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. 025
CONTENTS
Friday, September 19, 2025
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 025
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, September 19, 2025
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Citizenship Act
The House resumed from September 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, today, we debate a very familiar piece of legislation to the House that has been brought back from previous parliaments. Bill C-3 may be newly introduced, but the substance of the bill is more of the same. It is the same broken car that the Liberals tried to drive through the House last year with a different coat of paint.
Let us be clear that it was originally Conservative legislation from the Senate. Bill S-245 was a private member's bill containing provisions to address lost Canadians. The Conservatives were supportive of the original substance of that bill, but thanks to the Liberal government, the bill was significantly amended, and it eventually stalled at report stage. In May 2024, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-71, which drastically went beyond the original scope of Bill S-245. Therefore, we started with Bill S-245, then we had Bill C-71 and now we are dealing with Bill C-3.
Bill C-3 has three separate pieces of information that must be understood individually. The first part is citizenship by descent. We may not agree on everything in this House, but I believe we can all agree that becoming a Canadian citizen is a privilege. However, as written, Bill C-3 undermines Canadian citizenship. In fact, Canada has important safeguards in place that protect our citizenship, like the first-generation limit.
I want to stress that we have policy like this for a reason. As my colleagues have mentioned, at the height of the 2006 conflict, Lebanese Canadians living in Lebanon looked to the Canadian government for help, and Canada answered the call, spending $94 million to successfully evacuate 15,000 Canadians to safety. Despite living in Lebanon full time prior to the conflict and having little connection to Canada, they still benefited from their Canadian citizenship and became known as Canadians of convenience. Following a ceasefire in the conflict, many Lebanese Canadians immediately returned to Lebanon. This was a wake-up call for Canada, and in 2009, the previous Conservative government responded with implementing the first-generation limit. This reasonable measure set out that only the first generation of children born abroad to Canadian citizens could automatically obtain citizenship.
Members may be shocked to learn that this safeguard for Canadian citizenship against Canadians of convenience would be eliminated by Liberal Bill C-3, as written. The Liberals seek to replace this safeguard to obtaining citizenship by descent with something called a substantial connection requirement. This extremely weak requirement simply means that parents must prove they spent 1,095 non-consecutive days physically in Canada before the birth of their child. This legislation would not even require a criminal record check.
The Liberals believe that parents spending a few weeks or months spread out over decades is enough of a substantial connection to automatically extend citizenship to multiple generations of people born outside of Canada. We still do not understand what evidence would be required as proof that parents spent just over 1,000 days in Canada at any point in their life. Through Bill C-3, the Liberal government could be opening Canadian citizenship to people with criminal records or to individuals who may not even realize they could claim Canadian citizenship in the first place.
When the previous version of this legislation was studied, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that as many as 115,000 new citizens outside of Canada could be created. According to the National Post, “The government has no idea how many people will be automatically granted citizenship if the legislation is passed.” Why would the Liberal government create a new system with a potentially limitless chain of migration? This is deeply concerning, but after 10 years of the Liberals destroying our immigration system, we cannot be surprised.
The second part of Bill C-3, which the Conservatives do support, is the adopted children provision. Right now, provisions in the Citizenship Act state that when a Canadian citizen adopts a person born outside of Canada, the parent would need to start a lengthy process of applying for a child's permanent residence. Instead, this bill would remove an unnecessary burden on adoptive parents and treat an adopted person as if they were born here in Canada, automatically granting Canadian citizenship to the child. This is a simple and reasonable approach to achieving equal treatment for adopted children, and the Conservatives support it.
Third, we come to the restoration of citizenship to lost Canadians. As a result of compounding legislation and amendments to section 8 of the Citizenship Act, a group of people born to Canadian parents between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, had to apply to reinstate their citizenship before turning 28 years old. Those who did not apply to reinstate their citizenship lost it, despite being raised in Canada, going to school here and starting their families here. The Conservatives support the provisions in Bill C-3 to correct this error.
Canadians are paying the price for the Liberals' out-of-control immigration policies. Let me be clear. Immigration is important to our country, but the government must have control over it. Right now, the Liberals have zero control over their immigration policy. Effective immigration policy should be tied to outcomes, and it should consider the supply of housing, health care and jobs. This is important not only for Canadians who are trying to buy a house, find a job and get a family doctor; it is equally important for newcomers. It is wrong to set immigrants up for failure in a country that does not have the capacity to support them. Unfortunately, the Liberals have lost complete control over immigration.
Let us examine health care, for example. Last year, the Liberals brought in nearly a half a million permanent immigrants. Meanwhile, 6.5 million Canadians do not have a family doctor. The Liberals see no problem adding hundreds of thousands of new patients to a health care system that is already overburdened. Emergency room closures are occurring on a regular basis while health care workers are burnt out from working millions of hours of overtime. Canada is currently short at least 23,000 family doctors and 60,000 registered nurses, with these numbers set to dramatically increase in the next few years. Someone does not need an economics degree to understand that the increasing demand on our health care system through unfocused immigration while the supply of capacity is collapsing is a recipe for disaster. I guarantee that our health care system is only going to get worse under the Liberal government's failed immigration policy.
The Liberals are not just driving up demand through their failed immigration policy; they have failed to build capacity too. While the government adds record demand to our health care system, it is restricting the supply of qualified health care professionals from working. According to the health minister's own department, of the 200,000 internationally trained health professionals employed in Canada, 80,000 are not working in their field. Eighty thousand internationally trained health care professionals who immigrated to Canada thinking there was a place for them to contribute to our overwhelmed health care system are being blocked from working.
I met a vascular surgeon from Brazil who has years of training and experience yet sees no path to practising in Canada. The Liberals bring doctors and nurses to Canada for their expertise but block them from working in their profession. I was in Toronto, where I met a doctor from Argentina with many years of experience. She came to Canada hoping to use her skills and experience to provide care for our people. Today, she works at Home Depot because gatekeepers and licensing bodies block her from getting certified to practise.
For 10 years, the Liberals have turned immigration into a numbers game while ignoring capacity, ignoring the needs of Canadians and ignoring the very newcomers they claim to welcome. Blocking doctors and nurses from working while adding millions of new patients to a broken health care system is insane. We cannot fix our broken health care system without fixing our broken immigration system first. The Conservatives are committing to fixing that problem. We should only invite the right people in the right numbers so that our health care system can catch up. At the same time, we must implement a national blue seal professional testing standard to ensure that foreign-trained health care workers can work in Canada. We must enable health care workers to take their skills wherever they are needed across our country.
The Conservatives know that the parts of Bill C-3 have potential, but we cannot support rushed Liberal legislation that is so poorly thought out. The Conservatives will make recommendations to improve this legislation and implement real safeguards to strengthen the citizenship we are so blessed to have.
Mr. Speaker, provinces need to do a better job of recognizing the skills that immigrants bring to the country, in particular in health care. That has been a chronic problem since I was first elected back in 1988. Provinces must take the lead.
The member made reference to immigration and tried to blame immigration for the capacity problem in health care today. Some of the greatest shortages among doctors in Canada today are in the province of Manitoba, and both the premier and the Minister of Immigration in Manitoba want the current immigration levels to stay. They want everyone who is in Manitoba to stay in Manitoba. They want to increase the numbers.
Does that not conflict with what the member is saying? Does he believe the home province we share is wrong on its immigration request?
Mr. Speaker, I did say in my speech that we need immigration, without a doubt, but we cannot ignore the fact that our health care system is absolutely overburdened. We will not even allow professionals who have been trained abroad a pathway to practise in the profession that they have been trained in in other countries. That is just insane.
The Liberal government has propped up that same failing system for the last 10 years, and as the member admitted, he has done nothing about it.
Mr. Speaker, I take exception to that. At every opportunity I get, I advocate for recognizing the credentials that immigrants bring to Canada. The member and the Conservative Party need to realize that we cannot just say we will have a blue seal program. There is no depth whatsoever to that program. This is something we have to get the provinces to agree to and participate in.
Has the Conservative Party done any engagement with the provinces to give any legitimacy at all to their blue seal program?
Mr. Speaker, yes, we have had lots of engagement right across this nation.
I was in Nova Scotia during the summer. I have talked a lot to provinces across this country, and right across this country, we are hearing that there are millions of Canadians waiting for a family doctor now, 6.5 million Canadians. We have immigrants coming in, trained professionals, from other countries, and we have seen no uptake. They have no path forward. That is what the blue seal program is about.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Riding Mountain for his connection with communities over the summer. I watched his social media. He managed to connect with the people.
We are dealing today with a government bill that is identical to a bill that was brought forward in the previous Parliament. The Liberals rejected amendments then, and the bill did not make it through the last Parliament, but they brought it back without change. It is like the old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
Can the member tell me what he has heard from constituents in his riding? Why does he think the Liberals are not listening to people?
Mr. Speaker, what I have heard across the country is that citizenship is very precious to Canadians. We cherish it very much. It is a privilege and world-renowned. Canadian passports are sought after, and people from all over the world know that.
Unfortunately, the Liberals have taken an approach where they have cheapened it. They have basically said that people can come from anywhere, live here a little while and have full access to all our programs and all the great things that make Canada the fantastic nation it is. What I am hearing from constituents and people right across this country is that we please protect our Canadian citizenship and work to make it so it is cherished and upheld by the rest of the world.
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here and to talk on behalf of the great people of Dufferin—Caledon, who have re-elected me to come to the House of Commons and fight for common sense, which is often a difficult thing to do with the Liberal government.
This piece of legislation is the perfect example of why we have to fight. I want to talk a bit about how the Liberals have absolutely destroyed the consensus in Canada on immigration, botched the immigration system in so many ways and brought that incompetent approach to this particular piece of legislation. The consequences for this will be far and wide, and, ultimately, Canadians will pay the price, as they have done for all the Liberal mistakes, errors, debacles and corruption over the past 10 years.
What pains me the most in talking about the breakdown of the consensus on immigration and refugees in this country is the fact that my wife came to Canada as a refugee. She is a Kosovar Albanian. Canada had a wonderful program, Operation Parasol, to bring Kosovar Albanians fleeing the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo at that time.
To see the reports from the past 10 years on the decline of the consensus in Canada, known as a beacon of acceptance for immigration and refugees, because of Liberal incompetence is really heartbreaking. I think most Canadians are heartbroken because of this.
There are a couple of polls that address this, which are really, in my estimation, tragic. Pollara had a study in 2025 that compared views from 2002 to 2025. In 2002, immigration was viewed as a positive plus 31. In 2025, it is now down to a plus 2. That is a 29-point decline as a result of the mess that the Liberals have made with respect to the immigration system. These are catastrophic declines.
Looking at the share of people who believe that Canada is accepting too many immigrants, again, we go back to 2002 and it was 34%. We look at 2025 and it is now at 60%.
Who is responsible for that? It is not the fault of the people who have come to Canada. They came to Canada because they wanted the opportunities and better life Canada provides, just as my wife and her family did. My wife came to Canada with English as a second language. In fact, she spoke no English and went to high school; she went on to get a master's degree, and she has had a great career. That is the epitome of why people come to Canada, because of the opportunities this great country affords.
When we look at what the Liberals have done, at the mess they have made of the immigration system, it is a tragedy for all Canadians. The buck stops 100% with the people on the other side. It is their fault because they have made this absolute mess.
I could talk for three hours about the actual specifics of the mess, but I would point out that at one point, the Liberal government allowed an accused ISIS terrorist to immigrate to Canada. This person was accused of being in a video in 2015 in which they dismembered someone, and the Liberals let this person come to Canada. This is the disrepute they have brought the system into.
In 2024, I did an OPQ, and I asked how many people were processing applications in CIC and how many applications were actually coming in. Then we could do some simple math. I know math is not great for the Liberals; they think that an affordable housing program is 4,000 houses for $13 billion, so math is not their strong suit. However, when we actually broke down the number of people who were processing the applications and the number of applications coming in, because the Liberals had set the levels so high, it worked out that someone assessing an immigration application had 30 minutes per application. One can imagine how someone such as the person I just described ended up in Canada. When we increase the volumes of people to such high levels and have no security screening, we end up with the challenges we have.
Now the Liberals have brought forward a piece of legislation on citizenship. I will say, I am a proud Canadian. I know my wife is a proud Canadian, and her whole family are proud Canadians as well.
The Liberals have created a very weak substantial connection test. What does that mean?
Most people who are listening will not understand what that means, so I am going to explain it. It means that, according to the Liberals, if a person wants to have Canadian citizenship extended to them and their children for generations, they have to spend 1,095 nonconsecutive days in Canada.
They have not even said what the proof for that is. Somebody can say they spent 1,095 days in Canada over the last 25 years, and their children, their children's children and so on will all get Canadian citizenship. This is weakening Canadian citizenship.
The Liberals do not even know the numbers of people this would affect, how many people this citizenship is going to be extended to. Also, there would be no security checks. We just talked about how the lack of security checks let an alleged ISIS terrorist into Canada, someone who was on a video in 2015 dismembering someone, but they do not think security checks would be an important part of extending citizenship to people who have no real connection to Canada.
Maybe they spent 1,095 days in Canada at some point over their lifetime, maybe not, because we do not know how they are going to prove it, and they do not have to have a security check. The Liberals are going to try to say that this is all very normal, that they are solving a problem. It is not normal. This approach is not normal in the developed world. The United States, Britain, France and Italy all cap citizenship to the first generation born abroad.
This is important because there is value in Canadian citizenship, and they are going to extend this to all kinds of people who have very little connection to Canada. We actually do not have the numbers on how far that will extend. We have maybe some estimates, but even the government does not know.
This, of course, does not surprise me, because the Liberals come up with things on the back of a napkin and never know what the consequence is going to be. It was much like this when I was the shadow minister for the environment, and I asked the deputy minister at the time what the actual build-out of the cost of the charging network all across Canada would be when we get to the 100% zero-emission vehicle mandate.
They looked at me and said they have not calculated that to the end point. They are going to mandate that no one gets to drive a gas-powered vehicle, that all vehicles have to be zero-emission vehicles, but they do not know what the cost of the charging network is going to be. That is how Liberals have run this country for the last 10 years, which is why we are in the mess we are in on a whole host of levels.
I just had a town hall in the town of Bolton a couple of weeks ago, and immigration was absolutely on the agenda. When I talk about the statistics of the decline in support for immigration, I can say that I felt it in person at that meeting. People are saying the numbers are too high.
I did not get the opportunity to do so, but if I had talked about this particular piece of legislation, I know what the good people of Dufferin—Caledon would have said. They would have said it is ridiculous. Many of the people in that town hall are immigrants; they came to this country because they wanted the opportunity Canada provides. They would have been outraged by the decision to do this.
What has been the consequence of the mess the Liberals have made of immigration in Canada? We can look at the jobs market. The big topic of discussion at my town hall was that my constituents' sons and daughters cannot get jobs. This is one of the reasons we have said we are eliminating the temporary foreign worker program: Far too many people have come into this country and taken jobs away from Canadians. The TFW program is a part of that problem.
The Liberal mess on immigration is going to take a very long time to fix. When we look at this, we see another absolute mess happening that the Liberals did not need to make. They could have fixed this problem very simply, but they did not. They chose a weak test; with 1,095 days at any point in someone's life, they get Canadian citizenship and they can then pass it on to their children.
This is a terrible piece of legislation. Conservatives fought it in the last Parliament. We will fight it in this Parliament, and we will seek to make amendments to bring some common sense to this terrible piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for outlining the issues that we on this side of the House have with this piece of legislation. I know he has mentioned his wife and his wife's family, who came to Canada and have embraced becoming Canadian citizens.
I wonder if he could comment on what the impact is of reducing the requirement to obtain citizenship on those individuals who are coming to Canada, who are going through the process, who are perhaps even fleeing persecution. What impact does that have on those individuals who have gone through a very lengthy process?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a perfect point on this. The people who came to Canada because they wanted a better life played by the rules. They worked hard. They made fantastic lives and contributions to this country. They are going to look at this as an affront to the hard work that they did to come to Canada and become successful and proud Canadian citizens. They would be outraged about someone who has spent almost no time in the country getting Canadian citizenship.
The days are not even consecutive. A person could have spent something like 10 days in Canada over 30 years. Basically, if they vacationed here for 10 days over 30 years, they are going to get Canadian citizenship. It is outrageous. We are against it and we will fight it.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cited immigration in 2002 as being really good. I acknowledge that. What he does not do is cite the many years in which Harper's administration was a disaster for immigration. They, for example, deleted applications, with literally hundreds of thousands of individuals who were in the process of coming to Canada. They had seven-year waiting times to sponsor a parent, and they cancelled the parents and grandparents program. There were serious problems that we were able to rectify.
Today's issue is more about the temporary visas. The current Prime Minister has indicated that we are going to get on the right track. We are working aggressively to do that.
In the example of Anna in the forces, she goes abroad, has a child and comes back; her child then goes abroad to work. Should the child of that individual, or Anna's grandson or granddaughter, have the opportunity—
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether his statements about the Conservative record on immigration are due to ignorance or whether they are malicious, but either way, they are completely erroneous and false—
As the parliamentary secretary well knows, that is a matter of debate.
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.
Mr. Speaker, when former prime minister Harper took over, there was a massive backlog in the parent and grandparent category that they took over from the Liberals, around 150,000 people. We were left with the mess that they left. It was the same thing in every single category. What we actually did was put a temporary pause on the parent and grandparent application process, and then we cleared the entire backlog. He is standing here and trying to say that everything was rosy under a Liberal government and then, somehow, things changed. I know I am not allowed to use certain words in this place but what he is saying is worse than categorically false.
Mr. Speaker, that is just factually incorrect. I was the critic at the time. If the member was there, he would know that, actually, the waiting times to get a spouse through was years in the Harper era. The Harper government literally cancelled the parent and grandparent sponsorship program. The reason they cancelled it is that it was such a disaster that it took up to seven years to sponsor a parent or grandparent to come to Canada. Harper was a disaster on immigration as a whole.
Would the member not confess to the reality of the situation? After all, he was there and I am sure he can recall that.
Mr. Speaker, I confess that the member lives in an alternate reality, because this was how they set up the parent and grandparent program: An unlimited number of people could apply, then they let in 14,000 people. All of those other people went on a waiting list. The next year, they would open it up. An unlimited number of people could apply, and they would let 14,000 in. All the rest went on a waiting list, and so on and so on. That is how they managed the parent and grandparent category. It was an absolute mess. We had to clean it up. Guess what, a Conservative government is going to clean up a lot of messes, including—
Mr. Speaker, it is good to rise in the House again after some time in my riding speaking with constituents and hearing directly from Canadians. It is always a privilege to stand here and debate legislation that touches not only on national policy but also on the very fabric of what it means to be Canadian.
We are debating Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This bill speaks to Canadian identity itself and to the value of Canadian identity. Let us be clear. Canadian citizenship is not just a piece of paper or a passport. It is also a promise. It is a promise of loyalty, commitment and shared responsibility. It represents hard-won freedoms and responsibilities that generations of Canadians have defended and cherished.
Conservatives have always believed that citizenship must be fair, secure and meaningful. It must reflect a genuine connection to this country, not just in words but also in participation and commitment. Unfortunately, Bill C-3 undermines these principles.
There are parts of the bill we do support. We agree that the adopted children of Canadian citizens born abroad should be treated equally with biological children. That is fair, just and long overdue. We also agree that the injustice done to lost Canadians, those Canadians who fell through the gaps in the law through no fault of their own, must be corrected. These are people who grew up here, worked here, paid taxes and lived as Canadians and who should never have been in doubt. Fixing those wrongs is the right thing to do.
However, where this bill fails, and fails profoundly, is in its removal of the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent and its replacement with a flimsy so-called substantial connection test. That safeguard, introduced by the previous Conservative government in 2009, was put in place for good reason. We saw, in 2006, what happens when citizenship can be passed down endlessly without connection. During the Lebanon conflict, thousands of Canadians of convenience, people with little or no real ties to Canada, sought evacuation at enormous cost to Canadian taxpayers. Nearly $94 million was spent bringing 14,000 people to safety, many of whom returned abroad as soon as the crisis ended. That incident showed us the danger of limitless citizenship inheritance. The first-generation limit was a necessary, reasonable measure to protect the value of Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 throws that safeguard out the window.
Under the Liberals' new connection test, a parent could pass on citizenship if they lived in Canada for just 1,095 nonconsecutive days at any point in their life. That could mean three years spent here decades ago as a student before moving abroad permanently. That is not a substantial connection. It is one under the Liberals' plan, but it is not a real substantial connection. This is a brief chapter, not a life, yet this bill treats it as equal to the lifelong commitment of Canadians who build communities, raise families and invest in our future here. It is not fair, equal or responsible. What message does this send to newcomers who follow every rule, study for and pass the citizenship test, meet the residency requirements and undergo full security checks? These individuals invest years of their lives in Canada before earning citizenship. Meanwhile, under this bill, others could inherit citizenship automatically without ever paying taxes, speaking an official language or engaging in Canadian society. That is a two-tier system and it devalues the hard work of genuine immigrants.
There are also serious security implications. Bill C-3 does not require a criminal background check for those inheriting citizenship under this so-called connection. Conservatives proposed reasonable amendments to address this, including measures to exclude those with serious criminal records. The Liberals voted them down. At a time when Canadians are concerned about public safety, this is entirely reckless.
Let us be clear about the costs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has warned that this change could create over 115,000 new citizens almost immediately, many of whom live permanently abroad, but we have no idea what the real numbers are. Processing these cases will cost at least $21 million up front, with far higher long-term costs to health care, pensions and other services. Canadians who work hard and pay taxes their whole lives will be asked to subsidize citizens of convenience who have never contributed a dime to our country.
Meanwhile, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is already overwhelmed. Constituents across this country tell us about endless delays for visitor visas, family reunifications and citizenship ceremonies. The Ontario Superior Court has even ruled that the IRCC has a 50% error rate in processing, yet the Liberals want to add tens of thousands of new cases with no plan, no resources and no clear analysis of the impact.
Peer countries are far more cautious. The United States, United Kingdom, France and Italy all limit citizenship by descent to the first generation abroad. Canada is an outlier under this Liberal scheme and not in a good way. As immigration lawyers and experts have warned, this bill is a reckless response to a flawed court ruling and extends citizenship far beyond any reasonable connection.
Canadian citizenship is precious. It is not an insurance policy for those who want to live abroad and return only when trouble strikes. It is not a convenience for those who want benefits without responsibility. It must mean more. Conservatives oppose aspects of this bill because it cheapens Canadian citizenship, undermines fairness and exposes taxpayers to enormous risk. We do not even know what the extent of the risk is because no analysis has been done. We support targeted reforms for adopted children and lost Canadians, but we reject the removal of the first-generation safeguard.
Former Liberal minister Lucienne Robillard once said that we ought “to share our citizenship with those who want it and work hard to deserve it.” Conservatives agree. Canadian citizenship must be earned, not given away like candy or Liberal promises. Citizenship is not just a document. It is a commitment to Canada, its people and its future. Only common-sense Conservatives will ensure that it remains strong, meaningful and respected around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a hypothetical example that reflects the reality in many ways.
Let us say we have Anna, a member of the Canadian Forces posted overseas. During her posting overseas, she has a child. Then she comes back to Canada with her child. As the years go by, her child gets a job opportunity in Europe. As a direct result of that, if her daughter has a child, questions about citizenship would be raised.
Does the member believe the grandchild of Anna, a member of the Canadian Forces who had the posting overseas, is a Canadian?
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deal with hypotheticals. There are all sorts of hypotheticals we could weave together to make some sort of narrative. I am not going to do that.
These things will be dealt with as they come up through the courts, as you know. I am not going to deal with hypotheticals. I can come up with 10 dozen hypotheticals for you too.
Just before we continue, on the word “you”, questions go through the Speaker. I will not be responding.
The member for Long Range Mountains.
Mr. Speaker, the requirement for the criminal record check is not written within the legislation. This is something that I am extremely concerned about. It is something that I hear.
I am just curious if my colleague would like to speak to that or expand on that a bit more. I would give him the opportunity to respond if this is a concern that he also has.
Mr. Speaker, the answer presents itself in our history.
We have let numerous people who should not be here through. Often, the problem is the lack of criminal record check. We must safeguard our borders. We have to do that for our own sake and we have to do it for international reasons. We cannot simply open the gates and let people in without any sort of criminal record check at all.
Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member advise the House if, in his review of this legislation, he has seen a plan to solve the new influx of citizenship applications, if we are going to add 30% more in just five years?
Mr. Speaker, there has been no analysis. We have no idea whether it is 30%. We have no idea what the actual number of new Canadian citizens will be, and this is at a time when our immigration system is buckling, frankly, from too many people coming in. To add to that is reckless, as I said in the speech. It is irresponsible and it is reckless. There has been no analysis done whatsoever.
This is kind of the way the Liberal government has operated: Do things because they sound good on paper, without any analysis. They end up creating a new disaster. There are several disasters that we are dealing with right now because of that problem.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the hypothetical example that I gave to the member.
Often, when we look at legislation, we reflect on the need for that legislation based on what is happening abroad or in our communities. I have a legitimate question and I ask the member for, at the very least, his own personal opinion. In the case that I raised about Anna, should her grandson or granddaughter be allowed to have Canadian citizenship? She should not have to go to a court to make that determination. We are saying, yes, Anna's granddaughter or grandson would in fact be able to have Canadian citizenship.
Does the member believe that should be the case?
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make a judgment on a hypothetical. Again, a hypothetical question has been put to me that I have no answer for. The courts certainly do have an answer for it.
I would simply ask the member to reflect on some of the people we have let in who should not be here.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3 and the transformative power of Canadian citizenship. Fundamentally, this bill is about people from real families, as well as their history, their sacrifices and their deep and lasting ties with Canada, regardless of where their careers or lives take them.
In my role as an MP since 2015, I have had the opportunity to meet many families in my riding who were reunited through immigration. I did not experience that with my own family. The Lauzons in Notre‑Dame‑de‑la‑Paix, Petite‑Nation and Gatineau have no family ties with people in other nations. However, I have been able to learn about this through the cases that we have handled in my office and through the assistance that we have been able to provide to families. We have seen how important family reunification is.
Fundamentally, this bill is about people from real families. Citizenship is a legal status, of course, but more than that, it is about belonging to a diverse, welcoming community bound by shared democratic values. This is something that reaches across borders and, in an ideal world, we would be able to unite all families, but that is not possible. However, in today's interconnected world, where migration and mobility are facts of modern life in Canada, we have a chance, as Canadians, to lead by example and show the rest of the world how important family unification is.
While some countries are restricting access to citizenship, Canada is taking a more principled approach, one that embraces diversity, cross-border families and the lasting ties Canadians have abroad. Many Canadians live and work abroad in international development, the arts, culture, science, education, global commerce or humanitarian aid, to name a few. These citizens have their own deep ties to Canada, often returning here to raise their children, care for loved ones and create new communities. Ensuring that their children, whether born or adopted abroad, can share in this identity is not only a matter of fairness, it also strengthens our country's unity and global reach.
Today, I want to share with the House what new Canadians have told us about the importance of their citizenship, what they have told me since 2015. We have had conversations with new Canadian families about the importance of reuniting children and grandchildren, about the impact citizenship has had and about how we must continue to protect the rights, responsibilities and shared value of citizenship. Becoming a Canadian is a privilege, and it is often described as a source of great pride.
Our government carefully designed this bill to fill a gap that has existed since 2009. People are proud to call Canada their home and proud of the journey they took to get here. Becoming a Canadian citizen represents the culmination of years of sacrifice, hard work and perseverance, not only by individuals, but often by their entire families. A lot of compromises may have had to be made, sorely testing these families. Gaining citizenship is also a moment for connection and community, a chance to be part of something bigger than ourselves. Many members of the House have seen first-hand the emotional impact of this moment. Newcomers, often with their children by their side, hold their certificates with pride, knowing that their family's future is more secure here, in this wonderful country.
This sense of pride transcends borders. People all over the world would love the opportunity to make Canada their home. For those fleeing conflict, persecution or hardship, Canadian citizenship represents a fresh start, a new life, a second chance at life. Most people see it as a privilege and do not take it lightly. New citizens often express how profoundly grateful they are. People often talk about the opportunities that Canada has to offer, especially when it comes to education, health care and peace. These pillars of Canadian life are the cornerstones of a better future, not only for new citizens themselves, but also for their children and future generations.
Whether through volunteering, participating in local cultural events or simply getting to know their neighbours, new Canadians play an active role in strengthening the fabric of our society. They embody Canada's spirit of generosity and contribute to the success of their communities in many ways. We all have people like this in our lives today, especially as federal MPs in Ottawa.
As a government, we must remain vigilant to ensure that Canadian citizenship remains a symbol of inclusiveness, fairness and security, as well as a commitment to those values.
Why is Bill C‑3 important for me? It is the reason why we introduced this bill. It is to ensure that access to citizenship remains fair and transparent. At a time when disinformation and division can threaten confidence in public institutions, Canada must show that its commitment to fairness extends across borders.
Providing thoughtful and inclusive pathways to citizenship beyond the first generation affirms that Canadian identity is shaped not only by place of birth but also by connection, contribution and values. The government's role is not limited to protecting the rights of Canadian citizens. It must also clarify the citizenship process and pass laws that take equality and inclusion into account.
This bill aims to automatically remedy the status of individuals who would have been Canadians were it not for the first-generation limit. It also creates a forward-looking new framework for citizenship by descent. In the future, children born abroad beyond the first generation will be eligible for citizenship if their Canadian parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. In the future, as long as the Canadian parent who was born abroad spends a cumulative total of three years in Canada before the birth of their child, their child will also be born a citizen.
The objective and structure of the Citizenship Act have been that children adopted abroad by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadians are treated as similarly as possible, and this will continue to be the case after Bill C‑3 comes into force.
The great privilege of Canadian citizenship comes with great responsibility. It is a responsibility to engage, to contribute and to build on the values that make our country what it is. Citizenship is not just a destination. It is a journey and a commitment to community, justice and mutual respect.
In conclusion, Canadian citizenship is an important and emotional occasion. It is a privilege that comes with opportunities and gratitude, along with a responsibility to uphold the values that unite us. Citizenship is not just a legal matter. It is a reflection of who we are and who we include. By passing Bill C‑3, we are choosing connection over exclusion and fairness over restriction. We are telling Canadians around the world and their children that their ties to our country are important, that their history, their contribution and their sense of belonging are part of what makes Canada strong.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we often see that the Liberals do not plan into the future with legislation they bring to the House.
We often hear of indigenous people speaking about the consideration of seven generations into the future. Can the member opposite tell me what work his government has done to determine how many new citizens of Canada the legislation would create seven generations into the future, and what the numbers are of new citizens it would bring in seven generations into the future? Surely the government must have looked at this to see what the numbers are.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to answer my colleague's question.
We are talking about family reunification, about a government that cares deeply about helping families reunite. That being said, I would like my colleague to answer a specific question. How many families have not been able to be together since 2009, when the Harper government made changes to the family class rules?
Those measures broke families apart. Now we are trying to fix the Harper government's mistakes.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is with regard to the importance of the legislation, in particular with respect to lost Canadians. Lost Canadians should have Canadian citizenship, which I think all members agree on; at least I believe that to be the case.
I would ask him to comment on the importance of passing the legislation so those individuals in particular would be able to get their citizenship.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Family reunification is an important value for Canadians, and it is part of the Liberal DNA. One of the primary reasons I entered politics in 2015 is that we are a welcoming country. Canada is known for being inclusive, and we are there for all communities.
Personally, I had the good fortune to live surrounded by family, an entirely Quebec Canadian family whose members all lived roughly in the same area. Since 2015, however, I have been deeply moved by the countless applications from people in my riding that allowed us to help several families reunite, including reuniting children with their parents. To me, that is the essence of life itself.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks of past mistakes made by the Conservatives. I have to tell him, in all honesty, that what the Liberals have done over the past 10 years is make one mistake after nother. They welcomed so many people to Canada that now they are forced to send some back, like the temporary foreign workers.
We are hearing heart-wrenching horror stories about families being separated, about people who have been here for years, working and contributing to Canadian society. We are being accused of things we did 15 years ago. In reality, we did not do what we are being accused of, yet my colleague has been making mistakes for the past 10 years and is still making mistakes today as we debate this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to brush up on his history. It was decisions made in 2009 that led to a generational break in family reunification. It was written into the law. I cannot make this stuff up. That was when the value placed on family reunification and Canadian citizenship began to be reduced. Today, a court ruling is forcing us to introduce a bill to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, respect human rights and correct the mistakes of the past.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: 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]
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Ottawa Centre
Mr. Speaker, I really hope all members had a fantastic summer in their home communities. Mine was no different. I had some quality time with my family, especially my kids. I also had a lot of engagement with my constituents. In particular, I really took the time to listen to my constituents in terms of their views about the upcoming budget that will be tabled soon in the House.
I sent a householder to all of my constituents and received hundreds of responses back. When it comes to building a strong economy for today and tomorrow, the residents of Ottawa Centre want us to break down internal trade barriers. They want us to invest in nation-building projects and expand trading relationships, not to mention supporting workers through more apprenticeships and training.
My constituents also want to make sure that we are doing everything possible to lower the cost of essentials, speed up the construction of affordable homes and improve access to health care, including mental and dental care services. My constituents want us to have strong partnership with our allies and keep investing in our security—
[Translation]
Ken Dryden
In 1971, after playing only six games in the NHL, Ken Dryden won the Stanley Cup and the Conn Smythe Trophy, which is awarded to the best players in the playoffs. That was the first of six Stanley Cups won in an eight-year career with the Montreal Canadiens. The following year, he was named rookie of the year, a feat that has never been matched.
He is well known for his characteristic stance, leaning on his goalie stick while watching his teammates buzz around the opposing net. By the end of his career, he had won five Vezina trophies, awarded to the league's best goaltender. He also played for Canada during the 1972 Summit Series against the Soviet Union. His accomplishments on and off the ice are nothing short of remarkable.
Mr. Dryden was more than just an athlete. He had a law degree. He was elected as the member of Parliament for York Centre and served as minister of social development. Mr. Dryden left an indelible mark on our society. He will always be remembered as a symbol of success, a great Canadian.
[English]
Guelph General Hospital
Mr. Speaker, on August 16, Guelph General Hospital celebrated 150 years of service to Guelph and Wellington County. What began with just 12 beds and three nurses has grown into a cornerstone of care for more than 200,000 people in our region. Through its expansions and innovations over the years, Guelph General Hospital has always shown an unwavering commitment to care for the patients and families at the heart of their mission.
To everyone who has contributed to this legacy, the nurses, doctors and all of the staff, volunteers, leaders, and donors past and present, I give my thanks. Day after day, decade after decade, they have given their time, expertise and mostly their hearts to others. This milestone belongs to them.
The next chapter begins now for Guelph General Hospital as it works to secure approval for a new hospital to meet the community's evolving health care needs. This takes patience, perseverance and innovation, but with the spirit that has animated GGH for the last 150 years, we know it is possible.
I send my congratulations to Guelph General.
Conservative Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back for this fall session of Parliament. I continue to be grateful to the people of northwestern Ontario for their continued support.
I am here with our Conservative team to work with all members of the House. We are committed to holding the government to account by opposing what is wrong and proposing alternatives in the national interest. Some of our priorities this fall are addressing the Liberal cost of living crisis, unemployment and rising crime rates. Conservatives are fighting for stronger take-home pay with lower costs and more jobs for Canadians, and fighting for safer streets by locking up criminals and securing our border. We must also ensure we can open the country for business by cutting taxes and approval times on pipelines, mines, LNG and other major projects to support our economy and sovereignty.
In this Parliament, our purpose remains to restore the promise of Canada that hard work earns a good life with affordable food, homes and fuel, as well as safe neighbourhoods. That is what we are fighting to deliver for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Paulette Duguay
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to mark the passing of Paulette Duguay last month in St. Boniface, Manitoba.
[English]
Paulette was a tireless advocate for Métis and French-Canadian communities. She served as president of the Union nationale métisse Saint-Joseph du Manitoba for 10 years, promoting reconciliation, preserving Métis culture and strengthening ties within the francophone community. Her commitment and impact were recognized nationally in 2024, when she received the King Charles III Coronation Medal for her exceptional service.
[Translation]
Ms. Duguay influenced many people through her leadership, the relationships she built and the lives she touched. Her colleagues and friends remember her as a warm, generous and caring person. On behalf of the House, I extend my sincere condolences to her husband, Denis, her family, her friends and the many communities she served with such devotion.
Organizations in Côte‑du‑Sud—Rivière‑du‑Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to proudly recognize several organizations in my riding that are celebrating important anniversaries and that, each in their own way, contribute to the vitality of our communities.
Cercle de fermières de Kamouraska is celebrating its 70th anniversary of sharing knowledge and solidarity. Club des 50 ans et plus de Squatec is celebrating its 50th anniversary, as is Magny-Gym, a shining example of half a century of passion for sport. In Saint‑Pascal, the Club des 50 ans et plus is celebrating 55 years of helping seniors.
C.A.R.E Montmagny-L'Islet is celebrating 25 years of support for individuals and employers, while CDC ICI Montmagny‑L'Islet is celebrating 15 years of community outreach. Popote roulante des Aulnaies has been serving the community for 30 years, as has Tandem-Jeunesse and Symposium de peinture du Kamouraska. These are real cultural and social pillars. Finally, Projektion 16‑35 is celebrating 40 years of supporting young adults.
I want to thank all of these organizations, volunteers and partners for their dedication and congratulate them on these anniversaries, which are a testament to the lasting impact they are making on our communities.
[English]
Local Business in London Centre
Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Colour by Schubert, an extraordinary London business in place since 1982, carrying out custom image framing, restoring trusted images and doing incredible high-quality prints for decades.
The photography world has changed, as we know, but what has never been unwavering is its commitment to its customers and to our community. This is an extraordinary business, and as Roland, Myra and David move towards retirement from the business, I want to thank them for serving our community.
I speak from some experience. Our family has had work done by Colour by Schubert. It has always been the best. I cannot say more about an outstanding business like this. The owners have supported organizations as well throughout the community over these years. They are tremendous people and a testament to the power of entrepreneurship in our community.
We wish Roland, Myra and David nothing but the best.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, promises do not build homes, builders do. The Prime Minister promised Canadians 500,000 new homes per year; instead, he is delivering a new housing bureaucracy that will build just 4,000. It is another Liberal bait and switch.
Housing starts are collapsing, down 49% in the GTA, 65% in Toronto. Even Vancouver is falling. Families are now spending 55% of their income just to keep a roof overhead, the worst in the G7. Homelessness is doubling, and 70% of Canadians say owning a home is impossible.
The Prime Minister says that he is working with local governments to solve this crisis, but municipalities call that nothing more than passing the buck.
Canadians know the truth. The Prime Minister builds bureaucracy, not homes. Canadians cannot live in promises. They need homes.
[Translation]
Michel Bolduc
Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Michel Bolduc in the House today because he has been an important pillar of Mont‑Laurier's social fabric for over 30 years. As a social worker with certification in the areas of mental health and addictions, Michel Bolduc has been an authority on homelessness in Quebec.
I had the privilege of working with him for many years, and I have seen how he never gives up. When he meets someone who is experiencing homelessness, he does not look on them with contempt and pass them by. He treats them with kindness and compassion. For 30 years, Maison Lyse-Beauchamp has been helping with six buildings, 38,000 meals served, 16,000 overnight stays and no fewer than 66 employees.
Congratulations to Michel for everything he has done for these people.
[English]
Rail Safety Week
Mr. Speaker, railways make the transportation of essential goods possible and are crucial to our nation's supply chain. However, every year, hundreds of incidents happen at railway crossings and along tracks, many of which are preventable.
This week, we celebrate and observe Rail Safety Week, and I want to highlight the important work of Operation Lifesaver. This is a national program dedicated to promoting rail safety and preventing accidents.
This is a moment to remind everyone to remain careful near the tracks. Let us commit to making our communities safer by supporting Operation Lifesaver's message and practising rail safety each and every day.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, in Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee and across Canada, families are being crushed by the cost of living crisis. After 10 long years of the same old Liberal government, everything costs more: groceries, rent, mortgages, gas and everyday essentials that Canadians rely on. The Prime Minister asked to be judged on the cost of food at the grocery store, and the verdict is not good.
I hear from parents forced to choose between paying bills and feeding their kids, and from seniors cutting back on medication just to make ends meet. The high cost of living is not just about dollars and cents; it is about people's lives. It fuels anxiety, despair and a growing mental health crisis. These heartbreaking choices are not normal, and they should never be acceptable in Canada. Hard-working Canadians deserve better.
While local food banks do heroic work, they are filling gaps left by Liberal failure, and they are no substitution for leadership. Conservatives would cut taxes, bring down inflation and make life affordable again.
Firefighters' National Memorial Day
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Firefighters' National Memorial Day, which falls yearly on the second Sunday of September. Across Canada, more than 1,000 firefighters have died in the line of duty, including 353 Toronto firefighters. They will not be forgotten.
This summer, I had the pleasure of visiting fire stations and meeting firefighters across my riding of Don Valley North, a community fortunate enough to have four fire stations. I want to take this occasion to acknowledge their professionalism and commitment to keeping us safe. Every day, they stand ready to run into danger to save lives and livelihoods.
We owe firefighters and their families an enduring debt of gratitude, and I thank them for their service, their sacrifice and their unwavering dedication to safeguarding Canadians across the country.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, a ship without power or anchor will inevitably hit the rocks. Since the Liberals took over, Canada's GDP growth is the worst in the G7, clearly without power. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer stated, “I don't know if the government currently has fiscal anchors”. Without power or anchor, the Prime Minister has Canada's fiscal future headed for the rocks.
The PBO also stated that “the labour market sucks” and “wages are not going up”. He said, “At this point, it's impossible for us, and for you as parliamentarians, to assess the likelihood or probability of the government hitting any fiscal target.”
Since the Prime Minister took office, federal spending has gone up 8.4%. He boosted consultants by 37% and boosted spending on bureaucrats by 6%. Justin Trudeau left a deficit of $42 billion. This PM's platform raised that to $62 billion. Some estimate it could cost double. It is time to ship around—
[Translation]
Luguentz Dort
Mr. Speaker, the NBA's Larry O'Brien trophy weighs more than 20 pounds. How do I know that? It is because the trophy was brought home to my riding of Bourassa. Luguentz Dort, who faced off against his childhood friend Bennedict Mathurin, brought the trophy home to Bourassa. We really had it back home in Bourassa.
He also brought back hope. He brought back pride for young people in Bourassa. He also brought back a clear message about the need for infrastructure. It is unacceptable that over 40,000 young people in Bourassa have to train at night in another riding in order to have access to infrastructure or a sports complex.
Luguentz Dort brought back hope and pride, but he also brought back a clear message: Now, more than ever, the riding of Bourassa also has the right to a sports complex.
[English]
Prime Minister of Canada
Mr. Speaker, after six months, the Prime Minister's record can be summed up as “promises made, promises broken”. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7; instead, he has delivered the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. The Prime Minister promised jobs and investment; he has killed 86,000 jobs and presided over a massive outflow of investment. The Prime Minister promised to spend less; it turns out, deficit spending has doubled. The Prime Minister promised nation-building projects; the record shows there are no new permits, no new projects, and I could go on.
Promise after promise is made; promise after promise is broken. With the Prime Minister, it is a broken record of broken promises. Canadians deserve so much better.
Canadian Film Industry
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Kunsang Kyirong and the cast and crew of her debut feature film, 100 Sunset. The movie premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and won honourable mention for the Best Canadian Discovery Award.
100 Sunset is set in a pair of apartment buildings in the Parkdale neighbourhood in our riding. It is brought to life by non-professional Tibetan Canadian actors. In the words of the award jury, “we experience the gossip, rivalries, and intrigues through the eyes of an observant young thief who rarely speaks but seems to register everything.” I saw the movie two weeks ago, and it is still with me. It is an intimate exploration of the Tibetan Canadian immigrant experience.
100 Sunset was also screened last week at the Revue Cinema in the Roncesvalles area of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, where hundreds of members of our community joined in celebration to see their friends and family on the big screen. It is hitting more screens in Canada next year.
How did all of this happen? Three years ago, Kunsang Kyirong was able to make this film through support she received from Telefilm Canada's talent to watch program. She is a brilliant Canadian artist supported by an essential Canadian institution.
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal soft-on-crime policy, violent crime is up 50%, sexual assault is up 75%, and gun crime is up 116%. Just about everybody in this country is demanding bail reform, yet the Liberals block it at every turn. Every single day that they delay, more rapists, gangsters and repeat offenders are dumped back on our streets to victimize innocent Canadians.
Why are the Liberals obstructing fixing the broken bail system and choosing to shield dangerous criminals rather than protecting Canadian families? Why do they not do something about it today?
Mr. Speaker, with respect to my hon. colleague, I am sure she knows that we are moving forward with bail reform legislation that will be tabled in the House this fall. I had the opportunity yesterday to connect with a number of my critics, including the Conservative critic, to discuss items of mutual concern. Our belief on this side of the House is that we need to strengthen our bail laws and our sentencing laws to ensure that dangerous people who commit serious crimes and pose a public safety threat are not left to roam free on our streets.
Mr. Speaker, the minister voted for all the things to break our system. The now public safety minister actually said during the election that bail was not a problem, and the justice minister who just answered my question ridiculed Canadians with his Twitter hot takes. After years of headlines about violent offenders released again and again in our streets, the Liberals are obstructing a real solution, right now, to fixing bail. On Monday, they have a chance to vote for the “three strikes and you're out” law to end repeat violent offenders being churned out onto the streets.
Do the Liberals really think Canadians should wait for the next murder, the next assault or the next victim? They should act now.
Mr. Speaker, we agree that we need to take action to ensure that violent repeat offenders are not left on our streets. However, it is curious, the strategy that the Conservatives have chosen. The law they are putting forward now has been shown to be a failure in every jurisdiction in which it has been tried. It is a theory that has come directly out of the United States. I do not know if the opposition was paying attention during the recent election campaign, but Canadians very much want laws to be developed in Canada.
This is Canada, not the United States, and the citizens I represent in Central Nova would very much like to keep it that way.
Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of passing catch-and-release laws that turn criminals loose on our streets, the Liberals are now obstructing “jail, not bail” laws. In Nova Scotia, a man sexually assaulted more than 300 children and within hours was released on bail. This is outrageous. The same violent criminals are cycling through the system again and again. That is why our Conservative motion would bring a “three strikes and you're out” law, with no bail after three serious convictions.
On Monday, will the Liberals stop obstructing Parliament and pass it?
Mr. Speaker, the circumstances my hon. colleague raises clearly engage heinous crimes that need to be taken absolutely seriously. I spent a number of the last few months meeting with law enforcement, meeting with people who work within the criminal justice system and meeting with people who have dedicated their lives and careers to improving public safety in this country. Not one of them has come forward with the recommendation that we should adopt the Conservatives' approach to this particular issue.
We will use evidence and we will work with the stakeholders who know what they are talking about to advance solutions that would actually make Canada a safer place. I hope the Conservatives will work with us.
Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals really wanted to crack down on crime, they would not cling to their catch-and-release laws that let repeat violent offenders back on our streets. For years, premiers, police chiefs and mayors across the country have been pleading with the government, while it defends laws that let criminals back on our streets. Enough is enough. Our motion is clear: after three violent convictions, no bail, no parole and no house arrest.
Will the Liberals stop obstructing Parliament and pass “jail, not bail” this Monday, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, speaking of legislation, there is legislation before this House as we speak: Bill C-2, which would secure our borders, deal with the scourge of fentanyl and bring order to our immigration system. That member has had many opportunities to get tough on crime by voting for Bill C-2. Where has he been?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Liberals have been pursing soft-on-crime policies with lenient sentences and a catch-and-release approach that puts dangerous repeat offenders back on our streets, often within hours of being arrested. As a result, violent crime has increased by 55%, while dangerous repeat offenders roam our streets freely instead of serving their sentences behind bars.
Why does this Liberal Prime Minister continue to protect violent criminals instead of protecting Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the initiatives my colleague, the Minister of Justice, just outlined, we are studying a very important bill, Bill C-2, which will give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to fight crime. We are talking about fentanyl, firearms smuggling and transnational gangs. This will have a direct impact on our communities and on safety in our streets. We will always be there to keep Canadians safe.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to protect Canadians, but instead they are weakening our laws, paving the way for repeat offenders and blocking meaningful solutions proposed by the opposition.
Our motion today is very clear: Three serious offences and game over. No bail, no house arrest, no probation. They get 10 years behind bars to protect Canadian families.
When will this government finally protect and prioritize Canadians and support the Conservative's “three strikes” law?
Mr. Speaker, what the constituents in the Lower St. Lawrence, and I dare say even the Conservative constituents in the Lower St. Lawrence, want to know is whether Parliament can function. They want to know if Parliament can function well enough to crack down on crime, implement reforms, prevent firearms from crossing our borders and deal with the issues, the scourge of drugs on our streets. The hon. member has the opportunity to vote in favour of a bill. He has had numerous opportunities to vote for Bill C‑2, which will clean up our legal system, which will clean up our system—
Justice
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' bias against Quebec's laws is clear from their stance against the notwithstanding clause. Ottawa's response is beyond belief. In its factum, the federal government justifies its attack against the notwithstanding clause by bringing up the possibility that Quebec could use it to “allow arbitrary executions or slavery”. Let me start by reassuring the government that Quebec has no interest in slavery or firing squads.
Now, when will the federal government withdraw its disrespectful factum and its unreasonable objection to the notwithstanding clause?
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this case raises issues that are of national interest. It is appropriate and essential for the federal government to defend our charter.
As the member is aware, this matter is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the appropriate forum for making arguments.
Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause in Quebec has been used to protect fundamental aspects of Quebec's identity, such as the French language and secularism, but it has also been used for much more utilitarian purposes in other areas, such as small claims court and employment equity.
To suggest that Quebec would use the notwithstanding clause to authorize slavery, executions and censorship and ban places of worship exposes the federal government's total contempt in this matter.
When will Ottawa stop using the courts to carry out its crusade against Quebec's laws?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I am a member from Quebec. The member opposite knows full well that our government is the party of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Again, our government protects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will always do so.
The member opposite, all members and all the citizens who elected us in our respective ridings, all Canadians, men and women, old and young, have enjoyed these Charter rights and freedoms for 43 years now.
This government knows it is our responsibility to defend one of the pillars—
Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause was the condition without which the provinces would never have signed the 1982 Constitution. For Quebec, who never signed the Constitution, the provision remained too weak a safeguard against the federal government's desire to subject Quebeckers to a centralized Canadian authority.
Today, that same weak safeguard is too much for Ottawa. The Liberals want to weaken the notwithstanding clause to the point of being meaningless. This is not a legal battle unfolding at the Supreme Court. This is a political battle against Quebec.
Will Ottawa back off?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that the federal government's intervention before the Supreme Court will not prevent any province or territory from continuing to use the notwithstanding clause. That is very clear. She knows that. If there are any concerns, I will be happy to sit down with the member and organize a presentation with the Department of Justice and myself.
Our intervention serves to protect Canadians' rights. These rights have been guaranteed for 43 years. This is sacred to Canadians across the country, from Newfoundland and Labrador to the Yukon.
[English]
Canada Border Services Agency
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in Mexico this week, and when Mexico decided to get serious about its border, it deployed 10,000 new personnel in a matter of days. At the same time, the Prime Minister promised Canadians he would hire 1,000 new border officers.
I have a very simple question for the Minister of Public Safety: How many officers have been hired and are deployed today?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of hiring 1,000 new customs officers and 1,000 additional RCMP personnel. We are already seeing a dramatic drop in illegal imports of firearms and fentanyl.
We are keeping our promises, and we will soon have the personnel we need to do this work.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in all that, I did not hear a number, but let me give him the number. The information disclosed to the House by the Canada Border Services Agency says the Liberals have hired zero new officers. It gets worse. Not only have they not hired any officers; they do not even have a plan to hire any officers.
My question again is, when will they hire border officers?
[Translation]
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, people in Windsor and across this nation are tired of feeling unsafe and under siege in their own communities. For 10 years, the Liberals have pushed catch and release. Violent repeat offenders are arrested and then are back on the streets, sometimes within hours. My former colleagues in policing are tired of arresting the same criminals over and over again. The Conservatives have a clear solution: “three strikes and you're out”. People out there are demanding jail, not bail.
Mr. Speaker, I have immense respect for my colleague's service and that of his colleagues. However, I disagree with a number of the points he made. He referred to policies of the Liberal government, but he may not appreciate that the very policies he criticizes made it harder for people charged with intimate partner violence to get bail and made it harder for people to avoid sentencing when it came to serious crimes such as attempted murder or torture.
We are going to move forward with made-in-Canada solutions, informed by experts who understand the context in this country, to determine what will keep our country safe.
Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of passing catch-and-release laws that turn criminals loose on our streets, the Liberals are obstructing the passage of common-sense jail-not-bail proposals. Violent crime is up 55%. In Niagara, residents were horrified when they heard the news of Daniel Senecal breaking into a Welland home and sexually assaulting a three-year-old girl while her family slept.
On Monday, will the Liberals accept our common-sense proposal on criminal justice reform and pass our Conservative “three strikes and you're out” bill?
Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House has a great deal of empathy, and nobody wants to see animals like that on our streets. This is why this government, our new government, has three initiatives in front of us. The first is the strong borders act. The second is bail reform. The third is safe zone, hate zone legislation. These three initiatives have one objective: to go after the bad guys and put them away. The question is, will the Conservatives back us in being tough on crime?
Mr. Speaker, the cities of Welland, St. Catharines and Niagara Falls have all indicated that our justice system fails Canadians when repeat violent offenders are allowed back onto our streets. That is why common-sense Conservatives have proposed a jail-not-bail law, a “three strikes and you're out” bill and more. Today, I will introduce a bill that proposes to keep monsters like Paul Bernardo locked up in maximum security where they belong.
Will the Liberals support our common-sense justice reforms to restore Canadians' confidence in our criminal justice system?
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear an answer from the hon. member as to whether he was going to support our tough-on-crime legislation. That is part one. I guess the canned answer he had prepared beforehand did not prepare him for that, so that is okay.
Here is the good news: We have the strong borders act that would hire 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP officers to go after the bad guys and put them away.
Government Accountability
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, the dream of home ownership has been pushed out of reach, with home ownership now costing 55% of Canadians' pre-tax income. Meanwhile, the Liberals are at secret cash for access fundraisers with developers, bankers and lobbyists, but their conversations have not been reported to the lobbying commissioner.
Before these insider deals drive prices even higher, will Liberals tell us which members and which ministers attended?
Mr. Speaker, as we know, Canada has some of the toughest ethics and fundraising guidelines in the entire world. The Liberal Party of Canada has in the past surpassed those guidelines, and the Liberal Party of Canada will always apply the rules and make sure we follow the rules. We hope that the Conservatives can say the same.
Mr. Speaker, members should not take my word for it. As reported in The Globe and Mail, let us see what the commissioner has to say, “[The commissioner] has complained in the past that some lobbyists and their clients use caucus and cabinet retreats as an opportunity to mingle with politicians without declaring the conversations to her office.” This is happening at the same time as the Liberal Prime Minister has made sure that the Liberals' fundraising events are now, as a rule, closed to the media, closed to any scrutiny by the public. We are talking about the Prime Minister. We are talking about ministers.
We want to know who was in the meeting, so we can find out who is going to get rich.
Mr. Speaker, for years, the former member for Carleton skulked around the country without telling anyone where the Conservatives' fundraising events were, while we were publishing them on our website. The Liberal Party has in the past exceeded the rules and guidelines for these activities. The Conservative Party has not always risen to that high standard. We hope it does.
[Translation]
Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, nothing is too good for the monarchy. The Governor General, yes her again, billed taxpayers $1,117 for shoes and nearly $7,500 for clothing last year.
Meanwhile, Quebeckers are talking to us about the cost of groceries. How are we supposed to explain to taxpayers that they have to pay for the high heels of a monarch who earns $400,000 a year while they are struggling to cope with skyrocketing inflation?
The Governor General, like all of her predecessors, has a compulsive shopping problem. When will the government take away her credit card?
Mr. Speaker, the Governor General does important work by representing Canada at home and abroad. The Governor General's annual budget was approved by Parliament and the spending related to this position is made public.
We know that Canadians expect all public funds to be spent responsibly, and this is something that our government takes seriously. We hope that a woman can decide what she needs to buy.
Mr. Speaker, the other ministers do not spend thousands of dollars. They may spend $100 on a pair of boots, but not thousands of dollars. Her salary is $400,000 a year. At that rate, she can afford to buy her own shoes.
In 2023 and 2024 alone, the position of Governor General and her entire royal entourage cost taxpayers $59 million. That is $59 million wasted in one year to maintain the luxurious lifestyle of a symbol that could be replaced by a stamp; $59 million for a symbol of domination by a foreign sovereign.
When is the government going to put a stop to this?
[English]
Finance
Mr. Speaker, in the not too distant past, the Liberal Party used to be the party of fiscal responsibility. I remember when former finance minister Paul Martin promised to balance the budget “come hell or high water”. Now Liberal deficits are causing inflation, and Canadians are paying the price.
My question for the current finance minister is this: How much is this year's budget deficit, and will the Liberals ever balance the budget again?
Mr. Speaker, I know Paul Martin. I worked with Paul Martin. The MP is not Paul Martin. I can assure him that the Conservative Party is not the party of fiscal responsibility. It is the party that had an outrageously expensive spending proposal in its platform, which was rejected in the last election.
We are building the strongest economy in the G7. We are going to get the budget into operating balance. We are going to work to create opportunities in this country. Paul Martin would be proud of that.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comparison, but I did not hear an answer in all of that. In last year's fall economic statement, the budget deficit was $62 billion. A deficit of $62 billion was so embarrassing that the finance minister had to resign that morning rather than deliver the bad news.
I will ask the current finance minister again, how much is this year's budget deficit, and how high does it have to be before he resigns from embarrassment?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have made it abundantly clear that Canada's new government has a renewed focus on fiscal discipline and that budget 2025 will have strong fiscal anchors.
Budget 2025, in fact, will refocus government spending on operations while making transformational investments in housing, defence and infrastructure. Those generational investments will get a return for Canadians. That return comes in the form of good-paying jobs for generations to come. That is how we build Canada strong. That is what Canadians voted for.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, I received an email to my office recently. Part of it said that the person went to Kingsville to buy some apples and picked out six apples of average size. The price was $8.50 for six apples. They left the apples and left the store without making a purchase.
The Prime Minister is another bait-and-switch Liberal with more broken promises. After half a year to bring down food prices and the deficit, will the Prime Minister commit today to getting inflation under control, or is his message to my constituents “How do you like them apples”?
Mr. Speaker, this week I had the pleasure of meeting with the Canadian Teachers' Federation. One of its top priorities is the national school food program: healthy meals for over 400,000 kids, saving parents up to $800 a year in groceries. Every single province has signed on.
Conservatives claim to care about food security, but at every opportunity, they vote against teachers, families and kids who know that providing healthy meals in schools is the right thing to do.
Employment
Mr. Speaker, Windsor has an unemployment rate of 11.1%, the highest in Canada. The Prime Minister came home empty-handed after tariff negotiations, causing people to tighten their purse strings because of the economic uncertainty that the Liberal government has caused. The women's unemployment rate has increased by 12%, and now more people cannot afford rent, gas and food. Everyone worries about being the next person to get a pink slip.
Which of my colleagues from across the aisle will bring their silver spoons to Windsor to—
Mr. Speaker, 2.6 million Canadian jobs rely on exports to the United States, and Canada has the strongest trade deal of any U.S. partner. Our government is working closely with both the U.S. and Mexico to modernize our supply chains and support Canadian exporters. We are focused on maintaining the benefits of CUSMA, preventing future tariff threats and expanding market access.
Standing up for Canada is what Canadians expect us to do. Standing up for Canada is what our government is doing.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister promised to be elbows up. Instead, he is elbows down. The Liberal statistics show that EI use among women aged 25 to 54 is up 12% in one month. Women are calling me and asking where to find a job that will cover rent or groceries. Liberal economic mismanagement is putting women out of work.
When will people in the B.C. interior see more job openings, not fewer?
Mr. Speaker, this is a government that continues to support measures like child care, a school food program, dental care, a tax cut for 22 million Canadians and eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers. We have a plan to make life more affordable and to create the jobs that are going to create a secure future for families across the country.
Conservatives, at every opportunity, vote against these measures. Why?
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, during the summer, I heard, loud and clear, from workers and investors across Canada that we have what the world needs. They support the goal of our becoming a clean and conventional energy superpower to build our future prosperity.
Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources share how the government is advancing energy and natural resources projects with indigenous rights holders across Canada and diversifying our exports so that we win this trade war?
Mr. Speaker, we are putting “one project, one review” into action. B.C. and the federal government have jointly approved the new Ksi Lisims LNG export terminal, led by the Nisga’a Nation and built with the first nation's own pipeline. This project will be the second-largest private investment in Canada's history and will export low-carbon LNG powered by renewable electricity.
We have doubled the indigenous loan guarantee program, and we are working with our G7 partners to establish a critical minerals production alliance. These measures and more are what will enable Canada to become an energy superpower and win this trade war.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, housing starts have actually declined 16%.
Let us take a look at the Prime Minister's top officials. We have the housing minister, who brought a 150% increase to the price of homes when he was a mayor. We have a new head of a $13-billion housing bureaucracy, a Toronto city councillor who saw a 700% increase to building taxes.
Is it any wonder that housing starts are down and bureaucracy is up, with these two leaders running point?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians made it clear in the last election campaign that it was time to build, and that means building more housing at a pace that has not been seen in generations.
That is why we have launched “build Canada homes”, which will be focused on building and financing affordable housing at a scale not seen in generations. This includes the first tranche of projects: six sites on Canada federal lands that will create 4,000 units. We are also releasing $1 billion for supportive housing and $1.5 billion for the Canada rental protection fund.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are only building more bureaucracy to try to address the housing crisis that they created. At $13 billion to build 4,000 homes, that is $3.2 million per home. It is clear that the more things change, the more they stay the same with the Liberals. It is more bureaucracy, higher deficits and slower homebuilding. We also know that 100,000 construction workers could be out of a job because of the Liberal plan. The Liberals are creating more jobs for bureaucrats in Ottawa and job losses for Canadians across the country.
Why is the Prime Minister continuing with this failed approach?
Mr. Speaker, “build Canada homes” will bring together the right people with the right mandate under one roof.
Importantly, a focus of “build Canada homes” will be to use modern construction methods with Canadian skilled trade workers and Canadian materials. The six sites that we have mentioned are just the first tranche of projects, which will build 4,000 new homes. We are looking to build hundreds of thousands of homes for Canadians.
We look forward to the proposals and the applications from the members opposite for supportive housing in their communities.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to deliver double the number of homes built in Canada, but instead it is down by 16%. It is no surprise. Just look at who the Prime Minister put in charge. The housing minister oversaw a 150% surge in home prices and doubled rent prices when he was the mayor of Vancouver. He even stated on record that home prices should not go down. Now we learn that 100,000 construction jobs could be lost. It is jobs for bureaucrats in Ottawa and job losses for construction workers.
With records like these, why should Canadians believe the government will ever build affordable homes?
Mr. Speaker, our new government has a credible and ambitious plan to tackle the housing crisis and to build at a scale not seen since the Second World War.
We are going to get affordable homes built with “build Canada homes”, which will be using Canadian skilled trades, Canadian materials and modern methods of construction. This is building on the work we have already done to stimulate the housing economy by getting the federal government back into the business of building affordable homes, by cutting the GST for first-time homebuyers and by cutting municipal development charges.
We look forward to doing that work with all members.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is still hurting families. On July 15, the Liberals quietly announced that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, premiums would go up by 3%. Instead of reducing the premiums like we suggested, they increased them. That means that the cost of housing per Canadian family will increase by $500. That is unacceptable.
When will this government think about Canadian families instead of constantly causing inflation?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, CMHC is getting to work on building supportive housing and affordable housing. We have financing that is being released at a scale that has not been seen in generations. We know CMHC has a proven track record of delivering. We have seen that over the last 10 years with affordable housing and supportive housing that is being built in this country at a scale not seen before.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, speaking of out-of-control spending, it gets worse. The Liberal government announced it is building 4,000 new housing units at a cost of $13 billion. I must be dreaming, because that is $3.2 million a unit. Something is not adding up.
Give the contracts to the people of Beauce. In Beauce, with $3.2 million, they can build 15 units, not one. In Beauce, with $13 billion, they would not build 4,000 housing units, they would build 60,000.
Can anyone explain to me why, with the Liberals, it is going to be 15 times more expensive?
Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing a housing crisis. During the last election campaign, Canadians made it clear that the time has come to build housing. This means building housing at a pace not seen in generations.
That is why we have launched “build Canada homes”, a program focused on building and financing affordable housing at scale to meet the needs of Canadians by bringing together all aspects of housing. This includes the first six sites to be developed, which will create 4,000 homes with a total potential for—
[English]
Marine Transportation
Mr. Speaker, the former transport minister was dismayed when I asked her about the Liberals funding BC Ferries to build four new ships at a Chinese state-owned shipyard back in June. Turns out, her office knew about the deal weeks earlier, according to The Globe and Mail yesterday.
Canadians deserve transparency on the reported national security concerns with this deal. The Liberals promised “buy Canadian”. When will they stop investing in China's economy and cancel the billion-dollar loan?
Mr. Speaker, we share in the disappointment that BC Ferries has gone forward with this procurement. It is important to note that no Canadians bid on this work.
We are now laser-focused on buying Canadian. What we need to do as a government is ensure that work is being done by Canada, in Canada, by Canadian workers, using Canadian materials. It is time to build. It is time to buy Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals know full well that no Canadian shipyard could justify the multi-million dollar cost to build on this major capital project, as contracts were designed with Chinese cheap labour, low worker safety standards and minimal environmental regulations in mind. Now billions of dollars of printed money are going out of our economy and into China's. What is the solution? Let us build new ferries here in Canada.
When will the self-proclaimed “great economist” Prime Minister put Canadian workers and the Canadian economy first and cancel the billion-dollar loan?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is a Crown corporation in British Columbia. The federal government is investing massively in shipbuilding across the country. We are building ships in Quebec. We are building ships in Halifax. We are building ships in Vancouver. Irving Shipbuilding alone, in Halifax, employs 2,400 workers with 10,000 additional jobs created across the country in its supply chain.
We are serious about rebuilding Canada's shipbuilding capacity. We are in the middle of it. We are building six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, 15 Canadian surface combatants and two joint support ships. We are getting the work done.
Mental Health and Addictions
Mr. Speaker, more than 52,000 Canadians have died since the addictions crisis was declared a public health emergency in 2016. Over 16,000 of those deaths were in B.C., including heartbreaking losses in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, yet the Liberal government has quietly extended overdose prevention site exemptions by a year while failing to expand treatment and recovery.
Why are the Liberals doubling down on temporary measures while leaving us waiting for the treatment and recovery beds we desperately need?
Mr. Speaker, our government understands the devastating impact the drug and overdose crisis has had on families and communities in every corner of the country. We must use every tool at our disposal to fight this crisis. That means cracking down on drugs, prosecuting drug trafficking and making sure communities, indigenous people and community health care organizations have the tools they need to connect more people to treatment and vital services faster. We will work with all partners at all levels to put an end to this tragic public health crisis.
Mr. Speaker, Alberta's prevention sites were meant to be temporary, but the Liberal government just extended its legal exemption by a year without consulting local governments or residents. Nanaimo's city council debated spending $412,000 of taxpayers' money to fence off City Hall because of issues tied to our downtown overdose prevention site, and it still has a deferred motion on the books calling for the site's closure. Will the minister admit that bypassing communities was wrong and commit to real consultation, treatment and recovery?
Mr. Speaker, our government understands that this is really impacting our community. We share the compassion and empathize with the situation. As I mentioned before, we will continue to work with partners at all levels to make sure we provide the supports that are needed to end this public health crisis.
[Translation]
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, agriculture is top of mind for many people in Canada. We are facing increasing global instability, including unfair tariffs imposed by China on Canadian agricultural products such as pork, canola and seafood. The Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues met with Premier Moe and other key industry players this week in Ottawa.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food give the House an update on the assistance available to Canadian farmers facing these Chinese tariffs?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Farming, the entire agricultural sector, is a pillar of our economy. It accounts for one in nine jobs.
To support our farmers who are facing completely unjustified tariffs from China, we have doubled advance payments, added $75 million to the agrimarketing program and, on top of that, opened up the biofuel sector.
We will never turn our backs on our farmers, the folks who put food on our tables.
[English]
Health
Mr. Speaker, an investigation into the Liberals' failed vaccine injury support program revealed the Liberals gave away over $50 million to a high-priced consulting firm called Oxaro. The consulting firm pocketed $36 million in administration fees while over 1,700 Canadians are still waiting on their claims. After Conservatives demanded an investigation, the Liberals were forced to cancel the contract. The Liberal minister knows unqualified consultants took millions of tax dollars without delivering results, so when will Canadians get their money back?
Mr. Speaker, the vaccine injury support program was created to provide support to vulnerable Canadians. The alleged behaviour is completely unacceptable. The Public Health Agency of Canada is accelerating the audit of Oxaro and its management of the program, and we will make the result of this audit public once available. We are bringing about the internal administration of the program, which will align with other G7 countries and Quebec. We will ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately, and we will support Canadians who have been negatively impacted.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals put $50 million away to support those who were legitimately injured by COVID vaccines. That money is all spent. The only problem is that 70% of it went to consultants rather than the people who were legitimately injured. What is worse, 1,700 people have not even had their claims processed and have not even heard back. Why is it that every time the Liberals say they are going to spend taxpayer money to support Canadians, their consultant friends end up getting rich?
Mr. Speaker, the program was created to provide support to vulnerable Canadians and, as I mentioned before, the alleged behaviour is unacceptable. The Public Health Agency of Canada is accelerating the audit of Oxaro and its management of the support program, and we will make sure the result of this audit is made public once available. We are bringing about the internal administration of the program, which aligns with G7 countries, to make sure that taxpayer dollars are well spent.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, last spring, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, there was a citizens' symposium on the subject of how to improve health.
Canadians are aware that our policies and systems do not seek to prevent disease. We always wait for something to happen. Sedentary lifestyles and chronic diseases cost taxpayers $3.9 billion and account for nearly 60% of deaths in Canada. This situation could be avoided.
It is 2025, and Canada still does not have a national physical activity strategy. How much longer will it take for the Liberal government to act on this important issue?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to improving the overall health and well-being of the people of Canada. Healthy habits, such as a balanced diet, regular physical activity and an active lifestyle, are essential to supporting quality of life and the long-term well-being of Canadians.
We are collaborating with all partners, and I look forward to working with the member directly on advancing any of the issues that he is experiencing in his community.
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, in an increasingly uncertain world, Canada must be prepared to protect our people, secure our sovereignty and work with our allies. That is why our government is making historic investments in our armed forces and has committed to reaching NATO's 2% spending target by the end of the fiscal year.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement share with this House how our investments will strengthen Canada's defence industrial base and create good jobs for Canadian workers?
Mr. Speaker, it is true that not only are we making generational investments in the Canadian Armed Forces to reach our NATO target, but we are going to leverage and grow Canada's defence industry to create and support good-paying jobs, get the equipment that our forces need, and deliver to our allies.
We will be launching Canada's defence industrial strategy to protect Canadian sovereignty, safeguard our security and create long-term opportunities for our workers.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, Canadian canola farmers are being punished by crippling Chinese tariffs, yet those in the Liberal government just shrug their shoulders. Instead of fighting for market access, they have responded in the most Liberal way possible: creating more government programs.
Farmers do not want handouts; they want a trade deal. When will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind bureaucratic band-aids and finally get to work on making a real trade deal for Canadian canola farmers?
Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister and our government are working really hard to resolve these unfair tariffs from China on our canola producers, our pork producers and our pea producers. We are not waiting for that to be resolved. We are proposing to double the advance payments program for canola farmers. We have added $75 million to the AgriMarketing program. We have also opened the market for biofuel.
We will stand up—
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, alarming reports reveal that Canada will miss our 2030 climate targets, yet the Liberal government is abandoning key climate policies the Liberals once called essential. Before entering politics, the Prime Minister said that he believed in climate action, but now in office, he is ripping policies right out of the Conservatives' playbook.
Canadians know economic development must be sustainable. Will the Liberals deliver nation-building projects, like the NDP's east-west electricity grid, to provide low-cost clean energy to Canadians and enhance Canada's sovereignty?
Mr. Speaker, Canada's emissions are now 41% lower today than they have been in the past. Canada's climate plan is designed for our economy and trading realities, and it plays to our strengths in clean energy, critical minerals and innovation.
I am proud to stand on this side of the House as a father of two young children. We are working for today, we are working for tomorrow and we are working for future generations. We are working for six or seven generations ahead, and I am proud to be on this side.
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, hunter and trapper organizations protect Inuit lands and wildlife. The environmental assessment process is not balanced. Mining companies have millions to coax Nunavummiut to extract minerals. Hunter and trapper organizations barely have enough just to participate. Article 5.7.13 of the Nunavut Agreement is not being fulfilled.
Will the Liberals finally uphold their legal obligations in the Nunavut Agreement and fully fund the hunter and trapper organizations?
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Combatting Hate Act
Financial Administration Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, in 2023-24, the government wrote off record amounts owed to it by corporations. In fact, the top 100 corporations had amounts written off totalling $1.8 billion. That is an average of $18 million per corporation write-off. The CRA has decided to give even less information about these write-offs today than it used to, but Conservatives are here to change this.
We are here to stand up for the average taxpayer, who works hard and files their taxes on time. Reasonable people are frustrated to know that they comply with the rules, but then in some back room under the cloak of secrecy, the government secretly writes off large debts that corporations owe it.
If passed, this bill would require the government to publicly disclose all amounts over $1 million that are written off to corporate taxpayers. After all, this is not the government's money, it is the taxpayers' money, and we are here to protect it.
I appeal to all of my hon. colleagues to support this common-sense bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[Translation]
Youth Criminal Justice Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-231, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise today with the support of my wife, Caro, who is at home, to introduce my first bill, the friends of David bill.
This bill aims to help teenagers who are struggling with addiction at a very young age to access treatment programs so that they can get help rather than being punished by the justice system.
This enactment amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to
(a) clarify the measures governing addiction treatment programs for young persons;
(b) enable, in some cases, the youth justice court that finds a young person guilty of an offence to delay sentencing to enable the young person to participate in an addiction treatment program;
(c) enable the youth justice court to include in certain orders the condition of attending an addiction treatment program;
The Criminal Code already gives judges this option when sentencing adults. I hope my colleagues will support my bill to make this option explicitly available when young people are being sentenced as well.
I would like to thank everyone who helped us draft this bill for David's friends.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[English]
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. After 10 years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies and reforms, Canadians are now looking to us to restore common sense to our criminal justice system in Canada. My private member's bill would help do exactly that, and it is a response to concerns raised by not only the constituents in my riding of Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, but also those across the Niagara region and across this country.
On May 29, 2023, Correctional Service Canada downgraded Paul Bernardo from maximum security prison to medium security. This shocking prison transfer should never have happened. This bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first-degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.
Weak and soft Liberal laws are putting the interest and care of criminals ahead of victims and their loved ones. This must change, and confidence must be restored in Canada's criminal justice and corrections system. My private member's bill is an important part of the solution, and I hope members of all parties can stand together and support this common-sense bill to do what is right.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Export and Import Permits Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, otherwise known as the no more loopholes act. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for seconding this bill.
Canada signed on to the Arms Trade Treaty with the promise that we would not allow our arms exports to contribute to war crimes or the violations of human rights. However, promises are not enough. Words are not enough. We need to close loopholes. We need accountability and we need transparency.
Canada and arms exporters based here should never be complicit in fuelling war crimes, human rights abuses or the suffering of innocent people, yet right now, loopholes in our laws allow weapons, parts and technologies made here in Canada to end up in the hands of regimes that violate international law, commit atrocities and devastate communities. When Canada signed on to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019, the government exempted all exports to the United States from scrutiny. This loophole has become a back door for Canadian weapons, components and technologies to fuel some of the bloodiest conflicts on earth.
This week on Parliament Hill, installations of children's shoes are on display as the names of children are read out to commemorate the deaths of 20,000 Palestinian children in Gaza. This bill is about closing those loopholes. It would make sure no country is exempt and that weapons, in part or in whole, cannot be exported under blanket permits. It would strengthen the criteria the minister must apply before approving any exports, would require clear end-use certificates and would bring in transparency by enhancing public reporting to Parliament.
This legislation is about standing up for peace, human rights and justice. It is about making sure that Canadian weapons are never used to harm the very values we claim to defend, and it is about showing the world that Canada will live up to its commitments.
Civil society organizations and legal experts have been calling for this legislation. I urge all members of the House to support this bill, because when it comes to protecting human rights and preventing war crimes, there can be no exceptions, no excuses.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to speak to recommendation 430 of the House of Commons finance committee's pre-budget report proposing removing the advancement of religion as a recognizable charitable purpose under the Income Tax Act.
Religious organizations are more than just places of worship; they are pillars of civil society. Every day, they run programs, food banks, shelters, counselling services and services that governments alone could never provide. They mobilize volunteers, teach our children, comfort the elderly and create bonds of trust to hold together our beautiful communities.
Studies have shown that people active in faith communities give more, volunteer more and strengthen the very social fabric that keeps our country resilient. To deny them charitable status would be to deny the countless Canadians who rely on these services.
If the Liberal government is so desperate to find different ways to tax Canadians, this is the wrong place. Recognizing religious organizations and their tax-exempt status is not a privilege; it is an acknowledgement of the essential role they play in serving the common good.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise as the representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies to present e-petition 6554, signed by 764 concerned Canadians.
The petition calls on the government to twin Highway 1 through Yoho National Park in order to increase safety for the growing number of vehicles that use this highway daily for travel and commerce, and to create wildlife overpasses and underpasses and fencing along Highway 1 through Yoho Park as part of the twinning construction.
This section of the highway is truly outdated and often sees serious and fatal accidents. The government owes a duty to its citizens to keep them safe. It is time to get this highway done and fixed.
Uqaqtittiji, I am happy to present a petition from Canadians regarding what has been going on in Gaza. They are quite concerned, for example, that the Geneva Conventions have not been respected.
The petitioners, citizens and residents of Canada, call on the Government of Canada to do five different things: publicly and unequivocally reject the militarized aid model currently used in Palestine, demand the full restoration of access for UN agencies and established humanitarian NGOs, including UNRWA and the World Food Programme, insist on safe and immediate entry for Canadian health care workers and other international humanitarian personnel to Palestine, withhold Canadian—
That is a fair point of order, but members have wide latitude when tabling petitions to refer to the content of the petition.
The member for Nunavut may continue.
Uqaqtittiji, I will finish with the last two points: withhold Canadian funding from any entity or model that does not comply with principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence and humanity, and ensure that all Canadian aid to Gaza is delivered through internationally recognized humanitarian channels.
Penticton Shooting Sports Association
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand on behalf of the petitioners for petition e-6572, which is in regard to the Penticton Shooting Sports Association.
The petitioners want people to know that the Penticton Shooting Sports Association, which is located on land managed by the Government of Canada, provides essential training facilities for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, other law enforcement agencies and community members. The association also does a lot of other things, including hunter education, firearms safety courses and proper firearms training for youth and cadets, as well as of course being a welcoming space for families.
The proposed divestment of the land by the Government of Canada jeopardizes this important asset, so the petitioners have asked the government to halt the divestment of the land occupied by the Penticton Shooting Sports Association and secure a renewed lease to ensure its continued operations as a community, public safety and family-oriented recreational facility.
I would like to thank the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay for her advocacy.
Along with me and other Conservative members, petitioners are trying to impress upon the government that it is not too late to stop the process and continue the good works of the facility.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising today to present a petition from my riding and the residents of York—Durham, specifically the residents in the town of Georgina along Young's Harbour, about a new invasive aquatic species in Lake Simcoe called water soldier.
Water soldier was discovered in Cook's Bay last year and has been confirmed by the water soldier working group, which is a group of civil society members, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Water soldier is an invasive species. It threatens human health. It crowds out native species in the lake. Overall, it reduces the enjoyment of our jewel, Lake Simcoe, in Ontario, but there is hope. There are remediation efforts available.
The petitioners call on the government, therefore, to do three things. First, identify water soldier as an invasive species. Second, select a single point of contact for the water soldier working group. Third, provide sufficient financial and technical resources to the water soldier working group so that it can get this under control.
I thank the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Chippewas of Rama First Nation for bringing this to my attention.
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Speaker, given that debate on Bill C-3 was able to conclude this morning, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to see the clock at 2:30 p.m. so the House may adjourn.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer