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. 133
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 133
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayer
[English]
It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, led by the hon. member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake.
[Members sang the national anthem]
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Cutest Pets on Parliament Hill
Mr. Speaker, every year, the Canadian Animal Health Institute hosts the Cutest Pets on Parliament Hill contest. I am thrilled to announce that my cat, Coco, was the first place winner for the cutest cat on the Hill.
We got Coco a year ago from the Ottawa Stray Cat Rescue. Axelle Manley and her daughter Scarlett had fostered her for three months. They lost their home in a tragic fire when Scarlett was only four years old, and they never found their three cats. Since then, they have fostered 44 other cats. Because of their kindness, we have our beloved Coco.
I want to thank CAHI and congratulate all of the other winners: the cutest dog, Tuukka; the cutest other pet, Nugget; and the best‑dressed pet, Bella. I thank all those who entered pets, everyone who participated in the contest and, especially, everyone who voted for Coco.
Former Member of Parliament for Miramichi
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to welcome back to Ottawa today a very special guest and a dear friend, the former member of Parliament for Miramichi, Tilly O'Neill Gordon.
Before politics, Tilly spent her career as an elementary school teacher. We continue to learn from her today. Whether she is in the House or back home in our riding, she treats everyone with warmth, respect and kindness.
Tilly is in Ottawa this week, reconnecting with colleagues and friends. She remains loved by her friends at home and here in Ottawa. On behalf of all members, especially those who had the pleasure of serving with her, welcome back, Tilly. I thank her for her service to Miramichi—Grand Lake and for always showing us what the real public service looks like to the people back home.
[Translation]
Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi de Trois-Rivières
Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to welcome a group of young people from Trois‑Rivières to Ottawa along with Carrefour jeunesse-emploi de Trois-Rivières.
This visit is a great opportunity for these youths to better understand how our democratic institutions work, to learn more about the role of parliamentarians and to see how decisions that affect their daily lives are made. Carrefour jeunesse-emploi, or CJE, plays a key role in our community by supporting young people in their endeavours, their studies, their integration into the labour market and their civic engagement.
I want to thank the entire team at the CJE for their dedication. I also want to thank the young people here today for their curiosity and interest in democratic life. I hope that this experience will inspire them to get involved and contribute in their own way to building the future of our community and our country.
I welcome them to the House of Commons.
[English]
Older, Bolder, Better Event
Mr. Speaker, the Older, Bolder, Better event, Alberta's largest Seniors' Week event, was recently hosted by the WE Seniors at my home of Enoch Cree Nation's River Cree Resort. I am proud that the Westend Seniors Activity Centre, which is the gathering place for thousands of Edmonton seniors, is located in my community of Edmonton Northwest.
Congratulations to the CEO, Dr. Haidong Liang, and his whole team for their hard work in welcoming over 1,200 elders and over 120 vendors specializing in serving the silver economy. As the local member of Parliament, I had the honour of being the keynote speaker, and I was proud to take our Conservative Party of Canada's message back to Edmonton that an empowered Alberta belongs in a united Canada.
I encourage all Albertans to remember the sacrifices that our parents, our grandmothers, our grandfathers and our ancestors made to build our province in our country that we call home. In their honour, take action to keep Alberta in a united Canada this fall.
[Translation]
Sophie Faucher
Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that we learned of the passing of Sophie Faucher, a highly talented actress and undoubtedly one of the most beautiful voices on Quebec's cultural scene.
Whether on stage, on screen or behind a microphone, Sophie Faucher left her mark on several generations, be it through her elegance, her passion and fire or her ability to light up a room. Throughout an exceptional career spanning nearly five decades, she brought to life memorable characters, including the incomparable Crystale Bouvier-Montgomery in Le cœur a ses raisons.
Audiences will also remember her uniquely husky voice as she sat in heaven, dressed as an angel, bagel in hand, making us smile as she complained about messy crumbs.
Her recent moving portrayal of opera singer Maria Callas, as well as that of her idol Frida Kahlo in the play La Casa Azul, directed by her friend Robert Lepage, rank among the defining roles of her career.
Quebec has lost an exceptional artist, but her immense contribution to our culture will leave a lasting mark on our collective memory.
[English]
Critical Minerals
Mr. Speaker, Canada has an incredible opportunity to become a global leader in the resources that power modern economies. In Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, the communities of Elk Valley and Trail are helping make that possible. Elk Valley is home to a highly skilled mining workforce that produces world-class metallurgical coal, while Trail earned an international reputation in excellence in metal processing, refining and innovation.
Steel is fundamental to energy infrastructure, transportation networks and national defence. The materials required to produce steel are therefore critical to the economic and industrial security. Met coal, also known as steelmaking coal, is recognized as a critical mineral in the United States, the European Union and India. Canada needs to formally recognize metallurgical coal as a critical mineral as well.
As the global demand for critical minerals and steelmaking materials continues to grow, the workers, the families and the businesses of Elk Valley and Trail remain at the forefront of Canada's prosperity. I thank them for their hard work and invaluable contribution to our country.
Mr. Speaker, this June, we proudly mark Portuguese Heritage Month. It an important time to recognize and celebrate the meaningful contributions of Canadians of Portuguese descent. Today, June 10, is Portugal Day, celebrated in Portugal and by Portuguese communities around the world.
As a Portuguese Canadian, this day holds deep significance, offering a moment of pride and reflection on shared history, culture and the many achievements of Portugal and its people. For over seven decades, Portuguese Canadians have helped shape the Canada we know today. As our people-to-people ties continue to thrive, so too does the Canada-Portugal relationship, which is strengthened by shared values, growing economic partnerships and a common—
Birthday Wishes
Mr. Speaker, in 1952, a courageous 21-year-old woman left her small town in Treviso, Italy, with her father by her side. They boarded a train bound for Genoa. From there, alone, she stepped onto a ship and began that now famous journey across the Atlantic, arriving at Pier 21 in Halifax. She came to Canada alone, speaking no English and carrying little more than hope.
That young woman was my grandmother, Olga Guglielmin, who celebrated her 94th birthday this year. Like so many Italian Canadians, Nonna Olga came in search of a dream. It was the dream of family, opportunity and a better life than the one she had left behind. She taught us that the greatest riches in life are not measured in dollars, but in relationships. Around her table, with a simple tablecloth, good food, candlelight and loved ones gathered close, she showed us what truly mattered.
This Italian Heritage Month, I honour all Italian-Canadian nonni, especially my Nonna Olga, whose courage, integrity and love continue to guide us.
[Translation]
Marc André Bédard
Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years at the helm of Le Pont du Suroît, Marc André Bédard is taking a well-deserved retirement. He leaves behind an exceptional legacy of commitment, compassion and professionalism. He devoted his career to supporting people living with a loved one affected by mental illness, offering a listening ear, clinical support and hope to many families.
Thanks to his inclusive and caring leadership, Le Pont du Suroît has become an essential organization in our community. Recognized as an outstanding professional, Marc André Bédard also succeeded in extending his expertise well beyond our region, across Quebec and elsewhere. His inspiring career and his dedication have had a lasting impact on the lives of many.
I thank him for this remarkable contribution. He is truly a wonderful person and a dear friend. Crossing paths with him has been a real privilege. I wish Marc André a happy retirement with his beautiful partner Sylvie.
[English]
Aboriginal Peoples Television Network
Mr. Speaker, today on Parliament Hill, I recognize and applaud the leadership of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. Bravo to the team for their first Canadian Screen Award for best national newscast. It is likely not the last such award, given the talent and hard work among the journalists and the rest of the news team.
In 1999, the APTN became the first national indigenous broadcaster in the world. Since then, the APTN has continued to grow, connecting indigenous and non-indigenous audiences. These are stories and perspectives that would not be heard if it were not for the network dedicated to indigenous people and their stories.
Given that we are in National Indigenous History Month, I would encourage all colleagues to check out all of the APTN offerings, from the award-winning national broadcast to the sports coverage and the brilliant new North of North TV series.
Congratulations, APTN, on 10 Canadian Screen Awards this year.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, after more than a decade of reckless Liberal spending, borrowing and economic mismanagement, more and more Canadians are suffering. Under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and the devastating results can no longer be ignored. Today the United Way report has painted a grim picture of the impact on Canadians: Sixty per cent now feel anxiety about their personal finances, 38% struggle with food insecurity, 40% are losing sleep over how they will stretch their paycheque to pay their bills, and 34% know someone close to them who is experiencing poverty, which is up five percentage points.
Global factors did not cause this. Liberal inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment laws did. With millions of people going hungry, stressed about their finances and fearful for their future, it is high time the Liberal government reversed its disastrous economic policies so we can finally begin to restore hope for Canadians.
Portugal Day
Mr. Speaker, Portuguese people around the world commemorate their rich history and vibrant culture today. June 10 honours the passing of Luís de Camões, a national hero and a legend who penned Os Lusíadas, a renowned collection of epic poems that capture stories of brave explorers and the Enlightenment during the age of discoveries in the 15th and 16th centuries.
Those mariners were the first to circumnavigate the globe and open trade routes around the world, including the initial mapping of Terra Nova's shores off the Grand Banks. Centuries later, a wave of new Portuguese migration arrived at Pier 21 in 1953. My father, among the migrants, sailed across the Atlantic in search of opportunity in Canada. The migrants opened doors for generations that followed.
Today we celebrate a strong and vibrant Portuguese diaspora. I congratulate its members and the unifying voice of the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations of Ontario, which showcases the annual Portugal Day parade in Toronto.
Feliz Dia de Portugal. Feliz Dia de Camões. Feliz Dia das Comunidades Portuguesas à volta do Mundo. Happy Portugal Day.
Tarun Bali
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest condolences to the Bali family, whose son, Ontario Provincial Police constable Tarun Bali, was killed in the line of duty yesterday in northern Ontario. Constable Bali had served on the force for two years, dedicating his life to the safety and protection of others. He served his community with courage, pride and a deep sense of duty. He was a well-respected member of the police service and carried out his responsibilities each day with the utmost integrity.
Constable Bali's courage and sacrifice will not be forgotten. His ultimate sacrifice in the service of protecting others will forever be honoured and appreciated by his community, his colleagues and all those whose lives he touched.
Let us take this moment to recognize Constable Bali's legacy as one of courage, service and pride. May his soul rest in peace.
[Translation]
Portugal Day
Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating Portugal Day, the day of Camões and Portuguese communities. For me, this day holds a very special significance.
Like thousands of Portuguese before me, I left my country of birth in search of new opportunities. Canada welcomed me and allowed me to build a career, a family and a life, for which I am deeply grateful. Today, Canadians of Portuguese descent contribute to the prosperity of our communities. They are entrepreneurs, workers, teachers and artists.
I wish everyone celebrating this day in Canada, in Portugal and around the world a very happy Portugal Day.
Long live Canada. Viva Portugal.
[English]
Tarun Bali
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the chamber with a broken heart. Our community is mourning the loss of brave OPP constable Tarun Bali, a Brampton West resident who was killed in the line of duty while serving and protecting the people of Ontario. Constable Bali was more than a courageous police officer; he was a a son, a husband and a proud member of our Brampton community.
Every day, police officers run toward danger so others can be safe. Constable Bali made the ultimate sacrifice in that service. Today, our thoughts and prayers are with his family, his loved ones, his colleagues at the Ontario Provincial Police, and all those grieving this profound loss. May his courage, dedication and service never be forgotten.
He will be remembered. His family will miss him. We will miss him. May God bless his soul. May he rest in peace.
SickKids Youth Ambassador
Mr. Speaker, in Whitby, a simple cup of hot cocoa became something much greater. At just 13 years old, Cohen Lane turned gratitude into action when SickKids hospital worked another miracle and saved his cousin's life. What began as a small, driveway hot chocolate stand grew into a remarkable effort, including ties and scarves, that has raised over $100,000 to support children and families facing some of the hardest days of their life so their kids can access the life-saving care SickKids provides every day. This year, SickKids is recognized as the number one pediatric hospital in the world and marks its 151st anniversary.
Cohen's story reminds us all why this matters: Behind every hospital room is a child, a family and a community hoping for health. Whitby and all Canadians are proud of Cohen for his compassion and leadership. I hope colleagues will help me in recognizing SickKids' first official youth ambassador.
Portuguese Heritage Month
Mr. Speaker, this June, we proudly mark Portuguese Heritage Month, an important time to recognize and celebrate the meaningful contributions of Canadians of Portuguese descent. Today, June 10, is Portugal Day, celebrated in Portugal and by Portuguese communities around the world. For me as a Portuguese Canadian, this day holds deep significance, offering a moment of pride and reflection on shared history, culture and the many achievements of Portugal and its people. For over seven decades, Portuguese Canadians have helped shape the Canada we know today.
As our people-to-people ties continue to thrive, so too does the Canada-Portugal relationship, strengthened by shared values, growing economic partnerships and a common passion for the beautiful game that unites us and the world forever. As we celebrate this month, we honour the enduring legacy, resilience and achievements of the Portuguese Canadian community.
Feliz Dia de Portugal. Viva Canada. Viva Portugal.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata
Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House of Commons that one of our colleagues, the member for Côte‑du‑Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, had cardiac issues during the Quebec caucus meeting. An ambulance had to be called. He is currently in the hospital in relatively stable condition. His Conservative family wants to assure him, his wife Tracey and his entire family of our support.
Would the government like to offer our colleague its wishes for his speedy recovery?
Mr. Speaker, of course I also want to express my support for the member for Côte‑du‑Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, along with all my colleagues on this side of the House. He comes from an area that I know well, and he is a member who I also know well; he is a bit mischievous. We eagerly look forward to enjoying his wonderful personality, spirit of co-operation and big smile when he returns here, to his parliamentary family, but mostly to his own family.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, we just heard the bad news that Canada is the only country with two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. That is the definition of a recession. Again today, we had bad news from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who said that “the Canadian economy has remained soft and inflation has increased”. He went on to say, “Economic weakness combined with rising inflation is a dilemma” and that the economy was “weak”, a word he used nine times.
Will the Prime Minister reverse the Liberal policies that caused this recession?
Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the Conservative leader. Germany posted growth of 0.7%; Italy, 0.5%; Mexico, 0.8%; France, 0.7%; Japan, 0.6%; the United Kingdom, 0.9 %; and Canada, 1.2%. According to the OECD's projections, Canada has the second-fastest growth in the G7.
We, on this side of the House, will work hard every day to build the strongest economy in the G7.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Just over 10 days ago, we learned that Canada was the only country with back-to-back shrinking economies in two quarters, the definition of a recession. Today we got even worse news from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who said:
the Canadian economy has remained soft and inflation has increased....
Economic weakness combined with rising inflation is a dilemma
He used the word “weak” nine times to describe the Prime Minister's economy. That translates into lost jobs, lost homes and bigger lineups at food banks.
Will the Prime Minister stand today and reverse the Liberal policies that caused this recession?
Mr. Speaker, I know it is Wednesday and the Leader of the Opposition is looking for good news. Let me help him. For Germany, it is 1.1%; Italy, 0.6%; Japan, 0.8%; and the United Kingdom, 1.1%. For Canada, it is 1.7%. That is the growth projection for 2027. This is what the OECD said just recently.
On this side of the House, we are going to fight for Canadians, because every day is a good day to fight for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, these are more illusions from the other side of the House of Commons.
Canada is the only economy in the G7 that has shrunk over the last two quarters and over three out of the last four quarters, the only economy smaller today than a year ago. Today the Governor of the Bank of Canada described the Prime Minister's economy as “weak” nine times. That translates into seniors who are forced to lose their home and live in a parking lot, according to a story by CTV.
Will the Prime Minister stand up now and announce that he will reverse the Liberal policies that caused the mess?
Mr. Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition chooses to cherry-pick points, what we know is that the head of the Bank of Canada said that our economy continues to show real resilience in the face of illegal and unjust tariffs and in the face of two economy-destroying wars.
Canadians want us to focus on building. That is why we are building transmission. That is why we are building new hydro. That is why we are building new LNG. That is why we are building new nuclear.
Maybe the Leader of the Opposition should get out of the clouds and start helping us build.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is hiding in the clouds and refusing to answer questions about the recession that he created here in Canada. The only thing he has been building is the sole recession in all the G20. There are 20 industrialized nations in that group; 19 of them are not in recession, and one of them is in recession.
That translates into stories from the United Way, where 40% of Canadians are losing sleep because they worry they cannot pay their bills, and 60% have anxiety over their financial situation. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility and answer to them?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a serious man who knows business and understands the economy. Right now he is working with all the first ministers, basically all the premiers of our provinces and territories, to make sure that we are dealing with the impacts of the trade war, which is never alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition.
Notwithstanding this trade war, last month we were able to create 88,000 jobs across the country, particularly for young people and for women. Not only that, but we are also going through a trade surplus, the highest since January 2025, which was before the trade war.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Prime Minister, and we do not need more excuses about the rest of the world. The other G20 countries face tariffs from the United States. None of them are in recession. Mexico is right next door to the United States and more integrated with the American economy than Canada is, and it is not in recession. Only this Prime Minister has delivered a recession.
We have solutions. Will the Prime Minister accept our ideas of eliminating the industrial carbon tax, getting rid of the newly renamed consumer carbon tax, having no tax on gas for the rest of the year and no tax on capital gains reinvested to grow our economy? We have positive solutions to reverse his recession. Will he stand up and accept them now?
Mr. Speaker, what is weak is the narrative. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his handful of tax changes are not going to contend with the economic challenges we are facing in the United States. They are not going to contend with the Ukrainian war. They are not going to contend with the gulf war.
The Leader of the Opposition cherry-picks all the time. He does not talk about us being up 88,000 jobs last month. He does not talk about unemployment being down. He does not talk about foreign direct investment being the highest in 20 years. He does not talk about cutting taxes. He does not talk about our increased capital gains eligibility. In fact, what is interesting is that there is no plan coming from that side—
[Translation]
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps granting concession after concession to Donald Trump. By July, the PM had already scrapped the digital services tax on U.S. tech giants. In August, he dropped Canada's retaliatory tariffs. This week, he cancelled the levy on American online broadcasters, and he did all of this without getting anything in return.
The Prime Minister met with Quebec and the provinces today, and rumour has it that he brought up their boycott of American alcohol. Did the Prime Minister ask them to follow his lead and grant further concessions?
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government is more than ready to enter into trade negotiations, but why are the Bloc Québécois members asking these questions? It is because they had a very bad day yesterday after their fierce opposition to the high-speed rail project. The mayors of Quebec's big cities have denounced the Bloc's position. Even Le Journal de Montréal has criticized their position, saying they have shot themselves in the foot.
I can confirm that they have indeed shot themselves in the foot.
Mr. Speaker, for CUSMA, the Prime Minister's concessions to the Americans go even further. Through Bill C-5, he has granted himself the power to suspend laws in order to build new pipelines. The big winners are the shareholders of oil companies, 60% of whom are American. Under Bill C-30, he is granting himself the power to re-approve banned pesticides. The big winner is Bayer, which sells Monsanto's American seeds and pesticides.
The Prime Minister is concentrating power in his own hands, but it is the Americans who are benefiting from it. Is that really his definition of Canada strong?
Mr. Speaker, I will provide the definition of Canada strong. It is a Canada that knows how to achieve great things, that knows how to build projects using Quebec and Canadian labour, Canadian materials, Canadian steel and Canadian aluminum. It is a society that knows how to dream, that takes charge of its own future, and that creates opportunities for its young people.
That is what it means to build Canada strong. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois knows nothing about this, has never made decisions on this, and is not involved in this.
Canadian Identity and Culture
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to dream big, but when it comes to taking action, it is a whole different story. French-language culture is the main victim of the Prime Minister's capitulations.
Scrapping the digital services tax means a loss of $1.4 billion per year, and waiving the levies on streaming platforms means that billions more will be left on the table. More importantly, this means abandoning a permanent solution to cultural issues and replacing it with temporary public funding that is subject to the whims of Canadian governments. Ottawa is permanently abandoning a decade-long fight to make web giants contribute.
When he was appointed, did the minister know that he was being mandated to destroy our culture?
Mr. Speaker, while the Bloc Québécois spends its fourth decade here in Ottawa getting absolutely nothing done, we are taking action. In the most recent budget, we invested $750 million in the National Film Board of Canada, CBC/Radio-Canada and Telefilm Canada.
Now, Bloc members are turning their noses up at $600 million per year. They did not read the press release. We are taking action. We are investing in Quebec and Canadian culture.
[English]
The Economy
There used to be a promise here in Canada, Mr. Speaker, that if a person worked hard, paid their taxes and followed the law, they could afford a home, groceries and a decent standard of living. Now, after 10 years of the Liberal government, for most Canadians that promise no longer exists. According to a new survey from the United Way, 60% of Canadians now feel anxious about their finances, 38% struggle with food insecurity, and 40% are losing sleep.
When will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his policies of more spending, more debt and jet-setting around the world are just not delivering real results?
Mr. Speaker, Vancouver Islanders in the member's riding and mine deserve facts. Labelling the economy without context does not help workers or businesses.
There are 22 nation-building projects driving over $125 billion in capital investment. There were 88,000 new jobs in May, exceeding market expectations. Wages are growing almost twice as fast as in the United States. Disposable income rose 2.3%. Household savings are above historic norms. These are the facts, but I have never met a Conservative who did not let the facts get in the way.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that most people on Vancouver Island know one thing, which is that the economic policies of the Liberal government have been hurting young Canadians the most, young people who can no longer afford homes in the communities they grew up in, whose jobs have been shipped overseas or taken by temporary foreign workers, whose streets on which they play have been flooded with dangerous drugs and whose futures have been mortgaged this year alone with $80 billion in new debt.
When will the government reverse its policies and stop throwing the next generation under the bus?
Mr. Speaker, young people know that this government is there for them. They know that because they have a majority of the new jobs that are being created. They also know that business investment has increased for the second consecutive quarter in Canada. They know that the IMF projects Canada will be the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in 2026-27. They know that this government has a plan that we are executing that has their backs for a good future.
Joe Rogan might be impressed by kettlebells and empty rhetoric, but in the words of the great Shania Twain, “That don't impress me much”.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister calls it just a little economic weakness, just a settling-in period. Well, I am a little more simple. I will just call it what it is, a recession.
Today the United Way quantified for us that feeling that things are just not very good right now. Nine in 10 Canadians are experiencing financial anxiety, and CTV reported that fully employed Canadians are sleeping in campers to survive. This is a made-in-Canada problem. Mexico is in the same trade war with no recession. Even Russia, which is in a full-scale war and economically sanctioned, has no recession.
What is the excuse today?
Mr. Speaker, every single day the opposition plays the same song, gleefully running down our economy instead of building it up, instead of pointing out the 88,000 new jobs created in the May report, that the trade surplus is up 55%, the highest in 15 months, and that total exports reached a record high. That is not leadership.
We are building this country. We are investing in this country. We are supporting our workers. The Conservatives should give it a try.
Mr. Speaker, every day they play the same game, claiming success for any small ray of sunlight but shirking responsibility for everything else. Canadians do not believe them. The United Way said today that 57% of Canadians, in all age and gender groups, believe the public finances are being poorly managed. Two-thirds of Canadians are anxious about the future. They do not believe in the job the Prime Minister is doing today, and they are not buying his promises for tomorrow
Will the Prime Minister finally get up and accept responsibility for his choices that are having devastating consequences for Canadians today?
Mr. Speaker, it would be a little more plausible that the opposition party cared about workers and cared about investment if it did not oppose every investment and every support for workers and for families. The Conservatives oppose dental care. They oppose affordable housing. They oppose investment in their own communities. We invest in Laval Tool and Mould, and they oppose. We invest in Jahn Engineering, and they oppose. We invest in Post Packaging, and they oppose.
Instead of opposing support, boosts and investment, they should get on board and start building.
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal inflation and economic mismanagement, Canadians are the ones who are paying the price. A new United Way survey found that 60% of them are anxious about their finances and 40% are losing sleep trying to make ends meet. More than two million Canadians relied on food banks every month last year, and in Maple Ridge, food bank use has doubled in the past five years.
How much worse must it get before the Liberal Prime Minister reverses the costly policies driving Canadians into hardship?
Mr. Speaker, as a British Columbian like the member opposite, I will say that people in B.C. are optimistic about our future, like we are on this side of the House. We see major projects coming to B.C. that are going to boost our economy in B.C. We see rents coming down. We see affordability coming back to the table. We see benefits to British Columbians that the other side of the House has opposed every step of the way, whether to our youth or to our young workers. We are interested in taking action right across the country to support Canadians, grow the economy and deliver affordability, not being stuck in the mud.
Mr. Speaker, under the current government, Canada is in a recession, and it is the only G20 country for which that is true. After a decade of reckless Liberal policies and economic mismanagement, Canadians are ultimately having to pay the price. A new United Way poll found that 60% of Canadians now feel anxiety about their personal finances, and 40% struggle with food insecurity. This crisis was not created abroad. It was created because of Liberal policies right here at home.
How much worse does it have to get before the government reverses course and makes life more affordable for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the $8‑billion investment in 5 Wing Goose Bay in Labrador, in my province. I will also take the opportunity to talk about the almost $1 billion in small craft harbours and the funding available to help our young people train in Red Seal industries. We are building this country, we are investing in Canadians, and we are protecting Canadians. I invite the member to stop the nonsense and join us.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, the small craft harbours do not conquer the food poverty that children across this country are experiencing, especially those in my riding of Lethbridge.
With all due respect, I would ask the folks across the way what they will do for Canadians, because they are struggling. They are struggling. Sixty per cent of them are unable to sleep at night because they are not sure how they are going to make ends meet. Forty per cent of Canadians are struggling because of food insecurity. That is the reality. The government can turn a blind eye and pretend that is not its reality, but at the end of the day, Canadians tell the truth, always, because it is their lived experience. To tell them otherwise is blasphemy from the government.
What are you going to do about it?
First of all, I would remind the member, who knows this, to go through the Chair, please.
The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and share with Canadians that 12 million Canadians will benefit from the groceries and essentials benefit. I am proud to talk about the benefits associated with $10‑a‑day child care, which allows families to be able to go into the workplace and know their kids are well cared for. I am proud to stand here and talk about the Canada child benefit. I am proud to stand here and talk about the benefits of the school nutrition program. I will talk about the housing initiative, affordable housing for people who need it the most, and on and on it goes. This is where—
[Translation]
Rail Transportation
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of farmers from Mirabel braved the rain today on Parliament Hill. They came to tell the Liberals that they are not happy with Alto's high‑speed train project in its current form. It is too bad that the minister did not come out to meet with them. He could have answered all the questions that Alto has been refusing to answer since January.
If the Liberals think they are going to be able to forcibly expropriate land in Mirabel yet again, our farmers proved today that they have another think coming.
Will the government finally respect our farmers, meet with them and answer their questions?
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the member that I do not need his help to meet with farmers. I come from a farming family myself. I visit farmers often. I talk to farmers all the time.
It is out of this respect for the agricultural community that we will carry out this project with the highest regard for the concerns of farmers. It is unfortunate that the Bloc Québécois is now breaking its promise to support this project.
I do not know what the Bloc members were thinking. Did they think these trains would fly? Trains run on tracks that have to be on the ground.
Mr. Speaker, this proves that the debate on high‑speed rail is not over; in fact, it has only just begun. We had set out four conditions: social licence, an independent financial assessment, no infringement of people's rights in the event of expropriation, and genuine consultations. They have scored zero out of four.
It is no wonder that farmers are protesting. Alto is already on their land, carrying out tests, and when the landowners say no, Alto wants to send in drones.
I am offering to drive the minister to Mirabel so that he can come and answer their questions. He can even choose what music we listen to in the car.
When do we leave?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the member that we have freedom of movement in Canada. I can get from my riding of Gatineau, in the Outaouais region, to his riding pretty quickly. I do not need him to introduce me to farmers.
I have great respect for them, I listen to them carefully and I am fully considering their views while implementing this wonderful, major project, which will link the four largest cities in Quebec, as well as Trois-Rivières, among other destinations.
This project will be carried out with the utmost respect for everyone's views.
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people gathered on Parliament Hill today to make their voices heard about the Alto train, which is threatening the survival of our communities. These people included many farmers facing the prospect of not being able to cross their land because of the Liberal government's threat to split it in two.
I have not met a single farmer who wants a high‑speed train cutting across their land.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the farmers and stop work on this project, which is totally off track?
Mr. Speaker, we have the utmost respect for farmers, and we want to work with them to find a middle ground on this project.
What saddens me is seeing the Conservatives try to keep us decades behind the times at every turn and with each project. In Europe, especially in France, Spain and the United Kingdom, high‑speed trains exist alongside agricultural activities and cross through fields.
I think that we, in Canada, are just as capable of doing things well and building infrastructure that will revolutionize and transform this country.
It would be nice if the Conservatives could get on board.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister believes that this project is sound, he should go and meet with farmers himself to explain the expropriations.
Experts are unanimous: This ideologically motivated project is completely irresponsible when it comes to our public finances. There is no evidence that it will be cost-effective. The Liberals want to leave us with a white elephant that runs purely on subsidies.
With $90 million, we could refurbish nearly all of our infrastructure in Canada and become a global agricultural powerhouse.
When are the Liberals going to invest in projects that will actually create wealth in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we are the party that wants to create wealth in Canada. In this tariff war, we must control what we can at home, given that we are in a world where we cannot control what lies beyond our borders.
What we can control is how we build. High‑speed rail will allow us to create 51,000 jobs.
We will be able to connect Quebec's biggest cities, including Montreal, Quebec City, Laval, Gatineau and Trois‑Rivières. We will also be able to connect to Ontario, to Toronto. In short, we will be able to do what the major countries and industrial powers of the world are doing.
We are capable of building at home, and that is what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, a United Way report released today reveals that Canadians are increasingly concerned about their financial situations. According to the report, 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, and 38% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity. While families are struggling to build a future for themselves, the government wants them to foot the bill for a high-speed rail project that could cost more than $100 billion. Just this morning, the Liberals admitted that they have no idea how much it is going to cost.
If Canadians can no longer afford to put food on the table, why do the Liberals think they can afford to spend over $100 billion on a train?
Mr. Speaker, an extremely interesting question is being raised today. This means of public transportation will allow everyone to travel more easily between our provinces. It is an important structural element of our economy that will boost trade and economic exchanges between Quebec and Ontario. What is more, it will be sustainable transportation and represents a positive step towards achieving net zero.
This project will have a major positive impact on several fronts. We are taking a collective approach. We can get it right. It would be great if we could work together.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State for Nature did not understand what I said in my first question. Sixty per cent of Canadians are feeling anxious, and 38% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity. The government wants to embark on a high-speed rail project costing over $100 billion while people are going hungry.
How can anyone think that these people can afford a ticket to ride the high-speed train when they cannot even afford groceries? Can she answer that?
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the challenges Canadians are currently facing, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit payments were sent out on Friday. We are fully aware of the current situation.
However, if we really want to turn things around, we need to invest and give ourselves a way to do things differently, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are helping Canadians put food on the table, and they are seeing the results, but we are also helping Canadians in the long term.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, a United Way survey confirms that this government is a disaster, as 60% of Canadians are feeling financial anxiety and 22% of Canadians have personally experienced poverty, compared to 19% last year. Under this Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and it is because of this government's mismanagement. We have said it before and we will say it again.
When will the Prime Minister finally reverse his costly policies so Canadians can finally get ahead financially?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where you were last Friday, but I was at the Cercle de fermières Hochelaga‑Maisonneuve. I wish everyone could share that experience. In fact, what I heard the most about was the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. The Cercle de fermières Hochelaga‑Maisonneuve is made up of dozens and dozens of women, including many seniors, most of whom are in a somewhat more vulnerable situation. They told me that it was a real help. That is what Canadians expect right now. These are concrete measures.
[English]
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, I was raised in a system designed to eradicate my identity as an Inuk. While I have had my struggles, as many Inuit and indigenous peoples have, we continue to show our strength and practise our traditions. We still speak our indigenous languages, use our practices and celebrate our successes.
[Member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following text:]
lnnatuqait, nunaliit ammalu nagligijakka qujalivakka.
[Member provided the following translation:]
I thank my elders, communities and loved ones.
[English]
Could the minister share how Canadians can join in recognizing National Indigenous History Month and how we all can work to advance reconciliation?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for that important question. As an Eeyou iskwew from the community of Waswanipi, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary today, I know we are taking moments this month to honour who we are as part of National Indigenous History Month. We are here to celebrate our strength, resilience and culture.
I am proud to work with my colleagues who are first nations, Inuit and Métis, demonstrating the fierce resistance representing every part of this country.
[Member spoke in Cree and provided the following translation:]
I want to acknowledge all first nations, Inuit and Métis people and I honour them.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and the business leaders who actually create the jobs and attract the investment are raising the alarm. The CEO of one of Canada's largest energy companies said the Liberals' industrial carbon tax and antidevelopment laws make investing in new projects “unfinanceable”. That is interesting, because a year ago the Prime Minister promised Canadians we would “build, baby, build”, but “build, baby, build” is now another Liberal broken promise.
Will the Prime Minister just admit that his vision for Canada's energy sector is to tax it, regulate it and eventually kill it?
Mr. Speaker, we do not need any lessons from them about building.
We are building transmission lines in New Brunswick. We are building wind farms in Nova Scotia. We are building new nuclear in Ontario. We are building pipelines in British Columbia. We are building pipelines in Alberta. We do not need any lessons from them on how to build.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, it is clear they are not taking any lessons from the business leaders in this industry. The CEO of Cenovus was crystal clear that building a new pipeline and expanding oil production to fill it is “unfinanceable”. That means the Liberals' anti-energy policies and carbon tax make investing in nation-building projects impossible, but the Liberals supporting these anti-energy policies should not be a surprise. When he was Trudeau's fiscal adviser, the Prime Minister endorsed those policies and implemented the carbon tax.
Why does the Prime Minister still support these policies that have plunged Canada into a recession?
Mr. Speaker, maybe instead of reading headlines, he would actually talk to people like the CEO of Shell, who just invested $20 billion in this country and is about to invest another $40 billion in LNG Canada, too.
Why do they not actually try to help build?
Mr. Speaker, every month, there is a new report that shows how difficult life has become under the Liberal government. Last night, it was a damning report from Food Banks Canada, and this month we have a report from United Way that says 60% of Canadians now have anxiety just thinking about their finances. It has gotten worse in the last year under the Liberal government.
At what point do the Liberals realize their policies are causing all of the problems that Canadians are facing and reverse course?
Mr. Speaker, at the centre of everything we are working on as a government is affordability. In my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville, it is a worker who can keep more of their money in their pocket since we are cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians. We have also provided Canadians with the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. We are providing Canadians with that type of support. It is even the senior who can get access to a dental care appointment. What do the Conservatives have against seniors who are smiling?
Thanks to our government, we are going to be there, we are going to make jobs and we are going to make life more affordable for them.
It is really unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. Every week, they stand in the House of Commons and brag about the fact that for the first time in Canadian history, a government has to send money to Canadians so they can buy groceries. Let us think about that for a minute. That is the country they have created in Canada. Things have gotten so expensive under their watch, they actually have to send Canadians money for groceries, and then they brag about it. It is almost like someone thanking the arsonist who burned down their house for putting out the fire.
It is their policies that are causing all the problems. Why will they not realize it, stop their costly policies, reverse course and follow the Conservative plan?
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what we are hearing from the other side, we recognize that we are in a trade war. Despite this, Canada is in a position of strength. We heard today that Canada posted a $2.7-billion trade surplus, the highest in 15 months. Our economy is growing nearly twice as fast as that of Germany and Japan and nearly three times as fast as that of Italy.
We are going to be there to support Canadians. We are going to make sure we create affordability. In fact, $20,000 is what the average family is going to be able to save, thanks to our government's policies. We are going to build this country strong and support Canadians at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of Liberal inflation, a new United Way survey confirms what Canadians have been saying for years. They are struggling to afford life. One in five Canadians has experienced poverty, 38% struggle with food insecurity and 60% have real anxiety about their finances. While Canadians are stretching every dollar, the Prime Minister has stretched Canada's economy into the only recession in the G20.
Will he finally abandon the costly Liberal policies that caused this crisis, or is making life unaffordable part of the plan?
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are challenges across the country and that there are people struggling with the cost of affordability. That is exactly why we have put in place the groceries and essentials rebate—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are challenges across the country. That is exactly why we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. It is why we have put in the groceries and essentials rebate. It is why we have doubled down on social programs that matter for everyday Canadians. However, we reject the premise of the Conservatives' question, that the government's policies have resulted in the challenges that Canadians are facing. We are facing a trade war from our largest trading partner: 75% of our goods and services go to the United States. There is a war in the Middle East and a war in eastern Europe. We are dealing with the circumstances and putting forward an economic plan to build this country and support Canadians at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing growing faster than Canadians' grocery bills is the gap between Liberal talking points and reality. The president and CEO of United Way warns, “This is not a crisis on the horizon. It is happening now”. In Oshawa, that is a single parent or a senior choosing between groceries and rent, or an auto worker who has lost their job and is still waiting on the U.S. trade deal the Prime Minister promised but has failed to deliver.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept the facts? His policies are driving the G20's only recession, and Canadians are the ones paying the price.
Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask why that member votes against the measures that support the good people of Oshawa and the people across this country? As we said in the last answer, we are here fighting for Canadian industry and business. That member has voted against tax cuts for Canadians. That member has voted against strategic financing to support the auto sector in this country. The Minister of Industry is working with that sector to support members. That member stands up and does not recognize that we have created 88,000 jobs in the last month alone.
We have a plan to help build the country strong and support Canadians who are facing vulnerability at this time.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear: Under the Liberals, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. A United Way survey shows that 60% of Canadians are worried about their finances, 40% of them are losing sleep over bills and food insecurity is on the rise. I hear from families that work hard and do everything right, and are still struggling to make ends meet. Some farmers, the very people who produce our food, are now having to turn to food banks.
Why does the Liberal Prime Minister refuse to admit that his costly policies are driving Canadians deeper into debt, forcing more families to food banks and making life less affordable every single day?
Mr. Speaker, we understand that there are struggles within Canada, and we are addressing those struggles. However, for 10 long years, 14 Conservative MPs from Saskatchewan did absolutely nothing to help the situation throughout the country. Their disservice is shameful, and our patience has run out in Saskatchewan. I tell the people of Saskatchewan not to let the Conservatives limit their power and limit their ability, but to join us in building that great Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, for 11 long years, that member has been attacking our province. Under every single measurement I can find, his riding has gotten worse. Food insecurity is worse. The cost of living has increased. Food inflation has increased. There is even a re‑emergence of scurvy. A 16th‑century disease that we thought we had banished to the history books is now in his riding.
When will the government finally reverse its costly policies that are making life inhumane for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, we will not take any lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to supporting our agricultural community in Saskatchewan. The Conservatives did absolutely nothing to recognize that Canadian canola is the best in the world. What did we do? Our Prime Minister marketed our canola—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I cannot hear. If I cannot hear, I do not know if any rules are being broken.
The hon. secretary of state may conclude.
Mr. Speaker, they had nothing in their platform to support the Canadian agricultural sector. Our Prime Minister secured the second-largest customer for canola, and that is China. We will compare, any day of the week, what they have not done versus what we have done on this side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing sleep because of the Prime Minister. A new United Way report confirms that 40% say they lie awake, worrying how to stretch their paycheque to pay for food, gas and housing.
While Canadians are awake with anxiety, these Liberals are asleep at the wheel, refusing to acknowledge that they have driven Canada into the only recession in the G20. Canadians carry the stress and lose the sleep while the Liberals keep hitting the snooze button on the consequences.
Will the Prime Minister wake up and reverse his costly policies that are keeping Canadians awake at night?
Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to be on this side of the House. Canadians voted for this new government because we have a plan and that plan is working. I do not know why the member opposite has voted against every measure that is supporting Manitobans: affordable child care, cutting taxes at the pump, automatic tax filing, and the groceries and essentials benefit that came out last Friday, which is supporting so many citizens in his riding.
He needs to get on board and start supporting what we are doing on this side of the House.
[Translation]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action to make housing more affordable. Our communities also want more housing. We are responding to a growing demand and supporting their development.
Can the minister explain how our government is helping to build more housing faster?
Mr. Speaker, thanks to Build Canada Homes, we are putting in place new tools to accelerate housing construction, leverage public land and support innovative constructive methods.
Today, the House has the opportunity to support the bill on Build Canada Homes, and I encourage all members to vote in favour of this important measure to help us build more affordable housing in communities across Canada.
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, everything the Liberals say about our military is just an illusion. They promised our troops raises, but they never materialized. Retention benefits for reserves are missing in action. The Liberal minister is gutting housing support for our troops by up to $7,000 a year, plus he is hiking housing rents on Canadian Armed Forces members. Our military is short over 8,600 personnel and over half of our military occupations are suffering critical staff shortages.
Why is the defence minister making retention worse for our soldiers, sailors and aviators?
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member has been, but he has not been to any of our 33 bases lately. He is not seeing the investments that are being made there. He is not seeing the improvements that have been showing up, such as a 61% increase in applications this year, year over year, a 13% increase in those accepted into the forces, reductions in times for training, and 8%, 13% and 20% increases in salaries.
It is so bad. I really just cannot figure out how they can make this stuff up.
Mr. Speaker, let us separate the fiction and actually have some reality here. Most of our troops are not seeing a bump in their paycheque because the Liberals continue to claw it back at every opportunity. Rents are up by more than 5% for military housing. Housing support is down in more than 10 of the major housing posting locations. These reckless cuts are making retention and readiness much worse.
How can our brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces trust these Liberals when they give with one hand and claw back with the other?
Will the defence minister reverse these bad policies and actually start improving the retention of our brave women and men?
Mr. Speaker, it is a good day to answer this question, because, in fact, a year ago today we announced that we would achieve 2% of our GDP expenditures for defence. I remember where the member was at the end of the Harper regime when it was less than 1%. I did not see him fighting then for the money that we needed for our forces. In fact, he has been missing in action.
On the housing front alone, we are building 7,500 new units, 800 units are under construction now and three new apartment buildings have been purchased. We are making progress step by step. That is exactly what the women and men of the forces deserve.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' pay raise for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces is a farce. The Liberals are slashing the housing benefit by up to 72%, while upping the rent by 5%. CAF members in the national capital region will see their housing differential cut by up to $4,200 a year. In Kingston, they will see their housing differential cut by up to $7,200 a year.
When will the defence minister reverse these harmful changes?
Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to make thoughtful, systematic and disciplined investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. Applications are up 61% year over year. The number of folks brought into the system is up 13% year over year. We have more women joining. We are making progress on the cultural challenges inside the Canadian Armed Forces. We are buying weapons systems. We bought new rifles. We are building new homes. We are building for the future.
When a mess is left like it was by the last regime under Mr. Harper, it is kind of hard to defend it.
Canadian Identity and Culture
Mr. Speaker, I have exciting news. June is Portuguese Heritage Month and today we also celebrate Dia de Portugal, de Camões e das Comunidades Portuguesas.
Can the hon. Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages speak to the significance of the Portuguese Canadian community and its contribution to Canada's diversity?
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by wishing a happy Portuguese Heritage Month and a feliz Dia de Portugal, de Camões e das Comunidades Portuguesas to all Luso-Canadians.
Since the 1950s, generations of Portuguese immigrants have come to Canada and today nearly half a million Canadians trace their roots to Portugal. Across every sector, Luso-Canadians continue to enrich our society through their hard work, talent and commitment to their communities, including in this House. It is a chance to reflect on the values that unite us and to celebrate the diversity that makes us strong.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. In Edmonton, families are feeling the effects of Liberal mismanagement. A recent United Way survey found that 60% of Canadians now feel anxiety about their personal finances. Global factors are not to blame. It is Liberal inflationary spending and antidevelopment laws that have staled our economy. Canadians deserve better.
Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies causing this crisis so Canadians can afford to live again?
Mr. Speaker, our government has a clear plan to build Canada strong by creating good careers for workers in Alberta and across the country. Last month, 14,000 new jobs were added to Alberta's economy. We know there is more work to do. That is why we are building big and scaling up efforts to recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 additional skilled trade workers.
I have a simple question: Why are the Conservatives so disappointed by positive news?
Air Transportation
Mr. Speaker, Doug Ford wants to force through a $5‑billion Billy Bishop expansion that the people of Toronto do not want. It is a good thing the Ontario NDP is fighting back, but where are the Liberal members of Parliament? They are nowhere to be found. In fact, they are hiding behind a sham consultation that community groups say is a waste of time, with no business case, no environmental assessment and no details.
If Toronto Liberal MPs will not represent the people who elected them, will the Prime Minister step in and stop this scheme?
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member from Edmonton that the 23 Liberal MPs from the 416 are incredible members who represent their people and that city to make sure that we have housing and other investments that will move that city forward.
We will, of course, continue to listen to the people of the GTA. We will, of course, listen to the voices of Toronto as we continue to move forward on this very important file.
[Translation]
That brings question period to an end for today.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the members of the Bloc Québécois stand with the members who expressed their full solidarity with our colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata earlier. Our hearts go out to him. I believe that this spirit of collegiality and solidarity is fundamental to the House.
In the same vein, I would like to call your attention to the fact that, in responding to my colleague from Drummond, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture claimed that the Bloc Québécois members have been here since the party's founding “getting absolutely nothing done”. The truth is that we work hard.
Mr. Speaker, during question period, a Conservative member suddenly raised his voice while asking his question. I think this could pose a risk to the interpreters, and I think we should keep in mind that interpreters do delicate work and that hearing health is a major concern that we should all be mindful of.
I just wanted to point that out as a reminder.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[Translation]
Committees of the House
The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion.
It being 3:15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C‑223.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 145)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dalton
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Kmiec
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Martin
May
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Poilievre
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zimmer
Total: -- 317
NAYS
Members
BoulericeDavies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Gazan
Johns
Kwan
McPherson
Total: -- 6
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Epp
Fuhr
Hajdu
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 14
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Build Canada Homes Act
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the third time and passed.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-20.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 146)
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
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dandurand
Danko
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
Gerretsen
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
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)
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
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
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: -- 184
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
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Gazan
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
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Small
Steinley
Stevenson
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 140
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Epp
Fuhr
Hajdu
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 14
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑232, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C‑232 under Private Members' Business.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 147)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
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
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)
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
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
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
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
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: -- 190
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Epp
Fuhr
Hajdu
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 14
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying—
Some hon. members: No.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Victims of Crime
[Translation]
Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying
Mr. Speaker, this time, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying from the House of Commons may have a dissenting or supplementary opinion appended to its first report by tabling it with the Clerk of the House by July 10, 2026, and that, in such a case, the Clerk of the House shall forward such dissenting or supplementary opinion to the Clerk of the Senate so that it may be deemed to have been tabled in both Houses; that a message be sent to the Senate informing it that this House has adopted this order, and inviting it to adopt provisions to give effect to this order.
Safe Social Media Act
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, four reports of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group.
[English]
I had the privilege of leading several of these missions alongside the Hon. Senator MacDonald as co-chairs of the Canadian section of the interparliamentary group.
The first concerns the IPG's participation at the west annual meeting of the Council of State Governments, known as CSG, in Jackson, Wyoming, from September 16 to 19, 2025.
The second concerns the IPG's participation at the CSG national conference in Chicago, Illinois, from December 9 to 13, 2025.
The third concerns the interparliamentary group's first-ever mission to Mexico City, from January 13 to 15, to participate in CUSMA-focused discussions and round tables.
The fourth overviews the IPG's contributions to the Future Borders Coalition transportation border summit in Washington, D.C., on January 21 and 22, as well as our discussions with U.S. counterparts from the interparliamentary group.
Committees of the House
Indigenous and Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “Issues Related to First Nation Communities Without Reserve Lands”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
National Agricultural Innovation Day Act
moved for leave to introduce An Act to establish National Agricultural Innovation Day.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to introduce a bill entitled An Act to establish National Agricultural Innovation Day.
(Motion deemed adopted)
Arielle Kayabaga: Mr. Speaker, 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. 148)
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
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: -- 166
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
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
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
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
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 149
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Epp
Fuhr
Hajdu
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 14
I declare the motion carried.
[English]
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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Finance.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act
Hon. Randeep Sarai (for the Minister of Justice)
moved: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), the House:
agrees with amendments 1(a), 2(a) and 3 made by the Senate;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(b) because subsection 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code already requires courts to state on the record that they considered section 493.2 in making a bail decision, rendering the additional provision unnecessary;
respectfully disagrees with amendment 2(b) because engagement with relevant partners and stakeholders is already permitted, and the additional statutory consultation requirement could limit flexibility in the preparation and tabling of the report.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Ajax.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the message received from the Senate concerning Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. At the outset, I would like to thank the senators for their careful study of the legislation. The Senate plays an important role in our parliamentary system. It provides sober second thought, hears from witnesses, reviews legislation clause by clause and proposes amendments where it believes improvements can be made.
That is precisely what occurred with Bill C-14. After reviewing the bill, the Senate adopted four amendments. The motion before the House today proposes that we agree with two of those amendments, amend one of them and respectfully disagree with another. I believe that this approach strikes the right balance. It recognizes valuable contributions made through the Senate's review, while ensuring that the legislation would remain faithful to the objectives Parliament has pursued throughout its study of the bill.
Before turning to the amendments, I think it is important to briefly remind members why Bill C-14 was introduced in the first place. Across Canada, communities have been raising concerns about public safety. Premiers, mayors, police leaders, victims' advocates and frontline organizations have all called for action to address serious violent offending, repeat offending, organized criminal activity, extortion and human trafficking.
Canadians have seen a troubling rise in violent extortion targeting businesses and families. Communities have experienced growing concerns about organized crime and repeat violent offenders. Transit workers and other frontline workers have called for stronger protections. Provincial and territorial governments have repeatedly asked the federal government to review the criminal law framework to ensure that our laws respond effectively to evolving public safety challenges. Bill C-14 is that response.
The legislation would strengthen the bail system for certain serious offences by expanding reverse onus provisions in carefully defined circumstances. It would create new tools to address violent repeat offending. It would strengthen sentencing provisions for serious crimes, including extortion and arson committed for criminal purposes. It would respond to the growing threat posed by organized criminal activity and human trafficking. It would improve public safety while preserving judicial discretion and maintaining consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The bill has been studied extensively. The House committee heard testimony from witnesses. Amendments were proposed and debated. Members from all parties contributed to its development. The Senate undertook its own review and proposed several amendments for the House's consideration.
The first amendment before us relates to sureties. As members know, during the House committee study, an amendment was adopted to prohibit individuals who had been convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years from acting as surety. The Senate amendment would maintain that prohibition while providing limited judicial discretion in circumstances where no other surety is available and where the court determines that allowing the surety would be in the best interest of justice. The government supports this amendment, which would maintain the fundamental objective adopted by the House. Individuals convicted of serious offences would continue to be prohibited from serving as a surety.
At the same time, it recognizes that exceptional circumstances may arise. Witnesses who appeared before the Senate raised concerns regarding the practical impact of a complete prohibition in certain remote, rural and northern communities where the pool of available sureties may be limited. The amendment provides a narrow and carefully structured mechanism that would allow courts to address those exceptional circumstances while preserving the overall intent of the provision. For that reason, we believe the Senate amendment represents a reasonable refinement and should be supported.
The second amendment concerns the annual reporting requirements related to bail data. Members will recall that the House adopted an amendment requiring the Minister of Justice to table an annual report respecting bail data. The Senate amendment proposes two changes. First, it would require that the information respecting rates of detention before trial be included in that report. Second, it would require the minister to consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection and the criminal justice system, including Statistics Canada, when preparing the report.
The government supports the first part of this amendment. Information relating to pretrial detention can contribute to a fuller understanding of how the bail system operates across this country. Reliable data is important. Evidence‑based policy is important. Parliamentarians would benefit by having access to meaningful information about the operation of the criminal justice system.
However, the government does not support the second portion of the Senate amendment. The minister already has the ability to engage with relevant partners, experts and organizations when preparing reports and evaluating criminal justice data. Creating a specific statutory requirement is unnecessary and could reduce flexibility in how information is gathered and reports are prepared. As a result, the motion proposes an amendment that would retain the reporting component while removing the mandatory consultation requirement. I believe this approach appropriately balances accountability with operational flexibility.
The third Senate amendment concerns proposed subsection 515(13.2), of the Criminal Code. This amendment would require a justice to ask on the record whether section 493.2 applies, even where neither party has raised the issue during the bail hearing. The government respectfully disagrees with this amendment. The reason is straightforward: Existing law already addresses this issue.
Subsection 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code already requires courts to state on the record how section 493.2 was considered in making a bail decision. In practice, this requirement already necessitates consideration of whether section 493.2 applies. As a result, the proposed amendment would not create a new substantive obligation. Instead, it would duplicate requirements that already exist within the Criminal Code. For that reason, the government believes the amendment is unnecessary.
The final amendment relates to the coming into force of provisions respecting access to youth records. The amendment would provide that these provisions come into force on a day to be fixed by the order of the Governor in Council. The government supports this amendment. The amendment reflects a practical implementation approach and would help ensure that all relevant partners have sufficient time to prepare for the coming into force of these provisions. It would not alter the policy objective adopted by Parliament. Rather, it would support effective implementation.
After careful consideration, the government believes that the package before the House today strikes the right balance. It would accept Senate amendments that improve the legislation, propose a targeted modification where appropriate, and respectfully reject an amendment that is unnecessary because its objective is already achieved through existing law. Most importantly, it would preserve the core purpose of Bill C‑14.
Canadians expect Parliament to respond to serious public safety concerns. They expect us to provide law enforcement and the justice system with effective tools. They expect us to address violent offending, organized crime, extortion and human trafficking. They expect us to work collaboratively and move legislation forward when consensus has largely been achieved.
Bill C‑14 has now been studied by both chambers of Parliament. The House has done its work. The Senate has done its work. The amendments before us have been carefully reviewed. I encourage members to support the motion before the House so Bill C‑14 can proceed without any further delay and continue its path forward for royal assent.
Mr. Speaker, why is it that Liberals always seem to support criminals rather than supporting victims' rights?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the member should read the bill. The whole bill is about offenders, people who have broken criminal laws. The bill is about strengthening our bail system so there would be a reverse onus and so criminals would not get released if they are violent repeat offenders or have committed crimes like extortion. It is to enhance the sentencing on them. I think everyone knows that the Liberals are on par to creating tougher sentencing laws for those who need it.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the member has been a champion not just for this bill but also for many other bills within our package of bills addressing crime, bail reform and criminal justice.
Can the member speak to the importance of this with respect to his home riding?
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important. As we all know, in Surrey and places across the country, crimes like shootings and extortions have been rampant and are on the rise. This bill would help in two ways.
One is the reverse onus so that those who are charged would not be given bail. Serious offenders would be kept behind bars so that others in the community can feel safe.
The other would give the power to the judge to give consecutive sentences, rather than complementary, concurrent sentencing. If somebody were to be sentenced for multiple crimes, they would serve them on top of each other, with the cumulative time together. It is very important.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Senate amendment that the government supports, my understanding was that the focus was to provide some special consideration for indigenous offenders in remote areas who may not have the resources and the swath of friends and family to act as sureties. My understanding was that there was supposed to be a specific carve-out. However, the language that came from the Senate is of general application, making no reference to indigenous offenders specifically.
Why was there a change to make that more general, and why is the government now supporting it when there was an intention to carve out a specific exception for indigenous offenders?
Mr. Speaker, I think the intent is not about whether someone is indigenous or not. It is about rural and remote communities, where a person seeking to get a surety has very few options. There may be 20, 30, 50 or 60 people in those communities. It is a matter of that small pool. If there is no available surety for that person and they can prove it, the judge would then have the discretion or liberty to allow someone charged with that offence to provide a surety.
When there is an abundance of people who can provide a surety, there would be no carve-out.
Mr. Speaker, there is wide support from communities for this bill to strengthen bail reform and sentencing across Canada. I wonder if the member could also talk about how the provinces and municipal police forces would also be involved and do their part.
Mr. Speaker, this has been very favourable among the police forces across the country, the law enforcement agencies and virtually every province. I spoke with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of British Columbia, who are both very supportive of this. They gave their consultation and their comments.
This is reflective of what Canadian law enforcement, Canadian Crown councils, the Canadian legal community and, most of all, the Canadian public have been demanding.
Mr. Speaker I am pleased to rise to speak to the message from the Senate concerning Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.
Today's debate is not about whether Bill C-14 should proceed. Both chambers of Parliament have now spent considerable time studying this legislation. The House of Commons debated it, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied it, witnesses testified, amendments were proposed and considered, and the Senate has now completed its review. The question before us today is how we should respond to the amendments proposed by the Senate.
As I will outline, I believe the House is thoughtful. The recommendations from the Senate are thoughtful. They are measured and entirely consistent with the objectives of Bill C-14. Before discussing the specific amendments, however, it is worth reflecting on why Parliament embarked on this work in the first place.
Over the last number of years, Canadians from every region of the country have raised concerns about public safety. Those concerns have come from municipal leaders. They have come from premiers. They have come from police chiefs. They have come from transit workers. They have come from victims advocates. They have come from business owners. They have come from families who have experienced the impacts of crime in their communities. In community after community, including in my community of Ajax, Canadians have told us that the status quo is not acceptable. They have told us that organized crime is becoming more sophisticated. They have told us that violent extortion is becoming more common. They have told us that human trafficking continues to devastate lives. They have told us that repeat violent offending remains a serious concern. They have told us that assaults against frontline workers continue to occur far too frequently. These concerns are not isolated to one province or one city. They are national concerns.
In recent years, we have seen a dramatic increase in extortion offences across Canada. Businesses have been targeted. Families have been threatened. Communities have been shaken. Law enforcement agencies have repeatedly warned Parliament about the growing sophistication of organized criminal networks, as well as the challenges of combatting them.
Canadians are calling for bail reform, and with this bill, we will deliver.
We have heard concerns from municipal leaders. Mayors across the country have called for stronger tools to address public safety challenges in their communities. In 2023, as the acting mayor of the City of Toronto, I joined in that advocacy. Provincial and territorial governments have repeatedly called on the federal government to review the criminal law framework and ensure that serious violent offending is met with an effective response. Police associations and police leaders have echoed those calls. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has repeatedly raised concerns about repeat violent offending and organized criminal activity. Provincial police associations have called for reforms that strengthen public confidence in the judicial system while maintaining respect for constitutional rights and judicial independence.
Bill C-14 is Parliament's response to those concerns. The legislation takes a targeted and measured approach. It would strengthen bail provisions for certain serious offences. It would respond to repeat violent offending. It would create stronger sentencing measures for extortion and arson committed for criminal purposes. It would strengthen protections related to human trafficking. The bill includes measures aimed at improving public safety while maintaining judicial discretion and preserving charter protections.
Importantly, Bill C-14 is not the product of a single political party acting alone. Throughout the legislative process, members from different parties have contributed to the bill. Amendments were proposed. Suggestions were considered. Improvements were made. The result is stronger legislation. That collaborative approach continued in the Senate. The Senate heard testimony from a wide range of witnesses. It reviewed the legislation carefully. It proposed amendments where senators believed refinements were warranted. The House now has an opportunity to consider those amendments.
The first amendment before us today concerns sureties. As members know, the House adopted an amendment that would prohibit a person convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years from acting as a surety. The Senate amendment would maintain that prohibition while allowing a court to exercise limited discretion in exceptional circumstances when no other surety is available and when doing so would be in the interest of justice.
The government supports this amendment. It is important to understand why. The objective of the original House amendment remains intact. Individuals convicted of indictable offences would remain prohibited from acting as sureties. The Senate amendment would not remove that prohibition. It would not undermine that prohibition. It would not create a broad exception. Instead, it would create a narrow exception that may be used only when specific conditions are met.
During the Senate study, witnesses raised concerns about how an absolute prohibition might operate in certain remote, rural and northern communities. In some communities, particularly in Canada's north, the pool of potential sureties can be extremely limited. The Senate heard testimony suggesting that an inflexible rule could create practical difficulties in circumstances where no other surety exists. The amendment would recognize those realities while maintaining the overall objective adopted by the House. It would preserve the rule while allowing courts to address exceptional circumstances. There would be reasonable balance.
The second amendment concerns bail reporting. Members will recall that the House adopted an amendment requiring annual reporting respecting bail data. The Senate proposed expanding that reporting framework by including information related to rates of detention before trial. The government supports that proposal. Good public policy depends on good information. Parliamentarians should have access to meaningful data. Canadians should have confidence that decisions are informed by evidence. Including information regarding pretrial detention could help provide a more complete picture of how the bail system operates across the country.
At the same time, the Senate amendment would also require the minister to consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection in the criminal justice system, including Statistics Canada. The government proposes modifying this portion of the Senate amendment. The reason is straightforward. The minister already possesses the ability to engage with experts, stakeholders and partners as required. Nothing in the legislation would prevent that engagement. Indeed, effective policy development routinely involves collaboration with experts and partners. However, creating a statutory consultation requirement is unnecessary and could reduce flexibility in the preparation of future reports. For that reason, the government proposes retaining the reporting enhancements while removing the mandatory consultation requirement.
The third amendment concerns proposed subsection 515(13.2). The government respectfully disagrees with this amendment. The amendment would require a justice to ask on the record whether section 493.2 applies, even when neither party raises the issue. The objective behind the amendment is understandable. However, existing law already addresses the issue. Parliament previously enacted subsection 515(13.1), which requires courts to state on the record how section 493.2 was considered in making a bail decision. As a practical matter, compliance with that provision already requires consideration. The proposed amendment, therefore, would duplicate obligations that already exist. It would not create a new protection or right, and it would not alter the legal analysis requirements at bail. For those reasons, the government believes the amendment is unnecessary, and respectfully disagrees with it.
The final amendment concerns the coming into force of provisions related to youth records. The government supports this amendment. Implementation matters. When Parliament enacts significant changes, justice system partners, police services, prosecutors and provincial and territorial partners require time to prepare. The amendment would provide flexibility to ensure that these provisions are implemented effectively and reasonably.
When we step back and look at the amendments as a whole, an important point becomes clear. None of these amendments would alter the fundamental objectives of Bill C-14. None of them would change the core public safety measures contained the legislation or Parliament's commitment to addressing serious violent crime, organized crime, extortion or human trafficking.
Canadians are looking to Parliament for action. They are looking for results. Police leaders have called for action. Provincial governments have called for action. Municipal leaders have called for action. Victims advocates have called for action. Community organizations have called for action. Canadians expect us to respond. Bill C-14 represents an important step forward. It would provide stronger tools to address violent offending, strengthen responses to extortion and organized criminal activity and enhance protections for communities, and it would do so while respecting judicial discretion, constitutional protections and the fundamental principles of our justice system.
The Senate has completed its work. The House now has the opportunity to complete its work. We can accept some of these amendments and improve this bill. We propose a targeted modification where appropriate. We respectfully reject an amendment that would be unnecessary because the existing law already accomplishes its objective.
We encourage all members of the House to support the motion before us so that Bill C-14 may proceed without delay and Canadians can benefit from these important reforms.
Mr. Speaker, I can inform the parliamentary secretary that the Conservatives will never support the government's position in supporting the Senate amendment. I reject the premise of her entire speech, with all due respect.
She claims that the Senate amendment would do nothing to alter the circumstances by which the government agreed unanimously to the Conservative amendment that a person convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years could not act as a surety. Now the Senate wants to give discretion to all judges, without any independent verification that any accused across this country cannot find someone who does not possess a clean record or something outside of 10 years.
In those circumstances, why is the government backtracking on the position we all agreed to?
Mr. Speaker, the Senate heard from witnesses, and we feel its amendment is reasonable and fair and addresses some of the concerns it heard.
We have heard loud and clear from municipal leaders, police chiefs, transit workers, victims advocates, business owners and communities that we need to strengthen Canada's bail system, we need to toughen sentences for serious and violent crimes, we need to modernize the youth criminal justice system and we need to strengthen military justice. We feel that Bill C‑14 would do all of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague a question in my capacity as vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The committee is concerned about homelessness and is currently conducting a study on the subject.
One of the issues raised by the Bloc Québécois regarding Bill C‑14 has to do with the provision making it an aggravating factor to commit assault against a public transit driver. I have a great deal of respect for public transit drivers. That said, the attacks they are subjected to are often related to mental health issues and even homelessness.
The Bloc Québécois believes that, rather than creating aggravating factors, it would have been better for the government to invest in health care to take care of these people and truly protect drivers. That would have been much more effective than simply adding aggravating factors, which may not really help the drivers.
What does my colleague think?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we know that we need to do more to address homelessness in Canada, and that is why, with Build Canada Homes, we are investing $1 billion in supportive and transitional housing to help those who need it the most. Those are, in many cases, individuals suffering from mental health and addictions who need those wraparound supports, who want to come in off the street and improve their lives, but we need to ensure they have housing and services available to them.
The good news is that we are getting closer to passing Bill C‑20 today, the Build Canada Homes act, and we look forward to working with everybody from coast to coast to coast to build that important housing that Canadians need.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's remarks very closely. I was hoping she could touch on some of the experts who have helped advise the government on our law and order agenda, from police to members of our national security apparatus and transit workers, and everyone in between.
Maybe the member could talk about some of the experts advising us.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy my colleague brought up transit workers. I know that as a Toronto MP, he is very committed to ensuring the safety of the TTC.
I would like to point out that as acting mayor in 2023, I worked with Toronto council to call on the federal government to make bail harder to obtain for repeat violent offenders, and we are delivering that today with Bill C‑14. In addition, I worked with the Amalgamated Transit Union as a member of the TTC commission to advocate for stricter sentencing so that when the victim of the offence is a public transit operator or any other transit worker, we consider that an aggravating factor. Bill C‑14 would expand the federal Criminal Code to protect transit workers in all different disciplines. The Amalgamated Transit Union said, “Bill C‑14 delivers long-fought victory for every ATU Canada transit worker”. It also said, “For the first time, the Criminal Code of Canada recognizes that every transit worker, not just operators behind the wheel, deserves the full protection of the law.”
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Food and Drugs Act
The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (List of Therapeutic Products Pre-approved for Special Access), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to finish my remarks about Bill C-265, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access.
In the interregnum between the first and second half of my remarks, members of my community sought me out to discuss how the bill would apply in complex cases. They reminded me of some things that should be considered at committee.
First, we should avoid loopholes that could unintentionally weaken Canada's drug approval framework or allow inappropriate products to bypass proper scrutiny. Parliament should closely examine how products would qualify for inclusion on the proposed pre-approved list. While the bill references foreign approvals and clinical evidence, committee members should ensure that those standards are clearly defined and appropriately rigorous.
Committee members should also study how oversight would function once a product is granted special access. If adverse outcomes occur, what reporting mechanisms would exist? How would Health Canada monitor safety data? Would there be transparency requirements so that Canadians can understand how these decisions are being made? Those are all reasonable questions.
Another issue that deserves scrutiny is whether pharmaceutical companies could exploit the system in unintended ways. Compassionate access programs should exist for patients, not as alternative market entry strategies for manufacturers seeking to avoid the normal approval process. Parliament should ensure that the bill would not inadvertently create incentives for companies to delay seeking full Canadian approval while still gaining widespread access through an expedited pathway.
Likewise, safeguards should ensure that access remains focused on exceptional circumstances involving serious or life-threatening conditions where comparable approved Canadian therapies do not exist.
Clinical judgment really matters in medicine, and I appreciate that the bill acknowledges the role that physicians play in emergency decision-making. However, clear guardrails would still be necessary to maintain public confidence and consistent application across the country.
We should also acknowledge that access alone does not solve every problem. Many advanced therapies are extremely expensive. Some treatments for rare diseases cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars annually. Families already struggling emotionally should not be left facing impossible financial uncertainty after finally obtaining access to therapy. That broader conversation around affordability, provincial coverage and rare disease strategy must continue alongside the bill.
One thing I hope we can all agree on is that Canadians facing devastating diagnoses should not feel abandoned by their health care system. At the same time, Canadians also expect Parliament to proceed carefully when it comes to medical safety and regulatory oversight. Those principles are not in conflict.
Committee work exists precisely for bills like this one. It allows Parliament to hear from physicians, rare disease advocates, pharmacologists, regulators, patient groups, ethicists and health care administrators. It allows members to test assumptions, identify weaknesses and strengthen legislation before it advances further. It also allows parliamentarians to hear from patients. Perhaps committee study will reveal areas where the bill should be amended. Perhaps stronger oversight mechanisms will be needed. Perhaps definitions will need tightening to prevent unintended consequences. That is not a flaw in the legislative process. That is the legislative process working as it should.
I also believe that Canadians are increasingly frustrated when Parliament simply shuts down debate at the outset rather than engaging constructively with proposals that may have merit. I think we will see some of that shutting down today on other matters. We should be willing to study good-faith ideas seriously, especially when they concern patients facing life-threatening illnesses.
In closing, this is an issue that Parliament should be willing to study seriously, because if we can respond and reduce delays in a responsible manner, especially for cases that are exceptional, and empower physicians while maintaining strong safeguards, then Canadians will thank us.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, before I address Bill C‑265, I would like to take a few moments to highlight a major milestone for my region: the 50th anniversary of Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent. I would have liked to be there with its members to celebrate the anniversary in person, but I wanted their contribution to be recognized here in the House of Commons.
The 50th anniversary of Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent is an essential reminder of what sets us apart as a region. Let us not forget that Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent grew out of the very first cultural council in Quebec. For 50 years, the organization has been opening doors, bringing the cultural community together and contributing to raising the Lower St. Lawrence region's profile. I want to commend all the people who have kept the organization going all these years: the artists, the cultural workers, the partner organizations, the volunteers and everyone who believes in the power of culture to boost our communities.
As the member for Rimouski—La Matapédia, a riding that includes La Mitis, Les Basques and La Neigette, I want to acknowledge the enormous contribution that Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent has made to our region. I wish Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent a very happy 50th anniversary and many more years of success. Many happy returns.
I will now continue with the topic at hand today, Bill C‑265.
The Bloc Québécois has done its job since the official first reading of this bill in the House on March 11. We have taken the time to carefully analyze all of the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act with a view to creating a list of pre-approved therapeutic products under Health Canada's special access program.
Let me be clear from the outset: The Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill at second reading.
The idea behind this bill is simple. It will enable certain seriously ill patients to access treatments more quickly when standard options have been exhausted. It addresses a reality that many of us have witnessed in our ridings: patients with serious or life-threatening illnesses who have exhausted all therapeutic options and wish to access a promising treatment that is sometimes already available elsewhere in the world. In those situations, every day counts. Every administrative delay becomes an additional burden for people who are fighting for their lives.
We understand the legitimate desire to have access to alternative treatments when all else has failed. No one wants a patient to be denied a treatment option simply because administrative procedures move more slowly than their disease is progressing.
I think many of my colleagues will relate to what I am about to say. At one time or another, we have all received a call or an email from a family desperately seeking a solution for a loved one who is seriously ill. Behind these requests are people who are almost out of options and who are still hoping for one more chance. The special access program was created for just this kind of situation. It is intended to provide access to certain treatments when conventional options are no longer sufficient and the patient's condition requires it.
When we look at the path leading to the approval of a new drug, we quickly realize how complex the process is. From research to discovery, through clinical trials, regulatory reviews and approval by Health Canada, before a drug even makes it onto pharmacy shelves, it is clear that the process is like something out of The Twelve Tasks of Asterix.
The creation of a list of drugs pre-approved for the special access program could help reduce the time required to process requests, in particular by easing the administrative burden. In principle, this is a step forward that deserves our support. However, the commendable intent aside, we have a duty to examine this bill diligently and judiciously to ensure that this measure is feasible and truly accessible to everyone.
Quebec already has its own mechanisms for providing exceptional access to drugs under certain circumstances. This shows that our health care systems are already striving to strike a balance between access to treatment and the responsible management of public resources. That is why it is essential that Quebec be fully involved in any reform affecting access to treatment.
First, we have concerns about how Quebec and the provinces have been left out of this process, even though they are the ones responsible for administering health care and, more importantly, managing drug plans. Facilitating access to a drug is one thing. Ensuring that it is truly accessible to members of the public, regardless of their financial situation, is quite another. Without close collaboration with Quebec and the provinces, the government could end up reinforcing inequality when it comes to access to care.
Let us not forget that, under the existing special access program, drug prices are set by the manufacturer, so it is possible that some costs might have to be borne by hospitals, public or private insurers, or even, in some cases, patients or their families. We need to ensure that it is not just the wealthiest patients who are able to access these treatments, while others have to do without. That would go against a fundamental principle of our health care system, which is accessibility.
Speeding up access to a drug should not mean sticking the provinces and Quebec, health care institutions or families with the bill. We cannot create a system where there is hope for everyone but where only those who can pay can really benefit from it. Innovation is important, but so is fairness, which is why we want to know whether there are any mechanisms planned to take into account the cost and coverage of these drugs.
I would also like to hear what the sponsor of the bill has to say on the matter. Does he believe that the special access program's current mechanisms are sufficient to ensure financial accessibility, or does he think adjustments will need to be made? We agree that certain drugs should be made available more quickly, but certainly not at the expense of Quebec and the provinces, hospitals or even patients.
Second, we must consider the delicate balance between rapid access and patient safety. Health Canada must continue to rigorously evaluate drugs before they are distributed. In health care, nothing should ever be used as an excuse to bypass the science. Urgency must never override caution. When a person is vulnerable and their options are limited, our collective responsibility is all the greater. We must offer hope, but not under just any conditions.
Furthermore, Canada is already one of the most expensive countries for prescription drugs. There is no magic solution. Improving access to new treatments quickly often comes at a significant cost. We must therefore proceed with caution. We do need to move faster, but without driving up costs or cutting corners on safety.
Lastly, a number of questions remain about the conditions for adding drugs to this list. In particular, we wish to hear from experts regarding the criteria for adding a drug to the list, the composition of the advisory committee that will be responsible for making recommendations, the follow-up mechanisms that will ensure patient safety, and ethical considerations regarding access to these new treatments. The Bloc Québécois intends to take all the time that is needed to hear from experts, health care professionals, researchers and all stakeholders at the committee stage.
Bill C‑265 is ultimately about patients who are running out of options and searching for one more chance. When someone is seriously ill, hope means a lot. Our role as legislators is to ensure that this hope is based on real, fair access. That is why we support the principle of Bill C‑265.
Yes, we need to improve access to innovative treatments when conventional options have been exhausted. Yes, we need to reduce red tape when it becomes an unnecessary barrier. However, we must also ensure that these treatments remain accessible to everyone, regardless of income, and that Quebec and the provinces are fully involved in the process. We must also uphold the highest standards of safety and scientific evaluation because, when it comes to public health, public trust is paramount. We will act openly and diligently, in the belief that better access to treatment must never come at the expense of fairness.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-265, introduced by my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I want to thank him for bringing forward this important legislation and for his advocacy on behalf of patients and families across Canada.
In my riding of Brampton South, I regularly hear from residents navigating serious and complex health challenges. I often hear the same message, which is that patients want timely access to safe and effective treatments.
Rare diseases are often perceived as uncommon, but collectively, they are not rare at all. Today, approximately one in 12 Canadians, or nearly three million people, live with rare diseases, and roughly two-thirds of those affected are children, yet treatments exist for only a small percentage of these conditions.
Throughout my time in Parliament, I have heard closely from patients, caregivers, health care professionals, researchers and advocacy organizations. As the chair of the all-party diabetes caucus, I have witnessed how medical innovation has transformed diabetes care over the years. New medication, new technologies, continuous glucose monitoring systems and advancement in treatment have dramatically improved the lives of Canadians living with diabetes. Innovation saves lives, reduces complications and improves quality of life.
My riding of Brampton South is one of Canada's fastest-growing and most diverse communities. It is home to families who closely follow medical advancement taking place around the world. Increasingly, residents are aware of therapies that are available in other jurisdictions and often wonder why we cannot have that timely access and why access in Canada can take longer. They want to know what options exist when conventional treatments have failed, and whether promising innovations may be available to them or to their loved ones.
For families facing serious illness, every day matters. That is why Bill C-265 deserves careful consideration. At its core, this bill is about patients. It is about Canadians living with serious, life-threatening, chronic or rare conditions who have exhausted available treatment options and are searching for hope.
Canada's special access program plays an important role in our health care system. It allows health care professionals to request access to drugs that have not been approved for sale in Canada when conventional therapies have failed, are unsuitable or are unavailable. The program exists because we recognize there are circumstances where patients require access to treatments that fall outside the traditional approvals pathway.
However, we know the current process can be complex and time-consuming. Physicians are often required to submit individual requests for each patient, even when the same therapeutical products have already been reviewed numerous times. While these safeguards are important, the administrative burden and red tape can create delays for patients whose conditions continue to progress.
Bill C-265 seeks to address this challenge by establishing a list of products that have been pre-approved for special access. Under this proposal, therapies that meet established criteria could be placed on the national list, allowing health care providers to access them more efficiently through the special access program while maintaining appropriate oversight.
Importantly, this bill would not remove safeguards. Products would continue to undergo scientific review, Health Canada would retain oversight authority and an expert advisory committee would provide recommendations regarding additions and removals. Products could be removed from the list if new evidence raised concerns regarding safety or effectiveness. In other words, this bill would seek to reduce administrative barriers without compromising patient protection.
Canada would not be stepping into uncharted territory by considering a more efficient pathway for special access. Many of our international partners have already established mechanisms that allow patients with serious illness to access promising therapies before they receive full market authorization. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration operates an expanded access program often referred to as compassionate use, which enables patients with serious or life-threatening conditions to access investigational therapies when no satisfactory alternatives exist. The European Union has implemented compassionate use programs to support patients suffering from chronic, life-threatening disease who have exhausted available treatment options. Similarly, the United Kingdom's early access to medicine scheme was designed to provide patients with earlier access to promising innovative medicine while maintaining rigorous oversight and monitoring.
These programs demonstrate that improving access and maintaining safety are not mutually exclusive. We can continue to uphold Canada's high standards, while also finding ways to respond more quickly to the needs of patients facing urgent circumstances.
I have heard similar concerns from patients living with chronic illness who closely follow emerging therapies and innovations that have the potential to improve outcomes and quality of life. While therapies ultimately require rigorous evaluation and regulatory oversight, we should also be examining whether they are opportunities to make promising treatments available more efficiently for patients facing serious health challenges. Bill C-265 encourages us to have that conversation.
I also appreciate that the legislation includes mechanisms to promote transparency and accountability. The establishment of an expert advisory committee would ensure that decisions are informed by clinical expertise and scientific evidence. The proposed timelines for reviewing submissions would help create greater predictability for patients and health care providers. The ability to remove products from the list if safety concerns emerge reinforces the principle that patient safety must remain at the centre of every decision. This is why I believe this bill deserves to move forward. Committee members will have the opportunity to hear from patients, physicians, researchers, regulatory and advocacy organizations, and health care professionals. They will be able to access international best practices, evaluate potential risks and benefits.
Bill C-265 seeks to improve access while maintaining the strong safeguards Canadians expect. By reducing unnecessary delays and strengthening the special access program, it keeps patients at the centre of care. For these reasons, I support this bill in its second reading and look forward to its study at committee.
Mr. Speaker, in this country, there are important life-saving drugs that Canadians suffering from serious conditions may not be able to access, not because the science is uncertain or the risks are unknown but because of the paperwork and the bureaucratic delays. That is the problem before us today.
Health Canada's special access program was designed as a lifeline. It was designed for Canadians with serious or rare conditions when no approved treatment existed. The special access program was supposed to open a door to therapies already proven effective elsewhere. The intent was good, but the results have been a failure.
In 2025, the special access program processed nearly 12,000 requests. Many of those were for drugs that Canadian physicians had requested before, drugs approved in jurisdictions where we consider regulatory peers, and drugs with years of real-world data behind them, yet each request is still treated as novel. Each application starts from scratch. A physician who has navigated this process a dozen times for a dozen patients with the same drug must continue to go through it again and again. There is no recognition of precedent or streamlining for well-established use cases. Instead, it is just more forms and more waiting.
Part of the reason is structural. For rare conditions affecting small patient populations, Canada's market is sometimes not large enough to justify a full regulatory submission by manufacturers. The Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders has documented what this costs in human terms. Only 60% of rare disease treatments reach Canada at all, and those that do arrive up to six years after patients in the United States and Europe have access to them. For someone with a progressive, life-threatening illness, that can literally be the difference between life and death.
Allowing a bureaucratic and broken system to withhold life-saving treatment from Canadians does not make drugs safer. The safety record of these therapies is already established by foreign regulators, by years of clinical use, and by the same Health Canada reviewers who approved the identical requests last month and the month before.
The paperwork does not generate new knowledge, but it does consume time. For patients with serious conditions, time is one thing they just do not have. For many Canadians, the special access program becomes the only viable pathway to access treatment. Right now that pathway is hindered by layers of administration that fail to deliver the outcome that was intended.
Bill C-265 intends to address this problem with a straightforward proposal. It would direct the Minister of Health to establish a standing, pre-approved list of non-marketed therapeutic products for serious or life-threatening conditions. Physicians would be able to prescribe directly from this list without starting from zero every time a new patient needs what the last patient received. Eligibility for this list is intended to be grounded in existing evidence. A product would need to have previously received special access program authorization, have held an authorization not withdrawn for safety reasons, or be currently approved by a recognized foreign regulator.
Conservatives support advancing the bill to committee. I want to personally thank the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his work on it. He has been open and collaborative throughout this process, and that is really special in these times. I know that the sponsor has seen this broken system first-hand, given his work as a doctor.
That said, there are provisions in the bill that need to be fixed. First, the bill would create a presumption of approval when two specialist clinicians submit a joint treatment plan. On the surface, having two physicians validate a treatment plan would seem to add legitimacy to that course of action and help expedite emergency treatments. However, there are no provisions in the bill that would require those two clinicians to be independent of one another and of the treating physician.
This could very easily lead to a situation where a relationship between two physicians, whether personal, professional or commercial, could cause one to pressure or influence the other to support a clinical treatment that in fact goes against their best clinical judgment. The second opinion means very little if it belongs to the doctor in the next office who owes the other one a favour, or is their supervisor or even a sibling or spouse. Members should consider an amendment to address the potential abuse and conflicts that could arise from this.
Second, the bill contains no explicit exclusion of substances from the pre-approved list or the letter of authorization process. If the bill passes as presented, it would open the door for dangerous drugs to make it onto the pre-approved list. This would effectively create a loophole that would make it just as easy for people suffering from drug use to be prescribed methamphetamine as to be prescribed liquid caffeine.
This is far from being a hypothetical concern. Through the special access program, requests for drugs such LSD and MDMA have in fact been made. Members will also recall that restrictions existed on the special access program to limit opioid diversion, under the Harper government. In 2013, then minister Rona Ambrose amended the program after learning that Health Canada had approved a request granting 21 patients with chronic addictions access to prescription heroin. However, the Trudeau Liberal government later lifted the restrictions that the Conservatives had imposed on illegal and harmful substances such as heroin and cocaine.
Conservatives had put those restrictions in place for a reason. We will not support legislation that would open that door, given that the current government has approved decriminalization and supports taxpayer-funded hard drugs. To ensure that this legislation would not become another pathway to decriminalizing hard drugs, we will seek amendments at committee. Given that the sponsor has said, “We certainly have to ensure...that there is no diversion of those drugs”, I hope he will support these proposed changes.
Third, the bill would permit pharmacists, hospitals and medical non-profit organizations, not just licensed practitioners, to nominate products for the pre-approved list. There is no definition as to what a medical non-profit organization is, which would open up the potential for major abuse. A large medical corporation could easily set up a non-profit organization to submit a drug approval request for its own product, and I am unsure why the sponsor did not limit these criteria to physicians.
Therefore, Conservatives will propose amendments to add guardrails about who should be allowed to submit requests for drugs to be added to the pre-approved list. This should not be something every man and his dog can do. We need criteria that have proper limits so these requests would be coming from professionals who use the special access program in their day-to-day work. If not, the proposal would risk being abused by activists.
There is a larger point worth making: The bill exists because Health Canada's bureaucracy has made the existing special access program so difficult to use that Parliament is now being asked to build a separate lane around it. We would not be reforming a system. The health minister has failed to reform her own department. The bill would offer some relief. However, the deeper problem would remain unaddressed.
The Conservatives would go to committee with important questions, including questions on the independence between attesting clinicians, questions on the exclusion of substances from the scope of the pre-approved list and questions on who would be permitted to submit products for consideration. These technicalities are the difference between a bill that would work and a bill that would create new problems while doing little to solve old ones.
Done right, the legislation could reduce the burden on physicians who spend hours on repetitive applications instead of treating patients. It could get proven therapies to Canadians who have no other options. However, done wrong, in the hands of drug manufacturers, a back door around the rules could fan the flames of the opioid crisis and worsen the tragedy that has already been permitted to grow to alarming proportions under the Liberal government.
The measure of a health care system is not how well it protects its own processes. It is whether the people who need care actually get it. On that measure, the special access program has been failing for too long. Doctors should be caring for Canadians and not wasting endless hours a day filling out paperwork for bureaucrats in Ottawa. Bill C-265, strengthened at committee, could begin to make meaningful progress for Canadians who deserve results.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-265.
I want to first thank my good friend, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, for bringing forward this important bill and legislation. As many members know, he brings a unique perspective to the House as a physician. The ideas reflected in the bill are grounded not only in his own experience caring for patients but also in conversations with clinicians across Canada. who have seen first-hand the challenges that can arise when patients require access to treatments that fall outside the usual pathways. That is why the special access program is so important.
At its core, the bill is about patients. The special access program serves a critical role in Canada's health care system. It allows health care practitioners to request access to drugs that are not currently authorized for sale in Canada when they believe those therapies may benefit a patient with a serious or life-threatening condition. Every year, thousands of requests are made through the program. Those requests support patients living with cancer, rare diseases, serious infections and other complex health conditions. In many cases, the program provides access to treatments that would otherwise not be available.
The program is an important success story, and it reflects a careful balance between timely access and patient safety. Unfortunately, as worthwhile as the program is, it is not without its flaws. The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has shared stories he has heard from doctors and clinicians across Canada who needed urgent access to medicine, only to run into unexpected administrative hurdles. While these may be rare instances, given that people turning to the special access program are doing so because they are in life-or-death situations, an administrative hurdle can have serious consequences. That is where this bill comes in.
The bill would make two changes to the Food and Drugs Act that would be a lifesaver for many Canadians. The first proposed change would establish a list of therapeutic products that would be pre-approved for access through the special access program. In practice, this could help streamline access to certain therapies that are already well understood and frequently requested. For patients facing urgent medical situations, even modest reductions in wait time can be meaningful. For clinicians, it may help reduce administrative burdens and allow them to focus more of their time on patient care.
The second change would expand the evidence that may be considered when requests are submitted through the program. Medicine is constantly evolving. New therapies emerge, new evidence becomes available, and clinicians are often at the forefront of identifying innovative treatment options for their patients. This proposal recognizes the value of clinical expertise and seeks to provide greater flexibility in how evidence can be assessed when special access requests are considered.
Taken together, these proposed measures aim to improve efficiency, support clinical decision-making, and help ensure that patients can access promising therapies when appropriate. These objectives align closely with broader efforts under to modernize Canada's regulatory system. Last summer, our government launched a red tape review. As part of this work, we are modernizing Health Canada's regulatory approach so that it focuses on agility, enhancing international collaboration and supporting timely access to therapeutic products, while maintaining the rigorous safety standards Canadians expect.
We have also launched the pharmaceutical and life sciences sector task force, bringing together leaders from across the sector to strengthen Canada's capacity to develop, manufacture and deliver the medicines Canadians rely on. The goal is straightforward: improving access to treatments while fostering innovation and long-term growth right here at home.
Bill C-265 aligns with these goals, and I want to applaud the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for putting forward a bill that showcases the kind of innovative thinking we need during this critical time.
As with any piece of legislation, there are details that warrant careful study. Committee review would provide an opportunity to hear from patients, physicians, researchers, regulators and other experts to ensure that the bill achieves its objectives while remaining aligned with Canada's broader regulatory framework. That is exactly how Parliament should approach legislation such as this: thoughtfully, collaboratively and with a shared focus on the people who stand to benefit.
I again want to thank the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for bringing the bill forward. At a time when Canadians expect us to work together to improve health outcomes and strengthen access to care, the bill offers an opportunity to do exactly that. I look forward to its being studied at committee, and I encourage all members to support sending it there for further consideration.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to give a quick shout-out and congratulations to the kids at Penticton Secondary School, who recently raised, if members can believe it, $80,000 for the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life with the help of Princess Margaret Secondary, Summerland Secondary and many other local organizations, businesses and community members. I congratulate these great kids, and the best news is that people can still donate, at cancer.ca.
I want to start with a simple question. Why does a physician in this country have to fill out the same paperwork for the same drug, for the same condition, over and over again, while their patients wait? That is the problem the bill is trying to solve, and it is a real problem. According to Health Canada's own records, obtained through Order Paper Question No. 1104, the special access program has received over 148,000 requests since 2015. Last year alone, nearly 12,000 requests came through. Many of these are repeat applications for drugs that Canadian clinicians have been successfully requesting for years. These are therapies that are well established and approved by regulators, with real-world track records behind them, yet the system treats every single one as if it is the first time anyone has ever asked.
A physician who has prescribed the same therapy for the same rare condition 10 times must submit a fresh application for patient number 11. They fill out the forms, they wait, they answer Health Canada's follow-up questions, and they wait some more. According to the government's own written response to questions tabled in this House, the average processing time for a special access program request is 4.65 days. That might not sound like that much, but the longest processing time on record was 1,641 days. For patients with serious and emergency needs, even a few days of unnecessary delay can mean permanent, irreversible harm.
The Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders has put numbers to what this costs. Only 60% of rare disease treatments reach Canada at all. Most arrive up to six years after patients in the United States and Europe have access to them. This is the broken system that Bill C-265 is trying to address.
The bill would direct the Minister of Health to establish a standing pre-approved list of non-marketed therapeutic products for serious or life-threatening conditions. Physicians could prescribe directly from that list without starting from scratch every time. Products would be eligible based on prior special access program authorization, a clean safety record or current approval by a recognized foreign regulator. An expert advisory committee would be consulted on the list. However, who those experts would be is not defined.
I want to acknowledge the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his work on this. He has approached it collaboratively and with genuine intent. His background as a physician gives him first-hand understanding of just how much time Canadian doctors waste on repetitive administrative processes.
Conservatives will support sending this bill to committee, where we will work to address our concerns. My colleague from Riding Mountain raised these concerns before, but I will raise them again.
Our first concern is the presumption of approval when two specialist clinicians submit a joint treatment plan. The problem is that the bill places no requirements on these two clinicians to be independent of each other or independent of the treating practitioner. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent the second opinion from coming from a colleague in the same clinic, a supervisor, a business partner or even a family member. A second opinion is only meaningful if it is genuinely independent.
Our second concern is the absence of any exclusion of controlled substances from the pre-approved list. In 2013, Conservative health minister Rona Ambrose took special action to restrict the special access program after it was used to approve access to pharmaceutical heroin for patients with chronic addiction. Those restrictions were deliberate and warranted. The Trudeau government later dismantled them. As currently drafted, Bill C-265 would give the Minister of Health the authority to place substances like dangerous hard drugs directly onto a pre-approved list, from which any qualifying practitioner could order them without individual case-by-case review.
We have watched the government use every lever available to it to normalize and expand access to hard drugs under the banner of harm reduction. Conservatives are not going to support legislation that would create another pathway for that agenda. The bill's own sponsor has said that diversion of these substances must be prevented. We take him at his word, and we will hold him to it at committee with an explicit amendment to exclude hard drugs from the scope of the pre-approved list.
Our third concern involves who gets to nominate products for the pre-approved list. As written, the bill would allow not just licensed practitioners but also pharmacists, hospitals and medical non-profit organizations to submit products for inclusion. The term “medical non-profit organization” is nowhere defined in the legislation. When my colleague from Riding Mountain asked the government in an Order Paper question to tell us how many special access program requests were made, broken down by requester category, whether practitioners, pharmacists, hospitals or non-profit organizations, Health Canada told us that this information is not centrally tracked. That is not good.
The government cannot even tell the House who is submitting these applications, and now we are being asked to expand the nomination criteria to include an undefined class of organizations with no meaningful guardrails. That appears like an open door that can be abused. Conservatives will propose amendments to restrict nomination rights to licensed practitioners who use the special access program in their day-to-day clinical work. There is a broader point worth making also. The health minister has had every opportunity to reform how this program operates currently and has not done so.
Bill C-265 would offer some relief but would not fix the underlying problem. What it would do, if strengthened at committee, is reduce the repetitive administrative burden on physicians, provide a clear and faster pathway to proven therapies for patients who have no other options and do so without opening new doors to hard drugs or creating a regulatory bypass for pharmaceutical manufacturers. If amendments are accepted, the legislation would make a meaningful difference for Canadians who are waiting for treatments that already exist and are already proven. They have waited long enough.
Mr. Speaker, there are important life-saving drugs that Canadians might not be able to access in a timely manner. Some Canadians are suffering from serious conditions and cannot access proven life-saving drugs. We know the risks, and we know the science behind these drugs is sound. Those are not the problems. The problems facing Canadians trying to access life-saving drugs are too much paperwork and too much bureaucracy. That is why we are debating Bill C-265 today, so we can get life-saving drugs to Canadians who need them in a timely and efficient manner.
This is an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. To be more clear, it is meant to provide a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. “Pre-approved” is the key word. Pre-approved drugs cut down on time and bureaucracy. Canada already has a program designed for Canadians with serious or rare conditions when no other treatments exist. It is called the special access program. The problem is that there are no provisions for pre-approved drugs that are based on precedent. The special access program was meant to open a door to therapies already proven to be effective elsewhere. The intent was there, the intent was good, but the implementation failed.
In 2025 alone, over 11,000 requests were processed, but each request was treated as a new request. Repeated requests were treated as new requests, instead of a consistent and efficient system that recognized the suffering and complications that some Canadians were experiencing. These are drugs requested before by Canadian doctors, drugs approved by jurisdictions that we consider to be our peers and drugs with real-world data behind them, yet each application started from scratch. Not only do doctors have to go through this process time and time again, but the patients also have to apply time and time again.
My own brother, who suffers from a rare spinal disease, had to go through this for years. When his medications ran out, he would have to wait for his application to be approved so he could resume pain management. This left a gap. This left him to self-medicate with non-prescription drugs, which he hated to do, but he could not bear the pain, and I do not blame him. How many other people have considered this option? If the special access program was streamlined for well-established use cases, people like my brother would have less pain and definitely less stress, especially when the drug is referred to as “life-saving”. The paperwork and bureaucracy do not produce or generate new data. They do not generate new knowledge, but they take up time. For patients with serious conditions, time is a valuable commodity.
There is no doubt that the Conservatives support this bill, but there are problems with it. My time is limited, so I will not go through them, but many of my colleagues have pointed out the problems with the bill. It is our wish that this bill go to committee.
One of the problems is that the bill, as presented, would open the door for dangerous drugs to make it onto the pre-approved list and would effectively create a loophole that would make it easy for people suffering from drug use to be prescribed methamphetamine as liquid caffeine. This is far from being hypothetical. Through the special access program, requests for drugs like LSD and MDMA have in fact been made.
Members may also recall that restrictions on the special access program existed to limit opioid diversion under the Harper government. In 2013, then health minister Rona Ambrose amended the program after learning that Health Canada had approved a request granting 21 patients with chronic addictions access to prescription heroin. However, the Trudeau Liberal government later lifted the restrictions that Conservatives had imposed on illegal and harmful substances, such as LSD, heroin and cocaine. Conservatives had put those restrictions in there for a reason.
We look forward to seeing this go to committee for more amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I talked about this bill a month or so ago at some length, and I am certainly not going to try to repeat that right now.
I would like to, first and foremost, thank everybody here for staying up and being here, and the many people who actually seem to have read and understood the legislation. I have to say that a lot of the comments that we received, especially from the other side, were excellent comments. I have certainly taken them to heart.
I would also like to thank those people with some experience with the program or those with family members who have benefited from the program. It is those kinds of experiences more than anything else that have motivated me in writing this bill.
I would like to thank the very many people who helped me draft this bill, which I did not do the first time around.
Let me start off with the SickKids hospital in Toronto. The Hospital for Sick Children is the number one ranked children's hospital in the world. I dare say, if our country ought to be good at one thing, it would be looking after the health of kids. I am really proud to have, at one point, actually studied at the SickKids hospital. It came to me a number of months ago with a number of valid concerns about the special access program and has been of tremendous assistance to me in drafting this legislation.
I know I cannot refer to anyone in attendance in the gallery, but if I could I would refer to some people from SickKids, namely Dr. Charlotte Hepburn and Katherine Aldred. There are a couple of people who I do not think are here, Tamana Hafid and Rida Anmol, who are lawyers who work for the hospital.
Let me also mention tangentially RareKids‑CAN. They worked along with SickKids in drafting this bill.
[Translation]
I also want to thank my colleagues at Sainte‑Justine Hospital in Montreal who helped me a great deal with this bill. I especially want to thank the hospital's excellent chief pharmacist, Denis Lebel. I would also like to thank Catherine Litalien and Dr. Nguyen.
[English]
I would also like to thank the doctors and pharmacists at a number of hospitals across Canada: Princess Margaret; Health Sciences Centre Winnipeg; Alberta Children's Hospital; BC Children's Hospital; Dr. Nigro and Dr. Del Paggio at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, who contributed in different ways to this; and Mrs. Lori Anderson and Dr. Philip Kuruvilla.
Let me briefly mention a couple of the concerns that came up, both today and the other day, in debate. One of them was a concern about the two-doctor override and having too much faith in two doctors. From my experience at the MAID committee, I certainly share the concern about having too much faith in doctors. I think part of the answer lies in the regulation of the profession, particularly with specialists. The law requires two people with the requisite knowledge; they would be specialists. Certainly, if we are going to question their behaviour of prescribing things that may be inappropriate, the appropriate body to address that issue would be the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. I would also point out that in the law itself there is a section that allows the minister to prohibit the use of a drug if they believe the use poses a risk to health. I have, as a result of the concerns, suggested and would entertain an amendment that it be three physicians rather than two.
I would also suggest there is a possibility that the advisory board, which would advise on a pre-approved drug list, would also advise the minister with respect to the special access program and have a role in recommending to the minister that perhaps there should be restrictions on the use of a drug under the program.
Lastly, the issue of controlled substances is very important to me as well. I would hate for this law to fuel the fires of the drug problem that is ravaging our country. I will work with the members of the opposition on the issue to make sure there is no diversion. I will work with the members on the opposite side on all the provisions, because certainly there is a lot of work to be done here. I will do my best to work with everyone to that end.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
I believe the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
Questions Passed as Orders for Return
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Motions for Papers
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Protecting Victims Act
The House resumed from June 9 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.
Mr. Speaker, when I was last speaking, I was talking about the irrefutable fact that, since 2015, when the Liberal government took power, we have seen skyrocketing rates of crime.
That is due to some deliberate actions that the government took. I am thinking, specifically, of Bill C-5, which did away with mandatory penalties for serious drug and gun crime and allowed for house arrest for serious offences like arson. It allowed someone to commit a violent crime, even burn down someone's house, and serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home and in the community where they offended.
Bill C-75 was the notorious law that was brought in, which introduced a principle of restraint that has really tied the hands of our system and forced people out on bail who have no business being out on bail. We have seen the results. What are the results? Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up by 76%. Violent crime is up by almost 55%.
My home province of New Brunswick is not immune to this skyrocketing crime. When I speak to my constituents, there are concerns about violent crime, property crime and all manner of crime that people have seen skyrocket, such as drug-related crime. The numbers are staggering.
The total number of violent crimes in New Brunswick alone is up over 70%. As for total violent firearms offences, this is a government that talks a talk on firearms. The problem is that every measure the Liberals take has been completely ineffective because they target law-abiding citizens, the people who I represent in my riding of Fundy Royal, while completely going soft on hardened criminals.
What is the result? Violent firearms offences are up over 150%. Extortion is up over 300%. Theft of motor vehicle offences are up over 150% since that time.
What they have done with the bill is unfortunate. There is something called a mandatory minimum penalty. It is a penalty in the Criminal Code that says that we, as parliamentarians, recognize that, sometimes, an offence is so grave that it should carry with it a certain minimum amount of time in custody.
There have been mandatory minimum penalties brought in by previous Liberal governments. There have been mandatory minimum penalties brought in by Conservative governments, and which have been constitutionally upheld, but because the Liberal government is so ideologically opposed to Parliament having its say, listening to our constituents and saying that certain crimes deserve to have a mandatory penalty if someone has committed the offence, the Liberals have introduced in the legislation a clause that would allow judges to ignore the mandatory penalty for someone convicted of these serious crimes.
One could look up the definition of “mandatory” in Webster's, but I am pretty sure that allowing someone to ignore a mandatory penalty means it is no longer a mandatory penalty,
What is the result of that? Certain mandatory penalties for offences, many of them considered by the courts and constitutionally upheld, will now be able to be ignored, offences like aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with restricted or prohibited firearms.
In the Criminal Code, there is a mandatory penalty for someone convicted of those offences. The bill would allow judges to ignore that mandatory penalty when they are sentencing.
I can tell members, having served on the justice committee, that we heard many times about how there has not been a huge increase in the number of criminals in Canada. There has been a very prolific number of criminals who do a great job at what they do. They are committing crimes non-stop because they have a system in which, once they are caught, once the police have done their job and have caught someone, once they have been tried and convicted, they are out on bail, if they are pretrial, and, once convicted, they may be serving their sentence in house arrest.
I will sum up by quoting an individual who appeared at our justice committee. She urged members to restore justice to the justice system. As a victim of crime, she said she does not feel we have a justice system anymore in Canada. She feels we have a legal system, not a justice system. I urge everyone to listen to those words and do our job.
It is, rightly, the job of parliamentarians to say we are the ones who draft the Criminal Code, set out mandatory penalties and maximum and minimum sentences, and distinguish between different offences. There is a tremendous amount of flexibility in the system when the police have discretion and prosecutors have the discretion on whether to proceed by summary conviction or indictment. At the end of the day, we, as parliamentarians, are responsible for the safety of our constituents. We must ensure that our actions illustrate this and that we take strong measures.
I would like at this time to move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
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.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 149)
YEAS
Members
AitchisonAlbas
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
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
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
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Small
Steinley
Stevenson
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Warkentin
Waugh
Zimmer
Total: -- 125
NAYS
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
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
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
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: -- 189
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Epp
Fuhr
Hajdu
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 14
I declare the motion defeated.
[Translation]
Resuming debate.
I would remind members that Standing Order 17 requires members to rise in their place in order to be recognized by the Chair. Standing Order 17 provides for only three exceptions to that rule.
The hon. member for Moncton—Dieppe.
Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that standing order.
[English]
Before I get started, I would like to take a moment to say that I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Pickering—Brooklin.
[Translation]
I, too, would like to take a moment to offer my support to the member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata. I wish him a speedy recovery and send my best wishes to him and his family during this very difficult time.
[English]
I rise today not just as a parliamentarian, but as someone who has spent over two decades on the front lines as a social worker working with victims of crime. Before I ever walked the halls of this House, I walked the halls of RCMP detachments, emergency shelters, local hospitals, etc. I sat in cramped interview rooms. I held the hands of women shivering in police station lobbies at all hours of the day and night.
At the time, before entering politics, I was a frontline social worker with the Codiac Regional RCMP in Moncton, New Brunswick. Part of my job as a victim services coordinator was providing assistance and guidance to those dealing with very difficult situations. We provided crisis support and crisis intervention, and also ensured that victims and family members were aware of their rights and what they had to expect. I know first-hand what intimate partner violence looks like before it becomes a file on a prosecutor's desk. I also know what it looks like before it becomes a statistic in a report. Because of that lived experience, that professional experience, I stand here today to speak about Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.
When we look at this bill, we see legal text. We see legal jargon. We see clauses and so on, but as a former social worker, when I read this bill, I see the names and faces of people I worked with over the years. I see Jacqueline, which is not her real name, who was a former client of mine. She never had a black eye, never had a bruise and never had broken bones, but her husband controlled her vehicle keys, monitored how many kilometres she drove, monitored her phone location every second of the day, and also decided when she could sleep and when she could not. Under the current framework, it was agonizingly difficult to get the criminal justice system to intervene in her case, because the terror she lived under did not leave physical marks. This is why Bill C-16 is so vitally important.
The first pillar of Bill C-16 is the criminalization of coercive control. For too long, our legal system has viewed intimate partner violence as a series of isolated physical incidents. Frontline workers know the truth. As a client told me in the past, “Abuse is a continuous pattern of trapping a human being almost in an invisible cage.” By formally defining and penalizing coercive control, this bill would finally align Canadian laws with the psychological reality of intimate partner violence. Elevating intimate partner violence and femicide to first-degree murder reflects the grim truth that these tragedies are rarely sudden crimes of passion; they are predictable and escalated conclusions of long-term patterns of control within relationships.
We must also look at the structural changes this bill proposes. As someone who has accompanied survivors and also many family members through the gruelling court process, I know that delays are often a secondary victimization. When cases are thrown out due to the Jordan framework, a victim is left entirely unprotected, looking over her shoulder and feeling abandoned by the criminal justice system. Modifying these rules to prevent administrative breakdowns from collapsing an intimate partner violence prosecution is a vital step forward.
However, my background also forces me to look at this legislation with a critical and pragmatic eye. Bill C-16 reintroduces mandatory minimum sentences. Through a strictly political lens, we might see this as just being a tough-on-crime approach, but through a frontline social worker lens, I asked myself what this actually does to victims. In my years of practice, I saw many, many victims refuse to call the police because they feared the absolute destruction of their family's economic survival. If a victim knows that a call to police automatically triggers a mandatory multi-year prison sentence, they may choose silence instead of making a complaint.
The inclusion of the safety valves allowing judges discretion in exceptional circumstances, and I stress “exceptional”, is not a weakness of this bill. To the contrary, I would argue, it ensures that we punish perpetrators without inadvertently forcing vulnerable victims deeper into the shadows.
We also need to acknowledge that the nature of abuse has mutated over the years. When I began my career, many years ago, as a social worker, we worried back then about landlines. We worried about letters being sent and physical stalking, or, as we refer to it now, criminal harassment. Today, however, abusers use technology as a weapon of absolute humiliation of their victims. Provisions in Bill C‑16 address AI‑generated deepfakes and digital exploitation of minors. These are not futuristic hypotheticals. They are happening right now. Abusers are creating non-consensual, synthetically generated, explicit images to ruin a victim's career, destroy their custody cases and shatter their mental health. Our laws must evolve as fast as the technology that is used to inflict this cruelty.
Bill C‑16 is a powerful, overdue evolution of our justice system. It validates what social workers, shelter staff and victims have been saying for decades: that abuse is systematic, that psychological abuse is dangerous and that our courts must be modern, efficient and compassionate.
In closing, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the wonderful services that exist within my community in Moncton, New Brunswick. First and foremost, I have to give a shout-out to our local shelter, called Crossroads for Women, and Renée and all of her team there. Crossroads for Women has been in operation for more than four decades now. It provides emergency shelter for victims who are fleeing domestic violence. It also provides a 24‑hour crisis line for those who need support. It also provides supportive housing and services for those facing not only intimate partner violence, but also sexual violence. Let us not forget our youth in these situations. The shelter also provides child and youth support services. If we want this intergenerational cycle to cease, we have to make sure that we provide services to the young who are exposed to this. Again, I want to give a big shout‑out to our local shelter.
As well, we have another great organization, which started off just a few years ago, called Shelter Movers, in my town. Shelter Movers is just that: When victims are fleeing domestic violence and they need someone to go to their home and provide them with moving and storage services for their furniture, or whatever they need, we have volunteers who are called within our community. They may be called out at any hour during the day and night, and they provide that service free of charge. Again, hats off to them.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not speak about the Beausejour Family Crisis Resource Centre. Again, this is a wonderful organization that provides shelter and counselling services to those in need. As well, within the province of New Brunswick, they provide justice facility dogs for those who have to appear in court or those who have to meet, perhaps, with a police officer and are feeling anxiety. These facility dogs will accompany them either in the courts or in the interview rooms. It has made a huge difference for many victims within my community. Again, I have to give a shout-out to them and their team at the Beausejour Family Crisis Resource Centre. Kristal, Chantal and all of the team provide tremendous work, and for that I am very grateful.
Finally, if there are any survivors who are watching us this evening, I want to encourage them, if ever they need any help or support in the province of New Brunswick, to call 211. This is a free information and referral service that provides needed information to those who are fleeing difficult situations.
Let us not forget the 988 service that our federal government put in place just a few years ago. Again, if any folks in the entire country need any mental health supports, those essential services are there to help them along the way.
Again, with respect to Bill C‑16, this is a wonderful step forward in making sure that we are there to support victims. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this bill and move it forward as quickly as possible.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, whom I have worked with. I appreciate victim services, after being in the RCMP for 35 years. I am thankful for what she has done.
My question goes back to the issue of mandatory minimum penalties for individuals who commit crimes. Do you think there is enough accountability in our Supreme Court justices? Can we hold them to account so they will actually put people in jail who need to go there for those minimum penalties? I think we are a little bit weak on that.
I just wonder if the hon. member, whom I loved working with, could answer that question, please.
I just wanted to remind the hon. member that I do not think, but the hon. member for Moncton—Dieppe will.
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate working with my friend and colleague on the other side on the NSICOP committee. I appreciate his service as an RCMP member for more than three decades over the years. Hats off to him for a job very well done.
I have to say that there is no black and white situation when it comes to this type of situation. I met with probably thousands of victims of intimate partner violence. These were very difficult situations when people came forward to make a complaint to the police. I think the inclusion of safety valves within Bill C-16 to allow judges, in exceptional circumstances, to use their discretion is absolutely a good idea.
I really think it is important to make sure that when we are meeting with victims and survivors, they know that the decision they make is going to have an impact and also that there are going to be serious consequences for the offenders if and when a charge is laid.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my full support to our colleague from the riding of Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, who, unfortunately, cannot be called by his name in the House. It would have been much simpler, as his riding has a very long name. We all heard about what happened today. We are all very concerned and wish him a very speedy recovery. We need his passion here in the House.
I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech. There are a number of provisions in Bill C‑16 that we like. It contains very important measures to protect victims, especially victims of domestic violence.
However, the Bloc Québécois believes that coercive control should not be assessed by a single factor. A combination of factors should be considered. The Bloc Québécois tried to include provisions in the bill that would have judges consider a range of factors, meaning the situation as a whole.
That amendment was rejected by the Liberals, and I wonder why, because it was something very reasonable, very responsible and very respectful of victims and what they go through in these situations. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that at this stage of our study of the bill.
Madam Speaker, I completely agree. My colleague's riding has a very long name. I had to practise saying it many times before today. To answer my colleague's question about coercive control, I think that, once again, it is important to recognize all the circumstances that lead to this type of intimate partner violence.
As a frontline worker, I often met with people who would tell me a bit about their situation, and I think that before laying charges, it is absolutely essential to understand the full situation. Again, that is to determine the most appropriate charges to lay before the case is brought before the court.
Madam Speaker, I, too, want to wish our dear colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata a speedy recovery. I would also like to thank my colleague from Moncton—Dieppe for her speech.
[English]
My question relates to amending the Criminal Code to make it illegal for intimate, non-consensual images to be shared. As the member spoke about, and as I know from participating in committee work, this is a particularly terrible scourge for women who have deepfake images or non-consensual sexual images distributed by former partners.
Can the member talk about the importance of having this issue corrected and made illegal in Bill C-16?
Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague indicated in his question, it is imperative that we move forward with Bill C-16 as quickly as possible. These types of images can really ruin the lives of individuals and create chaos within their lives. As a result—
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to be here today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and to contextualize this legislation within Canada's broader efforts to confront and prevent gender-based violence.
Gender-based violence is a persistent and measurable reality affecting women, girls and gender-diverse people across this country. In 2024, 187 women were killed violently in Canada. That represents one woman every two days. Women are far more likely than men to experience severe forms of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and criminal harassment. More than one-quarter, about 28%, of all victims of violent crimes in 2024 were victimized by an intimate partner.
These are not isolated incidents, and our justice system has struggled to effectively address these crimes given the complex realities of gender-based violence and the patterns of coercive behaviour that often define abuse. The rate of intimate partner violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence experienced by women and girls, is more than 3.5 times higher than it is for men and boys. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and young women face even higher risks.
The Government of Canada has recognized that addressing gender-based violence requires a comprehensive and coordinated response. In 2017, the federal government released a federal gender-based violence strategy and has since invested over $800 million, about $44 million per year, to coordinate federal actions under three pillars: preventing gender-based violence, supporting survivors and their families, and promoting a responsive justice system.
Since 2022, the federal government has invested in a national action plan to end gender-based violence, a 10-year framework aiming to end gender-based violence in Canada by supporting victims and survivors of crime and their families and improving their experiences with the criminal justice system. Significant efforts have been undertaken in this area. For example, the federal victims strategy works to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system and to increase their access to justice.
Through the victims fund, which is part of the federal victims strategy, resources are made available to the provinces and territories for the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, including for the development of public legal education and information material and the provision of training on the legislation for criminal justice professionals.
Considerable efforts have also been made to strengthen the criminal justice system's response to gender-based violence. Canada's Criminal Code provides a broad-based response to all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse against all persons in Canada.
Over the past year, legislative amendments in Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 clarified and strengthened sexual assault laws and the criminal justice system's response to intimate partner violence, and Bill C-233 imposed stricter conditions for people charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence. In addition, Bill S-205, which came into force in April 2025, created a new peace bond designed specifically to provide better protection for victims of intimate partner violence and for children, including by allowing conditions such as electronic monitoring to be imposed on the defendant.
All these efforts reflect an understanding that provision, protection, accountability and survivor support must work together. Today, Bill C-16 is a critical part of that continuum. It would strengthen the criminal law in ways that respond directly to what survivors, advocates and frontline professionals have long told us about how gender-based violence actually occurs.
Bill C-16 would create a new offence, criminalizing a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct in intimate partner relationships. This would address the reality that this abuse takes place over time. It would align the law with the lived reality of survivors and allow for earlier intervention before coercive or controlling conduct turns into serious physical harm or death. It would also support more accurate police and prosecutorial responses by requiring a contextual assessment of power and exploitation.
Bill C-16 would also address the most extreme manifestation of gender-based violence: the killing of women because they are women. By explicitly naming and recognizing femicide in the Criminal Code, the bill would acknowledge that women and girls are disproportionately killed in specific contexts, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, exploitation and hate-motivated attacks.
Naming femicide matters. It makes visible a reality that has too often been obscured and affirmed: These killings are not random tragedies but are systemic failures that demand accountability. The bill would ensure that murders occurring in these circumstances are treated as first-degree murder. It would also require judges, when sentencing for manslaughter in the same context, to consider penalties equivalent to second-degree murder, including life imprisonment and parole ineligibility for 10 to 25 years.
Importantly, Bill C-16 also recognizes that gender-based violence increasingly occurs through technology. The rise of sexually explicit deepfakes, sextortion and online harassment has created new avenues for abuse, particularly targeting women and girls. These forms of violence can destroy reputations, livelihoods and mental health, and they often silence victims through shame and fear.
The bill would address these gaps by clarifying that non-consensual distribution of intimate images includes realistic deepfakes, as well as by criminalizing threats to distribute such materials and by increasing penalties for these offences. These measures would complement existing Government of Canada initiatives aimed at addressing online harms and protecting digital safety, particularly for young people.
The bill would also modernize the offence of criminal harassment. Data shows that striking and harassment are common precursors to serious violence, yet the current requirement to prove a victim's subjective fear has made early intervention difficult.
Further, Bill C-16 proposes reforms to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to better protect victims and expand access to testimonial aids for adult victims of intimate partner violence, sexual offences and criminal harassment, offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. These measures would improve justice system outcomes for victims by recognizing that court procedures themselves can be retraumatizing and that supporting meaningful participation is essential to justice.
The bill would also build on recent reforms to peace bonds and firearms controls, reflecting clear evidence that access to firearms significantly increases the risk of lethal intimate partner violence. By strengthening preventative tools and closing enforcement gaps, Bill C-16 supports the Government of Canada's broader commitment to keeping victims and communities safe.
Bill C-16 is a necessary step in Canada's ongoing commitment to confront gender-based violence with seriousness, clarity and resolve. It reflects the hard truths that violence is rarely a single act but often a pattern, that technology has created new tools for abuse, and that too many women and girls continue to lose their lives in preventable circumstances. By criminalizing coercive control, recognizing femicide, strengthening protections against online and intimate partner violence, and reducing barriers for victims and survivors of crime within the justice system, Bill C-16 would align our laws with lived reality and evidence.
For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-16. Addressing gender-based violence is not optional. Protecting victims—
Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep telling Canadians that their safety valve measure in the bill, or, more accurately, a poison pill, a get-out-of-jail-free card, will be used only in rare and exceptional cases. If that is true, why were they unwilling to exclude serious offences such as aggravated sexual assault, extortion, and child sexual offences? If it is truly meant to be narrow, why is it written so broadly?
Madam Speaker, the bill that is in front of the House today and that we are debating is progressive. The changes we are proposing today would progress the Criminal Code more than the changes in all other years when we added so many measures to it did. The protecting victims act would be one of the most significant updates to the criminal justice system in generations, as I said. It has a broad scope. It would give judges the right to make decisions, and the safety valve would be there so they could make those decisions appropriately.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for my colleague.
Why did the Liberals refuse to consider objective criteria when it comes to peace bonds? It would have been one way to better prevent criminal harassment.
This is an important issue, particularly for victims.
[English]
Madam Speaker, criminal harassment is a very big and important part of the bill. The bill would remove the subjective requirement to prove a victim's fear for their safety and replace it with the requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause a victim to believe that their safety is threatened, thereby removing the victim's need to testify. This would allow victims to better trust our system and ensure that the proposed offence captures harassing conduct committed through modern technology.
Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that the judicial safety valve is necessary to ensure flexibility. However, the criminal justice system already has safety valves in it. Police officers exercise discretion and lay charges, and the prosecutor has discretion on how they are going to handle a case and what that will look like for them. To me, the judicial safety valve would create an additional layer of discretion that would allow courts to effectively override Parliament's decision. However, Parliament is supposed to be the one that makes these decisions.
We know that clause 63 in the bill would go much further by allowing judges to completely disregard mandatory minimums, except for treason and murder. Why is that?
Madam Speaker, the bill would strengthen mandatory minimums for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation materials, restoring 12 mandatory minimums for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by the court. The safety valve would be there so judges could use their own discretion and so they would have the leeway, when necessary, to make the right decisions.
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why the Conservatives' former critic of justice seemed to be of the opinion that a safety valve was necessary. We had a number of mandatory minimums that were ruled to be unconstitutional. By having the safety valve, we were able to reinstate mandatory minimums. That is a good thing. The Conservative former critic agreed to that.
Madam Speaker, one of the reasons is that when the bill came to the status of women committee, one of the requirements was that we have the option in some cases.
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan, and to be able to do so here in the month of June.
We know June is the graduation season for all of the kids in elementary school who are moving up to high school. The kids who are in high school and have the whole world in front of them are graduating and looking to either start their first job or go on to university, or whatever the next step of their life is. June is an exciting time for them. There are a lot of exciting things happening in their lives.
We also know that generation of people is, for many of us here in the House of Commons, why we are here and why we do what we do. I think this is also very relevant when we talk about Bill C-16, the victims bill.
I want to start with a couple of things. There is a bit of a scourge happening in society. There are many people who are victims of sexual assault and violence. It is getting out of hand. I am sure that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, whom I am going to split my time with, is going to be able to elaborate on that a bit more. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Saskatchewan, in particular, has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the country per capita, for example. We know this is a scourge on society, so I applaud the government's attempts to try to take a few steps and measures that would rein some of this in and get things under control.
However, at the same time, we see with this bill that the government has put forward a measure around the inclusion of clause 63, which would essentially allow mandatory minimums to be ignored. I find that to be very egregious. Here is why.
I am going to read these out. I have to google them really quickly. I typed in “man caught with child sexual exploitation and assault material” and a plethora of headlines come up. Here is one from today. This one is from 47 minutes ago. It reads, “Man Arrested in Sexual Assault Investigation”. This one is from six hours ago. It reads, “Niagara Falls man accused of breaching order to stay away from children”. This one reads, “Markham Man Arrested for Using Social Media to Sexually Lure and Extort Youth”. That is from five hours ago. This one is from one day ago. It reads, “Male Arrested Following Child Luring and Sexual Exploitation Investigation in Whitby”. It goes on and on and on.
An Alberta man, for example, was recently caught with over 500,000 images of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. In Quebec, 23 men had over four million files of sexual exploitation and abuse material of children. This is disgusting. It is ridiculous.
The fact is that there is now a provision that would allow somebody to escape a mandatory minimum. Let me be clear. Part of the reason why the bill came forward is that the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum for child sexual abuse and exploitation material. It is absolutely disgusting that this happened as well.
When we see in the news the number of files that are out there and just how many people continue to access them, and when we see that there is the ability for a soft-on-crime approach to be taken because of this clause, it is just absolutely disgusting. If we want to try to signal to people that we actually care about victims and that we are going to prioritize the needs of victims, taking some of these very heinous crimes seriously, establishing a floor and making sure that nobody, under any circumstance, will serve below that minimum would be acceptable.
In the court case that was referenced with the bill, a hypothetical case was presented. That is why the mandatory minimum I am referring to was struck down. It was completely made up. It was not a story based on any evidence. It was not even the case that should have been referenced, which was very different from what was used to determine why they should strike down the mandatory minimum.
If we are going to take things seriously in this country, we need to value our citizens. We need to value people who have been victimized. Allowing people to get off easy is not how we are going to deal with this.
There are many other examples of this. I pulled up examples of people who were let off. Here is another one. It reads, “Calgary man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl gets reduced sentence”. I am sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. We do not want to see them anymore.
Establishing mandatory minimums and having them in place shows that we take these kinds of crimes very seriously. The prosecution and the judges have discretion and can use leniency. They can increase a sentence if they want to, or they can go with the minimum, but establishing those minimum sentences shows that we take these things very seriously.
There are many other charges that people can get away with very easily, and I am going to highlight a few more. For example, another one says a scam victim says Canadian sentences are a joke after a fraudster got house arrest. That is another one of these issues. Seniors are being victimized over and over again. In fact, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre says between 17,000 or even 20,000 direct fraud and financial abuse reports come in regularly in Canada. Also, 7.8% of the Canadian population aged 15 and over has experienced fraud in some shape or form. We know seniors are targeted. I think it comes to about $137 million annually. Seniors are being victimized when it comes to fraud. This is the kind of thing for which a person is able to get only house arrest.
In the case that I referenced, this person was sentenced to only 18 months of house arrest, but there were exceptions. They were allowed to leave the house multiple times a week to go to the gym and, after six months, the conditions required them to be home only between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. If someone who is actively defrauding people is given house arrest, that means they can continue to carry out the very crimes they were committing in the comfort of their own home. Those kinds of people should be in jail. They are preying on the people who are the most vulnerable.
Going back to seniors, my wife's grandpa was a victim of fraud. He sincerely thought somebody in tech support was helping him out, but they were not. He was defrauded out of thousands of dollars. He was targeted because he is a senior, and seniors generally tend to be far more trusting and tend to believe something like that, as in that particular case. Fortunately, he was able to eventually get his money back, but this happens over and over again. When these people are caught, they are given house arrest.
These are the kinds of things we are seeing, and we do not want to see them happening any longer.
Let me take another look at some of the other areas where mandatory minimums would be allowed to be circumvented. There is aggravated sexual assault with a gun. It is bad enough that people accessing, selling, recording and making child sexual abuse and exploitation material would be able to avoid a mandatory minimum. Aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings are the kinds of things for which mandatory minimums would be looked over and discarded because of clause 63.
If we are going to have a serious discussion about dealing with the issue of crime and the fact that so many people end up with bail instead of jail, establishing and re-establishing some basic mandatory minimums in this bill would have been great. Not including a clause that would allow mandatory minimums to be completely disregarded would have been great as well. That shows we are not taking victims' concerns seriously.
I get lots of emails to my constituency office and my Hill office from people wanting a tough-on-crime approach. People want to see mandatory minimums become a thing because they set the tone. They let the criminals know we take these crimes seriously and there will be a punishment if they are caught. When they find out they can get just house arrest or a reduced sentence, they are going to keep doing what they are doing.
There was a case in my home community at the local courthouse, where a person's charges were stayed for fentanyl trafficking. They had enough fentanyl in their possession to kill hundreds and thousands of people. Their charges were stayed and they were released. This is ridiculous. This is the kind of stuff people are sick and tired of seeing. They do not want clause 63, which would allow mandatory minimums to be skirted, to be included.
There are some good pieces in this bill that I wish the Liberals were serious about. I wish they would deal with the good parts of the bill. If they had accepted our amendments to put even some safeguards around clause 63, it would have been helpful, but they voted against every single measure proposed by the Conservatives at committee to protect victims, which is shameful.
Madam Speaker, most of what the member said is just not true, and it is somewhat misleading, quite frankly. At the end of the day, the legislation would do some wonderful things. Canada could set the stage, dealing with issues and establishing coercive behaviour as an offence. The issue of femicide, in certain situations, would be elevated to first-degree murder. We have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums.
The Conservatives, quite frankly, have come up with some bogus excuse, and it is only because they do not want to support the legislation. They used to support the idea of a safety valve. The former critic for the Conservative Party did.
Why is the Conservative Party so against making our communities safer and not allowing legislation of this nature to pass?
Madam Speaker, the member says all kinds of ridiculous things. Referring to yesterday and the language the Speaker let him use, that was a dumb question from the member. The Speaker allowed him to use that word, so I am going to use it.
That was a dumb question, and this is why. If the Liberals actually truly cared about crime and if they truly cared about victims, they would not allow people to have mandatory minimums be circumvented by clause 63. That should not have been allowed to happen. At the very least, the member should have said he supported some of the safeguards we are proposing to make sure that victims would be respected and that criminals would go to jail, but that did not happen. The Liberals voted them down.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am not sure it is very parliamentary to say that questions are dumb. I am seriously wondering about that.
That said, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North, but at the moment, I must admit that I am a little perplexed myself. I get the impression that the Conservatives are finding reasons not to support this bill, even though it has been requested by groups advocating for victims of crime and domestic violence.
I always hear the Conservatives bringing the issue back to mandatory minimum sentences. Our system is far from perfect, but it is quite likely the least imperfect one out there. I do not know of any studies showing that harsher sentences are more beneficial to society than rehabilitation programs for offenders.
Does my colleague have any scientific arguments or supporting data to back up his claim that mandatory minimum sentences work better than rehabilitating offenders?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that in my speech, I referenced the fact that there were 23 men in Quebec who were in possession of over four million files of child sexual assault and exploitation material. One of the reasons Bill C‑16 is here is that the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum for the possession and distribution of this type of material. If the Liberals were serious about restoring mandatory minimums, they would have restored that mandatory minimum to make sure that our children are protected. The last thing I want to see is those 23 men in Quebec being put back out on the street next week so that they can continue to create, distribute and monetize child sexual abuse and exploitation material.
I do not want to see those kinds of people on the streets ever again. They belong in jail.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for opposing this bill for valid and right reasons.
I have a question. I agree with him and want to ask him if he can shed more light on this. He quoted a few recent decisions where the courts have turned down the minimum mandatory sentences. Is it not the duty of the parliamentarians sitting on this side of the House and on the government side of the House, when judges do wrong, to tell them this is not what people at large want or what Canadians want?
The real desire of the people is to impose minimum mandatory—
Madam Speaker, again, we are seeing so many different types of crimes becoming more and more prominent in our communities and on our streets. One that I referenced in my speech, for example, is extortion with a firearm. This is the kind of thing that a person can serve house arrest for, and the mandatory minimum can be circumvented because of this bill and clause 63.
People who are terrorizing our streets should not be allowed to serve house arrest. They should not be given lenient sentences. A mandatory minimum with a high threshold would make sure that those people, and their victims, get justice.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the strength of my colleague from the riding whose name is too long to mention tonight. Everyone knows who I am talking about. He is recovering from the cardiac issues he had this morning. The entire House stands behind him. I have received numerous messages from all parties, and I want to let him know that. He is a good person who deserves all our respect. I think we absolutely must send him positive vibes tonight.
I saw him just two weeks ago, working out with my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix. He had been going strong for 20 minutes. He is usually bursting with energy, but one never knows. No one ever knows what is going on inside, when things might take a turn. I urge all men to be careful and to pay attention to the warning signs of these terrible heart diseases.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all of my colleges who reached out to me over the past few days about the matter I discussed with the media, a personal matter that happened back in 2025. Without repeating it here tonight, I simply want to thank all my colleagues from all the parties. I want to thank everyone who is going to support Bill C‑231 for David's friends.
I also want to thank all the people in their homes who agreed to tell me how things are for them now. We do not talk about it enough, or talk about it a lot. If I was able to bring certain people a little peace of mind by talking about it, then I will keep doing so. Members of the House certainly share the same desire to help and to do something for people in these kinds of situations, where drug use far exceeds our capacity as parents, or our capacity as young people, to cope with all the problems it can cause.
That brings me to Bill C-16, which is a bill that we could have almost introduced ourselves. However, I want to stress the word “almost”. This bill aligns with many of the Conservative Party's objectives, including protecting victims and putting criminals behind bars. It seeks to ensure that victims are properly recognized by the courts. It seeks to prohibit things that did not exist before but that came to be because of new technologies, including the much-discussed deepfakes.
This week, we saw in Quebec newspapers that it takes only 10 minutes to create a deepfake nude image of a young girl. That is absolutely appalling. We have to put an end to these new technologies and, more importantly, stop those who are misusing them to cause harm to others. The ban on deepfakes, particularly when they target intimate partners, seeks to protect Canadians, particularly women, from the creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate images. It is very serious to create or distribute these kinds of photos of young girls without their consent. I hope people understand that.
We are also pleased that the government picked up the proposal by my Conservative colleague contained in Bill C‑216. Some of that bill's provisions seeking to introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material were also incorporated into Bill C‑16, which will help better protect our children from the most heinous crimes. So far, all of my colleagues agree with these measures. We are also delighted that the calls of our justice critic to automatically have the murder of an intimate partner deemed a first-degree murder have been heard. This is important. This bill has made progress. We have succeeded in getting essential measures included in it.
Finally, of course, we had a discussions and not all of the Conservatives' proposals were picked up, even despite the government's tendency to legislate on Conservative policy ideas since taking office, but that is another story that I will leave for the Liberals to debate among themselves. Although the government unfortunately rejected the proposal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for all types of extortion, the inclusion of an aggravating factor in sextortion cases is a step in the right direction, albeit insufficient. For the benefit of people watching at home, “sextortion” consists of using intimate images or intimate knowledge of a person to blackmail them, make them talk or make them do anything else.
We absolutely must put a stop to it, and Bill C‑16 does just that. Unfortunately, the Liberals are the Liberals. There had to be something in the bill to prevent us from passing it unanimously in the House. What is it this time? It is clause 63.
Clause 63 allows judges to avoid imposing minimum sentences and to exercise their discretion in cases of violent and serious crimes. This runs completely counter to everything I have just said. Judges will now be able to decide, based on their own discretion, experience or the circumstances, that a minimum sentence of five years, for example, will be reduced to just two or three years. As a result, certain people who should remain in prison will be released more quickly.
I urge my Liberal colleagues to think about that. I think that we are very close to an agreement and that we could get something done that is good, together. We could pass Bill C‑16 if the Liberals got rid of that section. We would all agree. We all agree on the measures in Bill C‑16, but we do not want the Liberals to do what they have been doing for 11 years, that is, making life easier for criminals and making these crimes even more common. It is not that there are more criminals; it is that criminals are committing an increasing number of crimes because they are increasingly unafraid of justice. That is a fact.
To give the Liberals time to reflect on this issue, to give them time to think about it and perhaps come back tomorrow with a clear proposal, I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
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]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 150)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Block
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
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
Stevenson
Strahl
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Zimmer
Total: -- 122
NAYS
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
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
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
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
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
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: -- 186
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Epp
Fuhr
Hajdu
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 14
I declare the motion defeated.
It being 9:01, pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 4, 2026, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
[Translation]
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]
[Translation]
Strong and Free Elections Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
[English]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 151)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dalton
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Martin
May
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Poilievre
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Villeneuve
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zimmer
Total: -- 314
NAYS
NilPAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Church
Dabrusin
Dancho
Epp
Fuhr
Hajdu
Plamondon
Reynolds
Shipley
Thériault
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 14
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know sometimes there is resistance to listening to me speak. Could we just ask once again if there was unanimous consent, as we have been authorized and provided approval for it. We would ask for unanimous consent to share the first speech.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have obtained the unanimous consent of the House to share my time.
I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak to Bill C‑25, the strong and free elections act.
Bill C‑25 makes changes to the Canada Elections Act that will improve the strength and resilience of Canada's electoral system. As we all know, one of the pillars of our democracy is our electoral system, and the Canada Elections Act is the foundation of that system. The act is already recognized around the world for its rigorous administrative procedures, robust political financing regime and strict spending limits. However, we know that no democracy, including ours, is immune to the growing threats to elections that aim to undermine trust in our democratic electoral processes. Bad actors may try to interfere with our democratic processes and our elections from anywhere in the world at any time.
Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections are safe. However, we must continue to ensure that Canada's democracy remains one of the strongest in the world and that it continues to be protected from persistent threats, regardless of the circumstances.
[English]
That is why, in keeping with this long-standing tradition of continually improving the Canada Elections Act, our government is proposing priority amendments to address these threats. It is essential that we draw on the knowledge and experience of experts when proposing changes to our democratic electoral system. Through Bill C-25, our government is acting on the recommendations that were made during the public inquiry into foreign interference, as well as those that were made by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections.
Bill C-25 proposes to further strengthen and secure Canada's federal elections through several new measures. Allow me to elaborate a bit on those. As I mentioned at the outset, interference in elections can occur at any point, and it is not just in elections. Bill C-25 addresses this issue in several ways. First, it would expand the prohibitions regarding undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, misleading publications that claim to come from someone that they are not, and broadcasting outside Canada with the intent to unduly influence voters to apply at any time, not just during the election period. This protection would also be applied to nomination and leadership contests.
[Translation]
In addition, Bill C-25 extends the extraterritorial application of certain offences to ensure that bad actors operating outside Canada can also be investigated and held accountable for their illegal acts.
Bill C‑25 also proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous, foreign and covert money from entering our democratic system.
This includes prohibiting the use of contributions in the form of cryptoassets and prepaid money orders for all activities conducted by political actors or for regulated activities conducted by third parties.
It is important to note that under Bill C‑25, third parties will only be permitted to use contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. However, we understand, as we have heard at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that not all third parties receive contributions and that some may wish to use their own revenues to cover regulated expenses. In this case, third parties whose contributions represent 10% or less of their annual funds will be able to use their own funds to finance regulated activities.
These amendments will strengthen transparency regarding the source of funds and will mitigate the risk of foreign and covert funds interfering in our elections, without depriving third parties acting in good faith of the ability to exercise their right to participate in the democratic process.
The next point I want to highlight this evening is how Bill C-25 tackles the problem of disinformation. Disinformation is a key tactic aimed at stoking division and eroding public trust in all of our democratic processes. Disinformation always seeks to manipulate voters through false information that is deliberately disseminated, often online.
[English]
The amendments proposed in Bill C-25 would strengthen our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions designed to counter this threat. More specifically, the bill would prohibit the deliberate dissemination of false information regarding an election or the electoral process with the intent to interfere with the conduct or results of an election, while respecting the principles of freedom of expression and open dialogue that are at the heart of our democracy.
Another source of misinformation is the potential misuse of technology, which Bill C-25 would also be addressing. As we all know, technology has helped revolutionize democracies around the world, but it also carries several risks. For example, content generated by artificial intelligence has become increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality. When combined with disinformation, AI such as deepfakes can pose significant threats. To address this emerging issue, Bill C-25 would amend the prohibition on impersonation to cover video and audio manipulation, such as deepfakes, and extend its application to nomination and leadership candidates, who are also vulnerable to such threats.
[Translation]
When Canadians go to the polls, they expect to see a ballot that lists the candidates who have a legitimate desire to stand for election and to represent their constituents if elected. That is a fundamental principle of our system of government. However, this is not the case in ridings targeted by those seeking to create excessively long ballots. Instead, Canadians are inundated with the names of people who have neither the desire nor the intention to ever represent the voters' interests.
Not only do these long ballots pose significant accessibility issues for voters and election officials, particularly those with disabilities, but they can also delay vote counting. That is what we heard during the study on unduly long ballots conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am therefore pleased to note that what has been proposed in Bill C-25 is fully in line with all of the committee's legislative recommendations. I would add that this is one of the most robust and collaborative processes I have seen to date.
At a time when security is a growing concern within our political system, Bill C-25 proposes new safeguards. For example, the home addresses of returning officers will no longer be made public; candidates will receive higher reimbursements for their personal security expenses; and the rules governing regulated fundraising activities will be amended.
The last part of the bill I would like to highlight concerns the important mandate of the independent commissioner of Canada elections, who is responsible for ensuring the implementation and enforcement of the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-25 will strengthen the tools available to the commissioner to fulfill this mandate.
[English]
In closing, Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, would further strengthen and secure Canada's federal elections through targeted, priority amendments that were recommended by experts and would ensure that our legislative framework remains resilient in a consistently evolving threat environment.
I urge my colleagues and all members of the House to support this really important bill.
Mr. Speaker, the government had an opportunity with this bill to close significant loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into registered third parties. The bill would fail to close those loopholes.
Why did the government refuse to close those loopholes? Why would this bill, if it goes forward, allow for foreign money to continue to be funnelled into third parties to influence Canadian elections?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague sits on the committee with me. We have had this conversation extensively. We agree that the 10% in the bill would actually prevent foreign money from going into our elections. The reporting measures in this bill have been recommended by experts. We believe these are strong measures to make sure we can keep track of where foreign money is coming from and to make sure Canadians understand where funds are coming from that go into our elections.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her speech.
From the outset, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25 for a number of reasons. In her speech, my colleague mentioned some of the provisions that Bill C-25 would introduce, including prohibiting individuals from falsely representing themselves to be someone they are not. The current Prime Minister got elected by claiming to be the only one capable of standing up to Donald Trump in negotiations with the United States. The record of the past year suggests that is totally far-fetched, it is false, and we can see that.
According to my colleague, does that mean that, under the provisions of Bill C-25, the Prime Minister himself would be in violation of the law?
Mr. Speaker, I often appreciate the questions asked by my colleague opposite. He usually seems quite reasonable. We have been staying here later than usual for the past few days. I think that a bit of fatigue is setting in.
I am sure he will have other opportunities to ask rather more serious questions.
Bill C‑25 aims to strengthen and secure the electoral process, particularly by fighting foreign interference and other emerging threats.
I would like my colleague to explain why it was so important to make these changes and follow through on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. She took part in a number of discussions with experts and witnesses that highlighted the importance of protecting our elections.
As I mentioned earlier, we are following the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and other experts. The world is changing. We know that we already have a robust system, but we have to keep putting security measures in place to protect our elections and maintain Canadians' trust in our institutions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary explained in her very clear speech, Bill C-25 would create new rules around knowingly false or misleading election information. I have been doing some reading because the Prime Minister is a fan of Václav Havel. I learned that his first full-length play that was ever publicly performed is quite relevant to this debate. It is entitled The Garden Party. It warns us about systems where official language becomes so polished and circular that people stop asking what is actually true, and people become sort of fluent in a kind of nonsense.
I am wondering if the member could elaborate on the exact guardrails that she would support to make sure the bill targets deception and—
Mr. Speaker, I used to be a staffer here. I remember a time when we all used our time in the House to inform Canadians, not mislead them, not switch information to sound like what it is not. I really want us to get back to that place.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand to address Bill C-25, which is an encouraging piece of legislation.
I would like to break my comments into two areas: one is to try to explain what has been happening over the last 24 hours, and what has ultimately led us to Bill C-25; and the other is dealing specifically with Bill C-25, and why it is encouraging when there is a high sense of collaboration in the House, when parties on both sides see the merit in passing legislation and working together collaboratively at committee stage. It does make a difference.
Where to start? I know there has been confusion, even among some of the members of Parliament, let alone the individuals who are possibly watching on the screen, in trying to follow and understand what has taken place that has led us to where we are today.
Yesterday we had a motion that was accepted by all members of the House of Commons. We all agreed that we wanted to sit until midnight for the remaining days, with the exception of Fridays, when we would sit until eight o'clock. That was indicated clearly, and that is the manner in which everyone voted.
Where are we today, and why is there confusion about some very important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-25? We have to put it in the perspective of what took place yesterday leading to the call for a vote at report stage. Report stage is a fairly straightforward aspect of the legislative process. Typically, what would happen when there are no amendments is that we would see the legislation pass on division or, in this case, pass through report stage unanimously. That is what should have happened, and then we would have begun the debate right away. Instead, the Conservative Party wanted a recorded vote, thereby wasting 45 minutes of what could have been debate. That is what they cry about all the time, that they want more debate.
Let us backtrack. Why did we get to the point we are at right now? Yesterday, contrary to what the Conservatives voted for when they stood up and said, “Yes, we want to sit late,” implying to Canadians that they were prepared to work, it only took them an hour or so to move a motion to adjourn. During the debate on Bill C-20, building Canada strong, building homes across Canada, a very important issue, they said they wanted time to vote, and what did they do? They moved an adjournment motion.
They wanted to call it quits early yesterday. All that did, because a majority of the House, including the Bloc and the NDP, voted down the Conservatives' desire to go to bed, was ultimately force them to continue to work late, as millions of Canadians do from coast to coast to coast. They did not necessarily want to answer the questions I had for the member when he moved for adjournment, as we lost the opportunity because of time.
Fast-forward to today, and what have we seen? First, we had the deputy whip of the Conservative Party move to adjourn debate on Bill C-16—
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What is the relevance? I understand that broad breadth is given with respect to our debates, but this has nothing to do with Bill C-25.
As the member knows, members have wide latitude during debate to make commentary. I am sure the member was leading it back to Bill C-25.
I will let the parliamentary secretary continue.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member across the way understands that there are individuals who are following the debates as we sit later in the evenings to see what we are doing, whether it is the government or the official opposition, to justify our late sittings, and they see why and how time is wasted, for example with Bill C-25, as I started talking about. It is not just on Bill C-25. We also saw it yesterday on Bill C-20, dealing with building homes from coast to coast to coast.
Today, we had a very important crime bill that was being debated, Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the Conservative deputy whip stood in this place and moved adjournment, thereby stopping debate once again. They say they want to have more debate time on legislation and complain that they are not getting enough time, but instead of debating, what are they doing? They want to adjourn the House. In other words, they are saying that they want to stop and go home. No surprise, that motion by the opposition deputy whip was defeated. Then we had a little more debate.
After that debate, the Conservative deputy House leader stood in this place and once again attempted to stop the proceedings of the House. Instead of debating the crime legislation the government is proposing, they wanted to stop the proceedings of the House and go home, for the second time today, once again preventing valuable time on the floor of the House of Commons, because only five hours are left for debate. Instead of debating the bill, they said, “No, we do not want to debate.” They used that particular tactic not once but twice today. They failed once again, as we saw the Bloc, the New Democrats, the Greens and the government say no. We then went into report stage—
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is well into his speech and I have yet to hear one word about Bill C-25.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more relevant to a debate than talking about the way other members in the House have been participating in that debate.
An hon. member: That is not a point of order.
Hon. Mark Gerretsen: That is actually a point of order. God, you do not even know what you are talking about.
To the chief government whip, through the Chair, please.
Members have wide latitude during debate to speak about whatever matters, ancillary or connected to a particular piece of legislation. I think the parliamentary secretary was returning to the bill, so I will let him finish.
Mr. Speaker, what happened then was that we went into report stage. As I started my comments, the Conservative Party once again, instead of having debate, requested yet another vote. That is an hour and a half of just bell‑ringing, and another 45 minutes in order to accommodate the voting.
On the one hand, the official opposition is saying that it wants more time to debate legislation, but that is not really the issue. What it really wants is more time to filibuster. That is really what it is all about: preventing crime legislation and the Build Canada Homes act from passing.
Having said that, let us talk about the debate. As the deputy House leader articulated exceptionally well with respect to what Bill C‑25 would do, I want to highlight two aspects of the legislation that I think are worth noting.
One is that the legislation we have before us is based on recommendations that have actually been provided by the foreign interference inquiry, Elections Canada, the commissioner of Canada elections and many other stakeholders who have actually contributed to the legislation.
It would deal with, in a substantial way. For example, the long ballot issue has been an issue for a while now. The bill has two proposed measures that would have an impact and that members should be aware of. Number one is that within a constituency or a riding, as a voter, a person would be able to sign for only one candidate being nominated or having their name on the ballot. The second thing it would do is say that if someone is going to be an official agent, they can do so for more than one candidate if the candidates are in different ridings, but that in any given riding, someone can be an official agent for only one candidate.
Those two initiatives would deal with what has been a serious concern of Canadians and elected officials. There are many other aspects to the legislation, such as making sure, year‑round, that potential threats to our elections would actually be monitored by a panel of experts. It would not be just during elections. It would also be in between elections.
There is a great deal of substance within the legislation. All one needs to do is listen to what the deputy House leader—
Mr. Speaker, here we have on display peak Liberal hypocrisy. Only the member for Winnipeg North can spend his entire speech complaining about wasting time instead of actually doing something besides wasting time and addressing Bill C‑25.
There were issues around foreign interference that the Liberals knew about in one of their ridings, where Han Dong was chosen as a Liberal candidate. It was noted in the Hogue commission.
Why is there nothing in Bill C‑25 that would address the foreign interference in so many Liberal nominations?
Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned because I had shone a little bit of light and explained to Canadians the silliness and the games the Conservative Party plays all the time here in Ottawa. I spent six minutes, maybe close to seven minutes, while the Conservatives wasted well over two hours ringing bells. At the same time, they are crying for more time to have the debates.
I would suggest that members of the Conservative Party should reflect on their behaviour and maybe, rather than their silliness, take actions that are more inclined to have the support of Canadians.
[Translation]
Bill C‑25—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 third reading stage of 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.
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.
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, Standing Order 78(3), commonly known as time allocation, is currently the Liberals' favourite dish. What we just witnessed is something that the Liberals have now done multiple times. Bill C‑25 is intended to increase public trust in Parliament and its institutions by preventing excessively long ballots, which can cause confusion.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to tell us whether he truly believes that this is the way to strengthen public trust in Parliament. What his government is currently doing is just the opposite: It is quashing debate by resorting to time allocation for one bill after another and even for the economic update.
I would like my college to tell me explicitly whether he thinks this will strengthen public trust in Parliament.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, time allocation is absolutely necessary for the government to use because of the way the Conservative Party of Canada is treating legislation. If we did not have that tool, legislation would never pass. We can see the games the Conservatives play consistently, and this evening is a great example of that. They have been using adjournment motions even though they had agreed to sit late in the evening.
At the end of the day, it is a question of whether are we going to deliver for Canadians as an assembly. Our answer to that question is yes, and the only way we can do that is by bringing in time allocation, because the Conservatives fully intend to prevent the government from passing legislation. Any simple grade 12 class would be able to prevent things in the House.
It is an issue of serving Canadians first and foremost, and we will do what it takes in order to deliver on our commitments to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the world in 2026 is much different from just a few years ago. The world has changed, and we must change with it. We must continue to ensure that Canada's democracy remains one of the strongest in the world.
I would like to hear from my colleague about how the bill would expand prohibition on undue foreign influence.
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. There are a number of initiatives in the bill. That is one of the reasons I highlighted the two areas: foreign interference and having the panel not only during an election but year-round between elections. That is an essential aspect of the legislation.
Worldwide, Elections Canada is seen as a first-rate, independent election system, and it is something we should all be very proud of. It is constantly asked to make presentations to other jurisdictions on how to make democracy work well in a country. Elections Canada is a wonderful ambassador for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome. Among them are measures to counter the undemocratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee, which caused significant disruption in a number of ridings in the last election and in several by-elections by effectively flooding the ballot with fake candidates. This was all for the purpose of sowing confusion, making it more difficult for Elections Canada to administer elections and tabulate the vote, and undermining general public confidence in the voting process.
This bill contains measures the Conservatives called for quite some time ago. It took the government quite some time to finally move forward with legislation to address those gaps and those loopholes that were taken advantage of by the longest ballot committee, but this bill does that, and we welcome those measures. Additionally, we welcome measures in the bill to establish new offences and to extend other offences to leadership races and nomination races to counter foreign interference.
The bill would also provide needed new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections and increase administrative monetary penalties to give those penalties some teeth with respect to contraventions of the act by individuals and organizations. I would observe, however, that I have some concerns with respect to the powers that are being given to the commissioner insofar as the commissioner would have the power to compel evidence without judicial authorization.
I would also note that when one looks at those powers, combined with the powers to impose administrative penalties of up to $100,000 for organizations and entities, it begs the question of whether there is, in fact too, much discretion being afforded to the commissioner of Canada elections. In that regard, given the dual-track enforcement option available to the commissioner, if, in fact, a contravention reached the level of imposing a $100,000 fine, it would seem to me that in the circumstances, the better course would be for the commissioner to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions to proceed by way of criminal prosecution.
While there are measures in this bill that the Conservatives broadly support, it is far from a perfect bill. There are measures that could have been included in this bill that would have gone a lot further toward strengthening the Canada Elections Act, strengthening the integrity of our voting process and safeguarding our elections, which the Liberals unfortunately did not include.
I also have significant concerns about the failure of the Liberals to close well-recognized loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into third parties to influence voters at election time. Fundamental to our democracy is how elections must be decided by Canadians, and Canadians alone. Unfortunately, what we have in this country, which we have had for years, are foreign interests and foreign governments that have used third parties to influence our elections.
There are two well-recognized loopholes. One is a melding loophole, wherein certain contributions, including foreign contributions, are treated as part of the general revenue of a third party that can in turn then be used for regulated activities during the pre-election and election periods. The other loophole is one whereby foreign funds are treated as Canadian funds to third parties. In that regard, I would note that if, for example, foreign entity A transfers funds to Canadian entity B, and Canadian entity B transfers those funds to a third party, at present, those funds are treated as funds coming from Canadian entity B, even though the true source of those funds is foreign.
This loophole is not a hypothetical loophole. In 2017, I brought forward a complaint to the commissioner of Canada elections with respect to $700,000 U.S. that was funnelled from the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation to a British Columbia entity. That entity then disbursed the $700,000 U.S. to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates. The commissioner of Canada elections, in response to my complaint, advised that there were no contraventions of the act, or at least no contraventions that could be made out, and the reason for that is this loophole that presently exists.
I have to say, I think Canadians would be alarmed that it is, in fact, that easy for foreign interests and foreign governments, with witting third parties, frankly, to use foreign funds to influence how Canadians vote and what issues are brought to their attention in the lead-up to and during an election.
It is completely unacceptable that the Liberals have been aware of these loopholes for 10 years now. In fact, they benefited from these loopholes. They benefited from the use of foreign money, just as the Liberals benefited from Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, and have, up until now, refused to take action.
Before I say what this bill would do, I would just add that the loopholes I am speaking about are ones that have been recognized by the Chief Electoral Officer. I raised these loopholes multiple times with the Chief Electoral Officer when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee. He also acknowledged these precise loopholes in his report on the 2019 and 2021 elections, and he called for those loopholes to be closed.
This bill purports to close those loopholes, and it would do so with a general requirement. It would require third parties to set up a separate bank account, and the funds going into it can come only from individual Canadians. This would be a positive measure. It is one that we have long called for. It would address issues around foreign interference and foreign influence insofar as the funds would be from individual Canadians.
The bill would provide much needed transparency. We would be able to more easily track and see exactly who is donating to third parties that, in turn, seek to influence Canadians in the lead-up to and during elections. It would also treat third parties on par, more or less, with political parties insofar as political parties can use contributions only from individual Canadians. This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that.
If that is good, it begs the question, “What is problematic?” It is problematic that this would be a general rule, but there is a big exception contained in the bill, which is that third parties may continue to use their own funds and their own general revenue. In other words, they would not have to set up an individual bank account and they would not be limited to individual contributions, provided that the contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue in the year prior to the pre-election period. In such a case, funds used by the third party would be treated as commingled, whatever the source.
That is not my interpretation. When I posed a question to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Perrault, and asked him how this exception would work and exactly what funds third parties would be able to use, he said in his answer, “They would be contributions coming from their own revenue, whatever that source may be, and those would commingle with other funds.”
If a third party can use contributions coming from its own revenue, whatever the source, and such funds are commingled, then it follows that commingled funds could be foreign funds. When I raised that issue with the Chief Electoral Officer, he conceded that “the practical challenge is true there as well.” The Chief Electoral Officer acknowledged that, yes, effectively, where this exception applies, third parties would be able to use foreign funds.
As a result, the bill would close loopholes with respect to the use of foreign funds, but then create a new loophole. If it does not create a completely new loophole, it would continue the loophole around the melding or commingling of funds, including foreign funds.
The Liberals will say this is an exception, not the rule, and it would only apply if contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue, meaning that it should not apply to very many third parties. However, who is to say this is so, and who is to say 10% or less of a third party's revenues, being contributions, is an insignificant amount of money? There are many third parties that have tens of millions of dollars, so 10% could amount to millions of dollars of foreign funds.
I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the general rule of having to set up individual bank accounts and relying exclusively on the contributions of individual Canadians, whereas some of the bigger, more influential third parties would continue to be able to get away with using their own funds, including possibly and likely foreign funds in some cases.
It is true that the Chief Electoral Officer has supported this type of an exception, and in that respect, the government has adopted what the Chief Electoral Officer recommended. I can see that point, but I respectfully disagree, and I have made it clear to the Chief Electoral Officer that I disagree with his position. I have challenged him on his position on a number of occasions. The argument that he has put is that there are charter issues around freedom of speech.
However, there is no case authority that the Chief Electoral Officer has cited. The best he has offered and the best the Liberals have offered is this vague argument. It is a vague argument notwithstanding, by the way, that when this issue was presented at committee, a number of witnesses, including an esteemed constitutional lawyer, including Professor Lori Turnbull and including Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch, said that, yes, this loophole, this exception, would result in foreign funding and that, given the very serious issues around foreign interference, this loophole would be taken advantage of by foreign actors, including hostile foreign states like the Beijing-based Communist regime. As I noted, it has been taken advantage of by other groups in not necessarily hostile foreign states, but in other states such as the United States, like through the Tides Foundation.
The position we took is to get rid of the exception, create an equal playing field for all third parties and require every third party to set up an individual bank account. Our position was to require that all third parties, without exception, could only accept contributions from individual Canadians. That would be simple, it would be fair, it would be transparent and from an administrative and enforcement standpoint, it would be far better and far easier than the complicated framework or scheme set up by this legislation in respect of setting a threshold of contributions that constitutes 10% or less of the third party's revenue and that the period be in the year prior to the pre-election period.
If one were to take at face value the charter issues that have been, and again I underscore the word “vaguely”, cited, I would question how this exception would satisfy them. If these charter issues are so real and so pressing, then why is it that with this legislation, the Liberals would be requiring that, as a general rule, third parties set up an individual bank account that accepts only contributions from individual Canadians. If that infringes upon—
I have to interrupt the member. The member's time for debate has concluded.
Michael Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have been told I have unlimited time. I did not split my time.
The Deputy Speaker: The member had 20 minutes. That was the time that was allotted.
An hon. member: I know you could go two hours.
An hon. member: Sit down. The Speaker is up.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the members to the right of me. I can handle the responsibilities.
The member did have a 20-minute slot. I am verifying with the clerks here, and they are saying that is correct. It is a 20-minute slot with 10 minutes of questions and comments.
I have risen. There was 20 minutes. The member has concluded.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague, and I know how much time he has spent on this particular bill as well. On the idea of controlling the money and all of that, I would be interested to hear what other amendment or change my colleague thinks could be done that would improve the bill and answer the concerns that he has.
Mr. Speaker, what we had proposed was simply to remove the exception and simply to require that all third parties be required to set up an individual bank account and that they only be able to receive contributions from individual Canadians. We believe that would be charter-compliant and that it would, to the greatest extent possible, close loopholes around foreign funding and foreign influence through third parties.
[Translation]
Before I recognize the next speaker for questions and comments, I just want to clarify what is written in the Standing Orders.
[English]
I am going to switch to English, just to make sure the member understands.
Regarding the length of speeches at third reading stage, pursuant to Standing Orders 43 and 74 the first member of each recognized party in the first round of speeches has 20 minutes maximum, and speeches are subject to a 10-minute question and comment period. Those are Standing Orders 43 and 74, to clarify for all members and make sure all members understand. There are lots of standing orders and very many numbers. It is easy to confuse them, but that is the rule.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Rimouski—La Matapédia.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. My colleague did not get to finish his speech, but I imagine he had a great deal more to say. It is actually quite remarkable that Bill C-25, which amends an act, also changes the names of certain ridings.
It has been over a year and a half since the last election. I made a promise to my constituents to give the riding a name that better represents it. I wanted it to be called Rimouski—Neigette—La Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques. The current name, Rimouski—La Matapédia, does not reflect the entire territory.
I would simply like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees, based on his experience, that it would have made more sense not to wait a year and a half before changing the riding names. This work could have been done a long time ago, rather than putting it off indefinitely.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would agree. This could have been done sooner. The government did not need to wait a year and a half to do this. Also, I would note that the name change that the member has proposed and that would be changed through this bill would, I believe, restore what had been the name of the riding at one time.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed to be rising to speak before the House, given that the parliamentary secretary across the way criticized me just a short while ago for moving to adjourn the debate. However, we are now learning that it was actually the Prime Minister who did so, according to a Radio-Canada article that was just published. Allow me to read an extract:
Vacation time has (already) started in Ottawa
The members of the House of Commons are on vacation. Mark Carney's government has announced that—
Order.
Members may not refer to the Prime Minister by name, even in a quote.
The member may finish his question or comment.
Mr. Speaker, I should have said that the Liberal Prime Minister's government “has announced that the House has adjourned for the summer”.
Can my colleague, who is the critic for institutions, explain to me why we are still debating here in the House when the Liberal Prime Minister has announced that the House has already adjourned for the summer? I am completely baffled. Did he, by any chance, intend to adjourn the House at the end of the day? I would like my colleague to clarify that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I think it underscores the fact that the Prime Minister is AWOL when it comes to this House. It underscores how disconnected he is from the business of this House and how little attention he pays to the business of this House. Perhaps he should consider showing up for once.
Mr. Speaker, that is a little much. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister actually voted on the silliness of the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party did not even show up. In fact, 13% of the caucus—
I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. This has been dealt with before. Members cannot make a reference to the presence or absence of a member, including in the past. That cannot be done in the House.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to find a different way of saying what he wants to say, and then we will continue with questions and comments.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 has received quite a bit of support. We saw that support at the standing committee. There were no amendments brought forward at report stage. It would appear to me that the Conservatives are supportive of passing the legislation, which is a good thing. The government is providing us the opportunity tonight to ensure we at least have some debate.
I wonder if the member could just talk about what he feels is actually, generally speaking, positive legislation that has received overwhelming support, whether from Elections Canada, to a certain degree, or members of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I agree. There are many measures in this bill that we support, that we have long called for. We have worked with the government, getting it through second reading stage, over to the procedure and House affairs committee.
We brought forward some amendments where I think there was a missed opportunity, however. There was an opportunity to fully close well-identified loopholes with respect to foreign funding to third parties. That is something that is unacceptable that needs to be corrected. Those loopholes do need to be closed.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems that the members opposite are unaware of the news that the House has apparently adjourned, according to the Liberal Prime Minister. I therefore seek unanimous consent to table the Radio-Canada article to inform them of the decision that the Prime Minister seems to have made without telling them.
Mr. Speaker, what a shame there is no unanimous consent. We would never have turned down an opportunity to be educated and informed. I do not understand why they denied it. It would have been instructive.
Returning to the speech by my colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River, whose thoroughness I appreciate, there is something in Bill C-25 that concerns me somewhat.
I agree that we should tighten the parameters a little, particularly when it comes to the endorsing candidates. However, when we collect signatures for a nomination form, which many of us have done, we make a point of telling people that this is not an endorsement of the candidate or the party. It is a recognition that this person is eligible to stand as a candidate in an election. In proposing this measure, which prevents people from signing multiple nomination forms in the same election, it seems to me that we are going against that principle in a way. Saying that people can only sign one form is a bit like saying that by signing a nomination form, that person is endorsing that particular candidate. I feel that this measure may go a bit too far.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that was an important question. The member does raise a good point, insofar as the bill would prohibit someone from signing more than one nomination form.
There are arguments counter to that amendment in the bill. However, I would argue that on balance it is a reasonable amendment to the Canada Elections Act, preventing the longest ballot committee and other such bad actors from engaging in such activities in the future. The objective or the purpose of the act is that a candidate must have the endorsement or support of 100 electors, not for 100 electors to flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. I think, given what we have seen, in terms of the disruption to our elections, this is a reasonable amendment.
As for informing electors who might be inclined to sign more than one nomination form, there are measures that can be taken and that I believe Elections Canada will undertake, such as providing on the nomination form a reminder that an individual can only sign one candidate's nomination form.
Mr. Speaker, we have just received this report that the House has adjourned or maybe will adjourn in the near future. I wonder if the member can comment on what the consequences of that would be for summer by-elections, particularly if this bill is not passed, but even if it is passed, in terms of issues that Canadians really care about, like foreign interference?
Mr. Speaker, if the House adjourned, I guess the government would have just capitulated on getting through all of the legislation that it has had before us this entire spring.
Mr. Speaker, to provide some assurance to my Conservative colleagues, it is the government's full intention to continue to sit until we have a substantial aspect of our legislative agenda passed. That is absolutely critical. Whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of the Liberal caucus, when we talk about the summer, we will continue to work hard throughout the summer. I can assure members of that.
I know I plan to work very hard for my constituents, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you too have some plans to work through this summer. We love our job as members of Parliament and working hard for our constituents. I, for one, like the Prime Minister and the government, will continue to push to get our legislative agenda—
Mr. Speaker, as the government works to get its legislation through, we in the official opposition will discharge our responsibility, which is to hold the government to account and to carefully scrutinize legislation before this House.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, if you canvass the House, I suspect you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 12:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to make sure that it is midnight tonight and not midnight in September.
If the parliamentary secretary wants to, the Speaker can allow members to continue debate.
Did the parliamentary secretary ask for unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the parliamentary session for this spring, it is important to highlight the ongoing jobs crisis facing young people, and the constructive measures that Conservatives have put forward.
We are here in Parliament working late, but we are blessed to have the opportunity to work on behalf of Canadians. Meanwhile, there are many talented young people with skills and passion that they want to put to work but have not been able to. There are the top‑line unemployment numbers. Underneath that, there is declining labour force participation for young people, and there is the reality that many young people are not able to work in the field they have studied in. They have been encouraged to go in one direction in terms of their studies, yet they are not able to find employment that aligns with that area of study.
Over the course of the spring session and the previous fall session, as we have been highlighting the youth unemployment crisis in this country, we have always been very constructive in our approach, putting forward specific policy proposals to address that crisis and inviting the government to embrace those proposals. We have highlighted four key areas as we have advanced our youth unemployment strategy.
The first is unleashing the economy, addressing major concerns that small businesses have around the cost of hiring and around red tape and regulation, by having incentives, tax cuts and reduced bureaucracy that encourages investment in Canada.
Second, we need to fix the immigration system. When it comes to immigration, we hear a big focus from the government on attracting foreign talent, but not enough focus on deploying the talent that is already in this country. There are so many young people with talent, training and passion who want to get to work. We should be focused on deploying the Canadian talent to give young people opportunities. We need to fix our immigration system so that the people who come here are able to have their credentials recognized so they are not competing for entry-level jobs, and so that we are clearly identifying where the skill gaps and needs are.
The first two areas are unleashing the economy and fixing immigration. Third, we need to fix training. The government is going in the opposite direction. It is pulling funding for student grants for students in vocational programs. We should be celebrating and recognizing the value of different kinds of post-secondary options, including vocational programs that provide practical, job-ready skills for young people. We need to be training young people for Canadian jobs. We know there is a desire for skilled workers. The response to that should be to train young people to be ready to fill those skilled positions, yet there is a specific attack on vocational institutions by the government.
Fourth, we need to build homes where the jobs are. Conservatives are proposing constructive policies to support labour mobility so young people can take up opportunities that may exist outside the region they live in. We have very high unemployment in larger centres, and we have many opportunities in rural and remote areas to seize opportunities for young people who are able. However, when I talk to young people about whether they think they would be able to seize those opportunities, transportation and housing are major concerns if they are moving to an area that is unfamiliar. That is why we have included in our jobs plan incentives to make it easier for employers to offer workforce housing.
We need to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. That is our constructive Conservative plan to address the youth unemployment crisis. It is offered in good faith. Would the government take those good ideas that we have put forward?
Mr. Speaker, we are helping young Canadians build their futures and we are making a generational investment in them. We are making these investments because we need to make sure that young Canadians secure a solid footing in the ever-changing job market. In doing that for them, we are doing it for all of Canada and for all Canadians.
The 2026 spring economic update reaffirms this with a new $6-billion investment in a nationwide effort to recruit, train and hire up to 10,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers in the next five years, creating opportunities that will align with Canada's housing, infrastructure and defence needs. As we ride an unprecedented wave of retirements, the young Canadians embarking on careers will be the drivers of Canada's future economic growth.
With budget 2025, we are doing more to help Canada's youth launch successful careers and more to get those unemployment figures down. Starting this year, we are investing $594.7 million over two years to create more Canada summer jobs. The program will create and support up to 100,000 summer jobs this year.
We have also earmarked $307.9 million for the youth employment and skills strategy. This will be another two-year investment starting this year to provide training and jobs to around 20,000 youth annually. Programs delivered under the youth employment and skills strategy are especially beneficial to youth facing barriers to employment. By that, I mean youth who live in rural and remote areas, youth with disabilities, newcomer youth and racialized youth. Those are just a few examples.
Budget 2025 also invests $635.2 million over three years for the student work placement program. It will support around 135,000 work-integrated learning opportunities for youth who are enrolled in post-secondary education over a three-year period. I could say more, but I will pause here.
These results are ongoing and these programs are helping youth find in-demand skills and improve their job prospects. This is why, working with our partners, we must ensure they are equipped with the skills and opportunities needed to thrive. We will do that.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear from that response that the government has nothing new to offer. The parliamentary secretary spoke about programs that have existed since the 1990s and their rebranded Canada strong program.
Here are the facts: Conservatives introduced grants for trade workers in 2009 and 2006: 2009 were the completion grants, 2006 were the other grants introduced for trade workers. The Liberals cancelled those grants. The Minister of Jobs and Families defended the decision to cancel those grants, and then, in the face of significant advocacy from unions, as well as Conservatives and other organizations, the government chose to restore funding that the Liberals had cut. Restoring something that they cut and giving it a new name is not doing something new. We absolutely need to support trades workers. They should not have cut those grants in the first place, but they also should not be cutting grants for vocational training. The fact is the government has nothing new.
Why will the Liberals not adopt our Conservative youth jobs plan?
Mr. Speaker, when we invest in the skills and experience of youth today, we create a stronger, more competitive workforce and drive long-term prosperity for the future. The federal government is creating thousands of jobs for young Canadians and will create thousands more.
We are well aware that our economic future depends on the success of the work we do today as government. We have programs like Canada summer jobs, the youth employment and skills strategy program, and the student work placement program that are all helping young Canadians develop work-ready skills through hands-on experience and training. This will put youth on a path to meaningful careers.
These programs, combined with our new team Canada strong skilled trades initiative, will strengthen the workforce of tomorrow. The evidence could not be clearer. We are committed to creating jobs for our youth and seeing them launch into good, well-paying careers.
The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice had been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at Thursday, June 11, at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11:03 p.m.)
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer