House of Commons Debates - 45th Parliament, 1st Session, Sitting 109

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.

April 23, 2026
- Order Paper and Notice Paper
- Journals
- Debates (Hansard)
Status of House Business User Guide XML PDF

45th PARLIAMENT,

1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • No. 109

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 23, 2026

House of Commons Debates Volume 152 No. 109 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Thursday, April 23, 2026

Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

(1000) [English ]

Government Response to Petitions

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 28 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Committees of the House

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Expand] John Brassard (Barrie South—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Review of the Conflict of Interest Act”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. Before I conclude, I want to thank all of our witnesses, the analysts, the clerk, the technicians and translation staff for their work on this report. It is a fairly comprehensive report that provides significant recommendations to changes to the Conflict of Interest Act. Public Accounts

[Expand] John Williamson (Saint John—St. Croix, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. [Translation ]

I am presenting the 10th report, entitled “National Trade Corridors Fund - Transport Canada”, and the 11th report, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27: Vote 1 under Office of the Auditor General”. [English ]

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports. I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to a motion adopted on Monday, April 20, regarding section 13 of the Auditor General Act. Everyone agrees that the Auditor General and her team should have access to the information they need to do their job. However, certain federal entities under the scope of her audits were withholding information due to access to information disputes. While her office ultimately obtained the requested information, this process consumed significant time and resources that could have been better spent delivering audits to Parliament and services to Canada. The committee is therefore reporting to the House on the need to modernize section 13 of the Auditor General Act and will be writing to the Treasury Board Secretariat requesting a written response to this matter within 90 days.

Petitions

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Expand] Blake Richards (Airdrie—Cochrane, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition today that discusses Bill C-260, the care not coercion act. This is in the wake of many veterans' experiences in this country. When they reached out to Veterans Affairs seeking help to live their lives, they were instead pushed towards the idea of medical assistance in dying. The petitioners are concerned with these instances and are calling on the government to support Bill C-260, the care not coercion act. [Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table a petition in support of Bill C-260, the care not coercion act. Petitioners highlight many reports of veterans, as well as people with disabilities, seniors and others, who have been seeking unrelated health services or other kinds of services from the government and have, instead of being offered the assistance they are looking for, had those officials, out of the blue, suggest or promote to them that they seek facilitated death instead. The CEO of Inclusion Canada, Krista Carr, has recently testified that she hears weekly complaints, from people with disabilities in particular, highlighting these situations where somebody who is seeking unrelated public services is having death promoted to them as a way out instead. This is not the approach that Canadians expect, especially from government employees who are not even involved in the provision of these things. With this in mind, petitioners ask that the government support Bill C-260, the care not coercion act, and support additional actions to combat the growing problem of MAID coercion. I understand that the bill is scheduled to have its first hour of debate next Wednesday, April 29. (1005)

Questions on the Order Paper

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

Military Justice System Modernization Act

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee. [English ]

Speaker's Ruling

[Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): There are 15 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C‑11. [Translation ]

Motion No. 15 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee. [English ]

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding selection of motions in amendment at the report stage. Motions Nos. 1 to 14 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [Translation ]

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 14 to the House. [English ]

Motions in Amendment

[Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting the short title. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 7. [Expand] Hon. Maninder Sidhu (for the Minister of National Defence) moved: That Bill C-11, in Clause 7, be amended by (a) replacing lines 7 to 12 on page 3 with the following: 7 Section 70 of the Act is amended by striking (b) deleting lines 1 to 8 on page 5. [Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) moved: That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 8. [Expand] Hon. Maninder Sidhu (for the Minister of National Defence) moved: Motion No. 5 That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 5 to line 34 on page 7 with the following: 70.1 Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, an officer or non-commissioned member does not have authority to investigate, for the purposes of the laying of a charge under paragraph 130(1)(a) or an information under the Criminal Code, in relation to an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) that was, or is alleged to have been, committed in Canada. 70.2 (1) Nothing in section 70.1 prevents an officer or non-commissioned member from exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions, before the arrival of the civilian authority having jurisdiction in the matter, to the extent necessary to prevent the commission, continuation or repetition of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) that, as the case may be, is being, was, or is alleged to have been committed in Canada, including (a) making an arrest in relation to the offence in accordance with Division 3 of Part III of this Act or section 494 or 495 of the Criminal Code; or (b) if an arrest is made under paragraph (a), conducting a search incident to the arrest. (2) Nothing in section 70.1 prevents an officer or non-commissioned member from securing or preserving any evidence of or relating to the offence referred to in subsection (1) before the arrival of the civilian authority having jurisdiction in the matter. (3) Nothing in section 70.1 prevents an officer or non-commissioned member from securing or preserving — to the extent that their powers, duties and functions under this Act, other than under subsection (1) or (2), or any other law authorize them to do so — evidence of or relating to an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) that was, or is alleged to have been, committed in Canada. (4) An officer or non-commissioned member shall, as soon as feasible, transfer a person arrested under paragraph (1)(a) to the custody of the civilian authority having jurisdiction in the matter and transfer to them any evidence secured or preserved under any of subsections (1) to (3). 70.3 Nothing in section 70.1 prevents an officer or non-commissioned member from initiating or conducting a private prosecution in relation to an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to (h). Motion No. 6 That Bill C-11, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 13 on page 8. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-11, in Clause 15, be amended by (a) replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 9 with the following: years but may be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures in accordance with section 165.101. (b) replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 9 with the following: (4) On receipt of a request referred to in subsection 165.101(1), the Governor in Council may, if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances that justify it, suspend the Director of Military Prosecutions from office until the Governor in Council decides whether to impose any remedial or disciplinary measures. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), “exceptional circumstances” include circumstances in which there are allegations of serious misconduct or allegations related to a risk to occupational health and safety or to a risk of injury to international relations, national defence or national security. 165.101 (1) The Minister may request of the Governor in Council that an inquiry be held to determine whether the Director of Military Prosecutions should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures for any reason set out in paragraphs (12)(a) to (e). (2) On receipt of a request, the Governor in Council may appoint a judge of a superior court to conduct the inquiry. (3) The judge has all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior court, including the power to (a) issue a summons requiring any person to appear at the time and place specified in the summons in order to testify about all matters within the person’s knowledge relative to the inquiry and to produce any document or thing relative to the inquiry that the person has or controls; and (b) administer oaths and examine any person on oath. (4) The judge may engage the services of counsel and other persons having technical or specialized knowledge to assist the judge in conducting the inquiry, establish the terms and conditions of their engagement and, with the approval of the Treasury Board, fix and pay their remuneration and expenses. (5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), the inquiry shall be conducted in public. (6) The judge may, on application, take any measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of the inquiry if, after having considered all available alternative measures, the judge is satisfied that (a) there is a real and substantial risk that matters involving international relations, national defence or national security will be disclosed; (b) there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the inquiry such that the need to prevent disclosure outweighs the societal interest that the inquiry be conducted in public; or (c) there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered. (7) If the judge considers it appropriate, the judge may take any measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of a hearing held in respect of an application under subsection (6). (8) The judge is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive, and base a decision on, evidence presented in the proceedings that they consider credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case. (9) An interested party may, with leave of the judge, intervene in the inquiry on any terms and conditions that the judge considers appropriate. (10) The Director of Military Prosecutions shall be given reasonable notice of the subject matter of the inquiry and of the time and place of any hearing and shall be given an opportunity, in person or by counsel, to be heard at the hearing, to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence. (11) After the inquiry has been completed, the judge shall submit a report containing their findings and recommendations, if any, to the Minister. (12) The judge may, in the report, recommend that the Director of Military Prosecutions be suspended without pay or removed from office or that any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure be taken if, in the judge’s opinion, the Director (a) has become incapacitated from the proper execution of that office by reason of infirmity; (b) has committed misconduct; (c) has failed in the proper execution of that office; (d) has been placed, by conduct or otherwise, in a position that is incompatible with the due execution of that office; or (e) no longer satisfies the minimum standards and conditions of service applicable to officers. (13) The Minister shall send the report to the Governor in Council who may, if the Governor in Council considers it appropriate, suspend the Director of Military Prosecutions without pay, remove the Director from office or impose any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-11, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following: 17 (1) Subsection 165.17(3) of the Act is replaced by the following: (3) The Minister may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular prosecution. (2) Subsections 165.17(5) and (6) of the Act are re- (1010) [Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) moved That Bill C-11, in Clause 18, be amended (a) by replacing line 24 on page 10 with the following: “officer or non-commissioned member or former officer or non-commissioned member who is a barrister” (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 10 with the following: “province and who has been or was a member of the Canadian” [Expand] Hon. Maninder Sidhu (for the Minister of National Defence) moved: Motion No. 10 That Bill C-11, in Clause 40, be amended by (a) replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 29 with the following: years but may be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures in accordance with section 249.181. (b) replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 29 with the following: (4) On receipt of a request referred to in subsection 249.181(1), the Governor in Council may, if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances that justify it, suspend the Director of Defence Counsel Services from office until the Governor in Council decides whether to impose any remedial or disciplinary measures. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), “exceptional circumstances” include circumstances in which there are allegations of serious misconduct or allegations related to a risk to occupational health and safety or to a risk of injury to international relations, national defence or national security. 249.181 (1) The Minister may request of the Governor in Council that an inquiry be held to determine whether the Director of Defence Counsel Services should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures for any reason set out in paragraphs (12)(a) to (e). (2) On receipt of a request, the Governor in Council may appoint a judge of a superior court to conduct the inquiry. (3) The judge has all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior court, including the power to (a) issue a summons requiring any person to appear at the time and place specified in the summons in order to testify about all matters within the person’s knowledge relative to the inquiry and to produ (b) administer oaths and examine any person on oath. (4) The judge may engage the services of counsel and other persons having technical or specialized knowledge to assist the judge in conducting the inquiry, establish the terms and conditions of their engagement and, with the approval of the Treasury Board, fix and pay their remuneration and expenses. (5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), the inquiry shall be conducted in public. (6) The judge may, on application, take any measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of the inquiry if, after having considered all available alternative measures, the judge is satisfied that (a) there is a real and substantial risk that matters involving international relations, national defence or national security will be disclosed; (b) there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the inquiry such that the need to prevent disclosure outweighs the societal interest that the inquiry be conducted in public; or (c) there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered. (7) If the judge considers it appropriate, the judge may take any measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of a hearing held in respect of an application under subsection (6). (8) The judge is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive, and base a decision on, evidence presented in the proceedings that they consider credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case. (9) An interested party may, with leave of the judge, intervene in the inquiry on any terms and conditions that the judge considers appropriate. (10) The Director of Defence Counsel Services shall be given reasonable notice of the subject matter of the inquiry and of the time and place of any hearing and shall be given an opportunity, in person or by counsel, to be heard at the hearing, to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence. (11) After the inquiry has been completed, the judge shall submit a report containing their findings and recommendations, if any, to the Minister. (12) The judge may, in the report, recommend that the Director of Defence Counsel Services be suspended without pay or removed from office or that any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure be taken if, in the judge’s opinion, the Director (a) has become incapacitated from the proper execution of that office by reason of infirmity; (b) has committed misconduct; (c) has failed in the proper execution of that office; (d) has been placed, by conduct or otherwise, in a position that is incompatible with the due execution of that office; or (e) no longer satisfies the minimum standards and conditions of service applicable to officers. (13) The Minister shall send the report to the Governor in Council who may, if the Governor in Council considers it appropriate, suspend the Director of Defence Counsel Services without pay, remove the Director from office or impose any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 40.1. Motion No. 12 That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 40.2. Motion No. 13 That Bill C-11, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 40 with the following: graphs 70(d) to (h) of the National Defence Motion No. 14 That Bill C-11, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 40 with the following: fence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to [Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today. Bill C-11, when it was studied by the national defence committee, had great collaboration among Conservative, Bloc and NDP members. I believe that the members from the Liberals on committee were listening intently to what we heard from the witnesses who came forward. There were witnesses who were victims of military sexual trauma. They are survivors who came forward bravely to provide testimony on Bill C-11 and to express their concerns about the way the bill was made. They really wanted to show that they wanted their rights as members or veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces to be respected and that they wanted to be be empowered to decide which justice system military sexual assault and misconduct would be tried in: the military justice system or the civilian one. They raised numerous red flags over what would happen if Bill C-11 were left in its original form. Late last night, the Minister of National Defence tabled a bunch of amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage, which had already incorporated numerous amendments that the Bloc, NDP and we as Conservatives had worked collaboratively on across party lines to bring choice in what system would best suit the victims of military sexual misconduct. Our amendments would have provided greater independence to the primary players within the justice system of the military, and they took into consideration testimony coming from outside legal experts and civilian police organizations across the country. When the Minister of National Defence tabled all the amendments that were just read into the record, essentially what he was doing was disrespecting the work of committee, undoing the hard work members had put in and ignoring the advice that came specifically from victims and also from the Canadian Armed Forces itself, which provided testimony at committee, as well as from all the military justice experts who appeared and who also provided written briefs. I am angry about it, because it is a complete betrayal to those victims who took the time to share their experiences and put the work into studying the legislation on Bill C-11, previously Bill C-66. It is so heartbreaking to know that everything they did in stepping up to defend the rights of all victims of military sexual assault and misconduct is now getting swept to the side. Dismissing all the testimony we heard over weeks for the study on Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence could easily be characterized as the Minister of National Defence 's not caring. He does not care about the survivors; the military leaders who appeared, such as the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence council services, and the advice they gave for greater independence; the veterans who used to hold those positions, who appeared and provided similar advice; the people who work as judicial experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside it; or the testimony we heard from civilian police departments across this country, whether at the provincial or municipal level. The Bloc, the NDP, and we as Conservatives were working together and wanted to improve the bill. What we brought back to the House at report stage to be considered today would have been an improvement that would have provided the balance that victims are looking for and would have recognized the hard work that has already taken place in the Canadian Armed Forces to improve its processes to properly investigate, charge and prosecute military sexual misconduct within the system, yet it has all been swept away. (1015) When the Minister of National Defence appeared at committee with respect to Bill C-11, he admitted he had picked up Bill C-66, never consulted with anyone else and then tabled the bill in the House without talking to victims. What he brought back as amendments to Bill C-11 at report stage just proves he never took the time to review the testimony of the brave witnesses who stepped up. We heard from so many victims, and I just want to put some of them on the record here again. We are doing a study on the experiences of francophone and indigenous members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and just yesterday, Hélène Le Scelleur, who is a veteran and also appeared as a witness concerning Bill C-11 because she is also a survivor of military sexual misconduct, explained why survivors need to have choice about whether the cases go to the military system or to the civilian system. If we were to force all sexual misconduct cases into the civilian system, she for example, as a francophone, if the assault had happened in Alberta at CFB Wainwright, might not get the services she requires in French. Hélène Le Scelleur, in response to a question yesterday, said that she totally agrees that survivors should have the choice, because when they are talking about specifics related to trauma and other sensitive issues, she thinks she would not be doing so in her second language. She explained that when someone is vulnerable, they do not have access to all the vocabulary they normally do. She said she would rather be able to choose the military pathway in order to ensure that she would have services in French, rather than, as in the example provided, have to stay in Alberta and have her case dealt with there even though she is from Quebec. When we look at those types of stories, what we expect of the people who serve and how we are supposed to make sure we stand up for them, we want to drive home that the Liberals are completely ignoring what victims said at committee. Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” Again, the government is ramming this through because it wants to pass the buck. It wants political expediency so it does not have to deal with military sexual misconduct in the armed forces anymore, and it wants to shuffle it off to a civilian justice system that is already overburdened across this country. We know that when the civilian system is lagging behind in prosecuting cases and hearing cases at the bench, the Jordan framework kicks in. If things are not dealt with within 24 months, they are thrown out. We know that cases that have little chance of success within the civilian system will be thrown out. We know that justice for the victims will actually be reduced, rather than victims' being provided with the choice of keeping a case in the military system, where at least under court martial and/or administrative measures they would have the ability to receive justice and the perpetrators would be held to account. Tanya Couch wrote, “Removing the CAF's authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members. A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.” Jessica Miller said, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.” I just want to say one more thing to the members across the aisle in the Liberal Party, especially the member for Nunavut, who was the NDP defence critic when we worked on Bill C-11 and whose own amendments were incorporated with Conservative amendments but would now be thrown out by the motions brought forward by the Minister of National Defence. I ask them to do what is right for the people who are currently serving, to do what is right for the military justice system that says it now has the capacity and capability to properly try these cases, and to ensure that we give the freedom for victims of military sexual assault to choose which justice system best suits them. (1020) [Expand] Tim Watchorn (Les Pays-d'en-Haut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I, too, sit on the defence committee. I would like to know what the member across the aisle thinks about all the victims who were heard by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, the hundreds of victims who were interviewed and said they did not want their sexual assault to be investigated by their boss. They wanted a separate system. What does the member say to them? [Expand] James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I would love to know exactly what Madam Justice Arbour thought. We invited her to committee, but she did not even bother showing up to defend her report. Let us put this in perspective. Madam Justice Arbour's study and report were done years ago. Things have changed. The director of military prosecutions had said that, on a short-term basis, they needed to adjust and pivot, and to move all cases under the ministerial directive from one of the former ministers of national defence. Because of that, the military is prepared to deal with the cases today. What Madam Justice Arbour said before is now irrelevant. (1025) [Translation ]

[Expand] Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. My question is quite simple. If it were possible to make just one amendment to this bill, is there a particularly important one that my colleague would want to immediately make to the bill? If so, what is it? [English ]

[Expand] James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems. With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims. [Expand] Jeff Kibble (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the incredible work he has done in committee respecting victims of military sexual trauma, and the work he is doing to rectify the problems there. We heard testimony from civilian police forces that they had significantly limited capacity, sometimes enough to deal with two to three cases of major sexual assault, whereas in their areas, they have data saying that there have been 15, 17 or 20 cases per year. Could the hon. member speak to the capacity of civilian police forces to deal with these cases, and to what would happen with those cases they have no capability to deal with? [Expand] James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file as well. As a veteran, he has always been there to champion people who have experienced military sexual misconduct. We heard from the Victoria Police Department that it does not have the resources or the number of investigators needed, that it is already dealing with a backlog and that it has been offered no support and no resources from the federal government. We also received a written brief from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction” and says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”. Instead of having the ability to collaborate with our military police and national investigative service, they now have to go on base and take over all those investigations, without resources provided by the government. [Translation ]

[Expand] Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be here today for the debate at report stage of Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act. [English ]

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I have the privilege and responsibility of supporting the women and men who serve Canada in uniform. I believe that responsibility is shared by all members of the House. As the mother and mother-in-law of three serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, I know first-hand that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are among the very best of our country: skilled, dedicated, professional and deeply committed to something greater than themselves. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them, and each time, I am reminded of a simple truth: We ask a great deal of them. We ask them to serve in uncertainty, to operate in high-risk environments and to put service before self every single day. In return, we have a responsibility, a collective responsibility, to ensure they have everything they need to succeed. That includes the right equipment, the right training and, critically, the right environment. (1030) [Translation ]

It must be a safe, respectful and dignified environment. It must be a healthy work environment, where everyone feels protected and able to serve, because serving one's country should never come at the expense of one's dignity. [English ]

Eliminating unacceptable behaviours, including sexual misconduct, is central to that responsibility. These behaviours cause real harm. They erode trust. They damage morale. They impact recruitment and retention. Ultimately, they weaken operational effectiveness. There is no place for this in our military. There is no place for this in Canada. That is why today's debate is so important. [Translation ]

Cultural change and growth within the Canadian Armed Forces is simply too important to be exploited for political or partisan gain. Our military members deserve better, their families deserve better and Canadians deserve better. [English ]

Through Bill C-11, we are proposing important amendments to the National Defence Act to modernize the military justice system. The legislation is about ensuring that the system remains fair, effective and worthy of the trust Canadians place in it. At its core, it would strengthen accountability, reinforce independence and ensure alignment with the values Canadians expect. As introduced, Bill C-11 would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. These offences would instead fall under civilian authorities for investigation and prosecution. This reflects the practice already in place since 2021, following the interim recommendation of former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, and this legislation would formalize that approach. I would like to note that the interim directive has been an effective measure while we await the passage of Bill C-11. The interim directive to implement recommendation five has been in place since December 2021, and since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, as Justice Arbour recommended. Any attempt to undermine or undercut the progress made in the past five years under the interim directive is a disservice to victims and survivors. I note that Bill C-11 also advances key recommendations from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish to strengthen the system's effectiveness and credibility. These include strengthening and modernizing appointment processes for senior military justice roles, broadening eligibility for military judges, reinforcing the independence of military justice authorities and expanding mechanisms for interference complaints. These are not technical adjustments. They are foundational reforms. They go directly to the integrity of the system. [Translation ]

The bill also strengthens support for victims by expanding access to liaison officers, including those acting on behalf of victims. It also aligns military justice legislation with recent amendments to the Criminal Code regarding offenders and publication bans. The military justice system is about maintaining discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. Modernizing it is essential for lasting institutional reform. [English ]

Our objective is clear. It is to strengthen trust and confidence among defence team members and all Canadians. [Translation ]

Trust must be at the heart of any justice system. [English ]

Trust must be earned through action. The changes proposed in Bill C-11 are part of a much broader transformation. We are undertaking meaningful reforms across recruitment, training, leadership and oversight. In fact, this week the Canadian Armed Forces reached its highest recruitment in 30 years. [Translation ]

This is excellent news for Canada, but we must not lose sight of the important work we are doing to ensure that the next generation of the Canadian Armed Forces has a safe and supportive work environment. I can assure members that we are fully committed to implementing the recommendations of Justices Fish and Arbour. These recommendations provide a road map for concrete and measurable change. We have strengthened our recruitment and assessment processes. A probationary period now ensures that recruits comply with security requirements, meet medical standards and, above all, possess the values expected of those who serve their country: respect, dignity and integrity. (1035) [English ]

We have clarified how sexual misconduct is defined and addressed, breaking it into clearer categories so that each form can be dealt with appropriately. We have aligned our approach to harassment and violence with the Canada Labour Code, creating a single, consistent framework across the defence team. We have enabled direct access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in certain cases because transparency and accountability are essential to cultural change. We continue to track progress publicly through our comprehensive implementation plan, a detailed road map that Canadians can see and follow. As noted by the external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, there has been significant effort and meaningful progress, but she also reminded us of something important. This work is never finished. [Translation ]

Creating a respectful and inclusive workplace is an ongoing commitment. [English ]

It is one that requires sustained leadership, accountability and commitment. The measures in Bill C-11 represent an important step forward. More than that, they represent progress: progress toward a military justice system that reflects our values, progress toward a workplace where every member can serve with dignity and progress toward rebuilding and reinforcing trust. It is a step to better protect those who serve and to build a safer, more respectful environment. [Translation ]

It is also a step towards building confidence in our military justice system. [English ]

We owe this to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. We owe this to all Canadians. Let us continue this work together. Let us get this done for them. [Expand] Fraser Tolmie (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have sat on the veterans affairs committee and heard, during the women's study, the traumas that many have endured. They want justice. When I hear what is being proposed by the Liberals, all I hear is downloading and sending victims to overloaded courts. I ask my colleague from across the aisle, why are you doing this? Why can you not come up with something that is sound and reasonable for the victims and for those who serve in the military? [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I will remind members to please address their questions through the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor. [Expand] Sherry Romanado: Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the veteran affairs committee. In fact, the veteran affairs committee submitted a report to the House in June 2024 entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”. In that report was recommendation 40, which I will quote: That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities. That was passed unanimously with the support of the Conservatives. [Translation ]

[Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. By the way, I hold her in high regard, but my question has nothing to do with that. How does she feel about the fact that, for weeks, we have been doing our committee work and now, when the majority of committee members have worked to get amendments adopted, the government is doing everything it can to undo what has been done? Is this not a slap in the face to democracy? Has the majority gone to the Liberals' heads? (1040) [Expand] Sherry Romanado: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and also for the work we do together in committee. My priority is the women and men in uniform. The chief of the defence staff has had conversations with over 14,000 Canadian Armed Forces members and victims, and they have made it very clear that these cases need to be transferred to the civilian system. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the words the member has spoken. Through the debate already this morning, one of the greatest concerns I have is that the Conservative Party seems to be saying Justice Arbour's recommendations are limited and have timed out, in essence, and that there is no obligation for us to respond to that report. Justice Arbour did an incredible job for members of the CAF, recognizing the importance of the issue, and came back with a specific recommendation. My understanding is that this is the primary recommendation, from a justice who canvassed many members of the CAF. If the member could comment in regard to the Conservative Party just throwing that report— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. [Expand] Sherry Romanado: Mr. Speaker, it is actually very appropriate to read the preface to Justice Arbour's report into the record, because it still rings true. It says: Thousands of Canadians have served, and continue to serve, with honour in one of the country’s most prestigious organizations: the Canadian Armed Forces.... Many, however, were denied that chance. Members of the LGBTQ2+ community were purged. Members of Indigenous and black communities, and other visible minorities and equity-seeking groups, have been largely absent, clearly not welcome. For years, women were simply shut out. When finally allowed to serve, women were made to feel they did not belong. They were denied opportunities to compete fairly and to thrive. They were harassed, humiliated, abused and assaulted, and, appallingly, many continue to be targeted today. Things have changed in the Canadian Armed Forces for the better. We cannot go back. For the victims who never came forward, out of fear of retribution, out of fear for their lives, today is for them. We heard them. We listened. We are there. [Translation ]

[Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are many stories in this whole sad affair. Some of them involve tragic misconduct and victims left with the aftereffects. There is the story, which spanned many years, of continued impunity, as people were protected by successive governments. Then came the bungling and the never-ending delays. Finally, our very democracy plays a part in all this, as well. First and foremost, it is the story of victims of misconduct. Members will recall the whole story, which has been told many times in the House, of General Vance, who was protected by successive ministers of governments of all political stripes. This general was able to live with impunity, bragging that he would be forever protected and untouchable at all times because he had control over the military justice system. Members will recall that it took a long time for this story to come to light, and when it did, many said that silence was the best response—that eternal guilty silence that keeps victims voiceless. It is also the story of several commissions of inquiry. I am thinking of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish. Several commissions of inquiry came to a number of conclusions after thousands of people were interviewed. There were thousands of testimonies; thousands of voices were heard in the context of this tragic case. This is an issue that has since dragged on for more than 15 years. It took more than 15 years to come up with the first version of a bill in the last Parliament and, in the current Parliament, the bill now before us. This is a matter of democracy. I believe that, as members of Parliament, we are being shortchanged, and democracy is being shortchanged, by what is happening right now. Allow me to digress for a moment because this is important. Let us not forget that this is also the story of a government that called an election last year. What was the outcome of that election? It resulted in a minority government. That means that we go before the voters, present them with options and ideas, and show them where we are headed and what we are proposing. That is where democracy decides. It decides by determining which idea has majority support. In other words, there were more votes and more seats for the current government's proposal, but there are still enough voters who said they did not agree. The result is that the government in power has a majority that is not absolute. It is a simple majority, but one that is not absolute in terms of the number of seats. That was the verdict in April 2025. The message to the government is to work with the other parties, because more people chose the other options combined. If my math is correct, that is what it comes down to. I am no fan of the Canadian parliamentary system, but it seems to me that, in the history of these highly imperfect institutions, that is just how it works. That is the result. That is what it amounts to. Let us come back to the story of this government that introduced Bill C-11 and the opposition parties who voted in favour of the principle of the bill because everyone agreed with it and action needed to be taken. People have suffered and others will continue to suffer if nothing changes. After the opposition parties acted in good faith and the House adopted the bill in principle, it was the committee's turn to patiently do its work. For several weeks, it heard from witnesses and reviewed reports and briefs, including one from the Barreau du Québec, which said that it liked the idea of the bill but that some small changes needed to be made. We also heard from a number of victims and victims' associations, who made recommendations and told us that, when cases are being transferred, the military justice option needs to remain open. Even though transferring cases to the civilian system is generally a good thing, we still need to have some sort of military system for certain cases, so we should not close the door on that completely. That was the subject of an amendment that was deemed admissible, and I am happy about that because we are the ones who proposed that amendment. The Conservative amendment regarding complete freedom of choice was deemed inadmissible recently, even though it was also adopted in committee. Our amendment does not propose complete freedom of choice, but it says that if experts in the civilian system recommend keeping the case in the military system, then that might be a good thing for some victims. (1045) It worked, and I am very pleased about that. This is an example of a recommendation made by the Barreau du Québec, which ultimately concluded that Bill C-11, as it stood, was unsatisfactory, even though it was well-intentioned. A whole host of other recommendations like that were also adopted by way of amendments, often with the majority support of the two opposition parties. Some amendments were adopted unanimously with the support of the Liberal Party, but, for the most part, it was the opposition parties that joined forces and managed to gain the upper hand. I am pleased that we managed to achieve this. It was democracy at work. In our committee, the majority consisted of opposition MPs. I would remind members that we patiently listened to victims, experts, the Barreau du Québec and other stakeholders who came to tell us what they believed should be done. Some of the recommendations in the Fish report were even subsequently deemed inadmissible. That report, which remains something of an authoritative reference on the subject, was deemed inadmissible—that says it all. It is also the story of a government that secured a majority by getting opposition members to switch sides, swearing up and down that its approach would be collaborative. In the days that followed, however, one of the first things they told us was that they plan to unilaterally change committee composition without even talking to the opposition parties. That is what collaboration, co-operation and working together in the House mean to them. It is also the story of a government that then attempts to throw out all the work that committees have been doing for weeks, along with the democratic decisions of parliamentarians who voted on committee business. This is the story of a committee chair who decided amendments were out of order. We overruled his decision with a majority vote in committee, but he got his way in the end. It is also the story of a Speaker of the House who heard my appeal and that of my colleague, the Conservative Party's defence critic, who rose in the House to say that we heard the victims, that we could not ignore them and that certain recommendations could not be ruled out of order. From a procedural standpoint, for example, our proposal to consider establishing an office did not entail the allocation of additional resources, yet it was deemed inadmissible on the grounds that it required additional resources. Our proposal does not run counter to the intent of this bill, which aims to reform military justice to make life more bearable for victims and to better address cases of misconduct. I am sorry, but when we have good ideas to improve a bill and flesh it out, that aligns with the bill's intent. In our case, given that we are stuck with this highly imperfect Canadian parliamentary system, we have decided, procedurally speaking, to include in the bill the need to consider establishing an office. This does not mean creating the office itself or adding new resources. It costs nothing to mandate the government to look into the issue. It does not cost a penny to include it in the bill. However, the Speaker decided to reject all of those amendments. Even though a few admissible amendments remained, we found out only yesterday evening after checking the Notice Paper that the government had rejected them in a last-ditch effort—like I said, their majority is going to their heads—to erase, destroy, undo and dismantle everything that members had accomplished in committee. What a slap in the face for the experts, the victims and democracy. (1050) [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, can I get the member's perspective on the recommendation brought forward by Justice Arbour to do that complete transfer, and can the member acknowledge that there would have been a great deal of effort in coming up with that recommendation? Is it the Bloc party's position, as it for the Conservatives, that they should just disregard that recommendation? [Translation ]

[Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how my colleague opposite never listens. He gets up, walks around, talks and then asks a question that I already answered in my speech. We have come to expect it. As I said, this is not about complete freedom of choice. The amendment known as BQ‑2 did not involve complete freedom of choice. What the amendment said is that not every case needs to be automatically transferred. Our initial response would be to transfer these cases, but if experts and the civilian system consider it advisable to keep them in the military system, that would be allowed. That is all. I will close by saying that Justice Arbour could have come and testified, as she was also invited to do. [Expand] Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that he wants to manage public finances in a wiser, more rigorous way. A House of Commons committee spent hours studying an extremely important report. The committee heard from experts and victims. Members of Parliament and their staff, as well as the committee staff, examined the matter during several meetings. Public funds were used for the benefit of parliamentary democracy. Now we are learning that the government is completely ignoring all the work that was done. This government is not looking at it at all. I would like my colleague to comment on the frustration this caused him. What does he think this all means? What does all this show about the government's understanding of parliamentary democracy? [Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it shows that the government understands perfectly well how things work, but that it could not care less. In other words, it knows exactly what tactics to use to trample on the rights of members of Parliament, and in this particular case, to show utter contempt for the victims who appeared in order to have their say. That is what all this tells us. (1055) [Expand] Tim Watchorn (Les Pays-d'en-Haut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on National Defence with me. I think that today we are talking about victims. We are talking about the issue of victims' trust in a justice system. I would like my colleague to talk about the 14,000 victims who testified before Justice Arbour that they did not trust the military system. Since 2022, all sexual abuse cases under the Criminal Code have been tried in civilian court, and that arrangement is working. Why could it not continue to work? [Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question with a question. I am going to do what the Liberals do during question period and answer with a question. Someday it will be their turn to ask questions in the House, because nothing lasts forever. What does my colleague have to say to the victims, the victims' associations, the Barreau du Québec and the experts who told us that they were in favour of allowing cases to be transferred to the civilian justice system, but not at all costs? It may be suitable for some cases, but not all. I understand that complete freedom of choice is not necessarily the right option for the sole reason that not everyone always has the information and there can still be things like manipulation behind the scenes. We agree on that. However, BQ‑2, which was adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on the committee, would have made it possible to determine, on the recommendation of civilian court experts, that certain matters were best left to the military justice ssytem. What does my colleague have to say to the victims who came to testify? [English ]

[Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his hard work on Bill C-11 at committee, bringing in witnesses and listening to them. We worked across party lines to get the best possible amendments to this bill that listen to victims. The member talked about how the Liberals have now stolen their majority in a very sneaky way by getting floor crossers. Can he talk to the fact that now the Liberals get to ignore what the victims actually said at committee, and why they would do that when this is actually in the best interest of the Canadian Armed Forces and those survivors? [Translation ]

[Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague. We worked very well together on this. I think this just goes to show that the Liberals' majority has gone to their heads. They are going to be extremely arrogant in the coming years. The next three and a half years are going to feel very long and drawn out, but the public will judge for themselves. The proof will be in the pudding. This shows that the Liberals do not care about what we heard or about the weeks and weeks of work we did listening to what victims had to say. That is extremely frustrating, but I am still interested in seeing how the member for Nunavut, a former NDP member, will vote, because she made several recommendations when she came to committee. Now, she is a Liberal, so I am interested to see how she will vote. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and express some thoughts on the amendments and the tactics we see the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives is taking on this issue. The degree to which they try to give the false impression that the government is not listening to members of the CAF and that the government is not sensitive to the issue before the House today is really unfortunate. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the government party is the only political entity out of the three big parties in the House that is actually giving attention and credit to the amazing amount of work Justice Arbour performed on behalf of our CAF members. We are not talking about hundreds through this whole process, but literally thousands of members of the CAF who were engaged in one way or another, and that is not to mention the dozens, if not hundreds of women whom Justice Arbour would have been directly or indirectly in communication with. What do we hear today? Whether they are from the Bloc or the Conservative Party, members are taking the position that it does not matter what Justice Arbour had to say— An hon. member: Cry me a river. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member said, “Cry me a river.” Shame on the Conservative member who would say something of that nature when we are taking a look at how important the issue is. I will stand up for every woman in the Canadian Forces— (1100) [Expand] Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the record, the member who made that statement is actually from the Bloc Québécois. That is for correction purposes. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): That is not a point of order, but a matter of debate. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton is also rising on a point of order. [Translation ]

[Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should stop engaging in demagoguery at the expense of victims, since the Liberals were the ones who showed that they did not care. He should stop pretending to be upset when we know that is not true. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): This is a very emotional topic, but we must be careful about what we say in the House. Members should not use certain words and phrases. I am therefore going to ask all members to be careful about what they say here. The hon. member for Winnipeg North. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc should be ashamed of the position it is taking on this legislation. I am not going to apologize for standing up for what I believe to be true. We have a justice who has done a phenomenal job of reflecting the need for change. I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. I had the opportunity to serve very proudly, and I have worked with members of the CAF over the years. I have a deep respect for the work that has been done to date, military, non-military and government, in order to deal with the cultural changes required in our forces. We have made significant progress. Listening to the debates during second reading, I thought there was a universal acceptance of the need to transfer to the civil process investigations or the court process, and, where we can, to provide that additional support. We have a government that has recognized that, and that is why we have Bill C-11. As opposed to trying to marginalize Justice Arbour, who did the work, why do we not read what she actually said? Allow me to quote the justice, who said: Recommendation #5: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the MP may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. Those are the points I amplified when I first spoke to this legislation. We then had the Conservative critic standing up in a response to marginalize what is an absolutely critical and important issue. It is an issue that I honestly thought the Conservative Party was on side with, until the other day, when the Conservatives made the decision to bring forward all of these amendments. That is not to discredit the committee process. Whether it has a majority or a minority, I believe we have seen a government that responds very positively to the work the standing committees do. It does not matter if it has a majority or a minority. Quite frankly, there is a responsibility for all of us to be thorough in those recommendations that have been presented. I have not heard an argument brought forward that counters what Justice Arbour would have taken into consideration. I have confidence in her holistic approach to deal with the issue in the report that she brought forward. It includes 48 recommendations, and dozens of them have already been implemented. I do not know the exact number, but I can assure members that we are well on the way to the full implementation of that report. That is what this legislation would do. From what I understand, it would take the essence of that report, the most significant aspect, and put it into law. (1105) Based on the debate we are hearing from the unholy alliance of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, they are now saying we should throw out that recommendation, but on what grounds? There was a committee. The standing committee met. Contrast the discussions that took place there to those Justice Arbour would have had with many members of the CAF. Meetings were done in confidence, no doubt, along with some that would have been done in a public forum. I always thought that, as politicians, we are supposed to look at ideas and thoughts and base decisions on the work of the people who have that comprehensive understanding and have done the homework. I would suggest that Justice Arbour did the homework on this issue. It is interesting. We put in place, shortly after the recommendation was made, an interim measure that would see the transfer of these files into the civil process. Given the opposition to it today, I would ask how many members of the Bloc Québécois or the Conservative Party have stood in their place in the past year and a half and more, or the last few years, and actually asked a question about it. I cannot recall any. I have been here for a lot of question periods. I do not recall any Conservatives standing up, saying they do not believe in Justice Arbour's position and we need to keep this in the military justice system. Please, when the members opposite stand up and speak, correct me if I am wrong. At the end of the day, we are trying to reinforce the strength and confidence our CAF members and Canadians as a whole have in building a Canada strong Canadian Armed Forces. We have a Prime Minister who, in less than a year, has raised defence spending to 2% of the GDP, and we are going beyond that. We just had a record number of candidates recruited to join the Canadian Forces. We are talking about a record number in well over 30 years. The numbers are going up. We are recognizing that we need to increase the pay. We have recognized that we need to build on our military and industrial infrastructure to support the CAF. Today, we have legislation to protect the interests of CAF members. We should be talking about how CAF membership contributes in so many ways to who we are as a nation. We should get behind the members, support them and support the legislation, as it has been suggested by the government. [Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we always have the same indignation coming from the member for Winnipeg North. He wants to talk about marginalization. He is marginalizing victims because he is not paying attention to what they actually said at the national defence committee in their testimony. They bravely stood in front of the committee, shared their experiences and demanded to have more freedom regarding which justice system they were able to get charges prosecuted under and move forward with. The member talks about Madam Arbour. We thank her for her report, which includes the 48 recommendations. However, the current government, for 11 years, sat on the report from Madam Justice Deschamps without touching it or lifting it. The Liberals never even dusted it off as it sat in the corner of the desk of defence ministers, going back to former Minister Sajjan back in the day. If they had acted upon that, we may not be in this situation now. The director of military prosecutions said if it were not for the directive coming from the government, he would have rescinded the orders and gone back to a concurrent system. (1110) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I suggest not only that the member has an obligation to listen to what was said at the standing committee, as the standing committee dealt with the legislation, but that there is also an obligation to look at what has been taking place over the last few years, based on a recommendation by Justice Arbour with regard to this very issue. I can assure the member that she, as a justice, had access to and referenced far more members of the Canadian Forces than the member did. Quite frankly, I have more confidence in her recommendation than I do in his suggestion. [Translation ]

[Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, aside from him saying shame on me. It is okay, I will sleep soundly, better than he will, I suspect. Let us forget the principle of the amendments. In his last response, the member asked our colleague to listen to what was said at the standing committee. I thought that was funny, because I was there but he was not. He was in the House, as usual. He probably spends Christmas here. That said, something that came up often was the Quebec model of a specialized court to deal with misconduct. I moved a motion that was unrelated to the bill but that asked whether, in the long term, we could consider this, look at it and assess this option. The Liberals filibustered for the entire meeting. Is that how they feel about institutions? [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about standing committees is that everything is recorded. We do not have to physically be there. There is a Hansard. Let me read a quote from a standing committee. This is a quote from Charlotte Duval-Lantoine: I want to underline what Madam Arbour said about recommendation five, which is that giving the choice to victims to choose the jurisdiction in which they find themselves puts them “in an untenable position.” If the case doesn't go their way, then they find themselves retraumatized and with the possible question, “Did I make the wrong choice here?” [Translation ]

[Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That did not answer my question. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): That is a point of debate and not a point of order. [English ]

The hon. member. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member stood up on a point of order and interrupted another member. I would like to be able to finish my quote. I notice you are going to another speaker. I would like to be able to finish the quote. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member has about six seconds to finish his quote. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to have enough time to finish the whole quotation. The member asked about going to committee. We do not have to be at the committee in order to appreciate— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): We have time for one brief question. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. [Expand] Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the reason for Justice Arbour making that recommendation is that members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were sexually assaulted in the military were not coming forward out of fear of retribution. They did not want their case to be investigated and tried by their own employer. Can the member elaborate on that? [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I believe Justice Arbour has done an excellent job in making a statement that is very simple and easy to understand. At the end of the day, I would ultimately argue that the effort and work that the Canadian Forces did, along with what Justice Arbour did, should be respected within the chamber, and we should be getting behind it. [Translation ]

[Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I was a member of the Canadian Forces for 22 years. I witnessed military justice being applied in various cases. Later, when I became a major, I was trained to preside over summary trials and, as a unit commander, I had to administer military justice. I tried some cases by summary trial. There were some situations and some problems related to sexual misconduct. That is why, on the Conservative side, we are very aware of the situation. We do not talk just for the sake of talking. There are people here who have experienced the system first-hand. Our defence critic has been watching what has been going on for years. We are not just talking for the sake of talking. We are proposing meaningful change. Let us get back to Bill C-11. Yes, we believe that changes are needed regarding sexual misconduct. However, once again, the Liberal government has missed an opportunity. It has completely missed the opportunity to do the right thing. Instead of addressing the issues in a rigorous, balanced way, it is adopting a rigid approach that is inappropriate and out of touch with the realities on the ground. The result is a bill that ignores critical testimony, rejects reasonable improvements and risks exacerbating the very problems it purports to address. Today I will be speaking to Bill C-11, and I want to be clear from the outset that we are not just talking about technical adjustments. We are talking about a fundamental question that all Canadians can understand: When a victim comes forward, do we listen to them, or do we impose a solution on them? That is important. In committee, we heard some powerful testimony. Survivors courageously came and talked to us. They shared their experiences, their realities and their concerns. Experts on the military justice system also testified. These are people who understand both its strengths and its weaknesses. Despite these differing perspectives, one message kept coming up: People want to have a choice. They want to choose the system, the process and what works best. They do not want a decision imposed from on high. They do not want a rigid mechanism decided without their input. The Conservatives did their job. We listened and took action alongside the Bloc Québécois. I would like to thank my Bloc colleagues. Excellent parliamentary work was carried out in the Standing Committee on National Defence. As I said earlier, our critic has been there for a long time. He knows his job, as do our other colleagues on the committee. Former lieutenant-colonels sit on the committee. These are people who have experienced the military system and witnessed the problems with military justice. As I said at the start, I myself have seen victims. There have been trials, and we have experienced the situation first-hand. The proposals, both those from the Bloc Québécois and those from the Conservative Party, made sense. The aim was really to address the shortcomings of the bill and put victims back at the centre of the process. For example, there is a problem with clauses 7 and 8. In its current form, the bill completely removes the military justice system's jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada. It mandates an automatic transfer to the civilian system. There are no nuances, there is no flexibility and there is no room to adapt. We put forward a simple solution: give the court martial jurisdiction if that is what the victim wants. That is essential. There is a system. It can be done. The victim can choose. It seems to me that it does not take a genius to understand that. What matters is recognizing that every situation is different. Judgment must be exercised and victims must be respected. We also put forward sound oversight mechanisms: a five-year sunset clause providing for a mandatory statutory review to examine how well the system is working. We also proposed measures to avoid delays in transferring evidence because delays can compromise the truth. All too often, justice delayed becomes justice denied. Take the Jordan decision, for example. So many cases drag on, stall, and make no progress. Ultimately, the Jordan decision applies, but it does not work. We end up with a system meant to handle sexual misconduct. Victims, most of them women, end up going through a civilian process that drags on forever. In our view, if the military system can continue to do its job and the victim wants to keep the matter in the military system, that should be allowed. Why not? We do not understand why the Liberals are against this. (1115) Everything we did was done in collaboration with our Bloc Québécois colleagues, as well as our NDP colleague who has since crossed the floor to become a Liberal. Back then, her thoughts were with the victims. Now, her thoughts are with her Liberal team, which sees things differently. Our proposals were reasonable, balanced and based on witness testimony. However, all of it was thrown out and rejected, with a big red X over top. All the important work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence was dismissed out of hand. The government does not even have its majority yet, but it managed to knock us back anyway. Imagine what will happen when the government has a majority on committees and in the House. It is going to steamroll right over the work of opposition members who are working to improve bills. It would have been a different matter if all the opposition parties had joined forces to demolish the bill. Sometimes that happens. For example, we defeated Bill C‑2. However, we supported this bill. We agreed with it; it simply needed to be improved. What no one can wrap their heads around is the government's refusal to improve it. I have been here for 10 years. Often, the Conservatives, and often with the support of the Bloc Québécois, make proposals that the government rejects. A few years later, a problematic situation arises, and we say “we told you so”. However, people quickly forget. The bill will pass and, in five years, we may talk about it again. We are going to say that we said in 2026 that it would not work, and we are going to ask why they did not listen to us at the time. Now is the time to do the right thing. We are here now. Why not listen to intelligent proposals from the opposition parties? Another key issue is political interference. We can see that political interference in the process is possible. In fact, the bill would allow the Minister of National Defence to issue directives in the context of specific proceedings. Politics could interfere in the directives. This is an important power that must be exercised with care, and that is why we proposed giving this responsibility to the judge advocate general, known in military terms as JAG. This person is an independent expert. Justice must never be politicized. Once again, the government rejected this proposal. Why? We even proposed what is known as a principled amendment. The bill states that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction. We disagreed. We said that, in a state governed by the rule of law, no one is above the law. To be clear, we said that if a military judge commits an offence, they should be tried like anyone else. It seems to me that this makes sense. Just because someone is a judge does not mean they are not subject to the law, but the Liberals refuse to accept that. Why? The pattern is very clear: We make proposals, and the Liberals shut us down. Victims ask for something, and the government imposes something else. Experts make recommendations, and the government ignores them. The Liberals have chosen to impose systematic transfers to the civilian system. This is a system that is already overburdened, a system that is often ill suited to military realities. This is not a solution; it simply shifts the problem. The bill could have been improved. It could have been balanced, more respectful of victims and certainly more faithful to the recommendations heard in committee, but the government made a choice to be stubborn and to dictate rather than listening. On this side of the House, we will continue to defend a clear approach. The Liberals talk about listening to victims and respecting their autonomy, but they do the opposite. If they are asked whether they want to strengthen the independence of the system and ensure fairness for everyone, they will say yes, but with this bill and their refusal to accept the amendments, they are showing their contempt for victims. Those who serve our country deserve better. They deserve a system that works, that is credible and that can be trusted. (1120) [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Conservatives have really thought the amendments through. What they are doing is making the suggestion that we should have a dual system, one that provides a choice. Justice Arbour would no doubt have reviewed that particular option. She has done her homework in the consultations, in working with literally hundreds of victims and others, to come up with a recommendation that clearly states it should be a civilian system. My question for the Conservative Party, in particular this member, is this: Is Justice Arbour wrong in her recommendation? (1125) [Translation ]

[Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr. Speaker, it would have been very interesting to hear what Judge Arbour had to say to the committee, but she refused to come. She did not come to explain her report. Obviously, if the committee members had been able to ask her questions and gain a clearer understanding of what she intended, that might have changed certain things. Either she did not want to come, or the government advised her not to come. I do not know which it was. In any case, our position remains clear, and the Bloc Québécois agrees with us. In fact, I believe it was the Bloc Québécois that proposed the amendment. The military justice system exists. It has flaws that need to be addressed, but the civilian system is not the ultimate solution, as it is already bogged down with management issues. In that context, keeping the military system as an option was the best course of action. [Expand] Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a response he gave earlier to my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government said how important House of Commons committees are, going so far as to say that we can read everything that is said in committee because it is all on the committee's web page and, as parliamentarians, we have access to all the work done by committees, even if we do not sit on them. I find it rather ironic that the parliamentary secretary is telling us how important parliamentary committees are when the Liberals do not even respect the work that was done by all the parliamentarians who were present, regardless of party, and by all the people who came to testify. I want to know what my colleague thinks of the Liberals' conception of parliamentary democracy and committee work, especially as it relates to us today. [Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think that, like me, my colleague sees the Liberals as having a disregard for democracy. They have no respect for opposition parties, even though we make constructive proposals to improve legislation in the interest of all Canadians. That is what the opposition parties did together. The members opposite are rejecting our proposals out of hand, and we cannot get a rational explanation for it, other than that it seems to be based on an ideology or goodness knows what. [English ]

[Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his service to Canada as a veteran, as a former commanding officer, whose family, his own son, is in the Royal Canadian Navy. My colleague talks about what we heard in testimony from those witnesses. There are more experts on military justice than just the one or two or three justices who have filed reports to the Department of National Defence and to ministers of national defence over the last 12 years. Some of them we heard from in testimony, such as the former director of military prosecutions, retired Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who said, “Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator.” Does my colleague believe that what the Liberals are doing, by not listening to the victims and not keeping in place the amendments that multiple parties made together to improve Bill C-11, is again going to empower the perpetrators and undermine the freedom of the victim? [Translation ]

[Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr. Speaker, the answer is pretty clear: yes. As I mentioned in my speech, the Liberals always turn a deaf ear when victims speak out. This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it across the board with respect to the Criminal Code, the justice system, and crimes against women. They have always turned a deaf ear and a blind eye. For our part, we can never understand why this government turns a deaf ear to victims' problems and does not seek real solutions to help them get justice. [English ]

[Expand] Chris Malette (Bay of Quinte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the report stage of Bill C-11. I would first like to note that in rising for this, my first full speech on a bill in the people's House, I do so with the pride of having been sent here with the overwhelming support of the people of the Bay of Quinte and the incredible men and women of 8 Wing CFB Trenton to represent them in addressing important issues like the environment and duty to them in their service to the Canadian Armed Forces, and that duty for me, which brings me here today. I would also like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and acknowledge the witnesses, including the brave victims and survivors of sexual assault and misconduct, for their work on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-11 and cultural change at the heart of the Canadian Armed Forces come at a significant time for our military. The norms and rules that once ensured Canada's peace and prosperity are being rewritten. The Canadian Armed Forces is operating in a volatile and unpredictable global security environment. As Canada's new government makes a generational investment into our military, including meeting NATO's 2% target, we cannot forget that the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces are the driving force behind our security and safety. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces must be ready for the threats of today and those of tomorrow. A critical component to that readiness is ensuring that members have a work environment where they feel safe, protected and empowered to serve. This is essential to operational effectiveness, productivity and morale, as well as recruitment and retention. Part of these efforts is ensuring that the military justice system evolves alongside the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces and that it is aligned with the aims of Canada's civilian criminal justice system, continuing to ensure fairness and accountability for all involved. Bill C-11, first tabled as Bill C-66 in March 2024, as we heard earlier, was reintroduced as Bill C-11 last fall to amend the National Defence Act. This was to help build trust in the military for our currently serving members and for those who are looking to the CAF as a future career. Bill C-11 proposes a suite of changes to ensure the continued effectiveness, accountability and alignment of the military justice system with the operational needs of the CAF. The legislation is critical to ensuring the continued safety and well-being of our people in uniform. Bill C-11 was introduced to address key recommendations brought forward by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish. This included addressing recommendation 5 of Justice Arbour's independent external comprehensive review report to the Minister of National Defence, delivered in May 2022. This recommendation aimed to remove the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual assault offences committed in Canada in the majority of cases, from investigation to prosecution and trial of offences. Of all of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations, recommendation 5 is the only one that must be implemented through a legislative amendment to the National Defence Act, which brings us here today. The legislation also sought to address eight recommendations made by Justice Fish. The recommendations he proposed relate to the way in which we appoint key military justice actors like the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, by making them Governor in Council appointments. Justice Fish's report recognized the important role of these military justice actors in ensuring a fair and transparent process for victims and survivors. The legislation would also expand eligibility criteria for military judge appointments to include non-commissioned officers, which would diversify the applicant pool further. In response to another of Justice Fish's recommendations, the proposed legislation would change the title of the Canadian Forces provost marshal to the provost marshal general. This way, the title aligns more closely with the titles of other senior designations in the CAF, such as surgeon general, chaplain general, judge advocate general, and so on. (1130) Bill C-11 would also expand the class of people who could make an interference complaint to be addressed by the Military Police Complaints Commission. Further, it would require military police or others carrying out policing duties or functions under the responsibility of the provost marshal general to make such a complaint in certain circumstances. Beyond addressing key recommendations from former justices Arbour and Fish, Bill C-11 would exclude military judges from being subjected to the summary hearing system. This is to reinforce judicial independence. Members of the national defence committee heard time and again about the need to reinforce judicial independence to build trust in the system for all involved. Speaking of trust, Bill C-11 would expand access to the victims' liaison officers under the Declaration of Victims Rights. That way, an individual acting on behalf of a victim could request that a victim's liaison officer be appointed to assist them. Through Bill C-11, we have brought forward these proposed amendments to ensure that the military justice system grows in tandem with the evolving culture of the Canadian Armed Forces. The military justice system must continue to function in alignment with our civilian criminal justice system and better respond to the needs of victims and survivors. Canadians expect Canada's military justice system to reflect their values at all times. Bill C-11 is an important piece of legislation that does just that. It advances the culture of respect and accountability across all ranks of the defence team, regardless of role, position or rank. This legislation makes clear our commitment to modernize Canada's military justice system. It makes clear our commitment to address the recommendations from independent external review reports, namely Justice Fish's third independent review and Justice Arbour's independent external comprehensive review. As well, it makes clear our commitment to the brave and skilled members of our Canadian Armed Forces and their civilian colleagues who serve this country every day. At its core, the Canadian Armed Forces is defined by the people who serve in uniform. They are central to our defence and to our national security. We will continue building a workplace free from harassment, discrimination and violence for all who serve and defend this country. Bill C-11 will pave the way for future statutory, regulatory and policy amendments that will further evolve military culture and continue to modernize the military justice system. The legislation before us today represents their commitments to modernizing the military justice system and evolving Canada's military culture. We must also continue to strengthen the policies and programs that make a meaningful difference in the lives of those affected by harmful conduct. We are seeing encouraging signs of that today, but our work will not stop with this legislation. This week alone, we saw recruitment of the Canadian Armed Forces hit a 30-year high. This is remarkable progress, but we cannot stop here. We must ensure that we are doing our part to protect our military and civilian members of the defence team who work hard every day to keep us safe. We are sincerely grateful for everything they do. (1135) [Expand] Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of times that the government is very proud of the increase in new recruits signing up to our Canadian Armed Forces. Recruitment has risen by 30%. It obviously was very low up until this point, over the last decade. Can the member clarify what I heard, that those numbers do not even begin to replace the number who have chosen to leave? [Expand] Chris Malette: Mr. Speaker, we were indeed encouraged this week by the news of the recruitment numbers. Although we heard reports that the numbers leaving are outstripping the numbers coming in, and I do not have the exact numbers at my fingertips, I have been assured that they, in fact, were a bit misleading. That is why it is important for this legislation to be at report stage. Bill C-11 would help us ensure that those people coming in are welcomed into a safe and responsible environment for all genders enrolling in the Canadian Armed Forces. [Expand] Charles Sousa (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution at the national defence committee. At committee, we heard that 36 recommendations by Justice Arbour have been implemented. That is a tremendous accomplishment and one of the reasons things have improved. However, there is something experts have said. I know the opposition has talked about having choice, but experts say that is a false choice. Could you elaborate, please? (1140) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I would remind members to speak through the Chair. The hon. member for Bay of Quinte. [Expand] Chris Malette: Mr. Speaker, yes, we did hear quite a bit of discussion on choice at committee. One thing I would like to acknowledge at this point is that it warms my heart to see members opposite embracing a woman's right to choose in all manners. It is heartening. It was a little misleading in the fact that a woman's right to choose was somehow seen as an ideal situation. Since 2021, all cases have gone to the civilian system. The right to choose, as we have heard, is, in fact, an obstacle to a woman reporting in some of the testimony that we heard. While it may have been an option that some had seen as a very responsible position, we heard much evidence of the opposite. [Expand] Cathay Wagantall: Mr. Speaker, on the right to choose, the member indicated, which I think was somewhat demeaning, that this only applied to women. Obviously, in the armed forces, there are a lot of issues. On this issue, I can attest, from male members of the armed forces having spoken with me, that this is as much an issue to them as it is to women. Would the member like to retract that statement? [Expand] Chris Malette: Mr. Speaker, if I misspoke, I sincerely apologize. There are men and women who have reported cases of abuse. I did not in any way mean to impugn anyone in that regard. [Expand] Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my colleague for his great work on the national defence committee. I would like the member to elaborate a bit about what we heard in terms of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who would not come forward to file complaints out of fear of retribution and that their careers would be limited, and that is why we brought forward Justice Arbour's recommendation. [Expand] Chris Malette: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We heard testimony on a different report at the national defence committee yesterday on francophones in the armed forces, and one of the members who testified had testified earlier. This was an officer who, in Afghanistan, was sexually assaulted, but failed to report because the assailant in this case was a superior officer. That goes to the crux of why we are making these changes. It is due to a reluctance or fear of reporting because of the chain of command. [Expand] Blake Richards (Airdrie—Cochrane, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-11 follows what I would call a really troubling pattern of behaviour toward veterans in Canada, especially when it comes to women veterans. This is the same party that proudly claims to be feminist, but it will happily disregard what women are advocating for the second it no longer suits its political agenda. I will remind everyone in this House that it was the Liberals who propped up Justin Trudeau, the self-proclaimed feminist, who would immediately fire any woman from his caucus who dared to stand up to him. It would appear now that Liberals continue to follow in those footsteps. Much has been said already today about we are seeing happen here. [Disturbance in gallery ] [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Order. I will remind those who are attending not to make comments from the gallery. The hon. member for Airdrie—Cochrane can resume. [Expand] Blake Richards: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about it already, but clearly, in the defence committee, a lot of witnesses came forward, like veterans, and in particular, women veterans. They talked a lot about having the ability to choose and how the justice they needed to receive would be done. The Conservatives listened to that. We worked across party lines to see improvements to the bill. The Liberals did not seem to listen so much, which seems to be a pattern. They like to pretend that they care. They are about to have a majority government that they achieved through backroom deals. They think that means that now they do not have to work with others, work across party lines or listen to the victims. Instead, they can just ram through the changes they want to see. Here, they are trying to do what is politically expedient for them, but they are not listening. They are not hearing the concerns that are being raised. I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and fighting for our veterans there. Just a little over a year ago, we tabled what I would consider a landmark study on the experiences of women veterans. That is a study we did over several months. There were about 25 meetings to hear witness testimony. We heard some testimony from women veterans that was absolutely heartbreaking. I know many of the same veterans would have come to speak to the defence committee about the experiences they had, like with military sexual trauma. There are a lot of things that women veterans have experienced during their time in the Canadian Forces, like ill-fitting equipment and other things that are not designed for our women in our military. The Liberals publicly claimed how important this study was for them and how much they cared about this cause. In the end, out of the recommendations that were made, as far as I can tell, the only thing that was acted upon was the idea of creating a women veterans council to advise the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Of course, what we have seen since that time is that the women who were appointed to this committee were telling us that they were not being listened to. They were expressing their frustration. They were expressing concern about the fact that they had no access to the Minister of Veterans Affairs or to the Government of Canada. They simply felt like they were being used for photo ops or as a showpiece. In the end, despite raising these concerns with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and despite many of us raising them at committee, there were still no efforts being made to listen to or address any of the concerns the members of this council were trying to raise. In January of this year, there was a massive resignation of the majority of the members of the women veterans council, because they claimed they were being ignored. We are now seeing that very same thing play out here with the Minister of National Defence. Therefore, after being forced to finally address the issues that were plaguing the Canadian Armed Forces and driving members from its ranks, and after public embarrassment from an Auditor General's report, only then did the Liberals decide there was a need to address these issues. As I said, many of these same women veterans we heard from at the veterans affairs committee bravely came forward to recount their experiences, to talk once again to a parliamentary committee and face the trauma they experienced. They offered their advice on ways to amend Bill C-11 to ensure that victims of the broken justice system had their voices heard. Of course, the goal was to ensure that the military justice system would learn from its mistakes, so future members of the CAF would not be subjected to the same cruel experiences that they were subjected to. The amendments made in the national defence committee came straight from veterans. Those veterans had been on the receiving end of the failures of the military justice system. They were the same veterans that the Auditor General reported about and who suffered undue hardship under this system. (1145) Once again, the Liberals will pretend that this entire initiative is their own doing to support women. Then, as soon as they got their majority, they dropped the charade and completely wiped out some of the amendments that came from the very work of these women who came forward. Not only is this disrespectful to all of those who came forward and all of those who made themselves vulnerable to try to help future CAF members, but it is also a blatant display of disregard by the Liberal government. It is clear that, once again, this is just another “check the box” for them. Rather than trying to fix the issue, it is some kind of a show of pretending they are doing something. First, the Liberals sat on this issue for almost 10 years, while the media exposed case after case. I do not think Canadians are going to forget how long the Liberals buried their heads in the sand to avoid this issue. What is clear now is that the Liberals are going to attempt to ram through this legislation, rather than actually accept the things that were heard and the work that was done across party lines so that we could actually address the issues in the way the veterans were calling for. The disrespect for veterans does not end there. There have been numerous scandals in just the last few years alone where the Liberal government deliberately continues to ignore what veterans are asking for. I think about the Presence in Absence monument. For those who do not know, this is a monument the Liberals funded, which was supposed to honour those who gave their lives in Afghanistan. The Liberals did not do their due diligence and did not ensure that the project was inspected in the right way. It was constructed listing the names of many surviving veterans as killed in action, and other names, of those who actually did lay down their lives, making the ultimate sacrifice, were left off that monument. As we can imagine, survivors and family members of those who were killed in action were furious. The Province of Ontario put forward a motion to Veterans Affairs, just looking for a simple apology, and there was nothing. It is a clear pattern. With the time I have remaining, I will speak briefly about what the Liberals are doing in terms of the $4-billion cuts they are making to Veterans Affairs and what impact that is going to have on veterans. Veterans are screaming out, because they are going to see five-year wait times to get some of their basic benefits as a result of some of these cuts, including to the bureau of pensions advocates and other cuts. It is shocking, disappointing and sad. It just continues on. This is just another example where veterans are being ignored and not listened to, and where they seem to be the last thing the government thinks about or considers. It is not right. Veterans certainly deserve better. What I would say to the government is to think about the veterans who came forward and how much courage it must have taken for them to recount their stories. What needs to be done is to ensure that the recounting of their stories and the bravery they showed to come forward and try to make things better for their fellow future veterans are honoured in a way that involves listening to what was said and acting upon it, rather than just trying to ram through a piece of legislation and trying to pretend that the Liberals have done something by checking a box. The Liberals need to ensure that these veterans, particularly women veterans, have their voices reflected in this. I do not think that is what we are seeing now, when they are refusing to accept some of the amendments. I really hope that, perhaps, after listening to some of this today, the government will take a step back and say that it needs to make sure these voices are heard and work with the things that have been done across party lines to make sure those experiences are reflected in this. I do not see that now. (1150) [Expand] Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did listen intently to the intervention of my colleague across the way. He referenced a report that was tabled by the ACVA committee in June 2024. I actually participated in that study as well. That report made a unanimous recommendation, recommendation 40, which states: That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities. This is exactly what Justice Arbour recommended in her recommendation 5, which is exactly what is in Bill C-11. I am not sure why there is a change of heart. We listened to veterans, and this is what they asked for. (1155) [Expand] Blake Richards: Mr. Speaker, what I need to remind the member of is that we are hearing, and the committee heard, from veterans, from women veterans, who have come forward, and they are saying that they need to have the choice. That is what the amendments, which the government is ignoring, are seeking to do. The government can stand up and pretend it is listening. It can claim that it cares. If it really cared, it would listen to what we have heard and act upon it. That is what the amendments give the opportunity to do. The second the government thinks it has a majority government and can do whatever it wants, the idea that it would work together to try to work with everyone and do what is in the best interest of veterans is just completely thrown out the window. That is done the very second it thinks it does not have to listen anymore. [Expand] William Stevenson (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the committee and that sort of thing. The hon. member has the role of shadow minister. Could he explain some of the interventions he has had with people outside of the committee, such as the regular forces who have come to him and the everyday experiences he has had, back and forth, with them? [Expand] Blake Richards: Mr. Speaker, if I were to really summarize what I hear from veterans all the time, and I hear it frequently, it is probably summarized best in the words of former prime minister Justin Trudeau when he told veterans they were “asking for more than we [can] give”. That is what veterans feel like they are being told by the government, consistently and constantly, that they are asking for more than we can give. Frankly, we can never give enough. Our veterans, who serve the country, who are willing to lay down their lives for the country, deserve to be treated with respect. They deserve to have what they are entitled to for the service they gave to the country. Right now, they are not seeing it and they are expressing their alarm. [Expand] Tim Watchorn (Les Pays-d'en-Haut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on workplace safety. Does he know anywhere in the world where someone who reports a sexual crime gets investigated, prosecuted and judged by his peers? Does that make any sense to him? [Expand] Blake Richards: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that anyone here is suggesting that. If we are to talk about workplace safety, let me talk about the workplace our veterans serve in. Our veterans are willing to lay down their lives for this country. They put themselves in the most difficult positions, ones that any of us could never even imagine. They do that because the government asks them to do that. The only thing that they expect in return is that the government takes care of them and listens to what they need. That is not happening under the government. It is about time the government starts listening to veterans and providing what veterans deserve. [Translation ]

[Expand] Tim Watchorn (Les Pays-d'en-Haut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Pays‑d'en‑Haut. Today, in the House, we are debating a bill that is very important for the military community and the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to begin by thanking Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans and their families for their service to our country. This bill seeks to modernize the military justice system and originally included recommendations from the reports of former Supreme Court of Canada justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish. These changes are essential to the long-term success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the entire defence team as they continue their important mission of defending Canada and Canadians. The bill responds to recommendation 5 from former Supreme Court Justice Arbour's report and the eight recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Fish's report. However, the amendments made by the committee and proposed by opposition MPs run counter to these recommendations. I believe that all my colleagues in the House will agree with me on the following point: Bringing about lasting and meaningful cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces must be one of our top priorities. That is why I believe it is crucial to hold this debate here, so that we can discuss the importance of upholding the recommendations of former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour. Today I will address the importance of recommendation 5. In 2022, Ms. Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, entitled “Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces”, contains 48 recommendations that focused on reforming the “institutional shortcomings” and “structural impediments” that have allowed the problem to persist. Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 is that civilian authorities should have exclusive jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences alleged against members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I quote: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the [Canadian Armed Forces]. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the [military police] may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. She also states the following in her report: ...I do not envisage a type of permanent transfer process by which a victim would report a crime to the [military police], who would then transfer the case to a civilian police service. The experience of the interim recommendation has shown that to be unworkable. I expect victims to be told to contact civilian authorities directly, and such contact to be facilitated by the [military police] and the [Canadian Armed Forces] so far as possible. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties run directly counter to this recommendation. This will make it even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill as amended by the opposition parties. The lack of clarity and transparency will have a negative impact on the military justice system and on victims and survivors. Since December 2021, all new Criminal Code sexual offence charges have been laid in the civilian justice system. None of these offences are tried in the military justice system, and this arrangement is working. Justice Arbour also relied on the results of the Declaration of Victims Rights consultation in issuing recommendation 5. In her report, she notes: Common themes in the response to the consultation included “fear of reprisal and retaliation, lack of support, shame and embarrassment, issues with the system, the accused being protected, and the individual responsible for handling complaints being the perpetrator.” There was also a widely held perception, both among those who identified as victims of a service offence and those who did not, that the military justice system fails to treat victims with dignity and respect.... (1200) This lack of trust and fear of reprisals were also raised by the vast majority of witnesses during the committee's consideration of Bill C-11. Here is an example of testimony received by the committee. On November 20, 2025, Paula MacDonald made the following statement during her testimony before the Standing Committee on National Defence: When I went to the civilian police, I was told more than once to go back to the military system that failed me. At the same time, my leaders reframed my complaints. Instead of naming sexual harassment and abuse of power that led to sexual assault, they called me emotional, hypersensitive and a mental health problem. She continued: In my case, the Canadian Armed Forces didn't simply mishandle a file; it used the machinery of the military justice and grievance system to protect its membership, who violated the National Defence Act and silenced me. The misuse of state power that the charter is meant to guard against is what they did. It is exactly why the reforms like Bill C‑11 and a real shift to independent civilian jurisdiction over sexual offences is so urgently needed to maintain the rule of law within the Canadian Armed Forces. She also said the following: If a Canadian solution is to move it to the civilian system— and it seems that this is our Canadian solution—where our three Supreme Court justices, who are experts in the delivery of justice, say it should be, then this is what we need to do. I think it is pretty clear that there is a lack of trust in the military justice system when it comes to sexual offences. That is why the defence team implemented most of Justice Arbour's recommendations, and we need to do the same for recommendation 5. This bill should establish a clear framework for investigating and acting on allegations of sexual misconduct in order to foster an environment of accountability and justice. That would not happen if we adopted the amendments put forward by the opposition parties to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 from Bill C‑11. We are encouraged by the positive changes in the culture of the defence team in recent years. Bill C‑11 and the changes it will make to the National Defence Act are a crucial step in strengthening that trust and ensuring that this change is permanent. Canadians who serve our country risk everything for us. In return, we owe them our full and unconditional support. (1205) [English ]

[Expand] Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, having listened to and read a lot of the testimony, that what the member just mentioned about the concerns of one of those witnesses is absolutely true. At the same time, Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” She goes on to indicate that it should not be an either-or but a both-and. We know that victims come with different perspectives. What the government has done is chosen what is best, most applicable and appreciated by itself and the Canadian Armed Forces. It removes it from the very place where the issues are being done. They— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I have to interrupt the member to give a chance for the member for Les Pays-d'en-Haut to respond. [Translation ]

[Expand] Tim Watchorn: Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, Justice Arbour interviewed 14,000 people and most of them did not want these cases to remain in the military system. The trust is not there. A change in culture is happening slowly. We hear that things are improving at the Department of National Defence, but they have not yet improved enough. Victims still fear retaliation. They fear being reprimanded, and they fear that their case will not be dealt with appropriately. [Expand] Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. It is important to take an interest in what we are debating here in the House. While my colleague may take an interest in the debates here in the House, he is not, to my knowledge, a member of the committee that studied this bill. He can correct me if I am wrong. The committee members worked very hard on this. Bloc Québécois and Conservative members proposed amendments that came back to the House. It was not the first time that happened. I think we have seen that with other bills in the past. The government says it wants to collaborate, but it just dismisses the committee's constructive work once the bill comes back to the House. This does not bode well for the future when the governing party has a majority in committees. Is this how it is going to be from now on, or will there be genuine collaboration? I have my doubts. [Expand] Tim Watchorn: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to correct my colleague. I have sat on the Standing Committee on National Defence since I was elected, and I am happy to do so. I sat in on all the testimony that was given in connection with the study of Bill C‑11. Some witnesses did say that they would rather have a choice, but the vast majority of witnesses said that they did not trust the military justice system, that they were not convinced that investigations would be carried out properly within the military system and that they chose the civilian system. This has been in place since 2022. All the criminal cases of sexual abuse are already before the civilian courts. It works very well, and we do not see the point of going backwards. (1210) [Expand] Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on the Standing Committee on National Defence. He talked about all the other sexual assault victims. Recommendation 5 in Justice Arbour's report stems from the work she has done. She listened to witnesses and victims and made this recommendation, the same one that was in the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Can my colleague talk about the other victims who were not able to appear before the committee? We are listening. [Expand] Tim Watchorn: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work with the military. Coming from a military family, I appreciate the service of her two sons. We did indeed listen to witnesses, and we are aware that the majority of them do not want their cases made public. They do not want to disclose their assault in public. I think it is important to take their opinions into account, along with everything that was said to Justice Arbour. She heard testimony from 14,000 people, and it is important to consider what they said. [English ]

[Expand] Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have no experience in the military, and I do not serve on the national defence committee, so why am I here? I serve on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have been there since 2015. As a matter of fact, I am the matron of the committee. I am the only one who has been there this entire time, outlasting a decade's worth of 10 ministers and different members every time the government has had an election. I have experienced everything on that committee, in my heart and in my mind, with all of those who have come to share their stories and their concerns. I am standing here today simply on behalf of the survivors of military sexual trauma in whatever form. We did a study of women in the military, and out of that study came the report “Invisible No More”. Survivors spoke of their experiences, and I have to say there is no other way to hear what the government should be doing than to sit down and not just read the report but watch and listen to every one of those individuals who took the risk, and were brave and courageous, to come and share exactly what has happened to them in the military. I am hearing the concerns that it was so devastating, and it was not treated properly, so we are going to move it all over to civilian court. These women know what is happening here. They are not being heard and are not being respected. They do not want to have everything shifted over to the civilian court. There are reasons for that, which are rational and were shared at the committee, and they are being completely ignored. Why? It is because the government wants it to go away. It wants our national defence to be able to function without this in the rear-view mirror. That is not what the survivors want. They want the option to take their perpetrator to civilian court or to do it within the military. As a matter of fact, if members read all of Bill C-11, they will see there were good reasons, and means, to also give them the choice to move between the two. This is not complicated. It could be done, and every member of the military who has been attacked in some way should have the opportunity to have that choice. Out of that same report, “Invisible No More”, a recommendation came forward to have a VAC women veterans council. It was announced on December 2, 2024. I was at the installation ceremony for the members who were chosen and celebrated the creation of the council that spring. It joined a plethora of advisory councils that have had minimum input and minimum impact on the decision-making of the government. Believing that their contribution would be different, the members were excited, and then time went by. I attended a major conference where members of the council were represented, and they were praised for their participation and input in making this conference take place. I later learned from a number of them that no, it was just word salad. They were not consulted. On January 14 came a letter of resignation from six out of the 12, including five of the eight Canadian Armed Forces members, who put in their letter of resignation because they saw none of what they had expected to have happen in that group. This is what the letter said: Today, more than ever, we believe in the importance of coming together, speaking collectively, and demanding accountability. Meaningful change will not come from symbolic structures or performative consultations, but from clear institutional commitment, dedicated and transparent funding, and mechanisms that genuinely recognize lived experience as expertise. This is something I have come to realize over my decade plus on that committee. These women are always considered, but they are never recognized as experts in what they present at that committee. We are seeing that again today in the way they are being responded to. (1215) In response to Bill C-11 in its original form, concerns actually came to light at an appreciation event for women who served in the Canadian Armed Forces, including those who had contributed to the study, that was sponsored and put on by the Liberal women MPs on the veterans affairs standing committee. I was not formally invited, but I showed up. It was there that these contributors expressed openly that they were not happy with Bill C-11 and that it would not do what they need it to do. I had the opportunity to represent them and talk to my colleagues in national defence. They listened. The government is not listening. As a matter of fact, it is being punitive to the very people it should be supporting. I am just going to quote a couple of the individuals I have come to know and be good friends with. I love their tenacity, their grit, their truthfulness and the fact that they do not see themselves as victims. They are survivors, and they love the armed forces. Their biggest desire is to see this gone, but they do not believe that can happen if suddenly there is no accountability. We know that the chain of command is culpable here. It is part of the problem. I get the rationale, but it is not right, and it is punitive to the very people the government should be supporting. I am going to quote Donna Van Leusden. She said: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed— That creates trauma. That is sanctuary trauma. —and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did. She was involved in actually putting together a program that they could have function within the Canadian Armed Forces. They were even doing tests, and it was working. There are a lot of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have seen what has gone on and did not want to be part of that, do not want to be part of that, and looked forward to having this as an option. It was shut down. I am going to quote Christine Wood, who is the one who bravely said at that meeting of the committee and veterans that they were not happy with Bill C-11, and she explained why. She said: I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military. We have different views, do we not? However, it is not an either-or. It is a both-and. She went on to say: I support it because the CAF must uphold [its] own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices. To be clear, I'm not defending the status quo. The military justice system...failed me [too, but] replacing one system that's broken with another system that completely and consistently fails victims of sexual offences does not create justice. It simply relocates the problem, and...removes the responsibility of the CAF for fixing it. Transferring all Criminal Code sexual offences will, in my view, increase the number of high-harm incidents. This is important. Low-level sexual misconduct must be both reported and pursued, because these are the early warning[s]...of a toxic, sexualized culture. Requiring a young, newly enrolled CAF member to walk into an RCMP detachment to report a low-level incident is unrealistic, and it will suppress reporting. Heather Vanderveer said, “Survivor autonomy is one of the strongest predictors of recovery after institutional betrayal and sexual trauma. Bill C-11 risks creating a system where survivors feel processed through the justice system rather than empowered within it.” This is wrong, and it is going to cause more problems than it fixes. (1220) [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Before we move to questions and comments, the member has a device on her desk that was buzzing, and it was interfering sometimes with interpretation. I would ask the member to just move it away. The buzzing does not sound very loud near her, but it is quite loud here. I could hear it, and for the interpreters, it was even louder. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Justice Arbour came up with a recommendation to transfer cases to the civilian process. A previous standing committee of the House put forward a report, which the member indicated that she voted for, that said to do exactly what this legislation purports to do Justice Arbour would have met with literally hundreds of victims. Combined, we are probably talking about well over 1,000 people, directly and indirectly. I believe she did her homework. Based on the expertise she brought to the table and the people she consulted with, she came up with that recommendation. Does the member believe Justice Arbour is wrong in her recommendation? [Expand] Cathay Wagantall: Mr. Speaker, the tone in which the member presented his question is appreciated. I voted for the report. When we voted for that report, we were saying to all those suffering individuals that we were there for them, we heard them and we wanted to see change. I voted for that recommendation at that time. Over time, those same individuals who gave testimony have had time to process it. What is interesting is that what ended up being the recommendation in that report is also a recommendation that was put forward by that one individual. There are others who did excellent work too. It needs to be changed. [Translation ]

[Expand] Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is 2026. The first allegations against General Vance date back to 2015. At the time, rather than taking action, the Harper government gave him a promotion. Since then, we have had the Arbour, Deschamps and Fish reports, and yet here we are, still talking about this crisis in Canada's military justice system. I have two questions. First, I would like to know why all the governments, and by that I mean the Harper government, the Trudeau government and today's government, have shown so little concern for this issue. Second, in my colleague's opinion, why did the government refuse to consider the Bloc Québécois's amendment that sought to give victims a choice between the military and civilian justice systems in circumstances where these victims' trust in the current military justice system may be undermined? (1225) [English ]

[Expand] Cathay Wagantall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that nothing around here moves the way I would make it move, if I were the one in charge. “Cathay for prime minister.” No. I am quite happy to not be in charge. That being said, the reality is that politics interfere often. I think the member knows that as well, even from where he sits. The member asked why in the world this has happened. That is a really good question, and it does not get asked often enough. I firmly believe the reason all of this excellent opportunity to give our veterans the best chance to change the culture of the armed forces has been denied is that it is more politically expedient for the government to make it go away. [Expand] Jeff Kibble (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her thoughtful and heartfelt words. We may hear the party opposite continually refer to the Arbour report, yet much has changed since then, such as the mandatory duty to report and access to the SMSRC. Military members at that time did not have access to victim liaison services or independent legal support. I was wondering if my colleague could explain why the party opposite continues to refer to the report of Justice Arbour's, who did not testify at committee, and has failed to refer to the Deschamps and Fish reports, which supported that choice for military sexual trauma. [Expand] Cathay Wagantall: Mr. Speaker, I actually wrote down “cherry-picking” on my paper. The Liberals are not choosing to look at the broad picture of what has been presented to them on behalf of veterans who have suffered military sexual trauma, and who will continue to suffer under the CAF until things improve and the changes are made that truly need to be made. [Expand] Kristina Tesser Derksen (Milton East—Halton Hills South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a piece of legislation that is very important to the military community and the Canadian Armed Forces. I begin by thanking the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans and their families for their service to Canada. As Canada's new government rearms, rebuilds and reinvests in the Canadian Armed Forces, it is critical that we start with our people. Our work to attract, recruit and retain members of the Canadian Armed Forces requires a safe, healthy work environment where our forces can thrive, grow and contribute. The changes proposed in this legislation are essential to the long-term success of the Canadian Armed Forces and the entire defence team, which continue their important mission of defending Canada and Canadians. Bill C-11 aims to modernize the military justice system and incorporate the recommendations from two external reports from former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish. The bill would implement nine recommendations in total, including recommendation five of former Supreme Court Justice Arbour's report and eight recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Fish's report. At present, the amendments made by members of the opposition during the study of the bill at the Standing Committee on National Defence run counter to the Supreme Court justices' recommendations. I believe all of my colleagues in this House will agree with me that bringing about lasting and meaningful cultural change within the Canadian Armed Forces must be one of our highest priorities, free from politicization and partisanship. Canadians expect us to take culture change in the military seriously. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces expect us to take culture change seriously too. I will take some time to go through the changes that Bill C-11 aims to implement from Justice Arbour's work. In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, known as the report of the independent comprehensive external review, or the ICER, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional shortcomings and structural barriers that have allowed the problem of sexual misconduct in the CAF to persist. When the legislation was introduced last fall, before amendments were made at committee, Bill C-11 proposed to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada from the military police to the civilian police. This is Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation in action. As Justice Arbour laid it out, the goal is to remove these offences from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces, putting the investigations into and the prosecution of offenders in the hands of civilian authorities. Moreover, this recommendation fulfills our promise to victims and survivors that they can have confidence that their cases will continue to be handled fairly and with transparency outside of the military chain of command. This change and others proposed through Bill C-11 complement programs, services and initiatives already in place to make sure that survivors receive the support and guidance they need to help them through the difficult process they often face alone. Before going into further amendments made at the committee stage, I will take a moment to discuss the existing supports that are available through the Canadian Armed Forces' programs and illustrate how Bill C-11 is yet another piece of the puzzle in supporting victims and survivors. The Canadian Armed Forces sexual misconduct support and resource centre is a key tool for victims and survivors. Within this centre is the community support for sexual misconduct survivors grant program. This program extends the support offered through the centre into the communities it serves, increasing collaboration between National Defence and third party, community-based organizations. These organizations can in turn provide valuable support for survivors and have the capacity and expertise to provide support to those affected by military sexual trauma. These essential resources complement the centre's other offerings, ensuring that survivors can access support anywhere in the country when, where and how it is needed most. Through peer support programs, survivors can share their experiences and support one another in groups that include mental health practitioners and trained peer supporters with their own experience of sexual misconduct or military sexual trauma. While these programs and tools can help survivors cope with the experience of sexual misconduct or trauma, it is equally important to support them through the complex and difficult process of pursuing justice. Many survivors have said the justice system makes them feel excluded or even victimized all over again. This is one of the driving forces behind the changes to the military justice system proposed in Bill C-11. I will speak briefly to Bill C-11 's journey through committee. (1230) Justice Arbour's recommendation five, the recommendation to transfer all Criminal Code sexual misconduct cases from the military police to the civilian police, is at the heart of Bill C-11. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties at the committee stage run directly counter to this recommendation. It would be even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill as amended by the opposition parties. Moreover, the lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system, victims and survivors. It is important to remember that an interim directive to implement recommendation five by transferring cases until legislation passed has been in place since December 2021. That means that since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought into the civilian justice system, and none of these offences have been tried by the military justice system. Bill C-11 proposes to solidify this interim directive and make it permanent, just as Justice Arbour recommended. However, opposition amendments propose to reverse this directive, reject Justice Arbour's recommendation and, in fact, go backward. Victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces deserve clarity and transparency, not steps backward. It is clear that the interim directive and the spirit of Justice Arbour's recommendation five have been making a tangible, clear and meaningful difference over the past five years. Since December 2021, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case that has occurred in Canada has been successfully transferred to the civilian system. This means that every new case is being prosecuted in a manner that is fair, that is transparent and that inspires trust in the system for the victim. Bill C-11 would take the final necessary step to make this a lasting reality and ensure that all cases would, once and for all, go through the civilian court system. Any attempts or suggestions to overturn, stall or block this progress from continuing are a disservice to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. Bill C-11 would ensure that victims and survivors of Criminal Code sexual misconduct would have a fair, transparent process without any real or perceived influence from their chain of command. Over the past few years, I have watched the Canadian Armed Forces undergoing a period of cultural evolution and change. Like many Canadians and many of my colleagues, I am encouraged by the positive and forward-looking changes that have been made. I know that building trust and confidence in our military justice system is a critical element in ensuring that this change continues and endures. The proposed changes in Bill C-11 would modernize the military justice system, and particularly how that system handles cases of Criminal Code sexual misconduct. (1235) [Expand] Scott Anderson (Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, I would suggest that my colleagues not use “chain of command” until they understand what it means. People are removed from the chain of command today and put into the JAG system, or at least they were prior to this. I want to quote Dr. Karen Breeck, who is a former officer in the Canadian Armed Forces and is also a medical doctor. She testified that the military of 2025 has changed. She said: Today the chain of command has extensive awareness and training. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre is fully operational. Victims' rights legislation is in force. Independent legal and victim supports exist.... What evidence still shows that [the civilian system] remains the best way forward? I wonder if my colleague could comment on one of the victims who said much the same thing as— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South a chance to respond. [Expand] Kristina Tesser Derksen: Mr. Speaker, certainly, we give great weight to the testimony of victims and of the good doctor my colleague referenced. I would note that Justice Arbour, who has a long and illustrious career in the judicial system and who has been recognized as an international champion of human rights, carried out a very extensive investigation for her report, for which she consulted hundreds of witnesses, or possibly close to 1,000. She stated through her review that she still found a deeply deficient culture within the military and she had seen no meaningful improvements. Therefore, I would defer to Justice Arbour's recommendation. [Translation ]

[Expand] Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier, I put a question to a member who I believe is sitting right next to my Liberal colleague. Since I did not get a complete answer, I will try asking her that same question. Members from my party, the Bloc Québécois, and members of the official opposition, the Conservatives, have worked hard on bills in committee on several occasions. We proposed amendments, worked in good faith, heard from witnesses and really did a thorough job. However, when those bills come back to the House, the Liberals just undo all that work and that is it. Is this indicative of how the government intends to manage its future majority? [English ]

[Expand] Kristina Tesser Derksen: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the committee at which this was studied. However, I am a lawyer, and I have worked in the space of intimate partner violence and violence against women, so the perspective I bring is my own. As far as working through amendments and committees, this is something that I believe every elected member of Parliament wants to do in good faith at all times. That does not necessarily mean that colleagues across the aisle will get the result they want every time. [Expand] Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her incredible support for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. She mentioned that she is a lawyer and has worked in this kind of field. I would like to ask her if she knows of any other workplace where an employee who is a victim of sexual assault would have to report that sexual assault to their employer and have it investigated by their own employer. [Expand] Kristina Tesser Derksen: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has asked really goes to the crux of what Justice Arbour found in her report. I would say that no, I do not know of any other situation where a victim would potentially have to come forward to superiors or have the case heard within a workplace. I think we have to be very cautious. I know my opposition colleagues have been talking about options, but we have to be cautious about weighing options and certainty, and we have to be very cautious that we do not underestimate the potential pressure or coercion a victim may be subjected to by superiors within the workplace to have their complaint heard, in this example, in a military court because there could be more favourable conditions to the accused in that situation. That is something we have to be very cognizant of. (1240) [Expand] Scott Anderson (Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, when it first came to the national defence committee, was meant to transfer sexual assault cases from the military to the civilian justice system. It was not supposed to be a controversial bill. It arose because of the need to address sexual assault in the military. All of us in the House have, I believe, deep down, the best interests of Canadians at heart. As a former officer, the bill matters to me. All of us in the room value the strength and dedication of our troops, but not one of us wants to see greater physical strength turned against our own. I have another personal reason for taking the bill seriously. I have a daughter who recently earned a university degree and a civilian pilot's license. She has recently applied to the Canadian Armed Forces to fly as a pilot in defence of our country. Those of us in the House who are fathers of daughters will understand all too well the deep rage that wells up at the mere thought of someone doing harm to our daughters. I want to assure the House that I take the bill very seriously indeed, and that I really mean what I am about to say. Those of us who have sons should be aware that, because of the higher number of men serving, 40% of sexual assault cases involve male victims. Like all of us, I had heard over the years horror stories involving sexual predation in the military, and I assumed, after having listened to the media, that this bill would be a sort of rubber stamp because everyone would want it. I assumed that victims of sexual predation in the military would want to stay far away from anybody in uniform. I assumed the victims would believe they would get a better shake in an inherently less structured and more liberal civilian justice system. I thought the victims would associate the military with the crime and understandably believe that, if their case were to be tried in the military, somehow the chain of command could influence the outcome, even though it has nothing to do with actual chain of command. The Liberals told us that the victims of criminal sexual assault would be too traumatized to choose between a civilian investigation and a military investigation. It was best, according to the Liberals, if the state chose for them. This sounded a little bit like the old TV show Father Knows Best. When we first started this investigation, I had no reason to believe that the victims would want anything to do with the military system, so I let it go. I think there are all sorts of other problems with the bill that we could fix with other amendments, and I am sure my colleagues will address those, but I want to talk specifically about the importance of choice. Like I said, I had assumed that no one would object to moving the crime into the civilian system. I was shocked. I was surprised at the responses of the academics, the military and the civilian police, and I was truly shocked at the response of the victims. We talked to academics. One professor pointed out that the conviction rate for sexual offences was not very high in the military justice system. Another academic, former JAG officer Rory Fowler, responded that, if the object were a high rate of conviction, perhaps Canada should emulate the North Korean justice system. He said that, quite likely, the reason for a low rate of conviction was an excellent defence team available in the military and referenced a recent high-profile case in which a JAG lawyer, Major Francesca Ferguson, supplied quality defence for a private who was falsely accused, right up to the Supreme Court. Rory Fowler argued that the culture in the military has changed radically over the years. Back in the 1990s and earlier in this century, high-profile cases of sexual predation drew national attention to a real problem with sexual assault and the way it was handled in the military justice system. As a result, the government reacted and ordered high-level independent reviews of the military's handling of sexual assault in the military. The Deschamps report came out 11 years ago and the Fish and Arbour reports followed it. They all had ideas for change. The Arbour report had 48 recommendations, including steering victims toward the civilian justice system. The problems in the military had not just kicked off a few reports, like most government studies do. They also kicked off a significant institutional culture change within the military. The senior leaders in the CAF did not just treat the Arbour and Fish reports as annoyances that had to be suffered through; they treated them as a new mission. By late last year, the CAF had actioned all 48 of the Arbour report recommendations and were still actively engaged in culture change. Culture change is much faster in a top-down chain of command. When the organization is built around instant obedience, instant cultural change can happen very quickly when it comes from the top in a sincere effort. (1245) Next, we listened to the defence and prosecution teams from the military. They argued that the studies the bill was responding to were out of date or no longer applied to current military culture. They said that they had both the know-how and the professionalism to handle the job. In fact, they said they were surprised to learn that the Liberals intended to remove jurisdiction because the CAF had made sweeping changes and spent enormous effort reforming the system. They also said the culture of the CAF had changed. We have two bodies of experts who are saying that the culture has changed. Then we listened to the civilian police who told us that, although they had the capability, they no longer had the capacity to absorb yet more work, especially in locations with military bases close by. One such police chief told us that the witnesses might be scattered in redeployments to other jurisdictions in Canada or internationally. She said a case in those circumstances would be almost impossible for her department to investigate. Then we listened to the victims of sexual assault in the military. These brave soldiers rose above the crimes that were done to them and were brave enough to testify in front of the nation in hopes that what had happened to them would not happen to others. Their testimony shocked me. These are the very people I thought would have the strongest desire to stay out of the military system, but the vast majority insisted that they wanted a choice. For various reasons, they wanted a choice. After numerous victims spoke, it became obvious that the victims wanted choice, so we co-operated with the Bloc member on the committee to amend an outdated Liberal motion into one that every stakeholder, from victim to investigator, wanted. Our amendments gave the victims choice. Dr. Karen Breeck, a former medical officer in the CAF and a victim of sexual assault, put it to us succinctly: First, the military of 2025 [has changed]. Today the chain of command has extensive awareness and training. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre is fully operational. Victims' rights legislation is in force. Independent legal and victim supports exist. What evidence still shows that [the civilian system] remains the best way forward? So far so good, but late Friday afternoon, the Minister of National Defence tabled Bill C-11 at report stage. Instead of our amended bill, and in defiance of civilian lawyers, military lawyers, civilian police, military police and even the victims themselves, what came into the House had been stripped of all our amendments. Why? It is because the artificial Liberal majority can now just stiff our soldiers and download the problem onto lower levels of government. The Liberals are not doing it to help our soldiers. They are doing it to push the problem off the federal plate, and then they will just not have to worry about it anymore. I appeal to my fellow veterans and to the MPs on the other side of the aisle to listen carefully to what one of our own veterans had to say about this. The veteran said that this bill, if it were stripped of all the amendments that were asked for by victims, cannot claim to be putting people first and that the bill, without the amendments, is not about making life easier for uniformed members but about making life easier for politicians. That is a very different thing and it is, frankly, dishonourable. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the member's assessment. I think that he undervalues the many discussions that Justice Arbour would have had with victims. We are not talking about a few dozen; we are talking about hundreds, directly, and indirectly through the Canadian Forces, we are talking about thousands. I believe that the Conservative Party has marginalized those victims. There is a reason Justice Arbour came forward with that recommendation. I cannot recall the Conservatives ever asking a question that contradicted the recommendation that Justice Arbour brought forward, and it has been there for four years. Has this member, or any Conservative, asked a question about that? [Expand] Scott Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the member, a veteran himself, knows very well that, in the military, with a top-down chain of command, culture can change very fast, because it is an order-based society. The Arbour report is several years old, and the culture did not stop to wait for the Arbour report. Right away, the military started the culture change, and you know that very well. You know that if you go back— (1250) [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I hate to interrupt the member, but he has to speak through the Chair and not directly to the other member. I will let the member finish. [Expand] Scott Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. However, if the member is acquainted with the military today, he knows very well that the culture has radically changed in a very short period of time. [Translation ]

[Expand] Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the first allegations against General Vance came out in 2015. The Harper government gave him a promotion. This has been going on for over 10 years. It is now 2026. We got the reports from justices Arbour and Fish, and Justice Deschamps examined suggestions for legislative changes. However, in the bill before us today, the government has decided to ignore a major recommendation made by Justice Arbour, namely that a victim be given a choice between the military and civilian justice systems. When we asked the Liberals earlier why they ignored this amendment, which was not only discussed in good faith but also adopted by the committee, they simply replied that it is all well and good to work in good faith, but we cannot always get what we want. What does that say about what the government thinks of victims' rights? [English ]

[Expand] Scott Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have put to us that we should remove choice because victims are going to be too traumatized after an assault to actually make a choice. This reminds me of the 19th-century idea that women became hysterical and really had to be directed and taught by men, because when they became hysterical, they were not capable of making good choices. I find that this is paternalistic and insulting to the women who are victims. Frankly, the Liberals are simply throwing out the Arbour report as if it concretizes their point, but it does not. It tends to push people toward the civilian system, but it does not make it mandatory. [Expand] Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated what my colleague spoke to in regard to how things have already progressed and moved along, which has given to a lot of those survivors something that that party does not like to appreciate: hope. I just had an interaction with one of those survivors, who was in absolute tears because she sees and knows how many of her colleagues she is going to have to help. She said that they will say “life is over”, and they will be added to those numbers who have lost their lives because of this and not survived. What does the member have to say to that? [Expand] Scott Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this bill, in its original intent, and that is the reason the amendments were stripped off, is simply to help the government, because the government has to deal with these problems when they arise. If the Liberals get it off their plate and dump it into the municipal police force or into the civilian provincial courts, they will not have to deal with it anymore and it will now be somebody else's problem. I just do not see how the Liberals can keep a straight face and keep saying “Arbour” over and over again as if it means something. It does not. The victims want choice. [Expand] Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by recognizing the critical role that the Canadian Armed Forces plays. Every single member of the Canadian Armed Forces makes a commitment to serve this country. They step forward with a willingness to protect others, often at great personal cost and sacrifice. Because of that, we, as members of Parliament, have a responsibility to make sure that the systems around them, especially the justice system, work the way they are supposed to work and there is equality, fairness and justice. When these systems do not work, the consequences are very serious. They affect individuals, and they affect people's confidence in the institution. Ultimately, they affect the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole. At a time when the world is changing and we cannot always rely on the same assumptions that we used to, it is more important than ever that Canada strengthen its own defence capacity. That includes making sure that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces can rely on the systems around them to create a safe workspace for them. The strength of our Canadian Armed Forces is not just about capability; it is also about whether the people serving in it have confidence in the institution itself. That is where Bill C-11 comes in. Over the past several years, we have heard directly from survivors of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces, and what we have heard has always been consistent: The system was not always clear; accountability was difficult to navigate; and in too many cases, people lost trust in the process. The issue has been examined closely, including through the independent review led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. Her findings pointed to a clear problem with how sexual misconduct cases were being handled within the military justice system. In particular, she spoke to the impact this has had on trust and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces and the need for a more consistent and reliable approach. One of her key recommendations was that Criminal Code sexual offences should be handled in the civilian justice system. Bill C-11 follows through with that recommendation. What Bill C-11 does, in practical terms, is provide clarity. It sets out that Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada involving members of the Canadian Armed Forces are to be investigated and prosecuted within the civilian system. That clarity is important. It means that individuals are not left navigating uncertainty. It means that cases are not delayed by questions of jurisdiction. It means that there is a consistent approach to how these serious matters are handled. It is also important to recognize that this direction is already being followed in practice. Since 2021, these cases have been proceeding through the civilian system. Bill C-11 would ensure that this approach is clearly established and consistently applied moving forward. Bill C-11 also introduces stronger, practical measures to ensure that victims are not left navigating the system by themselves. For example, it would establish victim liaison officers, who will support victims throughout the process, including during the transfer of cases between military and civilian authorities. The bill would also expand access to these supports to individuals acting on the victim's behalf, ensuring continuity and guidance at every stage. It would improve access to information by strengthening obligations to inform victims and witnesses of their rights, including in relation to publication bans, and ensuring that their wishes are considered in the entire process. Importantly, it clarifies that victims can speak about their own experiences, while still protecting the identity of others when required. Another important aspect of Bill C-11 is the focus on independence. It takes steps to strengthen how key roles within the military justice system are structured and appointed, so that decisions are made free from real or perceived influence from chain of command. That really matters, because confidence in the system depends not only on outcomes, but on whether people believe the process itself is fair and independent. (1255) The opposition has put forward amendments that would reintroduce a degree of flexibility between the military and civilian systems, including allowing cases to move between jurisdictions. However, that approach, to me, raises real concerns. It would add unnecessary complexity to an already difficult process, create the potential for delays and place a greater burden on individuals at a time when clarity is most needed. It is also not a trauma-informed approach, unfortunately. It asks individuals, often in the immediate aftermath of harm and trauma, to make complex decisions about how their cases should proceed. What we have heard is clear. People are not asking for more complexity. They are asking for a system that works. Bill C-11 is one part of a broader effort to address long-standing concerns within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about making sure that every member of our armed forces can serve with dignity in an environment that reflects the values that we expect as Canadians. I am just now coming from the Indonesian embassy, where we were celebrating Ms. Kartini's influence on equality of opportunity for women, not just in Indonesia but across the world. That is exactly it. What Bill C-11 would do for our community and the Canadian Armed Forces is make sure that women and men who have faced sexual violence and sexual misconduct have the ability to take various approaches toward justice, make sure that their harms are acknowledged and rectified, and make sure that the workplace they operate in, which is already a very high-stress one, is one they can function in, where their services are valued and contribute to the growth and progress of Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces provides a very important role within our country and across the world. We need to make sure, through all the measures and tools available to us, that the serving men and women have the ability to serve effectively. With that, I do support this legislation. I hope that all members in this House will do the same and that this bill with respect to sexual misconduct, Bill C-11, along with all the other bills we have brought forward in the past few months, such as Bill C-16 to combat coercive controlling behaviour, or bail reforms and Criminal Code reforms across our country, gets quick passage so that Canadian Armed Forces members impacted by this have the swift justice they require. I look forward to questions from members. (1300) [Expand] Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are hearing an awful lot about Justice Arbour's report. It was made in 2022. Since then, a lot of time has passed and a lot of improvements have been made. When a report like that is made, I would think Justice Arbour would want to come to committee, share the rationales and say whether they are still effective or if there needs to be change. For some reason, she did not show up at all. Can the member articulate why someone in that position would not show up at committee to give their input? [Expand] Iqra Khalid: Mr. Speaker, one thing I am really a big fan of is efficiency. Justice Arbour put in her time and effort and made some very significant contributions to this issue. I think it is now incumbent upon us, as members of Parliament, to move forward judiciously on this bill and make sure it provides the necessary support for our Canadian Armed Forces in the most efficient and fastest way possible and contributes to the improvement of our justice system in general. [Translation ]

[Expand] Tim Watchorn (Les Pays-d'en-Haut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk a bit about the importance of people's trust in the justice system when they are victims of sexual trauma. [English ]

[Expand] Iqra Khalid: Mr. Speaker, when victims are facing sexual misconduct or violence, it is so important to have a trauma-based response because going through the justice system re-emphasizes the challenges and hurt that they have gone through. We need to make sure that our justice system not only provides support to Canadians who are trying to move forward, seek justice for themselves and end the harm they have been facing, but also provides the perception of justice being conducted so that more people who have been harmed and have faced sexual violence or misconduct are also able to come forward and trust the system to take care of their justice as well. (1305) [Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the Liberals use the Arbour report as their shield in why they are gutting all the amendments that were made by the defence committee, some of which were even supported by the Liberals, where we worked across party lines as Conservatives, Bloc members and the NDP. Much has changed since the Arbour report came out. We know that at the time, there was a mandatory duty to report; the military police and health care providers were not fully ready or trained, but now they are; military members were not under the victims' rights charter, but now that charter is in effect; military members did not have access to a fully mature SMSRC for supports; military members did not have access to independent legal supports; and finally, military members did not have access to victims' liaison services. All those things are in place now. The Canadian Armed Forces has changed, so why not give the rights back to victims so they can choose what system best suits their need, regardless of their rank or where they are, whether in or outside Canada, on training, on base or in the community? They should have the supports they are asking for, not what the Liberals are shoving down their throats. [Expand] Iqra Khalid: Mr. Speaker, we have to understand that sexual misconduct and violence, even in the Canadian Armed Forces, is not something that came within a day, and it is not something that is going to go away within a day, either. Yes, Bill C-11 is very important and there has been a lot of progress made within the Canadian Armed Forces, but there is a lot more that should be done to continue to support victims of violence and misconduct. That requires support from all across the aisle. What Justice Arbour provided is a good starting point. What Bill C-11 would do, I think, is an excellent way to move forward, but it would not be the end. We need to do significantly more. [Expand] Cheryl Gallant (Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the brave women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces who call the Ottawa Valley their home to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. Before we get lost in clauses, subclauses and government talking points about modernization, I want to centre this debate where it belongs, which is with the people this legislation is supposed to support and protect. Bill C-11 is not abstract, theoretical or merely administrative. It is about whether a woman who is sexually assaulted while serving her country can expect justice, dignity and protection, or if she will be left to fight alone against the very institution that failed her. That reality is embodied in the experience of retired corporal Elvira Jaszberenyi. Ms. Jaszberenyi did exactly what we tell service members to do. She reported her rape. She co-operated with investigators. She trusted the system that promised to protect her. Instead, the system closed ranks. Her assailant was already known to military authorities for sexual assault. Evidence went undocumented or disappeared. Key decisions were shielded from oversight. The Military Police Complaints Commission was denied access to critical prosecutorial briefing notes, despite clear recommendations from Justice Fish that this information be disclosed. When the military declined to proceed, Ms. Jaszberenyi did something few victims can afford to do, emotionally or financially. She pursued a private prosecution in civilian court. That trial did not vindicate her; it exposed her. Her credibility was questioned. Her advocacy was used against her. The fact that she continued to demand accountability was reframed as an agenda. She lost. For the government, that may be a completed file. For women watching from within the ranks, it was a reminder. For those looking to join, it was a warning. That is the context in which we must judge Bill C-11. The government tells us this bill would restore trust by transferring jurisdiction for sexual offences committed in Canada over to civilian court. Conservatives agree that this change was necessary. It was recommended by justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour and reflects the years of advocacy by victims and experts. However, jurisdiction alone does not equal justice. Bill C-11 would remove cases from the military justice system while leaving untouched the very accountability gaps that failed Ms. Jaszberenyi in the first place. It would not require the military police to preserve and fully disclose investigative records to civilian authorities. It would not guarantee that oversight bodies would finally receive the information they need to do their job. It would not ensure that civilian prosecutors or judges are properly equipped to understand military power dynamics, chain of command pressures or the realities on base. Crucially, it would not address what happens after a civilian conviction. A service member could be found guilty of a sexual offence in civilian court and yet face no court martial, no automatic consideration under the code of service discipline and no transparent process to protect others still serving alongside them. That is not a survivor-centred system. This is administrative offloading. We heard this repeatedly at committee. Victim advocates warned us that Bill C-11 risks creating a jurisdictional void. Military police leaders told us civilian police services lack the capacity to absorb these cases. Prosecutors cautioned that removing concurrent jurisdiction might mean that fewer cases, not more, actually proceed. Ms. Jaszberenyi herself warned us that changing the forum without fixing the evidence handling, oversight and accountability would simply shift the harm from one system to another. If we want women to serve, we must give them reason to trust. That trust is already fragile. Canadians recently learned the Canadian Armed Forces is not on track to meet its own targets for recruiting and retaining women. The numbers are not just disappointing, they are damning. Women are not choosing to walk away from military careers because they lack patriotism or resilience. They are walking away because they do not believe the institution will protect them when it matters most. Ms. Jaszberenyi is now retired. After her attack, she was removed from her unit and tasked with painting walls. She was not given work commensurate with her skills and training. She was effectively forced out of service when the Canadian Forces was facing a retention crisis. Imagine the kind of message that sends to our serving women and men. Now she has to deal with Veterans Affairs. After giving testimony on this bill last fall, she was informed by Veterans Affairs that her paperwork had been lost. She needed to resubmit her application. There was no pension and there were no benefits, just more process and paperwork. (1310) No recruitment campaign, no slogan and no equity strategy will overcome a justice system that retraumatizes victims and shields decision-makers from scrutiny. That brings me to the procedural context of this debate. How this bill has been handled matters almost as much as what is in it. Committee members from multiple parties worked in good faith to strengthen Bill C-11. Amendments were adopted to improve oversight and support the accused fairly, and to address long-standing gaps identified by survivors and experts alike. Those amendments were passed after the committee overruled the chair's initial rulings, exercising its legitimate authority as a master of its own proceedings. Then, nearly 10 weeks later, the government asked the Speaker to intervene, not to clarify drafting but to strike down amendments, including amendments supported unanimously by committee members. The Speaker ruled them out of order. I respect the ruling, but I do not accept the government's conduct. Committees exist to do the hard, detailed work that the House does not have time to do, clause by clause. When the government invites committee members to engage, votes against them and then asks the Speaker to erase that work after the fact, it undermines parliamentary accountability. This matters because those amendments were not abstract procedural tweaks. They dealt with real issues, including access to trauma-informed training, independent oversight, support for both the victims and the accused, and ensuring key positions within the military justice system could not sit vacant indefinitely. The government chose not to persuade the committee. It chose to erase its work. On Monday, in debating Bill C-22, I spoke about the government's new-found majority and the choices it faces: to govern and to govern collaboratively or to rule by decree. Bill C-11 gives us the answer. This is not collaboration. It is control. When that instinct is applied to legislation dealing with sexual assault, oversight and victims' rights, the consequences are profound. The Conservatives believe that reforms to military justice must do three things. First, reforms must protect the victims, not just symbolically but procedurally and substantively. Second, reforms must preserve fairness for the accused because a system that cuts corners will not survive constitutional scrutiny. Third, reforms must strengthen, not weaken, institutional accountability. Bill C-11 would make progress on the first step by removing jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada, but it would fail on the second and third by refusing to fix the structural flaws exposed by cases like Ms. Jaszberenyi's. A justice system that forces a survivor to pursue a private prosecution because internal accountability failed is a system already in crisis. A system that responds by narrowing scrutiny and striking committee amendments is a system interested in optics, not outcomes. If the government truly wants to rebuild trust, it must do more than move files between systems. It must control the culture of defensiveness, information control and procedural gatekeeping that allowed known predators to remain on the base and allowed victims to be discredited for demanding better. Women are watching this debate, as are their families and as are potential recruits who want to serve their country without sacrificing their safety or their dignity. They will judge us not on the title of this bill, but on whether its substance reflects reality. Bill C-11 is incomplete. It is not beyond repair, but repair requires humility, transparency and respect for Parliament. The experience of Elvira Jaszberenyi deserves more than a legislative shrug. It deserves a justice system that learns from failure rather than papers over it. Canada's armed forces cannot recruit its way out of crisis. It must legislate its way out of it, honestly and courageously. That is the standard this bill must meet, and that is what Canadians expect. (1315) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation does have substance and it does meet the reality. What is absent is any sort of Conservative rationale for what the Conservatives are doing to the bill. Justice Arbour's recommendation five is the essence of the legislation. Justice Arbour worked with literally hundreds, going into thousands, of people, either directly or indirectly, with CAF to ensure that we had the right recommendation. Even the standing committee that the member was referencing earlier came up with another recommendation supporting it. I have never heard the Conservatives, prior to today, question Justice Arbour. Why has the Conservative Party flipped its position and is not listening— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke a chance to respond. [Expand] Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, we respect the recommendations made by Justice Arbour. However, while Justice Arbour listened to the victims of sexual assault, she did not have as much breadth as we did in listening to the testimonies of law enforcement, of people who are in the military and of people who had direct involvement in those proceedings, such as former judges and former lawyers in the system. We heard more testimony, and that is why we proposed some amendments, which have been rejected. [Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, who has been a long-time member of the defence committee. She has heard from more veterans, I am sure, than Justice Arbour did in her hearings several years ago. There is a base in the member's riding, and she is always advocating on behalf of members who serve, including the victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. The member has fought long and hard for victims and for the rights of women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard from many victims. Christine Wood said she “opposed the transfer of all cases to civilian court, and that was for three reasons: number one, it's broken; number two, it offers victims no choice; and number three, I believe the CAF has to maintain control over its jurisdiction and demonstrate it can be responsible for fixing its own harms.” A veteran who served, who experienced sexual misconduct and deals with military sexual trauma, is saying she needs choice. Other victims have said the exact same thing. Why will the Liberals not listen? (1320) [Expand] Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who does yeoman's duty with different cases serving the armed forces. We heard from many people, but we need to listen to what the victims said that did not align with what is in the recommendations. It is not fair to them, and it is not fair to accuse people who are named in a snitch line and then have to face a court. When a case is taken out of the military system, there is no support for the accused, and there is no guarantee that there is going to be any sense of justice for the victim, because their case may never be heard. The Jordan framework may require that the case be put aside altogether. [Expand] Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her work on the national defence committee. In 2024, the ACVA committee undertook an extensive study regarding women in the military. More than 100 witnesses came forward over 23 meetings, testifying before the ACVA committee. From that committee came a report that was tabled in Parliament and included recommendation 40, and this was unanimous. All parties agreed: That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities. That is exactly what Bill C‑11 would do. [Expand] Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the civilian courts are full. Already, cases of sexual assault in the civilian domain are not being heard, because too much time expires between a case's starting and its coming to trial, so the perpetrator gets off scot-free. [Expand] Doug Eyolfson (Winnipeg West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11 at report stage. I know the impact that our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have on operations at home and abroad, and I am pleased to speak to efforts that our government is making to keep them safe. We know that to fulfill our role as a NATO ally, we must have forces that are ready, able and agile. Just this week, we heard that the Canadian Armed Forces has reached a 30-year record high for recruitment. This is fantastic news for Canada and for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we cannot take anything for granted. We must keep up the momentum and work hard to create a safe workplace where our forces and the next generation of forces can thrive and make meaningful contributions to Canada. This starts with making sure we provide our forces with a safe and professional work environment in which to train and to build up their skills for the difficult job we ask of them. This is why I am pleased to rise today to speak about the important work that is being done to modernize our military justice system and to restore trust in the Canadian Armed Forces. Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is a critical step toward lasting institutional reform, as well as toward strengthening trust and confidence in our military justice system. Over the past four years, Canadians, including Canadian Armed Forces members, watched as former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish put forward detailed recommendations on how to create meaningful and lasting cultural change in the armed forces. Their recommendations have been compiled into a comprehensive implementation plan, which Canadians can easily access online to track the progress the CAF is making. These reviews and recommendations have helped define how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are undertaking changes to the military justice system and cultural change. Today I would like to provide an overview of those recommendations and to speak specifically about the implementation of Justice Arbour's recommendation 5, which is at the heart of Bill C-11. In 2022, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the minister of national defence at the time. This report, also known as the report of the independent external comprehensive review, contains 48 recommendations focused on reforming the institutional gaps and structural barriers that have allowed the problem to persist. In her report, her fifth recommendation proposed a transformative measure to move the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences in Canada alleged against Canadian Armed Forces members to the civilian system. I want to take the time to read out the specific wording of Justice Arbour's recommendation for all members: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the [Canadian Armed Forces]. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the MP may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. In short, this recommendation would codify in law that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual misconduct offences committed in Canada. This recommendation would also codify in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction for investigating and prosecuting these cases. I want to note that Justice Arbour acknowledged in her report that removing concurrent jurisdiction by amending the National Defence Act would take several years to implement, given the size, scale and scope of the changes needed. In fact, she knew how critical this recommendation was, and she proposed that we adopt an interim directive in the meantime to ensure that the change would take place as quickly as possible. She stated: As previous experience with changes to the military justice system have shown, this will take several years to implement. In the meantime, I expect the [Canadian Armed Forces] and civilian authorities to continue to abide by my interim recommendation. The [Canadian Armed Forces] should cease to investigate and prosecute sexual offences over which it presently has concurrent jurisdiction. Civilian authorities should investigate and prosecute those cases in accordance with their existing concurrent jurisdiction. The interim directive has been in place since December 2021 and has been working well. Since then, every single new Criminal Code sexual misconduct case has been prosecuted in the civilian courts rather than in the military justice system. (1325) While the interim directive was in place, the legislation was first introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-66 and was one of the first bills to be introduced in the current Parliament in the fall of 2025, as Bill C-11. That is precisely because our government recognizes the importance of building a more inclusive, respectful and safe workplace for our Canadian Armed Forces members. The bill would implement Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 and protect our forces. However, the amendments proposed by the opposition parties in the Standing Committee on National Defence run directly counter to recommendation 5. The opposition parties put forward amendments to strike down recommendation 5 and to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation from the bill. The opposition's amendments would make it even more difficult for victims to navigate the justice system, due to the complexity of the new procedures included in the bill. The lack of clarity and transparency would have a negative impact on the military justice system and on victims and survivors. We cannot go backwards and reverse any of the important changes made on military culture change over the last five years. In fact, since December 2021, all new charges of sexual offences covered by the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system. None of these offences are tried by the military justice system. To accept the opposition's amendments would be to reverse this progress and to move backwards. In conclusion, the bill would establish a clear framework for investigating and addressing allegations of sexual misconduct, in order to foster an environment of accountability and justice. Bill C-11, and the amendment it seeks to codify in the National Defence Act, represents a crucial step towards strengthening the forces' trust in the military justice system. This is not the case with the amendments proposed by the opposition parties to remove Justice Arbour's recommendation 5 from Bill C-11. We are encouraged by the positive changes and cultural evolution in the Canadian Armed Forces in recent years, but we cannot stop here, and we cannot move backwards. The people who serve our country risk everything for us. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces must always answer the call to keep Canada safe, and it is our obligation to keep them safe from harassment and misconduct. (1330) [Expand] Cheryl Gallant (Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member said that all the sexual assault cases since a certain date have been transferred to the civilian courts. I wonder if he knows how many have been transferred, and of those, how many have been heard, how many are still waiting to be heard, and what happens to the so-called low-level sexual assaults of groping that will not meet the threshold to be heard in civilian court. [Expand] Doug Eyolfson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am appalled by the member's use of the term “low-level sexual assaults”. Sexual assault is sexual assault. With respect to numbers, no, I am not privy to the actual numbers of cases, but we do know that all these cases are being tried, as per Justice Arbour's recommendation, by the civilian courts. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's comment that a sexual assault is a sexual assault. I think that does need to be reinforced. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to seek the best advice possible. The Arbour report contained 48 recommendations, I believe, the vast majority of which have been implemented. The essence of its primary recommendation is in the bill, which is to convert from the military system to the civilian system. Given Justice Arbour's efforts, would the member not agree that we should be abiding by that recommendation, as the Conservatives did just two years ago? [Expand] Doug Eyolfson: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the hon. member that this was Justice Arbour's core recommendation. I am rather disheartened to hear a pattern of members' trying to diminish the results of Justice Arbour by saying, “by this one justice”. It is part of a greater and very disturbing trend of demeaning and diminishing the results of experts and of using “expert” as a pejorative. Justice Arbour was a former Supreme Court justice who talked to hundreds of witnesses, hundreds of victims, and determined that the best course of action would be for these cases to be tried solely by civilian courts. [Expand] Jeff Kibble (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while the member opposite may feel that those definitions are distasteful, there are legal definitions and requirements for levels of sexual assault, and frankly put, the civilian police authorities will not deal with mid and lower levels. They do not have the capacity. It is outside the jurisdiction. Does the member opposite feel that predators will have a free pass because they know mid- and lower-level sexual assaults will never be dealt with? They are not within the plan of Bill C-11. This has never been addressed. What is your solution to have mid- and lower-level sexual assaults addressed? [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I will remind members to speak through the Chair, not directly to members. I cannot speak of solutions, but I invite the member for Winnipeg West to speak of them. [Expand] Doug Eyolfson: Mr. Speaker, again, I say sexual assault is sexual assault. We have a justice system that is outside the chain of command. It is outside any coercion and outside any influence on the career of the Canadian Armed Forces member. There is no place for grading these levels of sexual assault. Again, all cases of sexual assault need to be tried in the civilian system. (1335) [Expand] Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I actually travelled together to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele. I know his commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces is one that is incredibly supportive. I just want to ask him what his thoughts are on the fact that the ACVA committee made the same recommendation, for us to do this, not even two years ago. [Expand] Doug Eyolfson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I do not get the disconnect, why this was accepted by the committee two years ago and what the change of heart has been. I hear statements that it is different because military culture has changed, but what evidence do they have of this? [Expand] Jeff Kibble (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a heavy heart, but I also rise with a profound sense of duty, a duty shaped by nearly three decades in uniform, by the survivors who trusted me with their stories and by the communities I represent. I rise not for partisanship, not for theatre, but for the people who have carried burdens far heavier than any of us in this chamber will ever know. I dedicate my words today to the many active members and veterans I have met across Vancouver Island and across Canada. I have spoken with them in legion halls, on bases, in community centres and sometimes in the quiet corners where people finally feel safe enough to share what they have carried for too long. Most importantly, I dedicate my words to the survivors of military sexual trauma who came to committee. Before I go any further, I would like to speak to them directly. They were not obligated to share what they shared. They did not owe us their stories, their pain and their truth, yet they came anyway, carrying memories no one should ever have to carry, because they believed that if Parliament finally listened, something might change for the better. They trusted us with the hardest part of their lives, and that trust is something I will not take lightly. It is not something any of us should take lightly. They asked for one thing: choice. They asked not for privilege, not for special treatment, just the basic human right to choose the justice system where they feel safest, can be heard and can be understood. They asked overwhelmingly, consistently and with courage, and I will not stand by while that courage is dismissed. I also rise today on behalf of all Canadians who expect their institutions to protect the vulnerable, not retraumatize them. I also rise on behalf of the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, where I live and which I have the privilege of representing in the House. It is a region with a proud and deep connection to our Canadian Armed Forces. Our communities include many veterans, many serving members and many families whose lives are directly shaped by the culture and conduct of the military. My riding is home to countless individuals who serve or have served at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, one of the largest military installations in the country. It is a base where my wife and I both proudly served, a base that shaped our lives, our understanding of service and our understanding of the sacrifices that military families make every single day. When I speak about this bill, I do not speak in the abstract. I speak for the people I represent and the communities I know. I speak for those who have worn the uniform and those who still do. I speak for survivors across Vancouver Island and across Canada, survivors who trusted us in Parliament to listen. I served nearly three decades in uniform. I was trained as a presiding officer, and I believed I understood the culture of the Canadian Forces, but nothing prepared me for what I learned after meeting my wife, who is also a survivor of military sexual trauma. Through her, I saw parts of our institution that too many never see, or refuse to see. I saw the cost of silence. I saw the cost of inaction. Since I first joined the navy in the 1980s, the culture around sexual misconduct has changed. Yes, there have been positive improvements, but there is still much more to do. If Bill C-11 proceeds without the amendments survivors asked for, without the choices they pleaded for, then not only will we undo decades of progress, but we will reverse them. We will make things worse than we can imagine. At the very heart of the debate is something very simple: choice, the choice for survivors to access either the civilian or the military justice system. It is a choice that already exists, though too few know about it. (1340) What we have before us now is a tale of two approaches. On our side of the committee, we have the testimony of survivors, victims, military police, police and legal experts, those who have lived this reality. Their message was overwhelmingly consistent and deeply human. It was, “Do not take away our choice." On the Liberal side is a plan that ignores the evidence, cherry-picks a few quotes and uses one report while ignoring many others and the voices of so many. It dismisses the voices of survivors and disrespects those who came forward at great personal cost. If the government removes these amendments, the consequences will be immediate and unavoidable. There will be institutional trauma and revictimization. There will be anger, despair and a profound sense of betrayal among the survivors who trusted all of us to listen and do right by them. Minor cases will go unaddressed. Major cases will go untried. Civilian police forces, already stretched thin, already under-resourced, will be handed cases they have repeatedly said they cannot absorb. They will take on only the most serious of sexual assault cases. As for the mid-level and lesser cases, they are outside civilian jurisdiction or capability. There is no plan in Bill C-11 to address those cases. There is nothing. This is a complete failure for future victims but will be seen as a free pass to predators. Members can let that sink in. The government will point to low numbers in the military system and claim success. They are already doing it in the House today. However, only a few major cases will go forward, and the rest will be unreported and unactioned. This is not accountability, and it is not reform. Simply put, this is not justice. This is burying the problem, handing it off and burying the people who trusted us to fix it. I must also address the role of the press. The mainstream media, funded by 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars, has primarily focused on attacking the opposition party and has not covered the survivors' testimony, the amendments we achieved together and the consequences of removing those amendments. Today I challenge the press, directly, to tell this story, interview the survivors, report what they said and explain what is at stake. That is its job. Canadians deserve to know the truth, not the Liberal talking points. Removing choices removes protections. The Liberals have been relying solely on the Arbour report, by someone who refused to testify in committee, and yet have failed to mention the Fish and Deschamps reports, which both speak to the benefits of choice for victims. I want to speak quickly on something I witnessed in committee, something that has stayed with me. As survivors shared their stories, as they spoke about trauma they endured and offered solutions rooted in courage, I looked across the table to members of the party opposite, and I saw a colleague begin to tear up. I saw his humanity. I saw someone who understood deeply the weight of what survivors are telling us. I say this to every member in the House, especially those with family who serve in the military, maybe their sons or daughters: They must hold on to that humanity. They must not let partisanship smother what was felt in that moment. They must not let party discipline override what they know in their hearts to be right. Survivors did not come to us as partisans. They came to us as human beings. They asked all of us to do right by them. Emotions must now be matched with action. Compassion must now be matched with courage. We must listen to the overwhelming evidence of survivors and experts, consider all reports and give survivors the freedom of choice. (1345) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member is trying to appeal to all members in the strongest way he can. However, the reality is that the government is listening to survivors. The government's actions reinforce reports that have been brought forward. We can talk about the Justice Arbour report. He seemed to be offended that it is the report we reference. In June 2024, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which has representation from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the Liberals, recommended the same thing. I would appeal to the Conservatives to listen to all of the victims, like Justice Arbour did, both in confidence and out of confidence. She came up with the recommendation for a reason. Maybe the member could tell us why it is that Conservatives voted— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I have to interrupt the member to allow the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to respond. [Expand] Jeff Kibble: Mr. Speaker, again, the Arbour report did not look at what is in Bill C-11, which simply would leave the majority of sexual assault cases undealt with, unreported and unactioned. It is not even in Bill C-11. Therefore, regardless of what the Arbour report says or all of the other reports, the majority of victims and reports support choice. Bill C-11 and the Liberal Party would fail our military in the future. As I directly pointed out, the majority of cases would go unresolved, unreported and unactioned, and that is an embarrassing failure. [Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his service to Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy and his great work in standing up for victims. I first met the member's wife, Angel, who has also been a strong advocate of fighting for the survivors of military sexual trauma, when I was doing town halls across this country on military injuries, including military sexual trauma. Ever since then, she has been fighting for justice. After all of the committee hearings, the member and I and many others here have talked to veterans and current serving members across the country, and, particularly, the brave witnesses who stepped up at the national defence committee to look at Bill C-11 and lay out all their experiences. By the Liberals rejecting their testimony today in this debate, will that revictimize them knowing that the Liberals are brushing everything off? [Expand] Jeff Kibble: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the amazing work he has done over the many years. Simply put, yes, it will retraumatize them. I started receiving numerous phone calls last night. They came flooding in. It will retraumatize victims now and in the future. Simply put, the amendments that we have put forward would make this work. The victims want the choice, and we are supporting them based on fact, emotion and support. Clearly, a bill that would not address the majority of sexual assault cases and let them go unresolved would be a partisan decision that no sane human would vote for. [Expand] Cheryl Gallant (Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member referred to low- and mid-level assaults and the Liberals getting away with it. We had a prime minister who was a known groper and he just wrote it off, saying he felt it differently or she felt it differently. I am wondering if this is what— (1350) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the member said we had a known prime minister who was a groper. It is highly inappropriate and definitely unparliamentary to make assertions of that nature, and I would ask that you have the member either apologize or retract the comment, at the very least. [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I was listening carefully to the member and I just quickly talked to the clerks. The member was not talking about a current member of the House of Commons or the current Prime Minister. I will let the member finish. [Expand] Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberals are having a hard time understanding why it is so important that even the low- and mid-level assaults be addressed. Could the member give examples of what this entails and why they should not just be let go? [Expand] Jeff Kibble: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the legal definitions of the various levels. It was delved into in-depth and, as distasteful as it may sound, unfortunately, it is the legal reality that we have to have those levels. Only the most serious cases, if there is capacity for them in the civilian system, would be dealt with. The rest would be buried, would not be actioned and would disappear. That is failure, yet burying the truth would be touted as the Liberals' great success. [Translation ]

[Expand] Louis Villeneuve (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been clear that he is committed to ensuring that the defence team provides a workplace where all members, both military and civilian, feel supported and respected and have the opportunity to reach their full potential in their work. This is a top priority. Bill C-11 is a critical step toward achieving lasting institutional reform that will foster a culture of respect and accountability and strengthen confidence in the military justice system. With its proposed targeted amendments to the National Defence Act, the bill represents the next critical step in our efforts to implement the recommendations from the independent external comprehensive review and the third independent review of the National Defence Act. This bill is also essential to support future legislative changes that may be required over time to implement additional recommendations and to advance future efforts to foster culture change. Today, I would like to provide an overview of these external independent reviews and talk about the progress that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have made in addressing the recommendations from these reviews. Let us start with the independent external comprehensive review, also know as the IECR. The review was launched in April 2021 and led by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour to examine harassment and sexual misconduct within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as the policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture that have allowed these harms to persist. This includes reviewing policies surrounding the administration of military justice. The final report was released on May 30, 2022. The then defence minister welcomed the 48 recommendations. When the final report was received, 17 recommendations were accepted immediately, including recommendation 48, which is to appoint an external monitor, mandated to oversee the implementation of the IECR recommendations. The then minister appointed Jocelyne Therrien to the position of external monitor. During her tenure, she regularly provided the minister with updates on the implementation of the IECR recommendations. Those updates, which are available to the public, helped us perform our work in a focused and transparent manner in keeping with the expectations of Canadian Armed Forces personnel and the Canadian public. In August 2023, the new defence minister also announced the implementation of recommendations 7 and 9 to change the military grievance and harassment processes. Today, any Canadian Armed Forces member who has experienced any kind of sexual misconduct while performing their duties now has the option of filing a complaint directly with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, without being required to exhaust every possible internal grievance and harassment process first. Moreover, as the external monitor underscored in her June 2024 report, the repeal of the duty to report regulations was one of the most significant changes that the Canadian Armed Forces made to its sexual misconduct policy in recent years. In her recommendation 11, Justice Arbour underscored that, although well-intentioned, the regulations requiring military personnel to report cases of misconduct deprived survivors of their agency and control over the reporting process and could sometimes end up re-victimizing the very people they were meant to protect. In recommendation 28 and in the first part of recommendation 29, the IECR report also made recommendations concerning the military college system. (1355) In December 2023, the minister announced the names of the seven individuals selected to sit on the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board to review the situation at Canada's two military colleges. Two members came from the department and the Canadian Armed Forces, and five were external experts on education and culture. In March 2025, the review board released its report, which included 49 recommendations covering a variety of areas, including costs, governance and quality of education and training. The implementation of recommendations from the Arbour  report has continued, and the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have already started acting on some of the recommendations at Canada's two military colleges. Ultimately, this is a cornerstone of Bill C‑11. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are also taking into account the key aspects of IECR recommendation 15 by seeking to remove military jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences that are committed in Canada. As of December 2021, all new charges for Criminal Code sexual offences are being laid in the civilian justice system, and none of these offences are being tried in the military justice system. The Canadian Forces Military Police Group is leading a working group on the operational framework for Criminal Code sexual offences, in conjunction with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, Ontario's Solicitor General and Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General, to develop a framework for transferring cases. In November 2020, former Supreme Court justice Morris J. Fish was appointed to conduct an independent review of specific provisions of the National Defence Act and their application. In June 2021, the department tabled the report in Parliament. Justice Fish presented the department with 107 sweeping recommendations, the majority of which support the ongoing modernization of the military justice system. He also offered recommendations aimed at strengthening the independence of the military police and others concerning the grievance process. Bill C‑11 also addresses several of these recommendations.

Statements by Members

[Statements by Members]

(1400) [English ]

Guelph

[Expand] Dominique O'Rourke (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the city of Guelph marks its 199th anniversary, nearly two centuries shaped by people who care deeply about learning, community, place and one another. Situated on Treaty No. 3 lands held by the Mississaugas of the Credit, home to the Haudenosaunee and the Attawandaron, Guelph brings together nature and ideas, from the University of Guelph Arboretum to the Speed and Eramosa rivers, and to a historic downtown rich in arts, culture and local business. Its contributions to the arts, culture, science, innovation and business resonate nationally and globally. As Guelph approaches its bicentennial, I invite members and all Canadians to gather in Guelph to celebrate a city that values words and imagination; is home to celebrated authors; is the birthplace of Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, author of In Flanders Fields; and is the birthplace of two Nobel laureates. Guelph is a cornerstone of Ontario agriculture and a leader in advanced manufacturing. I welcome all to gather in Guelph to celebrate this remarkable city. I wish a happy birthday to the royal city.

Public Safety

[Expand] Sandra Cobena (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one month ago I introduced the stand on guard act, and yet today we still have no response from the Liberal government. Not a yes, not a no, just silence. Is silence really the best response that the Liberals can muster for victims of home invasions? Our Conservative bill is simple. If someone knowingly and unlawfully enters a person's home, the force used to defend their family should be deemed to be reasonable. A person's home is their safe place. It is where their children sleep, and it deserves special protection under our laws. After a decade of catch-and-release Liberal bail, Canadians are telling us that sense of safety is gone. They are asking for something simple: for the law to stand with them. They have received silence, and silence in this moment is not neutral but an answer in itself. Conservatives will never stop fighting for the right for Canadians to feel safe to defend themselves and their families.

Collège Sturgeon Heights Collegiate

[Expand] Doug Eyolfson (Winnipeg West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians marked Earth Day, a call to action to protect the environment we all share. In my riding, that call is already being answered. At Collège Sturgeon Heights Collegiate, an unused plot of land is being transformed into a thriving native prairie garden thanks to a $1,500 Go Wild grant from the World Wildlife Fund Canada. This project will restore native plants and grasses, support pollinators like bees and help bring back monarch butterflies. These are real and tangible steps to protect local biodiversity. It is being led by the school's garden club and is supported by life skills students, with plans to expand into indigenous studies programming, including traditional medicinal plants. I want to recognize Mrs. Zinn, a dedicated teacher whose leadership turned this vision into reality. This is more than a garden. It is a living classroom and a community coming together. It is proof that protecting our environment depends on action, not words. This is how we will build a sustainable future: One community, one project and one generation at a time.

Galt Legion 100th Anniversary

[Expand] Connie Cody (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Galt Legion, a milestone that reminds us that remembrance does not happen on its own. It endures because individuals choose to carry it forward. In my community of Cambridge, Bill Albers is one of those individuals. Bill has devoted his time and energy to ensuring that important but often overlooked aspects of our wartime history are not lost. Through his work, he highlights the role of carrier pigeons and the pigeoneers who served during the First World War and Second World War. It was a vital form of service relied upon when other communication failed. More than the history itself, Bill's efforts reflected deep respect for service, sacrifice and remembrance. Especially in the centennial year of the Galt Legion, his commitment helps connect past generations to the present, reminding our community why we honour those who served. Remembrance is strengthened by people like Bill Albers, who ensure that the stories of war continue to be shared, understood and respected. Let us also remember that even the smallest wings carried the weight of great responsibility, saving thousands of lives. [Translation ]

Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord

[Expand] Abdelhaq Sari (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 40th anniversary of the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord. For four decades, the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord has been the heart and soul of our neighbourhood. It supports our seniors, helps newcomers integrate, mobilizes volunteers and builds the bonds of solidarity that make the riding of Bourassa stronger and more inclusive. The Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal-Nord embodies the very best of civic engagement: people who choose to get involved, not out of obligation, but by choice and based on their convictions. Without these volunteers, without these men and women, many cultural and sports activities simply could not take place. On behalf of the residents of Bourassa, I sincerely thank them for their commitment, and I wish the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal-Nord a happy 40th anniversary. (1405) [English ]

St. Thomas and District Chamber of Commerce Impact Awards

[Expand] Andrew Lawton (Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy, and that is truer than ever in St. Thomas, Elgin and London. Our small business owners are an incredible testament to the resilience, grit and innovativeness of our community. Some of our amazing entrepreneurs and professionals were recognized Friday at the St. Thomas and District Chamber of Commerce Impact Awards. I hope this House will join me in congratulating this year's Impact Award winners: real estate agent Ainslee Tracey; the delicious Taco House Co.; Dr. Joseph Mai of Central Community Health Centre; Our Place Respite; Element5; Yarmouth Group; and the Business of the Year Award winner, Evelyn's Sausage Kitchen. They and all the nominees represent the best of our community. They create jobs, opportunity and vitality for St. Thomas and Elgin. However, entrepreneurs back home do not walk alone. My office is a proud member of the St. Thomas and District Chamber of Commerce. In Ottawa today from the chamber are Maria Fiallos, Paul Jenkins and Christy Hunking. They are here representing our community. They are making sure small businesses can succeed, and I thank them for their efforts.

Spanish Language Day

[Expand] Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.): [Member spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows: ] Mr. Speaker, as the proud daughter of a Mexican immigrant, I rise on April 23 to celebrate Spanish Language Day, recognized by the United Nations and 21 countries around the world. Spanish is now the most widely spoken non-official language in Canada, connecting more than 1.7 million Canadians to their heritage, identity and traditions. Three provinces and 14 cities have now proclaimed April 23 as Spanish Language Day. Our Prime Minister has called this day “a wonderful opportunity for Canadians of all backgrounds” to learn from our Spanish-speaking communities. Communities across our country have spoken. Let us proclaim April 23 as Spanish Language Day at the federal level. [Member spoke in Spanish ] [English ]

Vaughn Solomon Schofield

[Expand] Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on April 8, Saskatchewan's 21st lieutenant governor, the Honourable Vaughn Solomon Schofield, passed away, marking an end to a life of service, strong community values and humility. Vaughn will be remembered for her outstanding contributions to Canada's Armed Forces, highlighted by the numerous honours she held including recently becoming the honorary colonel of 15 Wing Moose Jaw. True to her advocacy for our men and women in uniform, Vaughn established the Lieutenant Governor's Military Service Pin and hosted the Support Our Troops gala, which was a national fundraiser for charities that assist military families. She had an unwavering and enduring bond with the people of Canada, Saskatchewan and the Canadian Armed Forces. Vaughn's love of service was second to only one thing, her love of family. She was a devoted mother to George and Whitney. She was a loving wife to her best friend and husband Gord, and she truly loved her four grandchildren. They were the light of her life. Vaughn will be remembered for her charisma. Every room she walked into brightened with her smile and her charisma. May she rest in peace. [Translation ]

Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Mirabel

[Expand] Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Mirabel. This is a major milestone that deserves to be acknowledged. For 50 years, Mirabel's chamber of commerce has been deeply involved in the community. Since I was elected in 2021, I have seen an organization that listens to its members, that is innovative and that is essential to the region's economic development. It is able to pool Mirabel's strengths, whether in agriculture, aeronautics or its many SMEs, and build strong ties between these sectors. It is no coincidence that it was nominated for an award this year by the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec in the categories of recruitment and chamber of the year for organizations with up to 400 members. This recognition confirms the calibre of its work and its tangible impact on the ground. I would like to commend all the directors who have served on its board over the years, as well as the executive director, Geneviève Brault-Sabourin, and her entire team. On behalf of the people of Mirabel, I congratulate the chamber of commerce on its 50th anniversary, and I hope for at least 50 more years. (1410) [English ]

Generations Toronto

[Expand] Hon. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Don Valley West is home to the largest community of Shia Ismaili Muslims in Canada. This vibrant community is made up of thousands of engaged, committed Canadians who make our city and our country richer in every sense of the word. Recently, I was honoured to join His Highness the Aga Khan and members of the community to celebrate the inauguration of Generations Toronto, a new not-for-profit intergenerational community in Don Valley West. Comprising 390 affordable rental homes, 122 long-term care residences, on-site health care, an early learning centre, space for prayer and community programming, this project represents the best of our efforts to build vibrant and affordable housing: a generational project for several generations to live together. This investment of $130 million through the apartment construction loan program is one example of our federal government providing affordable housing solutions for Canadians in need. We are building Canada strong.

International Trade

[Expand] Jim Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, hundreds of workers in Nairn Centre and Gogama were told their sawmills will shut down indefinitely. The Liberals have been dragging their feet and have failed to secure a fair deal. Hard-working families are now left in limbo. The Prime Minister promised a trade win by last summer. Instead, softwood lumber tariffs have tripled to 45% since 2022, putting immense pressure on Canada's forestry sector. Recycled speeches and photo ops are not enough. It is time for the Liberal government to walk the talk. The alarm bells are ringing. We need results. The Liberals must stand up for our forestry sector and finally fight for the workers who keep northern Ontario communities alive. [Translation ]

National Volunteer Week

[Expand] Shannon Miedema (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to call attention to National Volunteer Week, which runs from April 19 to 25, 2026. It is a time to celebrate the outstanding commitment of volunteers. [English ]

Our country runs on volunteers. Everyone in this room can agree that we would not be standing in this House without the tireless work of the volunteer organizers who got us here. In Halifax, I would like to give a special shout-out to the dedicated volunteers who helped during the campaign, as well as those who continue to support me in this role. I would like to also recognize the volunteer firefighters; event organizers; those who work with our food banks and in health care, environmental and arts organizations; and all those who dedicate themselves to strengthening our community. [Translation ]

I want to thank all volunteers everywhere in Canada. [English ]

This National Volunteer Week, and in recognition of the United Nations International Volunteer Year, I would like to thank all of Canada's volunteers. Their contributions make a difference in people's lives.

International Trade

[Expand] Jacob Mantle (York—Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on the promise that he alone could handle the United States. He went further. He told Canadians, “we will get an even better deal”, so Canadians have every right to judge him by the promises he made. On top of that broken promise, we now have contradictions and confusion. This week, the Prime Minister said our relationship with the United States is a weakness, but days later he said he could still get a good deal. Which is it, a rupture with the United States in favour of China or a good deal with the United States? Canadians fear that history is repeating itself. Just like the last time, the Mexicans are in advance negotiations with dates scheduled for May. Canada is on the outside looking in. The Prime Minister 's contradictions and confusion have led to more tariffs, higher tariffs and broader tariffs on everything from lumber to manufactured goods. Now, his absence from the negotiating table is putting in peril the millions of Canadian jobs that rely on a strong, stable relationship with the United States. [Translation ]

Claude Métras

[Expand] Hon. Élisabeth Brière (Sherbrooke, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Eastern Townships are mourning the loss of Claude Métras following his passing on April 16, 2026. As a prominent certified appraiser with Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton in Sherbrooke, Mr. Métras was known to all as a leader recognized for his generosity and profound love for our region. He was a true community builder who chaired many boards of directors and events. He was also a great philanthropist who shone a spotlight on regional culture, particularly by organizing exhibitions at the offices of Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton to launch the careers of local artists. His outstanding commitment earned him a number of accolades, including the title “Grand Estrien”, the Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Medal, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec's gold medal and the Mérite Estrien award. This devoted family man, loving partner to his dear Marylin and avid tennis fan leaves behind an immense legacy. Everyone who knew him will carry the memory of his dedication and warmth with them forever. I want to thank Mr. Métras. It was a privilege to know him. (1415) [English ]

Fuel Taxes

[Expand] Colin Reynolds (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while fuel prices are soaring, hard-working Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. We know we cannot opt out of global factors, but we can take measures domestically to help Canadians who are hurting. After weeks of pressure, the Liberals finally caved to our demands to remove taxes at the pump during these uncertain times. The half-measure will not deliver the results Canadians need. Canadians need practical and tangible solutions, not more recycled speeches and empty promises. We need to take action and Canadians need results. We need to build up our natural gas infrastructure and strengthen our leverage abroad while looking out for folks at home. Therefore, I call on the Liberals to remove all taxes at the pump for the rest of the year so Canadian families can keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.

Health Care in Humber River—Black Creek

[Expand] Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary act of generosity that will have a lasting impact on health care in Humber River—Black Creek. Recently, Humber River Health announced a transformational, $50-million donation from Jay and Barbara Hennick through the Hennick Family Foundation, the largest single gift in the hospital's history. In recognition of this landmark contribution, Humber's flagship site has been renamed Hennick Humber Hospital. This historic gift will support advanced technologies, clinical programs and research and education, ensuring that patients continue to receive safe, high-quality and innovative care. I also wish to commend Barb Collins, the president and CEO of Humber River Health, for her visionary leadership in building one of Canada's most innovative hospitals, and of course, I thank the dedicated staff who deliver excellence every day. This is philanthropy and leadership at their very best.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

[Translation ]

Taxation

[Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with this Liberal Prime Minister, it is more cost, more crime, more corruption, more of the same. Despite the illusions, he is just another Liberal. For example, he is keeping two-thirds of the gas tax in place while Canadians are getting ripped off at the pump. There is the new carbon tax, which he now calls the clean fuel standard, and there is the GST. Both cost 15¢ a litre. Will the Prime Minister stop taxing Canadians at the pumps, or is he just another Liberal? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me help the Leader of the Opposition. He has no doubt seen that we have always been there for Canadians with our affordability measures. Recently, we suspended the federal gas tax. The suspension is in effect, and the price at the pump has dropped. On this side of the House, we will always be there for Canadians in their time of need. Together, we will build Canada strong.

Finance

[Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister, who is in Ottawa today but is hiding under the desk. He does not want to answer— [Expand] The Speaker: I did not hear the end of the Leader of the Opposition's sentence, but I assume he was not referring to the presence or absence of a member. I imagine it was more general than that. The hon. Leader of the Opposition may carry on with his question. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the reason the Prime Minister hates answering real questions is that it breaks the illusion. Although he would have us believe otherwise, he doubled the deficit Justin Trudeau left us. It is unbelievable. Trudeau left behind a $40‑billion deficit. The deficit is now almost $80 billion. Will he cut back on the bureaucracy, the corporate welfare, the tax havens and other waste to bring down his out-of-control deficit? (1420) [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition certainly is here. One thing I can say is that, as the days go by, the questions remain the same. One thing that is true is that we have the most— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. François-Philippe Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I think the members on that side would do well to listen because Canadians are listening. Canada's growth is the second-fastest in the G7. The International Monetary Fund just confirmed that Canada's fiscal position is the strongest. On Tuesday, we will be presenting Canadians with a plan to build a strong Canada together. [English ]

Taxation

[Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with the Liberal Prime Minister, it is more cost, more crime and more corruption, more of the same. That is because, despite the illusions, he is just another Liberal. This is true with gas taxes. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, yes, they are applauding. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. He is keeping two-thirds of the gas tax in place while Canadians get ripped off at the pump with the carbon tax, which he calls the clean fuel standard, and the GST at 15¢ a litre. Will the Prime Minister stop gouging Canadians at the pump and get rid of all taxes for all the year, or is he just another Liberal? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is more of the same. I think the Leader of the Opposition should look at himself in the mirror. Every other day it is the same question, but one thing Canadians know is that we are always going to have their back. When it was time to present the grocery rebate, the Leader of the Opposition was nowhere to be seen. When it was time to give a gas tax rebate, he was nowhere to be seen. On this side of the House, we will always stand with Canadians, and on Tuesday we will present a plan to build Canada strong together. That is leadership.

Finance

[Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister hides under his desk instead of answering questions, because whether it is today when he was snarling at a female journalist for simply asking a question, or in the House of Commons where he hides from those same questions, he knows that as soon as he faces a tough question, it exposes the thinly veiled illusion and that the reality is that he is just another Liberal. He has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, the biggest deficit in Canadian history outside Covid, because of massive increases in spending. Will the Prime Minister cut back on the bureaucracy, the waste and the tax havens to bring down his out-of-control deficit for Canada? [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if being just another Liberal means that we support single mothers with the cost of child care, then I am just another Liberal. If being just another Liberal means that we help ensure that kids get food to eat in schools, then I am just another Liberal. If making sure that skilled tradespeople get the training to get those prosperous jobs, or investing in major projects, is being a Liberal, then I am just another Liberal. I guess the question is this: What do Conservatives really stand for if being Liberal is about helping Canadians?

The Economy

[Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we now understand why the Liberal Prime Minister is fleeing from questions today, refusing to face accountability. If doubling the deficit to the worst in Canadian history outside COVID means being just another Liberal, he is just another Liberal. If giving Canadians the worst food price inflation in the G7 means being just another Liberal, he is just another Liberal. If doubling housing costs so an entire generation cannot afford homes means being just another Liberal, he is just another Liberal. If sending 2.2 million people to a food bank means being just another Liberal, he is just another Liberal. Is that not why the “just another Liberal” will not stand in the House— [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Jobs and Families. [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us try this another way. If being Conservative means voting against hungry kids, I guess the Leader of the Opposition is just another Conservative. If being a member of the Conservative Party means voting against workers, trades, GST tax credits, tax on fuel and doubling down on— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Speaker: I cannot hear. The hon. member may continue. [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Speaker, I know that there are a lot of Conservative voters out there, even in my own riding, who come up to me every single day. Do members know what they say to me? They say to keep going, to keep fighting for our workers, to keep fighting for our kids and to keep fighting for our families. That is why I am proud to be just another Liberal. (1425)

Finance

[Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, from imaginary conversations with the minister to illusions from a Prime Minister who hides under his desk rather than being accountable in the House of Commons, one could cut through the Liberal arrogance with a knife. What we cannot cut is the Liberal deficit. Amazingly, Justin Trudeau left behind a $40-billion deficit. We thought it could not get worse, but along came the current Liberal Prime Minister, and he nearly doubled it to $80 billion. Just like he caused inflation when he printed money in Great Britain, he is causing inflation now. Will the Prime Minister, who has been wrong about every single economic issue, learn from his mistakes and reverse the deficit? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives. Let me be very clear. While the Leader of the Opposition is talking down the Canadian economy, the International Monetary Fund said some things last week: Canada will have the second-fastest growth in the G7, Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7, and Canada has attracted record direct investment in the country. This is being a Liberal in the 21st century: building a strong Canada, attracting investment, and sound fiscal policy. We are proud to be Liberal. [Translation ]

The Economy

[Expand] Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be celebrating the first anniversary of his election on April 28 with an economic update. He promised to resolve the tariff crisis quickly, but it is hitting harder than ever— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Speaker: We will let the hon. member continue. [Expand] Christine Normandin: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the applause. The Prime Minister will be celebrating the first anniversary of his election on April 28 with an economic update. He promised to resolve the tariff crisis quickly. However, it is hitting harder than ever, with new tariffs on the total value of processed products. The Bloc Québécois has laid out what we expect in terms of better support for Quebec's economy. First and foremost, we are calling for a wage subsidy to protect jobs in businesses threatened by tariffs, especially SMEs. Will the government adopt this vital proposal? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Bloc Québécois is proud that on April 28, we will be presenting an update that will help build the country. What my colleague said is true. We have been there for businesses. We established a strategic response fund precisely to enable SMEs across the country, including in Quebec, to pivot. The good news is that exports to other countries are on the rise. The plan we have put forward is working, and we will continue to build Canada strong together. [Expand] Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the tariff crisis is exposing all the cracks in the system. Washington's new tariffs clearly show that EI needs a complete overhaul to cover more workers. With the dramatic increase in the cost of living, seniors between 65 and 74 years of age deserve an increase in their old age pension. With Quebec sawmills closing one after another, the forestry industry obviously needs help to deal with the Americans' illegal tariffs. The government must fix these issues in its economic statement on Tuesday. That is clear. Will it do so? [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. We are facing strong headwinds because of the Americans' illegal and illegitimate tariffs. That is why, since day one of this government, we have been there to support forestry, steel, aluminum and auto workers, but we are not stopping there. We are diversifying our markets at an unprecedented rate: 20 agreements on four continents over the past year, on trade and security, to help our businesses discover new opportunities and pivot. [Expand] Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the economic update is also an opportunity to remind the Liberals that the tariff crisis is not the only crisis happening right now. Yes, we have to invest in defence, but that is no reason to cut health care funding, which they plan to do starting in 2028. It is no reason to abandon our media. It is no reason to cut funding for public transit. The Liberals can tackle all of these crises if they stop subsidizing oil companies and capitulating to U.S. web and digital giants. Will they take a stand? [Expand] Hon. Marjorie Michel (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can hear my colleague's tone, and I do not think Quebeckers would be very happy to hear him criticizing what we are doing, because we are there for Quebeckers for everything, including health care. I have a very good working relationship with my Quebec counterpart, and we are making progress on all of the province's files. (1430) [English ]

Finance

[Expand] Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, next week, the Liberals are set to release their fiscal update. The Prime Minister is copying Justin Trudeau's playbook as he burns through more taxpayer dollars, goes deeper into debt and piles even more inflationary spending on every Canadian family. After more than a decade, none of the Liberals have realized that the more they spend, the worse affordability is for everyone. The Bank of Canada confirmed last week that rising interest rates are directly tied to excessive government spending. If the Prime Minister will not bother with this place, will he at least call his friends at the Bank of Canada and get his spending under control? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to table immediately a list of the cuts she would like to make, and we will look into that. [Expand] Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is the Alto high-speed train, consultants and the gun buyback program. There are a number of them, and we can discuss those at length in the House. However, the C.D. Howe Institute also said today that persistent Liberal deficits are undermining “growth and living standards” rather than supporting them, the very thing they claim to do. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians. When will all of that stop and when is anybody over there going to be held accountable for any of it? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we can believe the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, or we can believe the International Monetary Fund, which says that Canada has the best fiscal situation in the G7 and has lots of fiscal capacity. Do colleagues know what we are going to do? We are going to use that fiscal capacity to build Canada, to build it strong, to build with Canadian products and with Canadian men and women in the skilled trades. We are going to build projects from coast to coast to coast in this country, and we are going to build it over the objections of that member.

Small Business

[Expand] Sandra Cobena (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the CFIB has sounded the alarm on the entrepreneurial drought in Canada for six consecutive quarters. More businesses have shut down than opened up. The Montreal Economic Institute has said that “the heartbeat of innovation, job creation and economic growth...is in sharp decline”. Small businesses spend about 250 hours per year on red tape that could be eliminated, and it would not even cost the government a single dollar. Will the minister admit that the Liberals' tax-and-spend approach has failed and get out of the way so that our businesses can thrive? [Translation ]

[Expand] Marie-Gabrielle Ménard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course, I share my colleague's concern for our small businesses. Canada is home to one million businesses employing six million Canadians. I have just finished a series of round-table discussions, and we are working with SMEs to help them get export-ready. Small businesses will have their place in Canada's defence industrial strategy. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business welcomed the suspension of the excise tax. That also supports small businesses in Canada. [English ]

[Expand] Sandra Cobena (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, entrepreneurs need a direct and clear answer. The CFIB estimates that the total regulatory cost of government is $52 billion. Businesses are burning through a collective 768 million hours annually on paperwork. Just this week, I met with businesses that have heard Liberal promises for almost a decade. They are asking if the Liberals could just leave the starting line and do something. Will the Liberals commit today to cutting their red tape taxes and government spending, so that businesses can actually thrive in our country? [Translation ]

[Expand] Marie-Gabrielle Ménard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. That is part of the strategy to support small business. Part of our approach involves reducing red tape for businesses. Obviously, I do not entirely agree with my colleague's statement. I consult with small business owners every week to understand what they are going through. My sense is that the transformation that we are currently undertaking is helpful and gives our small businesses hope for a bright future. [English ]

The Economy

[Expand] Amanpreet Gill (Calgary Skyview, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims affordability has never been better, but Canadians know the truth: Food bank use has skyrocketed, rent has nearly doubled, and families are paying more for groceries, gas and housing. After 10 years of Liberal inflation, everything costs us more, yet the Prime Minister is adding billions of dollars in reckless spending, driving up debt and the cost of living. Canadians are paying $3,000 each year just to cover that debt. When will the Liberals get spending under control so Canadians can afford to live again? (1435) [Expand] Hon. Wayne Long (Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the former failed leader and the missing-in-action current failed leader love to stand in this House and talk about the economy. They have been in this House a total of 44 years and have accomplished nothing for Canadians. In fact, their work experience outside of this House could fit on a post-it note, unless they embellish it again, like the former leader did in 2019. On this side of the House, we have the Prime Minister and the plan. He is going to build the strongest economy in the G7.

Aerospace Industry

[Expand] Dan Albas (Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when someone leases a new vehicle, they get a new vehicle, but when the Liberals leased a spaceport, all they got for $200 million was a gravel parking lot. I am sure it had nothing to do with the fact that it is in a Liberal riding or that the justice minister 's former staffer was the lobbyist for the project or that former Liberal premiers are on the company's advisory board. Clearly, there are no Liberal insiders getting rich at all. Canadians have only one question: Why are so many Liberal insiders getting so rich off taxpayers on this boondoggle of a lease? [Expand] Hon. David McGuinty (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians do have a question: Why are the Conservatives against rearming, rebuilding and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces? We are proud to invest in space capabilities, including space launch infrastructure. It is important for Canada to assert its sovereignty in space-based communications. This is one of a continuing series of generational investments to ensure both Canada's security and our sovereignty. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that 20% of the Canadian economy depends on satellites every day. [Expand] Dan Albas (Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, CPC): Mr. Speaker, get the minister some rocket fuel. The Liberals are experts at paying a lot for nothing. They have turned a gravel pit into a money pit. A former Liberal MP got $237 million for ventilators that went straight into the scrap heap. A Nova Scotia wind farm, tightly connected to former Liberal MPs, got a $206-million loan. Liberal insiders are making bank, while too many Canadians are at the food bank. When will a satellite be launched from our $200-million parking lot? [Expand] Hon. David McGuinty (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, 20% of the Canadian economy depends every day on satellites. Whether we are ordering food to our front doors, trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange, mapping our agricultural products in the production system, or deploying AI for firefighting purposes, we need satellite capabilities, and we need secure telecommunications for our Arctic, for our security and for our sovereignty. Guess what. Despite the Conservatives' objections, we are going to build it. [Translation ]

Climate Change

[Expand] Patrick Bonin (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie wrote in La Presse that he fears his government is abandoning all of its net-zero goals. His Prime Minister is trying to impose another dirty oil pipeline in western Canada without meeting any of his own conditions. There is no increase in industrial carbon pricing and no protection for our water, and the methane and clean electricity regulations are being watered down to please the oil and gas lobby. The Liberals have no chance of meeting their climate targets. If the Liberals will not listen to the Bloc Québécois, will they listen to their colleague? [Expand] Hon. Nathalie Provost (Secretary of State (Nature), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the climate crisis, like the global crisis, is real and we are aware of that. The only way we are going to be able to deal with it is by working together. As far as Alberta is concerned, I had a great discussion with our Albertan colleagues last week about the rollout of the “Force of Nature” strategy. The dialogue is open. We will work together, we will learn. I believe that, by working together, we will build a clean Canada. (1440) [Expand] Patrick Bonin (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' nature strategy is to build more pipelines. The rumours are so serious that, last Thursday, the MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said he had confidence in his government despite its backtracking on climate action. However, today he wrote: “Any further compromise...would not only undermine Canada's climate commitments...but also risk causing irreversible damage to human health, clean air, clean water and the trust of indigenous communities.” When will the Liberals stand up to stop their leader from wrecking the environment? [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe it is possible to pursue economic development while also respecting our environmental obligations. I would like to commend the work of the Secretary of State for Nature and the entire team here who have created a nature strategy that will protect 30% of our territory. As for my colleague's question, obviously, any project will be carried out in collaboration and consultation with first nations.

Foreign Affairs

[Expand] Jason Groleau (Beauce, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has appointed a personal friend of his to serve as Canada's ambassador to Washington. Mark Wiseman is not a wise man. He opposes supply management and does not respect the French language. In fact, he is the founder of the Century Initiative, which aims to bring millions of immigrants to Quebec to diminish the demographic weight of French. How could the Prime Minister appoint a buddy who wants to extinguish the French language and who opposes supply management as ambassador to the United States? [Expand] Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has clearly said, the embassy's invitation should have been sent out in French. It is unacceptable that this was not done. Those responsible should have known better.

Finance

[Expand] Jason Groleau (Beauce, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a buddy is a buddy. The Liberals' inflationary deficits are costing Canadians dearly. Canadians will pay $55.6 billion in interest this year alone to the Prime Minister 's banker buddies. That $55.6 billion even exceeds the cost of the Canada health transfer. The Bank of Canada has been clear that the high interest rates are a direct result of the Liberal debt. The fiscal update is next week. Will the Prime Minister put an end to the Liberals' inflationary deficit, yes or no? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated to the member's colleague, we are more than willing to hear what cuts the member opposite might propose, and we look forward to receiving his suggestions. [Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have already cribbed many of our ideas. The Liberal Prime Minister has completely lost control of public finances. He has added $90 billion in new spending. We are paying $55.6 billion a year just in interest on the debt. That is more than what the GST brings in. It is more than health care transfers. What this means for the public is that money is not going to patients or families. Every family is already paying $3,300 a year just in interest. Next week, during the fiscal update, will the Prime Minister change course, or will he doom Canadians to pay even more for his Liberal spending? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are a bit puzzled over here. Is dental care an inflationary expense? Are school meal programs an inflationary expense? Is support for Quebec workers and industries that are feeling the pinch from the U.S. tariffs an inflationary expense? What exactly are these inflationary expenses? Where is the document that the member intends to table to provide a detailed list of the inflationary expenses he would like to debate here in the House? [Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is 90 billion dollars' worth of new spending. The list is too long to read in 30 seconds. The Liberal Prime Minister can say everything is fine, as he did on March 25, but he is living in a fantasy world. Federal spending is at its highest level since 1996. Two-thirds of new spending is not even being used to invest, but rather to keep the Liberal government machine running. The result is higher debt, higher inflation and higher interest rates. That is what the Bank of Canada says. Every dollar wasted means a dollar less in Canadians' pockets. When will the Liberal government finally get its spending under control and give families some breathing room? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps a multiple choice question would help the member. Is it the Canada child benefit? That is $6 billion. Is it Canada's national school food program? That is $400 million. Is the Canada groceries and essentials benefit an inflationary expense? The Canada workers benefit is $3 billion. The old age security program is $7.5 billion. Which of those choices do the member and his leader see as inflationary spending? (1445) [Expand] Bernard Généreux (Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it seems that many people do not realize that it is easy to announce one program after another, but, at the end of the day, it all goes on the government's credit card, with no real limit. However, there is, in fact, a limit. An unpaid credit card balance at the end of the month means interest charges. It always means more spending and more deficits. The interest charges amount to over $3,300 a year for every family. When will the Liberals finally get their spending under control and cut it back so that Canadians can make ends meet? [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hold my colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata in high regard, but the International Monetary Fund is clear: Canada has the strongest fiscal position of any G7 country. Nevertheless, I find my colleague's questions interesting. What do the Conservatives consider to be inflationary spending? Would it be, as their leader suggests, depriving 39,142 citizens in his constituency of the Canadian dental care plan, which saves them up to $1,200 a year on dental visits? Is it depriving the residents of his constituency of the $87 million received by 12,000 families through the Canada child benefit? Is it cutting the pay of men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces, as the Conservatives did for so many years? We would like to know. [English ]

Housing

[Expand] Bruce Fanjoy (Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Build Canada Homes is Canada's affordable housing builder, and it is already delivering real results. It is working with partners to accelerate the construction of affordable homes across Canada, including right here in Ottawa. In just a few short months, we are already seeing progress, with the fast-tracking of eight shovel-ready projects in growing neighbourhoods. Can the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure please update the House on the momentum that the partnership between Build Canada Homes and the City of Ottawa is delivering? [Expand] Hon. Gregor Robertson (Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is exciting news this morning here in Ottawa. I was proud to be at a construction site with the Prime Minister and the mayor to announce those eight shovel-ready projects. There will be over 1,100 homes. Over 90% of those are affordable homes by the Build Canada Homes' standard. This is great news. We are building at scale. We are prioritizing projects on the ground. We are building these deep partnerships, in this case at the City of Ottawa, and looking forward to continuing to build that good work.

International Trade

[Expand] Connie Cody (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, just one year ago, the Prime Minister was telling everybody who would listen that he would get a trade deal with the Americans by last July. He set the deadline. He made that commitment. Now, the Prime Minister has surrendered as tariffs on steel have doubled, tariffs on lumber have tripled, and the tariffs on manufacturers got bigger. The workers and job creators in my community now know that the Prime Minister's promises were more empty words from just another Liberal politician. He says our relationship with the U.S. is a weakness, but is the real weakness not the Prime Minister 's constant over-promising and underdelivering when it comes to U.S.-Canada trade? [Expand] Hon. Evan Solomon (Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all these guys do every day in the middle of a trade war is talk down the economy and tear down the country. We are doing the real work of investing in sectors and building it up. The Conservatives just want to tear it down. Let me ask what they would tear down. Here is a list of projects we have invested in. We invested in Northern Transformer. It is in a Conservative riding; they do not want it. We invested in Sensor Technology in Collingwood; they do not want it. We invested in Axe Living in a Conservative riding; they do not want it. Why will the Conservatives not listen to their own businesses and their own ridings and build Canada strong with us? [Expand] Fred Davies (Niagara South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is capitulating on U.S. tariffs. Tariffs on steel have doubled. Lumber tariffs have tripled, and new barriers continue to hit our manufacturers. Nowhere is this failure felt more than in my region of Niagara, where cross-border trade is the lifeblood of local jobs, supply chains and our communities. While he blames tariffs on the shrinking economy, he fails to show up, and Mexico actually has a seat at the table. The Prime Minister is dragging his feet. When will he finally stand up and fight for the 2.6 million Canadian jobs that depend on U.S. trade and deliver the tariff relief he promised? (1450) [Expand] Hon. Ali Ehsassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy (Canada-U.S. Trade), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that we all stand at the ready. Canada is at its strongest when governments, workers, businesses and industry are all pulling in the same direction. By strengthening our engagement, we are ensuring Canada is well-positioned. That is why, as the member is well aware, yesterday we announced the creation of the advisory committee on Canada-U.S. economic relations. This will serve as a forum for knowledge sharing, expertise and feedback on all issues. [Expand] Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have the only shrinking economy in the G7. As the Prime Minister dithers, even Mexico is making progress on a deal. Why does he seem to keep wanting to drag this on? Why is he not fighting for the 2.6 million Canadians whose jobs rely on trade with the U.S.? With millions of jobs at stake, when will the Prime Minister deliver results instead of the same speeches, excuses and failures? [Expand] Hon. Ali Ehsassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy (Canada-U.S. Trade), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, allow me to emphasize that we stand at the ready. For the past several months, we have been consulting with the provinces, consulting with the territories, consulting with businesses and consulting with labour leaders, so everyone is fully aware that we are doing as much as can be expected and we will be acting very strongly. The member can rest assured that we will only agree to a very good deal. [Expand] Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been seven months since there has been a formal meeting or negotiation to exchange offers to remove these American tariffs. What is worse is that it is now being reported that this is a Liberal strategy, which has led to the loss of tens of thousands of Canadian jobs, the closure of the Brampton auto plant, the closure of steel mills and the closure of pulp and paper mills. This has had a devastating effect on Canadians, and now there are expanded tariffs on all manufactured goods, which will make it worse. What do these Liberals have to say to the Canadians who have lost their jobs as a result of their strategy of delay? [Expand] Hon. Maninder Sidhu (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to focus on trade diversification. I would like to share some facts for those that are watching at home. Non-U.S. trade is up by 17%, which is a record in 2025. Fact number two is that the Port of Vancouver moved 170 million metric tons of cargo, which is the highest amount in the port's history. That is more shipments to China, Japan and South Korea. Let us go to the other side of the country. The Port of St. John's just reported a 30% jump, which is another historic record. This is how we build Canada strong and open opportunities for workers across the country. [Expand] Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal answer to the tens of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs about their strategy of delay is tell them to not worry about their EI, not worry about their families and not worry about how they are going to pay their mortgages because they signed a free trade deal with Ecuador, which is a rounding error in Canada's GDP. If these Liberals are serious, they will explain why they decided their strategy is to not negotiate to try to get a deal on the tariffs that affect the 2.6 million Canadians whose jobs are tied to trade. When will they go back to the negotiating table to protect those jobs? [Expand] Hon. Tim Hodgson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr Speaker, what we have said is that we will not do a bad deal. What we will do is control our own destiny. We will build. Let me give the member some examples: $8 billion to 5 Wing Goose Bay, a new wind farm in New Brunswick, a new intertie in New Brunswick, a new port in Montreal, a new graphite mine in Quebec and a new nuclear reactor in Ontario. I could keep going. That is how we build Canada strong.

Health

[Expand] Dan Mazier (Riding Mountain, CPC): Mr Speaker, Canadians are learning that the Liberals spent $300 million on a software program called PrescribeIT. The Liberals promised PrescribeIT would replace fax machines for prescription drugs, but instead, less than 5% of prescriptions went through the program. Now the Liberals are quietly shutting down PrescribeIT, hoping Canadians won't notice that their money is gone. Given that taxpayers funded a program that they do not own for a service that never worked, my question is simple: Where did the $300 million go? (1455) [Translation ]

[Expand] Hon. Marjorie Michel (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, since this issue was discussed at the Standing Committee on Health, the government decided a few years ago to use the PrescribeIT program in collaboration with the provinces and territories. When we evaluated the program, it was not being used by the provinces, so the government stopped the funding. [English ]

[Expand] Dan Mazier (Riding Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, $300 million spent on PrescribeIT is making ArriveCAN look like pocket change. The Liberals paid Canada Health Infoway to design the program, which then paid Telus Health to develop the program, which then may have outsourced the work offshore. The CEO of Canada Health Infoway could not even tell the health committee how much the government paid him for this failure, claiming he did not know his own salary. Canadians got nothing from PrescribeIT. The $300-million question is, who got rich? [Translation ]

[Expand] Hon. Marjorie Michel (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are well aware, the program was put in place in the provinces and territories, so the money has been spent. However, doctors did not use the program enough for us to continue, so we ended it. [English ]

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Expand] Burton Bailey (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was revealed that Canadians paid over $275 million on health care for 130,000 rejected refugee claimants in the past 10 years. When bogus refugees and scammers are benefiting from a health care system they do not pay into and are receiving additional care that Canadians do not, such as vision care, counselling, home care and physiotherapy, something is wrong. When will the Prime Minister put Canadians first and stop scammers from taking advantage of our system? [Expand] Hon. Lena Metlege Diab (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the cost of health care for an asylum claimant is tied to volumes. The good news is that the asylum claims have gone down. If we compare the first two months of this year to 2024, it has gone down by two-thirds. That is good news for Canada, and with Bill C-12, we will continue to reduce those claims. [Expand] Burton Bailey (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, six million Canadians without access to a family doctor will not be lectured by the Liberals while their own tax dollars are being abused and they cannot get the proper care they need. The fact is that non-citizens whose asylum claims have been rejected have no reason to be in this country and should not benefit from better health care than Canadians. When will the Prime Minister admit he has lost control of immigration and stop letting scammers treat Canada as a walk-in clinic? [Expand] Hon. Lena Metlege Diab (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the program the member is speaking about represents 0.2% of the total health spending for Canada. I think the Conservatives had better get their facts straight and stop fearmongering off of the backs of people who are vulnerable and need to be protected. We will continue to do what is right for Canadians to protect Canadians and everyone in Canada.

Health

[Expand] Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is investing $79 million in the strategic response fund to advance regenerative medicine, which includes innovative cures for diabetes. Can the Minister of Health tell us how this investment will drive innovation in diabetes research and improve outcomes for Canadians living with diabetes? [Expand] Hon. Marjorie Michel (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her leadership on diabetes. We cannot build Canada strong without healthy Canadians. Investments like these show our commitment to building a more resilient, modern and sustainable health care system. Thanks to our investment, we are helping create approximately 400 jobs across the Vancouver region, which is great news for the economy and the people. Just as importantly, it shows that we want next-generation health care solutions to be built here in Canada. (1500)

Public Safety

[Expand] Arpan Khanna (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the RCMP and CBSA, a massive multi-million-dollar drug lab was shut down near Norwich. In Woodstock, drug dealers pushing fentanyl and cocaine were arrested, but then released on bail. Liberal weak-on-crime, catch-and-release and open border policies are destroying our communities. Under their watch, 50,000 Canadians have lost their lives due to drug overdoses. When will the Liberals crack down on these criminals and protect our communities? [Expand] Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have good news to share with my hon. colleague. He will be well aware of the fact that we are in the midst of moving forward with generational changes to Canada's criminal laws, including the bail and sentencing reform act, which would lead to stiffer penalties and harder conditions on bail for the very criminals he raises in his question. The only question that I have is whether the Conservatives, after months of obstruction in the justice committee, will finally be collaborative now that they know there is a majority Liberal government that will implement the strongest criminal reforms we have seen in years, with or without their assistance. [Expand] Arpan Khanna (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the police are doing their jobs, but it is this Liberal government that is failing Canadians. The Liberals promised 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new border guards, but they failed to deliver them. The AG says that, in Canada, we are short 3,400 RCMP officers. Meanwhile, illegal guns and illegal drugs keep pouring across our borders and into our communities. Will the Liberals stop recycling their speeches and finally act to protect Canadians? [Expand] Hon. Ruby Sahota (Secretary of State (Combatting Crime), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have implemented the strongest tightening of the Criminal Code of Canada ever in the history of this Parliament. We are putting forward legislation that would provide law enforcement with the tools they need to catch drug traffickers, but the Conservatives have delayed many of these tools. Lawful access should have been passed months ago. Finally, now it is at the committee stage, and I hope the Conservatives listen to law enforcement and provide them with the help they need.

Mental Health and Addictions

[Expand] Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for years, residents and businesses in Saskatoon West warned the Liberals that the drug injection site was creating chaos and disorder in the community. The Liberals approved and funded the site, even though it was within 200 metres of a school. Now, the whole operation has collapsed into bankruptcy and closure. That should be the end of this failed experiment. Saskatoon needs hope, recovery, treatment and safety, not a new licence for the same disaster under different management. Will the Minister of Health give the people of Saskatoon West a clear answer today and promise that she will not approve a new drug injection site in Saskatoon? [Translation ]

[Expand] Hon. Marjorie Michel (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, there is no one solution to the drug crisis. However, when it comes to supervised consumption sites, the federal government is responding to the request of the provinces, which operate these supervised consumption sites themselves. We do not pay the centres. I am working with the Province of Saskatchewan to find out how we are going to move forward in this specific case. [English ]

Foreign Affairs

[Expand] Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 12, in response to the Government of Lebanon's urgent request for humanitarian support, the Government of Canada announced more than $37.7 million in funding to provide critical assistance in Lebanon, including food, medical and health services, shelter and clean water. One month on, could the Secretary of State for International Development update the House on the impact our humanitarian assistance is having on the ground? [Expand] Hon. Randeep Sarai (Secretary of State (International Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's humanitarian assistance is making a real difference on the ground. Through trusted partners, we have helped provide nearly 5.7 million meals to families in need. We have supported emergency medical assistance to almost 16,000 patients and health services to 35,000 more. We are helping 40 primary care health facilities across Lebanon stay open, and improving access to essential medical care for the most vulnerable. These are just a few examples of the life-saving support that Canadians are helping provide. For families fleeing violence and facing displacement, hunger and loss, it makes a real difference. It is something Canadians can be proud of.

International Trade

[Expand] Clifford Small (Central Newfoundland, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Prime Minister bragged about his deal with China to remove tariffs from Canadian seafood. There were 49 seafood products subjected to 25% Canadian tariffs, but this government secured exemption for only two species and only until the end of this year. Harvesters and plant workers who rely on Chinese markets for turbot, sea cucumber, whelk, capelin, geoduck, shrimp and surf clams are reeling from these tariffs. When will these Liberals secure real, lasting relief from Chinese tariffs and stop failing the Canadian seafood industry? (1505) [Expand] Hon. Maninder Sidhu (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, China is our second-largest trading partner. In our trip in January, we unlocked billions of dollars of opportunities for our agriculture and seafood sector. That includes more canola to China, more beef to China and more seafood to China. That is over 500,000 workers being supported by trade with China. We will continue working with our Chinese counterpart to unlock more opportunities for more workers across the country.

Infrastructure

[Expand] Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at a time when gas prices are skyrocketing, the Liberals are quietly slashing $5 billion from promised transit funding to local governments, all part of the Prime Minister 's cuts, funding that cities rely on to keep people moving and to fight climate change. That means fewer buses, delayed projects and higher costs for commuters. Why is the government abandoning working people and municipalities when they need support the most? Will the Prime Minister reverse these reckless cuts in the spring economic update and reinstate the promised stable long-term transit funding, yes or no? [Expand] Hon. Gregor Robertson (Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her concerns about public transit. The good news is that we have expanded the opportunities for funding on public transit, not only from the Canada public transit fund, which is the first permanent dedicated public transit fund in Canadian history, but also from the build communities strong fund, which is $51 billion of funding for infrastructure in communities across Canada, all of which is eligible for public transit funding. We have grown the pot for public transit much larger. We intend to be investing aggressively, working with communities to deliver that public transit.

Pharmacare

[Expand] Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Prime Minister promised to protect pharmacare and sign agreements with all provinces and territories as quickly as possible. Despite those clear commitments, his government has failed to sign a single agreement. This week, P.E.I.'s health minister revealed the Liberals' plan to scrap pharmacare entirely when current deals expire. Will the government provide funding in the spring economic update to protect pharmacare and expand it to all Canadians as they promised, or are Liberals breaking their commitment to public pharmacare? [Translation ]

[Expand] Hon. Marjorie Michel (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I always say whenever we talk about pharmacare. The government remains committed to working with the provinces and territories to determine how best to support Canadians in the area of health care, based on their needs. Regarding Prince Edward Island and the article my colleague referred to, we are not making any cuts. These are programs that are set to end in the coming years. The government has not made any cuts, quite the contrary. I will work with the Province of Prince Edward Island to see how to better support it when it comes to health care. [English ]

[Expand] Andrew Lawton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, during Statements by Members, I could not help but notice that the Minister of Finance took a photograph on his phone of the Secretary of State for Rural Development, which as you and the minister should know is very much against the rules of this House. I am hoping you could direct the deletion of that photo. [Expand] The Speaker: I did not see that, but if that is the case, the minister would obviously have to delete the photo. Does the minister has a reply to that point of order? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I will delete it. It was of one of my documents. (1510)

Business of the House

[Business of the House]

[Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, now it is time for everyone's favourite part of the parliamentary calendar, the Thursday question. I was hoping the government House leader could update the House as to the business for the remainder of this week and into next week. Specifically, on the heels of recent data showing that Canada once again under the Liberal Prime Minister has the highest food inflation in the entire G7, can we expect any legislation to provide relief at the grocery store? We would be willing to fast-track legislation that would go the full way to lifting federal taxes off gasoline and diesel, should the government want to introduce that legislation as well. One thing that strengthens a dollar and protects currency against devaluation is investors trying to put money into our country. The two Liberal anti-development bills from the Trudeau era, the “no more pipelines” bill and the “no new development” bill, are blocking investment into Canada. Will the government finally repeal those antidevelopment laws that are contributing to the weakening Canadian dollar and helping drive up prices? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have taken careful note of those questions from my hon. colleague, and perhaps I could offer a challenge in return. If he could work with his colleagues over the weekend so that we get a list, a very precise list, of all of the things that constitute, in their minds, inflationary spending, we would certainly rush to agree to have them table that document and would take a look at it before the Minister of Finance rises next week and gives his spring economic update. [Translation ]

In the meantime, this afternoon, we will move on to consideration of Government Motion No. 9 on the composition of committees. Tomorrow we will continue consideration at second reading of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. On Monday, we will resume consideration at report stage of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. [English ]

Next Tuesday, we will begin debate at second reading of the very exciting Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act, followed by the spring economic statement at 4 p.m. Finally, on Wednesday, we will start second reading debate of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Weights and Measures Act. [Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, because the government House leader referenced it, I understand he has just made a commitment that he would allow us to bring that document into the House and accept its tabling. I will take him up on that and make sure we get him that list. I do hope he will not just provide unanimous consent to the tabling of that document but that he also gives it to the Minister of Finance so that we can finally get the Liberals to stop causing the inflation that is causing so much hardship for Canadians.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

(1515) [English ]

Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders

[Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved: That, for the duration of the 45th Parliament: (a) Standing Order 104(1) be amended by replacing the words "consist of 10 members" with the words "consist of 12 members"; (b) paragraph (a)(i) of the order adopted on June 5, 2025, be rescinded, and Standing Order 104(2) be amended by replacing the words "consist of 10 members" with the words "consist of 12 members" and by adding after the words "12 members" the following: "which shall be composed of seven members from the Liberal Party, four members from the Conservative Party and one member from the Bloc Québecois, except for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which shall consist of 10 members and be composed of five members from the Liberal Party, four members from the Conservative Party and one member from the Bloc Québécois, and for which the lists of members are to be prepared, except as provided in section (1) of this standing order, shall be on:"; (c) for greater certainty, the membership of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be increased by two members of the House of Commons from the government party and the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations be increased by one member of the House of Commons from the government party; (d) the Clerk of the House be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential alterations to the Standing Orders, including to the marginal notes; (e) paragraph (a) of the order adopted on November 20, 2025, be amended by replacing the words "11 members of the House of Commons, including five members of the House of Commons from the government party," with the words "12 members of the House of Commons, including six members of the House of Commons from the government party,"; (f) paragraph (b) of the order adopted on February 13, 2026, be amended by replacing the words "10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party," with the words "12 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including seven members of the House of Commons from the governing party,"; (g) notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the whip of the recognized party affected by the above changes to the composition of committees submit his membership changes to the Clerk of the House following the adoption of this order, and these changes be effective immediately; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has adopted this order, and inviting Their Honours to concur in the changes made under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this order. He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Government Motion No. 9, which addresses the composition of committees of the House and joint committees. This is an important matter because it strikes at the very heart of how our Parliament performs its duties. The question is simple: Should a party that has a majority in the House of Commons also have a majority in parliamentary committees? I believe the answer is clear, it is undeniable, and it is yes. It should have a majority in committees. This is one of the very principles that underlie the work of this place. It is a long-standing tradition of our Parliament, and moreover, it is basic logic. A majority in one place, the House, clearly translates to a majority in another place, the parliamentary committees that are an extension of the House. For all of these reasons, I call on fellow members of Parliament to take a reasoned and reasonable approach to this motion as they participate in this debate. [Translation ]

I want to start my remarks by stating the obvious. Parliamentary committees are the workhorses of Parliament. Committees receive their mandates from the House and carry out studies, review bills and conduct investigations relevant to their mandates. Not only are committees the proper forum for detailed consideration of bills, as the House only debates the principles and scope of bills at second reading, but they are also the proper forum where government members can engage with members of other parties to reconcile their differing perspectives for the benefit of their constituents, and more broadly, for Canadians. These are very challenging times. These challenges include dealing with the development of trade irritants and relationships with our partners and navigating in a very uncertain geopolitical landscape. Although we spend time in the House of Commons debating these issues and discussing important strategies and policies to address these challenges, the true work of developing detailed and constructive solutions often falls to committees. [English ]

The Prime Minister has been clear. He expects to see a Parliament that delivers results for Canadians, and he expects Liberal MPs to work collaboratively with their colleagues on all sides of the House. We need to move ahead with a House of Commons that works together on the many challenges of our times. We need to move ahead with committees that work hard to closely scrutinize legislation to make it better while holding public hearings on a range of critical policies where Canadians are demanding action. Let me turn to the proposal contained in Government Motion No. 9. This is a routine motion that should not be seen as controversial. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons establish the number of members on each standing committee, and as such, any change to the numbers requires the House to adopt a new motion. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, makes it clear on page 819, where it states, “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.” There is an undeniable, long-standing principle in Parliament. A party that has the majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees. This is at the core of our Westminster system of government. The motion proposed by the government would do just that. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states on page 790, “Party representation on committees reflects the standings of recognized parties in the House”. At the beginning of a Parliament, at the beginning of a new session of Parliament or, in some cases, from time to time, motions respecting the composition of committees are agreed to in the House in collaboration with the parties, without any debate. For those members who might take umbrage with Government Motion No. 9, I want to point out the counterfactual. If, by some turn of fate, a government were to lose its majority over the course of its mandate, opposition members would surely want the memberships of committees to reflect party standings and the composition of the House. This point is beyond debate. In fact, I would assert that if this scenario were to play out, I would fully expect that, without agreement of the parties to proceed, an opposition party would simply use an opposition day motion to implement a change in the composition of committees to reflect the standings in the House. That would result in one day of debate on an opposition day motion, a mechanism that would obviate any amendment unless the party proposing the motion agreed to it, followed by a vote. I would further assert that the government has taken an approach with Government Motion No. 9 to ensure that no party that is eligible to sit on committees would lose any members on those committees. This was a deliberate decision on our part. We could have proposed to closely mirror a membership structure of previous majority governments, which would have required removing members of the official opposition from committees. We chose not to do this. We chose the inclusive approach. We chose the collaborative approach. (1520) [Translation ]

The reason we did that is that we are serious about our intention to work constructively and collaboratively with other parties to advance an agenda that is delivering for Canadians right now. It is not a political talking point. This is something that we see as important, if not paramount, at this time for our country. I will now go back to the practical effects on committees and the important work they do. An important aspect of committees is that they provide a mechanism for members to cultivate and refine their parliamentary skills and enhance their political expertise in the areas within the mandate of these committees. Not only does being a member of a committee help develop parliamentary expertise in legislative matters and policy development and analysis, but committees can and should be a forum where members work together to address issues and promote the interests of Canadians. Through this work, members build relationships that may be a little less partisan and lead to more productive conversations on policy issues important to their constituents and to Canadians. I believe that Government Motion No. 9 is a reasonable proposal, consistent with long-standing practices of the House and other Westminster parliaments. [English ]

Our government fully believes in the productive functioning of the House and its committees. I see the motion as an opportunity not only to deliver on this promise to Canadians but also to reset our comportment and to refocus our combined efforts to deliver real and meaningful results for Canadians. For those members who claim that the motion would lessen their ability to hold the government to account, I say this: Not a single opposition MP would be removed from any committee. Their ability to propose motions, studies and amendments to legislation would remain intact. Their ability to have different MPs from their caucus participate in committees as associate members or substitutes would remain intact. Their opportunity to make a persuasive case for their proposals would remain intact. Ministers would continue to testify at committee and be held to account. Government officials would continue to testify before those same committees. Furthermore, the opposition gets 45 minutes each and every sitting day in question period to hold the government to account. Opposition members have 22 opposition days a year to move motions on issues of importance to them. Members will continue to have a variety of ways to obtain information from the government to hold it to account. There are the formal mechanisms I have mentioned, such as having ministers appear at committees to testify and to answer questions on a range of issues, such as legislation, studies and, obviously, the estimates. There are also Order Paper questions, petitions and late shows in the House. Further, I suggest that there are the informal mechanisms, such as speaking with ministers, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries about issues of interest or concern respecting their portfolios, and obtaining technical briefings from departmental officials. These are effective accountability and transparency measures that I would continue to encourage members to leverage. My fear is that some members across the aisle are more interested in scoring political points and creating divisions for their own partisan gain, at a time when we really need to co-operate and collaborate in good faith to deliver on issues of critical importance for our country. Collaboration is the approach to politics that Canadians tell me, and I know they tell the opposition, they want in this place for all elected representatives. They do not want partisan gamesmanship. Let me make one thing clear. The Conservatives have said they will bring forward an amendment to the motion that would leave three of the opposition-chaired committees as they currently are: with a majority of opposition MPs. Our view is that this amendment is not proper. We would oppose it. Let me repeat the reason for this. There is an undeniable long-standing principle in Parliament that a party that has the majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees, not just in some committees but in all committees. There are not two tiers of committees in Parliament, and the principle applies to all of them equally. We are proposing to adjust committee membership proportionally to reflect the party standings in the House. It is as simple as that. There are no games, no untoward tactics and no strategies here. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the government believes that the party that has a majority of seats in the House of Commons should have a majority of seats in parliamentary committees. This concept is as old as our parliamentary system itself. (1525) [Translation ]

We want to bring Canadians together in a time of unity. Our government has worked, and will continue to work, with all provinces and territories—regardless of their political leanings—to build Canada strong. The House of Commons will always be the people's House of Commons. Our government will be accountable to the House and to Canadians for all our actions. This motion does not call that objective into question. [English ]

I will return to what we have proposed. Our government has a majority of seats in the House. All we are asking of the House is that the structure of committees reflect this reality. We have committed to the parties and to Canadians that we want Parliament to work for Canadians, and we have committed to doing this work constructively and in collaboration with other parties. We have been doing just that, and it has been delivering results for Canadians. We have proposed a model for committees that would not reduce the number of opposition members on committees, for two reasons. The first is that we believe that committee work makes better parliamentarians, and the second is that we believe in the productive and collaborative power of committees when they come together to do the hard work to improve government proposals. (1530) [Translation ]

We believe in these things because we believe in the power and integrity of our institutions, and those institutions become strong, resilient and effective when those who question and oppose certain proposals are seen and heard in the process. That is how we build resilience and collaboration, and in doing so, we show Canadians that even when people disagree on certain points, we can all agree that Canada has immense potential. That is what makes Canada strong. [English ]

[Expand] John Brassard (Barrie South—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the words of that great country music singer, George Strait, “I've got some ocean front property in Arizona” to sell. That was quite the speech. The minister mentioned that if it were the will of the opposition parties, if for some reason the majority the Liberals have cobbled together with floor crossers were to decline into a minority situation, if the opposition parties did decide to use an opposition motion and the motion did pass, would the minister respect that decision and not call it a matter of confidence if and when that scenario were to happen? That is a fair question to ask him. [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I think my speech speaks for itself. [Translation ]

[Expand] Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is another prime example of Liberal rhetoric that sounds virtuous but does not actually translate into any virtuous actions on the part of the Liberals. The House leader's proposal claims that the government wants proportional representation that is representative of the composition of the House. However, not only was there no prior consultation on the motion that was introduced, but two government members were added to each committee, even though only one would have been more than enough to ensure a majority. I would like the House leader to justify that addition for a reason other than falsely claiming that they do not want the chair to vote. Part of the duties of a committee chair is to exercise that right. It is clearly written in the Standing Orders. [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker of the House of Commons is not called upon to break a tie on every vote here in this chamber, we also do not believe that a committee chair should systematically be called upon to break a tie. That is why we added two members from the party in power, without diminishing the Bloc Québécois's or the Conservative Party's representation. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to do a thought experiment. What would happen if this were the opposite situation, if a government that was in a majority lost members to the opposing party? What would be the principle at work then? [Translation ]

[Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I spoke about this at length in my speech. The principle is the same: A majority in the House of Commons means a majority on all House committees. [English ]

A minority situation for a government in the House of Commons would obviously require a re-evaluation and a re-ordering of those committees. [Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I fear that my counterpart on the government bench has missed his calling to be a speech writer in the politburo, because so many of the things he said there directly contradicted what he had been saying. For example, he said that this is all being done in a spirit of collaboration. However, with the motion, the Liberals would literally be taking away the need to collaborate, by giving themselves a majority. Another falsehood the member stated was that there are not two tiers in committees, yet he referenced the fact that the three oversight committees are in fact chaired by the opposition. That is a different tier of committee. Those committees have always been treated differently by the Standing Orders and by the usual practices of the House, precisely because they are a different sort of committee. They are not committees that legislation proceeds through. They are committees that provide oversight. It is through those committees that the opposition has uncovered Liberal corruption, scandals and the inappropriate use of taxpayers' dollars, and in which the government voted against each one of those investigations. Why not at least preserve the oversight role of the opposition on those three committees: public accounts, government operations and ethics? (1535) [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was in your chair at one point. He knows that over the years the House of Commons has decided to give three committees, the government operations, public accounts and ethics committees, the ability to be chaired by an opposition member. We of course will be continuing that practice, and those committees, guided as they are by opposition members of Parliament, will be able to continue to call witnesses, call for documents and examine any issue that they choose in their wisdom. [Translation ]

[Expand] Alexis Deschênes (Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when words are not followed by concrete action, they are worthless. The government said it wants to work constructively and collaboratively with the opposition. What did the government do next? It decided to move a motion without even bothering to reach out to the Bloc Québécois to negotiate beforehand, even though it knows full well that we are responsible and rigorous partners willing to work collaboratively. The first date did not go very well, then. Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons now confirm that he will not use closure to pass this motion? This will be another test of whether he is keeping his word. It would be a way to prove that he truly wants to work collaboratively. [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois cares about the rules of the House. That is why it is rather disconcerting that the Bloc Québécois is not saying whether it will abide by the principle that dates back to the very origins of our parliamentary system, namely, that a majority in the House of Commons is recognized in all its bodies, including House committees. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support that principle in its remarks and in its official position. I would also point out to my colleague that we have not made any changes to committee membership as far as the Bloc's representation is concerned, so I do not know what we would have had to negotiate with them. [English ]

[Expand] Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, this gives us a chance to look at something again. The recognized party status rules were created by law in 1963 to do one thing only, which was to provide funding to parties that have at least 12 members of Parliament in the House. That law said nothing about changing the rights that each member of Parliament has vis-à-vis each other. As the leader of the Green Party of Canada with a seat for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I should in theory have equal rights to those of every other member of the House, because the 1963 rule did not say, and no rule has ever said, that members of Parliament from parties with fewer than 12 MPs cannot sit on committees. I verified this quite recently with the clerk to make sure. As the clerk described it, it is a practice of long standing, not a rule. Why has the government decided it is okay to provide funding to the NDP members but not to ensure that those very fine members sit on committees? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy, which makes the decisions, has decided on a funding formula, indeed, for parties of the House, which has no connection to the item at hand. I would simply say to my hon. colleague that we are all equals in the House. The member and I, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister are all equals when we meet in this place. We all enjoy one vote each. We all enjoy the same privileges and the same ability to compel accountability, to vote on budgets and to govern in the best way possible. [Expand] Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of any point in Canadian history when a majority government has not had a majority on committees, and is he aware of any time when certain committees have had a different composition, where the majority government has not had a majority on those few committees but not on others? (1540) [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. We have searched the annals of history, not just in Canada, which, of course, goes back to 1867 and our House of Commons, but indeed in Westminster Parliaments from time immemorial, and we are unable to find an example where members from one party constituted a majority of the seats but did not constitute a majority in the other institutions of that House of Commons or that Parliament. [Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I was wondering if I can get unanimous consent to share my time. It is one of those rare circumstances where I need the consent of the House to do that. I am hoping that it will accommodate that. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Is it agreed to split the time? Some hon. members: Agreed. [Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last thing the government House leader said, because I think this is the nub of the misleading nature of what the government is doing here. He said that they could not find an example where the makeup of committees did not reflect the makeup of the House. Yes, that is precisely because there has never before been a situation where a government has changed the fundamental nature of itself through floor crossings and backroom deals. Every other time, the makeup of committees reflected the makeup of the House, because that was what happened at the election. The makeup of committees reflects the democratic expression that the Canadian people provide through the ballot box. It is very telling that the very first thing this government has done with its newfound majority powers is not to make life more affordable for Canadians, not to fully lift gas taxes, not to stop inflationary money printing or repeal anti-development laws that chase away investment and block jobs from being created here in Canada. No, instead, the very first thing they did was to make life easier for the government itself. Those are not just my words. They are words that Liberals have said as to the justification for why they are doing this. This means that they will have an easier time getting their agenda through and, most importantly, they will not have to face the type of scrutiny that opposition parties are able to provide for Canadians when the opposition makes up a majority in the House. The committee makeup reflects the makeup of the House as the Canadian people elected it. No Canadian has been able to pass judgment on the floor crossings or endorse the deals that were offered those members who changed parties so soon after an election. These are all individuals who looked their voters in the eye, ran on a platform, a party and a leader, and then, for their own personal gain, again, their words not mine, made a decision to join the government. Again, Canadians have had no opportunity to examine what those negotiations or those talks were all about or what promises may have been made to entice members to cross the floor. The government has made so many false statements. The government House leader says that there is no such thing as two-tiered committees. The context of that is what my colleague from Barrie South—Innisfil, with whom I am sharing my time, is going to do in a few moments. He is going to propose an amendment that would at least preserve the oversight capabilities of three very important committees: the public accounts committee, which is tasked with poring through, line by line, every dollar that the government spends; the government operations committee, which examines all kinds of government operations, making sure that Canadians understand who is getting paid, why contracts are being given and why funding decisions are made or not made, again, a very important oversight committee; and, of course, the ethics committee. This is the committee that is tasked with investigating government corruption, and this is the true reason why the government is not going to agree with our request. Every other committee deals with legislation. If we have a bill to change the airports act, that would go to the transportation committee. If we have a bill to change the way natural resources are developed, that bill would go to the natural resources committee. Legislation does not go through those three oversight committees. All this talk about getting results for Canadians, getting things done and working in a collaborative manner does not apply to those oversight committees. We know what happens when Liberals get majority on these committees. Another falsehood that the government House leader has said is that members of Parliament still have the power to send for documents, compel departments to hand over information and compel testimony. That is false. Members of Parliament do not have that right individually. They only have that right when a committee or the House passes a motion. Should the Liberals have a majority on those committees, we already know that they would block those efforts. We know this because that is what they have done in the past. When the Liberals had a majority in the 2015‑19 Parliament, it took a whistle-blower, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to shine a light on what Justin Trudeau was doing, trying to inappropriately pressure her to intervene in a criminal court proceeding. After just two meetings, we had heard from Jody Wilson-Raybould and the then prime minister's chief of staff, and then committee members wanted to hear from Jody Wilson-Raybould again so she could respond to what Gerry Butts had said. What was the first thing the Liberals did when they got the floor on March 13, 2019? They moved to adjourn. They had the votes, because they had a majority, and they shut down that investigation. (1545) There was the WE Charity scandal. This is where the Liberals gave a sole-sourced $912-million contract to an organization that had paid Trudeau family members through speaking events. The Liberals filibustered for dozens of hours and voted to shut down the investigation and stop documents from seeing the light of day. There was the arrive scam app. This app, initially budgeted at $80,000, ballooned to an estimated $60 million. The Liberals tried to block committee investigations and hide their connections to their favourite Liberal IT contractors, GC Strategies. Let us think of all the corruption this House has unearthed just in the last few years of the Liberal government precisely because the Liberals could not block those investigations. Because the opposition parties collectively had a majority, we could compel that kind of information. Had the Liberals had a majority on the ethics committee, the public accounts committee and the government operations committee in the last Parliament, there is no way we would have seen the head of GC Strategies in this House at the bar being admonished for the misappropriation of taxpayer money. There was the Winnipeg lab scandal. Again, the Liberals blocked document production orders and even took the Speaker to court to try to block information from being released to parliamentarians. There was the Liberal green slush fund with its widespread Liberal corruption. This is where Liberal insiders were sitting around as an entity that allocated tax dollars the government had collected. Liberal insiders were placed on that board. Do members know what they did once they were on that board? They funnelled money to their own companies. They wrote themselves cheques off the backs of taxpayers. When the Conservatives led the charge to shine a light on this kind of corruption, the Liberals blocked it. They voted against it. That is what this is all about. The Liberals do not enjoy transparency. They do not enjoy when Canadians find out the truth about how they are running the government. That is why they are pushing this motion through. All the arguments about collaboration are totally false. Our party, after the last election, said that we are facing a lot of global challenges, but we are also facing a lot of terrible Liberal policies that are driving up costs and inflation, making our country weaker when it comes to dealing with global threats. We said we would roll up our sleeves and get to work. Where we have had agreement, where there has been common ground, members have seen the opposition co-operate and ensure that things that, at the very least, do not do any further harm to the Canadian people get passed. We have also helped fix terrible Liberal legislation. Do members remember Bill C-2, the very first bill that the current government brought to the House? It was because the government did not have a majority that it was not able to ram that bill through. It was because opposition parties got together and said that there were many things in the bill that should pass, but also many things that were huge government overreaches, such as the invasion of people's privacy, the ability to open people's mail, the banning of cash transactions and all kinds of things that empowered the state and infringed on individual liberties. We were able to block that and force the government to abandon those aspects that were huge government overreaches while at the same time passing the common-sense parts that the Conservatives have long been calling for. This is a solution to a problem that does not exist. If the government is looking for obstruction and game playing, it need look no further than its own benches. The Liberals have filibustered for the last two weeks at the ethics committee to prevent an investigation into the finance minister 's potential conflict of interest. They filibustered their own legislation at the justice committee by insisting on debating a bill that was dividing parliamentarians and was very divisive for the Canadian public, while we were calling on the justice committee to focus on real measures to make Canada safer. At the end of the day, what the Liberals call “silly games”, Canadians call “transparency and accountability”. Every time parliamentarians tell them that there is a conflict of interest and that they have shovelled money into their own friends' pockets and their own companies, they say that it is partisanship. Any time a light is shone on their nefarious activities, they have to project and they have to demean and insult those individuals who are trying to get to the bottom of what happened to Canadian tax dollars. We make no apologies for fighting for transparency and for respecting that taxpayer dollar. I am urging the government to rethink its rejection of our amendment. When my colleague proposes it, I hope the Liberals will get on board so they can show the Canadian people that it is not about using their power to shut down investigations. (1550) [Expand] Hon. Karina Gould (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my hon. colleague's faux-righteous indignation. As much as I enjoy that, I think we need to put some facts on the table. The fact of the matter is that there is now a majority government here in Ottawa. With that comes the ability to have a majority on parliamentary committees. In those three by-elections that we had just last week, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for Liberal candidates. In fact, Conservative votes went down, incredibly. I have a very simple question for my hon. colleague. I think he should be able to answer it. I would like to know, if ever the Conservatives have a majority in Parliament, given their argument right now, will he commit and will he promise to Canadians that Conservatives will not have a majority on committee? [Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do miss working with the member for Burlington when she was House leader. We had lots of productive conversations. It is always spirited, and it is always a pleasure to respond. It is a little bit of a misleading question. First of all, let us address something. The Liberals did not get their majority because of by-elections. That is false. Every seat they won in the by-elections was a seat they already had. They got their majority through floor crossings. In those by-elections, not every Canadian got to vote. In the general election, when every Canadian voted, they voted for a strong opposition. They voted for a minority Liberal government. I can assure the member that had the Liberals gotten a majority through the ballot box, we would not be having this conversation. When Conservatives get our majority at the ballot box, we will not need a motion like this. They only need this motion because they are trying to overturn the results of the last election through the committee makeup. [Translation ]

[Expand] Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that the Liberals are good at saying one thing and doing another. They are telling us that committees must reflect the composition of the House of Commons. I think my colleague and everyone here agrees with that principle. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this: The government members want to give themselves 58.3% representation on committees when they hold only 50.7% of the seats in Parliament. They are trying to force that on us. They are pretending to be innocently trying to make the committee membership reflect their majority, when they are actually trying to impose an unjustified supermajority. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, I agree. The Liberals talk about the percentages reflecting the makeup of the House. They have given themselves a much larger percentage of committee makeup than they have in the House. Even in their own actions, they contradict themselves. They contradict themselves on the need for this at all, because there is legislation that has moved through the House. They contradict themselves when they talk about two-tier committees. There are two tiers of committees. There are the oversight committees, which are specially treated in the Standing Orders and have their own conventions and practices, and then there are the rest of the standing committees, which provide for oversight on departments and deal with legislation. The member is right. In this very motion, the Liberals are not reflecting the makeup of the House in committees. They are giving themselves about eight percentage points more. I agree with my hon. colleague, and I hope he agrees with our amendment to at least preserve the oversight role of the operations, public accounts and ethics committees. [Expand] Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this debate about, basically, the Liberals taking a backdoor majority through floor crossing. I have been here for only six years, and I know that my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle has been here much longer. Has this happened before? Has the committee structure been altered like this by any governments in the past? Is this really precedent-setting? I believe this is the only case where a government has formed a majority through floor crossings. Once again, are the Liberals not abiding by the will of Canadians? Has this happened before in Parliament? (1555) [Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the member is right. This was done through backroom deals. Not a single one of those floor crossers would have won their own elections if they had run as Liberals. They got elected only because they were running under the Conservative banner and the Conservative leader. That is a fact. No government has ever gone from a minority to a majority at the federal level through these kinds of backroom negotiations. We believe that the makeup of Parliament and the checks and balances that Canadians voted for at the ballot box should be respected. [Expand] John Brassard (Barrie South—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if Canadians wanted any evidence at all that what the Liberal government wants is an audience and not an effective opposition, Motion No. 9 reflects that accurately and precisely. It was just under a year ago that the Prime Minister of this country was elected by Canadians. It was a fair election, but the Prime Minister was elected in a minority situation. He received fewer votes than what he needed for a majority. Canadians sent that message, as they did in previous elections, because they were not happy with the Liberal government and what it was doing to this country. Canadians elected the government in a minority situation because we had an untested, unproven Prime Minister who had never engaged in politics before. Canadians voted for a minority government. What that meant, as is the convention around this place in relation to the Standing Orders, is that we had committees that were negotiated at that time that were structured in a way that reflected the results of the election. It meant that for Conservatives and members of the Bloc, we had the majority of members on those committees. For the committees that were not oversight committees, that meant that if the opposition members wanted to determine what a study was going to be, wanted to compel witnesses, wanted to summons or wanted to compel documents, they could do it without it having to get to the chair. That is the way committees were formed. The same can be said about the oversight committees. I am the chair of the ethics committee. The oversight committees exist because they deal with issues of importance related to government operations, government contracts, ethics, accountability and transparency. If it was not for the oversight committees in previous parliaments, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, none of the scandals that became big scandals, one which caused Parliament to be prorogued in the case of the Winnipeg lab scandal, would have come out if not for the oversight committees. The purpose the oversight committees serve is to hold the government to account, to ensure there is transparency and to ensure that the information is available to us, especially when a minority government is elected. We run a real risk. I have a grave concern that the level of accountability and transparency is not going to be there with Liberal members on these oversight committees, controlling these committees. When those committees were constituted, there were good-faith negotiations. The proportionality of what has happened now in this transactional nature of a majority government, where we have seen floor crossers give the government a majority, means they have just over 50% of the seats right now, which, again, should be reflective on those committees. What the Liberals are proposing with Motion No. 9 is to in fact give themselves 58% of representation on those committees, which would ensure that nothing the opposition wanted to do at those committees would actually happen. There would be no summoning of documents. There would be no appearances by witnesses. There would be no studies on things that happen as a result of scandals within the government that would ever see the light of day. That is what is most troubling to me. The other thing that has been troubling, and I have seen a pattern of this over the 10‑plus years I have been here, speaks to the importance of what is needed in this country. If we do not have any accountability and do not have the type of transparency that Parliament is going to be able to provide at this point, especially given the work the committees are charged with, it seems like we have turned into a country where we are the only country in liberalized democracies around the world where the opposition party is held to a greater account than the government by media. (1600) That needs to stop right now, because the power that is given to this Parliament, the power that is given to MPs, the supreme power that is given, is being taken away by the Liberal government through Motion No. 9. It is a sad indictment on where we are with respect to oversight, accountability and transparency, when there are YouTubers who are finding out more about what is happening within the Liberal government, the scandals and the connections of well-connected insiders, lobbyists and family members. When YouTubers are researching this stuff and finding this stuff out, that is a sad indictment on where we are with respect to media accountability in this country and holding the opposition to greater account than the government party. With all that is happening with Motion No. 9, I want to send a message, because it is going to become increasingly important for the media if this passes without amendment on the oversight committees: “Do your goddamn jobs.” Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Order. The member knows that is not parliamentary. I will ask him to withdraw, and we will carry on. [Expand] John Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that. The message to the media is, “Do your jobs. Hold the government to account for everything that is going on with respect to spending, contracts and all that stuff.” Canadians are going to need to rely on the media to do this. The Liberal government is handcuffing the opposition party right now, particularly on oversight committees. With this motion and with everything else that we have seen, the sad reality is that Liberals expect Canadians to give up, get complacent and go away, so that the Prime Minister can have total power without any accountability. That will not happen. Our country and its people are worth fighting for. We will continue to fight for people to afford homes, fuel and food. We will continue to fight for safety on our streets. We will continue to fight for our resource workers and our soldiers. Conservatives will continue to lead that fight, every day and in every way, in Parliament, across the country and into the next election when Canadians will reclaim this country we know and love, and put the power back to the people and not the government. With that, I would like to close with an amendment to Government Motion No. 9. I move: That the motion be amended, in paragraph (b),

(a) by adding, after the words “and Estimates”, the word “and”; and

(b) by adding, after the words “Public Accounts”, the following: “which shall consist of nine members and be composed of four members from the Liberal Party, four members from the Conservative Party and one member from the Bloc Québécois.” [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burlington. (1605) [Expand] Hon. Karina Gould (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been here for over 10 years and I have seen a lot of theatrics in this place, but the drama coming from that last speech was a bit much even for that hon. member and the Conservatives. Speaking as if we are taking away members' rights and their opportunities to be representatives is over the top. In fact, every member in this House has an important role to play. What the government is doing is acting on the fact that we now have a majority. I will put this to him because I did not actually get an answer from his House leader when I asked. If the Conservatives should ever, and we will see if that ever happens, find themselves in a situation where they have a majority government, will he commit right now to ensuring that the Conservatives do not hold a majority on committee? [Expand] John Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member thinks that the passion I am showing for accountability and transparency, and for ensuring that the government acts in an ethical manner, is just theatrics. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am very passionate about this. As chair of the ethics committee, I am keenly aware of this topic. We just dropped a report today on the Conflict of Interest Act. Throughout the testimony on the Conflict of Interest Act, we heard some pretty disturbing things when it comes to blind trusts and ethics screens not being applied properly, like companies having $5.6 billion in unpaid taxes through offshore accounts. In the last little while, we have seen contracts, like the spaceport, handed out to Liberal family members. I will make no apologies for being passionate about defending the rights of Canadians and making sure that ethical standards are met in this country. [Translation ]

[Expand] Patrick Bonin (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after promising to co-operate and seek the views of opposition MPs in a fair manner, the first move by this now-majority government was to unilaterally change the rules of the game without consulting the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals are even going against parliamentary tradition, which dictates that the composition of committees should be determined by consensus. What we are seeing right now is the exact opposite. Worse still, the proposal would give Liberals 58% of the seats on parliamentary committees, whereas they hold 51% of the seats here in Parliament. I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of that. [Expand] John Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I already mentioned that in my speech. Following the election last April, the parties took part in negotiations regarding the number of members on each committee, but because some MPs have switched sides, we now find ourselves in this situation. [English ]

We have to ensure we have accountability, oversight and transparency at our committees. This would do nothing to ensure that. In fact, I suggest that it would make it much worse, and the Liberals would run roughshod through everything. They would pass whatever they want to pass, and committees would not have a say in any of it. [Expand] Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am quite shocked by the question coming from the member for Burlington in saying that it is theatrical to care about accountability and oversight in the House of Commons and in committee structures. The government that she is a part of, the Liberal government, has more ethics violations than any government in the history of Canada. There is corruption, there are scandals in the government, and now it is trying to change the committee structure so that the opposition parties cannot hold the government to account. How can someone say that it is not something that should matter to each and every Canadian when the government is trying to run roughshod and do whatever it wants? Is no one supposed to hold it accountable? How can we trust the government to get it right if we cannot hold it accountable? (1610) [Expand] John Brassard: Mr. Speaker, it is going to be increasingly difficult, but we are not going to stop. We are going to continue to ensure that we have accountability, transparency and oversight. I did mention that the role of the media is going to be that much more important now. If the media acts like it does in other western democracies and actually holds the government to account, then maybe we will get some action in holding it to account as well. [Translation ]

[Expand] Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am usually very pleased to speak in the House. I know it is a great privilege. I do not want to take this privilege for granted, but today I take less pleasure in it than usual because we are deeply disappointed, as, I hope, are most Canadians and Quebeckers who are listening. They are realizing once again that Liberal promises are just hot air, as they usually are most of the time. The way the Liberals are acting today is very cavalier. I will begin by outlining some of my main points. The Bloc Québécois believes that committees must reflect the composition of the House. Government MPs claim that the opposition parties do not want to recognize this, but that is absolutely untrue. What we do not want to recognize is overrepresentation of the ruling party. That is what we do not want. The Bloc Québécois respects parliamentary tradition and believes that the composition of committees must be negotiated in good faith, by consensus. However, negotiations require effective communication. No one has communicated with us, so we consider the current process to be fundamentally flawed. They actually could have found common ground with the Bloc Québécois. We are all adults here, as everyone knows. I hardly need to tell anyone that we are an intelligent opposition, we put forward constructive proposals and we listen closely to the government's proposals. We always make sure that whatever it is is good for Quebec. That is and will always be our criterion, no matter what anyone says to the contrary. People seem to be saying that we did not want to collaborate. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted to set the record straight on that, especially since the government seized a majority partway through its mandate. Legitimate byelections took place, and we fully recognized the outcomes. We have no issue with that. Those three seats were already Liberal seats anyway. That is not what changed the composition of the House. Floor crossers are what changed the composition of the House. It is funny, because in this situation, the Liberals were negotiating behind the scenes. They were chatting people up to persuade them to cross the floor. Where is the legitimacy in that? I think that the voters in these five ridings were fundamentally disrespected in all this. People vote for a federal member. My riding has 108,000 voters. I would like to think that I am pretty good, but I know that these people were not voting for an individual. Many of them were voting for a political party. The legitimacy factor is missing from this majority. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois would have been open to negotiating, because the composition of committees does need to reflect the composition of Parliament. I would like to remind members that parliamentary tradition dictates that the composition of committees is decided by consensus at the start of every new Parliament. We are already sidestepping tradition. This is the first time that a government has bought itself a majority by negotiating with elected members of the opposition to get them to cross the floor. We are not entirely sure what they received, but objectively, that is what happened. We are not passing serious judgment against anyone in this regard, but these are the facts. We had hoped to receive some communication. We even talked about it among ourselves. We thought that they would talk to us. The Prime Minister said, as recently as April 14, that all perspectives in Parliament are needed. That was not that long ago. He promised to work collaboratively with the other parties. He said: “The work ahead demands collaboration, partnership, and ambition to deliver at the speed and scale Canadians are counting on.” Now, he may still have ambition, but so much for collaboration and partnership. In fact, that only lasted seven days. Collaboration lasts seven days for the Prime Minister, or rather the CEO of Canada. We have a Prime Minister who wants to move quickly, who has little interest in parliamentary procedure, and I say this politely, and who thinks that the opposition gets in the way. However, that is not true. We are far from that, in fact. (1615) The Bloc Québécois was not consulted in any way, shape or form. Worse still, we received an email informing us that this motion would be moved, and here it is. That was it. Guess when we received that email. I am going to say this with a great deal of irony: We were just coming out of the House leaders' meeting. The leaders' meeting, for those who do not know, is when the House leaders meet. It happens once a week. That is where we discuss matters. It is a formal forum for discussion. Of course, there are plenty of other opportunities to discuss things in the hallways; we can call each other or send a text. However, the leaders’ meeting is the formal gathering with all the leaders of the recognized parties. We talk about the agenda or the fact that someone would like to move a motion, for example, and we discuss what we think about it. In the end, we usually say that we will bring it up with caucus and come back with an answer. It is a constructive process. That being said, barely two hours after we left that meeting yesterday, we received an email telling us that a motion would be introduced the next day and that we would be silenced in committee, because that is the goal. I urge people not to buy into the government's friendly rhetoric today, as it claims it has not affected the representation of opposition parties and that it will listen to all points of view. What it is not saying is that it is going to give itself a supermajority so it can shut down debates as quickly as possible the moment they start to become bothersome. Then it tries to tell us that it wants to work as a team and build consensus. I think we are right to be skeptical. The government House leader is going to be quite disappointed. He was hoping just a moment ago that we would say that we are voting with him. Well, no, we are not voting with him. We will not endorse stacking the standing committees partway through this Parliament, because that is what is happening. The government House leader even went so far as to tell reporters that he was not ruling out using a closure motion to impose this measure. It really takes some nerve: intending to ram through an amendment via a closure motion, an amendment that is usually adopted by consensus and through discussion, without even discussing it once with the Bloc Québécois. What is the rationale for that? I hope that everyone is sitting down. I see they are, so I can say it now, since no one will fall over. The underlying reason was allegedly that the Conservatives were against it, so it would serve no purpose to talk to us about it. That is what Liberals do. Now that they have a majority, we have no choice but to listen to what they say. That is about it as far as a rationale goes. It is deeply disappointing, especially considering that, as I said, the Prime Minister had pledged just seven days earlier to keep co-operating. The leader of the Bloc Québécois responded to that by saying that the Bloc Québécois's constructive proposals prove our goodwill. We felt that a hand was being held out to us and we took it. We said that we would be there. The Bloc Québécois is an intelligent opposition party. We work constructively because we are not here to score political points on a daily basis. We are here to advance the common good, the collective good. That is what we try to do. We are therefore deeply, even bitterly, disappointed. It falls to me to explain this today. This is truly worrisome. I would like to point out that a Conservative member moved a motion. The purpose of Motion No. 27 is precisely to prevent changes to the Standing Orders imposed by a majority vote. Traditionally, this is negotiated and discussed, so when people stand up and deliver flowery speeches, like the ones we heard earlier, saying that this is what needs to be done, that it is British tradition and so on, I am sorry, but that is not good enough. The rhetoric does not hold water. The Liberals are trying to muzzle the opposition parties, and the opposition parties will not stand for it. That is that. That is the message I have to send today. This is troubling. When someone pledged to work together and then turns around a few days later and ignores any discussion, what does that say about the future? If the government maintains its majority, we are in for another three years of this. It is going to be a long haul. I am also sending this message to Liberal MPs. (1620) I hope there will be internal discussions and a return to constructive negotiations. They cannot make speeches claiming that all opinions matter and then not take any of them into account. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say earlier that committee work is incredibly important and that it allows us to explore issues in greater depth and raise questions, but that only happens when we have the opportunity. With the plan he is proposing, it is all over. Everything is going to happen very quickly. It is like high-speed rail. It is like a bunch of things they want to rush through. Some things cannot be rushed. I urge the government members to reconsider and, in fact, to take their time. It is important. When a government sets out to change rules like this, it must always remember that this is not a matter of majority rule. This concerns the institution of Parliament. We are talking about democracy in Canada and Quebec. The rules of procedure do not belong to the majority party. The rules of procedure belong to Parliament. That is why I am calling for co-operation and discussion. Furthermore, again, in case the Liberals did not get the message, let me say that if they had spoken to us, they would have found us open to dialogue, as we always are. We can face facts. There is a majority in the House of Commons now. We have no intention of denying it. What we would not accept is to give the Liberals more than 58% of representation on committees when they make up only 50.7% of the House of Commons. I would like them to give me a reason to justify that. I really look forward to hearing it. That is not it. There were other workarounds. There were other proposals for changing the committees that we could have discussed together. Once again, I keep coming back to the same thing. There were other options, but no one talked to us. Unless people talk, it is very hard to come to terms. The call has been made. I am leaving time in my speech to let people take in what I have just said and reflect. There were other possibilities. I might come back to that if I have time at the end, but I do not want to run out of time. I am being given the excuse that the committee chair is not supposed to vote. I am sorry, but that is set out in the rules. If the chair always had to vote in committee, then it would mean that we were not doing our job properly. In last year's election, the public gave the Liberal government a minority mandate. What message was the public trying to send? Citizens chose to trust this government to govern, but they did not trust it completely. They gave the opposition a major role so that the government would not become a dictatorship by virtue of its numbers and so that it would have to compromise. History shows us that many excellent laws have been passed under minority governments because minority governments work well. The government has been in a minority position since 2019. We are experiencing a change. I am not saying that the Liberals did not have a right to go after a majority. That is not what I am saying. We have to tell it like it is. When a vote results in a tie in committee, it is because there was no negotiation, no listening and no compromise. The government is saying that it is going to give itself a majority in committee because the Conservatives are filibustering. Let us hold on for just a moment. The Bloc Québécois has not done any filibustering so far. Could such radical and unilateral changes not have unintended consequences, such as encouraging the opposition to filibuster in order to exert some influence, slow down the agenda or gain leverage? That concerns me a great deal, because I do not do that stuff. I think that, in committee and in the House of Commons, we are paid to make progress for the common good. That is why I think we should have worked together. What is happening today is truly disheartening. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: Chairs are responsible for, among other things, presiding over meetings, maintaining order and decorum, ruling on procedural matters and playing a leadership role in the administration of the committee.

Chairs do not normally vote, but can exercise their casting vote to break a tie. (1625) That is possible, and we saw that happen in the House not too long ago when we called for a commission of inquiry on Cúram, the software that is leaving thousands of seniors without their pension cheques. The government keeps telling us that this is no big deal, that it is not a real problem and that not that many seniors are affected. It does not matter if not that many seniors are affected. Even one is one too many. Unfortunately, the Speaker cast the deciding vote and voted with the government. We understand that. Those are the rules. We are not happy with the final results of the vote, but those are the rules. What is the problem with a committee chair having to vote every once in awhile? The problem is that I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons clearly indicate in his speech that the government does not intend to discuss, compromise or negotiate. It intends to move forward quickly and vote quickly. He made it clear that he did not want committee chairs to always have to vote. If the government, which does not hold that strong of a majority, did its job properly, then committee chairs would not have to vote so often. Meanwhile, the Liberals are talking to us about goodwill and saying that the opposition parties are putting up obstacles and going in circles, that they are delaying all of Canada's great legislation, and so on. That is hogwash. The Speaker's deciding vote is used sparingly, but it is used effectively. Generally, the Speaker will vote in favour of the status quo to avoid controversy. This is well established and was not an issue. It is a fake excuse. The excuse the Liberals are giving is that they have a majority in the House and therefore have the opportunity to force this down members' throats. That is what is happening today. Rather than adding one member of the ruling party to each committee, which would have given them a majority, the Liberals are deciding to add two, just to be safe. They want to add two because the opposition parties are a nuisance and they do not want too many questions, challenges or suspicions. They do not want scandals to come to light. In the same speech, they have the nerve to say that, and then say that a committee is virtuous and extraordinary, the place where bills are thoroughly examined. Seriously? Let us talk about fast-tracking bills. The high-speed rail project is a recent example of that. They are taking away everyone's right to oppose expropriation, they are rushing ahead and ramming this down people's throats. People will not have a choice because this is happening. That is kind of what we are seeing again today. The government says it is changing the rules and opposition parties will not have a choice. We will have to live with it. We might protest, but our protest will die down and everything will be fine. Then the government will be able to do whatever it wants as quickly as it wants, and Canada's CEO will be able to make things happen faster. That is what I am hearing today, and I am very worried about what will happen next. Committee work is important. It is about digging deeper. I would like someone on the government side to tell me that the opposition's work is not important. We are the voice of the people. It is our job to look at what is being done and raise concerns, not to prevent legislation from being passed, but to ensure that good legislation is passed. To do that, we need to be able to propose amendments in committee that have even a small chance of being adopted. Those days are over. Based on what is being proposed today, we are going to say no and the vote will go ahead. That is what I heard in the speech by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I have serious concerns. When we are told that things are not working, that we need to move faster and that this is a crucial change, I would respond that, since the beginning of the 45th Parliament, that is, over the past 11 months, we have passed 28 bills. That is not a bad result. I can compare that with other Parliaments. In the 44th Parliament, 30 bills were passed. In the 43rd Parliament, 35 bills were passed in the second session and 19 bills were passed in the first session. Minority governments work well, in my view. What the government is doing today is trying to muzzle the opposition parties while claiming not to be reducing their representation, all while holding a fragile majority. The members who defected may realize in a few months' time that, ultimately, the government is further to the right or further to the left than they thought. They may realize in a few months' time that the government does not share the wealth as freely as they thought. I am thinking of the NDP member who crossed the floor. The last Conservative floor crosser may realize that this lot is a tad too left-wing. Perhaps the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie will get fed up too. (1630) To conclude, I am calling on the government to change its stance and talk to us. [Expand] Natilien Joseph (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having listened to my colleague, I understand that he feels vulnerable. We know full well that a majority means stability and action for Canadians and Quebeckers, moving beyond partisan deadlocks. Why is the opposition so afraid of a majority when the national interest should take precedence over political calculations? That is the question I am asking myself. [Expand] Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and I also thank him for the tone of his question. In our recent exchanges, there were comments about tone, among other things. I can see that an effort is definitely being made. However, as for the substance of the question, I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint him. We are not here to score political points. We are here to talk about the common good, the collective interest and constructive work. However, it is hard to be constructive without input from others. I was conducting job interviews recently, and I told the people I was interviewing that if I ask them a question, I want to hear their opinion. I do not want people to tell me what they think I want to hear. I want them to tell me what they think, because that will challenge me and help me grow. I invite my colleagues to take a look at the Bloc Québécois's voting record and actions since 2019. We have made it a mission to be constructive in Parliament. The Liberals giving themselves a supermajority goes against that. [Expand] Alexis Deschênes (Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his eloquent speech, which ultimately called for the government to be magnanimous. He held out an olive branch, while acknowledging that the current government has indeed become a majority. Yes, it was achieved by taking in floor crossers, but the fact remains that it is a majority. Here is my question for my colleague. He mentioned the opposition's positive co-operation since this Parliament was formed. He mentioned the number of bills that have been passed in the last few months. Can he give some other examples so that the people watching at home can understand just how well this Parliament is functioning? [Expand] Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question and for his great assist. He is asking me for examples. The first one that comes to mind is my proudest accomplishment since getting elected in 2019. I am talking about the bill that I managed to get passed that protects supply-managed products from any new concessions in trade agreements. God knows how important that is right now as we renegotiate the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. The Bloc Québécois did not do this all on its own. It was a collaborative effort. I was speaking daily with the then agriculture minister, whom I commend. We had a great working relationship. We gradually convinced the Conservative Party members as well. This was a good example of collaboration and a good example of a bill that originated with the opposition, since we are the ones who introduced it. That legislation would not exist otherwise. Today, it is a precious tool in the Prime Minister 's hands in his negotiations. That is a good example. [Expand] Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, naturally, I will adopt the same tone as my colleague, because I like the collaboration we have with the Bloc Québécois and all the partners in the House. Did I understand what the hon. member said correctly? If the number of Liberal members on committees were set at six instead of seven, the Bloc Québécois would agree with the proposed changes? [Expand] Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague likes our collaboration and the fact that he recognizes that there is collaboration. I am tempted to say that we probably would have come to an agreement. The government certainly has a majority. However, I cannot promise him on my own that this is the collective decision that would have been made. I will not do that. It would have been much closer to the percentage of elected members in the House. What we are criticizing is the way things were done, the number that the Liberals decided on and the fact that they did not even call us. We had just come from a meeting. It is the height of contempt. (1635) [English ]

[Expand] William Stevenson (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague would agree with what we heard today in some of the other speeches, which is that there is a little more importance with the oversight committees. Does he agree that there should be some priority on how opposition members are valued on those committees? [Translation ]

[Expand] Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, all parliamentary committees are of great importance, but oversight committees are especially important. This could have been negotiated or discussed. We could have looked into it. Technically, committees should reflect the composition of the House, but in the current situation, where that principle is not being followed in most committees, perhaps we could have discussed it. I do not know. Again, I will repeat what I said to the member from Mount Royal. I cannot say today what the outcome of a vote or a discussion that never took place would be. It never took place, and that is what we take issue with. It is like a bulldozer running us over today. The Liberals are thinking, finally, we have a majority, they are going to leave us alone. That is what they are telling us. That is the message we are getting. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can speak to the principle of parliamentary tradition throughout the years where, when there is a majority in the House, there has consistently been a majority on the standing committees. That is what we have seen historically. There is a valid argument for the reason that takes place. Does the member support that principle and would he not agree it would be universally applied, whether it is at the federal or provincial level? [Translation ]

[Expand] Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, that is a fine principle. However, I find it rather ironic to hear about parliamentary tradition, given that the composition of committees has always been determined through negotiation and consensus precisely because of that parliamentary tradition. For them to force this change down our throats today and then dare to invoke that principle is a bit much. Those are polite words, because I had other words in mind. [Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the Liberals have played games to secure themselves a majority in the House. There have indeed been backroom deals in the past with certain individuals who chose to cross the floor. In fact, the by-elections had nothing to do with this outcome. Those seats were Liberal before and remain Liberal now. The Liberals bought themselves a majority and now they seem to want to buy themselves a majority on the committees. The Liberals even had an agreement in the past with the NDP that allowed them to manipulate the proceedings of the House to secure precisely that majority. It was not an official majority, and we sometimes managed to get the NDP to vote with us. However, this is the second time in two terms that the Liberals have played games with democracy. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. [Expand] Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, I rarely have the opportunity to say so, but that is a really wonderful question. My colleague has raised a really good point, because this is indeed the second time that the results of a general election have been distorted. I think it is becoming a habit. Those people make flowery speeches from balconies, with the sun shining and their hair blowing in the wind while they tell us that they are going to work with the opposition parties, that they are good people, blah, blah, blah. Then they return to the House and buy themselves a majority, either by securing the NDP's vote on an ongoing basis, like they did during the previous Parliament—completely destroying the constructive work we were doing in the process—or like now, by bringing in floor crossers. As I mentioned earlier, however, I am not sure that this majority is going to hold for three years. The member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie could grow tired of seeing environmental initiatives scrapped. The member for Nunavut might realize that the Prime Minister leans more to the right than she knew. Perhaps the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong will discover that the Liberal Party is more left-leaning than she thought. These people may have changed their allegiance, but the values that drew them to their original political party run deep. These values continue to exist somewhere deep inside them, and they could resurface. (1640) [English ]

[Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, The Economy; the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington, The Economy; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and maybe add some value to the discussion we are having this afternoon on a very important motion. I advise members opposite to not necessarily be too fearful from the perspective of being in opposition. In my political career, I have actually spent more time on the opposition benches. I understand the important role members of the opposition play when it comes to debates, motions and all the things that take place, whether it is in a provincial legislature or here in the country's national Parliament. I understand the value of the tools that are provided. I hope to give a couple of good, tangible examples that would maybe assist people who might be following the debate or the discussion in having an understanding, at least from my perspective, as to why it is so important that we continue to move forward with this motion, which has been presented by the government House leader, and in fact, why every member should ultimately be in support of it. I do not say that lightly, because I suspect there will be many MPs on both sides of the House who would say that they are parliamentarians first and foremost, and that they are very passionate about the country we represent here in the House of Commons and the constituents we are here for. If we believe in those two issues, or those two agenda items I just put forward, let me expand on it a bit. In the history of our nation, every time there has been a majority government, there has been a majority on our committees. We have not heard the representative from the Bloc or the two members from the Conservatives, one of whom is a former Speaker of the House, provide an example where there was a majority government, a majority in the chamber and a minority in the standing committees. I would pose the question as I did to my friend from the Bloc: Do they support the parliamentary tradition and principle that recognizes that, if a party has a majority of seats in the House, it should continue to have a majority of the seats in the standing committees? It was interesting listening to a couple of the questions that were posed to the Conservative members when they were asked whether, if at some point in time in the future the Conservative Party across the way or some newly branded Conservative Party was to be in a majority government, it would surrender a majority on the standing committees. We will notice that, on both occasions, they did not even answer the question, because that has been an absolute given. Then, if we take a look at it, I believe Canadians did get an opportunity to speak. Prior to the by-election night, when we had three by-elections, we did not have a majority. We had 171 seats. In order to have a majority in the House of Commons, we needed 172. Had we not won those by-election seats, we would not have a majority today. We will find that the response Canadians gave the Prime Minister and the government was very encouraging. We won all three of the by-elections. At the end of the day, it put us into the position of having a majority government. I can recall the Conservatives make reference to individuals who, for reasons I would suggest are reasons of building a stronger and healthier nation and wanting to be part of a government that is aggressively taking a team Canada approach in dealing with the important issues our nation is having to face today, made a decision to be part of the government caucus. (1645) It used to be the absolute opposite. Stephen Harper, and even other Conservative leaders post-Stephen Harper, did not have a problem with individuals walking over to their political party. I think the Conservatives are trying to diminish the principal argument that I am putting forward, which is that parliamentary tradition and the history of our nation, in fact the Commonwealth, is very clear that a majority of seats in the House dictates a majority of seats in our standing committees. That is exactly what this motion is proposing. As I indicated, while in opposition and in government in the House of Commons, and I remember standing up when we were the third party, I would talk about the frustrations of a filibuster from opposition because of issues such as concurrence back then. I believe the record would show that I made reference to the need for time allocation as a legislative tool to ensure that legislation was able to pass, but it does not mean that we are going to have a default position, which Stephen Harper had with Peter MacKay. While I sat in my chair, he would bring in a bill, open up his desk and read the closure or time allocation motions with absolutely no discussion or debate, and that happened well over a hundred times. The Prime Minister and the government have been very clear. We want to be able to produce in a very real and tangible way for Canadians, and we will work co-operatively with opposition when the collaboration is there to do so. The previous speaker, the member from the Bloc, made reference to the supply management issue. I remember the discussion. I was a part of the House leadership team, and we ensured that it happened. We can go back to when it was being discussed, the discussions that were taking place and the concerns, whether it was in the province of Quebec or Manitoba. I am passionate about supply management. I was glad to see the motion. The Prime Minister did not say, “Well, it's a Bloc initiative. We don't want anything to do with it.” At the end of the day, we were able to come together, in a collaborative way, and get the legislation passed, but that is somewhat rare. I hope we will see more collaboration in the future. The motion before us would not take away any of the fundamental rights that any opposition party has been using for the last 15-plus years I have been here. There would be no effect on things like opposition days. Opposition days provide the official opposition and other political parties the opportunity to bring forward opposition motions on the issues of the day. Now, I disagreed with a lot of the issues, as there were a lot of more relevant issues that they might have brought forward, but that is my opinion. I respect the fact that they often have an opinion that is different from mine. At the end of the day, we are not looking to ban concurrence of reports with this motion. I am anticipating that we are going to see concurrence of reports. Whether it is a majority in the committee, a majority in the House, or a minority, that is not going to change. I might prefer to see that debate occur the odd time outside of Government Orders so that we can have more debate on government bills, but again, that is a personal preference. (1650) I can assure members that, whether there is a minority or a majority in the chamber or elsewhere, we are still going to see political tactics such as the official opposition standing up to move for someone to speak, which would then cause the bells to ring. I believe we are still going to see members opposite stand up to attempt to move adjournment for the day. There are all sorts of tools. The only change we would see from today would be to recognize our parliamentary heritage and tradition. That is the only thing that would be affected today. I hope it would ultimately lead to more opportunities to build on relationships between parliamentarians. I have personally found that we often get relationships that develop in a different way in majority situations at standing committees. Even in a majority situation, we have accepted amendments. Obviously, we have had amendments in minority situations in a standing committee. It is not the party that dictates whether the idea is ultimately going to pass. As the opposition party would say, it should be the majority of the House of Commons, which now passes on to the standing committees. If it makes sense to bring forward an amendment, and the majority feels that is the way to go, then it will pass. I want to give a specific example. The reason I want to use this example is that we were talking about it earlier today, and it is with regard to Bill C-11. The government has been working on trying to get sexual assaults out of the military court system and into the civil justice system for a number of years. The Prime Minister made the decision early on that we were going to invest in our Canadian Forces. We have already committed 2% of the GDP to this. We had 7,000 people apply to be members of the Canadian Forces in the last fiscal year. This is not to mention the drive to build an industrial military regime that complements Canada's security. Part of dealing with the military issue is addressed in Bill C-11. It is why we have brought it forward. What would Bill C-11 do and why is it important to recognize this? It is because, when Bill C-11 went to committee, the opposition made substantial changes to the legislation. Before Bill C-11 went to committee, things were clear. There was the Justice Arbour report. If someone wants to google Justice Arbour, they will see she has an incredible background in dealing with sexual harassment and all forms of sexual offences. She sat on the Supreme Court and was recognized worldwide, to a certain degree, on issues dealing with human rights. She did a report for the House of Commons after working with and meeting with people publicly, and off the record, no doubt, talking to thousands of individuals. In that report, her recommendation was that we, as a Parliament, establish the changeover from a military justice system to a civil justice system when it came to sexual assaults. (1655) The Conservatives and the Bloc members united as one and told us what they wanted to see, and it goes against what the government believes is important with respect to listening to what Justice  Arbour had to say. We have the debate today in the chamber, and they have made it very clear they do not support a change to the civil justice system. Both the Bloc and the Conservative Party have made it very clear. Here is a flashback to two years ago, when the veterans affairs committee was meeting. Representatives from the Bloc and the Conservative Party sat on that committee and actually came up with a recommendation on the very issue that Bill C‑11 deals with. It said to transfer the jurisdiction for investigating sexual misconduct, and prosecuting its perpetrators, to civilian authorities. Today, the opposition has changed its opinion, but the government still believes in the inquiry that was done and the 40‑some recommendations, of which I think close to three dozen have been implemented. The key one is this legislation. Because we have a majority situation, we are now in a better position to be able to pass it, as opposed to compromising on it, because we are listening to the victims. If we look at why it is important, historically, for Parliaments to have a majority, that is one of the reasons. It is not that we are disregarding opposition ideas and amendments. I would compare amendments we have accepted from opposition in a minority situation. I am not talking about Bill C‑11, so members should not get too excited. I am not talking about Conservative and Bloc amendments, only those in a minority situation. If an amendment adds strength and value to the legislation, by all means it should be brought forward. I would like to think that parliamentary committees, and I have argued this in the past, can be the backbone of Parliament Hill and the work that many members do. The opposition House leader talked at length about them with respect to the importance of things like legislation, financial matters, policy-related issues and the opportunity to understand and appreciate those issues that are critically important to Canadians. It is a wonderful opportunity. Personally, I want to look at what is good, sound public policy, as I know every member of the Liberal Party wants to do, and take the actions necessary to support that, whether it is a budgetary measure, of a legislative nature or anything else. Canadians want us to work more co-operatively. Let us collaborate where we can. The motion we are debating today does not take away the rights of members of Parliament. It reinforces our heritage and parliamentary history within the Commonwealth. I would like to think that there is an opportunity for everyone to see the value of legislation from a government perspective, at the very least, such as the suite of crime bills we have, which is such a high priority for Canadians, and we will be able to deliver on those. (1700) [Expand] Fred Davies (Niagara South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was entertained by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader 's speech. Every time I have risen in the House before to speak to legislation, the parliamentary secretary has accused us of filibustering and not allowing legislation to go to committee quickly enough. Now that the Liberals want to assert their majority to get a majority on committees, will he undertake and commit today to stop the rhetoric about how we should stop debating legislation in the House? We have a right to stand here with our opinions. He seems to want to have co-operation until he does not. At the immigration committee, we passed substantial and reasonable amendments to legislation that were only overturned when it came back to report stage. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would commit today to being more collaborative in reality and not just in rhetoric. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with saying my desire is to be collaborative. I want to be able to see the advancement of good, sound public policy. Two examples come to mind right offhand. The first is Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever that we could not have passed that legislation at the end of last year. There was absolutely no reason. The reason, ultimately, I would argue, was that the opposition would not let us do so. A second example is lawful access. I have often heard opposition talk about the issue of extortion, yet we have the lawful access bill before us. There is absolutely no reason that lawful access legislation could not have been amended in some form, again, long ago. [Translation ]

[Expand] Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are so many points to raise after listening to the speech by the hon. member opposite that I am struggling to choose. He spoke to us of parliamentary heritage and tradition while putting on a show of virtue. According to parliamentary heritage and tradition, the composition of committees must reflect the composition of the House—something the Liberals are failing to respect today—and it must be negotiated and adopted by consensus. They tell us they have won a majority thanks to the by-elections. That is not true. Liberals were elected in those three by-elections that were already held by Liberal MPs. The majority was therefore secured thanks to defectors. The last truly appalling thing my colleague told us was when he spoke of a bill and a study was that his government listens to the opposition when it suits them, but that, now that they have a majority, they will be able to do as they please, because his government is listening to the victims. He said this as though the opposition parties did not listen. Give me a break. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member's question, I do not necessarily agree with his overall assessment. If members look at the legislative agenda of the government, there is a very limited amount of time for debate under government business. There is no programming in place. Over the last 15-plus years, there may have been an argument to start talking about programming. I would like to see changes to the Standing Orders. I would be happy to work with members of the Bloc and others, in a co-operative way, to look at ways in which we can improve upon the system. What we have been afforded, I think, is a good opportunity today to reset the dial and, hopefully, to see more people working to build a stronger Canada. (1705) [Expand] Hon. Adam van Koeverden (Secretary of State (Sport), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech from one of the most knowledgeable members of the House. He spends more time in this room than anybody I know and really does understand how this place works. He mentioned the lawful access bill, which was delayed by the Conservatives until they kind of came around and, I suppose, were convinced, maybe by their constituents or perhaps by law enforcement officials who were asking us to deliver on that. However, they slowed that legislation down. Could the member please inform Canadians and the House how a change to our committee structure to better reflect the composition of Parliament would allow us to advance legislation that Canadians, law enforcement and officials require for their work? [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question. I think that is the core of it for me, personally. We have had discussions related to lawful access virtually since last June. It was a priority for the Prime Minister. It deals with things like child sexual exploitation, severe repeat crimes and organized crime. It deals with issues like extortion, public safety and terrorism. There is absolutely no reason we could not have had that healthy discussion in committees and seen the legislation passed out of committee, even in some sort of an amended form, but that was not possible because the Conservatives refused to allow it to proceed. [Expand] Scot Davidson (New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently, and in justifying this motion, the government House leader called this principle “undeniable”. Does the Liberal government not understand that the entire purpose of parliamentary committees is to ensure that nothing is undeniable, that every action, every claim, every program and every policy is examined and accessed on its own merits? A government that declares itself “undeniable” has told the House exactly why it must not be trusted with committee control. This control is control that Canadians did not give in a general election. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election, Canadians gave a very clear indication that they want to see more collaboration, and we are going to see that collaboration. Since the last federal election, the Government of Canada has done what it can to advance a legislative agenda that truly reflects what we heard from the electors on platform issues in that election. I have had to stand in this very place and shame Conservatives into allowing some of those issues to get through second reading and to the committee stage. I am very aware of the games that take place. The member is not going to fool me on that issue. We have an opportunity, through the mandate that was given to us, to continue to work for Canadians and materialize in a very real and tangible way— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. [Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really outdoing himself today by making the claim that giving government members all of the power on committees will somehow lead to more co-operation. The nature of a committee structure in which no single party holds a majority is that parties have to negotiate, work out their differences and figure out how to collaborate in order to get things moving forward. The new reality that the Liberals are trying to impose is one in which the government does not have to co-operate with anyone but can instead impose its will through an undemocratic majority, in fact an undemocratic supermajority, on committees that they were not given. In what world is it even plausible to argue that taking away the need to negotiate and putting all the power in the hands of one party is somehow going to lead to more collaboration? [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be more of a reflection of how the member opposite handles himself in a standing committee. If the member genuinely believes that all standing committees are dysfunctional, I would invite him to attend different standing committee meetings. I have been in committees when there have been majorities, and it does change the optics; I will give him that much. However, I will also suggest to the member that there is a higher sense of co-operation, which I have witnessed first-hand. Giving a false impression does a disservice to the parliamentary process. Let us remember, we have had majority governments throughout the years here in Canada, and typically, they work relatively well. Why would we not allow that to continue? (1710) [Translation ]

[Expand] Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the government reconcile the fact that it is promoting co-operation and negotiation when we are being hit with this right in the face? In the end, we were told that the government was upholding a tradition. I do not understand. Someone please explain it to me. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at some of the comments. We have the principle of a majority government, which should also apply to the standing committees, and that is within our rules, and we have the Conservative and Bloc members saying no. A compromise, to the Bloc and the Conservatives, is to say the Liberals cannot have a majority on committees. Is there another suggestion the member would like to make? [Translation ]

[Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speeches by my colleagues, including my colleague from Winnipeg North. I listened to the speeches of several members. I certainly do not want to miss the speech by my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, with whom I will be sharing my time. His speech will surely be very interesting because he is a very capable man, particularly in matters of parliamentary procedure. I think he is a reference here, after the Speaker, of course. There is something wrong with the Liberals' logic right now. It is something I have noticed since the beginning of the speeches today and since I read the first version of Motion No. 9. Something just is not right, and I think it is coming from the top. It is coming from the Liberal Prime Minister himself. For years he was a CEO, a chief executive officer. He came here and decided that, from now on, he would get his bills and rules passed, that he would decide everything that was going to happen and that he was going to dig Canada into the hole. He may not have used those words, but that is what we are seeing right now. That is what is happening. He forgot just one minor detail: Parliament is not a business. The Prime Minister is not Parliament's boss. All members of Parliament are equal, and every member of Parliament has the right to vote. The votes of all members of Parliament are what enable us to move bills and motions forward by working together. Something else bothered me earlier. It seems that, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, Parliament is supposed to work to ensure that the government gets its bills passed. That is nonsense. That is completely false. It is up to the government to convince Parliament to pass its bills. I have to say that, since Canadians elected the minority government, things had been going relatively well. We offered to co-operate with the government on important bills, to boost the economy and to improve our relationship with the United States, because the Prime Minister said two very important things. He said that he was the only one who could resolve the tariff crisis with Trump. He also said that Canadians should judge him by grocery prices. Now a year has passed. Opposition parties co-operated, but what happened to tariffs? People are paying more. What happened to food prices? For the fourth month in row, food inflation in Canada is the highest in the G7. We are co-operating. We have supported the government. The Prime Minister and the government decided things should get even worse. They decided to make trouble on their own. That is what we need to keep in mind because the Liberals had the reins of power. Our role was to co-operate and help them do things well, but, unfortunately, they felt that things did not go well. It is true that things did not go well, but that is not the opposition parties' fault. It is because they do not know how to run things. Earlier, the government House leader said that the Prime Minister was clear: He expects a Parliament that produces results for Canadians. However, he was mistaken: the Prime Minister expects the government to produce results. We need to agree on the words “results for Canadians” because the Prime Minister has thus far failed to produce any results whatsoever. How did they do that? We have heard a number of times that there were by-elections, that they have a majority and that the House and the committees must reflect the majority obtained in the by-elections. That is another falsehood. The outgoing members before the by-elections were Liberal. The people who were elected in the by-elections are Liberal. The by-elections did not change the makeup of the government at all. What changed that makeup, then? The government was determined and this CEO turned Prime Minister was obsessed with the idea of recreating in Parliament the structure of a company where he can pull all the strings, so much so that he decided to set up a whole operation to attract floor crossers. Through secret backroom deals we are not privy to, he wanted to attract people who set aside their values and principles, those for which they were elected and for which they were given a mandate from their voters, in order join the government's side. (1715) They said so themselves. They said that they were going over to the government side, the Liberal side at that. That is how the government managed to cobble together a majority. It made secret deals behind closed doors so that the Prime Minister can continue to do what he has always done. He is going to make all of the decisions himself and run things into the ground, just like he did everywhere he went and with all of the organizations that he ran. We obviously do not want to let that happen. We do not want to leave all that power in the hands of a Prime Minister who has not yet delivered any results and who has not kept any of the promises that he made to Canadians. We were talking about history. The members opposite keep repeating that, never before in the history of Parliament has a majority government not been reflected in the committees and that the committees must absolutely reflect the composition of Parliament. However, there is one small thing they are forgetting to mention. Never before in the history of Parliament has a government gained a majority by making secret deals with members. That has never happened. The membership of committees has never been changed during a parliamentary session and during a Parliament. This is the 45th Parliament. How was the government formed in the previous 44 Parliaments? A majority or minority government was formed based on the votes of Canadians. In the last election, Canadians did not trust the government to give it a majority. They elected a minority government with a very strong opposition because they had doubts. Not everyone believed in the Prime Minister 's message and pretty words. Canadians decided to give him power, but with a strong opposition to ensure he could not do whatever he wanted. Unhappy with the election results, the government worked very hard to send messages to almost every member of the other parties to try and see if it could draw people in and change the composition of the government. That is how we ended up with a majority government today: through secret negotiations and secret deals. Now that they have their majority, what do the Liberals want? They want to change the composition of committees even though, once again, that has never happened before in history. Not only is the government going to change the committees' composition, they do not intend to do it by half measures. Instead of reflecting the composition of Parliament, where the Liberals have roughly 50% of seats, Liberal representation on committees is going to climb to about 57%. In other words two Liberals will be added to each committee to form a supermajority. What will happen to all the great inquiries we conducted on ArriveCan, all the inquiries we were able to do on the Liberal green fund, or all the corruption scandals we managed to uncover because we demanded that documents be produced and because, as a Parliament, we were able to obtain papers that the government refused to hand over to members? What sad fate will befall committees? The Liberals are going to consistently vote down these motions, adjourn debates and use every available means to avoid being held accountable to Canadians. That is what the government wants. This government does not want to be held accountable to anyone. There is a reason that we seldom see the Prime Minister rise here in the House to answer questions during question period. He does not want to be held accountable to members of Parliament. He does not want to do his job as Prime Minister. He prefers his job as CEO. When people say that we have nothing to offer, that is not true. We have put forward a motion. Today, we proposed an amendment. We are prepared to vote in favour of this government proposal if the Liberals agree to let the oversight committees, namely the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, do their work and not change their composition. No one can claim that we have not made an attempt at a compromise, but they have not made any at all. It is all about power at any cost. They have given themselves the privilege of doing whatever they want, and too bad for Canadians and what they thought during the last election. (1720) [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not about power at all costs. It is, as the Prime Minister has indicated, about delivering for Canadians, building Canada strong for all. That is what we are advocating for. The principle and parliamentary tradition are very clear. Even our Standing Orders state that when a party has a majority of seats in the House, it has a majority of seats in our standing committees. Does the member believe that the opposition can work collaboratively with the government on trying to pass important legislation and on other matters? [Expand] Luc Berthold: Mr. Speaker, we did. The first thing we did as an opposition was to collaborate with the government on the bill to more quickly make each and every big project. We collaborated, but unfortunately the Liberals thought it was not enough. They thought they could do better, but after a year, things are not better in Canada with the new Prime Minister, another Liberal prime minister. They are worse. We have the only shrinking economy in the G7, and food inflation is the worst in the G7. I could go on and on. It is a bad government, and we cannot put all our confidence in it. [Translation ]

[Expand] Alexis Deschênes (Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague's thoughts on the following premise. We are seeing the attitude of this government, which recently secured a majority and will have an even stronger one once the new members are sworn in. We see that at the first opportunity, the government decided to ignore the opposition and not consult with it before introducing this motion. Today, the government refuses to rule out the idea of using a closure motion to get this motion passed. What does my colleague think this says about how this government is going to use its new majority? [Expand] Luc Berthold: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an extremely important point. Committee composition is usually a collaborative decision involving the opposition parties. When a new government is elected, the parties meet and decide on the composition of committees. Now we have been told that it will no longer work that way because the government decided to add two members without consulting us to see if we were adding one, two or three or taking some away. We might have preferred to take some away rather than have the government add two. There was no collaboration. They even floated the possibility of closure. I know my colleague is fairly new here, but I remember, back when we had a Liberal government, it was one gag order after another. He should get used to this. If things go on like this, obviously the government will impose closure every time opposition members oppose its ideas. The Liberals do not like anyone's ideas but their own. (1725) [English ]

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of collaboration. “Collaboration” is a word we have heard bandied back and forth. It seems to me a basic truth that the way power works is that when power is dispersed, co-operation and collaboration become necessary, because if power is dispersed, people have to work together in order to achieve some result. The committee I am on, the human resources committee, has adopted eight reports in the last year. It has been an extremely productive committee. I know there are many other committees that have undertaken important studies and gotten a lot of work done, and have done so through collaboration that is forced by parliamentary committees that reflect the reality that Canadians voted for, which is dispersed power through a minority government. If the government takes an undemocratic supermajority on committees, that means that collaboration is much less likely to happen, because the power would be centralized in the government and there would be no pressure on it to collaborate. There is more collaboration in the present than there would be if the motion were to go forward. [Translation ]

[Expand] Luc Berthold: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's comments, which are very relevant. Collaboration among political parties means making compromises. It means that someone has to make compromises so that we can ultimately come to an agreement and achieve something worthwhile. Just this week, a committee report containing recommendations to improve a bill was simply rejected by this government because it did not like the ideas proposed by the committee. Compromise and collaboration will become increasingly rare. [English ]

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it grieves me to observe that we are seeing an unprecedented attack on democracy in the country by the Liberal government. Canadians in the last election chose to elect a Liberal minority government, which means that, yes, the Liberals continue in power. At the same time, power is dispersed. Opposition parties have a role in holding the government accountable and in being able to drive outcomes in terms of committees and in terms of legislation. We have clearly played that role responsibly, expediting legislation in certain cases, strongly opposing legislation in others. The Liberals have been pursuing this violation of our democracy, of our democratic institutions, by trying to take a majority that Canadians did not give them. Let me clear on the issue of floor crossing. We have had floor crossing in the country before, individual instances where individuals came to different conclusions based on shifting events or, maybe, changes in their own thinking. That is not what we are talking about in this case, very clearly. What we are seeing in the country is an effort by the government to gain an undemocratic majority government they were not given by Canadians, by recruiting any and every individual, regardless of convictions and regardless of ideology, through backroom deals. In recent weeks they have recruited someone who endorsed Avi Lewis and someone who endorsed the convoy. This clearly has nothing to do with shifting ideas or world views. This is about a naked power grab. In fact, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong was explicit about this. She said the Minister of Housing did not return her phone calls beforehand, and that he called her back the next day once she crossed the floor. This is not about world view. This is not about shifting ideas. This is about a naked, undisguised, backroom power grab that is now being used to subvert our democracy. Liberals are using the bare majority that they have taken in violation of the will of Canadians and they are now using it to try to get a supermajority on committees. They are proposing a supermajority of additional members, seven members in total, which would allow them to do anything they want at committee. They have claimed that this is about co-operation. No, this is about subverting democracy. In a minority, parties have to work together. They have to co-operate to get things done. We have co-operated to get things done, in this Parliament and in committee. The government does not want to have to co-operate. The Liberals do not want to have to listen to other parties and to Canadians who voted for those parties. They want to be able to rule absolutely, without consultation and in defiance of the democratic will of Canadians, which is why they are putting forward the motion today to give themselves a supermajority on committees that Canadian voters did not give them. It is wrong and it undermines the work these committees do. Up until now, committees have been working to request information and documents from the government. Multiple committees are now in the midst of Liberal filibusters. The human resources committee, the ethics committee and the health committee are all in the middle of Liberal filibusters. They do not want to hand over documents that have been asked for— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business

[Private Members' Business]

(1730) [English ]

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

[Expand] Parm Bains (Richmond East—Steveston, Lib.) moved that Bill C-266, An Act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South for supporting this bill. It is always a huge honour to stand in the House and speak on vital issues for Canadians. Today, I have an opportunity to speak at length on respecting skilled trades and labour. As a former aircraft maintenance engineer, I spent countless hours turning wrenches at a hangar in my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia. When I was campaigning for re-election as MP for Richmond East—Steveston, I did not do it alone. I was supported by electricians, carpenters, construction workers and unions. Builders and everyday Canadian workers share my vision of a community and a Canada that works for them. It is for these Canadians that I tabled Bill C-266, a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility. At its core, this bill recognizes a simple truth: Canada cannot reach its full potential if the people who build it, our skilled trades workers, are prevented from working where they are needed the most. Movement of skilled trades and labour across Canada is essential to the country's economic development, productivity, infrastructure and competitiveness. However, our economy continues to be weighed down by a system of disjointed licensing requirements, certifications and other restrictions. This has evolved into significant non-tariff internal trade barriers. The IMF estimates that Canada's economy could gain nearly 7%, or $210 billion, in real GDP over a gradual period by fully removing internal trade barriers between the country's 13 provinces and territories. This is not just inefficient; it is unacceptable. Across this country, from the shipyards of Vancouver to the construction sites of Halifax, from energy projects in Alberta to housing developments in Toronto, employers are facing unpredictability. On one hand, there are acute labour shortages delaying critical projects, and on the other, there are skilled, qualified workers in other parts of the country who are ready and willing to step in, but they are held back by regulatory barriers that make mobility difficult, costly and slow. A welder trained in Saskatchewan may encounter different certification requirements when attempting to work on major infrastructure projects in British Columbia. These inconsistencies do not improve safety or enhance quality. They create duplication, inefficiency and unnecessary costs. The same holds true for major infrastructure projects. Whether it is expanding transit systems, upgrading ports or building clean energy infrastructure, delays in mobilizing skilled labour translate directly into higher costs and missed opportunities. Every week that a project is delayed because workers cannot be certified quickly enough is a week that Canadians are left waiting for essential services and economic benefits. Of course, there were efforts to correct this growing problem. If we go back to the Agreement on Internal Trade in 1995, it would, “enable any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of one Party to be recognized as qualified for that occupation by all other Parties.” Regrettably, the AIT did not achieve this crucial goal, which is why in December 2014, the federal, provincial and territorial governments began negotiations to strengthen and modernize into the Canada Free Trade Agreement. The Red Seal program has been an important step forward toward standardization, allowing certified workers in certain trades to move more easily between provinces. However, not all trades are covered, and even within the program, variations and administrative barriers can persist. Efforts to harmonize certifications and labour regulations across Canada's economy made limited progress, not because electricians who reside in Manitoba have unique insight into the functions of an electrical circuit compared to electricians who reside in Nova Scotia or the risk to a trucker's safety changes radically when driving from B.C. to Saskatchewan, requiring different regulations and insurance, but because incentives favoured the status quo. Regulators looking to retain their authority and protect regional labour economies had little incentive to loosen their grip and provide easy access to competition from other provinces. (1735) Skilled workers, understandably unenthusiastic about acquiring and maintaining credentials across provinces, could always find ready work down south in the United States. However, this status quo is over. Since President Trump's unacceptable comments about Canada's sovereignty and turning his back on the deal that he signed, applying tariffs to Canadian lumber, steel and cars, Canadians have started to see our relationship with the U.S. in a new light, but more importantly, how we view ourselves and our future in a new light. The comfortable norms Canadians took for granted with our American partners, like trust and predictability, no longer exist. While time will tell if this relationship can be repaired, it is clear that Canada must forge a new path. As our Prime Minister has said, we can give ourselves far more than the Americans can ever take away. Bill C-266 is an essential step in charting a new path forward for Canada. I have heard from the Canadian Construction Association, and it said, “The CCA welcomes the introduction of Bill C-266 and the development of a national framework to modernize, streamline and harmonize skilled trade certification processes. Canada's construction industry is held back by a fragmented internal market where labour mobility restrictions create costly barriers for workers and employers alike.” From my alma mater, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, who is the president of the BCIT, agreed and said, “Canada’s future prosperity is being shaped by large-scale priorities that rely heavily on a strong trades workforce. Whether it be building affordable and climate-resilient housing or infrastructure to strengthen national security, these national priorities all require a job-ready and adaptable trades workforce.” Let me be clear: This legislation does not seek to override provincial jurisdiction, and I look at my friends from Quebec. Provinces and territories would continue to regulate training, certification and labour markets within their borders. That is both appropriate and necessary. Through extensive consultations spanning at least nine months, the minister would engage with provincial governments, regulatory bodies, industry associations, labour unions, indigenous organizations, polytechnics and educational institutions. This would ensure the framework is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up, reflecting the realities of those who work within the system every day. The framework itself wishes to deliver several key outcomes. First, it would establish a comprehensive inventory of skilled trades across Canada. This may sound straightforward, but it is a critical step. Today, even defining what constitutes a skilled trade can vary among jurisdictions. A clear shared understanding is essential for any meaningful harmonization. Second, it would map equivalencies among provincial standards and credentials. This is where the real work begins. By systematically comparing requirements, we can identify where trades are already aligned, where minor adjustments are needed and where more significant differences exist. Third, and most importantly, it would introduce measures to harmonize standards, reduce duplication and streamline regulatory processes. This would mean fewer redundant exams, faster recognition of credentials and clearer pathways for workers moving between provinces. Consider the impact of this on a carpenter relocating from New Brunswick to Alberta. Instead of navigating a confusing and time-consuming certification process, that worker could benefit from a system that recognizes their qualifications quickly and fairly, allowing them to get to work sooner. Fourth, the framework would support modernization. As industries evolve, so too must the standards that govern them. By coordinating updates across jurisdictions, we can ensure that Canadian tradespeople remain at the forefront of global best practices. Fifth, it would promote ongoing collaboration. This is not a one-time exercise, but a continuous process of improvement. The inclusion of indigenous governing bodies and organizations would be particularly important in ensuring that the framework reflects diverse perspectives and supports inclusive economic growth. (1740) Accountability is also built into the legislation. The minister would be required to table the national framework in Parliament within one year, ensuring timely action. Annual progress reports would track implementation, measure improvements in labour mobility and assess the effectiveness of the framework, and within five years a comprehensive parliamentary review would provide an opportunity to refine and strengthen the approach. The bill would create a structured, collaborative process to bring those systems into alignment where possible and to make them more transparent and interoperable where full alignment is not feasible. The bill is also about national unity. Canada is one country with one economy. While regional diversity is a strength, unnecessary barriers that divide our labour market weaken us all. The legislation represents a pragmatic, collaborative and forward-looking approach to a long-standing challenge. It would respect jurisdiction, engage stakeholders and focus on outcomes. I look forward to collaborating with everyone if the bill advances to committee. I urge all members of the House to support the national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility act and to take this important step toward a stronger and more unified Canada. [Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wish we saw more respect for trades workers from the government. Sadly, in the last budget, the government chose to cut trades workers off from access to student grants. It is on page 217 of the budget that people who go to private institutions, which generally includes trades workers, as trades programs are not offered at universities, are cut off from student grants as a result of a decision made by the government. The Conservatives put forward a motion earlier this week, on Tuesday, asking the government to reconsider this policy, and the member who put forward the bill that is before us and who just spoke about respecting trades workers, voted against our motion that sought to give these grants back to students. I want to ask the member why he joined the rest of the Liberals in opposing our effort to get grants back to people in the trades. [Expand] Parm Bains: Mr. Speaker, the member has been part of the opposition for many years and was previously in government. This has been a problem for decades, including under the Conservative Harper government and in numerous provincial Conservative governments. The truth is that federal and provincial governments have allowed the problem to fester for decades, and it is time to end the status quo. The member opposite knows the government did act immediately in July 2025 to address barriers that the federal government could address alone. Weeks after the election, the Government of Canada removed all 53 federal exemptions from the CFTA. [Translation ]

[Expand] Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again, what movie is this? I was there, back in 1997, in the era of the labour market agreement, occupational training and the creation of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. It is no mystery what is going on here in Ottawa. Businesses are struggling to survive because of the relentlessly rising tariffs. We were told to expect a big surprise after a year. Why is the government is still trying to interfere in areas that are functioning well in the provinces? Why is it proposing this bill? Does the government not have enough work or what? (1745) [English ]

[Expand] Parm Bains: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear that the member believes that things are working well between provinces, as they all are working hard to find ways to remove internal barriers. With the bill I talked about today, and I said in my speech, the framework that would be developed would be in conjunction with provinces and provincial labour associations so it would not exclude any province. In the unprecedented climate we find ourselves in now, regulators and trade associations alike have new imperatives to come to the table and find an agreement. Too much is at stake to allow minor differences to hold our country back at this time. [Expand] Kristina Tesser Derksen (Milton East—Halton Hills South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, l thank my colleague for presenting the bill, and I am proud to be the seconder. My youngest son is completing his apprenticeship to become an electrician. Given our government's very ambitious plans to engage in nation-building projects, whether in housing or other large projects, we know that we are going to have to encourage more young people to get involved in the skilled trades. Could my colleague please comment on how he sees the legislation's encouraging young people to take up skilled trades? [Expand] Parm Bains: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for seconding the motion and for talking about young people. This is exactly what the bill would do. It would bring respect back to skilled trades and allow young people to think about the possibility of getting involved in something they may wish to do. They may want to be part of the national shipbuilding strategy and to work in Vancouver, but they are located somewhere else and doing their training in Ontario, for example. The bill would allow them to have the vision to be part of our defence programs that we are bringing forward in this country. I think this is exactly what young people are looking forward to doing: uniting this country and working towards something that matters. [Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the bill that the Liberal member has brought to us is an interesting one, because in many respects it feels like an admission of failure on the part of the government. The Liberals have been in power for more than 10 years. They have repeatedly ignored the needs of trades workers and treated trades workers, as well as the work they do, with utter disdain, and now a member of the Liberal government is saying that maybe it should have a framework to try to fix some of the problems confronting trades workers, including problems around labour mobility. I will give the member credit insofar as his speech identified very real problems that are making things more difficult for trades workers trying to get certification, trying to move, trying to find jobs, etc. However, I think it is important to observe that the government did not need a private member's bill compelling it to introduce a framework in order to solve these problems. The government could simply have acted to solve these problems that are, in many respects, of their own making. The government also could have proposed the framework without having one of its members propose a bill to require it to present a framework. Fixing these problems is within the power of the government, and the problems are ones that have emerged from the actions and failures of a Liberal government that has been in many respects negative and disdainful about the people who build this country. Instead of fixing the problems, the government got one of its members to propose a bill that calls for the development of a framework that is kind of directed toward pushing the government to solve problems that, at the end of the day, the government should solve itself. I appreciate the identification of the problems, finally, but what we would really like is for the government to change policies in order to reverse bad decisions it has made that are bad for trades workers. If we look at the history of the government, we see that there are repeated instances of criticism and disdain for our hard-working trades workers. Most notable was when the former prime minister said that major projects in this country require a gender analysis because male construction workers' coming to towns to build things might have gendered impacts. The former prime minister never spoke about the gendered impacts of people in suits' showing up. Instead he was purveying negative stereotypes about hard-working men and women who travel from home to build the projects this country needs. He talked about how we should not be known for our resources but should instead be known for our resourcefulness. This was constant negative discourse from the former prime minister about hard-working trades workers. Maybe we could have hoped that the negative discourse would change with the new Prime Minister, but things have gotten even worse under him. In particular, in the last budget, a policy was announced that effectively singles out people in certain vocations, including trades workers, to no longer be able to access student grants. Page 217 of the last federal budget explains the dynamic. It says that students at private for-profit institutions, which includes vocational schools where many trades workers learn their trade, would no longer be eligible for grants under the federal student loan program. This means that if someone studies any program at a university, no matter how labour-market relevant it is or is not, they can get those grants. However, if they study at a vocational institution to learn a trade, regardless of how urgently our economy needs those workers, they cannot get those grants. University students get the grants. If students are studying in the trades or for other critical skills at vocational institutions, they do not get the grants. This was the policy of the Prime Minister in the last federal budget, effectively singling out these occupations, including trades workers, to be denied student grants. This policy is going to exacerbate existing shortages in these critical areas, because it sends a message to young people that the government is going to support them more if they go through the one door than if they go through the other door. In fact what we should be doing is trying to magnify the signals of the labour market to young people. We should be offering, as Conservatives proposed, more generous student grants to students who are pursuing studies in in-demand fields. (1750) Instead, the Liberals are discriminating based on the institutions that students apply for. Just today, the government announced some further details of this planned policy. It announced some exceptions for certain kinds of vocations that people might study for at private institutions. The exemptions are better than nothing. We have done a lot of advocacy around this work and it feels like we are pushing the needle a bit. The exemptions were for nursing, dental hygiene, early childhood education and paramedics. It should not be a policy of exemptions. We should just eliminate in general this discriminatory policy that the government has proposed. What I notice about these exceptions is that none of them apply to trades workers. Therefore, the government's policy continues to be that if someone is studying to become a tradesperson, and in many cases that training is offered at private institutions, then they cannot get a student grant. It is mind-boggling to me, in this time when finally even the Liberals are paying lip service to the fact that we need more trades workers, that they are still pursuing a policy that attacks trades workers by denying grants specifically to those who are pursuing careers in the trades. The Conservatives have been doggedly pursuing this issue. We are defending trades workers, defending those who are trying to pursue critical skills at vocational institutions. In many cases, these are skills that are simply not offered at public or not-for-profit institutions. We have pushed this issue at the human resources committee and we were able to get the human resources committee to adopt a unanimous report encouraging the government to reconsider this policy. Even Liberals on the human resources committee at the time voted in favour of asking the government to reconsider this policy. Then, this week, we put the motion before the House of Commons on Tuesday, and every single Liberal member voted against our motion to reconsider this policy. Every Liberal member present voted in favour of this Liberal policy to discriminate against trades workers and others pursuing vocational training at private institutions. The member who sponsored this bill and just spoke about the importance of trades workers voted in favour of the Liberal policy and against our motion to reconsider it. The Liberal member who put forward this bill earlier this week voted in favour of denying funding to students specifically and uniquely in the trades at private institutions. The member for Markham—Unionville, who previously as a Conservative worked with me on this issue, called out the Liberal policy change for being systemically discriminatory because of its attack on those studying traditional Chinese medicine. He called this Liberal policy discriminatory and then, after he crossed the floor, he voted in favour of the policy that he said systemically discriminates against his own community and others. It is pretty baffling, to say, “This is systematically discriminatory against the community that I represent, and now I am going to vote for it.” Every Liberal member of the human resources committee who initially voted in favour of this motion to reconsider the discriminatory Liberal policy reversed their position when the motion came to the House. It is unbelievable. We have this situation of “say one thing and do the exact opposite”. There are members in today's debate, I am sure, eager to pay lip service to the value of trades while attacking trades workers by targeting them with the removal of funding through these student grants. They cannot deny it because every one of them voted for it. Not only did they vote for the budget, but we had a stand-alone vote on this discrimination against trades workers. Every Liberal who was present, including the sponsor of this bill, voted in favour of that discrimination. They cannot get away with saying, “We are going to attack trades workers. We are going to insult them. We are going to deny funding that is available to every other stream, but then we are going to have a framework to study trying to fix these problems in the future.” It is time for the Liberals to put their money where their mouth is on this issue, to put actions behind words. The Conservatives will always stand with, and stand up for, the hard-working trades workers who built this country. It is a pity that the Liberals are attacking them while hypocritically pretending to care. (1755) [Translation ]

[Expand] Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle indicated where we stand on Bill C-266, an act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility. This bill is presented as a practical measure aimed at facilitating the mobility of skilled workers. Who could possibly oppose credential recognition? Who could oppose streamlining administrative procedures? Who could oppose faster access to the labour market? Behind these good intentions lies a well-known strategy. Ottawa is using a real problem to grant itself new powers in an area that falls under Quebec jurisdiction. Skills training, trade certification, workforce planning and labour market organization are all Quebec's responsibility. Quebec already has its own institutions, mechanisms, partners and economic priorities. The Bloc Québécois has been clear: This bill is an attempt at centralization disguised as a technical solution. When it comes to employment and labour, Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to take action. Quebec already has a comprehensive system and it already manages its labour policies with the Commission de la construction du Québec, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, Services Québec, vocational training centres, the CEGEPs that offer technical programs and employer and labour organizations. We already have a lot of labour policies. It is important to take a moment here to review the history. In 1997, Ottawa recognized Quebec's responsibility for active employment measures through the Canada–Québec Labour Market Development Agreement in Principle. Since then, Quebec has been designing, administering and adapting its own training and job entry programs. Ottawa has already acknowledged that Quebec is in a better position to manage its workforce, so why are we taking this step backwards? What is more, what we can say is that the amounts that have already been transferred prove that the Quebec model exists. I will share a few numbers. In 2019, Ottawa announced nearly $5.4 billion in funding for Quebec until 2022‑23 through workforce and labour market agreements. That represents roughly 240,000 more Quebeckers who can benefit from employment and training measures. Ottawa already recognizes that Quebec is better at administering these programs, that needs differ from province to province and that Quebec has its own model. This raises the following question: If Quebec is already managing the billions of dollars invested in training, why would Ottawa now want to control the rules? We can see that there is a real risk of downgrading standards. The problem with the national framework is that the bill provides for a national list of trades, a comparison of provincial standards and equivalencies, harmonization and regulatory streamlining. That means that Ottawa is establishing itself as a national benchmark. When we see all that, it is clear that it is a danger for Quebec. Such a situation could undermine Quebec's safety standards, its training requirements, its apprenticeship mechanisms, its ability to protect French in the workplace and its unique characteristics in the construction industry. I come from a family of masons and carpenters. I often have conversations on Sunday evenings with my brothers, brothers-in-law and other family members. They regularly talk to me about reskilling, training and the very strict rules governing their trades, especially in the construction industry. I can confirm that Quebec is truly at the forefront. There is a risk in allowing Ottawa to take a more centralized approach to managing this. (1800) I would like to share a statistic that might be useful at this stage. The construction sector in Quebec employs more than 300,000 workers. We are talking about a critical sector here, not some administrative detail. Quebec has unique characteristics that are non-negotiable. These include the use of French on construction sites, the province's specific construction regulations, Quebec's distinct regional realities, the province's unique industrial needs, and the culture of labour-management co-operation, which must also be taken into account. We need to recognize that labour market needs in Sept-Îles, Rouyn-Noranda, Drummondville or Montreal are not the same as those in Calgary or Halifax. The Canadian labour market is far from uniform. Trying to standardize it is a mistake. We certainly agree on mobility in some form, but the main problem is interference. The Bloc Québécois has a fairly balanced position. We generally support voluntary mutual recognition, the free movement of workers, intergovernmental agreements, the reduction of red tape, and more pragmatic solutions. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois opposes any frameworks imposed by Ottawa, centralization, Canada-wide standards that bypass Quebec, and the gradual erosion of jurisdictions. Lastly, we do want to talk about the labour shortage, but the problem is a lack of workers, not a lack of structures. The real solution we want is to promote skilled trades to young people. We also want to speed up the recognition of prior learning. We want to invest in skills training. We need to support reskilling, help SMEs train the next generation of employees and allow Quebec to recruit workers based on its needs. All of this is crucial because Canada has had over 700,000 job vacancies on several occasions recently, according to Statistics Canada. A shortage of welders is not going to be solved with a federal committee. That is not how it works. What we are seeing once again is that anytime there is a crisis, the federal government sees it as an opportunity to introduce bills that interfere in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. I get the impression that, with the situation with our American neighbours, the federal government is definitely trying to find “Ottawa knows best” solutions. However, that is not how things work. The Bloc Québécois criticized Bill C-5 and its many encroachments thanks to its Canadian projects led by Ottawa. However, Bill C-266 follows exactly the same path that we criticized. These attempts at interference have been happening repeatedly since the current Liberal government and Prime Minister were elected. It has not even been a year, but the number of attempts at bills that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction is extremely worrying. Little by little, they are trying to chip away at the powers that are rightfully ours. As I said, Quebec is a pioneer in many areas. We have a proven track record when it comes to labour. Quebec knows how to train its workforce. Quebec knows how to recognize the skills of its workers. Quebec knows how to meet its regional needs, and Quebec knows how to collaborate when it is useful, but Quebec does not need a federal arbiter, a national framework, a new bureaucracy or a new structure. This bill does not address the labour shortage. If anything, it addresses Ottawa's need to always be involved. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-266 in recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction over its workers and its labour market. (1805) [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to private member's bill, Bill C-266, brought forward by the member for Richmond East—Steveston. It is quite encouraging to see a member of Parliament recognize an issue that has been around for many years. I am not too sure which individuals he consulted in regard to bringing this bill forward. I have been looking at this particular issue for a number of years. The whole idea of labour mobility, recognizing skills and so forth, is the right thing to do, especially at this time. I thank the member for bringing forward such wonderful legislation. I am not sure what the Conservatives are going to do. I think they will be somewhat grudgingly supportive of it. I am a little disappointed in the Bloc. Quebec does a lot of wonderful things. Some provinces do a better job of recognizing skills than other provinces. In many ways, Quebec leads the way. I do not question that. However, what is being proposed here does not take away from Quebec at all. This is something we should be looking at in a very serious way. In fact, if we go back to the last federal election, we will find that Canadians were genuinely concerned with the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. They were very concerned. The Prime Minister and candidates talked about how we could build one economy. Before us today, we have an actual piece of legislation that adds to the value of building one Canadian economy. Obviously the member is listening his constituents, because this is a reflection of what we heard in virtually every region of our nation, recognizing that Canada can do so much more if we invest in Canadians. The advice of some is that this is provincial jurisdiction and the federal government does not have a role to play. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I was a representative in the Manitoba legislature for almost 20 years, back in the late eighties, the nineties and at the turn of the century, and credentials and recognizing skill sets were of the utmost importance. That was back then. That is taken out of the context of where we find ourselves today. Individuals acquire skill sets in one jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions or provinces, especially when we factor in indigenous communities as this legislation does, recognize the value of enabling some sort of a national framework. We are probably talking about 300‑plus positions, employing millions of Canadians. Affording an opportunity through the establishment of a national framework would not have to take anything away from provinces. This is not about federal overreach. I would classify this as an opportunity to show that, as a national government, we can work collaboratively with provinces. A minister responsible for labour can look at the legislation, and if there is a need for some changes, then let us make the changes. However, the principle of the legislation is good. Let us see the list. Let us work with the different jurisdictions, whether it is the territories, provinces or indigenous communities, and see where we could actually help real people who have acquired skill sets that provide them the type of income they require to meet their personal needs or their family's needs. (1810) What I liked in the member's comments is that he made reference to having a national framework, and there is a time set for it. If we give this thing royal assent and the clock starts ticking, we will get something tangible back, and there is an obligation to collaborate and work with provinces. Obviously, the provinces have to play a critical role. Years ago, I was the education critic in the province of Manitoba. There are post-secondary facilities, secondary facilities, the private sector for people who are working already, unions and apprenticeship programs. I can tell members that the amount of effort, energy and investment put into the system in one way or another is significant. However, I like the idea of some form of national framework being established to reinforce just how important it is that we look at the issue of mobility. We can look at the discussion we are already having. In good part, some premiers are advancing it more than others, recognizing, as we talk about building the one Canada economy, that our constituents do not say, “Well, this is provincial and this is federal.” They want politicians of different political stripes and different levels of government to act where we can, and that is what this legislation would do. It would provide direct action. It does not just say, “Okay, we want the framework a year from now, and then everything sets and that is it.” There would be reporting back to Parliament to ensure that we are making some progress on the issue. There would be an opportunity for review. These are the types of built-in measures from within, and based on the comments from the member for Richmond East—Steveston, they are there so that we can feel assured over the coming years that in fact we are moving forward and that it is tracked in a very serious way. The member provided me with some quotes, and I was impressed. I know BCIT is a very important institution to my colleague. Here is what Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, the president of BCIT, had to say: Canada’s future prosperity is being shaped by large-scale priorities that rely heavily on a strong trades workforce. Whether it be building affordable and climate-resilient housing or infrastructure to strengthen national security, these national priorities all require a job-ready and adaptable trades workforce. For decades, [BCIT along with other colleges and polytechnics across Canada] have powered this progress—producing job-ready graduates and bridging academia, industry and government. When we work together, we don’t just respond to change, we drive it. This is coming from one of Canada's premier institutions, and that is why I say it is more than just one level of government. We have stakeholders who have a lot to contribute to the potential of having a national framework. I disagree with the member opposite when he talks about how the government has diminished it. We have invested. In Red River College alone, there are a number of projects with millions of dollars to enhance skill opportunities and work directly with apprenticeship programs and unions. Collectively, we can make a difference. We can build a stronger, healthier economy if we are prepared to work more collaboratively with provinces and other stakeholders and recognize the lead role that provinces in particular have to play, along with indigenous communities. (1815) [Expand] Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this private member's bill debate around the national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility act coming from the member for Richmond East—Steveston. He made some interesting comments in his speech that I would like to address. He talked about there not being so many people leaving our country and going to the United States, which is blatantly untrue. I wondered what the numbers actually were for emigration from Canada to the United States over the last couple of years. I went to StatsCan, and it said that 120,000 people left Canada in 2025, with 2026 data suggesting this trend is persistent and largely driven by economic factors and high-skilled professionals moving south. On the key trends in rising migration, the number of Canadians leaving for the U.S.A. in 2025 grew by roughly 3% over 2024, marking four consecutive years of growth, according to StatsCan. This is where it gets scary and this is why we need to do more for our young people in Canada. Over half of these emigrants are prime-aged workers between 25 to 49, with professionals like engineers and scientists leaving at twice the rate of others. The U.S.A. remains the primary destination for Canadians relocating abroad. I think this hits at the heart of the problem when we talk about frameworks and ideas around what we can do to grow the Canadian economy. The Liberals talked about the one Canadian economy and made promises that we would have fewer interprovincial trade barriers by July 2025. Not much has happened on that front. My concern is they are not realizing there is a problem. There is a big problem with Canada losing its young, skilled workers. It is something we have to take very seriously. My fear, and this came out of the Liberal National Convention, is that to make sure young people do not leave Canada, the Liberals want to charge them $500,000 to leave Canada. How asinine is that? It is not about trying to make sure the economy is strong enough that young people want to stay, but trying to charge them a huge fee so they will not leave. A couple of the Liberals across the way are shaking their head. This was on the convention floor. They had a speaker come in who said that they should charge young people $500,000 so they do not leave this country. I would suggest maybe taking a bigger look at what has happened over the last 11 years in our country with these Liberals in charge. They put forward legislation and policies that basically killed our natural resource sector. There was the “no more pipelines" bill and the shipping ban on B.C. Then they were looking at other things like steel tariffs. Last year, the Liberals campaigned and won the election on having the guy who could get a deal done with Donald Trump. He has been an abject failure on that front. Canadians can see now that the Prime Minister is just an illusionist. It is all smoke and mirrors; he never gets the job done. The Liberals have not really managed to get one trade deal done in the year that he has been Prime Minister, and he has failed when it comes to dealing with Donald Trump. I met with steel workers of USW 5890 from Regina today. One of their biggest concerns is making sure they have enough money through the labour market development agreement to ensure they can get additional training. They are scared those jobs are not going to be in Canada anymore. When we look at a steel plant like Everest Steel, it is a natural resource company. If there are not natural resources being developed, pipelines are not needed. The Liberal government has failed on every front when it comes to getting something built in this country. Basically, we have not had a large project in a long time. They talk about the Darlington nuclear plant. That has been going on for 10 years. Their Major Projects Office has not announced one new project. There have only been reannoucements. When we look at why young people are leaving our country in droves, it is because they do not see a future. They do not believe they are ever going to be able to afford a house, because housing prices have skyrocketed. They do not believe there will be a job waiting for them after they get their education. That is why we have the big brain drain, as Statistics Canada has said. (1820) Can members believe that we are losing 120,000 people a year to the United States? Our country has all of the riches and all of the resources, and we cannot create an economy, because of the Liberals, that is an economic reason for people to stay in our country. That is something that lies completely at the feet of the Liberal government. We talk about having to do frameworks. I am lucky the member for Winnipeg North talked about being in the provincial government. I was in the provincial government with former premier Brad Wall. We brought forward the New West Partnership, an agreement that allows people more mobility when it comes to trade, so they can go between Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. When the member said it was largely a provincial issue, he was right, but there should be leadership from the federal government when it comes to that. The Liberals always make these grandiose announcements, but they never follow through. That would be my one concern about this. There are timelines in here, but will the Liberals make the timelines? The timelines do not seem to matter to the Prime Minister. He is just another Liberal. The Prime Minister promised to have a deal done with Donald Trump. He promised to have a deal done by July 21, 2025. He made it a specific date. These are not my words that I am trying to hold him accountable to. He should be held accountable to his own words and his own standards. I think this was coined by the member for Winnipeg North, but the three Ts are tariffs, Trump and trade. On those files, there are three Fs. The Prime Minister has failed, failed and failed when it comes to trying to make deals and getting the tariffs removed. The steel tariffs are a very big deal in Saskatchewan. There is a lot of concern from the people who work at Interpro, which used to be Evraz. It was bought, so it is a new company. There is concern because there is uncertainty about how it is going to be able to do trade. There is a plant in Portland, so some stuff is going back and forth, but there is a fear right now about whether there will be more projects that use steel. For example, what projects are going to move forward that use Canadian steel? That is the other fear. In some of the projects that have gone forward, imported steel is being used, not good, made-in-Canada steel. That is another thing that was brought up to me in our meeting today. Lots of our skilled workers and tradespeople are younger people, and they need to have a vision of Canada in which they can see themselves living in this country. They want to have affordable housing. They want to have streets with less crime. They want to be able to buy a house and start a family. In another statistics report, we read that people are delaying having kids longer because they think that they cannot afford to have children in this current climate. We have the slowest growing economy in the G7. We have the highest food inflation in the G7. That is a made-in-Canada problem. The Liberals have tried to blame everything on others. My colleague from northern Saskatchewan, for some reason, asked if the Conservatives could stop a war in Libya. I think he got his countries wrong, and the guy gets a lot of things wrong, but what he can do is try to be someone who actually supports Saskatchewan and tries to get things done for Saskatchewan. When we are talking on the floor of the House of Commons, the Liberals need to look at the root causes of why young people are leaving our country, and we need to make Canada a place where people see themselves being able to have a good job and raise a family in a home on safe streets. That is why people are choosing to leave this country. It is all because of the policies being driven by this long-serving, 11-year-old Liberal government. There is nothing new about the Liberals from the last election a year ago. It is all the same policies. It is many of the same faces in the same places. They changed the guy at the top, who is very similar to Justin Trudeau in many ways. It is funny that no one mentions Justin Trudeau anymore. They seem to have amnesia when it comes to Justin Trudeau. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal like Trudeau, and his policies are causing young people to leave our country. As the Conservative Party, we have put forward ideas and policies to grow the economy so that young people stay and see a future in Canada. We will continue to put forward ideas that grow our economy and make Canada the best place in the world to live, raise a family and get ahead. (1825) [Translation ]

[Expand] Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I worked for decades for labour market partners, including the youth employment centres that we have in Quebec, and I learned one thing: Employment insurance benefits were the only benefits that had not yet been transferred for Quebec to manage. Unfortunately, it did not happen. Right up until 2017, there were prior learning recognition agreements in place to allow educational institutions and businesses, among others, to work together on round tables to ensure that specific skilled trade qualifications were aligned with the labour market. It started in 1997, and by 2017, progress was still being made on issuing credentials in each province, and it was up to them to make improvements if they had difficulty in managing things, but what we are seeing today is a step backward. Earlier, I asked if the government was looking for more work, but I will go even further than that. The government wants to interfere. It wants to be the overseer even though the provinces have what it takes. Do not tell me that a cross-jurisdictional approach is what will help specialized workers in their respective fields. I would really like Quebec and the other provinces to have their own lists, and I know it is working very well in Quebec. They are even asking for more. They want the money for EI benefits to be managed properly by experts in the field, like professional development and, of course, education are. If not, I will go work at Quebec's National Assembly managing specialized trades. (1830) [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Adjournment Proceedings

[Adjournment Proceedings]

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved. [English ]

The Economy

[Expand] Jonathan Rowe (Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, CPC): Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today and to represent the members of Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. I asked a question in the House about affordability. It seems that I come into the House and ask a lot of questions about affordability, oil and gas, and a lot of other issues, and the Minister for Fisheries seems to be the one to answer, so I was surprised she is not answering the questions I have tonight. I guess I will pose them to the parliamentary secretary. My question was about affordability. I was very disappointed that the Liberal government, including the four Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador, turned down my private member's bill to allow Newfoundlanders to fish seven days a week. It was very surprising and disappointing, because the proposed policy was not blue or red, Conservative or Liberal, but a policy for Newfoundland and Labrador. The situation in Newfoundland and Labrador is that our recreational food fishery is not just for recreation. We do not all go out just for the sport of it, although many do. It actually feeds a lot of our families. It feeds a lot of our struggling seniors and a lot of our young people. People with big families go out to participate in it. Right now, a lot of the time, because of safety issues due to wind, people with small boats such as 17-foot ones struggle to go out. It is hard to find nice days to go out to get fish when the wind is blowing, because our season is open only three days a week: Saturday, Sunday and Monday. It is very challenging to find good weather to get out to get the fish. What is frustrating to Newfoundlanders is that people in other parts of Atlantic Canada are allowed to fish cod seven days a week. We have the same limit of five fish a day, but they are allowed to get fish seven days a week. What Newfoundlanders want is fairness. In achieving that fairness, we would actually to be able to achieve affordability for the Newfoundland and Labrador folks who want to lower their grocery bills. What is interesting is that the Liberals voted against my bill because they said it would introduce new fees. I do not understand why they said the monitoring system would require tags, so I want to read part of my bill into the record. It states: Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must, in consultation with key stakeholders, develop a monitoring system to record, by species, the number of fish that are caught, as well as the time at which and place where they are caught. The minister had the choice to make a monitoring system, and she could have made it the way she wanted. The bill did not say “tags”. It never implied tags. What I had in mind, if the Liberals had listened to my speeches or brought this to committee, was to have it be very similar to a moose hunting licence. A person would fill out an application, voluntarily showing where and when they caught the fish. The Liberals also said that the new bill would impose new fees. I just want to read this: In developing the monitoring system, the Minister must (a) take into consideration existing models and best practices across Canada; (b) examine the possibility of covering the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act; It would not introduce new fees but actually use the fees and penalties under the Fisheries Act that are currently there. It was very frustrating to hear these excuses. I am not sure why the Liberals were telling constituents and other people in Newfoundland and Labrador this. I do not know if it was because they were intentionally trying to deceive or if they just used AI in an attempt to find some excuses to convince the public that the bill was a bad one. I wonder why we cannot at least work together. Why did the bill not get sent to committee? Why could we not work together on the bill with respect to affordability? My final question is this: This summer, will the government open up the fisheries seven days a week so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can have fish in their freezer? (1835) [Expand] Ernie Klassen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can clarify something for my colleague across the floor. The private member's bill referenced by the member was reckless and would have threatened the livelihoods of harvesters, plant workers and their families, and communities right across Atlantic Canada. Do not just take it from me. Both the FFAW and ASP shared their concern with the member's scheme. For those listening at home in the member's own province, the inshore fleet, the offshore fleet, processors and ENGOs were all against his proposal and have all stated it was a bill to change science and not to fish seven days a week. He ignored science, consultation and the thousands of people, including those in his own province, who depend on the fishery. To hear from the people, the Minister of Fisheries launched the food fisheries survey, to which more than 9,500 people responded. It was the highest level of participation ever for a DFO survey. That is real consultation. Tomorrow, the minister will be meeting with recreational fishers, the province, the FFAW and ASP to hear their thoughts on the future of the food fishery. We want to get this right. Our government recently published the food fishery “What We Heard Report”, and I recommend the member read it to see what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to see in the food fishery. The member opposite proposed an entirely new monitoring system just for recreational fishers and would have forced Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to record their catch. How did the member want to offset those new administrative and red-tape costs? It was fees on the fishers themselves. That is not true representation. He proposed to have the government cover “the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act”. That would have meant licence fees and nobody wants those. The member proposed a new system that would have told Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that they cannot catch cod like they have for their entire lives and it would have only made the fishery worse. Our government understands that the food fishery is culturally important. The member opposite talks about affordability, but he would have put a Conservative tax on those who fish to feed themselves and their families, as they have done for generations. This past year, the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador had no licence requirement, no licence fee and no reporting requirement. The idea was was just to follow the rules, be safe and fish for food. Under the member's Conservative tax on food system, food fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador would have been forced to have a mandatory licence, pay a fee to cover additional new red tape and report every fish they caught through a new system that would also cost them money to use. While our new government is providing tax relief to millions of Canadians and working to build a stronger economy, the member has been playing short-sighted political games that threaten the economy for everyone in Atlantic Canada and would have made Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for the food fishery. Our government is working on behalf of all Canadians to truly make life more affordable for everyone. [Expand] Jonathan Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I guess I know why the parliamentary secretary was the one reading the answer, because I do not think any Newfoundlander would be brave enough to read that and then go home and face their constituents. It almost seems like the member completely ignored what I just said about my bill not introducing new fees. It is right here. It says the minister must “examine the possibility”. It was even in the minister's hands. I put that in there. It is so frustrating. We talk about consultation. Poor old Uncle Joe and his little fish hooks are going to ruin the whole fishery. There are 2,500 tonnes that come out of the recreational food fishery and over 40,000 tonnes from the fishery. More fish are dying due to natural causes. One seal eats three tonnes. Way more fish are being eaten by seals, and that problem is something that the Liberal Party refuses to even talk about, let alone handle. It is so frustrating. I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary even went to Newfoundland and asked someone involved in the recreational food fishery on a wharf outside of St. John's what they wanted to do. [Expand] Ernie Klassen: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the member is forgetting what his bill actually called for. It is a tax on food for people in his province. It did not say anything about fishing seven days a week, but it did call for new red tape and licence fees on food fishers. That is not what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want. He did not consult or listen to fishers. He put forward a proposal that threatened the entire commercial fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. That is tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. The Minister of Fisheries did a full survey to hear from the people in the province on what they want to see in the food fishery. Over 9,500 people completed the survey. Our government knows how much people in his province care about the food fishery. The member should read the “What We Heard Report” we recently published to see what real consultation looks like. He will find that his proposals for more red tape and licence fees are not popular with food fishers. (1840) The Economy

[Expand] Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber, and this evening I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow up on a question to the Minister of Agriculture from March 13, when I probed why the government is closing ag research stations. Over 20 ag organizations have written in to the AGRI committee in response to our study examining these closures. “Why?” is the question. We are coming up on one year since the last general election. As part of the preparation for our policy platforms for that election, meetings were held with all ag organizations, and there are an awful lot of ag organizations. We were after the priorities that were on the minds of those in the sector. Those ag organizations do not always agree, but they did agree on five priorities. The primary focus was to maintain, enhance and support funding for research and innovation. Time will not allow me this evening to expand into the other priorities, but I just want to list them: the harmonization of regulations and elimination of red tape; the elimination of the carbon tax; realigning the mandates of the CFIA and PMRA to include an economic lens to decision-making; and finally, ensuring continued access to labour. However, the primary ask was to keep a focus on research and innovation, on science. What did the government do? It just announced three agricultural research station closures and four site-specific field station closures. When I asked the minister why the government would do this when the sector has identified research as foundational to the food sector, I, surprisingly, did not get a defence. I got a confession. When those in the sector told us about their five priorities, we assumed they had also told the Liberal Party those same five priorities. The minister acknowledged the following in his response to me. He said public investment in ag R and D is down 15%. He acknowledged that private sector research at universities has plummeted 77% and that the number of enterprises doing research has shrunk by 30%. He is right about one thing. He concluded by saying we cannot keep going down this path, and he is absolutely right, but what he forgot to say is that it has been Liberal governments driving the ship for the last 11 years. He also acknowledged that academia and the private sector are not in the position, as is sometimes misstated at committee, to take over the shortfall on research. We need to put these cuts to agriculture research in some context. Over the past decade, the size of the federal bureaucracy has grown by 40%, but Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada by only 11%. The Prime Minister has charged many departments to cut their spending by 15% over the next three years, and we absolutely agree that the size of the federal government needs to shrink, but 15% cuts across all departments cut differently when a department has only grown by 11%. The reality is that with the previous cuts to ag, that sector is going to shrink by 27% while all other departments have gone up 40% and will then go down 15%. The minister was right that we should not go down the path that the government is contemplating with these closures. Science should be supported. There are certainly other areas in the ag portfolio where we could help them identify savings. We would be only too happy to help with that. We are talking about the renewal of the five-year ag policy framework right now. I will go back to those ag station closures. The witnesses at committee were critical of both the process and the outcome of the decisions. This needs to be reversed. (1845) [Expand] Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague. The agricultural sector is an incredibly important sector in Canada. I think the minister had explained in that answer why that decision was made. I am pleased to hear, in terms of the five priorities he outlined, that the consumer carbon tax was eliminated as one of the very first acts of this government. As we know, the global economy is more than a year into a profound rupture, with economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition increasingly shaping economic, financial and supply chain decisions. In addition, heightened geopolitical tensions, including recent events in the Middle East that disrupted global energy markets and shipping routes, have further underscored the fragility of global supply chains and are now contributing to elevated uncertainty. We, as a government, have been relentlessly focused on bringing down costs for Canadians, because when Canadians keep more of the money they earn, they can better support their families, invest in their communities and build the future they want. Of course, that includes Canadians in all industries, including the agricultural one. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax, after the government announced lowering the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. We, as a House and Senate, adopted that as our very first law. The rate reduction applies to taxable incomes of up to $58,523 in 2026. This change ensures that nearly 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 this year. Notably, most of the tax relief will go to Canadians with incomes in the two lowest tax brackets. Canada's new government is also using the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective April 20, until August 31, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief. The temporary suspension of the excise tax for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. To make everyday essentials like groceries more affordable, we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the GST credit and will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians. We are providing a one-time payment equivalent to a 50% increase in the 2025-26 value of the GST credit, which will be delivered on June 5, and we are increasing the benefit by 25% for five years, beginning in July 2026. We are also setting aside $500 million from the strategic response fund to help businesses address the cost of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians at the checkout line. We are creating a $150-million food security fund under the existing regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises and the organizations that support them. [Expand] Dave Epp: Mr. Speaker, at least the minister addressed my question. The response we just heard, actually, is typical and it exemplifies the government's approach to agriculture. I recently participated in a poll from a national polling firm, answering the question of how I felt the government values agriculture and the agri-food sector. Here is how I responded. The sector provides $150 billion in GDP. It is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada, larger than auto and mining combined, and it provides for one in nine jobs in Canada. Let us look at the federal budget, $498 billion. Call it $500 billion. Strip away those nine zeros and just think about the number 500. The federal budget investment in AAFC is $3.6 billion. If we get rid of the nine zeros, that's 3.6. That is less than 2%. That is how much the government values agriculture, less than 2% investment in the largest manufacturing sector in this country. [Expand] Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully disagree with my colleague. Not only does this government value agriculture and the incredible role that farmers play and that other people involved in the agricultural sector play across the country, but we have continued to engage with the industry to ensure that we best respond to the needs that it faces, given the very challenging circumstances that we face right now in the world. We will continue to do that, and I will undertake to work with that member and to work with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary, to make sure that the member's views are considered in the larger lens of our agricultural policy. Employment

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is losing jobs at rates not seen in a generation, and it is the next generation that is bearing the brunt of these job losses. The Conservatives have been sharply and pointedly highlighting this problem, and we have been offering constructive solutions to the government that would make a difference. Sadly, the government has chosen to ignore these constructive solutions. In many respects, it has actually moved in the opposite direction in ways that have made, and will continue to make, the problem worse. We follow these monthly updates from Statistics Canada that show us how the job market is doing. The February results of the labour force survey were particularly dire, showing that over 100,000 full-time jobs were lost in one month alone, with close to 50,000 youth jobs lost in that month. In the next round of data that came out after March, we saw a continuation of that situation with the persistence of this youth unemployment crisis. The unemployment numbers are bad, but so are the workforce participation numbers. Unemployment measures the percentage of youth in the workforce who are not employed. Labour force participation identifies the number of youth who are in the workforce. What we are seeing, in addition to high unemployment, is that many young people are giving up, with lower workforce participation rates in general among youth. This is driven by this frustration about how challenging it is for young people to get jobs that will allow them to get ahead. This is a grave and serious problem that can not be explained away by external events, as the government tries to do. When we highlighted the February workforce numbers, the government tried to blame the war in Iran, even though the war in Iran had not started at the time that data was collected. Moreover, what we normally see in youth unemployment figures is that there is a certain natural relationship between youth unemployment and overall unemployment. It is usually a bit higher. However, we are seeing a widening of that gap. Youth unemployment relative to overall unemployment is very high, which suggests that there are particular factors unique to our own circumstances that are contributing to a widening of that gap. The constructive solutions we have proposed are in four areas. First is unleashing the economy, removing barriers that have limited economic growth. Young people are often last in and first out. If a company's owners are optimistic about its future, they will be able to hire more young people and they will take on summer students and this sort of thing. However, for company owners who are more pessimistic about their future and are in the process of downsizing, it is likely not going to be their long-tenured, experienced employees who are let go first; it is going to be those young people who have just started. The second area is fixing immigration. We have seen how a failure of immigration policy has exacerbated the competition for entry-level positions, and we need to change that. Third, we have talked about fixing the training. That means supporting young people to acquire skills that are required for the Canadian economy. We must train Canadian workers for Canadian jobs. Sadly, the Liberals are moving in the opposite direction by attacking students, particularly those who attend vocational institutions and particularly students in the trades. Finally, we have proposed policies to support labour mobility, to help young people move to places where the jobs are. These are constructive solutions that we have put forward. Unfortunately, the government has chosen not to adopt them and so we see the continuing worsening of this youth unemployment crisis. What is it going to take for the government to listen to what we have proposed, for it to take good ideas in the spirit that they have been presented and actually propose a plan to fix this problem? (1850) [Expand] Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not share the pessimistic outlook of my colleague on this issue or others. I do believe that we want to make sure every young person in this country has the chance to find gainful employment, because young people are the drivers of Canada's future economic growth, and everybody has a right to live in this country with opportunities. I want to talk about some of the opportunities that we are providing right now. For example, a career often starts with a summer job. Since 2019, the Canada summer jobs program has helped more than 600,000 young people find a summer job. Over 75,000 of those jobs were created last year, and up to 100,000 opportunities will be available for young people this summer. All told, we are supporting over 175,000 opportunities for youth and students this year under the student work placement program and the youth employment and skills strategy, which includes Canada summer jobs. We need to make sure we support young people getting into our skilled trades. I was the parliamentary secretary for labour a few years ago, and one of the most important things we all know is that we need to build more homes and build more transmission lines to power AI. We will be building ports, rail and pipelines to move critical minerals. We cannot do that if we do not have electricians, carpenters, plumbers and bricklayers. We also need millwrights and many more tradespeople, and we need them right now. This is where an enormous opportunity lies for many young Canadians. We are investing nearly $1 billion annually in apprenticeship support through loans, tax credits, employment insurance benefits during in-school training, project funding and support for the Red Seal Program. In November, when we presented budget 2025, we updated the government's plan to make a generational investment in young Canadians, prepare them for good jobs and renew Canada's workforce. To train the newest generation of Canadian builders, budget 2025 expanded the union training and innovation program with $75 million over three years. This will boost union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades and make sure there are Canadian workers to help build major infrastructure and millions more homes across the country. Since 2017, the union training and innovation program has invested $278 million to modernize training equipment, strengthen union training centres across the country and support skilled trades training opportunities for more than 173,800 individuals. This is a critical time, but Canadians are meeting this moment with strength and conviction, and the Government of Canada is looking right now to help Canadians unlock Canada's economic potential. Through 2033, over eight million jobs will become available in Canada, and we are taking action to make sure that people get these jobs and that young people are prepared to meet the demand. (1855) [Expand] Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary wrongly described my outlook as “pessimistic”. I want to say that I am incredibly optimistic about the potential of young people, about what is possible in this country if policy changes are made, and about our potential to shape our own reality if we make different choices as leaders. I am also capable of reading Statistics Canada reports about unemployment. It is not a question of opinion; it is a question of fact, from objective reports, that labour force participation is way down among young people and unemployment is way up. The good news is that we can change this reality if we change policies that have targeted tradespeople for defunding, through changes to the student loan program, and change policies around immigration and in other areas. Why will the government not change policies so young people can get back to work? [Expand] Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, I think that the new government has changed many policies, starting with eliminating the consumer carbon tax, which is one of the things the member asked for; building projects across this country; unleashing our potential; and removing economic barriers between provinces. The government is actually constantly listening, looking, and seeking new information and ideas, including ones that come from the other side of the House. Therefore, we are in agreement. We want young people to have opportunity. We think the plan that we started with in budget 2025 is working and is going to continue to work. Let us try to work together to make sure our young people have those opportunities. [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.) Hansard - 109 (April 23, 2026) Explore By: Table of Contents
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )