we, as a society, were able to learn from this event?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk for his kind words. First of all, I really appreciate it. He is a colleague that I hold in high regard.
There is a lot in that question. I think that many people have learned a number of lessons, sometimes different ones. However, the one that is perhaps the most objective and applies to all parties, and even more so to the public, is the idea that every vote counts. I think that is the lesson everyone has learned.
As for the rest, the methods used, all parties have been able to draw various lessons. However, I am sure that, as they knocked on doors, all parties had to remind people that every vote can make a difference.
We saw a very concrete example of this during the last election, and it is something that will probably set a precedent for the future. We need to remind people that, even if they may sometimes think otherwise, their vote can have a significant impact.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague.
I served on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for over two years. Yes, we had begun considering this issue before any foreign interference occurred. It took up some 70 meetings; I remember it like it was yesterday.
My question is very simple. I am surprised, even disappointed, when we talk about loopholes for foreign funds. When we seek impartiality and transparency, what are the consequences of not being able to block money that we cannot detect?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She hit the nail on the head. The problem of interference stems from an inability to identify the source. One thing became clear in committee, and that is the fact that, unfortunately, we will always be one step behind. Hostile foreign actors will always have vast resources at their disposal that allow them to find legal loopholes.
The problem is that when we are aware of these loopholes and choose not to close them, we become partly responsible for our own misfortune. I gave some examples, including allowing a third party to use up to 10% of its own funds to conduct activities during an election campaign. A third-party organization could have $200 million in the bank from its own funds, which could come from the United States, China, or anywhere. That still amounts to $20 million that it can use with impunity, rather than having to go through a separate bank account where only Canadian funds would be used.
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are a bit disappointed that the Liberals voted against some of our amendments. I think that will affect how we will vote.
I would like to know what the Bloc Québécois member thinks of some of these amendments, particularly those aimed at strengthening the security of ballot boxes, as well as the measures designed to close loopholes that allow third parties to advertise on behalf of one party or another.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question in excellent French. I am very grateful for that.
As for the funding loophole, I previously talked about it when I was answering my colleague's question.
In terms of the security of the ballot boxes, this was a Conservative amendment that was very interesting on the substance, but not as interesting in form, in our opinion, because it wanted to include something very specific into the Elections Act to protect ballot boxes. If memory serves, I remember, for example, that the clause provided for the use of a three-point locking system, along with video surveillance. This is something that, in our opinion, should be in the regulations instead, which allow for much more flexibility.
Including the principle of the security of ballot boxes is something that could have been done by amending the act. However, very specific proposals were made, for example, with regard to using a three-point locking system. In five years, that may be a completely outdated technology. We would then be stuck with an election law that is no longer up to date, which would impose on the party something that no longer works and that cannot be changed other than through a legislative amendment. However, in that context, the regulations would have allowed for more flexibility.
It was a really great idea. The way it was carried out might have warranted a different approach. That is why we voted against it. It was not the principle that we took issue with, but rather the way it was handled.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would expand on something. We have talked about deepfakes, which she made reference to, and social media, and the potential harms. Does the Bloc have anything to suggest that goes beyond what is in the legislation?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I only wish I had other suggestions. The questions were put to the witnesses. We were coming back to the idea that technology advances so quickly that we are always lagging behind, which is why it is perhaps important to review the legislation on a regular basis.
The law's current provisions serve a legitimate purpose, but I still get the sense it will never be enough. That is why it is so important for members and political actors not to add fuel to the fire by spreading disinformation, which, unfortunately, is often used to feed deepfakes.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[Translation]
National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act
The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-267, An Act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, when someone's refrigerator breaks down, they call a technician. If he says that the part is no longer available, that the documentation is missing or was never available, or that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance, that person is forced to spend $500, $1,000, or even more, to replace something that could have been, and should have been, repaired.
This is not bad luck. It is a business model. It is called “planned obsolescence”.
Devices are deliberately designed not to last, not to be repairable and to force replacement. This model costs Canadian families dearly every year.
I must interrupt the member.
I have checked with the clerks at the table. Debate on the member's bill has already taken place. This is the second hour, and he will have the right of reply only at the very end of the second hour.
I believe I will resume the debate. If other members wish to rise and participate, they may do so. As for the member, he will have his right of reply at the very end of the second hour of debate.
The member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is also a pleasure to be speaking today about Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances.
In a former Parliament, I served as the critic for the environment for the Conservatives. One of the big criticisms I had of Liberal policies was about the Liberals' promise, in one of their platform pledges, that they would make all home appliances Energy Star. One might think that Energy Star sounds like a very good thing. If everyone had Energy Star appliances in their homes, they would have access to the lowest electrical usage machines available in Canada or in North America for laundry, dishwashing and all things.
However, many people do not know that, first of all, Energy Star is an American designation that essentially says that to be Energy Star, a product has to be among the top 25% most energy-conserving products out there. Someone might ask what is wrong with that. The first thing it does is it raises prices, because energy-reducing technology costs more. It usually uses advanced technology and chips, which also costs more.
Essentially, if a person is a private citizen of low income, like a pensioner, is someone who is starting out or is a single mother, and suddenly their dryer, washer or dishwasher blows out and they have to go to the local store, they would only get access to a quarter of the inventory out there, with the most expensive products only. This would push people into used ones, and perhaps that is not a bad thing, but only wealthy Canadians would probably be able to afford to buy new.
Now fast-forward to this bill. I will quote the preamble:
Whereas Canadian households bear significant costs when they have to replace electronic products and essential home appliances prematurely;
Whereas consumers increasingly depend on electronic products and essential home appliances in their everyday lives;
Whereas product durability and repairability help protect consumers, reduce household expenses and boost the competitiveness of a responsible economy;
Whereas transparency about the useful life of products and the support available for them fosters a fairer and more competitive market;
And whereas Parliament considers it desirable to establish a national framework for products marketed in Canada in order to promote minimum standards of durability and repairability;
These are all noble things, and I am happy to see the Liberal Party, or at least one member, recognize that we should all be focused on affordability. This exactly opposite to their approach in previous iterations. The Trudeau government was trying to raise standards to make things more costly. Now this particular member is doing a U-turn.
Where have we seen this before? It is in other environmental areas, such as the carbon tax. Many of the people who are currently sitting in the Liberal Party used to say that Conservatives should support a carbon tax, which would save Canada, lower our emissions, stop forest fires, and everything else. During the 2021 election, a minister of the Crown said to me that I had a “moral failing” for failing to support their increased emissions targets, which were going from 40% to 45%.
Because I would not support that increased goal, they said I had a moral failure, yet now the same Liberal Party members of Parliament have done a U-turn, and so much so that even the former Quebec lieutenant has said that he does not feel that he can be effective in that caucus anymore and has simply said, “I'm out.” It is very interesting to see these changes, and I am sure that some members opposite would understand why some of us feel like we have political whiplash because of the quick changes.
It is really important for us to point out a couple of things. First of all, this particular bill tries to push manufacturers on the aspect of durability. One thing we have to bear in mind is that none of these manufacturers are here in Canada. We are very integrated north-south. In the North American market, almost all of the manufacturers for washers, dryers, refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers are in the United States. Obviously, some come from places like Korea and whatnot, but the fact of the matter is that this particular bill is trying to push manufacturers to do things differently when they are not here in Canada. Therefore, there is, first of all, that disconnect in the approach that is taken.
The second thing I would say is that the Liberals always seem to believe they have an outsized influence on these things. If a manufacturer is in the United States, who are they making their products for? They are not making Energy Star products specifically and marketing only them. They are selling to a wide variety of people.
One of the biggest challenges here is that if we are asking to make things more durable, industry will say this makes them more expensive. How does that work? Well, if something is more durable, perhaps it requires more steel. If something is more durable, perhaps it uses less plastic. To make something more durable, perhaps it has to use a more expensive alternative refrigeration system. Again, these are important questions to be asking, because, essentially, asking for something to be more durable and wanting it to be cheaper are contradictory concepts.
This is being placed in a far-removed conversation, because they are not Canadian manufacturers and the manufacturers do not consider Canada to be their primary target. In fact, we benefit here in Canada by having access to other markets because the economies of scale in places like the United States give us cheaper products. If we were to suddenly say to them that they have to do these things, when they are not our manufacturers and are not manufacturing things with the Canadian market in mind, that conversation would not go anywhere.
This bill states this in the “National framework” component:
The Minister must, in consultation with the representatives of the provincial governments responsible for consumer protection
This is an interesting part, because provinces can, if they choose, set a level playing field when it comes to things like warranties. Warranties are consumer protections, so it makes sense that there would be some discussion here, but would a foreign manufacturer listen to Prince Edward Island? I do not know. I do not think that would be the case, because, while I respect the members who come from Prince Edward Island, it has a small population.
It is one of those curious aspects of our Constitution, to wax eloquently about our Constitution for a moment, that at the founding of our country, we gave authority to deal with these large manufacturers to the provinces. The provinces can enforce basic standards of contract, which include things like warranties. However, the federal government would be expected here to create, through the Minister of Industry, a framework that would affect things all across the country and a group of companies that are not Canadian.
I am opposed to this particular bill, but I do look forward to hearing the arguments of other members on it today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, one of the major challenges of the fast pace of modern life is to avoid living in a bubble. It is important to understand what happens before consuming a product and what happens after. The lemon in my glass grew somewhere, and it will end up somewhere. In the case of my phone, people had to work in mines to extract the material needed to produce it, and it will eventually end up somewhere. Sometimes we forget that, but we must not forget it. We need to be aware of that, for the sake of the planet.
Last weekend, I was in the Magdalen Islands. We were hauling lobster traps. For six hours, we were at sea off Havre-aux-Maisons, catching lobster after lobster. Later when I sat down to a lobster dinner, I knew where it came from and what it took to put it on the plate. I think that gave me a broader perspective on things.
The image that I want to start my speech with is that of a mine. My riding is rich in resources. The Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region is often referred to as a resource region.
On Sunday morning, I visited Quebec's only salt mine, which is located in the Magdalen Islands. Last summer, I was in Murdochville, where I visited the copper mine.
We cannot forget what a mine entails. Of course, we need minerals to function. We need them, but when mines are opened, it scars the environment. It creates a hole, and there will be tailings. It is a necessary evil, but even when done according to best practices, the fact remains that it has an impact on the environment. We need to keep that in mind when talking about an iPhone or a Samsung, or when talking about a washer or a dryer. We need to remember that mines were opened to provide us with the materials to make these products.
The other image I want to illustrate is that of landfills. My colleagues may have already seen pictures. These days, landfills are enormous, with birds flying overhead and machinery piling up the waste. Every time we fill a landfill, we destroy habitats. No one would want to live there. Again, it is a necessary evil. Anyone living in a modern society has to consume goods.
Yes, mines are necessary, and we have no choice but to have landfills. What we are saying today is that the time between the two needs to be as long as possible. Eventually, the mine in Murdochville will start up again. Between the moment a piece of copper comes out of it and ends up in my phone, and the moment I throw it in the landfill, that time needs to be as long as possible. If I can extend the lifespan of a product, that allows me to open fewer mines and fill fewer landfills.
That is our challenge. It is about extending the lifespan of the goods we consume. Why is this important? In 2019, there were 53 million tonnes of electronic and household appliance waste. What does 53 million tonnes of electronic waste represent? It represents 350 Queen Mary 2 cruise ships.
That is 53 million tonnes per year. Every year, 53 million tonnes of ore are mined. Mines have been opened for this purpose, and all of it will end up in landfills. That is a huge amount. Furthermore, waste from electronic devices and household appliances generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Globally, by 2030, these emissions will total 852 million metric tonnes.
There is no denying that we live in a society that engages in economic activity. We need goods to generate growth and provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Nevertheless, we must be aware of the impact of our economic activity. According to a 2019 UN report, only 17% of all the electronic waste we produce is recycled at this point. That means we have a big problem and we need to do something about it.
What we are seeing is that consumers need a little help. In a Canada-wide survey, Equiterre found that only 19% of respondents chose to have their household appliances repaired.
The remaining 80% of respondents throw them out as soon as there is a problem. As for electronic devices, only 26% of respondents get them repaired. That is still not enough.
Consumers have a role to play in this. We need to make sure that we develop the instinct to keep things that are old. However, businesses also have a role to play. My colleague gave a speech earlier that focused mainly on a laissez-faire approach to the economy. Personally, I do not subscribe to that school of thought at all.
In Quebec, we passed the Consumer Protection Act, which was a major innovation in the 1970s under the René Lévesque government. It is working. As a consumer, we can take action against a company when it fails to provide a product covered by a warranty of proper functioning and quality.
It is therefore possible to act and we must do so. We cannot just wait for companies to regulate themselves. Of course, businesses want to make products at the lowest cost. The point of obsolescence is to generate economic growth. A company that manufactures a dryer that lasts seven years instead of 25 would likely sell many more over the life of a single consumer, so there is a clear economic benefit there.
This is where the government must step in. I want to return to the image I have created for my colleagues: that of mines being opened and landfills being filled. The government must act as an arbiter to guide businesses. Currently, repairing an item like a vacuum cleaner or a dryer often costs more than buying a new one. Then there are cases where items simply cannot be repaired, which is even more frustrating.
This tactic on the part of a business is understandable in a capitalist society, but the government must step in to ensure that as few mines as possible are opened and as few landfills as possible are filled. We must act to protect the environment, because we sometimes seem to forget that not all of the planet's resources are renewable. At some point, there will be no more minerals, and that point must be delayed as long as possible.
Indigenous people often remind us of the need to think of the next seven generations. That is the very least we can do. We must therefore find a way to use our resources.
We must also respect consumers. When someone buys a product that constantly breaks, even if the initial price is lower, they are not better off if they have to replace it every five or six years. That is what we are talking about today: finding a way to protect the planet, respect consumers and support repair shops.
Back home in Saint-Siméon de Bonaventure, there is a little shoe repair shop called Le Petit Cordonnier, run by Guillaume Poirier, whom I really like. Whenever I have old leather shoes that are a bit worn out, I take them to him. He also patches up my Blundstones. He has even repaired a sail for my sailboat and re-upholstered the seat on my motorcycle. There is a real cost-saving aspect to all of this.
However, we must encourage companies to act more responsibly and ensure that our products last as long as possible. In 2023, Quebec demonstrated strong leadership by passing a law that amended the Consumer Protection Act, which, among other things, strengthened the legal warranty of proper functioning and ensured the availability of replacement parts.
Bill C-267 is interesting. It would give the Minister of Industry the mandate to develop a plan to establish a framework with the provinces to promote product sustainability, foster transparency, and better inform the public.
This is nothing revolutionary, but it is a step in the right direction. As long as this is done in a way that respects Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. That is why we will vote in favour of the bill at this stage so that it can be studied in committee.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the first hour of debate on this bill. Bill C-267 aligns with our government priority to remove barriers for Canadians to repair their products and devices. It would give Canadians the flexibility to choose the best options for maintaining and repairing the devices and equipment they own in a competitive marketplace.
The right to repair is about ensuring that consumers have more options and better information on how to repair the products they purchase, whether through authorized manufacturer service, through independent repairs without voiding warranties or even by repairing themselves. This includes access to spare parts, tools, skilled labour and repair information, which needs to always be balanced against health, safety and intellectual property considerations.
In June 2024, our government launched a federal public consultation on the right to repair through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. It focused on home appliances and consumer electronics and included durability, repairability and interoperability. The feedback will help shape our federal approach, including with tools that could improve Canadians' ability to repair products and keep them in use longer.
Our government is empowering consumers to repair their own electronics and appliances. For instance, recent amendments to the Competition Act prevent manufacturers from restricting access to essential tools, parts and diagnostic software. In addition, recent amendments to the Copyright Act allow Canadian individuals and independent repair shops to bypass digital locks when repairing products.
The right to repair is widely supported across the country as well, with more than 75% of Canadians expressing support for federal right-to-repair legislation, according to a 2019 survey commissioned by OpenMedia. One-third of respondents to the study also claimed that they had faced prohibitively expensive repair for a product they owned, forcing them to instead buy a new one. However, a 2022 report by Equiterre found that only 18.6% of Canadians surveyed had repaired their last broken household appliance or electronic device, despite having an interest in extending the lifespan of their products. According to the report, this gap is largely explained by structural barriers rather than a lack of willingness.
Many Canadians perceive that products are not designed to be repairable, which discourages them from attempting repairs themselves altogether. In addition, the high cost of repairs often makes replacing items more economical. Additionally, the difficulty in locating reliable repair services, obtaining spare parts and accessing quality information on repairs further complicates the process. I believe Bill C-267 would have positive impacts by offering more opportunities for Canadians to repair their devices and helping enhance competition for independent repair shops.
By encouraging repair, Bill C-267 would also contribute to reducing the electronic waste produced in Canada. A United Nations report found that in 2019 alone, Canada produced 757,000 tonnes of electronic waste, as was outlined by my friend. This includes fridges, coffee machines and smart phones, to name a few.
Internationally, several governments have already taken concrete steps in this direction. The European Union recently adopted a right-to-repair directive requiring manufacturers to ensure repair access and availability of extended guarantees. The EU is also implementing new rules on product eco-design to support durability and repairability from the start. Several U.S. states, as well, have passed their own right-to-repair laws, focusing especially on access to manuals, tools and spare parts.
In terms of the useful life of a product and labelling, countries such as France, Sweden and others have put practical measures in place. In 2025, France began using the durability index for TVs and washing machines, replacing the previous repairability index. This index, required by antiwaste laws, rates how easy products are to repair and how reliable they are on a scale from zero to 10, among other guidelines.
The goal is to help consumers choose products that last longer and are easier to repair, reducing premature disposal. The rating includes factors like access to repair guides and spare parts, resistance to wear and ease of maintenance. Stores must clearly display the index near the price both in person and online, provide detailed scores upon request and also provide full rating details freely and promptly.
In other countries, product longevity is reflected through their legal warranty frameworks as well. For example, Sweden set a three-year minimum. Norway set five years for products expected to last more than two years. England, Wales and Ireland set six years, while the Netherlands and Finland use a more flexible approach based on a product's average lifespan. These examples show that countries can and do provide consumers with clearer information through labelling or embed expectations around product life in law.
Currently in Canada, there is no official source that provides information on the reasonable minimum useful life of products. This makes it difficult for consumers to know what to expect and to assert their rights regarding product longevity and repair. In Canada, the right to repair falls mainly under provincial jurisdiction, as it involves property, contracts, product sales and consumer complaints. However, the federal government plays a role through its responsibilities regarding copyright, competition and trade.
That is why provinces and territories remain essential partners in advancing the right to repair. As was mentioned, Quebec's Bill 29, for instance, directly targets planned obsolescence and obliges manufacturers to make available the tools and information required to maintain and repair goods. Saskatchewan's Agricultural Implements Act is another example of local legislation supporting repairability. These initiatives show the importance of finding a balance between innovation, consumer rights and supporting local economies.
In short, the right to repair demonstrates the critical need for a collaborative approach bringing together the responsibilities of all levels of government and stakeholders. Bill C-267 would allow the government to work with provinces and territories, where appropriate, and consumer advocacy groups to develop a national framework to promote durability and repairability, thus demonstrating to Canadians, through this collaboration, that ensuring the consumer's right to repair is important to members of the House.
Our goal should be to build a future where repairability is not just ideal but a fair and practical reality for everyone in Canada. I look forward to further discussions on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. The legislation proposes a federal framework to improve product durability, repairability and transparency for consumers. It sounds really good.
Everyone has stories about appliances and their longevity, or the lack thereof. I bought a second-hand freezer 35 years ago. It is still humming away in our basement. It needs some defrosting. It has almost become a member of the family. I do not know how many more years it has, but it will probably outlive us. There is also my microwave. It is 23 years old today. It celebrated its birthday. About 10 years ago, it had a little problem. It started sparking. My wife, whom I have been pretty impressed with, has come up with some fixes for our dryer and our microwave, and we did a little patch. Guess what? They are still working after all these years.
Those are some good stories about appliances, but not all appliances in our household have happy stories. Take our stove. It did not have a knob, like they used to. I guess some of them still do, but the one we had did not. It had a plastic top. Anyway, one of the little plastic pieces behind broke. It was about 50¢ for the piece, so I thought it would be no problem to get this little repair job done. I thought it was going to keep up with my freezer, but it apparently needed a whole new control panel. They did not make the replacement for that little piece, and a new control panel would have cost almost the same as buying a new a stove. That was a frustrating and expensive experience. Toasters nowadays seem to be just as useless, compared to half a century ago. The list goes on and on.
There is a history of planned obsolescence. Have members ever heard about the Phoebus cartel? I had never heard about the Phoebus cartel before I did the preparation for this speech. It was made up of the world's major light bulb manufacturers. In 1924, we had Osram, which I had never heard of, and Philips, which I have heard of, as well as GE and others. These companies secretly agreed to cap bulb lifespans at about 1,000 hours. They were at about 2,500 hours at that time. They fined members whose bulbs lasted too long. They saw, rightly, that having bulbs that never went out was not good for business.
There is a light bulb in my riding. It was part of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford's riding until the last election. It is in the Ruskin Dam. That light bulb is almost 100 years old. It has not gone out in 100 years. That is amazing. If we had light bulbs like that, we could almost put them in our will.
Planned obsolescence is not new. In the 1920s, GM introduced the annual model year. Alfred Sloan pioneered dynamic obsolescence. He restyled the cars every year so that the previous year looked aged. This is what happened to the Model T. That sank it for Ford and the Model T. It was about fashion.
We see present-day obsolescence in software updates, incompatible chargers, glued-in batteries and printer cartridges with kill chips. This is frustrating. I would agree that the industry can do better. We can get products that last. Canadians would welcome this. I just ordered a fourth shaver a couple days ago from Amazon. They used to last a decade or more. This is what we are seeing.
We need to dig a little deeper into this bill. What would it actually do? It would force the minister to make a bureaucracy. It would force the minister to make a national framework. Liberals love the words “national framework”. The framework must address the minimum useful life and labelling, the repair via accessible parts, tools and information, replacement part availability periods, technical documentation, software support duration, consumer education and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. It is a massive bureaucratic undertaking. I can see the Liberals being gleeful about this bureaucracy.
Frameworks are nebulous and vaporous. What does it mean to have a national framework? It means 50 full-time bureaucrats talking and talking. Maybe it is 500 or 5,000. I do not know. The minister must confer with the provinces on possible future legislation, industry obligations, inspections and penalties every 18 months and must report to Parliament. There would be report after report, more bureaucracy and more expense to the taxpayer.
We have seen this playing out over and over again. We were recently discussing Build Canada Homes, which is a fourth bureaucracy. The Liberals have a terrible record. My staff tell me how hard it is becoming to deal with the Canada Revenue Agency, immigration and the government. It is getting slower and slower. It is hard.
We need to also consider the prices for appliances that were stable and have been declining for many years. It is true that refrigerators, washers and dryers were simpler and easier to repair, and parts were more robust and less dependent on electronics. They were also heavier, with more metal components. Now, electronic control boards, sensors, touch screens and smart features introduce more failure points. Manufacturers are also feeling the pressure to keep prices competitive, which leads to lighter construction and lower-cost components. Before we run headlong into bureaucracy and regulations, we need to also recognize that modern appliances use much less electricity and water. That is a significant cost savings. They have more features and conveniences, and they meet stricter environmental standards. The trade-off has been lower purchase prices and better efficiency versus durability and ease of repair.
This is another issue to keep in mind. Canada is a small market, compared to Europe and the United States. As it was mentioned previously by my colleague from British Columbia, most of the manufacturing is done in other countries. That is a problem, because they are not going to bend for Canada. Basically, what will end up happening is there will be a reduction in the number of products for Canadians. This will certainly increase costs for Canadian consumers, who the Liberals are saying they are trying to help. At the same time, the Internet has made it easier than ever for consumers to see how long things last, based on honest reviews. They may be honest. We may have to pick through them.
The Conservatives are opposing this bill. Why? It is because it moves away from previous Conservative-supported right-to-repair measures. Bill C-294, which we supported, would have made it easier for Canadian businesses and innovators to create products that work with existing technologies, giving consumers more choice and encouraging competition. It was a common-sense measure that would have supported innovation, helped grow our economy and benefited Canadians without taking away copyright protections.
This bill, despite its title, does not display common sense. This bill would present risks around federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals do not have a problem with that. It would introduce the potential for increased regulatory burden on businesses. The Liberals do not have a problem with that, either. It would risk consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products in the Canadian market. It sounds like a great idea, but there are a lot of problems and pitfalls in this bill.
The Conservatives will be voting against it, and I encourage the government to go back to the table and follow the Conservatives' plan.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this legislation. Bill C-267 is an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances.
At first glance, the bill may appear straightforward. Canadians want products that last longer, they want affordable repairs and they want to get the maximum value from the products they purchase. These are reasonable goals. However, this bill represents a significant departure from the practical, targeted approach that the Conservatives and the Liberals have previously supported when it comes to consumer choice and the right to repair without imposing broad, regulatory structures. In the last Parliament, there were two bills. We had Bill C-244, from Wilson Miao, and Bill C-294, from the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.
Bill C-267, however, takes a different path. Instead of removing barriers and empowering consumers through targeted legislative changes, it proposes to create a broad national framework that would require federal intervention in product design, product durability, repairability standards, information disclosure requirements and supply chain considerations across numerous industries. The difference is significant. Bill C-294 sought to remove obstacles. Bill C-267 seeks to create a new regulatory framework.
I cannot help but outline the significance this legislation would have in the context of electric vehicles, based on some of the debate that took place earlier today. Is the government really proposing to tell China how to regulate its battery production when we just conceded 30% of our market share? I do not think so. I think this bill would open up a world of unforeseen problems for Canadian manufacturers.
The bill would direct the federal government to develop a framework touching on numerous aspects of product durability and repairability. While supporters may view this as a simple exercise, businesses often experience such frameworks quite differently.
Frameworks frequently become regulations, and regulations create reporting requirements. For years, Canadian manufacturers have contended with the surge of low-cost imports. Rather than alleviating this imbalance, existing tariff structures have exacerbated the strain on domestic firms. Many Canadian companies are now forced to absorb things like tariff costs or share them with customers, eroding their competitiveness and limiting access to key markets. At the same time, the slowdown in the housing market is reducing domestic demand, further tightening margins for Canadian producers. The result is a concerning trend of increased import penetration, declining domestic production and the early stages of business closures across the sector. Without intervention, any future growth in the industry will likely be driven by imports, rather than by Canadian manufacturing. This is especially concerning at a time when Canadian businesses are already facing significant economic pressures.
Manufacturers, distributors, retailers and small businesses are navigating inflationary pressures, labour shortages, supply chain challenges and increasing operating costs. Adding another layer of federal regulation might satisfy bureaucratic ambitions, but it would not help Canadian consumers or business competitiveness and, ultimately, I do not believe it would help the consumer. In fact, it would risk limiting consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products to the Canadian market.
The Conservatives believe the government should focus on enabling competition and innovation, not expanding bureaucracy through yet another framework. Before imposing new obligations on businesses, Parliament should have clear evidence that those obligations would produce meaningful benefits that outweigh their costs. That evidence has not been demonstrated in the bill before us.
Perhaps the greatest concern is the potential impact on consumer choice. Supporters of this bill argue that it would help consumers, which is the opposite of what I said. However, regulations often produce those unintended consequences.
When governments impose additional requirements on products entering the marketplace, manufacturers face higher compliance costs. Some companies absorb those costs, others pass them on to the buyers, and some simply choose not to offer certain products in smaller markets. Canada is not the largest consumer market in the world. We represent a relatively small share of global demand. If regulatory requirements become too complex or too costly, some manufacturers may decide that offering particular products in Canada is no longer worthwhile. I can only imagine the number of attempts by manufacturers who might try to circumvent any new regulations in Canada as well.
The result will be fewer choices for consumers, not more. The result could also be higher prices, particularly for low-cost products that many families rely upon. Canadians are already facing affordability challenges. Many families do not have the luxury of purchasing premium appliances or high-end electronics. They depend on affordable options that fit within their household budgets. If new regulatory requirements increase manufacturing, certification, distribution or compliance costs, those costs will inevitably be reflected in the price consumers pay at the checkout counter. Conservatives believe that consumers are best served by competition. Competition encourages innovation and quality. When consumers have choices, manufacturers must compete to earn their business.
One of our primary concerns with this legislation is the risk of federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction as well. Consumer protection, property rights, repair services, commercial regulation and many aspects of marketplace oversight traditionally involve provincial responsibilities. Several provinces have already been examining right to repair measures and consumer protection frameworks that reflect their own economic circumstances and priorities. The federal government should be cautious before establishing a national framework that could duplicate, overlap or conflict with provincial authorities.
Canadians are frustrated when governments create multiple layers of regulation that accomplish the same objective while increasing complexity and compliance costs. Unfortunately, Bill C-267 risks doing exactly that. Rather than creating another federal framework and empowering our public service with more tools to look at certain products, we should focus on policies that encourage competition, support innovation and reduce barriers for businesses operating in Canada.
Finally, I think we should draw some parallels when we see the public service trying to over-regulate in the Canadian context, and that would be with natural health products. Across Canada, we have natural health food stores practically on every main street. They are a staple of Canada's economy. Small business owners across Canada, for the last number of years, have been decrying the government's desire to intrude and impose new regulatory frameworks that would push their business out of Canada and into online markets. Effectively, with natural health products, the government's approach has essentially meant that businesses are saying they do not have a future in Canada anymore. People are still going to be able to buy the products they were offering locally, when they were paying taxes in Canada, but people will have to buy the products on Amazon from an American supplier, because that is still legal to do anyway.
The government needs to take another look at this legislation. It needs to find better ways of ensuring that the electronic products we use do not impact Canadians' health, and focus on those issues, but ultimately leave the choice to consumers as to whether they want to buy a certain product.
Instead, this bill proposes a broad framework with uncertain implications for businesses, consumers, provincial jurisdictions and the marketplace as a whole. At a time when Canadians are concerned about affordability, Parliament should be cautious before advancing legislation that risks increasing costs and pushing business out of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, imagine a family standing in an appliance aisle because their washing machine has broken down. They are already dealing with higher grocery bills, higher mortgages, higher rent and higher utility costs. They are looking at the price tags and trying to make the best decision for their household. One model is more expensive but may last longer. Another is more affordable and fits their budget today. That family should have the freedom to make that choice.
Bill C-267, despite its good intentions, risks having Ottawa make that choice for them by creating a broad new regulatory framework that could increase costs, reduce options and make essential products less affordable for Canadians.
Every single one of us gets frustrated when products break too soon, when repairs are difficult or when replacing an item seems easier than fixing it. Those concerns are real. Canadians should be able to repair the products they own, access reasonable repair options and receive clear information about the products they buy. However, the question before us is not whether durability and repairability are good things. The question is whether Bill C-267 is the right way to achieve them. On that question, Conservatives have serious concerns.
Bill C-267 would require the Minister of Industry to develop a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and essential home appliances offered for sale, distributed or sold in Canada, whether they are made here or imported. That framework would include measures related to minimum useful life, labelling, access to parts, tools and repair information, replacement parts, technical documentation, software support and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. The bill also contemplates future legislative measures, including obligations on the industry, inspection mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance.
That is a very broad scope. It goes well beyond simply helping Canadians fix what they own. It opens the door to a new federal regulatory framework over a wide range of consumer products, many of which are already subject to complex supply chains, international standards, safety requirements, warranties and provincial consumer protection laws.
Parliament has already taken steps in that direction through targeted right to repair legislation. In recent years, members from different parties have worked to address practical barriers that prevent Canadians from repairing the products they own. For example, in the 44th Parliament, Bill C-244, introduced by a Liberal member, addressed the issue of digital locks by allowing circumvention for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair. Also in the last Parliament, Bill C-294, introduced by a Conservative member, addressed interoperability by allowing consumers and businesses to use third party parts, systems and devices without being blocked by copyright rules. Both bills received royal assent in 2024.
Those were targeted changes. They focused on removing specific legal barriers that made repair more difficult. They did not impose broad new federal product standards. They did not create a national framework for minimum product lifespans. They did not open the door to sweeping new rules on labelling, replacement parts, technical documentation and the like, and that distinction matters.
Conservatives have supported practical right to repair reforms because they can empower consumers, support farmers, help small businesses and improve competition. As we consider the best policy response, we should focus on measures that remove unnecessary barriers to repair, support competition in repair markets and give consumers better information without imposing rigid top-down requirements that may not fit every product category, or even consumer need.
At a time when businesses are already struggling with red tape, tariffs, supply chain pressures and weak productivity, we should not support legislation that could add new compliance costs and uncertainty. Canadians deserve products that are durable. They also deserve affordable products. They deserve repair options, but they also deserve marketplace choice. They deserve consumer protection, but—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member is rustling papers near the mic and it is causing problems.
I thank the hon. member.
[English]
It is a good time to interrupt anyway, because we are at the five-minute mark. It is a good reminder, just to make sure there is no interference with the microphones.
[Translation]
I recognize the hon. member for Bourassa for his five-minute right of reply.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-267.
Someone's refrigerator breaks down. They call a technician, who says that the part is no longer available, that the repair manual is missing or was never available and that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance. That person is then forced to spend $500, $1,000, or even more, to replace something that should have been repaired. This is not bad luck. It is a business model. It is called planned obsolescence. These appliances are deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable in order to force people to repair them. This model costs Canadian families dearly every year.
The solution is a collaborative national framework. That is what Bill C-267 proposes: a response that is both simple and ambitious—a national framework for sustainable and repairable electronic products and essential devices. It is not a rigid regulation; it is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdictions. It is a flexible framework developed in collaboration with the regions, the provinces, industry and consumer advocacy groups that would finally give Canadians the right to know, the right to choose and the right to repair.
In practical terms, the bill sets minimal durability standards and requires the availability of spare parts, technical documentation for independent repair persons, and clear labelling so that consumers know what they are sinking their money into before they spend it. Through this bill, Canada is simply catching up with the rest of the world. The European Union introduced a right to repair directive in 2024. The United Kingdom passed its legislation back in 2021. In the U.S., over twenty states have taken action with bipartisan support. Apple, Samsung, LG and Whirlpool are already adapting these standards to their other markets. This means a minimal burden for Canada. The benefit for families will be substantial, tangible and real.
We may wonder who is going to benefit. First, Canadian families that cannot afford to replace everything once a year will benefit; the repair shops that my colleagues mentioned earlier will benefit; local SMEs, often run by tradespeople and immigrants who are currently denied access by manufacturers to the parts and information they need to perform repairs will benefit. Most of all, the environment and our planet will benefit, because each appliance repaired rather than discarded represents a resource conserved and one less piece of trash.
Repair is an integral part of Quebec and Canadian culture. I know several associations and groups in Bourassa, Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec that help people with their repair projects.
Today I would like to talk about the community of activists and volunteers who help people with repairs. One example is Wai Chu Cheng in the riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park: She is the co-founder of Repair Café in Toronto, Ontario. This culture is not confined to Quebec or Alberta; it is across Canada.
In closing, I am reaching out to my colleagues from all parties, all regions and from every province. This is not a partisan bill. It is a sensible bill. It makes a lot of sense because it provides that things can be repaired instead of merely replaced, that we can be informed instead of being unaware, and that we can work together instead of imposing anything.
[English]
I think of the families in Bourassa and across the country who are watching what we do here today. The bill is not a partisan project. It is a promise to every household that deserves better: to repair, not replace, to inform, not ignore, and to collaborate, not oppose. That is what I believe, and that is what I ask the House to stand for.
[Translation]
Let us refer this bill to committee, where we can improve it together, hear from witnesses and strengthen it.
That is what Canadian families deserve, and that is what this bill delivers.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act
Bill C-14—Notice of Time Allocation Motion
Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26
[S. O. 57]
Message from the Senate
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts. Copies of the amendment are available at the table.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Strong and Free Elections Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Ponoka—Didsbury
In Canada, we are privileged to have a strong and internationally recognized electoral system. Canadian democracy is among the most stable and resilient in the world, and the Canada Elections Act is recognized for its robust safeguards, strict rules on political financing and high standards of transparency.
In addition to this solid framework, the strength of our electoral system also lies in its ability to evolve. The rules that protect our elections must adapt to the realities of our time. Today, as we can see throughout the world, democracies face growing threats, whether through the malicious use of technology, foreign interference, disinformation or other attempts to undermine public confidence in democratic processes.
To maintain Canadians' confidence in the integrity of our elections, it is therefore essential to continue strengthening the mechanisms that protect our democratic process. Public trust is the very foundation of democratic stability, and we must strive to preserve and strengthen that confidence at all times.
That is why Bill C-25 proposes several practical measures to address current challenges, including addressing the problem of excessively long ballots, banning deepfakes of election officials, further protecting the integrity of leadership and nomination races, enhancing measures to prevent foreign interference, strengthening the enforcement of the act and improving federal requirements for the protection of personal information by federal political parties.
These amendments did not come out of nowhere. They are well reasoned and based on recommendations made by experts during the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, as well as by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections.
Over the next several minutes, I am going to review some of the measures set out in this bill and try to explain why I think they are important and why we should support them.
The bill contains measures that seek to prevent excessively long ballots. We will achieve that by allowing voters to sign only one candidate nomination form per riding and by requiring each candidate in a riding to have their own official agent.
Why are we doing that? It is because, over the past few years, we have seen a group of activists disrupting elections. Dozens of candidates in one riding had the same official agent and their nomination forms were signed by the same people. In some cases, we ended up with dozens of nominations for people who had no real intention of participating in the democratic process and who were really only trying to disrupt the democratic process that we want to protect.
Let me give a few examples. In the last election in Terrebonne, nearly 40 out of 48 candidates were people who had no real intention of campaigning. As a result, instead of a normal ballot, we ended up with a blank ballot. In Battle River—Crowfoot, 200 out of 214 candidates were not really serious ones. In LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, during a by-election two years ago, we ended up with 91 candidates and a ballot that was a metre long.
This has real consequences because it makes it harder for some people to participate. When voters are given a blank ballot and there are people who struggle with literacy or have difficulty writing, it makes it harder for them to participate in this democratic process. It shows a lack of respect for these voters. It also shows a lack of consideration for well-intentioned candidates who want to represent their community.
I believe these changes strike the right balance between preventing candidacies intended solely to disrupt the elections and ensuring that serious candidates are allowed to run. By serious candidates, I am referring not only to those representing the major political parties in the House, but also, of course, to independent candidates who are genuinely committed to their communities and wish to represent them, as well as candidates from smaller political parties.
The rules will not prevent this type of candidacy, since people will only need to have a single agent and collect the required number of signatures. With these changes, I think we have struck a good balance that will prevent excessively long ballots while still allowing serious candidates to run in elections.
The bill also provides for various safeguards, particularly against the malicious use of new technologies in elections. As we know, various technologies are emerging, including artificial intelligence, and it is becoming increasingly easy to impersonate people online. For example, with AI, people can create videos in which they pretend to be someone else. People can be made to say things that they never actually said. In the context of an election, that can be dangerous and highly problematic.
Imagine a candidate in an election. Someone makes a video in which the candidate appears to say all sorts of nonsense, and then posts it on social media. People who see that video might decide not to vote for that candidate. Someone could also make a fake video to impersonate an election official. For example, someone could impersonate the Chief Electoral Officer and give false information about the location of the polling station, the date of the election or the instructions to follow in order to vote. That could undermine the democratic process. That is why we are going to ban deepfakes.
We will also strengthen safeguards for the use of IT systems in elections. We will tighten the rules on hacking or tampering with IT systems and databases with the aim of disrupting an election. As has already been mentioned, the issues are changing, and technologies are evolving. It is important that our regulatory framework keep pace and reflect the times we are in.
We will also put stricter rules in place regarding political financing. Canada has one of the strongest political financing systems in the world. Since we are always looking to improve, we are going to introduce certain new rules to strengthen the system, particularly with regard to preventing foreign interference. This is an issue that has garnered significant attention in recent years. There was a commission on the subject. We have also seen several democracies around the world face foreign interference issues. We therefore want to close all possible avenues for foreign financing that could interfere with our democratic processes in Canada.
For example, we will prevent political parties from accepting anonymous or untraceable contributions. This includes, for example, contributions made using cryptocurrency, prepaid cards or other forms of prepaid payment. It is not possible to clearly identify who is behind these contributions. We want to prevent foreign agents from making contributions using cryptocurrency or other forms of unidentified payment, for example.
We will also prevent third parties, organizations, businesses, unions, or citizens who are not candidates, from organizing regulated political or election-related activities, such as election advertising or partisan activities, and accepting untraceable contributions. That way, it will not be possible to circumvent the rules. For example, cryptocurrencies cannot be used to fund an organization that would then finance partisan activities. We are shutting down those avenues as well.
We will explicitly prohibit foreign actors from funding regulated activities, such as partisan activities or election advertising, carried out through third parties in Canada. These contributions must come exclusively from Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
In our democracy, there are other key moments besides general elections. One example is leadership races within political parties. These can have a major impact on our democracy. Consider the leadership races to elect the new leader of the official opposition or the next prime minister. These are events that have tangible consequences.
Nomination contests also come to mind. When several candidates in a riding want to stand for the same party, a nomination contest is arranged. These processes are also watershed moments in our democratic system, and we are going to strengthen the rules to better protect them.
In fact, a number of rules that already apply to general elections will now apply to leadership campaigns and nomination contests. I am referring to rules about preventing foreign influence. For example, third parties will not be able to accept foreign funds to arrange nomination race activities. Other rules relate to the prevention of intimidation, bribery and identity theft. All of these procedures, already in use for general elections, will also apply to leadership campaigns and nomination contests.
Through these carefully crafted measures, all based on assessments and consultations, we will strengthen our democratic system which, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, is already very strong.
I believe that these changes will help maintain Canadians' trust in our democratic institutions. Accomplishing this work is essential.
I think most of my colleagues in the House share that opinion, and I look forward to seeing Bill C-25 receive royal assent.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are all starting to feel a little worse for wear—sitting here until midnight, constantly voting and dealing with closure motions. In short, we are all in the same boat, and we are all telling ourselves that we need to be strong, that we will get through this.
I am going to ask my colleague a very simple question. How is it that, when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had the opportunity to consider this issue, it did not give more thought to or examine political party financing more closely?
My colleague knows very well that Quebec National Assembly settled this issue long ago. During an election year, a member may make two contributions of $100. However, there have been reports in the media about fundraising events where people are invited to meet the Prime Minister in exchange for a contribution of $1,500.
How is it that this limit has not been lowered?
Canada's political financing system is among the strongest in the world. When we compare ourselves to other democracies, we see that there are already several mechanisms in place to ensure that funding actually comes from Canadian citizens.
We will close off the various avenues that could allow for foreign influence. Contribution limits are already in place. Canadian citizens have to be the ones contributing to political parties. We have a rigorous framework.
Bill C-25, which is based on various recommendations from experts, will allow us to make this framework even more rigorous in order to ensure the integrity of our elections.
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Of course, we all know that our systems and institutions are very robust in Canada, and I know my hon. colleague touched on that in his speech.
Can he tell us more about what Canadians stand to gain from this bill? I would also like to hear him speak about the collaboration that made it possible to move this bill forward in a very short time.
Mr. Speaker, maintaining trust in our democratic institutions is essential. We have a robust electoral system and framework in Canada, but to keep it strong, we need to adapt it to the challenges of our time.
I believe that by working together in the House, we will be able to maintain trust in our democratic institutions and make the necessary changes.
As we are seeing in other parts of the world, some democracies are facing challenges. There are instances of abuse and situations where the public is losing confidence in its democratic institutions, which has serious consequences.
That is why I believe that in Canada, where trust remains high, we must continue to work to preserve it by strengthening our democratic institutions and passing Bill C-25.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and riding neighbour for his contribution.
I would like to add a dose of moderation to our discussion. People boast that our electoral system is strong. However, it took a bill, the one that we are about to pass, to make it clear that bribes meant to force a vote, or bribes meant to persuade someone to vote one way or another, are prohibited.
The infamous “brownies” made headlines. How does my colleague explain the fact that we had to wait over 150 years following Confederation before a clause like this was introduced?
Mr. Speaker, there are already measures in place to protect the integrity of the election itself. When someone runs as a candidate or raises money for a political association, the contributions are registered and certain information must be provided. There is already a framework in place for that.
That said, some situations, not necessarily at the federal level, that the media have reported on have led us to propose amendments to further strengthen our electoral system.
My colleague talked about nomination contests and leadership races. Several provisions that currently apply to general elections under the Canada Elections Act did not apply to leadership races or nomination contests. Therefore, it is not just this specific example that is being addressed; a whole series of measures will now apply to nomination contests and leadership races.
As I mentioned in my speech, I think it was essential to take action. General elections are obviously important moments in our democracy, but so are nomination contests and leadership races. These events have real consequences, particularly for the composition of the House.
I think that taking some of the measures already set out in the Canada Elections Act and applying them to these other important moments in our democracy is a good decision.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to this government legislation again, Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee and have scrutinized this proposed legislation in my capacity there. I also spoke about this bill a couple of months ago, in mid-April. In that speech, I highlighted that this is a much-needed piece of legislation, one that Conservatives have been calling for since before the 2019 election.
There are some good things in the bill, some much-needed tools to help handle foreign interference in our elections. However, as I noted not even two months ago, it does not go far enough, especially with how it pertains to third party fundraising and foreign contributions. As we heard clearly from expert witnesses at the procedure and House affairs committee, Bill C-25 would improve the protection that Canadians have with respect to the electoral process, including from dangers posed by hostile foreign actors. However, it would leave some major holes, primarily regarding foreign contributions outside the election period.
How do we know this? We know because we as Conservatives are the ones who have been advocating for changes to the Canada Elections Act to deal with this very issue for quite some time now. I will take some of the folks in this room way back with me to May 8, 2019. That is the day that my private member's bill, Bill C-406, was voted down at second reading in this very chamber. The goal of the bill, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to foreign contributions, was to deal with exactly this problem then, the same problem we are talking about now, seven years ago and three elections before the one that we just had.
The bill I proposed, Bill C-406, was a bill that would have amended the Elections Act to prohibit foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes. This is very important to me, because third party funding certainly comes in the form of advocacy and is used by third parties in campaigns to campaign against what I would consider to be the financial interests of the people I represent and of my home province, Alberta.
I also understood at that time that, just out of a matter of principle, Canadians and Canadians alone should be the ones funding, debating and voting in a Canadian general election. It does make sense. Foreign entities and countries outside our borders likely should not be able to fundraise or spend money for political purposes here in Canada. That in itself is a breach of public trust and is, I think, by very definition of course, a semblance of foreign interference, whether it is happening covertly or not. If we do not know about it, it is a problem.
My private member's bill would have stopped that foreign fundraising that influences our elections here in Canada. It would have addressed the very issues that Bill C-25 claims to address. Here we are, nearly a decade later. Members will never guess what happened. The Liberals voted against the bill, including the Liberal MP for Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, who is now the public safety minister, the same one who is now overseeing a new foreign agent registry that was recently introduced by the Liberals, despite his having been rabidly opposed to such a registry when it was the Conservatives, my former colleague Kenny Chiu, who proposed it. This is one of those that make a person go, “hmm”.
It is almost as if the Liberals will support a good policy only once they have been dragged through the wringer to actually see that it is a good idea. I do not know why that is, but they just genetically oppose every idea we pose to them until their ideas start to miserably fail and afflict Canadians some four to eight years later. Then, all of a sudden, they see the light and do the things we have been telling them they should have been doing all along. It does not exactly breathe confidence into the issue of dealing with foreign interference, does it?
We know that this is a theme. The Liberals often chastise Conservatives for big, sweeping policy ideas, but give it half a decade, and once the chickens come home to roost on the cabal of bad ideas across the way, they will eventually adopt Conservative ideas, rebrand them and package them as their own. The Prime Minister did it at Oxford with his thesis and is doing it here as well in the House of Commons. I only wish the Liberals had long ago adopted my idea of banning foreign nationals and entities from donating to and supporting third parties for election advertising purposes. It seems like common sense to me, but that might not be such a common thing across the aisle.
We studied the issue at length at committee, where we heard from several witnesses, including, most recently, Gerald Chipeur, that the bill does not go far enough and would need to crack down even harder on foreign monetary contributions. In other words, there would still be a gaping hole that would allow foreign entities to send money to third parties, which could end up influencing, affecting or being spent in our general elections.
The bill would crack down, but it would not prohibit. It would not go far enough. There would still be wide open loopholes for foreign funding to pour into Canadian elections. Foreign contributions for political purposes would still be allowed in Canada; Bill C-25 would not change that. Lots of witnesses who came before the procedure and House affairs committee testified that, in their opinion, this is completely unacceptable. I think that most Canadians, if they knew money was coming in to third parties from outside Canada and being spent on elections advertising, would be quite concerned.
What also came out of our foreign interference study at committee, perhaps most notably, was our former candidate Joe Tay's testimony. Mr. Tay was our Conservative candidate of record in Don Valley North. Former Liberal MP Paul Chiang put a bounty on him during the 2025 election. Chiang encouraged folks to turn Mr. Tay in to the Chinese consulate in Toronto for a cash reward. There was already an arrest warrant for Mr. Tay, issued by the Communist regime in Beijing for making pro-democracy comments from here in Canada about what is going on in Hong Kong and China. This was a Liberal MP at the time basically encouraging the kidnapping of a political adversary. Goodness knows what would have happened if Mr. Chiang had actually gotten his way.
We also know, based on testimonies at the committee from volunteers on Mr. Tay's campaign, that they were stalked, followed, intimidated and harassed by individuals. These were campaign volunteers, for crying out loud. It is hard enough to find people to come out to participate in our elections. The last thing we need is foreign entities and foreign funds coming in to discourage, intimidate and harass campaign volunteers, regardless of the political party they are helping. This is just wrong across the board. It is wrong not just when it happens to Conservatives; it is wrong when it happens to Liberal, NDP or Bloc members, or to anybody.
Since these incidents, the Prime Minister has praised Paul Chiang as a person of integrity, and he has also strengthened Canada's ties with the People's Republic of China through trade and security partnerships. Just over a year ago, on the debate stage during the 2025 election, the Prime Minister admitted that the biggest threat to Canada's security was the Communist regime in China. I am not sure, but I would like to know where that Prime Minister went. Across the aisle, the Liberals expect us to believe that they are serious about halting foreign interference. They will have to give me a bit of a break, because I am not buying what they are selling. I try to make it make sense, but it just does not.
We are talking about the individuals who are interfering in our elections and meddling in our campaigns. They are targeting our people, and they are spending money on propaganda campaigns that endanger Canadians, especially those in specific diaspora communities. The bill would do nothing to solve these problems. Sure, the bill would crack down on foreign spending during the writ period, but it would leave a massive hole for foreign entities to pour money into political advertising outside the writ period.
For folks that are watching at home and wondering what the writ period is, I will explain. There is a writ period, and when we have a fixed election, there is a pre-writ period, and then there are the three years in between. During those three years, third parties will not be required to separate the molecules, per se, so any money that comes in to those third parties from foreign entities during that time frame will not be scrutinized by Elections Canada. They can just bankroll all these things in the pre-writ period and then spend as much as they want during the writ period during a fixed election.
Do not take my word for it; this comes directly from constitutional legal experts who gave their testimony at a committee and said that they agreed with the exact interpretation we had when we read the bill. It would still leave that gaping hole.
Conservatives have been talking about foreign interference for nearly a decade. After 2021, our leader at the time brought up the issue of foreign interference in our elections. He was supported by our former colleague, Kenny Chiu from Steveston—Richmond East, who warned for years about foreign interference before being a victim of it himself.
These are the issues we have had. We have had a public inquiry into foreign interference. The government dragged its feet on that and finally succumbed to the mountains of pressure that were put on it at the time. It seemed to be reluctant the whole time. It is almost as if the foreign interference regime that had been orchestrated in the last couple of elections had a blind eye turned to it, because it obviously benefited somebody in the chamber.
I am glad to see that it looks like the government is trying to change its ways and is presenting this bill. Conservatives still have massive concerns with it, but we will be supporting the bill and would make sure the Canada Elections Act is, if not perfect, at least better than it is today.
Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting from the member opposite, who also sits on the committee with me, is the fact that he said he is not buying what we are selling, though we worked in collaboration with their team to bring the bill forward as quickly as possible. Maybe he could help all members of the House let Canadians know which parts of the bill he supports and which he does not support.
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues that are certainly a bit problematic. I laid that out in my speech. I trust that my colleague, who sits on the committee, was also there when we were asking specific questions about just how third party funding is still allowed to happen in the general elections of Canada. Our position as Conservatives is that we should be clamping down on that even more. Is it being clamped down on a bit more than it was before? Yes, it is. Has it gone far enough? No, it has not. Are there still issues with the commissioner of elections potentially having a bit too much power and authority now, without having a second set of eyes like a judge or somebody? The amount of administrative penalty that can be levied right now is certainly a bit problematic.
Obviously, we are happy with what has happened with the longest ballot committee, but we think more could have been done there as well, and it would be nice if we could finally get that foreign interference registry stood up.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since we sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a number of meetings. We were just starting the study, and I am pleased to have an outcome like this.
My question for my colleague is quite simple. What is missing from this bill that would make it even better, although maybe not perfect?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is not on the procedure and House affairs committee anymore, but we spent years there, particularly in the previous Parliament when foreign interference was front and centre and prevalent not only at the committee but also in the national spotlight, and I want to thank her for her work there.
The Bloc Québécois has some issues with the bill. The Conservatives have some issues. Some of those are the same, some of those are different, but we broadly support the measures contained in the bill. We are disappointed that the government voted down certain important amendments that we put forward, like mandating better security at ballot boxes and closing third party advertising loopholes, for example. We are going to continue to call on the government to strengthen the Canada Elections Act to make sure that we can have confidence and trust in the institutions of the Government of Canada, particularly in the institution that is responsible for delivering elections, which are the foundation of our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I know third party advertising and the involvement of foreign governments in our elections is a big problem. It reared its head back in 2015. I am sure the member remembers back in the day. This is a headline from 2017: “Controversial Leadnow active in B.C. politics, Vancouver city affairs”. We originally sort of brought the evidence forward that this was occurring. The article refers to “claims filed last week with Elections Canada—and reported this week by the Calgary Herald—that foreign money 'spawned' Leadnow and helped fund an elaborate campaign to oust the ruling Conservative Party.”
I would ask the member to speak to this issue. It is a big deal, and we even see our colleague across the way from Toronto affected by shenanigans in elections. Maybe the member can just speak to what happened back in 2015.
Mr. Speaker, I think my friend from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies and I would have very similar constituents. They are hard-working, honest, patriotic, law-abiding Canadians who love going hunting and fishing. They work in forestry, mining, oil and gas and agriculture. These are folks who are very concerned about foreign money coming from foundations.
Folks at home who want to go and look this up can take a look at some of these foundations, like the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation or the Tides foundation. These organizations do not just have a few thousand or a few hundred thousand dollars, or even a few million dollars. They actually have assets worth billions of dollars, and they are able to create organizations, like Leadnow, in another country and then fund them, with this massive foundation that they have, to influence policies in another country. This is very problematic. A good friend of mine, Vivian Krause, has actually exposed much of how this money gets brought into Canada to fund various organizations and groups to block resource development in Canada. It is very frustrating.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. As I have previously stated in this place, all of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to those citizens who voted for us and depend on us to be their voice here in Parliament. Canadians need us to be vigilant, and they depend on us to be their voice. We have to be ready for the challenges and dangers that emerge, and I accept that responsibility with sincere dedication to the amazing people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and the people of Canada. We must all take actions to prevent, mitigate and overcome challenges and dangers, including the the unintended consequences caused by the actions or the inactions of levels of government. In these times of global uncertainty, Canadians need our vigilance and actions more than at any other time.
As I begin speaking to this bill, Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, I would like to thank all of the Elections Canada workers, from the electoral district returning officers to the poll workers, the volunteers and the ever-important scrutineers who are such an important part of our democratic system here in Canada. I will speak to components of this bill, Bill C-25, and how parts of it are overdue while other parts need further debate and consideration for what is best for Canada and Canadians' interests.
After the 2021 federal election, Canadians were alarmed to hear of foreign interference in the election of candidates and members sent here to represent and defend this country's interests. The Liberals say they care about democracy, yet they have allowed foreign actors to brazenly interfere in our elections. It was only after the Liberals got caught turning a blind eye to Beijing's interference that they finally introduced legislation to establish a foreign influence registry in Canada. However, two years after passing that bill into law, there is still no registry. So far, we have had date after date promised and date after date missed. After years of opposing a foreign influence registry, including Conservative efforts to create one, the Liberals' latest tactic appears to be one of endless delay. It is time for the Liberal government to finally take foreign interference seriously. It is time to get a registry up and running, today.
I must say that this is uncannily similar to an issue dealt with in my role as associate shadow minister for fisheries, and that is the issue of foreign ownership of licences and quota on the west coast. The last Conservative government put in motion policies to stop the issue of controlling agreements between processors and harvesters on the east coast, where processors were limiting harvesters' choice of where they landed their catch and how much they received for their catch. In the following years, legislation and regulations were put in place to end those controlling agreements and protect local fish harvesters and their communities on the east coast.
In May 2019, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled a report titled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”. In that report, there were 20 recommendations to government that would have helped meet the aspirations of fish harvesters, especially young fishers, to carry on their careers and family traditions and contribute to building economically, socially and culturally vibrant west coast communities.
In 2023, four years later, that same fisheries committee undertook another study to produce yet another report, titled “Foreign Ownership and Corporate Concentration of Fishing Licences and Quota”. The testimony we heard during that second report was alarming in that after four years, the government had taken almost no action to identify who the beneficial owners of licences and quota are on the west coast. In fact, what we basically heard was that it has no idea.
It is now seven years since that first report on the issue was tabled in the House, and the Liberal government has yet to address the issue and put in place any significant measures to protect our independent harvesters on the west coast. That is why I say that Bill C-25 and the west coast fisheries issues have something in common. It is delay, delay, delay. If the Liberals do not find it important enough to create a foreign influence registry or to investigate whether foreign entities own licences and quotas, and who controls, catches and processes our Canadian seafood, then Conservatives will hold them accountable, and we hope that Canadians will expect that accountability from their government.
Another component of the bill that I want Canadians to be aware of is the third party financing loophole. Bill C-25 would create a wide open loophole through which foreign money could still be used by third parties for partisan activity, partisan advertising and election surveying. Specifically, if contributions to a third party amount to 10% or less of its annual revenue in the year prior to a fixed election year, it could use its own funds to pay for, among other things, partisan activity and advertising. A third party's own funds do not have to come from Canadian citizens or permanent residents and do not have to be reported in the same way.
With fixed election periods, it is very easy for third parties and foreign interests to predict when an election may be. A foreign interest could funnel money into a third party for two or three years ahead of schedule, which would then be treated as part of the third party's own funds. Further, 10% sounds like a small number, but it may not be. There are third parties that have a lot of money. What constitutes 10% or less of a third party's revenue coming from contributions may in fact be millions of dollars. This means that very large third parties would be able to use their own funds for election-related expenses. Disappointingly, the Liberals voted against our amendments to close these wide open loopholes in the bill.
I raise these points as part of this debate because that is what we as elected representatives are sent here to do, to scrutinize legislation and make it the best it can be. What we have seen from the government since I first came here in 2015 is not the best legislation it could be. Conservatives will continue to call on the Liberal government to strengthen Canada's position against foreign actors who seek to influence our economies and our democracy.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague who sits on committee with me said he feels we are not listening. I talked about the fact that we did extensive collaboration. This is one of the most fast-tracked bills that I personally have witnessed since I have been a member of Parliament, because of the expert input we brought on and the collaboration that happened between all parties in the House.
Can the member comment on what exactly in this bill the Conservatives cannot support and what they can support?
Mr. Speaker, if the member had been listening, she would have heard me speak about the third party financing loophole. There could be millions of dollars spent by foreign entities to affect the nomination and election of candidates and representatives who are elected to ensure the security and safety of our country. If anything, this has to be the one piece that should have been addressed, and the government should recognize that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about democracy, and the purpose of the bill is to make things simpler. The Bloc Québécois believes that public funding for political parties should be reinstated because the tax refund basically amounts to public funding anyway.
Who among us can afford to donate $1,750 to a political party? That is completely ridiculous. What does the member think about reinstating public funding for political parties, particularly in light of the fact that it was eliminated by a former Conservative government?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question on political financing.
Prior to when I was elected, there was what was known as a per-vote subsidy. If a member got a certain number of votes in the previous election, they got that subsidy from the taxpayer.
What has changed now is that there is a maximum amount that individuals, and they must be individuals, not corporations, can contribute to an election candidate. That levels the playing field. To be elected, candidates have to work for the funds they need to use for their campaigns. They cannot just run on the money they raised because of the votes they got in the previous election. It is an incentive for candidates to work hard for their constituents so they can be recognized by and have support behind them from individuals in their riding.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to a dear friend who will be celebrating a 60-year career this weekend. His name is Normand Branchaud.
Early in life, Ti-Nor got his first harmonica for the modest sum of $3.50 by running errands in the village. At age 17, he made his first appearance before an audience at the École Rinfret in Sainte-Ursule and then got up on the back of a truck in a church parking lot one June 24. What a way to kick off a career. He would go on to perform with the Dassonicks, Les Jags and the Cousins Branchaud, and his prolific musical career now continues with the FADOQ Band, which occasionally allows me the honour of joining in. He is also an honorary member of La Bottine Souriante, the band that has made a star of his son Jean-François. Ti-Nor is a fantastic comedic storyteller who still has a lot of music left in him. He often says that he will not stop playing music until his eyes close for the last time, but I bet he will find a way to keep playing on the other side. Hats off to Ti-Nor, and I send him my congratulations on his 60 years in music.
With that out of the way, I will return to today's topic, namely Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. We have worked hard to support this bill. It is good to ban foreign influence because it poses a significant risk. Electoral disinformation, spreading false information, is something we have already seen in past elections. Voters have received fake messages directing them to the wrong address, the senders knowing full well that many of them would be discouraged from going on to the correct address if they encountered a problem.
I see the member for Terrebonne over there. She went through quite an unusual byelection with 48 candidates, I believe. I do not remember the exact number. It was nuts. One thing this bill would do is put a stop to that. To handle that particular situation, Elections Canada created blank ballots and asked voters to write in the name of their chosen candidate. This approach could lead to error or misinterpretation, especially when people are holding a list of candidates long enough to hit the floor. People with low literacy skills could make mistakes. This kind of thing must not happen again. That is why something had to be done. The bill would also ban “brownies” from leadership races, which used to be legal, apparently. That is hard to fathom. When I heard about it, I was gobsmacked. Obviously something has to be done about it.
However, one particular measure worries us, and that is removing the option for a voter to sign more than one nomination form. I think the government has made a mistake. I find this rather regrettable. The Bloc Québécois raised this issue and proposed an amendment, but it was not adopted. There is a problem here. A voter who agrees to sign a nomination form will know that they can sign only one. This is almost like making their vote public. However, it is the voter's privilege to keep their vote secret. I think the government should have preserved that principle. Then there is the issue of more difficult ridings or certain areas where it sometimes takes our candidates time to collect the necessary signatures.
This bill would limit people by allowing them to sign only one nomination form. I believe I have said this in the House before, but I think members will be proud of my democratic credentials: I once signed the form of my own political opponent, because I believe in democracy. The guy was nice, I enjoy debating people and I want my constituents to have choices. I think that the government has erred on that score. The ban on accepting anonymous political contributions is a big win, however. I fail to understand why it was legal before. We also support increasing administrative monetary penalties for certain violations.
The names of certain ridings are changing. That is the case for three ridings currently held by the Bloc Québécois. Some of our members asked for these changes after consulting with their constituents, local elected officials and the wider community. They came to a consensus. I assume in good faith that the other members from the other political parties did the same thing.
The riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will be called “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent” going forward. It is a lovely name.
The riding of Jonquière will be known as “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. Why not? It is quite poetic.
As for the riding of Rimouski—La Matapédia, its member bucked the general trend and proposed expanding the name, because his riding covers such a vast territory. In order to ensure that the riding name reflected everyone in it, the name chosen was “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”.
I will close with this. I am sure members heard the question I asked my Conservative colleague. Other changes could have been made, including restoring public funding for political parties. Quebec is doing it. Once again, Quebec is ahead of federal legislation. Donations are limited to $100 per person. There is no tax credit, and public funding is paid out based on the number of votes received. That takes the pressure off. In contrast, the federal system allows for a maximum donation of $1,750.
As I said in my question earlier, few of us and few of our constituents can afford to donate $1,750. That means that some people with more money might think that, by giving such a significant amount, they might have more influence on the elected member in the future, even if the member is not corrupt. Objectively, we should review that and lower these amounts. That would be very important.
There are other things that could have been done. My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj spoke earlier about the size of the ridings. I just talked about “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. The breath I just took to say the name of the riding helps us understand how big a geographical area it covers. This is getting to be a problem for conscientious members who believe that, in order to represent people, we need to know them. In order to get to know them, we need to meet with them often. In order to meet with them often, we need to travel around our riding.
I am lucky in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. It has 37 municipalities, which is a lot, but they are concentrated in a fairly small area. I can drive across my riding in an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half. Not all members are so lucky. Still, an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half by car is not next door. That means that, on any given day in my riding, driving for three hours is routine. It takes me 50 minutes to get to the office, and I live in my riding.
It is clear that this is a problem. We should keep this in mind going forward. If we want to revise the method or perhaps introduce proportionality into our electoral system, we will need to keep this in mind. It would be good if the percentage of votes were better represented in Parliament. Some of the more marginal parties that still receive a significant share of the vote could be represented. Conversely, we have to make sure that we do not create distance between members and their constituents, the people they represent, because that is fundamental; it is extremely important. That is what allows us to do our work effectively, while keeping both feet on the ground.
That is all I have to say on the matter. We are, of course, in favour of the bill, but we have reservations about limiting the number of signatures.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his speech.
He talked about how big some ridings are. I know that he is known for being very good about travelling around to different parts of his riding. Everyone there knows him and loves him.
He also talked about political financing. Would this bill not have been a good opportunity to review our political financing system, which is not particularly fair to people who want to participate constructively in the democratic debate?
I would like him to elaborate on that.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from—and I will take the liberty of referring to the riding by its future name—“Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. I do not know if my colleague heard me earlier, but I mentioned that the name is quite poetic. Bravo to our poet from the north.
I did also speak about political party financing. I mentioned earlier that few people can afford the maximum donation of $1,750. We have to be realistic. Furthermore, people who can afford it may have an ulterior motive when they donate. They may think they will have some influence over that elected official. I am not saying everyone does that, and I am sure there are people who make this kind of donation who do not think that way. I commend them. However, the risk exists.
That is why Quebec amended its law, capping donations at $100 and reinstating public funding for political parties. I think it would be very wise to reinstate public funding for political parties to ensure a healthy democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
The idea of public funding is really important. He said that Quebec does it. Canada did it at one time but does not do it now.
Can he explain again how Canada could learn from what Quebec is doing in terms of public funding?
Mr. Speaker, sometimes Canada looks to what is being done in Quebec, although it typically takes too long to do so, child care being one example. Indeed, we are often out in front. I often say in my speeches that the country of Quebec already exists. I am sure my colleague would agree. We are already very different in terms of our culture, how we organize ourselves, our political culture and our entrepreneurial culture. The fact that we are already a country is also clear from our more progressive and social democratic measures. Child care centres are a good example of this.
Perhaps we can see what happens when I officially call on the members opposite—government members who have the power to do this—to set up a committee to review political party funding and even the voting system. Fundamentally, what the people behind this bill want is a more representative voting system. I think that discussion is warranted. We should have it.
I call on them to do this and, as always, I am open to collaboration.
Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech, my colleague referred to the size of certain ridings. When the electoral map is redrawn, there are two concepts. First, there is the concept of the quotient, which is the population base, and then there is the concept of community of interest. Unfortunately, the latter is rarely respected, much less used, when an electoral map is redrawn. As a result, communities that have no similar economic interests sometimes wind up lumped together. That is what happened in my riding. A rather major distinction is made in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Residents come from either Saguenay or Lac-Saint-Jean. Unfortunately, when the map was redrawn, they took small communities from Lac-Saint-Jean and lumped them in with Saguenay, causing an uproar. We will work hard to represent these people as they deserve, but I think it is important to support this idea of community of interest.
Can my colleague elaborate on that?
Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate, but Canada does not take these things into account when it reviews the electoral map.
As elected officials, we can meet with members of the electoral commission. They will listen to what we have to say about changes to the riding boundaries.
In my case, I was very lucky during the last election. The beautiful area of Saint-Sulpice was added to my riding. In fact, I would like to say hello to the people there. I am very pleased to represent them. It is a gorgeous spot on the St. Lawrence. Every day, I learn more about this magical little corner of the country.
However, that means that there is now a fourth RCM in Berthier—Maskinongé, in addition to the city of Trois-Rivières. I am a very versatile and adaptable person. I can represent the specific interests of these people, but it requires a great deal of flexibility on my part because Saint-Sulpice is part of the Montreal metropolitan area. It is in the same riding as Pointe-du-Lac, which is the part of Trois-Rivières that I have the honour to represent. It is another equally wonderful part of the country filled with people I adore, but they have different challenges and perspectives.
We need to be more versatile. Perhaps we should take a closer look at Quebec's electoral boundaries during the next electoral redistribution, unless we have become an independent country by then.
Let us hope so, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Repentigny, I can only echo the previous comments made by my colleague. There are three towns in the riding of Repentigny: Charlemagne, Repentigny, and L'Assomption. Saint-Sulpice used to be part of the riding. My colleague mentioned community of interest. Saint-Sulpice is part of the L'Assomption RCM. I agree with my colleague on the importance of fully understanding what the repercussions might be for these communities if they become part of a different riding.
However, I would like to come back to another point my colleague raised, namely the issue of proportionality. How might we reform the voting system while effectively maintaining regional representation? I would like to emphasize that, in the past, the government committed to implementing a more proportional system. Unfortunately, that commitment was set aside. We had an opportunity to bring this issue back to the table. I believe we must keep it on the agenda and keep it alive.
I would like to know what my colleague suggests.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague's question, I must unfortunately inform him that I now represent the people of Saint-Sulpice. I love them and I am keeping them. The advantage is that it forces me and my colleague from Repentigny to work together, which is very positive, but it can be more difficult when people come from different political parties. Sometimes, it is even harder if they do not get along. In our case, of course, we are in perfect harmony.
I will now talk about proportionality. People need to feel that their vote counts for something. Some people vote for a party that never stands a chance of winning the election. Some ridings are considered strongholds. This concept exists in Quebec, it exists in Canada and it exists pretty much everywhere. In those places, the same political party always wins, because a large segment of the population has rather fixed views. I see one of my colleagues over there who has been an MP for a very long time. It would be surprising if he lost his riding.
There are some voters who might want to vote for another political party because they have never had the privilege of meeting the friendly MP who represents them. Sometimes, they do not bother to vote because they tell themselves it does not make a difference. That is where the danger lies. Proportional representation would ensure that, overall, there would be a balance and that the public's vote would be better represented in Parliament.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I was not born in Canada, but Canada is my adopted home. It is a place that I am very loyal to and committed to. As the member of Parliament representing the beautiful riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, which is so diverse, with over 43 languages spoken there, I can talk about Bill C-25 and the importance of not just the perception of having free and fair elections but the actuality of it and making sure that Canadians have faith within our democracy.
Canadians depend on free and fair elections. They need to be confident in our electoral process, confident that they can choose leaders who will prioritize communities here in Canada, including in Mississauga—Erin Mills. This is the importance of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act.
As the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills, I am proud to represent one of the most diverse communities in the country. One fact that unites all citizens in my riding is that democracy depends on trust. Canadians want to know that our elections are fair, that the information they receive is real, that ill-intentioned actors cannot manipulate our system and that the people who participate in public life can do so with confidence.
This is why the bill matters. In Mississauga—Erin Mills, families, newcomers, students, seniors and small businesses all bring different experiences and different perspectives to our democracy, but they share a common expectation, and that is that our institutions will protect the integrity of our vote and our democracy. They expect laws that keep pace with modern threats, whether those threats come in the form of foreign interference, digital deception, dark money or intimidation aimed at political candidates.
One practical problem the bill would address is the issue of unduly long ballots. In any riding with a large and busy electorate, including Mississauga—Erin Mills, a ballot that is intentionally overloaded does not strengthen our democracy. It creates confusion for voters, increases the burden on election workers and slows down the counting process.
That is why Bill C-25 proposes measures to reduce unduly long ballots, including allowing voters to sign only one candidate nomination form and requiring each candidate in a riding to have their own official agent. These may sound like technical amendments, but for constituents who simply want an election process that is orderly, accessible and credible, these are important protections.
The bill also responds to a newer and growing threat, which is digital impersonation and deepfakes. In many Canadian communities, and especially in Mississauga—Erin Mills, where residents are highly connected, receive information across many platforms and in many languages and often rely on digital communication to follow public affairs, the spread of false content can be especially damaging.
A vital aspect of Bill C-25 is the creation of a new offence against these impersonations. It would also create a new offence against intentionally spreading false information about election processes or the voting process when someone knows it is false and intends to disrupt the conduct of an election or affect its results. This is not about limiting legitimate debate. It is about protecting the public from deliberate deception.
The bill would also close important gaps by extending key election-related offences beyond the formal election period and into nomination and leadership contests. This matters because democratic integrity does not begin once a writ is dropped. In ridings like mine, where many people are politically engaged long before election day, these earlier stages of the process also deserve protection and scrutiny.
Bill C-25 would extend existing offences such as undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, intimidation, impersonation, misleading publications, unauthorized computer use and broadcasting outside Canada. They also apply to nomination and leadership contests. This is a crucial reform because vulnerabilities in those contests can undermine confidence in the entire democratic process.
The bill would also strengthen political financing rules, because Canadians want to know that their democracy is not being distorted by hidden or foreign money. Constituents expect transparency, accountability and fairness. They do not want anonymous or untraceable financial channels that are used to influence politics behind the scenes. Bill C-25 would prevent political parties from accepting anonymous or untraceable contributions, such as cryptocurrency, prepaid gift cards, money orders and other prepaid products.
It would strengthen restrictions on third parties and foreign entities involved in regulated political activities. It would further ensure that third parties can pay for regulated political activities only with contributions from Canadian citizens and permanent residents or with their own money under limited conditions, while also barring foreign entities from contributing property or other services to those activities. That matters, because confidence in democracy is weakened when people believe money moves government illicitly.
This bill also responds to the need for stronger enforcement. Canadians across the country want to know that election law is not only well written but also actually enforceable. This legislation would expand accountability to include those who are party to a violation, as well as those who conspire, attempt, advise or act as accessories after the fact. It would expand the administrative monetary penalty regime, increase maximum penalties and provide the commissioner of Canada elections with stronger tools to summon witnesses, compel evidence under oath and require the production or preservation of relevant documents. These measures are important, because a law without effective enforcement is not a real safeguard.
There is another aspect of this bill that is especially relevant to public life today, and that is physical security and personal information. In an era when harassment can spread quickly online and personal information can be misused in harmful ways, many people are understandably hesitant to participate in politics. That concern is real in every part of our country. People in my riding want a democracy that is open, but they also want one that is safe. They want candidates, volunteers, election workers and community leaders to be able to take part without fearing that their home address, personal information or security will be carelessly exposed.
Bill C-25 takes tangible steps in that direction. It would limit the publication of personal address information for returning officers, remove the requirement for a five-day advance notice of regulated fundraising events, limit the location details in post-event reports, increase reimbursement for eligible personal security expenses and establish stronger privacy policy requirements for federal political parties. Those privacy measures include requiring safeguards proportionate to the sensitivity of the information, appropriate steps in the event of a breach, equivalent protection when information is transferred and prohibitions on selling personal information or providing false or misleading information about why it is being collected. For citizens who care deeply about privacy, security and responsible public institutions, these are not minor administrative details; they are essential to our democratic confidence.
This bill is also important because it is grounded in expert recommendations. The measures in Bill C-25 respond to recommendations from the public inquiry into foreign interference, from the Chief Electoral Officer and from the commissioner of Canada elections, and build on measures that had previously been proposed in a former bill, Bill C-65. This matters because protecting democracy should not be a partisan reflex. It should be a careful, evidence-based effort in order for us to ensure that our laws remain responsive to evolving threats, which are very real.
Our constituents understand that democracy is strongest when people trust both the process and the institutions behind it. They want to know that ballots are manageable, that disinformation will be confronted, that foreign influence and foreign interference will be kept out, that personal information will be protected and that those who break election law will face meaningful consequences.
Bill C-25 would advance that work. It would protect the vote, the process and participants, and it would help protect the public trust that holds our democracy together. For those reasons, I am very proud to support the strong and free elections act, Bill C-25.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Message from the Senate
I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-219, an act to establish judicial independence day, and Bill S-221, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canada jay as the national bird of Canada.
Combatting Hate Act
Hon. Gary Anandasangaree (for the Minister of Justice)
moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to share my speaking time with the member for Hull—Aylmer.
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is coming back from the Senate today, and I want to take as much time as necessary to talk about what it really means for Black communities in Canada. I will focus more on the fine detail than on the broad strokes because this bill contains two elements that deserve to be understood for what they really are.
The first element is a provision that has been central to the bill from the time it was introduced: a stand-alone hate crime offence. The second element is an amendment from the Senate: the explicit inclusion of the noose as a symbol used to promote hatred. These two elements do not do the same thing, but they reinforce each other. Together, they offer a serious and concrete response to anti-Black hatred in Canada.
I want to start with the noose because it is the symbol that crystallizes something important about what this bill seeks to do. This symbol has a history—a long and specific history—that Canadians are less familiar with than they might think.
For centuries in the United States, hanging was used as an instrument of mass terror against Black communities. There were thousands of documented lynchings between the end of the Civil War and the middle of the 20th century. These acts were not committed in secret; they were public. They were sometimes announced in advance. Entire families travelled to watch them. Photos were taken and sold as souvenirs.
This was not run-of-the-mill violence. It was staged violence whose specific purpose was to send a message to all members of a community that they were not protected, that they had no recourse and that their lives did not matter.
The noose, on its own, became the bearer of that message. No words were needed. It was enough. It was enough to instill terror. It was enough to remind people of what had been done to people like them and what could still be done. It was enough to make them believe they had no place in society.
Unfortunately, this story did not stop at the border. It crossed over. It lives on in the memories of many Black families in Canada. Many of them come from communities that experienced this terror first-hand or inherited it over generations. The symbol continues to circulate. Nooses are left at workplaces. They are left in factory locker rooms, on construction sites and in police stations. They are found on doors, on desks and on social media.
Black Canadians are showing up to work in the morning, doing their job and trying to live normal lives, but then they see one. When that happens, there can be no confusion about the message. It is not a blunder. It is not a joke in poor taste. It is a deliberate statement to tell them that they are not safe there.
For too long, our criminal law did not have a clear response to this specific act. There was ambiguity. Could it fall under existing provisions? It might, depending on the context and the facts. Black communities do not have the luxury of navigating ambiguity. They are living with the real consequences of this symbol, and they deserve better than maybes.
The Senate amendment fixes that. By explicitly naming the noose, the law states that this symbol, which is used to promote hate or to intimidate, is a clear violation of Canadian law, unambiguously and without room for doubt.
For Black communities in Canada, this matters. The law does not erase history, but it does bear witness. When the law remains silent on something so specific, so loaded, that silence speaks for itself. It says it is not serious enough to call it by name.
Our government refuses to send that message. Confronting anti-Black hate starts with naming it. It starts with recognizing the specific symbols it uses, including the oldest ones, the most documented ones, the ones most unequivocal in meaning.
The noose is not the only symbol of anti-Black hate. The second aspect of this bill that I want to address is the stand-alone hate crime offence. It is the foundation of Bill C-9 and its importance is far from merely symbolic.
Today, under the existing system, hate is considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. Someone is convicted of assault, mischief or threats. Then, at sentencing, the court considers the fact that hate played a role and adjusts the sentence accordingly. Hate is recognized, but recognized late, like a footnote, like one item among many in a list of circumstances.
That is out of line with what victims of hate crime go through. When someone is attacked because of who they are, because of the colour of their skin, their religion or their identity, that crime does not just target one individual. It targets an entire community. It sends a message to everyone who shares that identity and tells them that they are not safe there. The collective dimension of the crime, the intent to intimidate others besides the immediate victim, is exactly what distinguishes a hate crime from an ordinary crime.
Our laws must reflect this from the get-go. It must not be just an afterthought. That is what the stand-alone offence does. It makes hatred the focus of the charge. It tells victims that we see what this was really about. We see the hate for what it is, not an afterthought but the very essence of what happened.
This is particularly meaningful for Black communities. Anti-Black hatred takes many forms, including threats, physical violence and repeated acts of intimidation that are exhausting and take their toll. When taken individually, these actions may seem difficult to pin down legally, but they fit into a pattern that is easy to recognize for those who experience them.
The stand-alone offence gives prosecutors, police and judges the tools they need to address the whole scope of this situation. It sends a message. The clarity of the legislation sends a message. When hate crimes are identified and prosecuted as a separate category of crime with distinct consequences, that speaks volumes about what we, as a society, refuse to tolerate.
These two provisions are not going to solve racism. They are not going to erase centuries of history. No one here is claiming that, but they are doing what the law can and must do. They name, they acknowledge and they protect all Canadians.
Black Canadians deserve to know that their government sees their reality, not in speeches, but in legislation, in practical tools available to the people responsible for protecting them, and in the proposed Bill C-9. That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Terrebonne to talk to me about the following.
At first, there were a lot of objections to the bill. People said it would detract from freedom of expression, that there was a risk of abuse, and so on. I think that we found the right solution by reinstating the Attorney General's consent to prosecute the offence. That way, with the Attorney General's judgment, we avoid the possibility of frivolous charges and ensure that any charges brought truly target people who promote hatred.
I would like her to respond to that.
Mr. Speaker, knowing that people who commit hate crimes will be brought to justice and held accountable for their actions, and having the Attorney General's consent, adds even more weight. What communities are asking for, in fact, is the chance to speak out about their experiences and to know that there will be real consequences, not just footnotes.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech and her overview of the history, origins and evolution of racism in North America. We have to talk about racism in order to combat it.
I would like to hear her thoughts on the systemic nature of racism, even today, in 2026.
Mr. Speaker, the systemic nature of racism is harder to demonstrate, because sometimes it is so deeply ingrained in what we have been doing for hundreds of years now. However, we can work on it.
What is really great about this bill is that we are able to call out a source of frustration that continues to intimidate all Black communities. If we look at the Black members of the House, none of us are immune to this kind of thing, no matter where we are. I think what Canadians see in us and in this bill is a way to call things out and protect all Canadians.
[English]
Bill C-9—Notice of Time Allocation Motion
Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendment to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
[Translation]
Second Reading and Concurrence in Senate Amendments
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as a member of Parliament, but also as co-chair of the Parliamentary Black Caucus, a position I share with my dear colleague from Terrebonne, who just gave a very good speech.
I would like to bring a slightly different perspective to our discussion this evening on Bill C-9. The Senate amendment, which seeks to designate the noose as a symbol of hatred, is very important.
The Senate did excellent work that deserves our support.
[English]
I would like to speak about what this bill means to the Black communities that I speak with every week, about what this bill means to us and about what it means that Parliament is finally doing it.
The word that comes back every time I have a discussion about this is “finally”. Finally, we are dealing with an issue that is of great symbolic importance and is a real symbol of hate for our community.
I have been in and around public life for a long time, and for as long as I can remember, Black communities have been telling governments the same thing. They have described a noose left on a workplace, a drawing on a wall or an actual noose being held at a construction site, for example, and what that means to them. They are threats that police have had trouble categorizing, or incidents reported and then quietly filed away because the law had no clear box to categorize them in. They told these stories to commissions, to committees, to ministers and to members of Parliament from every party, and they have told them with a patience, frankly, that these communities should have never needed.
For most of that time, the answer they got was sympathy. Sympathy is welcome. Sympathy is appreciated. Sympathy also costs nothing, and communities know the difference between a government that feels for them and a government that legislates for them. Bill C-9 legislates.
As I mentioned, as co-chair of the parliamentary Black caucus, I hear from Black Canadians from across this country. They are parents, workers, students, children and elders. When the subject of hate incidents comes up, the pain in those conversations rarely centres on the incidents alone. It centres on what happens afterward, because it is not what happens to someone but what happens afterward that is most important, and the legal process takes what is a racist act and changes it into a generic file. People can carry a great deal. What wears them down is carrying it while institutions look away.
When this bill names the noose explicitly in the law of Canada, I want this House to understand how that lands in our communities. The noose has a very specific and painful history for Black Canadians. My hon. colleague talked about the symbol of lynchings.
[Translation]
I do not want to be too explicit, but I have to say that hanging, lynching, is not something that just happens by accident. It is often an act that follows torture and terror.
[English]
It gives a very different perspective. When that symbol appears at a Canadian work site, the person who finds it instantly understands what it means. They know that they could never hold into themselves what the law does not do to protect them. This bill would change that.
The law of this country would say in plain text that this symbol, used wilfully to promote hatred and terror, has no place in this country. It would be a message for Black Canadians. This sentence in the Criminal Code would be a recognition that decades of telling the truth about their experience has registered somewhere, that it registered here in this Parliament. Confronting anti-Black hate means naming it, and this Parliament is about to name it.
The noose is a symbol that everyone recognizes, and the daily reality of anti-Black hate is usually quieter. It looks like threats, harassment, vandalism and intimidation, and it builds over months. The stand-alone hate crime offence at the heart of Bill C-9 is what would give the justice system the means to treat those acts as what they are.
I will leave the legal mechanics to the colleagues who have covered them and will cover them. I just want to say that communities have learned to measure laws by whether anything changes. If they call the police, will actions be taken? That is how people measure whether there is really justice in this country. This bill is built to change what happens when they call.
Parliament, as members know, moves slowly, and in moving slowly, often there is wisdom, but sometimes it is the symbol of avoidance; it is an act of avoidance. Regarding the question of hate-motivated crime, I believe we have been slow in the second way.
The evidence has been in front of us for years, if not generations. Statistics Canada has documented the rise of anti-Black hate crimes and of police-reported hate crimes year after year. Community organizations have produced report after report. The gap between what communities experience and what the law can capture was identified long ago, and it was identified by people far less powerful than any one of us in this chamber. However, they kept on raising it anyway.
It should not have taken this long. I say that as a member of the governing party, and I say that because communities that are watching at home know this to be true, and we need to be honest about what this legislation would do. What I have also learned is that the second-best time to act is now, so let us all support this bill. Bill C-9, finally, would catch up to where people are.
I will end with what I started with. Somewhere in the country tonight, there may be a worker going into his workplace and seeing the symbol of the noose being displayed or seeing a drawing of it. Right now, there is a parent explaining to their child what these various symbols of hate represent, having that difficult conversation that so many Canadians have to have with their children and their family. There are people right now deciding whether or not their place of worship, whether it is a church, a synagogue, a mosque or a gurdwara, their holy place, needs security equipment installed to ensure the safety of the people who come to worship.
These Canadians are owed many things by their country and by their Parliament. One of them is a criminal law that sees what is happening to them clearly and responds firmly. Black Canadians deserve to know that their government sees that reality and is taking it seriously. So do all the communities that hate has touched, and this bill is how we show it to them.
In conclusion, on behalf of the parliamentary Black caucus and on behalf of Black Canadians around this country, I ask every member of this House to please support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I would also like to congratulate the minister who introduced this bill.
I would like to reiterate how important it is to the Bloc Québécois that we support this bill. We continue to support it, obviously, because a number of amendments that we considered essential have been made. We acknowledge the collaborative effort in this regard.
I would also like to highlight the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code for the offence of inciting hatred. This was a major issue. It is important to understand that we were obviously very concerned about the fact that people were using religion to incite hatred. It is important to understand that religion is not a free pass for violating the fundamental rights of others and that this bill in no way prevents individuals from practising the religion or religions of their choice. We are therefore very pleased with this amendment.
Following my hon. colleague's presentation, I would like to know what he thinks needs to be done to raise public awareness, beyond the scope of this bill. Education is a provincial jurisdiction, but my colleague seems to have given it a lot of thought.
Mr. Speaker, education is officially a provincial responsibility. However, in a sociological sense, education belongs to all of us. Today's bill gives us the opportunity to clearly explain to Canadians what hate is and how we can ensure that we live together harmoniously, which is in our country's nature.
My hon. colleague from Repentigny referred to an amendment that he had supported that was withdrawn from the bill. I recognize that it was very important to have the Bloc Québécois's support, but I would also like to say that, honestly, it did not change anything in terms of the scope of the bill.
Even if we are talking about a religious person, the line that is crossed when inciting hatred remains the same. Nothing has changed in that regard, regardless of whether this exemption exists or not. Hatred—
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I was very moved by my friend's speech. He was my first mentor in this place, and I have learned so much from him over the last five years.
I would like him to reflect on the amount of misinformation and disinformation that has spread across this country in relation to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of information and disinformation with regard to this bill. One of the pieces clearly is that we would be taking away the rights of people of faith, people such as me, who attend church weekly and would feel that this would somehow impede them from speaking openly about their faith. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I can speak the words of sacred text, which for me is the Holy Bible and for others could be the Torah, the Koran or whatever text they have, but the fact is that I still have no right to preach for hate. That is a very high level. Just quoting the Bible, or any sacred text, at all is not what would put it in danger. The problem is when people call for the eradication of an identified group. That remains there regardless of—
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is in the same vein, with a heavy heart, that I have to rise once again on one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation the government has ever introduced. Bill C-9 is a bill that has been litigated in the media, across kitchen tables and in town halls across the country. It has been litigated almost everywhere, except in this House and at committee, where the Liberals have availed themselves of a myriad of parliamentary tricks to shut down debate and silence the voices of Canadians.
We are, at this exact moment, I believe, about 25 minutes into the debate on the Senate amendment to Bill C-9. A little over 12 minutes ago, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime walked in and said that there had been no agreement on this bill and the government would be moving to silence debate once again on this motion. Less than 15 minutes into the beginning of this debate, the Liberal government is already trying to shut it down. It is perhaps very poetic that it is once again censoring debate on its censorship bill.
Let me repeat in this House what I have said in this House, at committee and across the country multiple times: Hate is real and it is a scourge on this country.
I come from London. Just the other day, we had the five-year anniversary of the heinous and hate-motivated murder of the Afzaal family, who were killed for no other reason than their Muslim faith. We have seen the absolutely despicable hate on Canadian streets and streets around the world targeting the Jewish community, with synagogues and day schools being shot up, and posters trying to find a missing Jewish girl being ripped down. We have also seen, and I say this as a Christian, 123 Christian churches in the last five years burned or vandalized. Interestingly enough, when Justin Trudeau was prime minister, he was asked about this and said it was “understandable”. Some would say that is hate from someone who is supposed to be a unifying figure in this country, a prime minister.
Then we have, of course, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who literally said at a meeting of the justice committee, before he was promoted to cabinet, which gives a pretty good indication of what the Prime Minister welcomes among his closest advisers, that people should be criminally prosecuted for quoting certain verses of holy scripture. He mentioned Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans. Two of those are books in both the Bible and the Torah, but he said it could extend to other things as well. He said, and I have the direct quote, if any of my Liberal colleagues would like to call this misinformation, as they so often do, that some verses of scripture are so inherently hateful that they should warrant criminal prosecution.
Some Liberals may say that it is not true and that is not how it is going to unfold. However, if Liberal members cannot even agree on what constitutes hate, how can police, prosecutors, civil society groups and others who are going to be responsible for implementing what is in Bill C-9, if and when it receives royal assent and becomes law?
This is important because that same minister, just yesterday, introduced Bill C-34, with sweeping reforms to Internet regulations. I have not read through the entire bill myself yet, but I will point out that one of the things the Liberal government has tried to do with its two previous online harms bills is weaponize the state against what Liberals view as hate speech, not actual criminal hate speech, but what the Liberal government views as being speech that should be banned and restricted. Therefore, this Liberal government does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on anything to do with speech or conscience.
Canadians see through that. That is why Canadians have been so resoundingly clear that they do not want Bill C-9. That is why Canadians have, through hundreds of thousands of phone calls, contacted the Liberal members, who have in some cases listened to the concerns but clearly not taken them to heart, because they have not only forced through Bill C-9 at every stage, but silenced debate and silenced the voices of Canadians.
In the Senate, we saw this on full display within the last week and a half, when 240,000 postcards urging senators to reject Bill C-9 were sent to members of the Senate. What happened? The Senate mailroom said there were too many and that it could not deliver them all to the senators' offices, so it would send a couple of samples their way and put the rest in a warehouse in Gatineau.
Eventually, due to public pressure, and I thank my colleague, Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan, for her efforts on this, the postcards were moved to a Senate office room. Even so, senators were told to come on down if they wanted to get their postcards. Most did not. The very same senators then voted the bill through without seeing the scale of response from Canadians who do not support it. This is coming from Canadians of a very diverse array of political, religious, ethnic, philosophical and ideological backgrounds.
One of the things I found so fascinating, as someone who had the opportunity to meet with so many Canadians about Bill C-9, is how the strange bedfellows, as the old saying goes, were forming. There were evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews, devout Muslims and non-religious civil liberties actors. I cannot say I have had many opportunities in the chamber to link arms, metaphorically, with my colleagues in the NDP and my colleague the leader of the Green Party, but on Bill C-9, both the left and the right saw that the Liberal government cannot be trusted with matters of civil liberties.
The Liberal government members, when facing any of the criticism, of which there has been much on Bill C-9, resort to the same old tired lines. They say that the bill cannot affect someone's charter rights, because the charter protects their rights. If that sounds familiar, it is because that was the identical argument they used to insulate themselves from criticism when they invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022. They said that it could not violate someone's charter rights because the Emergencies Act says it has to be charter-compliant.
What happened in the aftermath of that? Bank accounts of political protesters were frozen. The mobility rights of people engaging in peaceful protest were banned. It was so Orwellian and draconian that the federal court said it was unconstitutional, that it violated the civil liberties of Canadians. The government appealed. It went to the Federal Court of Appeal, which said once again that it violated the civil liberties of Canadians. Then, in the last hour of the last day on which the Liberal government could seek leave to the Supreme Court to appeal that decision, it appealed it, once again telling Canadians that it would defend its right to violate their rights.
That is what the Liberal government would be doing with Bill C-9. Perhaps someone will be wrongfully charged under Bill C-9, will avail themselves of the legal process and be exonerated, but as we have seen in the Emergencies Act case, that is likely to take years.
In anything to do with freedom of expression, the issue is not what decisions the state will make in totality. It is also a question of what chilling effect the legislation would create. Faith leaders all of a sudden are not confident about their ability to preach the totality of their holy book, and for them, not the government, to be the arbiter of which scriptures mean what. No faith leader should ever have to vet their sermons through the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, which is effectively the benchmark we are told must exist because it is the minister who would decide which verses of scripture are hateful and which verses are not.
We looked at the bill, and we saw that the Liberal government would be removing long-standing protections for religious speech, or what is often called the religious defence. This was an agreement between the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois that would remove long-standing protections that have been on the books for over 50 years. These are protections that say good-faith religious expression is not hate speech. It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for expressing hate. Someone cannot rob a bank, run down the road and yell, “God is good” and expect that the religious defence will save them. I do not recommend anyone tries.
What the religious defence says is that if someone is making a good-faith religious expression or citing a religious text, that cannot meet the definition of hate speech. Calls for genocide and calls for violence, calls that are themselves criminal, were illegal, are illegal and will always be illegal.
The religious defence does not protect against criminally hateful speech. It simply sets out what is not and should not be construed as hate speech to protect against authoritarian censors, like the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who wish to say that good-faith religious expression can and may be hateful. Canadians are so alarmed by this because when we remove good-faith protections that apply only to people who have made good-faith expressions, the only people we are protecting are those who were engaging in good-faith debates, whether they were on a religious matter or an academic matter, or whatever else may come about from them.
The removal of the religious defence is not the only problem with Bill C-9. It certainly became a flashpoint in the discussion. It was one of the most significant points for people of faith, who, I would note, have already seen a litany of attacks on their rights from the Liberal government. Going back a couple of years ago, there was the threat of removing their charitable status. That was an endorsement given by Liberal and New Democrat members. Going back years earlier, there was the ideological and religious litmus test the Liberal government put on organizations that wanted to receive Canada summer jobs funding, as though their ability to hire a summer student to help out should be contingent on their religious and moral beliefs. This is not new. It is why people were, rightfully, so concerned about it.
In the end, we also had the process before us truncated. Efforts to bring in the testimony that the Minister of Justice claimed he would listen to and did not were stymied. Efforts to read letters from faith leaders from very ecumenical backgrounds were not permitted. I wonder why. Even now, I wonder why, just a few minutes into our discussion, the secretary of state for combatting thought crime decided to rise and try once again to shut down debate on Bill C-9. The Liberal government lacks the courage to even defend the totality of what it is doing.
I repeat that this is not a rejection of the existence of hate and the need to respond to it. I will specifically recognize hate against the Jewish community. I remember that one of my colleagues, the member for Mount Royal, who has been very outspoken in standing up for the Jewish community in his riding, was at one time entertaining leaving the Liberal caucus because of the Liberal caucus's anti-Semitism problem. Irwin Cotler, a renowned human rights advocate, was urging my colleague from Mount Royal to leave the Liberals because they were not standing up against the hate facing our Jewish community. This is why I do not take the Liberals seriously when they say they have the solution to a problem they have allowed to fester, and it is why Canadians do not trust them.
Interestingly enough, one of the fascinating conversations I had in the course of our deliberations on Bill C-9 when it was before the House was with the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, which is a group of Orthodox rabbis, not just in Toronto, but actually across many parts of the country. These are men I met with who face tremendous discrimination and hate. They do not even feel safe walking around parts of Toronto looking visibly Orthodox. They said hate is real and anti-Semitism is real, but they are not going to be protected by laws that limit their ability to preach their faith and read their scriptures.
Religious freedom for one is religious freedom for all. That is why faith groups like the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the United Church of Canada, the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, some of which are more liberal with a small "l" and some of which are more conservative with a small “c”, but all of which represent different faith groups, have all found problems with Bill C-9. In some cases, they have found problems with the entirety of it. In others, they have found problems with the parts dealing with removing long-standing protections for religious speech.
We do not protect anyone from hate and we do not protect anyone from persecution if we take away their rights. This is why Bill C-9 and the Liberal government's insistence on forcing this through have been such a clarion call for people across this country.
I will speak specifically about the section of the bill criminalizing hate symbols, because this is what is at issue in the amendment that has been returned to us from the Senate. The amendment would add a noose, a symbol with a tremendously hateful history, which actually did not get much exploration when Bill C-9 was before the justice committee and was not part of the original list the Liberal members put forward.
I do not actually recall whether there were any questions from Liberal MPs, or any MPs, on this. I could be wrong on that point, but I certainly know it did not take up any substantive amount of time in our committee's study on this. However, the problem that did arise on the hate symbol section was twofold. One part was a question of redundancy. Displaying a hate symbol in Canada is already a crime if someone is doing it for an illegal purpose.
I can give a very recent example of this. In the fall, there was a man whom I find to be utterly despicable, actually, in my part of the province, sadly, who decided to inflict hate on the community by mowing a Nazi hakenkreuz, often referred to as a swastika, into his front lawn. He lived on a main highway. It was very jarring for people, certainly those in the Jewish community, who had to see it. Police investigated. They did amazing work. They determined it did meet the standard of wilfully promoting hate, an existing Criminal Code offence. The evidence was the fact that he was displaying a hate symbol in a manner to wilfully promote hate. The law worked.
The idea of needing to ban hate symbols is utterly redundant, because they are already illegal, as is much of what is in Bill C-9 in general. The offences relating to obstruction, intimidation or blocking access are things already covered by existing laws. If we have a problem with existing laws not being enforced, we need to deal with that, but new laws are going to fall victim to the same cultural attitudes, which, again, I would attribute to a lack of political leadership more than to anything else.
However, the problem when we do prescribe specific hate symbols is that now all of a sudden we have introduced a new layer of ambiguity into the law. We have introduced a new problem, which is, does the displaying of what the Liberals say is a hate symbol, alone, constitute a criminal act? The Liberals claimed this was not the case. The justice minister claimed this was not the case. However, the testimony actually said otherwise.
For example, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said that the offence is written in such a way that the “simple display” of one of the symbols included would in and of itself “be considered a wilful incitement to hatred.” A plain reading of the offence by police or the courts could reasonably be that it is the simple display of an image that in and of itself promotes hatred. Intent does not matter. The “simple display” is all that matters.
We also heard something very similar from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, pointing out the redundancy, that “public display of a hateful symbol can already be part of a broader pattern of behaviour that leads to criminal conviction.” The CCLA gave another example from 2010, where someone “was convicted of public incitement of hatred for burning a cross”, and “ In 2012, an individual was convicted of mischief for, among other things, drawing symbols associated with the [KKK] in front of a Black family's house.” Existing laws were used to go after, in that case, anti-Black racism, which is very real, does warrant a response and should be prosecuted, as should all other illegal forms of hatred in this country.
The problem when we start enumerating hate symbols is that we are going to end up with a never-ending process of people wanting to add more symbols onto it. If we are going to go down that road of enumerating these symbols are illegal and these ones are not, we have to be prepared to look at all the symbols that cause people hate. We actually explored this at the justice committee in the House of Commons. I moved an amendment to add the hammer and sickle to the list of hate symbols. It is a symbol associated with Communism, responsible for claiming 100 million lives. The Liberals voted this down.
The Liberals are interested in only some types of hate. They are interested in going after only some types of violence. What about the logo for antifa, again, a network, a philosophy, a belief system, an organization, however we want to refer to it, responsible for demonstrable violence, threats of violence and hate? Where is that on the list?
With respect to the list of terror entities that the Liberal government has put as the main focal point of the hate symbol section, a list that is subject to change and that the government could effectively change unilaterally, there were issues raised by witnesses about, if not the veracity, certainly the integrity of that list. I think getting into that would probably be something that takes up more time. I guess I have unlimited time, but it would take up, theoretically, more time than the House would like to spend on the technicalities of it. However, it was a point that we did not get the opportunity to really interrogate about much further, because of the Liberals' desire to shut down debate on the bill.
As fascinating as I am sure a lot of Canadians find the inner workings of Parliament, or as fascinating as I wish they found them, it is actually quite frustrating. I go back to the reason I came here. One of the things I said in my maiden speech was that I came to Ottawa and Parliament to make Canada a freer place.
I was so focused on the things the Liberals have done to erode these freedoms that needed to be undone. It was shocking to see how many more things they continue to heap on and how many more bills and pieces of legislation have come forward that attempt to put the government more in control of things as fundamental as what Canadians say, what scriptures Canadians read and what religious beliefs Canadians can share and exhibit with each other.
This idea of control is so deeply ingrained in the Liberal ethos. It is shameful. I remember that many years ago, freedom of speech was a non-partisan concept. I remember how the great Senator Jerry Grafstein, a Liberal senator who was one of the champions of freedom of expression, was one of the champions of opposing section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as it was used against people for their opinions. Where are those Liberals? Where are the freedom-of-speech-loving Liberals? I see Liberals who love censorship, and I see Liberals who love silencing people. I see them all the time. Where are the Liberals who are prepared to stand on principle for freedom of expression?
Interestingly, when the Bill C-9 debate was first going on in this House, I heard from a number of Liberal MPs who were very quietly supportive of what we were saying on the bill. They were hearing from their constituents from the Muslim community, the Christian community and all communities, raising issues about this. Those Liberal MPs seem to have been silenced by their own party, their own whip or their own Prime Minister. When push came to shove, they were whipped into voting for this bill, which their communities and constituents did not want.
As an aside, I am very interested in seeing, when this particular motion goes to a vote, how my colleague from southwestern Ontario, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong is going to vote, because I stood in this House with her as she eloquently railed against Liberal assaults on civil liberties. She stood up and talked about how the Liberals wanted to put her in jail for her religious beliefs. Will there be room for that member to stand and vote her conscience in the Liberal Party? I do not know. History would indicate no. I know people of faith are watching. Perhaps they are praying for a miracle. I do not know.
I look at the discussion that took place in the Senate. As someone who has been a member of Parliament for a little over a year, there is a lot I need to learn, and a lot we can all learn, about how the procedures and mechanisms work in this place. I have not had the opportunity to delve too much into how Senate procedure works.
I was watching some of the debates that took place at the Senate human rights committee, which was reviewing Bill C-9. I was actually heartened that it had many witnesses testifying who had been barred by the Liberals from testifying when the bill was before the House, like Lisa Bildy, who is a tremendous human rights lawyer from the Free Speech Union of Canada, Professor David Millard Haskell, from Wilfrid Laurier University, and a great many others, including The Democracy Fund's Mark Joseph. These people all said something very similar, which was that as the bill is written, the only assurances we can take that the wrong people would not be charged are the government's assurances that that is not what it is trying to do.
I realize that we are getting late into the evening. Even if we take the Liberals at their word, which I do not think people generally do, and certainly not these Liberals, we are relying on every single person in the country reading the definition of hate the same way. We are relying on every police officer, every provincial attorney general, every civil society group and every faith leader to read this the same way and understand it. Hate is a subjective concept.
One of the changes that I am glad was made to Bill C-9 was an amendment to the original Liberal definition, which everyone agreed significantly lowered the threshold to charge someone for their speech. I am glad that we were able to change it. However, there were other amendments that the Liberals rejected. One that I was actually quite shocked to see them reject was an amendment to remove the applicability of the Liberals' new stand-alone hate offence to all federal laws and limit it to just the Criminal Code, because the new stand-alone hate offence is a criminal law.
Under Bill C-9 as written, that law would apply to even non-criminal statutes like, for example, the Canadian Human Rights Act. Someone could be criminally charged with a Liberal-defined hate crime for breaking a non-criminal law. The Liberals had no interest in fixing what many people assumed might have been an accident or a drafting error. They had no interest in fixing that.
Then we can look at some of the other arguments that were put forward in the Senate. Now, the Senate human rights committee originally added more amendments than just the one that we are discussing today. Some of those attracted a great deal of swift response from people across the country. For example, the Senate proposed a specific criminalization of residential school denialism:
Everyone who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against Indigenous Peoples by condoning, denying or downplaying the Indian Residential Schools System...is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or...is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This is an amendment that passed the Senate human rights committee. It almost passed the Senate but was rejected at report stage, ultimately. This is an amendment that has actually been denied and decried by a great many indigenous leaders, who fear that something like this would bar them from even telling their own stories and discussing their own approach.
Interestingly enough, we heard from the government's representative in the Senate. I am not just saying she is a Liberal senator because Justin Trudeau appointed her, but she actually bears the title of the government's representative in the Senate. She said that the reason she voted against that amendment was because it did not go far enough. She thought it did not go far enough, and she said the government was instead working with a member from the NDP, the member for Winnipeg Centre, I believe, who has a private member's bill that attempts to do something very similar. The only reason the Liberal government's representative in the Senate said no to that amendment was that it did not go far enough. That is worth noting.
The original amendment that dealt with the noose issue was an amendment that would have actually prohibited a noose, a burning cross or a white pointed hood, or any other symbol that is used or associated with the promotion of ideological violence based on race, ancestry or ethnic origin. Nobody wants to see hate in this country. No one wants to see hate symbols. No one wants to see the proliferation of burning crosses, nooses, things used to traumatize and terrorize people, things associated with very real historical harms.
I remember some years ago, there was a Liberal member of Parliament, the member for Vancouver Centre, I believe, who spoke. It ended up being completely made up, but she spoke about some rash of cross burnings in a community, which ended up not being accurate. I do think that for people who have actually experienced these things, it is horrible, and we should condemn it. We should use existing laws that deal with hate.
Then I look at when the discussion came to the Senate human rights committee on the religious defence, the most contentious part of the bill. This was the part of the bill that was ultimately responsible for the hundreds of thousands of phone calls to Liberal MPs, for the hundreds of thousands of postcards, for the emails that I have gotten and still continue to get about this bill, and for the conversations that, in my riding, real people have with me because they have heard what the Liberals are doing and cannot stand it. It was the removal of the religious defence.
The Senate human rights committee voted against reinstating the religious defence. It was focused more on adding more restrictions and more layers and less on preserving the fundamental nature of freedom of expression and freedom of religion that should underpin all work we do here, upholding the fundamental values that are enshrined in our charter but definitely predate the charter.
Then, when those amendments were rejected at report stage, we had another discussion, at third reading in the Senate. Conservative Senator Yonah Martin tried a much more modest way of telling faith communities in this country that their rights would not be targeted, and that was to take the Liberal pablum that was inserted to try to pacify people. I will read that. This was after the justice minister said he was going to canvass faith communities and said he was going to listen to their concerns. Some people called us and said, “Hey, great, we won. The justice minister said he's going to fix it.” They then saw the text and realized that, once again, a Liberal had written a cheque that could not be cashed.
The line that the Liberals put into the bill, referring to the section to do with wilfully promoting hate, was this:
For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.?2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.
To put that in plainer text, what the “for greater certainty” clause says is that one is not wilfully promoting hate if one is engaged in a religious or political or educational discussion, unless one is wilfully promoting hate. I am not sensing the clarity there. It is circular reasoning if ever there was some.
We had lawyers, scholars and faith leaders who weighed in on this, who said they know how we can salvage this. We can take off that last line, the circular line, “if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group”. That was rejected when we tried to do it at the House justice committee, and it was rejected when Senator Martin tried to do it in the Senate. Again, the government's representative in the Senate refused to budge on any of this, refused to give even an inch on sending a signal to faith communities in this country that their rights and freedoms will be protected.
I mean no disrespect to our colleagues in the Senate, but it was interesting hearing the debates both on the Senate floor and in the Senate human rights committee, when none of the thorny issues that one would think would have to be addressed when dealing with these definitions was actually asked about. For example, when the amendment on criminalizing residential school denialism or downplaying was being discussed, nobody that I heard asked what that means. Nobody asked how we define it, how we distinguish academic inquiry on a subject of historic significance from downplaying in a way that is, as the legislation defines it, hateful.
Even when talking about the noose, no one actually interrogated the point of what a noose means. That may sound silly to some people, because we can all in our minds imagine what that is. When we are talking about the point at which a symbol becomes illegal, it is a very different question. The point at which a symbol becomes illegal needs to have a very clear definition, especially if we weave it into the dialogue we heard from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and others, that a display of a symbol is inherently hateful regardless of intent.
I do not wish to sound glib here. I do not wish to do what the Supreme Court does, which is to concoct all these reasonable hypotheticals to try to rewrite law. I will point out that there have been stories where someone has thought something was a noose and it was not. I could see situations in which someone sets up a really terrifying Halloween display on their home, for example, and someone may misunderstand the intent and call the police. This is the problem. When we are enumerating symbols and we are separating out intent, which is what lawyers have said the stand-alone hate symbol ban does, we are going to have a chilling effect on discourse, which is precisely the problem.
Just as when we remove long-standing protections for religious speech from the Criminal Code, we are sending a signal to people of faith that their sermons, their beliefs and their scriptures are now fair game for prosecution. That is the message that we are sending. That is the message that is being sent when the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture says that some verses of scripture are so inherently hateful, they should attract prosecution. That is the message we can draw when Justin Trudeau says it is understandable that someone would want to burn a Christian church. All of this is part and parcel of why Canadians were so alarmed.
If I try to find the silver lining in all of this, it is that I have had the opportunity to have discussions with people I would not find myself on the same side as politically. I have had a great many discussions with people where we can disagree on nine out of 10 other things, but on this, we are united. I do not actually think that is any testament to my ability to attract friends and whatnot. I think it is a testament to how well the Liberals have mastered creating enemies, because the Liberals do not have the goodwill from these communities either. The Liberals know they do not have the benefit of the doubt, and we have seen this in the context of other legislation too.
The Liberals' Bill C-8 and Bill C-22 were both subject to their same pre-emptive defence that they made with Bill C-9, which is, “Don't worry. You can trust us.” Canadians look at that and say, “Oh no, we can't,” and I agree with those Canadians. The Liberal government has to make its case that it is trustworthy and that it is not going to abuse its power and its authority.
Let us imagine a parallel universe here in which the Liberals do not want to weaponize their authority against political dissidents. I know that seems like a very fictional, hypothetical scenario, but let us just imagine that world for a moment. What is to say that the next government would not? This is the problem, and we can look at the Emergencies Act as an example, with laws that give the government power that is supposed to be constrained only by its goodwill. This is why we are so concerned about other legislation in which ministerial discretion is so central to the powers and authorities vested in the laws. It is because we do not trust these ministers.
Quite frankly, earlier today during Oral Questions, a very influential, powerful minister, the minister responsible for the public service, the President of the Treasury Board, was asked a simple question about his file, and he looked through his papers for 30 seconds to find the answer and could not. In the end, he sat down and let someone else answer the question. We can imagine a minister like that put in a role where they get to decide what Canadians say online, or what telecom companies have to do. We can imagine the power that other people in the Liberal government would have, with a minister who will just read whatever is on the page and, if it is not there, will just sit down.
That is why we have to restrain government power, and it is not just because of a distrust of the Liberal government. It is because of a distrust of the state in general that Canadians have. We should not be happy giving the Liberals any power that we would not want Conservatives to have, that we would not want the Bloc to have, that we would not want New Democrats to have and that we would not want the Greens to have. It is not that all of these parties have an equal likelihood of forming government, but I am just using them as an example here.
All should agree with that. All should understand that. We can think of the Emergencies Act. Did anyone honestly think that the Liberals would be so gung-ho to use the powers that they used that act for? What if a Conservative government was doing it against a group of protesters that they felt were more aligned with the left?
All of this is speaking to what I believe is the most central reason that Bill C-9 was so vociferously opposed by so many Canadians. It was not because of all these dog whistles that the Liberals like to use: conspiracy theories, obstruction or certain people wanting a licence to hate. People want freedom in this country. They want to know that their rights and freedoms are protected. They want to know that the Liberal government is not just going to pay lip service to the charter but is actually going to live and embody it in all it does.
The values of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the right to privacy, all of these things, are not just slogans that the Liberals can discard at their whim when they run up against a policy they want to champion. These are central things not just to Canadian identity but to the human experience.
Freedom of expression is, in many respects, the most important freedom. This is not my thought, but it is one that I have shared a great many times: If all other freedoms were stripped away but one, the freedom of expression, we could use that to fight to win all the others back.
I am standing up today, in what will more than likely be my last opportunity in the House to address Bill C-9, to say that we cannot let our freedoms be eroded. We cannot. It is not just about whether people believe a faith, beliefs or values to be hateful. I do not believe that the majority of people in this country are hateful people. I believe it is is a small minority, and I believe that small minority needs to be addressed. When their expressions and their actions rise to the criminal level, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
However, I also believe that the issue is not about whether people themselves want to use their freedom to spread hate. It is about whether those who disagree with them will agree not to use the word “hate” to malign them or silence them.
I am so grateful for the leadership of some people who now find themselves in the Liberal Party. I mentioned, for example, my former colleague from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, who was a fierce crusader against Bill C-9. I also have to recognize the Liberal member for Nunavut, who was a tremendous crusader against Bill C-9. I applauded her second-reading speech, when she spoke about the powers the Liberal government was trying to give itself. I hope the member will remember her roots and vote against this.
Lori Idlout: How could I forget my roots?
Andrew Lawton: Mr. Speaker, I hope she will remember and actually respect the core fundamental freedoms and values that led her to giving such an impassioned speech previously.
Many Liberals probably wanted Bill C-9 to skate through. Several Liberals are probably quite unhappy that it has come back to the House and that once again they have to address it. However, they have the opportunity to do the right thing.
I am about to introduce an amendment to this bill. It is actually an olive branch to my Liberal colleagues. My amendment would give the Liberals and all members of the House one final opportunity to do the right thing: to end the division, to end the assaults on liberty and to end the attacks on people who just want to live their lives free of government intrusion and censorship. The amendment would end this charade once and for all.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“the order for the consideration of the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), be discharged and the Bill withdrawn”.
Mr. Speaker, when I was around my riding and hearing concerns from people, a lot of people defended the Liberals, saying, “Clearly it is not their intent to ban religious texts. We are just trying to prevent hate here.” However, what is interesting is that a Liberal cabinet minister has said that there are passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful. This came from a Liberal cabinet minister, so obviously that is the intent of the government.
I am wondering if the member could explain this: Should we make a list, as governments, to give to pastors and people of religious faiths so they have examples of verses that they know they are not allowed to say in churches and synagogues without getting handcuffed?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important work on this. I actually had the opportunity to meet with people in his riding in Newfoundland, including faith leaders, back in January who were very concerned about what the Liberals are doing. One of the questions that at least one person asked me was very much in line with what he just said there and was from a place of fear: “If we have Liberal government ministers saying that certain verses of scripture are not allowed, what am I allowed to preach? What am I allowed to do?”
That was, interestingly enough, before he was a minister. He was just the chair of the justice committee at the time, and he was promoted after making those comments. I go back to how it is clear that the Prime Minister welcomes that very divisive and anti-free expression thinking on his team.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his passionate speech and for his very clearly thought-out presentation and understanding of the bill. I certainly hope that the Liberals will follow through with his amendment.
My wife and I received a call a couple of days ago from a relative of the pastor of the church I have been going to for about 25 years. She was very upset about this bill. I wanted to soothe her, so I told her, “I do not believe they are going to be taking people in the next few days or few weeks and bringing them to prison.” I was just trying to calm her down. At the same time, I said, “This is leading somewhere. We do not know where it is going to go. It is going to be interpreted.”
I wonder if the member could tell us how this would impact the human rights courts—
Mr. Speaker, I will just say to my colleagues and constituents that there is one saving grace in all of this, which is that any law that can be passed by the House of Commons can be repealed by the House of Commons. A Conservative government will repeal every single Liberal censorship law at the first opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great work across this country on Bill C-9. Maybe there are some well-intentioned Liberals across the way, but we made these same arguments around medical assistance in dying. We said that there was going to be pressure on seniors to end their life and that MAID was going to be pushed on people who are affected by mental health issues, and that is exactly what has been happening.
If Bill C-9 really becomes the law of the land, where does the member see this going? How could it actually affect pastors and preachers at Christian churches across Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his support on this and for the work he has done in standing up for freedoms.
I will say two things on this. The first is that where the problematic parts of the bill are coming from is itself a signal. It shows that the Liberal government does not fundamentally respect the role that faith plays in society, and religious freedom. When that is the frame the Liberals have already established for their outlook, we have to be very concerned about how that is going to unfold in other ways.
The second is that all of us see, or should see, in our constituencies the work that faith groups and people from across the faith spectrum do, from food banks to homeless shelters, all of this. If we take away the right for faith communities to live out their values and beliefs, we also have to be prepared to give up that philanthropic benefit that gives us so much in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated that my colleague talked about the various faiths right across the country that are supportive of this. When we had the opportunity to speak at a committee, and I did, I said that everyone has faith; it is just a matter of where they put that faith. An individual who is an atheist contacted me and said “Cathay, thank you so much, because what this is about is freedom."
I would like the member to comment on that.
Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to be able to work alongside my colleague from Yorkton-Melville. I believe I said it in my remarks today, but it bears repeating: Religious freedom for one is religious freedom for all. It includes the right of people of all faiths to live out their values. It also includes the right of people of no faith to criticize religion. Sometimes I may find that hurtful, but I do not trust the government, nor do we want a society in which the government is the arbiter of values and beliefs.
Often people will bring up the idea of the separation of church and state. By opposing Bill C-9, we would actually be protecting that sacred separation by keeping the state out of places of worship. I hope my Liberal colleagues will support our amendment to the motion, to get rid of this bill once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, the member was knowledgeable in his comments and his speech on Bill C-9.
I spoke to this bill. As an indigenous person, coming from the Indian Act and knowing that natives did not have rights until the last 50 years, I was shocked at this. The issue is the potential attack not only against faith leaders but also against the fundamental principle of freedom of all manners. I cannot understand why the House has not taken the charter seriously. We are actually playing politics with it.
With respect to the motion that my colleague has put on the floor, is there any chance the Liberal government will come to its senses and support it? If not, what are the options for us as Conservatives on behalf of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to work alongside my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I have been such an admirer of his work for a great many years. I look across the aisle, and the eye rolls I see and the giggles I hear make me think that perhaps we do not have a huge amount of faith that the motion will succeed, but I hope that the Liberals who are not perhaps listening to this right now will do the right thing.
My colleague has made some tremendous observations, in and out of the chamber, about the government's history with indigenous peoples, and this is something I value learning more and more about. I think the takeaway is that regardless of someone's beliefs, regardless of their identity, the very worst thing the government can do is impose its value system and its belief system on them. That is what we need to stand up against quite firmly and irrevocably.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has spoken so eloquently on Bill C-9 from the beginning, and I want to commend him for seeing Bill C-9 for what it is. It is the government's attempt to censor what people say and do in this country.
Does he see a pattern in the behaviour of the government? With whatever social problems seem to exist in this country, the Liberals' response is not to let Canadians make decisions for themselves, think for themselves or speak for themselves, but to tell them what their truth is and that if they do not believe their truth, they are bad people.
Does he see a pattern here?
Mr. Speaker, I recall that in one of my earlier interventions in this House, I wanted to do a history of Liberal censorship, but I had only 20 minutes and I knew I would run out of time.
I mentioned censorship, and the Minister of Public Safety appeared. It is like Beetlejuice.
At the end of the day, we all have to stand firm for freedom in this House and this chamber. We need to fight against 10 years of a Liberal record of pushing against it.
I am not sure if that touches on acknowledging the presence or absence of a member, but we will let that go.
The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, when I rose in the House previously in question period, I asked the Minister of Public Safety about charges being stayed against two fentanyl traffickers who were arrested and in court in Swift Current. Police found 17.5 pounds of fentanyl in their car, and their charges were stayed. That 17.5 pounds of fentanyl is just under four million doses. Effectively, 17.5 pounds of fentanyl could kill close to four million people. That is enough fentanyl to kill just about all of the people in Alberta and Saskatchewan combined in one traffic stop. The individuals' charges were stayed, they were released on bail and now they are out in the general public. This is getting ridiculous. It is getting out of hand.
Let us look at the tone the government has set over the years with its soft-on-crime approach. Let us look at Bill C-75. The “earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions” is the main theme of what Bill C-75 has meant for people like drug traffickers.
Let us take a look at a few other cases in and around Saskatchewan. On April 8, another individual was found with 51 grams of fentanyl. It is not nearly as much as 17.5 pounds, but it is deadly, nonetheless. On April 16, another person was found with 282 grams of fentanyl and 556 grams of cocaine. On May 15, 227 grams of methamphetamine was found on an individual. These are deadly amounts of drugs that people have in their possession, and these people are generally released out into the public.
Just yesterday, here in Ontario, an individual who was out on bail was arrested with 30 grams of cocaine and 22 grams of fentanyl, which has a street value of about $5,200. This person was out on bail for a previous drug possession and trafficking charge for a street value of $125,000. This is getting insane. These are the kinds of things that people are seeing on the streets.
Canadians are getting sick and tired of seeing people who have large amounts of fentanyl, which is a deadly drug that can kill tons of people. We have all seen the headlines. People are getting so sick and tired of this. Fentanyl is getting into our high schools and many places where it should never be. We are seeing people overdosing in parks and public spaces. The drug epidemic is getting out of hand, and people are getting so sick and tired of it.
When on earth is the government going to actually do something to make sure that people trafficking 17.5 pounds of fentanyl will not be allowed back out on the streets?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and the concern of the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley. I want to acknowledge the deeply troubling circumstances that have prompted this debate and, I think rightly, his concern.
The seizure of a significant quantity of fentanyl near Swift Current is a stark reminder of the lethal impact this drug is having on communities across Canada. I have seen it even in my riding in west Toronto. I recognize the anguish and anger that people in Canada feel when organized crime exploits communities and fuels violence.
As organized crime is evolving, our legislative frameworks need to address emerging forms of advanced, online and globalized crimes while protecting our communities. We have been doing this with a series of pieces of legislation through reforms designed to enhance community safety and increase confidence in the criminal justice system. Our proposed reforms aim to strengthen bail and sentencing for violent repeat offending, improve protections for victims and modernize lawful access and other Criminal Code tools to better address serious and organized crime.
We have been part of the debate in this House on Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. The hon. member referred to criminals who are out on bail. That is a central part of our government's efforts to improve community safety and keep criminals off the street. We campaigned on this in the election campaign. Our proposed reforms would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen bail and sentencing responses to serious and organized crime, including those connected to the production and trafficking of illicit drugs. The bill would make bail more difficult to obtain in certain cases, including for individuals involved in organized crime, through a very important new measure, new reverse onus provisions, something the party on the other side has been calling for. This is a critical step forward. In these situations, detention would be the starting point, and the onus would be on the accused to demonstrate why they should be released. Reforms would also require police and courts to place greater weight on public safety, victims' needs and witnesses when making bail decisions, and would mandate closer scrutiny of bail plans, including in cases involving random or unprovoked violence, again, making bail harder to get. Bill C-14 would also create tougher sentencing provisions for organized crime offences, ensuring that sentences better reflect the serious harms caused by the illicit drug trade, while discouraging others from participating in these activities.
We also have Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which would further strengthen the Criminal Code so that dangerous offenders are held to account and victims are better protected. Notably, it would create a new offence for recruiting youth into crime, directly targeting the way organized crime draws young people specifically into drug trafficking and other serious offences.
Finally, a subject of great interest to the House, Bill C-22, the lawful access act, would modernize Canada's lawful access framework so law enforcement has the tools it needs to investigate serious organized crime networks, including those that drive the fentanyl trade.
Taken together, these measures, the strongest set of criminal justice bills proposed by the party on this side of the House in generations, demonstrate a very strong commitment to public safety by dismantling organized crime and addressing the significant harms caused by drug-related offending in communities across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the common theme we see with the Liberals is that they go easy on criminals, and then all of a sudden they introduce all these new laws that try to make up for their own undoing of previous laws that were in place and would have helped deal with a lot of this.
There are other chronic issues that are at play here. Six out of 10 provinces have requested more judges appointed to the King's bench. There is a shortage, particularly in my province of Saskatchewan, which led to this individual with 17.5 pounds of fentanyl having their charges stayed. The Liberals made a commitment in the last election to hire 1,000 more police officers. We have yet to see them follow up on that at all. I do not think any new officers have been hired, let alone dealing with the people who are retiring. The borders continue to be a sore spot for drugs coming in. Basically zero containers are scanned coming into Canada, so all kinds of drugs and who knows what else are pouring into our country, and it is putting our citizens at risk and in danger. How else do we end up with 17.5 pounds of fentanyl getting on the streets down Highway 1?
Mr. Speaker, the investments that we have made, including those commitments of 1,000 RCMP officers and 1,000 CBSA officers, have the promise to really make a dent into this. I had the pleasure of touring a CBSA facility last summer in the Windsor area and hearing from the frontline leaders of the CBSA. They told us how important this was and how the advanced scanning available through the CBSA is making real inroads. Those operational things, reforms and those things happening on the ground, combined with the legislative reforms I mentioned earlier, reflect the government's determined and balanced approach to protecting community safety while bolstering confidence in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Speaker, I am pursuing a question I first asked on April 14. I have been concerned for some time that the new Liberal government has less respect for science than previous governments had. We recently mourned the death of our colleague Dr. Kirsty Duncan. In all the eulogies, people remembered her as the first minister of science in Canada. We may note, and I hate to say this, that she will be the last minister of science in Canada, because there is not one now.
The gravitas, the importance, of scientific briefings and scientific advice from core government departments that are science-based is sorely lacking. This is reflected in the cuts to Environment and Climate Change and to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to basic scientific research. Whole branches of science are being shut down in this country.
A scientific expert, an anthropologist and taxonomist, contacted me because the whole national collection of insects in the Diptera order has been shut down. There are no scientists to pick up this work. They have all been laid off. An international petition was launched; 495 scientists from 47 different countries are raising the alarm about Canada's dropping the ball. It may seem to people that it is obscure to keep track of what species of insect we have in our collection, but it can cause enormous economic damage when we lose the brainpower to know which insect is which. If it is an exotic species that does not belong in a particular forest, we need to know about it soon, and we need to take action.
There are cuts across the board. An open letter was sent just today to the Prime Minister's office, from 425 scientists from many jurisdictions, including internationally, concerned that the cuts to the ocean protection plan mean that we simply will not be able to understand and protect our marine environment.
These are serious matters, and I asked the Prime Minister, in April, if he had ever consulted his chief science adviser about these cuts. The hon. parliamentary secretary made a good go of it, saying that, in general, people appreciated the advice of Dr. Mona Nemer, the Prime Minister's chief science adviser. However, since I asked the question, I have had it verified that the Prime Minister has not once sat down to meet with his chief science adviser. This is deeply worrying.
Changes are being proposed, such as in the massive discussion documents issued May 8, that would have profound impacts, endangering endangered species. Also, we are losing the precautionary principle. If we look, buried in the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30, we find the single biggest assault on bringing evidence and science to bear on the dangers of pesticides to human health and the environment. However, buried in an omnibus bill, it will be studied only by the finance committee, which had no time to hear from witnesses really concerned about this issue.
With that, I ask the government again, will it please rethink, stop and be concerned? The precautionary principle has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as fundamental to our legal jurisprudence. In this country, we do not want to find ourselves once again with decision-based evidence-making. We need to look at the science and do our research first, before we decide we have to build whatever fast and not be concerned with what the scientists are warning us will occur if we fail to think first, plan well and then build.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands' concern about this and her long-standing advocacy for evidence-based approaches to public policy.
With respect to the chief science officer, she is somebody I engage with and the Minister of Industry and her department engage with regularly. That is where the chief science officer is based. Also, she has significant engagement with parliamentarians, including through the Standing Committee on Science and Research.
I want to join my colleague in paying tribute, which I think we have each done in different forms in the last few months, to the late Kirsty Duncan, who had a significant responsibility in helping with the existence of the Standing Committee on Science and Research. When we think about the ways to honour her, it is by continuing the ideals and principles for which she stood, and I see those quite well reflected in the recent actions of this government.
In the 2024 budget, we made historic investments in the tri-council agencies, which are the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, as well as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. They are the federal government's main mechanisms for driving scientific discovery all the way from the discovery phase to the application phase. We made historic investments, making up after a significant period of relative underinvestment, with billions of dollars of investment going to those agencies.
We followed up on that in 2025 with another new major set of investments toward the impact+ research chairs program. We just announced almost 700 new doctoral and post-doctoral fellows coming from outside of Canada to help support the next generation of scientific research. These funds, as well as our forthcoming impact+ research chairs program, are not only crowding in other private and philanthropic funds, but generating excitement around the prospect of doing leading-edge research in science that has the translational piece, results in policy advice and helps inform government in very significant ways.
Those investments in the 2024 budget and the 2025 budget are informing Canada, Canadians, the public policy community and parliamentarians with new information to help tackle some recent challenges.
I will also note a number of our new major strategies, whether it is the national food strategy, which was launched today; the AI strategy, which was launched last week; our critical minerals strategy; our national electricity strategy; or a number of other strategies. They place at the centre evidence, research and the innovation that derives from that research. Sprinkled across a number of different recent actions of this government, we see investments in science.
The hon. member is a champion of a particular set of institutions that are very important. We are very proud on this side to be hosting the Our Ocean Conference in 2027. I know the health of the oceans is of particular concern to the member, and we have committed, through our nature plan, to protecting 30% of Canada's lands and waters by 2030. That, too, is evidence-informed, evidence-based and scientifically informed.
We believe in the investments we have made. Yes, there is some attention to be paid to government-direct research, but if the member looks at the full set of research in which we are investing and the full set of science in which we are investing, we are the place to do this scientific research. I think the results with respect to the interest of those outside of Canada wanting to come to Canada to do this work speak for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, and he is a friend, the parliamentary secretary. Let me give him an example right now that is not hypothetical.
None of the wonderful press releases he has mentioned has done a single thing to allow the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada to have a budget sufficient enough to hold the meetings it is required to hold by law. It is supposed to assess and monitor species at risk along a continuum from threatened to critically endangered, but these top-notch scientists have to meet to do that. The committee did not have a budget to meet, so it has gone from two meetings required a year down to one, and it is not going to have enough time to plow through the backlog of species that need attention, need recovery plans and need habitat attention.
At the same time that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada cannot meet, we see a discussion paper that says maybe it is okay to lose the southern resident killer whales. It is not acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention. Although I cannot speak to the circumstances of that specific committee, I know that as a government we try to resource all the activities we say we are doing as effectively and efficiently as possible.
I want to reiterate that the status of science for this government is the status of science as represented by the investments we are making, the status of science as represented by the image we are projecting to the world of the kinds of investments we are seeking, and the status of science in the public spirit that we are trying to share, whether it is with the Artemis mission or with some of the leading work being done by some of our leading scientists, whom we try to elevate on this side of the House. That speaks very strongly to the status of science overall for this government.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer