Parliamentary Debates Hansard, 45th Parliament, Session 107

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 21, 2026
- Order Paper and Notice Paper
- Journals
- Debates (Hansard)
Status of House Business User Guide XML PDF

45th PARLIAMENT,

1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • No. 107

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

House of Commons Debates Volume 152 No. 107 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

(1000) [English ]

Canadian Space Launch Act

[Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other Acts. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House

Procedure and House Affairs

[Expand] Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I move that the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in. [Expand] The Speaker: All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Wednesday, March 11, be concurred in. I will be sharing my time. We in the opposition have been persistently fighting for the government and for Parliament to confront the metastasizing youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment has continued to grow in this country, and many young people are losing hope that they will be able to get a job that allows them to afford a home and to provide for themselves and their family. We have been working hard to present constructive proposals that would give young people jobs, homes and hope. How do we address the youth unemployment crisis? Conservatives put forward a plan in the fall that has a number of key points in it: unleashing the economy; addressing the regulatory and taxation barriers that make it harder to start and grow a business in this country; fixing immigration, addressing the significant problems in the immigration system that have grown up under this government; fixing training; and building homes where the jobs are. Today we are putting forward a motion that focuses specifically on the issue of training, because at a time when there is very high youth unemployment, there are also critical shortages in certain occupations. We have not attended enough in the last 10 years to the need to train Canadian young people for the jobs that exist in this country. Businesses struggle to find people who can fill certain skill gaps. Meanwhile, many young people remain unemployed, so we need policies that zero in on this need to fix training, to train young people for the jobs that exist. One of the problems in this regard has been what we have been calling profession prejudice, the idea that there are certain good jobs in this country, jobs that are in demand and that pay well and provide good opportunities, that are nonetheless scorned by certain elites for kind of prejudicial reasons. There are certain careers that, sadly, for too long, people in elite positions of power have for whatever reason considered less important or less valuable. Paradoxically, some of these are careers where a person can earn much more than in the kinds of careers that are more highly esteemed by elites. Conservatives have been challenging this idea of profession prejudice, highlighting the fact that all work has dignity, that the dignity of the work comes from the human dignity of the person who is doing that work, and encouraging young people to look past the elite-driven profession prejudice that sometimes gets in the way of people choosing careers that they would actually like and that actually fit with the needs of the place they are in and of the country as a whole. As we have been making this case, we have been deeply disappointed to see in the last Liberal budget a policy that actually makes matters worse, a policy that I think reflects profession prejudice on the part of the government and that will widen the gap between the jobs that require Canadian young people and the training people are actually receiving. This policy was on page 217 of the last federal budget. The policy says that students studying at private, for-profit institutions would no longer be eligible for student grants. The policy going forward is to completely cut these students off from student grants, to say that if they do any studies at a university, no matter how job-relevant they are or are not, they can get a student grant, but if someone studies at a vocational institution, they will not have access to student grants. Vocational institutions in this country are generally organized as private, for-profit institutions. It is a distinction that is not based on the labour market relevance of the qualifications. It is a distinction that is based solely on the ideological filter that the government brings, which I think is rooted in professional prejudice. I think the important thing to understand is that this debate is not about whether people like the model of private, for-profit; private, not-for-profit; or public institutions at the post-secondary level. It just happens that within our system, there are certain kinds of careers for which the training is available at a certain kind of institution. If someone wants to study philosophy, as I did, they are are not going to find that at a private, for-profit institution. Likely they are going to find it at a university. However, if someone is going to study traditional Chinese medicine or study massage, they are likely not going to find those qualifications available at a university. They are going to have to choose to study at a vocational institution. (1005) That is how our system is structured. The government might not like that, but the way the system works is that private vocational institutions are offering all kinds of skills training that is simply not available in the public system. In some cases, there are programs available in both public institutions and private institutions, but there is not sufficient capacity in the public institutions to address the need, so the difference is made up in private institutions. An example we heard about at committee is dental hygienists. There is a real demand for dental hygienists in this country. It is a good career, an in-demand career and a career that we need to be training Canadian young people for. Some students study at public institutions, but most who take the exam and who go on to pursue this career are coming out of the path of private institutions. For the government to say to these students, who are trying to get the qualifications to fill in-demand careers, that they are no longer eligible for student grants is completely unfair to them. It is unfair to discriminate in this way. It also has the effect of steering young people toward career paths that do not actually align with the needs of the labour market. The message to young people is that if they study very practical vocational skills, no grants will be available to them, but that if they study a general undergraduate degree, grants are available to them. This message creates an incentive structure that pushes young people who are making these decisions at the margin to consider a career that leads them to access student grants, yes, but may not or does not actually align with the needs of the labour market. We have really tried to understand why the government is doing this. Why is it cutting off students at vocational institutions from getting student grants? We have not received any clear or credible explanation, except that the minister said at one time that they think public dollars should follow public institutions. I am sorry, but the government is not planning to offer these kinds of programs at public institutions. If there is not going to be a worsening of existing shortages in the skilled trades for certain health care professions and in various other areas, then those grants need to remain in place, and we need to further valorize and affirm the value of these careers. The only explanation I can think of for the actions of the government is that it comes out of an elitist ivory tower preferencing of certain kinds of professions over others: profession prejudice. As we have tried to challenge this issue, we put forward a motion that actually received unanimous support at the human resources committee to ask the government to reconsider this policy. This was a big step, and I congratulate the Liberal members of the human resources committee for joining with Conservatives and the Bloc to unanimously pass the motion asking the government to reconsider this bad policy. I hope they will stand by the votes they made at committee and vote for the concurrence motion. I also want to recognize that before he crossed the floor, the member for Markham—Unionville was a big part of the effort to challenge this policy. He helped organize events within the Chinese community with me, calling the policy discriminatory. He pointed out that the Chinese community is particularly disadvantaged by it because the traditional Chinese medicine programs that many rely on are not offered at public institutions. I hope the member for Markham—Unionville will stand by the activism he did. I want to thank him for working with me at that time, and I want to encourage him to stand by what he did and what he said at the time, and to vote for the motion. Finally, I want to highlight the fact that Conservatives proposed policy to actually go in the opposite direction. That is, we proposed policy that student grants should magnify the needs of the labour market, that we should offer relatively more generous grants to students studying for in-demand careers. That would have made sense, rather than the profession prejudice, the discriminatory policies, of the government, to quote the member for Markham—Unionville. The motion provides the government with the opportunity to do the right thing: to vote with us and to vote with their members on the human resources committee to reverse the policy. We are going to have a vote on this today. Liberal members seated here and elsewhere have a chance to do the right thing: to vote with us to call on their government to reverse this policy so we can get back to training Canadian young people for the Canadian jobs that exist and so we can address the gaps that exist. (1010) [Expand] Carol Anstey (Long Range Mountains, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak to the ecosystem that is currently created between public and private institutions that collaboratively work together to address the labour market shortages. Is this something that he would like to expand on, with respect to this recommendation? [Expand] Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has been advocating on behalf of institutions in her riding, and I suspect we will be hearing a little more about the points she made in the speech coming up. A key thing to realize is that there is no antagonism. There does not need to be any antagonism between different kinds of institutions. For some young people, university is the right path. For some young people, vocational institutions are the right path. There is a range of different ways people can gather qualifications. It depends on the path they are pursuing. What I encourage young people to do is to study the options; start early, thinking about what they want to do; ignore the elite-profession prejudice that we sometimes see; pick the career that is right for them; and start gaining those practical skills early. Different kinds of institutions offer different kinds of programs, and we should not be discriminating against some students compared to others, especially when they are pursuing skills for in-demand jobs. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unfortunate, and I will get the opportunity to expand on it, that the member opposite in the Conservative Party is playing mischief politics. We were supposed to be looking at our Parliamentary Budget Officer today and having that debate. The Conservatives talk about the importance of having the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and then we see the hypocrisy on the floor today. It is not to take away from the importance of young people in Canada. This government is focused on giving attention to the young people of Canada. What is the Conservative Party's position on the Parliamentary Budget Officer? Do Conservatives support the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or are they opposed to her being appointed? (1015) [Expand] Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the government fired the last Parliamentary Budget Officer. It was a Conservative government that created the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the first place. Further, this motion of mine was put on notice long before the Liberals' motion was put on notice. Procedurally, the motions that are put on notice earlier are the ones that take precedence. The government had very advanced notice of this motion, and the fact that my motion was the one the Speaker called reflects that procedural reality. I look forward to the debate and to how the member is going to vote. Is he going to vote with the Liberals on the human resources committee; is he going to stand with the member for Markham—Unionville, who called the current Liberal policy discriminatory; or are the Liberals going to reverse themselves and vote to defend their discriminatory budget policy? We will see how they vote after question period. [Expand] Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would talk about this idea of “Don't worry about it. Students can still access loans. They just don't qualify for grants.” Could he give me a bit of a thought on that? [Expand] Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the real issue we are zeroing in on here is the discrimination. If we say there are grants available at these kinds of institutions but not at these other kinds of institutions, what message does that send to a young person who wants to work in the trades or in certain medical professions where the training is provided at private institutions? If we say they are going to get a grant if they go here but not if they go there, that sends a message about how the government perceives the value and dignity of those professions. I will note that I have seen a number of Liberals make statements denouncing the Government of Ontario for cuts to student loans and grants. I do not live in Ontario, so I am not following that issue. I would encourage the Liberals to hold their own government to account. Their job is to focus primarily on what their own government is doing in terms of this discrimination, rather than trying to use their federal position to focus on a government at a different level. [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: We have time for a short question. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oshawa. [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this debate is very interesting. My daughter is in grade 10, and she is talking about what she wants to do. The policies that have been put forth by the Liberals are quite discriminatory. What is it telling our young people about what they choose to do with their lives? She is very confused. She thinks universities— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I did say “a short question.” The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has 20 seconds or less to answer. [Expand] Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, when I speak to young people, I always encourage them to look at the labour market and to look at where that overlapping space is between the thing they are interested in and the needs of the labour market. In the case of these vocational institutions, in many cases, there is a very tight alignment with the needs of the labour market. That is why this debate is so important. [Expand] Carol Anstey (Long Range Mountains, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the request that the government reconsider its policy on the distribution of student grants based on the type of regulated institution where students are studying and instead align with decisions about eligible institutions made by the provinces and territories. Student financial assistance for students from rural, remote and coastal communities, where access is limited and the cost of post-secondary education is often higher, is extremely important. For many Canadians, access to grants is what makes post-secondary education possible. It allows students to pursue training, build skills and contribute meaningfully to our economy. In addition, and most importantly, in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is an important component in helping us train and therefore retain our youth. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that public funds are used effectively and that student aid programs deliver strong outcomes. Any changes to student aid must consider how students are actually accessing education and training across the country, with an understanding of students from rural, remote and coastal communities like Long Range Mountains. This is where the current policy raises some important concerns. While we have much in common, regions across the country have unique profiles of challenges and strengths. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are current, pervasive and ongoing workforce shortages across industry sectors based in part on the retirement of the baby boomer generation. There are more people retiring from the workforce than there are people joining the workforce. Newfoundland and Labrador has a much higher percentage of its population that is older and a much lower percentage of its population that is younger relative to Canada overall and to the rest of Atlantic Canada. Not only must we train more people for ongoing operations and business succession plans, but we must also become more productive and more diversified in order to grow our economy. More broadly, there is the question of access and affordability. Many students who attend career colleges rely on these grants to finance their education. These programs are often more targeted and designed to lead directly to employment. They are particularly important for individuals looking to re-skill, enter the workforce quickly or pursue practical, in-demand careers. Removing grant eligibility for these career colleges will discourage enrolment, increase financial barriers and limit opportunities for lower- and middle-income Canadians who are seeking to improve their circumstances through education. In fact, I can speak personally to this. After completing a university undergraduate degree, I was not employable with that skill set in the community I lived in and grew up in. Accordingly, I went on to complete a paralegal certificate program at a private career college, Academy Canada in Corner Brook, that was not available through a traditional university pathway. It was a practical, career-focused program that allowed me to enter the workforce with the skills I needed to support my family. After completion, I was actually employed by my instructor in a small firm in the community I grew up in. It was a career I was interested in, and I knew there was a need. Therefore, I was able to transition out of the food and beverage industry into a career that I loved. Thereafter, it also created the strong legal knowledge that I needed for my longer career in real estate. These opportunities will become constrained, as many would not be able to attend career colleges with these programs without financial assistance. Again, this program was not offered in the public colleges or universities. Opportunities in more rural areas of the country can be limited, and it is important that we do not negatively impact those seeking to live, work and thrive at home. Limiting access to student grants for these institutions will disproportionately impact those communities where opportunities are already more difficult to access. These institutions are part of a broader, collaborative post-secondary system. They are regulated at the provincial level, are operated under established frameworks and work alongside public institutions to meet local labour market needs. (1020) I have heard directly from hard-working Canadians, students and stakeholders who are very concerned about the impact of this policy, including institutions like Academy Canada and Keyin College in Newfoundland and Labrador, which play an important role in training students for in-demand careers in the province. These institutions have indicated that hundreds of students in Newfoundland and Labrador alone could be affected, particularly in programs that are longer than one year. I would like to point out that they have strong institutional integrity, as they are regulated career colleges that support strong oversight, clear accountability and effective enforcement of existing legislation and policy directives. There is the broader question of workforce development. Canada is currently facing significant labour shortages in a number of sectors, including skilled trades, health care and applied professions. Career colleges play a vital and important role in addressing these shortages by providing targeted job-ready training aligned with local labour market needs. We should be encouraging participation in these programs. This policy risks the opposite. It will reduce enrolment in areas where demand for workers is already high. Over time, that will contribute to widening workforce gaps rather than closing them. Education is primarily a provincial responsibility. Provinces and territories determine which institutions are recognized and regulated within their jurisdictions. They oversee quality, accountability and outcomes. The recommendation in the report, that the federal government align with provincial and territorial decisions on eligible institutions, is appropriate. It reflects the reality that provinces and territories are best positioned to understand their own education systems and workforce needs. If the government's objective is to achieve cost savings, that objective should be pursued in a way that is equitable and proportionate right across the country. To simply shift the impact onto a specific group of students raises legitimate concerns about fairness and effectiveness. I want to acknowledge that the government has indicated there may be flexibility to consider exemptions on a case-by-case basis. While that may provide some relief, it would also introduce additional uncertainty and administrative complexity. Students and institutions benefit from clarity and predictability, particularly when making decisions about education and investment. A system based on exemptions does not provide a clear and equitable framework. The report before us calls for a reconsideration of how these changes are being applied and for an approach that aligns with provincial decisions and treats students equitably. These are reasonable recommendations that reflect the concerns raised by stakeholders across the country. Students pursuing practical job-ready careers are an essential part of Canada's future. They contribute to our economy, support our communities and help address some of the most pressing labour challenges we face. They should not be placed at a disadvantage because of the institution they choose to attend. Educational pathways are not one-size-fits-all. Whether a student chooses a university or a career-focused institution, they deserve to be treated fairly and supported equally. That is especially true for students in rural, coastal and remote regions, where access to education already comes with additional challenges. I want to conclude on this thought. One of the reasons I left the private sector to pursue a political career is that I wanted to influence policy that impacts the next generation and their ability to live, work and thrive in the communities they grew up in. Far too often, our young people leave their homes, their families and their neighbours to go to the mainland to pursue their education. The harsh reality is that in a lot of cases, they never come back. It is exactly these types of decisions from Ottawa that are contributing to our inability to educate and retain our youth in Newfoundland and Labrador. Finally, I will end with a quote from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Career Colleges, which sums it up best: “Newfoundland and Labrador has a strong, collaborative post-secondary ecosystem where regulated career colleges complement public colleges. We work with our regulators and student aid officials to ensure accountability in student financial assistance. “We communicate regularly with provincial government...and community groups to find and implement proactive workforce development solutions in partnerships with one another. To be clear, regulated career colleges provide an important service for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. “We understand and support the government's desire, but we believe eliminating the Canada student grant for learners in programs longer than one year at career colleges moves Canada and workforce development efforts in the wrong direction.” (1025) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to ask the member's colleague a question. It is disappointing that the Conservatives do not recognize the importance of Canada's independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. It would appear that they do not support her appointment, and that is why they have chosen to move a concurrence report today. It is a form of filibustering in order to prevent that discussion. Can the member express to Canadians through the House why the Conservative Party does not support the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer? [Expand] Carol Anstey: Mr. Speaker, this question was posed by the member previously and my colleague provided a procedural answer, which I thought satisfied the question. In addition to that, comments and statements like that are divisive to the Canadian people on prioritizing certain priorities. Essentially, he is saying that the concerns from coastal and rural communities about this very important issue are not as important as something that he might have on his agenda. I reject that. I think that is completely dismissing the concerns that I brought up in my speech for the last 10 minutes. (1030) [Expand] Helena Konanz (Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her really interesting speech that hit home. She mentioned this being an attack on rural Canada. Public universities and colleges are not located in small towns, but the private schools, private colleges and career colleges are filling that gap. We want our young people and older people to be able to work and go to school in their communities. For example, there is a lack of dental hygienists. I cannot see a dental hygienist for six to eight months in the interior of B.C. where I live because of a lack of hygienists. Can my colleague explain how this affects rural Canada more than any other place? [Expand] Carol Anstey: Mr. Speaker, I can speak to a specific example as well. In my riding specifically, students applying to be heavy-duty mechanics often try to enter programs and they are completely filled. The private institutions then look at the entire educational path ecosystem and decide which communities they would like to have their operations in. That complements the communities that have the needs and the workforce shortages. This is exactly the type of flexibility that places in rural Canada need in order to educate, train and put people to work so they can thrive in the communities that they love. [Expand] Chak Au (Richmond Centre—Marpole, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know that the justification given by the government is that there are bad apples among the private colleges. However, denying students who attend good private colleges for programs that could help them build their career in the future is denying them opportunities. Does my dear colleague agree that this policy would harm our young people? [Expand] Carol Anstey: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. I think it is divisive in nature. I hear all the time from people in my riding that they do not like the divisiveness that Canadians are experiencing right now. They do not like how one group is pitted against another, and this is the exact type of policy that creates this division in our communities and among Canadians. Again, we are trying to correct bad actors instead of dealing head-on with the situation that has been created. We are trying to fix a specific problem and we are inadvertently punishing a bunch of rural communities and rural Canadians in the process. This is not good policy, which is exactly why we put forward recommendations that the government reconsider. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have to rise today to speak to a motion brought forward by the Conservative Party, which is not to take away from the importance of young people in Canada. However, before I get into this, I think it is important to recognize the issues that young people face in Canada today. This Prime Minister, this government and all members of the Liberal caucus are keen to take necessary action to support our young people. I want to amplify that. Just yesterday, we had the summer youth program and job bank kickoff. This program is critically important to our nation. It has provided all forms of training in many different applications for future employment for young people. It has been there for generations. We have seen, at the very least, Liberal members of Parliament talk about the value of the program because of the different levels of skill sets that can be developed through those summer jobs. When the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table along with Stephen Harper, they cut that program. That is why it is somewhat interesting that we have the Conservatives pretending that this is the issue they are so concerned about and want to have that debate on today. Why did they not come up with the thought for an opposition day? Why did they not think about young people and provide a specific motion with respect to reinforcing programs like the summer youth program as opposed to playing a game with the young people of Canada by trying to say that they care about them and that this is the reason they are bringing forward this motion? I think that there are bad actors, as the previous speaker from the Conservative Party just said, and we will find a number of them within the Conservative caucus, led by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate, because there are some issues here that are real and tangible, which the government is focused on trying to elevate and give attention to, whether with respect to financial resources or other forms of resources. Prior to coming to the House today, I met some wonderful young entrepreneurs who told me about the entrepreneurship program for small businesses that the minister responsible for small business brought forward and how this government renewed the program for young entrepreneurs. Two outstanding indigenous individuals were taking advantage of a national program that is providing skill sets with respect to becoming entrepreneurs, providing mentorship and so forth. Less than an hour ago, I was standing in this very spot with those outstanding entrepreneurs. These are the types of programs that the government not only initiated but continues to support that were not there when the Conservative Party was in power. We understand the need for increasing skill sets. If we look at some of the numbers, there was just under $600 million designated for Employment and Social Development Canada. I will go a bit more in depth on these issues, but first I want to deal with the motivation of what we are seeing here today. (1035) Yesterday afternoon I gave the opposition a compliment, and it was a little too premature, obviously. I said I was encouraged that they were actually allowing a piece of legislation go to committee, Bill C-22, on lawful access. We have been debating lawful access since June of last year, shortly after Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. They finally allowed it to go to committee. First it came forward in the form of Bill C-2. The Conservatives made it known that there was no way they would allow Bill C-2 to pass, so we had to break it into a couple of bills. Bill C-22 was one of those bills. After hours of debate, they finally allowed it go to committee, and I gave them a compliment. What a mistake; I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I said it was nice to see that they were finally allowing something to go through, because the Conservatives were being a little sensitive when I was accusing them of filibustering yesterday morning. Fast-forward to less than 24 hours later, and we are actually supposed to be having a vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would think that the Conservatives would want that to take place. It was disappointing after we heard the Conservatives yelping from their seats last fall that we needed to appoint a permanent Parliamentary Budget Officer. Then when it came time to actually do something and to take some action, what did they do? We can talk about an irresponsible opposition. Once again, we have witnessed it first-hand. I started my comments off by talking about young people, to make it very clear that, whether it is the Prime Minister or any Liberal member of Parliament, we are focused on young people and enhancing their skill sets where we can. However, at the end of the day, we are also very concerned about the tactics that the Conservative Party is using. Yesterday, we made it very clear, and the opposition knew, that the government wanted to have Motion No. 359 debated and voted on. We wanted to deal with the issue of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Annette Ryan. What is causing the Conservatives to have this violent reaction to the appointment of an incredible woman, someone who has the experience and is going to be able to make a difference serving Canadians? Annette Ryan has demonstrated her abilities exceptionally well. She has incredible credentials and a good background. The Conservatives were yelping about wanting to have a budget officer last fall. We now have one ready for a formal appointment, and they bring in this particular motion. Technically, because we said we were going to do it yesterday, the leadership group within the Conservative Party, which is actually the leader of the Conservative Party, made the decision that they did not want her appointed. They did not want to have that vote, so they brought in a concurrence motion. The Conservatives looked at the numbers, knowing that Motion No. 359 was on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and decided to introduce one lower than that. They thought that in that way they could prevent the Liberals from bringing in this particular motion. (1040) Then they look, and they come up with Motion No. 321 to single out the issue of young people and say, “Well, young people are really important to us today, so that is what we are going to debate. This way, we can say the Liberals are bad because they do not want to debate that particular issue,” which is a bunch of hogwash. At the end of the day, I will match the initiatives that have been taken by Liberal administrations, in particular our new Prime Minister and this new government, which was elected less than a year ago, and the commitment that the 170-plus Liberal members of Parliament bring to Parliament every day to deal with a wide spectrum of issues, including the young people of Canada, and recognize that we want the strongest economy in the G7, a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is, in fact, our priority. That is why it is so disappointing to see the games that continue to be played by the official opposition members. It is what we are going to continue to see, unfortunately. It is unfortunate and destructive. There are opportunities for opposition parties to actually critique the government. They do not have to agree with everything that the government is saying. At the very least, as opposed to reflecting on what is in the Conservative Party's and, more specifically, the leader of the Conservative Party's best interest, they could start focusing more on what is in Canadians' best interest. If they started to do that, I believe that we would actually see a higher sense of co-operation within the House of Commons and more tangible results being delivered to Canadians. I can say that over the last nine or 10 months, the games that have been played by the official opposition have been at a significant cost. The Conservative Party of Canada, under its current leadership and with the games that the Conservatives play inside the House, have cost our society in very significant ways. An hon. member: Name one. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they say, “Name one.” I can name a lot more than one. (1045) [Expand] Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am always very patient with this member. However, in 13 minutes, he has had nothing to say about the motion we are discussing. He is not on topic. Could you bring him to order? [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I understand the point of order to be about the germaneness to the debate. As the member knows, members have a lot of latitude in making the points they need to make, and I think the member was getting to his point when the point of order was raised. I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to continue. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I suspect I used the words “skill sets” and “youth” more than the member opposite did when he introduced the concurrence motion. If he was listening to what is being said, as opposed to being the mouthpiece for the leader of the Conservative Party in this game they choose to play, the House of Commons would be better served, quite frankly. The member opposite, my colleague from Manitoba, asked me to give a tangible example of Canadians paying the cost for an irresponsible opposition. An hon. member: I'd love you to. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would love to give that example. Hopefully, there will not be another point of order to prevent it. There is a suite of legislative initiatives to deal with an important issue in the member opposite's riding, my riding and ridings across the country. The Government of Canada has been pushing hard for this since day one following the election, and that was to deal with the issue of crime. We brought forward Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and Bill C-22. This is all legislation to make our communities safer, and the Conservatives, through their filibustering tactics, have denied important reforms such as bail reform, which has been supported across the country by stakeholders, law enforcement, mayors, premiers and others. They have also prevented lawful access from being put into place, with Canada being the one and only Five Eyes nation that does not have it. That, I suggest, would deal with issues such as child sexual exploitation, extortion and repeat violent offenders. These are the types of actions that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been pushing for since the last federal election, and the Conservatives have played political games, putting the Conservative Party's interests ahead of Canadians' best interests. As a direct result, we have lost out greatly. Talking strictly about funds to help young people acquire skill sets, $594.7 million over two years went to Employment and Social Development Canada for the Canada summer jobs program to support 100,000 summer jobs in 2026. Members can think about that. I referred to it earlier in my comments. It is for youth to acquire skill sets. Members opposite might want to minimize that program, but there is not a Liberal member of Parliament who does not recognize the true value of what that program is. It is such a valuable asset to not only the communities we serve but also the communities that Conservatives serve. Every region of the nation benefits from that program, and the Conservatives mock it today, which does not surprise me because it was Stephen Harper who cut a lot of the funding to the program. He did not cut the program, but he did cut the funding. It has taken the Prime Minister and the government to recognize the value, understand the need for it and support it. That is why we will have close to 100,000 young people, and the types of jobs they will get will allow them to enhance their skill sets in many different ways, possibly opening doors to them for future jobs. I think of the types of jobs that come to Winnipeg North, such as child care. I amplify the importance of child care. Many summer students who have gone through this program are working in child care today. I think of places such as Stanley Knowles School using the lunch program. There is another $307 million over two years for the horizontal evaluation of the youth employment and skills strategy to provide employment, training and wraparound supports. There is mentorship, transportation and mental health counselling. It is estimated that there are literally thousands of youth who will benefit from it, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000. (1050) There is $40 million over two years going to Employment and Social Development Canada to create the youth climate corps and to provide paid skills training for young Canadians. They will be trained to quickly respond to climate emergencies, support recovery and strengthen resilience in communities across the nation. We are thinking of training the next generation of Canadian builders by providing $75 million over three years, starting in 2026-27, to Employment and Social Development Canada to expand the union training and innovation program, which supports union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades. That gives us a sense of what it is and how the government is dealing with young people today. We recognize the importance of the issue, but the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that we recognize it year-round. We are focused on building a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is our goal, and we will achieve that. We will get the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. I believe that is an admirable goal. The Conservative Party continues to want to play games on the floor of the House of Commons, not deal with the issues that are a priority for Canadians. They only want to deal with what is a priority for the Conservatives. That is fine. We will be focused on delivering tangible results for Canadians because that is the right thing to do. A part of that means encouraging my opposition friends to stop playing games and be more creative. They can be a critic of the government and be more cooperative. That is what Canadians want— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe. [Expand] Kurt Holman (London—Fanshawe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal parliamentary secretary brought up games. Let us have a reality check. We have an affordability crisis right now. We have a cost of living crisis right now that is affecting all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including young people. With regard to this motion, these are cuts to student grants for career college students, and I have had stakeholders of career colleges approach me in London—Fanshawe about this. Does the government believe that education at career colleges is less valuable than education at other institutions? [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I believe fundamentally that any opportunity a young person has to enhance a skill set, in whatever format or venue it might be, is something that is worthy of us to pursue and encourage. We should be doing that because it is about giving young people a chance. Where we can enhance it, we should look seriously at doing so. What I would say to members opposite, in particular the Conservatives, is that, when they stand up to ask a question, they need to understand that the reason they brought this motion forward today is not young people. They brought it because they did not want to have a discussion or a vote in regard to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. They need to be very clear. What is it about Annette Ryan that the Conservatives do not support? Why do they not want that appointment? Why do they continue to play these games for their own personal, political, Conservative agenda as opposed to the interests of Canadians? (1055) [Expand] Hon. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague just made a great speech. We care about young people and young people getting jobs, which is why he talked about it. The minister of jobs announced that there will be some jobs for young people in many ridings across the country. Obviously, this morning we were to talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was supposed to be accepted by and voted on in this House, as the government House leader announced yesterday. Can the member talk about young people's jobs in his riding and the importance of having the budget officer's appointment adopted by the House? [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the mistake was made when the government House leader made it clear that we were going to be bringing in the motion and that we wanted to have that vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. By making it known to the opposition, because we were trying to be co-operative, the opposition then said, “We can prevent them from doing that by coming up with another motion.” The official opposition does not recognize the value of that permanent appointment being made, and that is unfortunate. With regard to the latter part of the question, my colleague and good friend understands how important young people are to our economy and how important it is that the government be there to support young people. That is the reason why this Prime Minister and this government fully support the summer youth program. Potentially, 100,000 youth will benefit from this program. [Translation ]

[Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette—Manawan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here is my question for my colleague. Why is he going to such lengths to attack the Conservative Party? Where I come from, when someone is down, the right thing to do is to stop kicking them. Things are not going well for the Conservatives right now. Some of their members crossed the floor, and now the Liberal Party has a majority. It is true that the newly elected MPs have not yet been sworn in, but the Liberals won a simple majority in the most recent elections. If their agenda is so important and they do not want to debate the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, then why not call for a vote in the House to get back to the government's agenda? The Liberals have enough members for a majority, but perhaps they did not have them here this morning. Is that it? [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, in the past, with majority and minority governments, we were very familiar with concurrence votes on reports. This is a stalling game being played. On the whole idea of a majority versus a minority, quite frankly, we want to see co-operation. We want to encourage co-operation. That is what the Prime Minister has talked about since the last federal election, less than a year ago. We want to see Parliament work for Canadians. At the end of the day, it is important to recognize that in order for Parliament to work, we need to get not only private members' bills processed through the system, but also government bills. [Expand] Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Perhaps he misspoke. It was unfair to suggest that the Conservative Party is against the nominee proposed by the government benches to be the new Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is certainly not uncommon for the opposition to bring forward debate on concurrence in a committee report. It may be annoying. It may mean that I do not get to present a petition for another couple of hours. However, it is hardly an attack on the person who is being put forward. I just wanted to make that point. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North would like to correct the accusation that the Conservatives are against this particular person. (1100) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the leader of the Green Party in the sense that I posed the question and the Conservatives had an opportunity to answer and defend, or anything of that nature, Annette Ryan. They chose not to do so. The leader of the Green Party is wrong to try to consistently give the false impression to Canadians that there is absolutely nothing wrong with debating concurrence reports. She knows full well that there is a limited amount of time for government legislation in any given session. If we were to have a concurrence debate for every report, we would be talking about hundreds of debates. Yes, they can try to take the high road. Yes, sometimes it is necessary have concurrence in a report, but do not give the false impression that we should have a debate on every report. [Expand] Carol Anstey (Long Range Mountains, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member opposite has taken up a tremendous amount of time and not once has he spoken directly to this concurrence motion. The reality is that there are people in my riding who are really interested to know how the government is going to respond to this. He talked about being disappointed. Do you know who is disappointed? It is the young people in this country. You decided to play partisan politics instead. I have a very simple question. Is it because you do not care about this? Is that the answer? [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I will remind members to speak through the Chair. The member was using “you”. Members cannot address each other directly. It has happened a few times and I have let it slide. As a reminder, the Standing Orders require that all members speak through the Speaker and not directly to the other members. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member will find that there were actually Liberal members of Parliament on the committee who expressed their support in great detail. What I can tell the member opposite is that all of the evidence before us today, and previously, clearly demonstrates that there is only one political party that has consistently been there for young people and represented their interests. While the Conservative Party, time after time, continues to want to politicize, play games, filibuster and so forth, we continue to be focused on delivering results. In my comments, I gave specific examples of that. [Expand] Jessica Fancy (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as one of the members on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and also as a former educator before coming into this wonderful chamber, I can attest to the importance of reports such as this one that we undertook. It is unfortunate, though, that the reasoning for concurrence in the report is that, basically, the Conservatives did not get the information they wanted. That is why we are here today. I received employment through the federal student work experience program as a student. I can testify that some of these government programs really benefit kids, especially little rural kids like me. Could the hon. member also talk about some of these wonderful youth employment strategy options that we have— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I think there are all sorts of opportunities for us to have a good, healthy discussion and debate about the issues facing young people today. I would implore the Bloc or the Conservatives to designate one of their opposition days on just that topic. As opposed to three hours, we could spend a full day talking about young people in Canada. If they care about young people, let us see their actions follow the words.

Economic Statement

[Expand] Hon. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to make a statement followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments; after the statement, a member from each recognized opposition party, a member of the New Democratic Party and the member of the Green Party may reply for a period approximately equivalent to the time taken by the minister's statement, and each statement shall be followed by a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments; and after each member has replied, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day. (1105) [Translation ]

[Expand] The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. There being no dissenting voice, it is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)

Committees of the House

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

The House resumed consideration of the motion. [Expand] Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski—La Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has been clear. The committee is calling on the government to reconsider its distribution of student grants based on the type of institution where students are studying. In particular, the committee points out that federal decisions should align with those made by Quebec and the provinces because post-secondary education falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This is not up for debate. What we are seeing right now is that Ottawa is moving away from simply helping students financially. It is starting to indirectly determine which institutions provide access to the grants and which do not. The result is that two students who have been recognized by Quebec can still be treated differently by Ottawa. That is not acceptable to us. It is a clear infringement on an area of jurisdiction that does not belong to the government. The federal government's role should be simple. It should help students, not redraw the boundaries of higher education in a way that suits it. If a recognized institution is authorized by Quebec, students studying there must be treated fairly. As we allow ourselves to be distracted by this debate, an even bigger problem is getting even worse: lack of funding for the next generation of scientists. Graduate scholarships have not gone up in 20 years. Some have not been indexed since 2003. Practically speaking, they have lost nearly half of their real value. Meanwhile, there are now about 240,000 graduate students and barely 6,000 federal scholarships. The situation in the Université du Québec network is even more dire. Only about 1.3% of its graduate students receive federal scholarships. Young people have been told to go into research, get an education and contribute, but they are not actually being given the means to do that properly, and it shows. Nowadays, most graduate students live on very little. Some have to work during their studies. Some even have to go to food banks. Others are seriously thinking about dropping out. In Quebec, in places like Montreal, some live on less than $20,000 per year. Everyone knows that is not enough. It is often even harder in the regions. As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I hear about this constantly. Students are burnt out, their professors cannot keep their teams together, and the system is on the verge of falling apart. My riding, Rimouski—La Matapédia, is home to applied research centres and teams doing innovative work on the ground. They all tell me the same thing. Resources are lacking, and projects are stalling, being postponed or being abandoned. At the end of the day, this has a direct impact on what we as a society can do. A few weeks ago, SEREX, a college centre for technology transfer located in Amqui, contacted me to warn that further budget cuts to certain programs risk significantly hampering its ability to operate. Then we wonder why people are leaving. A large proportion of postgraduate students are considering leaving Canada, and many already have. Why are they leaving? The answer is simple. Conditions are better elsewhere, pay is higher and there are more resources available. Again, I ask: Why train people here if we are just going to lose them? At this rate, Canada is becoming a place where we train people for other countries. We are kind of like a way station. We train the students and pay them, but others reap the benefits. A country that does that is not working for its own people; it is working for others. This is not just a student issue; it is also an economic issue. When we lose our next generation of workers, we lose ideas, we lose expertise and we lose the ability to innovate. We also lose economic benefits for our regions, our businesses and our institutions. In Quebec, this affects us directly. Our universities, CEGEPs, colleges and research centres, especially in the regions, play a key role in development. When funding falls short, the entire ecosystem suffers. Now the government is telling us that it has taken action, that it has increased and extended the assistance. Yes, announcements were made, but in all honesty, that does not solve the underlying problem. A few announcements do not make up for 20 years of delays. In the meantime, the government keeps making access to grants more complicated. It adds conditions and draws distinctions. It says it wants to help, yet it keeps putting obstacles in the way. None of that makes any sense. (1110) There is also another problem. We still do not have access to all the data we need to clearly see what is working and what is not. Researchers are expected to be rigorous, but the government itself does not always provide the means to analyze its own system properly. The federal government claims that it wants to become a world leader in innovation, but it is not even giving itself the means to fulfill its ambitions. It is at the back of the pack when it comes to research and development investment among G7 countries. A leader does not underfund the next generation. A leader does not needlessly complicate access to grants. Above all, a leader does not let its talent leave for other countries. The bottom line is simple. If we want to move forward, we need to keep our people around. That is quite logical. It is clear to the Bloc Québécois. The government needs to rethink the way it distributes grants. It needs to respect the decisions of Quebec and the provinces. It needs to treat students fairly. Above all, it must finally put in place stable, permanent funding. At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves the real question: Do we want to keep our people here, or are we quietly agreeing to become a stepping stone in our researchers' journey? Right now, that is what is happening. People are being trained here but are going off to build up other countries. If left unchecked, things will keep heading in the same direction. Training people here so that they can achieve success elsewhere is not a strategy; it is a failure. [Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed our colleague's speech a lot. What I am hearing from people in the field, especially during our discussions with Quebec universities, is that they are relatively satisfied with the programs that the federal government is currently putting in place to fund research and innovation precisely to keep our young talent at home. We have a lot of support from the universities. I have a question. Perhaps the member could clarify his position a bit. He is suggesting and asking that we increase student grants, but that we not to do so directly. That surprises me a little. [Expand] Maxime Blanchette-Joncas: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. To my knowledge, my colleague is pretty good with numbers. Federal student grants at the graduate level have not been adjusted for inflation for 20 years. I would like him to name one thing that has not been adjusted for inflation for 20 years and tell me whether he thinks that makes sense. How can we retain talent and expertise when we lack the necessary incentives or winning measures to retain these people? The position of the Bloc Québécois is quite clear. Yes, we want to increase federal student grants. However, the government is more interested in attracting and bringing in people from the United States and other countries than in strengthening conditions here for students already in Quebec and Canada. In the last budget, the government allocated $1.2 billion to attract people. I will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but I look forward to seeing the results. Before we build new gardens, perhaps we should take care of the ones we already have here. [English ]

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance to respond directly after the Liberals spoke on this. I am quite struck by the fact that the Liberals have yet to articulate a position or provide an explanation for their own policy. We are debating this today because we had a unanimous recommendation from a committee to overturn a policy that was part of the government's budget. That policy was to discriminate against students who are studying at certain kinds of institutions, and in particular to say that if they are at a university, they get the full grant, but if they are at a vocational institution, getting labour market-relevant skills, they do not get any grant. That seems discriminatory, and it seems like a policy aimed at steering or directing students away from those vitally necessary vocational skills, with this mentality that everyone should go to university, without understanding the value of these vocational programs as well. I wonder if the member can reflect on how rare it is to have a unanimous report of a committee asking for this reversal and on why the government still has not explained its position. (1115) [Translation ]

[Expand] Maxime Blanchette-Joncas: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks. Obviously, this is not the government's first discriminatory policy, yet we are told that this is an open, inclusive, and equitable government. Consider this statistic: approximately 80% of research funding in Canada goes to about 10% of researchers. Does that not seem lopsided? We have policies in place that favour a certain group of people, who are often part of the elite circles very close to the government, and that suits them just fine. The current structure and model of the university system is set up in such a way that when it comes to scholarships, it is always the same people who end up with everything. Furthermore, once they have received a scholarship, they are more likely to receive others in the future. That is how the system is currently built. [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette—Manawan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to stay on the topic of graduate scholarships offered by the federal funding agencies. My colleague reminded us that there are not enough of them to meet the needs of the student population and that they have not been adjusted for inflation in 20 years. What is more, the Quebec Student Union requested that the duration of scholarships be extended from 12 to 24 months for master's programs and from 36 to 48 months for doctoral programs. I am not aware of the latest developments on the government's side, so I would like to know if the government has agreed to this, because, as we know, completing a master's degree takes at least two years and a doctoral degree takes at least four. Has the government listened to the demands of the student associations? [Expand] Maxime Blanchette-Joncas: Mr. Speaker, the government finally took action in budget 2024. Student grants were adjusted for inflation and increased. It was clear that Canada was no longer competitive and that we were losing our best and brightest to the United States or to other countries. However, it is also becoming apparent that students are taking longer to complete their studies. Students who are already living on very limited means are being forced to extend the duration of their studies, or they have to get a job, prolonging their studies even more. Unfortunately, the government is not extending the duration of the support provided through federal student grants, as many organizations are calling for. [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette—Manawan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a bit of historical background. In the 1990s, Ottawa chose to cut transfers to the provinces to balance its books, specifically in the area of higher education. That is why there are now federal grants. When G7 leaders were complaining about protests against austerity outside their Parliament buildings, former prime minister Jean Chrétien told them that he did not have that problem. Basically, he cut transfers to the provinces, the provinces then cut their services, particularly in education, and the protests were held outside the provincial legislatures. That situation was never corrected. Chrétien's cuts were followed by cuts made by Harper, then Trudeau and now the current government. For example, Ottawa will soon be covering barely 18% of health care costs when it originally committed to covering half. We are dealing with the same level of cutbacks when it comes to social services and higher education. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed this inequity between the levels of government. He looks at the revenue and expenditures and has pointed out that Ottawa has more room to manoeuver when it comes to public finances. Why is that? It is because, when the 1995 referendum happened, Ottawa got spooked. After realizing that it was essentially absent from Quebeckers' lives, the federal government began a major government restructuring that would benefit the federal government at Quebec's expense. At the time, Paul Martin was the finance minister, and the president of the Treasury Board was Marcel Massé, who was also a former clerk of the Privy Council. He used his expertise on the machinery of government to make some major changes that would make it so that Quebec would be stretched to the limit, while Ottawa would have plenty of financial leeway. He thought Quebeckers would begin to see the federal government as their government, the one they could turn to to meet their needs and to help them get things done. That way, they would go from being Quebeckers to being Canadians. Marcel Massé made no secret of what he was doing. In speaking about Lucien Bouchard, Quebec's premier at the time, he said, “When Bouchard has to make cuts, those of us in Ottawa will be able to demonstrate that we have the means to preserve the future of social programs.” He succeeded in part. Deep cuts to health and social services transfers—a 40% reduction in transfers over three year—forced the Quebec government to make cuts of its own. Everyone remembers nurses retiring en masse and the difficulties in the education system. We have never fully recovered from that. Meanwhile, Ottawa began running large surpluses, surpluses so indecent in a time of austerity that they had to be covered up. This is how the idea arose to create a series of foundations. By pouring large sums into these foundations, the government emptied the federal coffers, shrank its surplus on paper and was able to then continue refusing to increase transfers that would have kept services afloat for the people Quebec is responsible for. However, to ensure that the money paid to the foundations was taken out of the books, the government could not have direct control over it. This led to the scathing report that former auditor general Sheila Fraser published in 2005, with a chapter 4 entitled “Accountability of Foundations”. She found that the government had transferred $9 billion to 15 foundations between 1998 and 2002. Those $9 billion would amount to around $17 billion today. She found that the government had no control over $7 billion of the $9 billion. These foundations included the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, but also foundations in other areas, such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Genome Canada, and so on. The idea was to weaken Quebec, to deprive it of its means, and then to intervene through foundations, notably through the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. While we are discussing federal waste in Ottawa, Quebec is struggling to fulfill its responsibilities, which include virtually all public services, including education and higher education. I am again referring to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who repeats the following every year in every fiscal sustainability report: The cost of Quebec's and the provinces' responsibilites is rising faster than their revenues, and Ottawa is collecting more money than it needs to fulfill its own responsibilities. The consequences of this fiscal imbalance are manifold. The Quebec government is stretched to the limit. Once it has paid for the most essential services, it has no more room to manoeuver, while the federal government has no such constraints. It has so much money left over that it can afford to meddle in affairs that are none of its business, and it feels no need to manage its programs efficiently. That is the problem, and that is why having Ottawa issue grants is a problem. (1120) The waste in the current federal system is a natural result of the fiscal imbalance. For example, comparisons show that it costs Ottawa two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it costs Quebec to process a social assistance claim. It costs the federal government four times more to issue a passport than it costs the Quebec government to issue a driver's licence. Before the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue veterans' hospital was transferred to Quebec, each procedure performed there cost two and a half times more than a similar procedure performed in a Quebec-run long-term care facility. That is the waste caused by fiscal imbalance. Since Ottawa has lots of resources, it it not as concerned about managing them well. In 2014, the Government of Quebec released an expert panel's report on federal intervention in the health and social services sector from 2002 to 2013. The Government of Quebec identified 37 federal programs that interfered in health care. It found that, while health transfers were not very generous in terms of dollar amounts, the interference was very significant and very costly to manage, and the public did not get its money's worth. In fact, the expert panel calculated that the amount it cost the Government of Quebec to deal with this interference exceeded the amount of the transfers, leading the panel to conclude that it would be more cost-effective to just turn down the money. That is the problem with the fiscal imbalance and interference, as we are seeing with higher education. There is $1 billion being spent here and $10 billion being spent there, with no oversight and no obligation to produce results, when Ottawa does not even provide any direct services to the public, except to first nations and veterans, and we all know how that is working out. Take, for example, the fact that the quality of services to the public is declining despite the recent significant increase in the number of public servants. During the 10 years that Trudeau was in office, an additional 109,000 public servants were hired. Imagine if Quebec and the provinces had hired an additional 100,000 nurses. Our health care system would be in much better shape, as would our education system, if it had been given those kinds of resources. Over the past few decades, Quebec has chosen a different path from the other provinces despite Ottawa's budget cuts. While the other provinces cut social services and leveraged tuition fees, Quebec chose to create new social programs to reduce poverty and inequality. My source is an excellent book published by the University of Toronto Press in 2017, Combating Poverty: Quebec's Pursuit of a Distinctive Welfare State. The authors discuss the neoliberal trajectory of Ottawa and the other provinces, which are becoming more like the United States in terms of inequality and poverty. In contrast, things in Quebec are more like what one finds in Scandinavian countries, which are the best according to these criteria. In particular, Quebec has a unique approach to families, especially single-parent families, with a game-changing family policy that covers parental leave, child care and more. In addition, tuition fees are much lower. A few years ago, economist Joseph Stiglitz applauded this kind of policy in a speech at the Observatoire québécois des inégalités. He noted that public policy plays an essential role in combatting poverty and praised the Quebec model. This demonstrates our ability to take charge of our own affairs. The issue we are discussing here has resulted from the cuts made in the 1990s, which limited the ability of Quebec and the provinces to take action in education, particularly with regard to student grants. Because Ottawa had surpluses, it was able to intrude, but without a comprehensive framework for accountability. This intrusion was possible because of the fiscal imbalance. In my view, the bottom line is that it would be much better for us to manage our own finances. (1125) [Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, come as no surprise to me. We are back to the issue of federal transfers to the provinces. Apparently, all of this was some sort of plot to weaken Quebec. Of course, we do not agree with that perspective, but we will discuss that another time. If that were the case, how is it that, as my colleague mentioned at the end of his speech, Quebec ranks near the top among OECD countries when it comes to social policies, support for families, support for young people and support for students? How can those two perspectives be reconciled? [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the parliamentary secretary that he is in a better position than I am to answer his own question, and he knows it, considering that he was once Quebec's finance minister. At a time when the federal government is imposing austerity to reach its zero deficit, he opted for the easy solution. I want to point out that Mr. Massé, who was a member of Jean Chrétien's government, spoke publicly of the plan that I mentioned. The Liberal government itself said it was doing that. At a time when Ottawa was cutting transfers and imposing austerity, the other provinces also had to go down the path of austerity. In Quebec, with a half-state and half the means, we managed to accomplish miracles. I commend former premier Pauline Marois for her hard work. [English ]

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to an article from a few months back in NewmarketToday, entitled “Traditional Chinese medicine students raise alarm over federal budget cuts to grants”. This highlights the particular impacts on Chinese medicine. Various leaders in the Chinese medicine community have spoken out about how this Liberal policy really attacks the Chinese community and attacks others who benefit from traditional Chinese medicine. There are many people not of Chinese origin who benefit from this medicine as well. In this article, the member for Markham—Unionville speaks very strongly against the government's policy. In fact, the article highlights a town hall event that the member for Markham—Unionville, I and others did together. He uses the language of “systemic discrimination”. This now member of the government says this is “systemic discrimination”. I wonder if the member who just spoke would agree with that. (1130) [Translation ]

[Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that there is no federal department of education since education, including post-secondary education, is the constitutional responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Whether Ottawa chooses to give out fewer scholarships or stop recognizing a particular program, this amounts to outright interference. Given that we pay too much in federal taxes, Ottawa's role has historically been to transfer those funds to the provinces so they can manage a good education system, since they have the expertise and can choose what to fund. I am by no means an expert on higher education and am not qualified to say which programs should be recognized, funded, and so on, but that expertise does exist, and it lies with the provinces. What I am asking, once again, is that the federal government take care of its own constitutional responsibilities, which it is currently failing to do, and that it provide adequate funding to meet the provinces' needs. [Expand] Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski—La Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I believe he shone a light on something that was already well known, something that the Séguin report demonstrated in the early 2000s, namely the adverse effects of the federal system, with its encroachment on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, particularly with regard to fiscal imbalance. As a member of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I can see this in concrete terms. Universities now have the opportunity to draw funding from two levels of government: the Quebec government and the federal government, which has established scholarships and created the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support infrastructure, particularly in higher education and research institutions. I would like my colleague to explain to me what the outcome of all this is. The revenue raising capacity that the federal government has maintained over recent years is now bringing certain provinces, including Quebec, to their knees, and this presents us with very difficult choices that mean we have to accept certain conditions reluctantly. [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie: Mr. Speaker, this is far from optimal. The decisions being made are never optimal when there are overlaps and duplications. It is a reminder that we would be much better off if we managed 100% of the programs ourselves, using our own data. We would be much better off in terms of research, social services and education. [English ]

[Expand] Vincent Ho (Richmond Hill South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City. Canada is in the middle of a jobs crisis, and the Liberal government's answer is to make skills training harder to afford here at home. That is exactly what the costly Liberal budget 2025 does when it moves to restrict the Canada student grant for full-time students to students attending public educational institutions and not-for-profit private institutions. Let us be clear what this really means. A student from a modest-income family can choose a public institution and keep access to a non-repayable federal grant. Another student, equally hard-working, equally deserving and equally serious about building a career, can choose a regulated career college, because that is where the practical program they need is offered, and that student gets punished. It is the same country, the same taxes and the same need, but different treatment. All the while, the Liberal government chooses to fund millions of dollars in scholarships for international students while cutting back on domestic talent here at home. That is not fairness. That is prejudice by institution type while ignoring free market forces. The timing could not be worse. StatsCan reported that in February 2026, unemployment rose to 6.7%. There were 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, and 23% of them had been searching for work for more than half a year, well above the prepandemic average of 17%. For youth aged 15 to 24, unemployment rose to 14%, and the private sector lost 73,000 jobs in February alone. Those are not abstract numbers. Those numbers means stalled lives, delayed plans, parents worried about their children and young Canadians wondering whether they will ever get a fair start. Canadians are not working, because Liberal policies are not working. One year into the Liberal Prime Minister 's term in office, we continue to see job chaos, especially for young people desperate to get a start in life. Conservatives put forward a serious plan to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix job training and build homes where the jobs are. The Liberals obstructed and turned down these ideas, and now instead of widening the path to employment, they are narrowing it. At the precise moment when Canada needs more practical, job-ready training, the Liberal government is telling thousands of students that their chosen path is somehow less worthy of support. Why is the Liberal government cutting student grants for Canadians pursuing practical, employment-focused careers? Why should a student lose access to support simply because their program is delivered through a career college instead of a public institution defined by the Liberal government? How does this improve affordability for Canadians? How does this help a country facing skilled labour shortage in certain sectors? The Liberal government says, on the one hand, that it is investing in post-secondary education to keep it accessible, but what we have seen is an announcement that will give millions of dollars in scholarships to international students. On the other hand, the government is preparing to exclude a whole class of domestic Canadian students here at home from the very affordability measures it boasts about. This is the Liberal pattern: broad announcements and picking winners and losers in an industry, and hard-working Canadians end up paying the price. Nowhere is this more short-sighted than in the field of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, which has been under attack time and time again by the Liberal government over the past decade. Acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine are not fringe occupations. They are real professions serving real patients in real communities every single day. Canadians of all backgrounds, including indigenous communities, seek out these services for pain management, rehabilitation support, stress reduction, wellness care and complementary treatment. These practitioners often work alongside broader health and wellness networks and serve patients who are looking for additional options to manage chronic conditions and improve quality of life. Training in the field of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine is hands-on by nature. It depends on supervised practice, clinical skill building, safety protocols, diagnosis, patient interaction, ethics, technique and repetition. Even public programs in acupuncture emphasize direct clinical training, patient treatment, professional competencies, informed consent and safe needling practices. That tells us something important: that this is not casual learning. It is serious health training with real demand. However, in practice, many students here at home pursuing acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine have historically relied on specialized institutions outside the traditional university model. These are often exactly the kinds of settings that this Liberal policy seeks to undermine. I want to talk about who actually gets hurt when the Liberals pick and choose winners in educational institutions and cut support to training in traditional Chinese medicine. Students here at home get hurt first. The son or daughter of a Canadian family who wants to build a stable career in a respected health profession gets hurt. The mid-career worker seeking retraining into a field of growing demand gets hurt. The modest-income student who cannot simply absorb thousands of dollars in additional costs gets hurt. The student who wants a practical, culturally rooted and patient-facing profession gets hurt. (1135) Jobs are also affected. If fewer students can afford to enrol, fewer students will graduate. If fewer students graduate, fewer clinics can hire. If fewer clinics can hire, fewer Canadians can access care. That means this Liberal policy does not only affect individual students here at home, but the broader Canadian workforce and the public that depends on the services it provides. That is especially reckless in a weak labour market. Canada should be expanding fast, skills-based pathways into employment, not closing them off. Career colleges have long played a role in training people quickly for specific occupations. In a country with 1.5 million unemployed and elevated long-term unemployment, why would any serious government make targeted training less accessible? There is also a cultural dimension here that the Liberal government seems blind to. Traditional Chinese medicine is part of a rich heritage carried across generations and across continents. For many Canadians of all backgrounds and communities, including those of Chinese heritage and other communities familiar with these practices, this is not only a profession, but part of a living tradition of knowledge, healing, discipline and care. A government that talks endlessly about inclusivity should not create barriers that in practice make it harder for students to enter professions rooted in cultural traditions valued by many communities in Canada. In effect, this Liberal policy undermines culturally significant professions and cuts off opportunities for students entering fields connected to long-standing traditions of care here at home. In the meantime, the Liberal government spends millions of dollars of taxpayer money on scholarships for foreign students, while the Liberal Prime Minister asks everyday Canadians to make more sacrifices. Let us talk about health care access. Canadians know that our health care system is under strain. Wait times are too long and six million Canadians are without a family doctor. Many people are searching for legitimate and professional services that can help them manage pain, mobility, stress, recovery and chronic conditions. Expanding the supply of qualified acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners can improve access to complementary care and give more Canadians additional avenues of support. The Liberals are choosing to make training our domestic workforce for Canadians harder, while funding scholarships for international students to study here in Canada. That is the absurdity of the Liberal government. When Canada needs more options, it creates fewer options for domestic talent here at home. When Canada needs more skilled practitioners, it sets up new barriers for Canadians while giving millions to foreign nationals. When students need more affordability, it takes away supports and send taxpayer money overseas. This Liberal policy is bad for students because it raises the cost of career-focused education. It undermines enrolment in specialized programs that often sit outside conventional public university streams. It is bad for the economy because it weakens labour force development. It is bad for health care access because it risks reducing the supply of trained practitioners. Conservatives believe something simple: Skills training should align with the needs of the economy, not the ideology of the Liberal government. If a program is legitimate, credentialed, employment-focused and serving real Canadian needs, students should not be punished because the government does not like where that training is delivered. I ask the Liberal government again: Will it reverse this decision, stop treating one group of students as second class, admit that regulated career college students deserve equal respect and recognize that fields such as acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine actually matter to patients, communities, employers and Canada's workforce? The Liberals need to review this policy, consult effective sectors honestly and reverse course before more damage is done because this is bigger than one budget line. It is about whether we value practical education for Canadians, respect students who choose hands-on careers, address labour shortages seriously, and preserve space in Canada for professions deeply rooted in culture and the communities connected to them here at home. It is about whether access to opportunity in this country depends on merit and hard work or a Liberal bureaucrat approving of an institution. Conservatives know where we stand. We stand with Canadian students who want to work and study in institutions that provide job-ready training, communities that want their traditions respected and patients who want better access to care. We stand for restoring fairness for every Canadian who believes that if they are willing to study, train, work and contribute to our country, then their government should get out of the way and let them thrive, not shut them out. (1140) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those were interesting comments. Obviously, I do not agree with a vast majority of them, but I have a question in regard to the member's focus on acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. I have always been fascinated by that. Ultimately, as I am sure the member is aware, the province plays a more significant role in that whole area than the national government. Has the member had any discussions with the provincial government in his jurisdiction? Has he encouraged the provincial government and our post-secondary institutions to pursue and get our professional organizations to recognize what he wants to blame the federal government for? [Expand] Vincent Ho: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with members in my community and in my riding since the Liberals announced this cut. I have talked to schools. I have talked to patients. I have talked to teachers. I have talked to practitioners of all communities and backgrounds. They have told me that these cuts hurt because they will reduce enrolment. They will reduce the number of graduates who would be trained for in-demand skills and who would be job ready. There are jobs ready to go, but sometimes it is the difference between getting a bit of support and not getting support that could be the deciding factor for a number of students who are choosing to pursue these careers. [Expand] Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in February we saw the loss of 46,000 jobs in Canada among youth. Canada has the lowest workforce participation for youth since 1998. Now we see the government stepping in and cutting funding for youth to access programs at vocational colleges and career colleges. At the same time, the government seems to be implying that it is all about the Parliamentary Budget Officer's vote, which is going to be delayed by a whole two hours today. Why does my colleague think that, despite all of these horrific tragedies happening with respect to the youth job market, the Liberals are trying to deflect with respect to a vote being delayed three hours instead of focusing on youth? (1145) [Expand] Vincent Ho: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for identifying the problem. What we have seen in the February jobs report is that unemployment is at 6.7%. There are 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, 23% of whom have been searching for work for half a year or more. For youth aged 15 to 24, unemployment is at 14%. Instead of choosing to invest in students here at home, in Canadian students, in our domestic workforce, the Liberal government has decided to give money to foreign students to study here in Canada. The Liberals have their priorities completely upside down and that is not right. [Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I disagree with most of what the colleague has mentioned about the labour market. We could talk about that another time. I am surprised, or perhaps intrigued is a better word, by his insistence on Chinese acupuncture and traditional medicine. Has the member checked with or talked to the provincial governments? This is under their jurisdiction. It is not a federal jurisdiction. [Expand] Vincent Ho: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the Liberals oversimplifying a problem and pointing the finger at a different level of government because, for not just the profession, but the entire industry, from imports and exports to Health Canada, there is a whole list of federal jurisdictions. What we are talking about today in this concurrence motion is the federal grant money that is now being denied by the Liberal government. Yes, I have spoken with constituents, practitioners, teachers, students, folks in the industry, folks in the community and patients who are going to be affected by this. They have told me that it is the Liberal government that has attacked this industry time and again over the last decade. This is just another example of that. [Expand] Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today's concurrence motion is about more than just student grants. It is about whether this country still respects the kind of work that actually keeps the country running. Buried in budget 2025 is a decision that says if a young Canadian chooses a public institution, such as UBC, McGill or U of T, they can receive a federal student grant, but if they choose one of many provincially regulated career colleges where they train to become welders, electricians, health care aides, mechanics or practical nurses, they will be cut off. It is the same taxpayer, same ambition and same hard work, but different treatment. That reveals something bigger than a budget line. It reveals a bias that says some education is respectable and some is not, and somehow the path that leads to a tool belt is worth less than a path that leads to a desk. That thinking could not be more dangerous right now. Canada has lost 95,000 jobs this year. Youth have lost over 50,000 jobs. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7, yet the government has chosen to make skills training harder to afford. Think of how upside down that is. We say we need more homes, but we make it harder to train the people who build them. We say we need more workers in health care, but we make it harder for students to train for practical care professions. We talk about growth, but we put roadblocks in front of the very people who know how to make, fix, build, repair and create. Behind it all is a deeper cultural problem. We have spent too many years pretending that the only education that matters comes wrapped in prestige, as though a polished degree is inherently more valuable than a practical skill, or as though an Oxford education is the gold standard and everything else is a consolation prize. Well, with respect, the Prime Minister would be very wrong about that, because we cannot build a country with consultants alone. Somebody has to wire the house. Somebody has to pour the concrete. Somebody has to repair the truck. Somebody has to keep the systems working. Skilled work is not second-class work. It is part of the foundation of civilized life. If we start treating the people who do that work as somehow less worthy of support, we are not just making a mistake in policy, but we are teaching a whole generation to undervalue the very work we desperately need to rebuild this country. One of the strangest contradictions in Canada right now is that we have an entire country talking about housing shortages, an infrastructure deficit, labour shortages in the trades and a generation of young people looking for a foothold in the economy. Somehow, the government can still manage to make it harder for those same young people to train for the very jobs we claim we desperately need them to fill. There is something almost comical about that, if it were not so serious. We complain that homes are too expensive, but seem oddly reluctant to talk about the carpenters, electricians, pipefitters and heavy equipment operators without whom no home has ever been built. We talk about building the country as though a policy announcement will get it done, when, in fact, countries are built the way they have always been built, which is by skilled people who know how to turn raw material into something useful. Here is why this policy becomes so baffling. At the very moment when we need more skilled workers, more apprentices, more young Canadians learning practical, employable, in-demand skills, the government proposes to pull grants away from students attending career colleges that are doing exactly that training. It is like standing in front of a labour shortage, staring directly at it and deciding the sensible response is to make it harder for the next generation to learn these skills. Do we really want to sabotage the system? Canadians trying to hire skilled people right now need policies that will produce more skilled people, not fewer. There is another myth we have been telling for far too long, which is the notion that the surest path to prosperity is always the most expensive education, the longest credential and the most polished title on a business card. We have repeated that so often, it has taken on the status of common sense, even though the evidence is piling up against it. Out in the real world, there are countless skilled tradespeople making excellent incomes, raising families, buying homes, building businesses and doing it often with less debt, less delay and, frankly, more certainty than many young people who have been sold the promise that a degree alone is the ticket to security. (1150) There is something off about the way we have celebrated one kind of work while undervaluing another. Many of the people we are talking about, such as welders, electricians, millwrights, mechanics and heavy-duty technicians, are not merely getting by. Many are earning incomes that would surprise the very people who tend to look down on the trades. Why should that surprise anyone? Skill has value. Competence has value. Being able to do something difficult, useful and necessary has always had value. It always will. Somewhere along the way, we got something backward. We made kids borrow heavily to push them toward jobs that, by the time they have their degree, may or may not exist, while neglecting millions of jobs that exist, pay well and are sitting open because too few people have been encouraged to pursue the skills required to do them. That is not just a mismatch, but a cultural failure, and now this policy threatens to compound that mistake, because when the government says students pursuing vocational paths should no longer receive the same grant support as others, it is doing more than changing an eligibility rule. It is reinforcing the old prejudice that some forms of learning lead to real opportunity while others do not, yet anyone who has looked at the pay stub of a successful tradesperson or has tried to hire one lately knows how ridiculous that is. In many parts of the country, a skilled trade is not merely a path to a good living. It may be one of the best paths available. At a time when young Canadians are struggling to see a future they can afford, it takes a special kind of blindness to put obstacles in front of one of the clearest paths to financial independence that we have. Perhaps the biggest thing we have gotten wrong is that people still talk about the trades as though they lead to only a job, when very often, they lead to something much bigger. This is because a skilled trade is not simply a paycheque. It can be the first rung on a ladder that leads to ownership, independence and entrepreneurship. A young person starts as an apprentice, learns a craft, gains experience, builds a reputation, takes on contracts, buys a truck and hires a helper and then a crew. Before long, what began as learning a skill has become a small business. If that sounds ordinary, it is only because people have been building this country that way for so long that we have forgotten how remarkable it really is. We should not take it for granted, because there is something profoundly hopeful on that path. It is one of the few paths where a person can begin with almost nothing but a willingness to work and over time build something of their own. They do not inherit it, but build it. Many of the people doing what the culture calls dirty jobs are, in fact, examples of what self-reliance can produce. Many are entrepreneurs, many are employing others and many are creating opportunities, not just for themselves, but for the next young person looking for a start. This is not some footnote in the economy. This is the economy, yet in a strange twist, we celebrate the idea of small business while undermining the institutions helping people acquire the very skills that lead to starting one. This makes no sense, because the electrician who starts a company, the welder who opens a fabrication shop, the contractor who builds a crew and the mechanic who opens a service centre are the people taking risks, creating jobs, paying taxes, training others and strengthening communities. This is how wealth is created in the real world, which is why this policy strikes me as so short-sighted. Discouraging students from attending career colleges does not just affect individual students, but the future businesses they might have built, the apprentices they might have trained, the workers they may have hired and the opportunities they might have created for others. It narrows not just a training pathway, but an ownership pathway. In a country worried about stagnant growth, weak productivity and too few young people believing they can get ahead, it seems to me that the last thing the government should do is make it harder for young people to enter one of the clearest roads to becoming their own boss. (1155) If we want to make work cool again and if we want to rebuild respect for hard work, skill and enterprise in this country, we should start by passing this motion and stop punishing the very students preparing to do the work at hand. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member does not recognize that there are significant investments in our colleges. I think about Red River College Polytechnic, Manitoba's elite college. It trains literally thousands of individuals in a wide spectrum of skills. It leads our province. There is also the collaborative innovation garage, which is supported in part by the federal government. We had the post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund, which also went to Red River College. We had innovation in green manufacturing, supporting things like our aerospace industry, which provides many jobs for Manitobans. The government understands the importance of colleges and education. My question to the member is, why does she believe the Conservative Party has not used an opposition day so that we can have a fulsome debate on the issue? [Expand] Tamara Jansen: Mr. Speaker, I would talk about the fact that instead of giving support, the government has actually put a barrier between the two types of training. Budget 2025 changed the eligibility for the Canada student grant so that students at many regulated career colleges no longer qualified. It is not because their school is unaccredited or because their program is substandard, but simply because of the type of institution they are attending. A student training to become a practical nurse or an electrician at a provincially regulated college now receives less federal support than a student at a public taxpayer institution. They have the same ambitions, along with the same hard work, but they get different treatment. The government has created two classes of Canadian students, and this motion asks it to fix that. [Expand] Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a lot of great points. The Liberal government, in a program running until next year, is giving $4 million to Cornell University in the United States. It is a private university that charges $95,000 Canadian per year for tuition. Why does my colleague think the Liberal government is funding private universities in the U.S. while, at the same time, depriving Canadians of funding to attend career colleges in Canada? (1200) [Expand] Tamara Jansen: Mr. Speaker, I think that shows, very clearly, the bias against the lower-middle-class student. This policy hurts those students who can least afford it. Career colleges disproportionately serve lower-middle-income Canadians who need a faster, more direct path to employment. These are not students with a safety net. Many of them choose a career college specifically because it is the practical, affordable option that leads directly to a job. Removing grant access does not make that choice disappear. It just makes it harder to afford. It tells young Canadians from a working family that the path they chose to a good career is worth less government support than someone else's path. That is wrong, and this committee agrees. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for a clear answer from the member. Can she explain to the House why the Conservative Party has never, ever brought forward an opposition day motion to deal with supporting the young people of Canada to the degree in which this particular report deals with that issue? They will possibly make light of the issue, but they have never focused attention on it before. Why is today the only day in the last 10 years that they have actually decided to do so? Many would speculate that it is because they do not want to have a vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. [Expand] Tamara Jansen: Mr. Speaker, we should not need an opposition motion day to defend students against Liberal cuts. [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, but, more importantly, to speak for the students in my community of Oshawa who are being left behind by the Liberal government's decision. Let us be clear about what this policy does. It draws a line between students. It is not a line based on effort, talent or ambition, but one based solely on where they choose to study. Drawing this line creates two classes of Canadians. This is not fairness. In fact, it is discrimination. Oshawa is a community built on hard work. It is a community of tradespeople, health care workers, technicians and skilled professionals who keep our economy moving and our country strong. We are proud of our educational institutions, including Durham College and Ontario Tech University. These institutions play a vital role in shaping the future of our community and preparing students for success. Not every program is offered at a public college or university. Many students choose career colleges because they offer practical, hands-on training that leads directly to employment. In some cases, they are the only option for certain specialized programs. They are not second-rate institutions. They are regulated and recognized, and they serve an important role in our education system, yet under the government's changes in budget 2025, students who attend these particular institutions were told something very simple: They do not deserve the same support as everyone else. Imagine being a young person in Oshawa. Maybe they are just out of high school or about to graduate. Maybe they are looking to retrain after losing a job, which we have seen frequently in our auto sector in Oshawa because of Liberal failures. Maybe they are trying to build a better future for their family. They do their research and find a program that fits their goals. It is practical and focused and it leads to employment, but it is offered at a career college, and because of that one factor, the federal government says, “No grant for them.” The student sitting next to them, who is studying a different program at a different type of institution, is going to get support, but they will not. How is that fair? How is that equal treatment? How can anyone in this House defend that kind of discrimination? This policy does not exist in a vacuum. It has real consequences, and we know that, or at least any member listening to their constituents knows that. In Oshawa, families are already under pressure. The cost of living is high, rent is high, groceries are high and every dollar matters. Student grants are not a luxury. They are often the deciding factor in whether someone can afford to pursue an education at all. When the government removes those supports, it is not just cutting a line in a budget, but closing doors and telling people their path is less worthy. Who does that affect the most? It affects lower- and middle-income Canadians. We see time and time again that the government wants to leave them behind. These are people who are trying to upgrade their skills. They are new Canadians working to establish themselves. They are single parents looking for a stable career. They are workers transitioning from industries that are changing or declining, including many auto workers, as I mentioned, at the GM Oshawa assembly plant who have lost their jobs due to the unjustified tariffs caused by the U.S. and by the Prime Minister 's failure to get a trade deal. These are the people we should be lifting up. Instead, once again, the government is pushing them down. There is another consequence that cannot be ignored. At a time when Canada is facing serious labour shortages, this policy makes absolutely no sense. In Oshawa and across Durham region, employers are looking for skilled workers. We need people in the trades, personal support workers, technicians and people who can step into jobs and contribute right away. (1205) Career colleges play a critical role in meeting those needs. They provide fast, targeted, job-ready training and help people move quickly from education to employment, yet the government has decided to make it harder for students to choose these paths. Why is that? Why would we discourage enrolment in exactly the kinds of programs that our economy desperately needs and depends on? Why would we reduce the number of graduates entering high-demand fields? Why would we worsen workforce shortages at a time when Canadians are already feeling the strain? The answer is not rooted in logic. It is rooted in a flawed approach that undervalues hands-on education. It sends a message that some forms of learning are somehow more legitimate than others, that working with one's hands is somehow less worthy than sitting in a lecture hall and that practical careers are somehow second-class. That is a wrong message. It is wrong for Oshawa, it is wrong for Canada and it is deeply unfair to students simply trying to build a better life. I would like to share a personal story that brings the issue into focus. My son is about to graduate from Western University, and I could not be more proud. He is coming out with an economics degree and is excited about his plans for his future. My daughter is in grade 10 and beginning to think seriously about her future. Lately we have been having many conversations about her next steps and what she may want to pursue after high school. What concerns me is the message the policy may be sending to young young people like her. Does it suggest that an education at a career college is somehow less valuable than one at a public university? When I told my daughter that she does not have to follow a university path and that she might find more suitable, hands-on training through a career college, her immediate response was to ask, “Is that good enough?” That question speaks volumes. My daughter asked if career college is good enough. Policies like this Liberal one risk reinforcing the idea that trades and career-focused education are somehow less than, when in reality they are essential, respected and rewarding paths. I have yet to see a member from the Liberal benches stand up to acknowledge that. I have yet to hear them say that they are not creating two tiers in our education system, yet that is exactly what they are doing. Instead they are trying to play games about the day instead of focusing on what the motion would bring forward. Provinces and territories already regulate career colleges. They determine which institutions meet standards, they approve programs and they ensure accountability, so why is the federal government stepping in to override these decisions? Why is it imposing a blanket policy that ignores the realities on the ground? The committee's recommendation is straightforward: Align federal student grant eligibility with provincial and territorial decisions, respect the systems that are already in place and, most important, treat students equally. It is not a radical proposal. Quite frankly, it is a very reasonable one: Treat students equally. I want to bring the discussion back to the people I represent. In Oshawa, I have spoken with students who are trying to make responsible choices about their future. They are asking for a system that recognizes their goals and supports their efforts, and they are right to ask that, because fairness should not depend on where someone studies. Opportunity should not depend on a bureaucratic distinction. Support should not be denied based on a category that has nothing to do with a student's potential or their contribution to society. The House has a responsibility to ensure that policies are fair, that opportunities are accessible and that no Canadian is treated as less than. At the end of the day, this is about more than grants. It is about dignity and opportunity, and I anticipate Liberal members' questions about this opportunity and dignity. No matter their path, every Canadian deserves a fair chance to succeed. (1210) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the word “game”. The government and the Prime Minister do not take the issue of the youth of our country and play it as a game, unlike the Conservative Party does. We are supposed to be debating and having an actual vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is what was going to be happening as part of the agenda for today, followed by Bill C-10. When we get into Bill C-10, we know that the Conservatives have yet another motion, to delete the short title. For the first time ever in the last 10 years, the Conservatives says that their party is concerned about this specific issue, because the Conservatives are playing a game with important legislation. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts regarding Bill C-10 or the auditor. [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland: Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, we are bringing this forth, because for the first time ever, the Liberals placed this terrible policy in budget 2025. It is our job to look at that, ask questions about why it is there and suggest that it needs to be removed immediately. It is Parliament's job. Concurrence motions are part of procedure. How dare the member get up and act as though we are somehow messing around with procedure? It is in the book for a reason. It is an important topic. It deserves his attention. I really wish the Liberals would start asking questions about students and the rights of students in their ridings. [Expand] Helena Konanz (Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech really got to the heart of the problem with the policy. In my riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a mainly rural riding, a career college is one of the only choices for many fields. For some reason, the Liberals have decided to attack rural Canada. There are many people who will not be able to get an education if they cannot afford their college education at a career college. What does my colleague think is the reason the Liberals are so determined to limit what people in small-town Canada are able to do to further their education? [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the current Liberal government does seem to create class tiers in our country. I mentioned somewhat jokingly once before in a speech that sometimes this feels, when I look across at the other side, like “the house of elites”, but it is proving itself to be true. Day after day as I sit in the House, and it has been almost a year now, it seems to me that the Liberals are not focused on middle- to lower-income families and students, or on folks who live in rural communities who have access only to certain types of career paths. Maybe that is what folks want as well and what they are capable of doing. For our government, the Liberals, to constantly be pushing its thumb down and lowering Canadians' goals and ambitions is actually shameful, and the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. (1215) [Expand] Kurt Holman (London—Fanshawe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise because a recently released statistic shows London as having a high unemployment rate of 9.1%, the highest in Canada. Because of this, Londoners and some of my constituents would obviously think of a career change. What does my colleague think about the Liberal government's implying with these cuts that education at a career college is less valuable than education at other institutions? [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland: Mr. Speaker, I fear that the government does not just imply it. It says outright that education at a career college is not as important as education at a publicly funded university. Shame on the Liberals. My heart goes out to the constituents of London—Fanshawe. Unemployment is very high in Oshawa as well. We have a very similar unemployment rate. It is a real problem. Our students just want access to the same grants that the student next to them may get because they chose a so-called more elite place to go to school. Again, it is a shameful thing that the Liberals are doing. They should be ashamed of themselves that they are not speaking about it today and that they are completely ignoring our concurrence motion, which we have made because we care deeply about students' choices and the people in our communities. [Expand] Tamara Kronis (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a small passage buried deep in budget 2025. It sits quietly on page 217. There is no headline, no press conference and no public debate, but for many young Canadians and for communities like mine, it matters a great deal, because in that short passage, the government signals its intent to eliminate student grants for students attending private educational institutions. At first glance it might sound technical, even reasonable, to people who believe that everyone should strive for a university degree, but when we take a closer look, it reveals something much bigger. It reveals how the Liberal government values different kinds of work and whom it chooses to support. Frankly, it reveals a blind spot. I know something about that blind spot. I am proud to be both a goldsmith and a lawyer, a tradesperson and a professional. I have made my living doing each of them at different stages of my career. Some people would be surprised to learn which was a better way to support my family. The stigma is real. When I introduce myself as a lawyer, people react one way. Yes, there are lawyer jokes, but there is also a measure of respect and deference. When I introduce myself as a goldsmith, as a tradesperson, the reaction changes. I do not need to explain it to the tradespeople watching from home. There is less credibility, as if one path were more serious, more worthy and more important. I have lived in both these worlds. Doors closed to me when I crossed from the class of people who shower in the morning to those who shower when they get home from work. That is why this issue matters to me, because what is buried in the budget is not just a funding change. It is a signal. It says that some forms of education are more worthy of public support than others. It says that the path through a university lecture hall is valued more than the path through a workshop, a training lab or a hands-on program. That is a mistake. There is an old fable many of us learned as children, the story of the lion and the mouse. The lion, powerful and confident, laughs at the mouse for being small and insignificant. What possible value could something so small have? However, later the lion is caught in a net, and it is the mouse, the one dismissed as unimportant, who gnaws through the ropes and sets the lion free. The lesson is simple: Strength takes many forms, and what some dismiss can turn out to be essential. When we need to build at speeds not seen in a century, we need not just lawyers. We need carpenters, scaffolders, welders and Cat operators, including those who got their certificate at private college. If we are facing a rupture, we need all hands on deck. In ridings like Nanaimo—Ladysmith, this is not an abstract debate. It is real life. We are a community built by people who work with their hands as well as their minds: tradespeople, technicians, care workers and small business owners. These are people who fix things, build things and keep our local economy moving. I was lucky to participate last weekend in a repair café, where people came together, with no problem, to help fix things together. Many of us got there not through traditional university degrees. Many of us went to private career colleges. We took focused, practical programs. We learned specific skills that led directly to jobs, in programs in fields like health care support, early childhood education, welding, construction trades, information technology and personal services. These are not backup plans. They are essential pathways to work, and for many young people they are the most direct routes into the workforce. That matters right now more than ever. We are living through a time of high youth unemployment. Young Canadians are struggling to find their footing. They are looking for a way in. They are looking for a way to build a life. They are motivated by money, and they want to find the fastest pathway to earning an income that will allow them to have at least some of the things their parents have. At the same time, employers across this country are struggling to find skilled workers. We hear it from construction companies. We hear it from health care providers. We hear it from small businesses trying to grow. There is a gap, a real one. One would think that the role of the government would be to help close that gap, to support the pathways that connect young people to real jobs as quickly and as effectively as possible. Instead, what does the government do? It narrows those pathways. (1220) Under this change, a student attending a public university remains eligible for means-tested grants, but a student attending a private career college, even if they are in a program that leads directly to a job, loses access to the same support. There is the same financial need, the same ambition and the same desire to contribute, but there is different treatment. Why? It is because of the type of institution they chose. That is not fairness. That is picking winners and losers, and it ignores the reality of how our education system has evolved. Public universities play an important role. Of course they do. We need strong universities. We need research. We need professional training in fields like medicine, law and engineering. However, universities are not designed to meet everything we need. They are not built for rapid job-specific training. They are not always flexible enough to respond quickly to local labour shortages. They do not offer the full range of hands-on programs that many industries depend on. That is where private career colleges come in. They are smaller, more focused, more nimble and more mouse-like. They can launch programs quickly. They can tailor training to local employers. They can provide targeted, shorter pathways. They get people into the workforce in months, not years. For many students, especially those who cannot afford to spend four years out of the workforce, that matters. Let us imagine a young person in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Maybe they cannot leave their community to attend a university. Maybe they need to work while they study. Maybe they are looking for a program that gets them into a job as quickly as possible. They find a program at a local private college. It fits their life. It fits their goals. It leads directly to employment, and they might even be able to work part-time while they are in school. However, under this budget, they lose access to grants. What happens then? They take on more debt, they work more part-time hours, they delay their training, or they abandon the path altogether. That is not helping young people. That is closing doors, and it is happening at the same time the government claims to be focused on youth employment. That is the contradiction at the heart of this policy. On one hand, we hear about investments in job programs and skills training. There is press conference after press conference. On the other hand, we see a quiet decision buried deep in a budget that makes it harder for young people to access some of the most direct routes into those very jobs. It does not line up, and it reflects something deeper. It reflects a mindset that assigns more value to one type of work than to another. It reinforces class differences that I thought we were trying to dismantle. Canadians know that dignity does not come from the type of institution printed on one's diploma. It comes from the work itself. It comes from building a home, from caring for a patient, from fixing a piece of equipment, from running a small business, from mastering a craft. I have seen that in my own life. There is a precision in goldsmithing that rivals any profession. There is discipline, creativity and skill. There is pride in producing something tangible and lasting, and yet too often these paths are treated as second-tier. This policy risks reinforcing that divide. It is not the message we should be sending. If we are serious about addressing youth unemployment, we should be supporting all credible pathways to work, whether they run through a university campus or a small vocational college. We should be asking a simple question: Does this program help a young person get a job? If the answer is yes, then we should be finding ways to support it, not pulling support away. The lion in the fable did not think it needed the mouse, but when the moment came, it turned out that what seemed small was in fact essential. We should not make the same mistake in public policy. Unless and until the government is willing to fund these programs through public universities, private programs like these are essential to our economy. They are essential to giving young Canadians a real chance to succeed. (1225) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a reality check is that the federal government continues to support students. It supports postgraduate facilities, both colleges and universities. It continues to support workforce enhancements through industries. It continues to support entrepreneur youth. It continues to support, in many different ways, the young people of Canada. This is something that is not a one-day flash for the government. We do this year-round. Yesterday, Canada summer jobs kicked off, which has the potential for 100,000 youth to get started with an opportunity in Canada for the summer that leads to more permanent jobs, opens doors and so forth. Why has the Conservative Party chosen one day to highlight the issue when, in fact, playing a game is all this is to the Conservatives? If they wanted to, they could— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. [Expand] Tamara Kronis: Mr. Speaker, when the member says that we are only spending one day on this, he devalues everything I have done in my life and my career. This is not a one-day thing for me. I have a trade and a profession, and I value both. If the member would look at page 217 of the budget and see what the government is doing to restigmatize and continue to stigmatize the trades, perhaps he would speak to the people on his side of the House and get it changed. [Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is evident in this discussion, in listening to the questions Liberals are asking and the comments they are making, that they really have no idea about their own policy and no will to justify it. We had the Minister of Jobs and Families before the human resources committee, and I asked her multiple times to affirm whether this was still the policy of the government after it was not mentioned in the budget implementation act. After about three minutes of this, I asked the deputy minister, who confirmed that this was still the policy. Liberals are attacking people in the trades and people trying to get skills that are acquired outside of a university setting. As we hear from the absurd interventions of Liberals today, there is no awareness of this and no willingness to defend it or look squarely upon the policy that they put in their own budget. I wonder if the member can make sense of what Liberals are doing today and whether they are planning on voting for this motion. [Expand] Tamara Kronis: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to my colleague is no, I cannot make sense of why the Liberals are attacking us on question after question today as we try to focus on jobs for young people. I want to highlight the work that my colleague has done on this file. This is something that he has been focused on day after day. I have seen him talk about it to people in my riding when he has come to visit to help support me and my community as we strive to find jobs for young people. I can assure members that neither my colleagues nor I think this is a temporary thing. It is something we are focused on day in and day out. (1230) [Expand] Helena Konanz (Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this policy creates two classes of students based solely on where they study. In rural ridings like Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, we do not have many choices for education. Why does my colleague think the Liberals are trying to limit education, especially in small communities? [Expand] Tamara Kronis: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Liberals are opposing us on this matter. What I can say to those who are watching at home is that we value what they do and thank them for doing it, and to keep contributing to our economy, because there is a bright future ahead. [Expand] Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Kitchener Centre. I am very proud to get up on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to speak to the motion, which is on the federal Canada student grant for full-time students. This brings me back to 20 years ago when my small first nation, the Haisla Nation, was trying to integrate our people into the economy, specifically into the workforce. Basically, what we are debating here is a motion about the federal government restricting student grants for public institutions and not-for-profit private institutions. While we are talking about this, I have to talk about the Kitimat Valley Institute, a private post-secondary institute in my riding, in the town of Kitimat, that was bankrupt. We could see the value in saving the Kitimat Valley Institute. As a small first nation band under the Indian Act, we had no money, but we could see its value because coming down the pike were forestry, LNG and mining jobs, so we did what we could to scratch together the dollars to purchase this private post-secondary institute and save it. Did we get any government help? No, we did not. It was the private sector that came to our rescue, the corporations. Those first few years were a struggle without government support, provincial or federal. Our people back then were facing the same situation that young people in Canada are facing right now. There is no opportunity or future for young people in Canada, so they are trying to leave. They are trying to go to the United States for a better opportunity to build a life. What was proposed at the Liberal convention just recently for these young people who want to leave is a $500,000 exit tax. If anybody wants to leave Canada for employment or to build a business outside of Canada, there could be an exit tax, which the Liberals debated at their convention. Not only are they stifling the economy so that young people cannot build a life, but they want to punish them with this proposed exit tax. This is not the way to build Canada into the best performing country in the G7, let alone an energy superpower. To do either of those things we need a workforce, preferably a Canadian workforce that is trained and created in Canada, within our borders. Without that, we are basically supporting the economies of other countries, especially when we are talking about labour shortages in skilled and technical fields. Now, many students rely on those grants to afford their career programs, including first nations students. First nations have no real opportunity to engage with respect to what we are talking about here today. If the average aboriginal person who has never left and does not want to leave the reserve has to leave for training or employment, they will want to return to their community or their territory at some point. This is a real struggle. Not only are we telling that person to go out there and find their way in the outside world, but we are basically telling them that they are going to have to struggle with affordability issues under the Indian Act because they will not get 100% of the funding. For a first nation that does not have own-source revenue, it becomes a budgetary exercise and puts limits on what it can do with its younger generation. That is why we bought the Kitimat Valley Institute. We scratched together the dollars to accomplish that. This proposal excludes the Kitimat Valley Institute, which my band operates on private land, by the way. We bought the land from the provincial government, kept it in fee-simple status and keep paying the taxes on it because we understand that the economy is a lot bigger than what we are thinking about. (1235) I do not think the government is truly thinking about all the aspects that go into a private post-secondary institution, which includes taxes and employment of instructors and custodians. Everybody who works at a facility contributes to the economy, locally, provincially and federally. However, it is the next generation of workers who are going to feel this crunch, because they cannot get the training in public institutions alone. For first nations trying to be creative, trying to chart out their own futures for their young people based on the circumstances they have been given under the Indian Act, it is a tough slog. We cannot think about the idea of the chicken and egg when we are talking about economy versus education. I learned pretty quickly that everything we did for training, for education, actually returned to me in anger, because there was no economy in our region. There was a job expected after this training. At that point I understood that training and education go hand in hand with economic development. They have to, otherwise we have people leaving our community. We have a brain drain, and that is what is happening right now in Canada with our best and brightest, whether they go to a public institution or not, going to the United States. This motion does not help. It punishes young people, it punishes Canadians, and why? Is it a budgetary question? If it is, just say it. However, if we want Canada to be running on all cylinders, we have to consider all the components that go into training, especially when we are talking about what we do as small first nations communities all across B.C. and Canada that want to contribute to the economy and want to get our people into the workforce. If not for the Kitimat Valley Institute, KVI, we would not have the number of people entering the workforce to build LNG Canada. When we think about LNG Canada, there are 50,000 construction workers. I am sad to say that not all of those construction workers came from Canada. They came from all over the place. They came from the United States. They came from all across Canada, from different provinces. I see it as a specialized industry. I get it, but we do not build the Canadian workforce by limiting our options. Canada is in a really tough spot with the trade war from the United States and the trade talks coming up. I agree, we have to be independent as a country. We have to diversify our trade, and we have to rebuild our economy after 10 years of stifled policies, regulations and legislation. However, to omit a certain educational entity is wrong. It is not building our workforce. It is not building the future. If we are going to be the energy superpower in the same vein as LNG Canada, or maybe Chevron, which left Canada, a $30-billion investment, and if we want to rebuild this, we have to rebuild the people. We have to show them hope. This motion does not do it. (1240) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does a wide variety of things to support young people. Earlier this morning, just a few hours ago, I was on the floor of the House of Commons with Darion and Brett Ducharme, two outstanding individuals, constituents of mine, who have benefited through the Futurpreneur Canada program. This program is there to provide mentorship and support with finances. These two wonderful young men are successful today because of a government initiative, at least in part, but more importantly, because of who they are and their determination to acquire the skill sets that are necessary. The point is that, in every way, the government understands the need to support young people, and we continue to do just that, just like yesterday with the 100,000 youth summer jobs. [Expand] Ellis Ross: Mr. Speaker, what is the point of this motion then, if not to restrict federal student grants and exclude for-profit institutions like my band has? Why should we have that? This member got up earlier. I heard him say that somehow we are playing a game. This is not gamesmanship. This is about rebuilding Canada. This is about rebuilding a future for young people. Why have this restriction, especially for a lot of first nations communities all across Canada, which are doing exactly the same thing as my community? This would actually discount all those first nations' efforts to not employ just their own people, like an institution like ours, and employ native and non-native alike. It has benefited everybody. It has made Canada stronger. I do not see the point of this motion. [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the Liberal members of this House are refusing to really ask questions about the motion that we put forward based on policy in their budget 2025, a policy that is exclusionary and discriminatory and creates classes of Canadians. I wonder if the member would comment on that, how harmful that would be to Canada if we were to create classes of Canadians to say one is “less than” and their career path is somehow less than someone else's career path. [Expand] Ellis Ross: Mr. Speaker, we have a living example of that in my community, Haisla first nation. We could not get government support for our for-profit institution, Kitimat Valley Institute. We fixed it, not through government support, but through the corporations. I believe that this motion we are talking about is going to be discriminatory. Do colleagues know who it is going to affect the most? It will be those people with a low income. Who are the most low-income people in Canada? It is those people from first nations. I cannot accept this motion the way it is worded. [Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague made excellent points while sharing his own experience. It seems to me, given that we need skilled workers to work on critical nation-building projects, the options are that we train the people who already live in those communities, we train other Canadians and encourage them to move to those communities, or we have workers come here from abroad. I think our priority should be on training Canadians to fill the jobs that exist here in Canada, and particularly in supporting those who live in areas where those jobs already are. The Liberal approach is to cut off training offered through vocational institutions that are more nimble and innovative, where people may be placed in communities closer to where the work is done. That is precisely why the Liberal approach is going to undermine the kind of major project construction that they talk about. We need to have the workers and we want those workers to be Canadian workers. (1245) [Expand] Ellis Ross: Mr. Speaker, without a doubt that is exactly what we learned pretty quickly when we purchased KVI. We opened that up to everybody, native and non-native alike, including first nations from other communities because we knew we could not fulfill the workforce for LNG Canada for 50,000 workers. With Chevron coming down, that was going to be another 40,000 workers. We get the grand announcements. We get the rhetoric of building Canada strong, of being an energy superpower and all that. I do not believe any of it, but if we are going to try to get there, one of the key components is to build the workforce and make sure that the workforce, the majority of it, is Canadian. [Expand] Kelly DeRidder (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there was a time in this country when a path was clear. If people worked hard, made good choices and invested in their future, they could get ahead. That was the Canadian dream. However, for a lot of Canadians today, that dream feels further and further out of reach. Costs are up, opportunities feel tighter and more and more people are doing everything right, but still falling behind. At a moment like this, the role of the government should be simple: to make it easier for people to build a life, not harder. That is why this policy is so frustrating. Instead of opening doors, it is closing them. The government proposed restricting the Canada student grant for full-time students. It might sound like a small change, but in real life, it boils down to this. Two students can be working just as hard, striving to build their careers and trying to build a future in this country, but one of them gets the help while the other gets nothing just because of where they go to school. That is not fair. That is not common sense. That is not how we rebuild the Canadian dream. Those in Waterloo region are incredibly proud of their post-secondary institutions. There are institutions like Conestoga College, Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo, but there are also great institutions like triOS College, which reached out to me personally, concerned about this change. These are colleges that serve our community that the traditional system does not work for, such as single moms working two jobs and still wanting to go to school or anyone who can attend classes outside of their nine to five regular work. These people are now questioning whether they can afford to stay in their programs. Students who are trying to become medical professional assistants, PSWs or IT professionals are now being told that the support they were counting on may not be there. These schools are helping shape our next generation. They give students options, different paths, timelines and ways to succeed, but the reality is that not every student follows the same path. Some students want a university education. Others want something more hands-on, something that gets them into the workforce faster. That is where career colleges come in. They train people for real jobs in real industries, often in less time. They prepare people to become personal support workers, medical assistants, IT professionals and skilled trade workers. These are not backup plans. These are essential jobs. These are the people we rely on every single day, and yet, under this policy, many of those students will lose access to federal grants, not because their work is less important or their career is not needed but because of the type of school they attend as the traditional path did not work for them. Let us think about that. We are telling people who want to work in health care, in the trades or tech that they picked the wrong path, so they are on their own now. At the same time, we have a labour shortage. We see all across our communities that there are just not enough workers. Therefore, why would we make it harder for people to get those skills? Why would we put up those financial barriers? That is what this does. It makes it harder for people to take that next step and for many, it will mean they simply cannot afford to go. It is worth asking who is most likely to be affected by this. It is not the students with the most resources. It is the ones trying to change their lives. People are going back to school later: new Canadians, people looking for a second chance or a fresh start. This policy does not hit everyone equally. It hits those who are climbing an uphill battle. Now let us talk about affordability, because this is where it hits the most. Most students do not have extra money sitting around. They rely on grants to make school possible. Rent is high, groceries are high and everything costs more. For some people trying to decide whether they can go back to school, change careers or learn a new skill, that support can make the difference between moving forward or staying back. The government removing that support for one group of students is a closed door that will hit those with lower and middle incomes. Canadians who are in these classes are hit the hardest, the very people who are trying to get ahead and break cycles in their own lives. (1250) There is another piece to this that matters, especially in a place like Kitchener. That is the extra pressure put on our post-secondary institutions. They contribute to our communities and support our local economies, but we have also seen the pressure on housing, infrastructure and services. Those challenges need to be addressed properly. The policy that the government is suggesting does not solve these problems. It does not fix housing or improve oversight. It does not strengthen the system. All it does is make life harder for Canadian students choosing career training. If anything, we should be expanding flexible, targeted training options to meet demand, not shrinking them. Career colleges are often the fastest way to respond to workforce needs. They adapt quickly and focus on specific skills. In moments like this, when the economy is shifting, that kind of flexibility is not a weakness but a strength. Provinces regulate these schools. They decide which institutions are legitimate and which programs meet standards. The committee made a simple recommendation. If a province says a school is valid, the federal government should respect that. That is the response that puts students first. Right now, the government has not explained why it is suggesting this change or what problem it is solving. From where Canadians are standing, it does not solve anything. It just creates new problems. It creates unfairness and barriers, and it sends the wrong message about the value of work. At the end of the day, it comes down to something simple: respect for students, respect for a different path and respect for the idea that there is more than one way to build a good life in this country. University is a great path. College is a great path. I went to college. Career training is also a great path. We need all of them. We should be supporting all of them, not telling one group they matter more than another. When we do that, we hurt our workforce and our economy, and we push the Canadian dream out of reach. The ask here is simple: reverse this, restore fairness and support students, no matter which path they choose, because if we are serious about helping Canadians get ahead, then we need to stop putting obstacles in the way. [Expand] Jennifer McKelvie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has been very committed to youth employment. We have Build Canada Homes, which has an initial capitalization of $13 billion, and that will create jobs in the trades. More recently, there is the $51 billion to build infrastructure across this country, which will build upon the work we are doing at the Major Projects Office, including in my home of Durham, where the Darlington small modular reactors will employ many youth. Could the member speak to Canada summer jobs? Just this week, we launched it. The portals are open and applications can come in. This is a very good opportunity for youth, to get them working in communities. In my home community of Ajax, we have 368 jobs across 74 organizations, as part of creating these different opportunities across many different sectors. I am hoping the member can speak to that in her riding. (1255) [Expand] Kelly DeRidder: Mr. Speaker, the announcement about the Canada summer jobs was, of course, a good thing. It affected my community as well. However, there can be both things at once. Because we are supporting students in the workforce over the summer, we should also be supporting those students who are looking at getting an education in a different way because the traditional system does not work for them. While I agree that it is a great program, I disagree with the government's decision here. They are cutting funding for the people who need it the most. [Expand] Helena Konanz (Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's discussion on this very important issue. What does she think about the fact that in rural communities like Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay there are hardly any choices for people to further their education? This will further limit the choices that my constituents have. [Expand] Kelly DeRidder: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. This is going to limit choices for those who cannot take a traditional path. In rural communities, that would be exponential because they cannot necessarily work a job and go to school at the same time. That is what these career colleges are doing for people. When people cannot take a traditional path to education and change their life, they go to a career college. This is a very bad decision by the government, and it needs to reverse course. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have clearly indicated, as a government, we have been very much focused, not only on one day, but every day of the year, on being there for young people. Yesterday, as has been already talked about, we had the major announcement that the youth summer jobs program is opening up. There are 100,000 young people who will benefit, potentially, under that program in itself. There are many different programs. However, this is not what we were supposed to be debating today. The Conservatives want to change the agenda, play a bit of a game. Does the member support the appointment of Annette Ryan as the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada? [Expand] Kelly DeRidder: Mr. Speaker, what I am finding to be extraordinary here, in the time that I have been able to serve in the House of Commons, is that every time we hold the government to account, we are being told that we are playing games or we are obstructing government. The fact is that this is absolutely not a reality. What we are doing is speaking on behalf of the 42% of Canadians who voted for His Majesty's loyal opposition, ensuring that they have a voice at the table as well. While we are holding the government to account on this particular item, it is very important that the government reverse course here and help those Canadians who need to take different educational paths here in Canada. [Expand] Helena Konanz (Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to continue this discussion in the House, a very important discussion for all of Canada, in particular for people living in rural communities. What we are talking about is the Liberal government's changes in budget 2025, which unfairly exclude career college students from federal grants. This obviously undermines affordability and Canada's workforce needs. It also undermines skills training, which everybody in the House is talking about every day, and which we are going to need if we are going to build the housing and the infrastructure that our country needs imminently. What this policy does is create two classes of students, based solely on where they actually study. It should not be up to us in the House to decide who gives a better education or what education anybody should have in the first place. I know that when my kids decided to go to school, I wanted them to be able to decide for themselves where they were going. As an institution, we are really promoting all types of education so that we have well-rounded communities in Canada. With this policy, students are penalized for choosing hands-on, employment-based education. It is agreed on this side of the House, and I am sure that everybody in the House actually agrees with this, that many of the programs that are essential to moving forward as an autonomous country are only offered in career colleges. Public colleges are great, obviously. We have some of the best institutions in the world, but when people live in smaller communities, rural communities, such as Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, public colleges and universities are quite a drive away and not accessible to everyone. They do not offer some of the very important programs that are needed. I will give an example: dentistry or dental hygienists. Right now, I would like to go see the dentist myself and go see the hygienist, but it is a six- to eight-month wait in all of the dentists' offices in and around where I live. If we go to even more rural communities in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, it will be an even longer wait. That is just one example of what is happening. Career colleges play a key role in rapid workforce training. Cutting grants for this particular segment of people who want to be able to further their education would obviously discourage enrolment, reduce the number of graduates and worsen the workforce gaps that we talk about every day in the House. As for affordability, many students rely on these grants to afford career college programs. Many people understand that this is not a choice between going to a public school and going to a career college. It is not a choice. Many people do not have transportation, particularly in rural communities. We do not have a SkyTrain that we can take to a bigger city like Kelowna. We do not have mass transit. Sometimes the career college that happens to be down the street from one's house or nearby is really the only opportunity people have to further their education and then be able to put food on the table for their family. This is not a fun choice. This limits upward mobility and access to opportunity. I discourage this policy. (1300) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. [Expand] Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until later this same day, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Appointment of Parliamentary Budget Officer

[Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved: That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), and in accordance with subsection 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Annette Ryan as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Call in the members. (1345) [Translation ]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 98)

YEAS

Members

Acan
Al Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 164

NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 153

PAIRED

Members

Arnold
Battiste
Dabrusin
Dancho
Fortier
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gull-Masty
Joly
Kusie
Lefebvre
Maloney
Morin
Nguyen
Plamondon
Schmale
Sheehan
Thompson
Vien
Total: -- 18

[Expand] The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Petitions

Striped Bass

[Expand] Gabriel Hardy (Montmorency—Charlevoix, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Montmorency—Charlevoix to present a petition on the overabundance of striped bass in the St. Lawrence River. Residents and fishers say that the striped bass population has increased sharply in recent years, creating a major ecological imbalance and putting a lot of pressure on the other species that our fishers depend on for their livelihood. Now they are having trouble catching their quotas. The petition highlights a regulatory inconsistency. Striped bass fishing is allowed downstream but not upstream in the St. Lawrence River, which is where overabundance is an issue. In particular, residents are calling for collaboration with scientists to demonstrate that there are stocks in the river and to implement adaptive management measures, including expanding the recreational striped bass fishery and holding transparent consultations with fishers. Despite the Government of Quebec sending a favourable opinion to the Minister of Fisheries, I must point out that today is the fifth time a petition has been presented in the House and no response has been given yet. I therefore urge the government to act without delay. [English ]

Animal Welfare

[Expand] John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions on behalf of my constituents in Perth—Wellington. The first petition is from constituents who are concerned about the export of live horses and are calling on the government to take action on the matter. (1350) Religious Freedom

[Expand] John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on amendments to Bill C-9, which constituents are concerned will impact the freedom of religion in Canada. Farmland in Clearview Township

[Expand] John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Third and finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition over the concern about the thousands of acres of prime farmland that could be taken out of production in Clearview Township due to the Arctic over-the-horizon radar. [Translation ]

Striped Bass

[Expand] Bernard Généreux (Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to present, as my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix has done, a petition concerning fisheries and the abundance of striped bass in the St. Lawrence River. When I was young, there used to be striped bass fishing competitions and we would see monster-sized fish. That fishing has disappeared over time and striped bass have been reintroduced. Now, the overabundance of striped bass is harming the entire ecosystem in the St. Lawrence River near Côte-du-Sud, in my region. I call on the government to take action following the tabling of this petition. [English ]

Democratic Institutions

[Expand] Bruce Fanjoy (Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of over 42,000 Canadians, representing every part of this country, east, west, north and south. It is calling on all leaders of federal parties to seek and maintain top security clearance for the protection of our country. This petition was initiated by a retired high-ranking RCMP officer who spent much of his career doing national security investigations. I am honoured to present this petition on behalf of him and 42,000 Canadians. Animal Welfare

[Expand] Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Winnipeg South Centre. Of course, a primary function of our responsibilities is to bring their voices here to the floor. With that, I am presenting a petition today in the same vein as my colleague from Perth—Wellington, who rose a few moments ago. My constituents have asked me to raise the issue of banning the export of live horses for slaughter overseas. In undertaking my parliamentary responsibilities, I am proud to rise today to deliver that petition. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Expand] Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to rise and table a petition initiated by a constituent of my riding in the Yukon. It calls on the House of Commons and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to take measures to address prolonged screening delays faced by permanent residency applicants. This petition reflects the lived experiences and concerns of many individuals navigating these processes. I would like to thank Zahra and Seyedsaber Kazemi who initiated this petition, as well as signatories for the hard work and advocacy put into this cause. Official Development Assistance

[Expand] Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from my constituents on international debt relief. This petition is part of a national campaign from 60,000 Canadians. It is called Turn Debt Into Hope, where petitioners, as part of the Jubilee 2025, have called on public, private and multilateral creditors, along with political leaders, to stop the debt crisis by cancelling and remedying unjust and unsustainable debts without economic policy conditions; to prevent debt crises from happening again by addressing their root causes and reforming the global financial system to prioritize people and planet; and to establish a permanent, transparent, binding and comprehensive debt framework within the United Nations. Firearms

[Expand] Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a couple of petitions. The first one is signed by Canadians who oppose the Liberal government's firearms buyback and confiscation program. The petitioners note that the program targets law-abiding, licensed firearms owners and does nothing at all to address gun smuggling or gang violence, which is responsible for the sharp rise in crime. This program diverts resources from measures that would actually reduce violent crime. The public safety minister has also admitted that this is costly and ineffective. Therefore, petitioners call upon the government to end the buyback program and prioritize public safety through real reforms, including stricter bail for dangerous and repeat offenders. Medical Assistance in Dying

[Expand] Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting today is signed by Canadians who are deeply concerned about the Liberal government's planned expansion of medical assistance in dying to persons whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. The petitioners call on the government to support the right to recover act, Bill C-218, and halt this dangerous expansion. Hope is always possible and that is why we are urging Parliament to prioritize suicide prevention and improve access to mental health supports for vulnerable Canadians. (1355) Syria

[Expand] Michael Guglielmin (Vaughan—Woodbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Today, I rise on behalf of the numerous members of the Kurdish community in my riding who are deeply concerned about the ongoing crisis in Syria. They are concerned for the safety, the political rights and the future of the Kurdish people in Syria. They are alarmed about the armed conflict going on there and the intense internal persecution of their people. The petitioners are calling on the government to recognize this fact. Religious Freedom

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions I would like to present to the House today. The first petition is from citizens who are deeply concerned about the Liberal attack on religious freedom contained in Bill C-9. They are concerned that Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. They observe that the state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of faith communities, and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. The petitioners call on the government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreaches in matters of faith. Eritrea

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from members of the Eritrean community who have been following efforts by this government to strengthen and deepen diplomatic relationships with Eritrea. The petitioners want to bring the attention of the House to human rights concerns with respect to Eritrea. It has been ruled by an authoritarian, brutal dictator under an authoritarian system for the last 30 years, with no constitution, no election, no parliament, no freedom of the press and no freedom of movement and association. They note that Eritreans continue to flee indefinite military conscription, religious persecution and political repression. They highlight how those who have managed to flee the country still face intimidation and extortion from representatives and agents of the Eritrean regime in the diaspora, and that families in Eritrea are also harassed and forced to pay tens of thousands of local currencies because their children have fled. They are also concerned about various forms of foreign interference that are driven by the regime in Eritrea, various other human rights abuses, and the malicious conspiracy between Eritrea's dictator and Vladimir Putin that threatens the security of other peoples in Africa and around the world. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to engage Eritrean political and human rights activists and pro-democracy groups, take a leadership role against the joint actions of this dictator and Vladimir Putin against western countries and countries in Africa, investigate foreign interference of the regime in Canada, and enforce Canada's asylum laws against those who explicitly provide material and political support to this regime. They want to see Parliament and the government advocate for the release of Swedish Eritrean journalist Dawit Isaak and 11 imprisoned Eritrean parliamentarians, and strengthen sanctions against human rights abusers in Eritrea. Falun Gong

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling draws the attention of the House to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, which is a movement that seeks to simply follow principles of truthfulness, compassion and forbearance. In particular, the petitioners draw the attention of the House to recent incidents, including bomb and shooting threats targeting Shen Yun, a classical Chinese dance and music performance presented globally by the Falun Gong community. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to publicly seek the end of the persecution of Falun Gong, impose sanctions against the regime related to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and undertake stronger measures to protect victims here in Canada. [Translation ]

[Expand] The Speaker: Unfortunately, we have to stop here. We will pick up where we left off after question period.

Statements by Members

[Statements by Members]

(1400) [English ]

Lawful Access

[Expand] Sima Acan (Oakville West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House referred Bill C-22 to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As a proud member of the committee, I am committed to strengthening public safety and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to protect Canadians. I carry with me the voices of the residents of Oakville West, who trust us to act decisively in the face of evolving threats, and that is exactly what we are delivering as a government. Bill C-22 is an important piece of legislation that would give law enforcement legal access to certain information or to intercept communications in support of investigations into crimes and threats. Tonight, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is hosting a reception to discuss the vital importance of this legislation. I want to encourage all my fellow parliamentarians who want to learn more about lawful access to attend, get informed and support Bill C-22. Let us give law enforcement the modern tools it needs to keep our communities and Canadians safe.

Firefighters

[Expand] John Brassard (Barrie South—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week, the International Association of Fire Fighters is holding its 33rd legislative conference in Ottawa. As a former firefighter and president of Markham Local 2727, I know the work IAFF members are doing this week, meeting with MPs from all parties, is critical to improving firefighter health and safety, as well as ensuring the financial security of Canadian firefighters, their families and the families of members who have been lost in the line of duty, either by accident or illness. Their advocacy reflects the same commitment to service they bring to their communities every day. As the member of Parliament for Barrie South—Innisfil, I want to thank both the Barrie and Innisfil firefighters associations and their members, IAFF Local 1753 and Local 3804, for the work they do in increasingly difficult circumstances and for their charitable fundraising to help those in need. Finally, I want to thank every IAFF firefighter in Ottawa this week and general president Ed Kelly for their service, their advocacy and their unwavering commitment to firefighter safety. I thank them for looking out for our families.

Brantford Bulldogs

[Expand] Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Brantford Bulldogs are off to the eastern conference finals tomorrow after eight straight playoff wins. They have had a historic season, leading the eastern conference into the playoffs with an impressive 106 points and 48 wins, finishing atop the league. Shift after shift, this team is working, skating and playing hard. They are winning battles, lighting the lamp and locking it down in their end. Back home in Brantford, we can feel it: the buzz in the arena, the roar of the crowd and a community rallying behind every goal, hit and save. This is playoff hockey at its best, and the Bulldogs are leading the charge. As a lifelong Brantford resident, I am proud to be a long-time supporter of the team that brings our community together. I encourage players, coaches and staff to keep their sticks on the ice, keep grinding and keep bringing the heat to the eastern conference finals. Brantford is behind them all the way, and we are ready to see that J. Ross Robertson Cup come home. Go, Bulldogs!

National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association

[Expand] Ginette Lavack (St. Boniface—St. Vital, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association. Founded through the vision and leadership of first nation and Métis leaders, NACCA has built a national network of 51 indigenous financial institutions, expanding access to capital for indigenous entrepreneurs and serving every province and territory. In the 1990s, pioneering organizations such as the Alberta Indian Investment Corporation, Indian Business Corporation, Saskatchewan Indian Equity Foundation, Société de crédit commercial autochtone, Tale'awtxw Aboriginal Capital Corporation and Ulnooweg Development Group laid the foundation for this movement. Last year, their work generated $377 million in labour income and over $640 million in GDP, while strengthening community well-being. [Translation ]

Congratulations to NACCA on 30 years of impact, leadership and success. [English ]

Daffodil Month

[Expand] Peter Schiefke (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we recognize Daffodil Month, I rise to highlight the leadership of the Canadian Cancer Society and the many volunteers, patients and caregivers who have come to Parliament Hill for their annual day of advocacy. Nearly half of the people in Canada are expected to be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, and the Canadian Cancer Society is focused on saving lives, improving lives and driving collective action against cancer. As part of their actions, volunteer advocates from across Canada are sharing their stories, highlighting the critical role clinical trials play in bringing new life-saving treatments to people with cancer and how important it is to remove barriers in accessing these trials. (1405) [Translation ]

The Canadian Cancer Society continues to call for a stronger and more effective clinical trials system that puts patients first and accelerates innovation while strengthening Canada's health care system and economy. I would like to thank these individuals for their dedication and hard work, which is helping to shape a future where Canadians will have quicker access to better cancer care. [English ]

Trans-Canada Highway

[Expand] Eric Melillo (Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Canada Highway is top of mind for the people of northern Ontario, whether for safety, economic security or nation building. During a 10-day stretch last winter, the region saw five collisions that resulted in eight fatalities. These types of accidents are far too common. It is also the only east-west corridor in the country. When the highway is delayed just 30 minutes, it costs the economy nearly $50,000. With more opportunities in mining, forestry and nuclear bringing more traffic to the region, this impact will only become greater. The Prime Minister speaks often of protecting our economic security and developing nation-building projects. Despite this rhetoric, no new pipelines have been approved, mines are not being permitted and the national highway continues to be ignored. Improving the Trans-Canada in northern Ontario is a win for all Canadians. It will strengthen our economy and protect our sovereignty. If the Prime Minister is serious about nation-building projects, he should start in northern Ontario.

Tannis M. Richardson

[Expand] Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of Tannis M. Richardson, a remarkable Winnipegger whose legacy of service enriched our country. Mrs. Richardson was gracious, caring and deeply committed to others, dedicating her life to building a better community for all and inspiring others to do the same. She was a tireless volunteer and leader, supporting organizations such as United Way, the Kidney Foundation and the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra, and as a proud champion for the arts, she played an important role establishing the Winnipeg Art Gallery. Her work with Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the creation of Manitoba's A Starry Starry Night gala fundraiser made a tremendous difference in the lives of countless families. Her contributions were recognized nationally as she was appointed to the Order of Canada in 2003. Mrs. Richardson lived to be 99 years of age. In that time, she built a legacy defined by generosity and leadership. On behalf of the residents of Winnipeg South Centre, I extend my sincere condolences to her family and loved ones. May her memory be a blessing.

Daffodil Month

[Expand] Dan Albas (Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while there is much we may debate in the House, today I want to begin with what unites us, which is standing with Canadians affected by cancer. April is Daffodil Month, a time for us to show support for Canadians living with cancer, their families and caregivers. As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary cancer caucus, I want to thank the Canadian Cancer Society for its leadership and non-partisan support. I also recognize my co-chair, the member for Vaudreuil, and Senator Andrew Cardozo, as well as the patient advocates, researchers and volunteers who make this work possible. Daffodil Month also reminds us why access to innovation matters. Clinical trials are often a last resort, and they can be a lifeline. As journalist Don Martin recently shared, a clinical trial can quite literally mean the difference between life and death, yet too many Canadians still face unnecessary delays. That is why the Canadian Cancer Society has set a big achievable goal: no more than 75 days from a clinical trial registration to enrolling patients. This means more trials, more innovations and more lives saved here in Canada. This is a goal we can achieve together. Let us support the work of the Canadian Cancer Society and give those facing a cancer diagnosis hope. [Translation ]

Earth Day

[Expand] Patrick Bonin (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, April 22 is Earth Day. In Quebec, Earth Day is more than a celebration: it is a day of action. In 2012, more than 250,000 people took to the streets throughout Quebec. Individuals, young people, families turned out to protect what we hold most dear: our planet. Those voices have not disappeared, but they have been ignored, just like the billions of people threatened by the climate crisis, who are being ignored by governments that are making different choices, choices that were influenced by nearly 1,000 meetings with oil and gas lobbyists in 2025. We refuse to give up. Earth Day reminds us that change comes from commitment. We are fighting and will continue to fight against all odds to build a greener, fairer and more humane world and to remind everyone that it is time for this government to come back down to Earth, the only one we have. (1410) [English ]

Robotics

[Expand] Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Team Dave is FRC Team 3683, the first robotics team at St. David Catholic Secondary School in Waterloo. Team Dave's participation in the first robotics competition is what gives the team its structure, intensity and connection, but what stands out is how they balance their competitive drive with their culture of helping others. When asked, Team Dave shared that the most meaningful part of their season was supporting fellow teams across the Waterloo Wellington community. I have seen it. Team Dave showcases the best of Waterloo and Canada. Team Dave is not just a team that builds robots. It is a competitive engineering program, a training ground for real-world problem-solving, a node in a global robotics network and an environment that develops both soft and hard skills. In March, Team Dave won the Canadian Pacific Regional in Vancouver, B.C. I congratulate Team Dave. We look forward to seeing what comes next. We thank the sponsors, mentors, parents, teachers and supporters who never cease supporting Team Dave. I wish the team a happy sweet 16.

Fuel Taxes

[Expand] Steven Bonk (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, back home in Souris—Moose Mountain, farmers will be in the fields soon and are in the calving barns right now, spending long days and short nights doing what they do best, producing the food that Canadians rely on. This year, like too many before it, they are doing it under the weight of rising costs that have been driven up by the Liberal government. Fuel power is everything in agriculture, in seeding, spraying, harvesting and hauling. When taxes drive up the cost of diesel, they drive up the cost of food. It is just that simple. Canadians are already paying more at the pump, and Liberal taxes are making it worse, leaving us paying far more than our American neighbours. Now Liberals are offering a temporary break on only one part of one tax for one part of one year. That is not relief; that is an illusion. Farmers cannot plan a season on temporary measures, and families cannot budget on half steps. Conservatives have a plan to remove these taxes in full, so farmers can produce and Canadians can afford to eat. When we support our farmers, we support families across Canada.

Daffodil Month

[Expand] Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in April, we wear daffodils as a symbol of hope for all those affected by cancer. Many families have been touched by cancer. Daffodil Month brings Canadians together in that shared hope. Across the country, Canadian researchers are advancing new immune therapies and treatments. Let us recognize the nurses and doctors across Canada who are working hard to support patients every day. In Sunnybrook, Dr. Arjun Sahgal and his team are treating cancer patients with advanced radiation technologies. Dr. Helena MacKay and her team are also improving cancer care with the new drug therapies. I want to recognize local organizations such as Cancer Warriors, the Walnut Foundation, the Terry Fox Foundation and Canadian Cancer Society, along with the volunteers who are working hard on the ground. Let us continue the fight so that, one day, we can live in a world free of cancer.

Iran

[Expand] Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister warned at Davos, no more going along to get along. Then on April 10, Canada went along and got along. Iran, designated as a state sponsor of terror, whose Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a listed terrorist entity in this country, was handed a UN seat shaping programs of women's rights and counterterrorism. Only one country objected, and it was not Canada. The government's silence on Iran is a vote cast in its favour, no matter what it tells us. This is a regime brutalizing women for removing their hijab, running IRGC operatives in our streets, and fundraising, organizing and terrorizing our own people on our own soil. The Liberals have never had a single position on Iran, only whichever position costs the least. The record never lies. Delay and silence are a quiet ballot cast for the tyrants. Iran knows it. Every time the Liberals are in the room, the tyrants keep winning.

Canadian Medical Association

[Expand] Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to welcome to the gallery physicians from across Canada, part of the Canadian Medical Association— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Speaker: As the member knows, we cannot point out those who are in the gallery, but the member may restart from the beginning. (1415) [Expand] Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, physicians from across Canada are here today as part of the Canadian Medical Association's Hill day. My colleagues are here to deliver this message on behalf of their patients: medicare is in trouble, and we must fix it. I spent years as a physician, standing with patients in times of sorrow, joy, pain, birth and death. It was a privilege and an honour. I saw what happens when a system stretched past its limits is held together only by the dedication of those who deliver care. Our doctors know what is needed to build a more efficient, effective and equitable system. Let us meet with them and listen to them. Let us end the toxic spread of health disinformation that erodes public trust and risks lives. Let us ensure access to care by all Canadians, especially the vulnerable and the stigmatized. I ask colleagues to salute doctors across the country, who show up each day for their patients against all odds to deliver the care they need when they need it, regardless of where they live or their ability to pay.

The Economy

[Expand] Carol Anstey (Long Range Mountains, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after years of the Prime Minister 's recycled speeches and empty promises, Canadians are still waiting for relief that never comes. There was nothing new in his latest message; just the same words, while costs rise and families fall further behind. In March, Canada again had the highest grocery price inflation in the G7. In Newfoundland and Labrador, families are paying more and getting less at the checkouts and at the pumps. We are in an entrepreneurial drought, with 55% of small business owners not recommending starting a business. Why is that? It is because this Prime Minister doubled down on deficits, printed money and kept taxes high, driving up the cost of everything. There are no major resource projects. There is no plan to get our energy to market. Fewer homes are being built, while young families wonder if they will ever afford one. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not need another empty Liberal promise; they need results. Conservatives are fighting to end the waste, cut the taxes, unleash our resources, approve projects and build homes so Canadians can once again afford to live, work and raise a family.

2020 Shootings in Nova Scotia

[Expand] Alana Hirtle (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, six years ago this past weekend, my community experienced unthinkable tragedy. Twenty-two lives were lost across Nova Scotia. They were neighbours, friends and family. These past six years have delivered much pain, sorrow and confusion, but we have also witnessed extraordinary resilience, compassion and solidarity. We have supported one another through the darkest of days and found strength together that we may not have known we possessed. We learned that grief does not have a finish line, but neither does love. Let us grieve, but not get lost in grief. Let us commit to working together toward the kind of community that honours every life lost.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

[Translation ]

The Economy

[Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian families should be able to fill their grocery carts without emptying their wallets. However, it came out yesterday that in March, Canada had the worst food inflation for the fourth month in a row. All the other G7 countries are facing the same global factors, such as wars and tariffs, but here in Canada, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canadians are seeing the fastest price increases. On March 25, the Prime Minister said that affordability was the best it had been in a decade. Does he still believe that to be true? [Expand] Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, on March 25, I said that rent affordability was the best it had been in a decade. That is true. That is a fact. Second, in March, Canadian wages grew at twice the rate of inflation. We are growing the economy. This economy will have the second-fastest pace of growth in the G7. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is not what he said. He said that affordability was the best it had been in a decade. Even if he was talking about rent, that is not true either. In 2015, rent for a one-bedroom unit was $970. Now it is $1,850, so that is not even true. The Prime Minister cannot fix a problem if he does not understand it. Every Canadian paying more for rent, food and other things knows he was wrong. Will he just admit that he made a mistake? (1420) [Expand] Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, affordability is measured through prices and wages. Wages in Canada continue to grow at twice the rate of inflation, and rents in Canada are now going down because of an increase in the housing supply. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians should be able to fill their grocery carts without emptying their bank accounts, but yesterday we learned that, for the fourth month in a row, Canada had the highest food price inflation in the G7 under the Liberal Prime Minister. All the other G7 countries have the same tariffs, wars and other global factors as we do, but it is under the Prime Minister that Canadians are paying the most the fastest. He made a bizarre comment on March 25 when he said, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” Families who are turning back items at the grocery checkout and young people who cannot afford a home know he is wrong. Will he admit that he was wrong? [Expand] Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the record is that every month I have been Prime Minister, Canadian average wages have grown faster than the rate of inflation. Every month I have been Prime Minister, rents have fallen relative to wages. There is more good news, because on June 5, over 12 million Canadians are going to receive the groceries and essentials benefit top-up, which is a boost today and a bridge to tomorrow. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister goofed. He stood on the floor of the House of Commons and claimed that it is now more affordable than at any time in a decade. The seniors who have to line up at food banks after those food bank lineups have doubled know he is wrong. The young people who are paying twice the rent they would have paid a decade ago know he is wrong. The single mother who is paying 40% more for groceries and has to turn back items at the grocery checkout knows he is wrong. Will he just stand up, admit that he is human, that he made a mistake, that he goofed up and that he got it wrong on affordability? [Expand] Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, housing rental affordability continues to improve. Asking rents have declined for 18 consecutive months. Every single month that this government has been in office, Canadian average salaries have increased. Now the IMF says that Canada will be the second-strongest economy in the G7 this year and next. We are growing Canada strong. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, he said “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” A decade ago, the average one-bedroom rent was $970. Today, it is $1,850. It has doubled. Incomes have not doubled. The young people who cannot afford that rent know that he is wrong. The seniors choosing between eating and heating know that he is wrong. The Canadians paying 70% more for beef know that he is wrong. Will he stop quoting international bankers, realize that Canadians have never paid more and admit he was wrong? [Expand] Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, asking rents have declined, year on year, for the 18th consecutive month. Growth in housing expenses has increased at less than the Bank of Canada's target, marking the 16th straight month of annual declines. Salaries continue to grow at more than twice the rate of inflation. Affordability is improving, but this government is just getting started and we will not stop. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are hoping they do stop because they cannot afford to pay one more penny. This Prime Minister is completely out of touch, and Canadians are completely out of money. He thinks it is more affordable because his company puts its money in tax havens. It is very affordable when someone does not have to pay any tax. Meanwhile, the single mothers who are having to put their grocery items back understand that he is wrong to say affordability is better than ever before. The seniors who cannot afford the doubling of rent under this Liberal government know he is wrong. Canadians know he is wrong. Will he stand up, admit that he goofed up and that he was wrong on affordability? (1425) [Expand] Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record, for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, that I work for Canadians, and only Canadians, to improve their affordability. That is why we have the groceries and essentials benefit, over $500 for 12 million Canadians on June 5. That is why we are cutting the federal tax on fuel. That is why we are providing Canada's average family with over $20,000 in benefits from child care and dental care to pharmacare, which is everything that he voted against. [Translation ]

International Trade

[Expand] Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the past year, the Bloc Québécois has been demanding that trade talks with the United States be the top priority. However, that did not seem to be the government's strategy. Today, the government is relaunching the Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations. The government is even enhancing it, perhaps in the interests of Quebec. The committee was a tool created under Justin Trudeau and has had little impact until now. Now it is sending a message that, once again, the government's priority is negotiation. In the meantime, will the government put transition measures in place for businesses? [Expand] Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to have the minister on the Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations. This committee also includes the president of the FTQ, a major Quebec union; the president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, Mr. Simard; and the heads of major Quebec and Canadian companies. We already have the best trade deal with the United States, and we are just getting started. [Expand] Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that Ms. Picard is a member of the committee. I would point out that, three weeks ago, the U.S. president announced harsher tariffs, including some that will affect manufacturing companies that use steel and aluminum. Those are real businesses and real jobs. Now that negotiation is back on the government's agenda, will it bring in transitional measures for businesses that are being affected between now and the end of these negotiations? [Expand] Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition member for his question, which is an important one. The new U.S. section 232 tariffs are all-encompassing. Yes, the government is considering transitional measures for businesses and individuals, including the affected workers. [Expand] Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister finally seems to understand the impact that U.S. tariffs are having on businesses, which is good. Just because 85% of businesses are still covered by CUSMA does not mean that everything is fine and dandy. That leaves 15% of businesses and 15% of workers affected, which is huge. I look forward to hearing what those measures are. I would like to know whether they will be included in the economic update and whether he is willing to consult us on them. [Expand] Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course everyone will have to wait until the economic update is delivered. Our great Minister of Finance will deliver it on April 24, and there will be more good news for Canadians. As for the government's strategy, we are building a strong, affordable, resilient Canada that is more independent from the United States. [English ]

The Economy

[Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I gave the Prime Minister the chance to correct the record, and he refused to do so. On March 25, he made an inaccurate comment. He claimed that affordability was the best that it had been in over a decade. Rent has doubled in that decade. The cost of food is up 40%. The cost of beef is up 70%. The cost of mortgages is up well over 60%. Every Canadian knows that he got it wrong. He cannot possibly fix a problem if he does not know it exists. Will he stand up today, admit that he got it wrong and admit that life has never been more expensive for Canadians? (1430) [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just moments ago, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about single mothers. What I would like to say to all the single moms across the country is that we have their back. We have their back with the Canada child benefit payment, which is indexed to inflation, so that when the costs go up, so does their payment. This is something the Conservatives voted against. We have their back when it comes to the cost of child care, to make sure that not only can they go to work and improve their skills, but they can actually pay for quality child care while they do it. These guys vote against workers. They vote against moms. They vote against kids— [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, now the Prime Minister has gone in the witness protection program. He does not even show up to answer questions 70% of the time, and then he refuses to stand up for affordability. He made the comment that affordability was the best it has been in over a decade, this after the number of people lined up at food banks has doubled. The rent has doubled. The cost of food is up 40%. We have the worst food price inflation in 40 years, and the Prime Minister cannot even stand in his place and debate me and answer the question. Will he admit that he got it wrong on affordability, like everything else? Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Speaker: Order. Colleagues, let us calm down. 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, it is clear that we hit a nerve today, did we not? They know the truth. Whether we are talking about investment and skilled trades workers, or supporting workers when they are laid off due to tariffs or other issues related to that sector, Conservatives vote against Canadians' interests. Whether it is $500, $1,800, $16,000, it is the same pattern of behaviour. They vote against the very Canadians they say they care about. Their actions prove exactly what side they are on— [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister goofed up. He goofed up. He stood up and claimed that Canadians have never had it so good, claiming that affordability is the best that it has been in over a decade, during which time housing costs have doubled and food bank lineups have doubled. Canadians cannot afford to eat. Will he have the courage to stand up, admit that he goofed up and apologize to Canadians for the price he is making them pay? [Expand] Hon. Wayne Long (Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the past Conservative leader and the current Conservative leader, who have 45 years' experience between the two of them, have produced nothing. On this side of the House, the Prime Minister has been elected for one year and we have the strongest projected economy in the G7, the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 and the best net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and wages are outpacing inflation. On this side of the House, we are serious about the economy. On that side, it is bluster and rhetoric. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what a sad sight it is when the Prime Minister cannot even stand to defend his own comments when he claimed that life is more affordable than it has been in over a decade. He has been wrong on every major economic issue of our time. He was wrong to support the carbon tax, wrong to say that we should leave 50% of our oil and gas in the ground, wrong to oppose the pipeline to the Pacific, wrong about money printing, and now he is wrong to claim that Canadians are living a more affordable life than in a decade. Will he have the courage to stand up, admit he goofed up and apologize to Canadians for telling them they have never had it so good? (1435) [Expand] Hon. Adam van Koeverden (Secretary of State (Sport), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants Canadians to judge people by what they say in the House of Commons. I kind of agree. He thought Brexit was a good idea. He said that marriage should be exclusively a bond between a man and a woman at the exclusion of all others. He also said that Canadians should opt out of inflation by buying cryptocurrency. We have real solutions for Canadians. We have a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. We have the groceries and essentials benefit, which will help 12 million vulnerable Canadians with their grocery bills. How about a real solution, for a change, rather than this rhetoric? [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, just last week he was telling us that he wanted to lecture us all like students. Now he will not even get out of his chair and answer for his own words. He was the one who said that affordability is better than it has been in a decade, during which time the number of people lined up at food banks, hard-working people, has doubled. Rent has doubled. Beef prices are up 70%, and the Prime Minister has the audacity to look at mothers who have to turn back items at the checkout of the grocery aisle and say they have never had it so good. Will the Prime Minister have the courage to look that woman in the eye— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Speaker: We know chanting is not allowed in the House. It is unparliamentary. The hon. Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation. [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, it is a little early for cherry-picking season, but he is cherry-picking quotes and negative statistics to run down our country. As the Prime Minister said, wages have grown twice as fast as the rate of inflation. We just took 10¢ off the price of a litre of gas, 28¢ since we took government. We have just given families up to $1,900 this year in the groceries and essentials benefit. We are fighting for Canadians. They are running down the country and cherry-picking useless quotes. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the question was not for the artificially intelligent minister. It was for the Prime Minister. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Speaker: We know that epithets are not permitted. We have to treat all hon. members with respect. That does not mean we cannot have hard-hitting questions, but no nicknames, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I goofed. I mixed up his title. That is all I am asking the Prime Minister to do. He looked Canadians in the eyes, Canadians who are downgrading their diets, who are skipping meals so that their kids do not have to, and said that they have never had it so good, that affordability is the best that it has been in a decade. Anybody who spent five minutes studying the economic facts would know that food bank lineups have doubled, rent has doubled and the cost of everything is going up precisely because of his inflationary Liberal policies. Will he have the courage to stand up, own up and admit that he goofed up? [Expand] Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he is often mining for clips, as we know, today more often than usual. I wonder why. He might be nervous about something. He is the champion of Brexit and the guy who wanted to cut the pensions of seniors. He talked about being out of touch. He stood in front of the home of a waitress and called it a “shack”. On this side of the House of Commons, we will be sincere. We will be hard-working, and we will stand by our communities and our constituents. We will put in place the foundations for the Canadian economy in the present and the future. That is exactly what we will do. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister owes Canadians an explanation. They are living with the worst housing costs and the worst food costs in Canadian history. They are living with the worst food price inflation in the G7, the worst household debt in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7 and the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7, breaking every single promise that the Prime Minister made. Why will he not have the courage to stand up and answer the question, admit that he was wrong about affordability, and admit that he will reverse course so Canadians can afford to eat? (1440) [Expand] Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition owes Canadians an explanation, because when he goofed up and lost his seat, Canadians spent $2.3 million of taxpayer money. What we are doing on this side of the House to support women is through the national school food program. We are feeding 400,000— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Speaker: We will wait until it gets a little quieter, because the Chair cannot hear, and if the Chair cannot hear, the Chair does not know if rules have been broken. Not from the top, but the member may continue, and we will have a bit of leeway. [Expand] Hon. Rechie Valdez: Mr. Speaker, speaking of women and the Leader of the Opposition, let us not forget that he embedded misogynistic hashtags in his YouTube channel, promoting men who hate women. On this side of the House, we are promoting the national school food program, which is feeding 400,000 kids across the country. We have made this program permanent. [Translation ]

Veterans

[Expand] Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): Mr. Speaker, far too many veterans suffer from mental health issues. To help them, Ottawa created a program called partners in Canadian veterans rehabilitation services, or PCVRS. However, instead of helping, it is hindering. A survey of 51 mental health professionals found that PCVRS makes veterans' health worse. They are misdiagnosed by unqualified employees. Worse still, if they boycott the program, Ottawa threatens to reduce their benefits. Do veterans deserve that kind of treatment? [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Jill McKnight (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, supporting veterans in their rehabilitation journey is a top priority. While many veterans are seeing positive results in their overall well-being, we know there are still many we can continue to help. That is why I have directed my department to launch an independent review of the rehabilitation program. The goal is to identify where the program is working well and where it can be strengthened so that we can continue to support the outcomes and better support veterans through this transition. [Translation ]

[Expand] Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): Mr. Speaker, veterans who are suffering are forced to participate in PCVRS under pressure from Ottawa, even when it worsens their symptoms. They are caught up in a bureaucracy that is hurting them. They are repeatedly confronted with their traumas by poorly trained therapists who contradict the advice of health care professionals, yet Ottawa is considering extending the program for another six years without evaluating its effectiveness. Before moving forward, will the minister launch an independent investigation into the human impact of PCVRS? [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Jill McKnight (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our top priority will always be ensuring that veterans receive improved support, service and rehabilitation outcomes through the rehabilitation program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has expanded to over 15,000 service providers and has supported more than 23,000 veterans. We recognize that there are always opportunities to improve. I have just said that we are going to be undertaking an independent review. We will continue to put the care of veterans at the forefront of the work that we are doing. [Translation ]

Taxation

[Expand] Jason Groleau (Beauce, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the Prime Minister described our trading relationship with the United States as a “weakness”. The real weakness is the Liberal policy that is making life increasingly unaffordable for Canadians. The cost of gas, which was $1.40 a litre a few months ago, has now risen to $1.80 a litre. The Liberal math is to reduce it by 10¢ a litre. However, Canadians are still short 30¢ a litre. When will the Liberal government suspend all federal fuel taxes? (1445) [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that, as of Monday, Quebeckers are paying 10¢ less a litre for gas in Quebec and across the country. That is immediate support, but we are not stopping there. There is also the Canada child benefit. To give my hon. colleague some idea of what he is voting against, he is voting against 11,500 families and $80 million in his riding of Beauce by voting against the Canada child benefit. In addition, the Canadian dental care plan is enabling 28,837 residents of Beauce to see a dentist. He is voting against that. He cannot rise in the House and claim that he is here to stand up for his constituents. [Expand] Jason Groleau (Beauce, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal inflation is costly. Liberal taxes are costly. Liberal inaction is costly. Liberal math is extremely costly. The Liberals are announcing a discount of four cents per litre on diesel. Talk about impact—that is terrible. Allow me to share an example. A semi carrying groceries has 15,000 items in it. A discount of four cents per litre amounts to one-fifth of a cent per item. Well done. In short, this plan is not worth a penny. Will the government adopt our plan and suspend all federal taxes on gasoline? [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fundamental difference between that side of the House and this side is that there is absolutely no vision for the Canadian economy on that side. Our side has implemented immediate support measures such as suspending the excise tax, cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians and providing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the Canadian dental care plan and the Canada child benefit. That is immediate support, but the vision is a bridge to the future, a springboard to the future. It is about building one Canadian economy. It is about major projects, such as the port in Contrecoeur and the Nouveau Monde Graphite project. It is about thousands of jobs spread across the country. It is about expanding trade corridors. It is about signing trade agreements. That is the economic vision on this side of the House.

The Economy

[Expand] Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps telling Canadians that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. It seems that Brookfield's elite rarely go out to buy groceries. Over the past Liberal decade, food prices have risen by 42%. Potatoes have gone up by 60%, and beef has gone up by 69%. Those are the facts, and the list goes on. Can the Prime Minister take responsibility for the Liberals' poor record and stop lecturing Canadians? [Expand] Hon. Nathalie Provost (Secretary of State (Nature), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to be able to walk while chewing gum, answering a cellphone or doing other things. We need to be able to work on all fronts. We are working on the gas tax. We are working on essential needs. We are also working hard to give Canadians more purchasing power over the long term. We are working on the Canadian economy, we are creating jobs, we are bringing trade home and we are becoming independent. That is what needs to be done. Walking while chewing gum and working for Canadians: That is what we do. [Expand] Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals like to chew gum, but here are the facts. Just yesterday, data confirmed that Canada has the worst record in the G7 when it comes to food inflation. Canadians are unhappy under Liberal rule. We have fallen from fifth place to 25th place in the global happiness rankings. Even without a track record to speak of, the Liberals are outdoing themselves in arrogance. When will this Prime Minister stop peddling false hope and finally start delivering results for all Canadians? [Expand] Hon. Nathalie Provost (Secretary of State (Nature), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we are working for all Canadians. When we work for children, when we work for seniors and when we work on groceries and essentials, we are working for all Canadians. That is what is important for all Canadians. That is what we are doing and what we do here every day. Unfortunately, the opposition often blocks the strategies that would help grow the economy, restore our independence, and boost our long-term capacity.

Taxation

[Expand] Bernard Généreux (Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, CPC): Mr. Speaker, cutting 10¢ from a litre of gas right now is like trying to put out a fire with a glass of water. Canadians need a lot more relief than 10¢ a litre. The Liberals asked us if we had any good ideas. Well, eliminating all federal taxes on gas and diesel by the end of the year would be a relief measure for families, farmers and businesses, not only in Côte‑du‑Sud—Rivière‑du‑Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, but for all Canadians and Quebeckers. When will the Liberals listen to us and take 25¢ off a litre of gas, like we are calling for? (1450) [Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us put that to the smell test. Does anyone know what a smell test is? I will give some examples. There is a war going on right now. The price of crude oil has gone from $60 a barrel to almost $100 a barrel, leading to a sharp increase in the price of fuel. Those are not Liberal taxes. Come on. It has to do with the international context. In the meantime, we are doing what we can, which is to relieve the pressure on Canadians' wallets with— [English ]

[Expand] The Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton Centre. [Expand] Aslam Rana (Hamilton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when folks in my riding of Hamilton Centre go to the gas station to fill up their cars, they will notice a difference at the pump. Yesterday, the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax came into effect, saving the average Canadian family 10¢ per litre on regular gasoline. This is just one way Canada's new government is making life more affordable. Can the secretary of state update us on this and other measures designed to put more money in the pockets of Canadians? [Expand] Hon. Wayne Long (Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Hamilton Centre for the great work he is doing in this House and in his riding. If Canadians go fill up right now, they are going to save 10¢ a litre. Last week, we paused the federal excise tax on fuel. If we add the cut to the consumer carbon tax of 18¢, that is 28¢ in savings when Canadians fill up. On this side of the House, we are going to continue to be focused on building the strongest economy in the G7. It is time for the Conservative Party to join us and build a strong Canada.

International Trade

[Expand] Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are only 10 weeks left until the CUSMA review and there is still no plan from the Prime Minister. Reports suggest there have been no serious negotiations with D.C. since October, while Mexico is actively engaging in informal CUSMA talks with the U.S. We are at a critical juncture for North American trade and I raise a very straightforward concern. We have 2.6 million Canadian jobs that depend on this negotiation. They need certainty. They need predictability. Why is Canada not actively at the table? [Expand] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade, and One Canadian Economy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise anyone that the premise of the question, that Canada is not actively engaged with the United States or at a negotiating table, is not accurate. I have had a number of conversations, on a weekly basis, with senior members of the American administration. The Prime Minister is also communicating directly with President Trump. Our chief negotiator Madam Charette and Ambassador Wiseman are also having conversations. We are doing the important work that Canadians expect us to do, but we are also focusing on what we can control here at home. [Expand] Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on the promise of being able to negotiate a deal with the United States. He has not delivered and instead, he is walking away. With 76% of our exports bound for the U.S., that reality will not change quickly, certainly not for Canadians already bearing the costs of tariffs. Diversification takes time, especially when negotiations yield no results. When will the Liberal government commit to prioritizing Canada-U.S. trade, return to Washington and secure a deal with a nation that we trade nearly a trillion dollars a year with? What is the plan? [Expand] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade, and One Canadian Economy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question gives me an opportunity to share the good news with all members of this House that this morning, the Prime Minister announced an important advisory council of women and men who represent businesses. There are elected union leaders and community leaders. In fact, there is the former leader of the Conservative Party, the former premier of Quebec, the former premier of Nunavut and a former minister of public safety in this House. Business leaders, union leaders and representatives of associations are working with this government to make sure we have a deal for Canadian workers. (1455) [Expand] Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Reuters reports that Mexican President Sheinbaum is eyeing an early deal, ahead of the completion of the review of CUSMA, on autos, aluminum and steel. Is the government working in coordination with Mexico to secure an early deal on autos, aluminum and steel? If not, why not? [Expand] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade, and One Canadian Economy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course we are working with our Mexican counterparts as we do the work necessary to prepare for the CUSMA review. I am in regular contact with Secretary of Economy Ebrard. The Prime Minister, of course, talks to President Sheinbaum. The good news is Secretary Ebrard will be in Canada with an important delegation of Mexican business leaders, a return of the successful visit we did. We will continue those conversations with the Mexicans and the Americans to ensure that we get the best deal for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. [Expand] Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mexico is clearly at the negotiating table, providing formal updates. Yesterday, President Sheinbaum and U.S. Trade Representative Greer formally met in Mexico City. The joint statement said that Mexico and the U.S. will hold talks this week on resolving trade irritants, and that Mexico and the United States will begin the first official negotiating round for the review of CUSMA the week of May 25. When will talks between Canada and the U.S. take place to resolve irritants? When will the first official Canada-U.S. negotiating round for the review of CUSMA take place? [Expand] Hon. Maninder Sidhu (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course the U.S. is an important trading partner, but there are also many trading partners around the world that we are engaging with. We signed a trade agreement with Indonesia, destined to be the fifth-largest economy in the world, overtaking Germany. The UAE investment agreement brought back $70 billion of investments to this country. We have a trade agreement with Ecuador. Also, there is what we are doing with the European Union. Our defence exporters have asked us to unlock opportunities, and that agreement alone has unlocked hundreds of millions of dollars of opportunities for our defence export community. This is what it takes to unlock jobs in Canada. [Expand] Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on April 2, the United States announced substantial changes to how they will collect steel and aluminum tariffs. Now applied to the full value of products, this change will result in higher costs for Canadian manufacturers and reduce business activity across this country. Workers and businesses are looking for leadership, but instead they are getting silence. Was the Prime Minister aware of these changes? What is he doing to have these tariffs removed? [Expand] Karim Bardeesy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. trade relationship remains key, and that is why this government is working hard every day to make sure we get the best possible deal and not just any deal. At the same time, we are supporting trade diversification. In the last year, our exports to Europe are up 31%. Our foreign direct investment is at an 18-year high. We are working very attentively at the industry committee. We are working very attentively to listen to what the steel and the mould-makers are telling us, and we will be there with the supports that are needed. [Expand] Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being left in the dark on the CUSMA review. We are forced to rely on media reports and the occasional committee appearance, hearing only vague talk of challenges faced. My constituents are calling me, concerned for their families and their businesses as a resolution to these disputes continues to grind on. In fact, many of us know more about the status of the U.S.-Mexico negotiations than those of our own country. When will the Prime Minister provide a clear update to this House on the deal that he promised to secure over a year ago? [Expand] Karim Bardeesy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are controlling what we can control. We cannot control what is happening on the other side. We are in regular contact, both with U.S. administration officials and with the companies, the steel makers, the mould-makers, the aluminum providers, all those companies that are key to this trade relationship, not just with the U.S. but increasingly across the world. We will continue to be in regular contact. We will be there to support this sector. [Expand] Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that Mexico is anticipating a deal on autos, steel and aluminum. In fact, it appears that Mexico and the U.S. have been at the negotiating table, having ongoing formal and substantive discussions. Here, there are reports that there have been no substantial or ongoing formal discussions between Canada and the United States since October. Why is it that Mexico seems to be at the table with the United States, and Canada is on the outside looking in? (1500) [Expand] Hon. Anita Anand (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade has indicated, our talks with the United States continue, as they do with Mexico. In the meantime, we will continue to diversify our trade relationships, with over a dozen new deals signed in the past six months, combined with FDI, foreign direct investment. We are also looking to conclude additional FTAs this year, including with ASEAN in 2026, looking ahead to Mercosur. We can control our own destiny, and we are doing that by diversifying our— [Translation ]

[Expand] The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. [Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on a single promise: to negotiate a victory with the U.S. President by July 21, 2025. So far, there have been no victories and no agreements, and the U.S. tariffs on Canadian products have doubled. As a result of this incompetence, hundreds of Quebec businesses are losing millions of dollars because of U.S. tariffs. What is the government doing? It is taking billions of taxpayer dollars to make up for its failure. Why do Canadian families have to pay for the Liberal government's failure? [Expand] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade, and One Canadian Economy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague knows full well that we currently have a better agreement with the U.S. than any other trading partner does. However, we also recognize that the unjustified tariffs being applied around the world, as the Prime Minister said in his initial responses, deserve a response from the Government of Canada together with our friends in the provinces and territories to support workers and industries. I am surprised that our colleague from the Conservative Party does not think we should be there for Canadian workers. [Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who said that. Last year, the Prime Minister, who is sitting here, said that he could negotiate an agreement and solve the problem with Donald Trump. Now, here we are a year later and nothing has been resolved. Worse still, there have been no negotiations with the U.S. over the past five months. Everything is at a complete standstill. Meanwhile, Mexico is making progress and other countries have signed agreements. Canada has nothing and the government is using taxpayers' money to compensate. Yes, businesses are struggling, but they do not want a compensation cheque. They want to do business, but everything is at a standstill right now because the Prime Minister has not fixed anything. [Expand] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade, and One Canadian Economy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in my colleague's comments, so I will take this opportunity to remind the House of the good news that the Prime Minister announced this morning. We set up a new advisory committee with labour representatives like Ms. Picard from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the president of Agropur and the president of Domtar, a major forestry company. These are all business people from Quebec. There is also Mr. Simard from the aluminum industry. We have people across Canada who want to work with our government because we are there for our industries.

National Defence

[Expand] Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the MP proudly representing Orléans, I often hear about the need to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces to meet the challenges ahead. Our new government has embarked on an ambitious plan to rebuild, reinvest in and re-equip our armed forces. Can the Minister of National Defence provide an update on this important plan? [Expand] Hon. David McGuinty (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Orléans for her question. We do indeed have some important news for Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces. Recruitment has reached its highest level in 30 years. Here are the facts: Over the past year, the number of applications has more than doubled to over 45,000. We have recruited 7,310 regular force members, exceeding our target, and 70 of the 97 key positions have been filled. We are working hard, but we have only just begun. [English ]

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Expand] Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee, the Auditor General revealed multiple situations where the immigration department failed to investigate, or even detect, significant cases of fraud. At the same meeting, the deputy minister of immigration pleaded ignorance on the topic, saying, “it's my fourth week on the job...so I can't answer the question”. In fact, for two straight hours, he had zero answers as to why the Auditor General found over 153,000 cases of immigration fraud yet his department only investigated 2%. The Prime Minister said the system was under control, but like everything else, that was an illusion. I have a simple question. Why has the immigration minister lost control? (1505) [Expand] Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been a 60% decline in the number of international students coming to Canada and a one-third decline in those claiming asylum. We are restoring control and integrity in the immigration system. There are a number of other examples I could provide, but for the benefit of the member, who is an honourable member and a good colleague on the immigration committee, he knows very well that is not what the deputy said. He is cutting off his comments, in fact. He said very clearly that the recommendations of the Auditor General are taken into account. Data systems are being put in place to ensure greater integrity. We will continue that work. [Expand] Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week a Quebec judge called out the rampant practice of prosecutors and judges arranging lenient sentences for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada in order to shield them from deportation. The reality is that many victims are suffering because non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada are getting sweetheart deals so they do not have to face the consequences already set out in Canadian immigration law, yet the Liberals voted against my bill that would have ended this practice. Why? [Expand] Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important that when people commit serious crimes, they face serious penalties. That is why we are moving forward with some of the most serious reforms, when it comes to Canada's criminal laws, in generations. As the member knows, there is no rule that requires judges to reduce penalties for people based on their immigration status. We want to ensure that courts have the ability to make judgments that consider all the facts of a given case and that when serious crimes are committed, serious penalties will result. [Expand] Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would love for the minister to say that to a woman whose non-citizen ex-boyfriend choked her and assaulted her so badly that she is terrified to leave her house, even for grocery shopping. Her attacker argued that he should get a light sentence so that he would not be deported, and last week we found out that the judge agreed with the criminal. It is disgusting. This is not a system that is under control. It is not a system that provides justice for victims. The Liberals, in fact, are supporting a two-tier justice system that undermines the safety of everybody and the credibility of our immigration system. [Expand] Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when violent criminals are convicted of serious crimes, they must face serious penalties. That includes, in the immigration system, the risk of deportation after a conviction for a serious crime has taken place. There is not a rule, as some have suggested in this chamber, that requires judges to give lighter sentences for people based on their immigration status. We need to ensure that the justice system operates with integrity, and that includes the ability of the court to consider all the facts that are before the court when making a decision as to an appropriate sentence. Members can rest assured that we support serious penalties for violent offences in all circumstances.

Public Safety

[Expand] Iqwinder Gaheer (Mississauga—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Bill C-22 was referred to committee. This is important legislation in our digital age. It gives law enforcement exactly the tools it has asked for. Our government's work is closely aligned with many child protection organizations, like Peel Children's Aid Society in my very own riding. Can the Minister of Public Safety please elaborate on what the movement of this bill means for keeping our communities safe? [Expand] Hon. Gary Anandasangaree (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Mississauga—Malton for that very important question, and let me thank law enforcement agencies across Canada for the work they have been doing to ensure that lawful access measures become law in Canada. I want to assure all members in the House that we are working together for the swift passage of Bill C-22, the lawful access act. Today, chiefs of police and police leaders are gathering in Ottawa, under the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, to educate lawmakers on the need for lawful access. I invite all members to join us this evening.

International Trade

[Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to talk about our country's weakness. The only weakness I see is his broken promise to Canadians in not getting a tariff deal. A new 25% tariff was put on the entire value of goods made with steel, aluminum and copper. This is devastating news for the thousands of workers in Stoney Creek's industrial corridor and the 2.6 million Canadians who rely on U.S. trade for their jobs. It has been one year. When will the Prime Minister stop the illusions and get the tariff deal he promised Canadians? (1510) [Expand] Karim Bardeesy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Hamilton has a proud history of steelmaking, and there is a proud sector there of steel mould-making that supports the broader sector of southern Ontario manufacturing. On this side of the House, we are controlling what we can control, which means expanding trade to places where we have previously not been doing as much trade, establishing new trade agreements and supporting those mould-makers, steel manufacturers and others with tariff relief and opportunities to move beyond that. We know we will be in regular dialogue with those members of the community, so that we can have their backs.

Taxation

[Expand] Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being crushed by the cost of living, and now gas prices are skyrocketing, but not everyone is suffering. Oil companies will rake in an extra $90 billion this year from Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran. What is the Liberal response? It is a tax cut that oil companies will simply pocket by raising prices. Instead of handing more money to oil giants, why does the government not cap gas prices, tax windfall profits and use those funds to give people real relief? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. My colleague will be happy to see that yesterday, the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax came into force until Labour Day. To his point, members will remember that last year we gave additional power to the Competition Bureau to make sure it has the tools and the enforcement capacity to make sure that we have more competition in this country. We all understand that more competition usually leads to more choice for consumers and better prices for consumers. [Expand] Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the high cost of living is fuelled by greedflation, and the Liberals know it. The top 1% now holds nearly a quarter of all wealth, while the bottom 40% scrape by with just over 3%. Oil companies are on track to make $90 billion in windfall profits from Trump's illegal war. Half measures, like a temporary federal gas tax suspension, will not stop this growth inequality. Will the Prime Minister bring in a windfall profit tax and price caps on gas to stop oil companies from price gouging Canadians, yes or no? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, and I am sure all members of the House are interested in the matter. We are doing our part on the federal side. Last year, the hon. member would have seen that we gave additional power to the Competition Bureau so it can investigate and have enforcement tools, and we will continue to make sure that there are more tools in the tool box of all the enforcement agencies to make sure there is more competition and always better prices for Canadians. [Translation ]

Presence in Gallery

[Expand] The Speaker: I the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Crispin Mbadu Phanzu, Minister Delegate responsible for La Francophonie and the Congolese diaspora, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

[English ]

Committees of the House

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

The House resumed consideration of the motion. [Expand] The Speaker: It being 3:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Call in the members. (1525) [Translation ]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 99)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 152

NAYS

Members

Acan
Al Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Bains
Baker
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Boulerice
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 166

PAIRED

Members

Arnold
Battiste
Dabrusin
Dancho
Fortier
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gull-Masty
Joly
Kusie
Lefebvre
Maloney
Morin
Nguyen
Plamondon
Schmale
Sheehan
Thompson
Vien
Total: -- 18

[Expand] The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Eleanor Olszewski: Mr. Speaker, my telephone app did not work. I voted nay. [Expand] The Speaker: The member is asking for unanimous consent to consider her vote. Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Points of Order

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11—Speaker's Ruling

[Speaker's Ruling]

[Expand] The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 17, 2026, by the deputy House leader of the government in the House of Commons regarding the admissibility of amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts. The member contended that during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, six amendments, CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4 and BQ-3, were adopted by the committee after having been ruled inadmissible by the chair. The member requested that the Speaker review the content of the bill as amended and determine whether the six amendments in question would exceed the scope and principle of the bill as determined by the House at second reading. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman argued that the six amendments in question are consistent with the principle and scope of the bill. He claimed that CPC-1 would fix an unintended omission from the bill and that the mention of the judge advocate general in the bill's summary demonstrates the importance of the position. With respect to CPC-16, BQ-2 and NDP-4, he argued that these amendments had the support of all committee members. The member contended that BQ-3 would both increase the pool of potential military judges, something already contemplated in the bill, and result in judges' release from the forces, which he argued is consistent with the principle of enhancing the independence of the military justice system. Finally, he argued that CPC-10, by providing for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused, would make a change consistent with the bill's proposal concerning a victim's liaison officer. (1530) [Translation ]

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton also intervened on the matter. He argued that amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3 should not have been ruled inadmissible by the chair. Regarding BQ‑2, the member maintained that it merely requires the government to table a plan to study the creation of an inspector general on sexual misconduct, without creating a position or requiring new spending, and was supported by expert testimony and unanimously adopted in committee. As for BQ‑3, the member argued that it was meant to correct an omission from the bill as introduced by the government, namely to strengthen the independence of military judges by ensuring they cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces upon appointment. In light of the arguments made, the Chair has carefully reviewed Bill C‑11 as adopted by the House at second reading and the amendments in question. The principles or main legislative objectives of the bill appear to be to reform the military justice system with a particular view to enhancing the independence of authorities in the system and removing the military justice system's jurisdiction over crimes of a sexual nature. The amendments in question propose changes to the National Defence Act. Two of the amendments, CPC‑1 and CPC‑16, were ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee since they seek to amend a section of the act that is not amended by Bill C‑11. Four further amendments, BQ‑2, NDP‑4, CPC‑10 and BQ‑3, were ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee on the grounds that they exceed the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. [English ]

The Chair will first address the amendments that were ruled inadmissible due to a violation of the parent act principle. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains this principle in section 16.75 as follows: In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is generally inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill. In certain cases, such amendments can, however, be admissible if they are shown to be directly relevant to the subject matter of the bill being considered, while meeting the criteria of principle and scope. CPC-1 creates a new time limit during which an officer may act on behalf of the judge advocate general with the possibility of extension by approval of the Governor in Council. Similarly, CPC-16 creates a new clause to amend the appointment process for the chief military judge to ensure the position cannot be vacant for more than 120 days. Both amendments seek to amend sections of the act that the bill does not address. While the bill does mention both positions, the version adopted at second reading did not amend the appointment process for the judge advocate general, the process through which others can act on behalf of the judge advocate general, or the appointment process for the chief military judge. In the case of CPC-1 and CPC-16, the Chair agrees that the amendments were inadmissible as they are inconsistent with the parent act principle. [Translation ]

The Chair will now consider the remaining amendments, which were ruled to be inadmissible for exceeding the scope of the bill. As Speaker Milliken noted in a ruling on January 29, 2008, at pages 2312‑2313 of the Debates:

The principle refers to the purpose or objective of a bill, while the scope refers to its legislative scheme or the mechanisms that will give effect to the principle, purpose or objective of a bill. BQ‑2 seeks, in clause 8 of the bill, to add new section 70.4 in the act, which would require the preparation of a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. The deputy government House leader had also suggested in her intervention that this amendment could infringe upon the financial prerogative of the Crown. While the Chair does not find that the preparation of the plan would impose a charge on the public treasury, an office of an inspector general for sexual misconduct does appear to be a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. (1535) [English ]

NDP-4 amends clause 9 of the bill by adding new subsections 71.16(4) and 71.16(5) to the act to ensure, to the extent possible, that every person involved in the investigation or prosecution has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. Bill C-11 amends section 71.16 of the act, but in a very limited matter, only to provide that an individual acting on a person's behalf can request that a victim's liaison officer be appointed. To add a requirement for every person involved in an investigation and prosecution to have this sort of training appears to the Chair to go beyond the scope of the changes proposed in the bill. Furthermore, the bill is silent on training related to trauma-informed approaches, which also appears to the Chair to be a new concept beyond the scope of the bill. CPC-10 adds a new clause to the bill that adds a new section in the act, which would create a new mechanism for the appointment of a liaison officer to assist the accused. The act already provides for a liaison officer for the victim, but not for the accused. The bill, therefore, is not introducing this concept, but, rather, is simply modifying a matter related to the appointment of a victim's liaison officer. The concept of a liaison officer for the accused appears to be an entirely new concept that was not already contemplated by the bill as adopted at second reading and appears to the Chair to exceed its scope. [Translation ]

Finally, BQ-3 amends clause 18 of the bill by further expanding the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge and providing that any officers or non-commissioned members appointed to be military judges are to be released from the Canadian Forces. As stated in paragraph (e) of its summary, the bill already expands the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as military judges. To amend these provisions to further expand that class of persons appears to the Chair to be consistent with the legislative scheme of the bill; however, the amendment also introduces the new concept of the release from the Canadian Forces of anyone appointed as military judges, and this appears to be beyond the scope of the specific change the bill proposed to make to the act. In the Chair's view, while these amendments may to varying degrees relate to the principles of Bill C‑11, they nevertheless go beyond the legislative scheme and concepts provided for in the bill and were correctly ruled inadmissible by the Chair of the committee as being outside its scope. Consequently, I order the aforementioned amendments adding new clauses 2.1, 9.1, and 19.1, as well as those amending clauses 8, 9 and 18 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-11 with the removal of the inadmissible amendments. This reprinted version will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage. I thank members for their attention. [English ]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, as reported (without amendment) from the committee. [English ]

Speaker's Ruling

[Expand] The Speaker: There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-10. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon. (1540) Motions in Amendment

[Expand] Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, CPC) moved: That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting the short title. He said: Mr. Speaker, before I get to my comments, I would like to draw members' attention to Cancer Awareness Month in honour of my younger sister, my mother and all those fighting this horrible disease; and the support teams who help out those who are trying to fight cancer. We are talking today about the government trying to create a new position of treaty commissioner. The rationale is that somehow this would give accountability to the government's implementing and honouring the modern-day treaties that have been signed, mainly in B.C. They were negotiated in B.C. for the last 30 or 40 years. I have the honour of having one treaty in my riding, the Nisg̱a'a Treaty. The treaty is 20 years old and yet the people still cannot get the federal government to co-operate as a treaty partner as outlined in the treaty itself. I also have in my riding two first nations that are up for ratification, the Kitselas First Nation and Kitsumkalum. They are going through the ratification stage right now in B.C. However, they are going to face the same problems that Nisg̱a'a, Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth and other first nations are experiencing right now with modern-day treaties, in that they cannot get Canada to participate in a modern-day treaty in partnership with Canada. The current Liberal government wants the world to think that if it creates a treaty commissioner there will be accountability and Canada would then get to the table and co-operate with these first nations that have signed modern-day treaties. However, what government members will forget to tell them is that this issue is 20 years old. It comes back annually. There have been endless reports, even to the point where the Government of Canada created a document called the “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”. It has headings: “Roles and Responsibilities...Deputy Ministers' Oversight Committee...Modern Treaty Implementation Office [and] Evaluation of the Directive”. On top of that is the expected rhetoric that the government will “ensure that they are aware of, understand, and fulfill their departments' obligations pursuant to all modern treaties in effect.” It sounds good, except it does not do it. The treaty itself is supposed to be a document that says Canada, B.C. and a first nation shall work together in key areas. A first nation gives up its asserted rights and title and comes into a constitutionally protected document agreement in good faith, in the spirit that the first nation that signs the treaty will walk beside Canada and B.C. and help build Canada together. The first nations are there. They want to implement and they want to build, not just for their own first nation but for Canada overall, but Canada is missing. In fact, the document, “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”, came from another document, “Canada's Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy”. This has more headings than the first document I named. It goes on at length ad nauseam in terms of how Canada this year will commit to implementing the treaties that it signed with first nations. It has the regular rhetoric: “Message from the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations...Purpose...Context...Interpretation and application of this policy...Principles guiding the timely, effective and full implementation of modern treaties...Advancing objectives of modern treaties...[and] Direction to public servants”. (1545) That means that every single ministry under the federal government that is tasked with working with its counterparts in treaty first nations has been directed to do a job. There are headings on legislative, policy and program design considerations; monitoring, evaluation and review; and commitments to further work on essential components of the policy. Then there are the annexes. One is intergovernmental relationships, with the intergovernmental leaders' forum and the intergovernmental policy circle. The next is accountability and oversight. All these documents and all these announcements that have come up year after year over the past 30 years are simply to state one thing: Canada is not living up to the obligations that it signed on to with the modern day treaties. Is it any wonder that the first nations will take anything that shows accountability to the first nations that have already signed them? There are already mechanisms in the House that speak to the accountability. There are already entities outside the House that speak to the accountability that should be there but is not. There is the Auditor General's report on whether or not the government is living up to its commitments and obligations under the treaty. In B.C., we have the BC Treaty Commission, “the keeper of the process”, as it is referred to. There is also every single department under the federal government that is supposed to be held accountable and should be sending reports to the government and to cabinet on why they are or are not living up to these commitments. We have logged, cut down, a massive amount of forest to produce all the paperwork simply to say we want to work with first nations that have signed a treaty, that have given up their aboriginal rights and title. The biggest example that comes to mind is the Nisg̱a'a, in my territory. They wanted to be respected as a treaty partner. They take pride in their treaty. Not only is it a form of independence they are still working on, but they also thought they would be walking side by side with the federal and provincial governments. That is not so, according to the Nisg̱a'a. On Bill C-48, the tanker ban, the Nisg̱a'a urged the government that the moratorium, the tanker ban, must not be introduced before the implications for their nation and their treaty were well understood. More important, they said that the moratorium should not cover Nisg̱a'a treaty territory. The Nisg̱a'a, to be clear, were not supporting a tanker ban. They were not for it. They were not against it. They just felt that they were owed the duty of a higher level of consultation when Canada was proposing it. They did not get it. This brings me back to the days of the B.C. legislature. I warned the B.C. legislature not to play games with aboriginal issues, whether we were talking about case law or UNDRIP, and now B.C. is chaos. I give the same warning to the House. We should not play games with aboriginal issues, or else the chaos and the confusion are going to get built on, in terms of what we are seeing in B.C. right now. (1550) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just to respond quickly to the member's last comments, I can assure him that whether it is the Prime Minister or members on the government benches, we will not play games with indigenous people. Indigenous people are in fact a nation we are obligated to work with. The legislation that is being proposed, Bill C-10, to establish the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, is something that is being relatively well received. Can the member provide his thoughts on the principles of the legislation as proposed and on the general feeling of the indigenous communities he represents, and also those beyond the province of B.C.? [Expand] Ellis Ross: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, you are playing games with aboriginal issues. The Speaker is not, but through the Speaker to the member of the Liberal government, I say that you are playing games. You have 20 years of reports. There is Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy that you have not implemented. Out of that, there is the cabinet directive on the federal approach to modern day treaty implementation that you have not implemented, so you are— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I am going to interrupt the member with a reminder to speak through the Chair and not directly to the other member he is referring to, and to find another way to word it rather than using “you”. We are always to speak through the Speaker and not directly to the member. Questions and comments. [Translation ]

[Expand] Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with my colleague that we must not play games with the implementation of treaties. Canadian history demonstrates that the federal government has rarely been sensitive to national minorities, whether indigenous or from Quebec. However, there is still a certain degree of consensus. We are prepared to move forward quickly. I would like to know what my colleague thinks needs to be changed in the bill for the Conservative Party to get behind it. [English ]

[Expand] Ellis Ross: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there is any amendment that could be proposed that would actually breathe life into the agreements. The announcements are all there in black and white. They are detailed right down to the last letter. Creating another position to implement what the government should have been doing right from day one would just give first nations and the Canadian public a false sense of security, even of accomplishment for that matter. [Expand] Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on the Wet'suwet'en issue, many Canadians were captivated by what was happening in their territory, where a pipeline was being blocked, a project was being blocked. I met Hereditary Chief Theresa Tait-Day. She came to me and said, “Bob, 80% of us in the Wet'suwet'en really support this project.” Elected chiefs and hereditary chiefs supported it, and there was a small group of hereditary chiefs who were opposed to the project. Guess which group the minister at the time from the Liberal government was sent out to negotiate with. It was only with the people who were in opposition to the project. We talk about “in good faith”. Does the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley think the Liberals really do want to work in good faith with first nations? [Expand] Ellis Ross: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think the Liberal government is sincere. Otherwise, why would we need a treaty commissioner, when it is already laid out in a number of agreements and announcements and the treaty itself says that it has to be partnering up on the clauses in each treaty? There were the games in the B.C. legislature as well. An ex-minister from the House was actually hired by the B.C. NDP to settle the pipeline blockade issue. We could not see the report, because the report was deemed an oral report, so we still do not know what the consequences of that were. (1555) [Expand] Brendan Hanley (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to acknowledge, with respect, that we are gathered on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. These territories are unceded and unsurrendered, and they have been places of meeting and exchange for centuries. [Translation ]

I recognize that Parliament itself has long been a place where relationships are negotiated, challenged and renewed. It is particularly timely to reflect on this history today, as we consider a bill that directly addresses how Canada fulfills its treaty obligations and honours its commitments to indigenous peoples. [English ]

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-10, an act that would create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The path toward reconciliation has never been simple. That said, treaties, both historic and modern, have shaped and will continue to shape the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, and as such are vital to reconciliation efforts. Modern treaties in particular are essential to this work. These constitutional agreements emerged in the 1970s as Canada sought to address unresolved land claims through negotiated agreements rather than prolonged litigation. I want to acknowledge the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who comes from the great region of the Nisg̱a'a, who were among the early signers of a modern treaty. Many Yukon first nations were also at the forefront of the push for modern treaties. ln 1973, Elijah Smith and a delegation of Yukon chiefs went to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada to present the historic document “Together Today for our Children Tomorrow”. This document was among the first land claim proposals to be accepted by the Government of Canada under its new comprehensive land claims policy, and the negotiation of modern treaties in the Yukon began shortly thereafter. [Translation ]

These agreements aim to provide legal clarity and certainty by clearly defining rights, obligations and governance arrangements. They were designed not only to address past grievances, but also to establish sustainable frameworks for the future. [English ]

Bill C-10 is a priority for modern treaty nations across Canada. At present there are 27 self-governing nations operating under modern treaties. In the Yukon today, 11 out of 14 first nations are governed by such agreements. Taken together, these agreements cover a significant portion of Canada's land and sea mass, particularly in the north. They involve thousands of specific obligations and engage more than 30 federal departments and agencies. This scale and this complexity make effective implementation essential. They also make coordination challenging. The Yukon stands as a strong example of what modern treaties can achieve. Yukon first nations exercise law-making authority, manage lands and resources and deliver programs and services in accordance with their agreements. At the same time, the Yukon's experience demonstrates a clear lesson. Even well-designed treaties require consistent and coordinated federal follow-through if they are able to fully achieve their intent. Implementation is not automatic. It requires sustained attention, institutional knowledge and accountability over time. [Translation ]

This is the context in which Bill C‑10 must be understood. This legislation is timely. It builds on previous efforts and goes further than previous proposals. It represents a concrete step forward on the path to reconciliation. Bill C‑10 was thoroughly studied by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, of which I am a member. The committee heard testimony from 27 witnesses representing self-governing first nations from across Canada. After clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the committee reported the bill back to the House without amendment so far. [English ]

That report was unanimous. This outcome speaks to the strength and consistency of the evidence heard at committee. Witnesses from across the country spoke clearly about the need for an independent body dedicated to modern treaty implementation. They emphasized that existing mechanisms have not been sufficient to address systemic and recurring challenges. (1600) I found the testimony of Grand Chief Math'ieya Alatini of the Council of Yukon First Nations particularly compelling. Yukon first nations were, again, among the earliest modern treaty partners in Canada, and their experience offers important insight. The grand chief explained that although modern treaties clearly define obligations, the absence of an independent body to track progress has allowed unresolved issues to persist for long periods. Treaty nations are often required to raise the same concerns repeatedly, with limited resolution. The grand chief emphasized that the proposed commissioner would not reopen agreements or disrupt existing processes. Rather, the office would elevate unresolved implementation issues, provide objective assessment and help restore momentum when progress has stalled. [Translation ]

A witness from the Naskapi Nation of Quebec stressed the importance of the evolution of modern treaties, especially given the evolution of federal government policies and the economic and social development of the communities involved. She said that although the implementation of a treaty signed in the 1970s may now be effectively completed, it is still essential to review that implementation today and to revisit the spirit of the treaty, as well as the context in which it was signed. She emphasized that a commissioner of modern treaties would have an essential role in this work to ensure that these agreements continue to address current realities while honouring the commitments and intentions on which they were based. [English ]

Opposition members have raised thoughtful questions during the committee study, including whether a new commissioner was necessary and whether the Office of the Auditor General could fulfill this role. Witnesses addressed these questions directly. They explained that while the Auditor General has strong investigatory powers, their work necessarily spans the entire federal government. Reviews of modern treaty implementation have therefore been broad and episodic. Modern treaty implementation, by contrast, requires continuous attention, subject matter expertise and institutional memory. A dedicated commissioner would complement existing oversight bodies rather than duplicate them, by bringing continuous attention and institutional memory to this work. [Translation ]

In the end, the bill was referred back to the House. Witness testimony helped to allay some concerns and highlighted the need for this legislation. Modern treaty partners across Canada are calling for practical measures. They are not asking for new promises. They are calling for the faithful implementation of agreements that have already been reached. [English ]

We have listened and now we must act. This bill has been years in the making. Passing it now will ensure that arguments already made are honoured in practice and would mark another meaningful step forward on the path of reconciliation. Meegwetch. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague and friend has been a very strong advocate with regard to the whole truth and reconciliation file, and he understands and appreciates the many different aspects in the north, especially when it comes to the future potential of the north. There is that obligation that we have as a nation. I am wondering if he could just provide his thoughts in regard to truth and reconciliation, working toward that, how the modern treaties are a positive step forward, and how all of us benefit by having that independent advocate. [Expand] Brendan Hanley: Mr. Speaker, I feel so proud, as the member of Parliament for the Yukon, to be able to talk about the progress that we have seen through modern treaties. Self-governing modern treaty nations are working toward implementation. Implementation, I know, has often been frustrating, but the progress they have made as partners in everything that happens in the Yukon has been incredible to witness. [Expand] Tamara Kronis (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, CPC): Mr. Speaker, every one of these treaties is a contract, and every one of them is a contract between a first nation or an indigenous group and the Crown. All of them have dispute resolutions. Normally, when someone is in breach of a contract, they contact the other party and tell them they are in breach of this contract. The party either says, yes they are, or no, they are not. Why do we need a commissioner to do this job when the government should be looking at these contracts, abiding by them and fixing its behaviour if it is not? (1605) [Expand] Brendan Hanley: Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a distinction between a contract and a treaty. In particular, a modern treaty is a profoundly deep agreement that is often the work of years, if not decades, of putting together the right framework that is suited to that first nation and workable within the Government of Canada. Again, there have been frustrations over the years in implementing these treaties, but on the other hand, we have seen incredible progress. I do think that, again, I am speaking on behalf of these modern treaty nations that are asking for an independent commissioner to ensure that the spirit and the commitments of modern treaties are met by Canada. [Translation ]

[Expand] Ginette Lavack (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, we have often heard about how important it was to include indigenous people in the drafting of this bill. Can my colleague tell us why that was so important? Can he explain how that process actually worked and explain how drafting the bill in co-operation with indigenous people made it so robust? [Expand] Brendan Hanley: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very important point. Since the earlier version of this bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, we have worked collaboratively with first nations to draft this modern treaty implementation bill. That is a fundamental aspect of the spirit and principles of this bill. [Expand] Marilène Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C‑10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. I want to thank all the groups that worked together to develop this bill. This includes the 130 first nations and Inuit indigenous groups who offered their collaboration and who have been calling for this bill for decades. I also want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, who worked together during the study of the bill to see if we could improve it. Naturally, we wanted to work diligently because the bill had already been introduced in the previous Parliament. This bill is a second attempt and it is one that everyone agrees on, so I believe that we should move forward fairly quickly. Quite simply, indigenous organizations were calling for the creation of a commissioner position to work on the federal government's accountability, transparency and responsibility in meeting its obligations. In their view, these obligations were not being met. That is why we are studying this bill. It may come as a surprise, because the government should be responsible and transparent. It should be diligent in answering for its acts or omissions, but that is not the case. Unfortunately, to supplement the Auditor General's work, indigenous groups had to ask that a commissioner also be assigned to ensure that the government fulfills its obligations. Bill C-10 is a step in the right direction because it is something that first nations and Inuit peoples have been calling for in terms of the signature and implementation of treaties. For decades, first nations have seen that, although the government has an obligation to implement various treaties, it is not doing so. There are delays and, after a great deal of struggle, first nations ultimately have to go to court to make their voices heard. They spend a lot of money for the court to tell the government that it has to fulfill its obligations. That is just common sense. It is a truism, but that is what the government has to do. We need a commissioner to help with that. The Bloc Québécois unequivocally supports the self-determination of nations. It supports any quest for autonomy or freedom. It is a legitimate cause, particularly here, in the face of persistent colonialism that once tried to brutally eliminate or assimilate certain nations. I believe that we can achieve the same objective by changing what needs to be changed. This is another way of enabling first nations and Inuit peoples to regain some control when faced with the government's inability to fulfill its obligations. Obviously, we support that. We also support first nations' efforts to move beyond the Indian Act. The ability to sign modern treaties that are implemented is precisely what allows them to escape this enduring paternalism. As was pointed out this year, this has been going on for 150 years, and I would even say it has been going on for more than 150 years, before Canada was even founded. Emancipation is of enormous importance to first nations, and non-indigenous people may not think about it because it is something they take for granted. When we talk about governance, we are talking about identity, culture, language and territory. (1610) This is what the signing of treaties will promote. I am talking about self-governance, the empowerment of first nations themselves, and, beyond identity, everything related to opportunities for economic development, opportunities for social development, as well as environmental protection. The impact of signing modern treaties is enormous. It truly means achieving self-governance based on one's values and what a community needs to live differently. As members know, we in the Bloc Québécois, as sovereignists, want to be able to make our own decisions about how to govern ourselves, how to protect our language, our culture, and the way of life we want for the people of Quebec, for our children and for future generations. I would therefore like to see indigenous communities and nations, as well as Inuit communities and the Inuit nation, have exactly the same opportunities when it comes to their emancipation from the Indian Act. Since time is quickly running out, I will stop here when it comes to self-determination. I would like to add something that was mentioned in committee, which I found very interesting and which was, in fact, pointed out by a number of witnesses. Treaties may be ratified, but when it comes time to implement them, it becomes apparent that each department understands and interprets those treaties very differently. Obviously, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Department of Indigenous Services are not the only departments involved. There are a number of departments affected by modern treaties that the government and first nations need to work with. Having a commissioner who can bridge the gap between the various departments and foster consistency in the understanding and interpretation of treaties could promote a faster and more coherent implementation of these treaties. I would even say that consistency could be improved, which would mean fewer disruptions between the various stages of the implementation process. I wanted to point that out. I would also like to highlight a criticism that has been raised on several occasions. It is one that I have also heard in the House. Even if there is a commissioner to act as a watchdog, they will be a watchdog with no bite. Yes, they are there to ensure that the government fulfills its obligations under the treaties it has signed and pledged to implement, and they can point out if something is not working or needs to be addressed, but they cannot force the government to act. That is ultimately a matter for the executive branch. Of course, a report will be presented to the House, but it will then be left to the executive branch. That said, this bill is not the ultimate solution. However, those who drafted it were guided by a commendable and necessary principle, and we hope that, by applying additional pressure, we may encourage the government to make the choice—because I believe it is a matter of will—to implement treaties diligently and in the interests of the well-being of first nations. That is why I am going to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's position: We are in favour of the bill. As I did at the beginning, and to bring things full circle, I will remind members that although we agree and would like for there to be a commissioner, we also wish there were no need to appoint a commissioner, in addition to the Auditor General, simply to ensure that the government honours its commitments. It is a bit unusual to say that, but, for my part, I already expect the government to do the work that is related to its obligations; that is the baseline. If a commissioner is to be appointed, we do not necessarily want there to be more structure; we want it to work properly. For that reason, I encourage the government to respect this bill and perhaps ensure that there is no need to call upon the commissioner. (1615) [Expand] Brendan Hanley (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for her commitment to this bill. I know that my colleague had a lot to say during her speech. I would like to invite her to talk a bit more about some of the testimony we heard in committee, particularly from the members of first nations in Quebec, about the impact of modern treaties and the frustrations that stem from the lack of commitment to modern treaties. [Expand] Marilène Gill: Mr. Speaker, three modern treaties already exist in Quebec. Those treaties were signed decades ago. As for the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the frustration among first nations stemmed from having to fight the government on unequal terms. First nations have to go to court to assert their rights and to point out that the government is not doing its job. They cannot believe this. A lot of time and money is being wasted, resources that first nations communities could put to good use, whether for education or health care, rather than spending it on legal proceedings against the government to force it to fulfill its obligations. [English ]

[Expand] Kurt Holman (London—Fanshawe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act, there is a concern about creating a new office. It is an extra layer of bureaucracy and cost, not a guarantee of meaningful change. With this concern, I was wondering if the Bloc Québécois have similar concerns about how the Liberal government will add bureaucracy and costs. (1620) [Translation ]

[Expand] Marilène Gill: Mr. Speaker, this has indeed been raised in the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on several occasions; I mentioned it earlier. Ideally, this would not even be necessary if the government were fulfilling its obligations; we would not need an additional layer of oversight. As we have said, it is a watchdog with no bite. I have said it before: The commissioner will have no teeth. We hope it works. It may be wishful thinking, but we should be able to rely on the government to fulfill its obligations. Then we would not need a commissioner. I think it is worth pointing this out but, at the same time, first nations want a commissioner and are counting on this to put pressure on the government to act more swiftly. We will see if that is the case, and perhaps this will come back to the House so we can add something else—perhaps give the commissioner more teeth—or simply realize that it has not worked and see what needs to be done to ensure that the treaties are actually implemented. [Expand] Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was interesting, important and relevant, as usual. I also note that there seems to be a fundamental problem with this bill. We should not need to make legislation to tell the government to do its job, to monitor it and to make sure it is doing it. At the same time, I see that the commissioner will have no teeth. There will be no penalties. Does my colleague think there might be a link between these two ideas? A government that needs to have legislation to monitor what it is doing might be a tad uncomfortable with the idea of giving teeth to its watchdog. That could become troublesome. Is there a link between these two ideas? [Expand] Marilène Gill: Mr. Speaker, of course, that is speculation. When I try to be empathetic and put myself in the government's shoes, I would obviously prefer that the commissioner not have any teeth. However, the government has obligations, and I hope it will be responsible and meet them. I completely agree with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord on this matter. When we vote for a bill, we hope that it will not hurt us too much if we know we are not meeting our own responsibilities. [Expand] Ginette Lavack (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe, ullukkut, taanshi, bonjour, hello. [English ]

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded and unsurrendered traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people. To understand the opportunity before us today, we need to look honestly at the history that brought us here. For centuries, treaties have been the foundation of that relationship. In the 18th century, the peace and friendship treaties were meant to restore stability after conflict. Later, treaties signed after 1763 opened much of this country to non-indigenous settlement in exchange for specific rights and benefits, such as annuities, reserve lands and commitments. These agreements, now known as the historic treaties, were followed by decades of colonial policies. We acknowledge those truths as part of our shared journey of reconciliation. A new era began in 1973 with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Calder case. The Nisga'a Tribal Council sought recognition of their title to their homelands. After the case was dismissed on a technicality, the court affirmed that aboriginal title existed before colonialization. That recognition pushed Canada to create its first land claims policy. This shift set the stage for the first modern treaty, the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Cree and Inuit negotiated this agreement after Hydro-Québec attempted to develop their lands without consultation. The treaty acknowledged their rights and created a new model for treaty-making in Canada. In 1982, the Constitution affirmed the rights of indigenous peoples and recognized that future agreements, including modern treaties, would continue to define those rights. However, challenges persisted. The 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples found that Canada lacked the structures needed to oversee treaty implementation and recommended to create an implementation office to support the renewed relationship. For over 20 years, calls for stronger oversight grew louder. In 2003, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition was formed, and shortly thereafter began to advocate for an independent oversight body. In 2008, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples urged the government to work with indigenous partners to establish an independent commission, through legislation, to oversee the implementation of modern treaties. That history and effort that began over 20 years ago is what led to the co-development process that produced the legislation before us today. At the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs during study of Bill C-10, indigenous leaders described how these long-standing challenges continue to show up in practice. Chief Troy Sam, chief councillor of the Kitsumkalum Band Council, reminded that “implementation is not theoretical” and that it affects on-the-ground decisions regarding lands, resources and governance every day. Nicole Rempel of K'ómoks First Nation highlighted that “Implementation determines whether governance functions effectively and whether economic development can proceed with confidence” and underscored the importance of predictability and addressing issues early. These stories reflect a pattern seen across modern treaty nations. While commitments are negotiated in good faith, there is still work to do to strengthen consistency in how they are implemented and to fully realize their intended benefits. In March 2023, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada began a focused co-development effort with modern treaty partners. Much of this work took place through the modern treaty implementation policy working group, which brought together representatives from most of the 27 modern treaties and federal officials. Partners who preferred other engagement methods were consulted through their own chosen approaches. Key principles guided this work together. The commissioner was designed to be an independent body that reports to Parliament and holds government to account, with a mandate focused specifically on modern treaties. It is grounded in independence, objectivity, impartiality and expert knowledge, with the authority to require departments to provide the information necessary to carry out its mandate. In terms of scope, the commissioner was designed to address persistent challenges in awareness, understanding and action on modern treaty implementation across all federal departments and agencies by providing independent and expert oversight. The commissioner would provide whole-of-government independent oversight to improve awareness, understanding and action across the federal public service of modern treaty obligations, objectives and relationships. (1625) To support this, the commissioner's core functions would include reviews, performance audits and briefings. That is why the structure of the commissioner matters. The role was designed to be independent, with the ability to look across departments, identify and analyze systemic issues and provide clear public reporting to Parliament. Grounded in this co-development design and shared set of principles, the next step was to move forward with establishing the commissioner. At the second annual Intergovernmental Leaders' Forum in May of 2024, the Prime Minister announced the intention to establish an independent oversight body led by a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, an agent of Parliament. This marked a significant shift in the modern treaty relationship, reflecting a shared commitment to accountability and partnership. Following that announcement, the draft legislative proposal was shared with more than 130 partners, including modern treaty partners, groups negotiating modern treaties, self-government partners, national indigenous organizations, regional organizations, provincial and territorial governments and others. The goal was simple: to ensure that every partner with an interest in the commissioner's work had the opportunity to engage on this legislation. The consultations took place between May and July of 2024. In total, more than 100 proposed changes were submitted. Several themes emerged. Indigenous partners must be involved in the commissioner's work at the same level as federal institutions. Stronger consultation requirements were needed throughout the legislation, including with the independent review process. The commissioner's mandate needed to clearly include agreements that supported modern treaties, such as self-government and fiscal arrangements. These insights shaped the proposed legislation before us. Partners have been clear in their support. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated stated, “The creation of a Commissioner...demonstrates a real step towards genuine collaboration from Canada.” The Tłı̨chǫ Government said that this is an exciting moment and that their hard work has paid off. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations met with modern treaty leadership to review the revisions. Partners expressed strong support and urged Canada to move forward quickly. Legislation to create a commissioner was introduced in October 2024. Although prorogation of Parliament paused the legislative process, indigenous modern treaty partners consistently called for the reintroduction of this legislation. They want this legislation passed. They helped build it, and they see it as a major step forward in strengthening the treaty relationship. At committee, indigenous leaders spoke favourably about the proposed legislation. They positively described the co-development process. They emphasized that the bill reflects decades of advocacy. They spoke about the commissioner's ability to strengthen relationships, improve coordination across departments and help prevent disputes from escalating to litigation. They also highlighted the importance of a whole-of-government approach and the need for consistent, specialized oversight, which is something the Auditor General, with a broad mandate, cannot provide. These perspectives reflect a shared belief that the commissioner is a needed institution, one that modern treaty partners have consistently called for over the past two decades. This legislation represents a key milestone. It responds to more than 20 years of calls from modern treaty partners for greater accountability and oversight. It delivers on our commitments in Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy. It reflects the combined co-development efforts of Canada and modern treaty partners, and it strengthens the foundation for a renewed relationship between the Crown and indigenous people. Modern treaties drive social, cultural and economic growth. They are a key thread in Canada's constitutional fabric. They create economic opportunities for indigenous partners and all people in Canada, including on projects relevant to the One Canadian Economy Act, which integrated indigenous leadership into national infrastructure and climate planning. They are essential to building a stronger, more resilient country. Today, we have the opportunity to honour those commitments. I ask members of the House to vote yes on this legislation. (1630) [Expand] Tamara Kronis (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a really simple yes-or-no question for the parliamentary secretary. Would this commissioner be necessary at all if her department simply lived up to its treaty obligations? [Expand] Ginette Lavack: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and all departments in this government are doing the work of implementing these modern treaties to the best of their extent. However, there are numerous modern treaties and risks of even more significant new ones being signed. We need help to do the work effectively. [Expand] Brendan Hanley (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, based on the testimony and her experience through this process, how does the parliamentary secretary distinguish the role of an independent modern treaty commissioner versus that of the Auditor General? Certainly the most frequent objection that we hear from members of the opposition party is that the bill would just be adding another layer of bureaucracy, so I think it would be helpful to make that distinction. [Expand] Ginette Lavack: Mr. Speaker, what we have seen repeatedly through the testimony that we heard was the need for this independent distinctive body that has the knowledge and expertise to oversee the implementation of these modern treaties. Furthermore, the Auditor General is on one review and then on to the next audit and the next audit. An independent commissioner tasked with only looking at modern treaties would also be able to help educate departments across government, which all have obligations to follow through. That ongoing relationship, as well as communication between departments and the commissioner, would really help to realize the full extent of these treaties. [Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here is a list of what we currently have: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance measurement framework, the modern treaties management environment office, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. We also have the Auditor General reports. How would the new commissioner solve any problems, other than by creating more reports than seven offices already generate? Here is a radical idea: Maybe the parliamentary secretary to the minister could enforce these offices doing their jobs. [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the parliamentary secretary, I would just remind members to not use props in the chamber. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services. (1635) [Expand] Ginette Lavack: Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, despite the efforts currently in place, there seems to be systemic issues that we are trying to resolve. With the implementation of a specific commissioner tasked solely with educating government departments about the implications of treaties, their implementation and what is needed, that ongoing oversight conversation, development and education across the board would really help to put the necessary resources in the right places to move these things forward. [Translation ]

[Expand] Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we obviously agree that it is important to implement modern treaties. Although we support Bill C-10, in a way it is also disappointing that we have had to resort to this measure to ensure that the treaties are properly implemented. This legislation establishes an office of a commissioner. The commissioner will be able to make recommendations and submit a report. However, this commissioner lacks any real authority. I would like my colleague to explain to me, in practical and technical terms, what the consequences would be for a government if it simply decided to ignore the commissioner's recommendations. [Expand] Ginette Lavack: Mr. Speaker, I think that what sets the commissioner apart in this situation is the fact that their one and only task will be to monitor treaties. That will create an ongoing dialogue on the monitoring of each treaty. In other cases, people look over a report and move on to the next one. No continuous monitoring is done to ensure that everyone is aware of their responsibilities and that real progress is made on these advances. [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: 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 Courtenay—Alberni, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, International Development. [Expand] Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the great privilege of representing the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, who put their trust in me for the seventh time almost a year ago. I am very proud to have represented Wendake as part of my riding for 18 years, including my time in provincial politics. I have the privilege of representing the Wendat community in the House of Commons, and I had the privilege of representing them in the National Assembly before that. I am particularly proud because I am rising today to speak to a bill that directly concerns first nations. Later on in my speech, we will see that Max Gros-Louis, the Wendat Grand Chief of the 1960s and 1970s, played a key role in what we are talking about today. We are here to talk about the creation of a commissioner for modern treaties. Modern treaties are agreements that have been in place for about 50 years between first nations and government authorities at the provincial and federal levels. I want to reassure everyone, particularly first nations, that we fully support modern treaties. Moreover, when the Right Hon. Stephen Harper led Canada with a majority government, he signed five modern treaties. However, in the 10 years that followed, under a government that claimed there was nothing more important than relations with first nations, not a single modern treaty was concluded. Is this not a crystal-clear demonstration of the fact that Mr. Trudeau's Liberal government talked a good game but failed to deliver on concrete projects? There is no example more obvious than this. Modern treaties are about economic development with first nations. None were signed during the Trudeau era, but there were five during the Harper era. We Conservatives have very serious reservations about creating a commissioner position. I cannot mention that he is behind me, because I am not allowed to say whether members are in the House, but the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix already pointed out very clearly last November, at the start of the debate on the bill, that we have enough bureaucracy in Canada and we do not need to add to it. It is worth noting that over the past 10 years, 100,000 new government employees have been hired. In addition, $20 billion was spent annually on consultations. Why add a further burden to the management of the federal government and relations with first nations when there are already several mechanisms in place to evaluate and monitor treaties? There is no need to create a new layer of red tape and administrative burden. For us Conservatives, first nations are partners in prosperity. That is why we must promote modern treaty agreements for first nations, for their development and for the development of Canada as a whole. Let us take a moment to look back on how modern treaties got their start. I believe Quebec truly served as a testing ground for modern treaties. In the 1950s, there was a major expansion of hydroelectric potential in Canada and Quebec. Under the leadership of the government of the time, large dams, such as Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2, were built from scratch in 1953 and 1956. Then, in 1956, Hydro‑Québec was tasked with exploiting the hydroelectric potential of two big rivers: Rivière aux Outardes and Rivière Manicouagan. In 1958, Hydro‑Québec broke ground on what would become, for all time, an iconic manifestation of Quebeckers' national pride: the Manic-5 generating station. That started in 1958. Of course, Manic-5, Manicouagan, Bersimis and so on were on indigenous land, but, at the time, there was nothing at all, no agreement with first nations. People showed up, they dug, they brought in machinery and they built a dam, thanks very much, good night. Nothing was offered to first nations. It was not until 1965 that Premier Jean Lesage offered compensation to the nation located near Manic-5. He offered compensation in the amount of $150,000, and that was that. That was how things were handled back then. Then, in 1971, Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa came on the scene with his project of the century. During the Liberal Party's April 1971 convention, which took place at the Colisée de Québec, he marked his government's first election victory by launching the project of the century: developing James Bay. The plan was to literally double Quebec's hydroelectric potential with a $5‑billion project. Everything was fine and dandy, full steam ahead and, once again, first nations were not consulted. Nobody talked to them. (1640) That is when a young Cree indigenous leader, Billy Diamond, raised the issue and succeeded in uniting the Cree people from across the territory. He did so with the support and assistance of the Indians of Quebec Association, whose spokesperson at the time was Max Gros-Louis, the Grand Chief of the Wendat, or the Huron, as they were known at the time. He took the case to court and on November 15—a very important day in Quebec history, and I am not talking about November 15, 1976, but rather November 15, 1973—Judge Malouf of the Superior Court of Quebec ruled in favour of the Cree. He declared that work on James Bay had to stop immediately. For the first time, a judge ruled in a specific case, regarding a specific project and a specific construction site, that first nations must be respected before breaking ground. A week later, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned that decision, noting that negotiations between the government and first nations are absolutely essential. It was then that the serious discussions got under way, though not without drawing widespread criticism. Some people went so far as to say that it was not true that indigenous peoples were going to hold back Quebec's economic development, but that was not the issue at all. It was not a matter of holding back development, but rather of creating wealth together so that everyone could contribute to and benefit from it, while respecting the inherent rights, dating back a century, if not millennia, of the first nations who lived on this land. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed in 1975. According to some records, it was signed on November 11, 1975. Other sources say it was November 15, 1976. In any case, November is a significant month for what we are discussing today. It was the first agreement, the first modern treaty, and others followed. It is also clear that this first agreement is being celebrated 50 years on, as this was when the government acknowledged the importance of first nations. It offered $225 million for the following 20 years, but it also gave the people living in that territory the tools they needed to develop their social and educational capacities, as well as their capacity for wealth creation, job creation and economic activity. That is why we now see a much stronger entrepreneurial spirit in many indigenous communities than we have seen in the past. Modern treaties have provided that impetus. As I was saying, 26 treaties have been signed since the James Bay agreement. Five were signed under the Harper government and, unfortunately, none were signed in the following 10 years. I believe we need to sign more treaties. Yes, we need to do more to develop as partners in prosperity with first nations. In closing, I want to remind members that I am very proud to represent the people of Wendake. Let us not forget that, historically speaking, the Wendat people have always been traders, even before the arrival of Europeans, but also after. The Wendat people have always made a name for themselves for their entrepreneurial spirit. Today, I am very proud to say that there are 150 businesses operating in Wendake. This nation is also involved with other private partners, like Structure SBL, Immostar, Wendake Construction and the Hôtel-Musée Premières Nations. The Wendat people are a proud people that I am honoured to represent. They are an inspiration to all first nations and all Canadians. Indeed, we can and must work together closely for the prosperity of our country and for the prosperity of first nations. That can and must be done through modern treaties. Let us continue to do things right and, above all, let us empower first nations to achieve their full potential in terms of their heritage and the economy. (1645) [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation is very straightforward. I think there is a general feeling among the different communities, in particular the indigenous communities, from what I understand, that there is a true value in modern-day treaty implementation agreements and in having a commissioner who is truly independent and reports back to Parliament. There would be checks and balances in place to ensure that we, as a government, were moving forward on such an important and critical file to the nation. My understanding of the principle the Conservatives are taking on the issue is that they do not believe there is a need for an independent commissioner. I would ask the member if that is correct. [Expand] Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, the question by the member from Winnipeg is a very interesting one, because, yes, we do support a modern treaty all the way, and we need more of those kinds of treaties. What we are opposing is another level of bureaucracy, with the commissioner. We have all the people in the government getting involved in that right now, and we are sure they can do the job they want the commissioner to do without having to create a new position. Let me remind members that in the 1960s, the Liberal Party, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was on the side that wanted to cancel the Indian Act and the Indian reserve system. Finally, the government backtracked and did not do that. Jean Chrétien, a former prime minister who was the Indian affairs minister at the time, which is how the minister was identified, gave 500— [Translation ]

[Expand] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has the floor. [Expand] Tamara Kronis (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a simple question. Would this new bureaucracy be necessary if the government and the ministers were fulfilling their obligations under these treaties? [Expand] Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, an honour and a joy to respond in French to this extremely well-articulated question asked in French by my colleague from British Columbia, whom I hold in the highest regard. I really enjoy working with her. We do not think that we need a commissioner. The public servants who currently work for the federal government on first nations affairs can do the work and ensure that modern treaties are properly monitored. However, we need modern treaties. That is why we are asking the government to move forward, create real projects and deliver real results, rather than just giving us rhetoric. (1650) [English ]

[Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I sit on the public accounts committee with my colleague, and that committee is ultimately there to make an account of the taxpayer dollars. What are his thoughts on spending $10.6 million over the next four years of taxpayer money to do the job that a parliamentary secretary, minister and six other agencies currently do, or should be doing? [Expand] Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hamilton's question is right on target. We spend too much money right now, so that is why we cannot invest all the money where we need it. We do not have to hire other people and create another level of bureaucracy. Millions of dollars could be invested in the development of first nations instead of in the development of bureaucracy. [Translation ]

[Expand] Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question that I asked earlier since I did not get an answer from the Liberals. Through this bill, the government is creating an office for a commissioner whose decisions will not be binding. Under this legislation, what will the consequences be if the government fails to respect the commissioner's recommendations? [Expand] Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons why we are not in favour of creating a new bureaucracy to support first nations. What first nations need is a lot more breathing room and a lot more support to create even more wealth. We want more modern treaties, but to do that, we need real projects and real results. [English ]

[Expand] Lori Idlout (Nunavut, Lib.): Uqaqtittiji, I am very happy to represent Nunavummiut on this side of the House. I was a parliamentarian when this bill was originally tabled in the 44th Parliament as Bill C-77, so I do have some history with this bill. I would like to also acknowledge that we are on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe people of these lands. This bill is such an important bill because it was co-developed with modern treaty organizations. Indigenous modern treaty partners have worked hard to get this bill to this state. They have sought independent oversight and accountability mechanisms of the federal government to modern treaty implementation. We must honour their work and do what we can to get this bill passed. The modern treaty holders deserve to have their work reflected in the work we do as parliamentarians. Canada is currently implementing 27 modern treaties. Of these 27 modern treaties, six include a comprehensive land claims settlement agreement, one includes only self-government provisions and is unrelated to any land claim, and 20 address both comprehensive land claims and self-government in some way. This is an important bill because of the accountability that would be sought and it would ensure the federal government meets its treaty obligations. Modern treaties are a constitutionally entrenched commitment between Crown and indigenous partners to build true nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships. An independent commissioner with audit and reporting powers could hold government departments to account and overcome long-standing inertia in treaty implementation. The commissioner would be important to ensure non-partisan oversight. Bill C-10 is important because it would advance reconciliation and self-determination through oversight and accountability of the federal government. Modern treaties create stability and predictability over rights, lands and interests. The creation of the commission would help ensure better and timelier treaty implementation. It could reduce legal disputes and uncertainty, enabling indigenous economic participation. I am disappointed to hear the Conservatives trying to diminish the important work of the modern treaty partners that co-developed this bill. Creating the commissioner is not just about creating bureaucracy. It is an added mechanism to ensure reconciliation. Just like in public safety, there is not only one office that ensures it. We do not only rely on the RCMP. We do not only rely on CSIS. We do not only rely on municipal law enforcement. That is the same for reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Reconciliation cannot only be completed by one department of the Government of Canada. Monitoring implementation cannot only be done by the Auditor General of Canada. As an agent of Parliament, the independence of the office would be crucial to ensure that modern treaty nations and governments have a means to strengthen their relationship while avoiding legal action. Modern treaty holders have said at committee that the only recourse they have is to seek legal action. We all know how costly these legal actions become. Ensuring there is a better way to have modern treaty partners work with government departments through the commissioner would help to strengthen relationships so that the commissioner, as an independent oversight body, one that does not have party affiliations, would help ensure the independence reported by the commissioner to this Parliament and we would have records and debates about the important work the commissioner would do. (1655) The commissioner's work would cover all federal activities related to modern treaty implementation. This includes work tied to the treaties themselves as well as associated self-government agreements or related arrangements. The commissioner would focus on whether federal action aligns with three core principles: one, strengthen relationships with treaty partners; two, advance the obligations and objectives outlined in agreements; and three, uphold the honour of the Crown through timely and effective implementation. Reviews would be the commissioner's most flexible tool. It would be fit for purpose, which means the commissioner would be able examine many things, including a single federal activity, how multiple departments act on a shared obligation, recurring issues raised by one or multiple modern treaty partners, or systemic barriers that appear across agreements. As has been mentioned by others in this House, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, has worked in partnership with the Land Claims Coalition to ensure that this bill was introduced. I commend it for its work to ensure that innate rights based on the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are being implemented. We must do what we can to ensure that the many modern treaty holders who have worked hard are being heard. I appreciate all the work that's been done. [Expand] Kurt Holman (London—Fanshawe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, from the other side of the House, we often hear the Conservatives being criticized all the way back to the Harper government. However, in dealing with indigenous treaties, the Harper government did not need a commissioner. Why is it that the Liberal government needs to add bureaucracy and costs such as the implementation of this new commissioner? Why is this commissioner needed? [Expand] Lori Idlout: Uqaqtittiji, I would remind the member that the Harper government is the same government that made huge cuts to programs that would have benefited indigenous peoples, like the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Maybe those funds would not have been cut if we had had the commissioner back then. That highlights how important the work of the commissioner is. (1700) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by complimenting the member for Nunavut. Over the years, I found her to be exceptionally passionate with a caring heart in dealing with issues in an apolitical fashion. Her contributions to Parliament have been most impressive. I am looking forward to working with her on issues of such importance. Northern Canada plays such a critical role to the future prosperity of indigenous people and to Canada as a whole. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts in regards to why it is so important that we get it right and continue to push to get it right, to move forward. [Expand] Lori Idlout: Uqaqtittiji, it really is very important to get it right. No matter what government we have, the prominence that is given to reconciliation will always have to exist because of where Canada resides. We are on indigenous peoples' lands, and we must always acknowledge it. That is why it is always important to say where we continue to do our work. The relationships we have with first nations, Inuit and Métis will always have to be long-standing relationships, and advancing reconciliation will always be something that we all have to continue to keep as a priority. [Expand] Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when the member was part of the NDP, we had spoken. She has not really been the strongest supporter of natural resource projects in the north, specifically Nunavut. However, we know how natural resource jobs are incredibly important to residents of Nunavut. We are seeing some of these mines develop; it is a great thing for Nunavummiut and youth. Does the member believe that adding a commissioner will actually enable more natural resource development and more jobs? Does she think it is going to be a positive for the economy of Nunavut? [Expand] Lori Idlout: Uqaqtittiji, that is a bit of a confusing question. First of all, I should say that I have always been supportive of Inuit northerners who work in the mines in Nunavut. I have never spoken against the workers. Of course, I have always placed prominence on making sure there are better relationships between mining companies and Inuit rights holders and indigenous rights holders. Once those relationships are strengthened, I think that we could definitely see better economic development opportunities for Inuit and for indigenous peoples who want to remain hunters and who want to make sure that wildlife is protected, and that we would do better to combat climate change. With regard to the role of the commissioner, we need to make sure that it is created. The commissioner, as I said during my speech, would help make sure that the honour of the Crown is upheld. Being able to review that is going to be such an important function. That is why we need to make sure that the bill is passed right away. [Expand] Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the people's House today to address Bill C-10, in regard to appointing a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. As I begin my remarks, I cannot help but think that we are yet again dealing with another announcement and a “no results in sight” type of proclamation. We continuously hear the members on the other side making grand announcements and pronouncements but with really no sincere or legitimate prospects of delivery. What we are hearing in the bill is, once again, a government that is high in the art of optics but really, really grades low as it relates to actual deliverables and measurable results. I could not help but think of an old story I was told several years ago, before I was elected, by a gentleman who is quite astute, who follows politics in New Brunswick and nationally and has for some time. He told me this story a few years ago, and it came back to me as I was preparing my remarks. He said there is always a tell in politics. He said we can tell when we are being set up for something. I asked him what it was. I said, “Please, do tell.” He said that oftentimes we know we are being set up when in politics, a politician or parliamentarian or legislator sits us down and hears our story. They nod their head. They show an empathetic look and even a listening ear. They nod graciously, and they will agree occasionally. They will sigh when it is appropriate to sigh, and they will shake their head when it is appropriate to shake their head. They will look greatly concerned. However, he said, we can tell for sure that probably not a whole lot is going to get done that matters or is consequential when they say they are seized with this matter, that they are laser focused on this matter and are absolutely consumed with this matter. They will say it is a high priority for them to make sure that this matter is dealt with. In fact, they are so concerned with this matter that they are going to put it under active study. They are going to establish a committee and a commission to further examine the problem that we have brought to them here today. He said, “Young man, I want to assure you, as soon as a politician or parliamentarian or legislator begins to talk like that, I can guarantee you that your issue is not their priority.” I walked away from that meeting realizing I had probably heard a sound lesson in politics. How often have we heard in the House that the Liberals are laser focused on this matter, that they are seized with this issue, that this is of the utmost priority for the government, that they will put that under active study, enact another commission and appoint a commissioner to look at it? That commissioner has no real authority and does not really have any responsibility, but they want us to know they are seized with the issue, so we should take great comfort in that. Thus, I draw the conclusion that, likely, we had better take this particular pronouncement with a whole lot of salt. I will go on further to say to Canadians that I know our aspirations may be good in this and our intentions may be well, but I hear, as it were, the old song that says what we are looking for is a little less talk and a whole lot more action. I find myself kind of thinking that what we are looking for is a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. It is time that we had a little more respect and a little more action that is concrete, tangible and measurable, and that has results and metrics by which we can determine whether they have actually implemented the grandiose response to the urgent need before the House. (1705) I will say that after all of this, I have come to the conclusion that the bill would be, once again, great in optics but probably not overwhelmingly successful in outcomes. I think what we want is to get to the place where outcomes are going to be the priority of any of these types of implementations. It is one thing that we have treaties, and that is important, and they need to be respected and acted upon. Modern treaties can be done. We know this can happen because under the previous Conservative government, no fewer than six treaties were implemented in five years, and believe it not, they did not have a commissioner. The Crown, the government and the minister took on their area of responsibility and implemented the treaty. Oh my land, it is an amazing concept. When that concept is embraced by our dear friends on the other side of the aisle, I know Canadians will be thrilled and satisfied with real results rather than yet another announcement of a grand commissioner and a grand commission to further examine, illustrate, study and review. Let us come up with someone who is going to take action, and that can be the government or the minister, acting upon the treaties that are agreed to, to get real projects done that will enhance the lives of all Canadians, our indigenous friends as well as all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I get excited about the potential of these things getting enacted. However, like a lot of Canadians, I view this with a little skepticism when it comes to yet another proclamation of another layer of bureaucracy. We do not need another office established. We do not need another commission established. We do not need yet another person hired or more consultants hired or another grand project announced. What we need is action on what has already been laid out and put forward by many of our indigenous friends across the country, as well as those who have great insights: provincial governments, municipal governments and the private sector with projects they would like to undertake, in agreement and in accordance with our indigenous friends. Why not start to implement those good ideas rather than establishing another layer of government? Let us get beyond that and start enacting these things. I think when we do, then Canadians will be encouraged. I am going to conclude quickly. I could not help but think of a famous story, an ancient story. It goes back some time. As I was reflecting on my remarks today, I could not help but think of it. It is a story of a father who had two sons. He approached the first son, and he said, “Son, I need you to go and take care of this.” The first son, he was really matter-of-fact: “No, I can't do that. Sorry, I can't do it.” He ended up saying no, but the more he thought about it later, he felt bad. He repented of that and said, “I am going to go and do what's right,” and he ended up doing it. The second son, when he was approached by the father, enthusiastically said, “Oh yes, we're going to do this. I'll do it, Father. Don't you worry.” However, he decided not to do it. He said great things but did bad things. The other son did not have the right initial response, but he took the right action. Guess which son pleased the father. Obviously it was the first son. Even though his initial response was not good, he did the right thing in the end. I believe our indigenous friends and our Canadian friends from coast to coast to coast are looking to us in this House. I know we have not always gotten it right, and I know it has not always been done right in the past, but let us do what is right now, turn from the things that are wrong, take the right steps, do a lot less talking and a lot more walking, and get things done that are right for Canada without another grand commission. (1710) [Expand] Hon. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that our dear friend and colleague on the other side misses preaching at church. I almost enjoyed that and forgot that he was talking about not consulting. This is actually the essence of the motion. He talked about our indigenous friends across Canada, and he talked about Harper. Harper did not consult indigenous communities when he made those cuts. We are providing the opportunity to consult Canadians. As lovely as it was to listen to him talk, I think the member fails to answer the question of why we are consulting indigenous communities across Canada. Can the member talk about that? Why would he take that away from indigenous communities that are actually asking to be consulted to make sure that this happens? [Expand] Richard Bragdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague on the other side of the aisle as well and enjoy our conversations. I must say the position we are taking is with respect to removing yet another barrier to direct communications between those who want to put the actions into place and get the projects done. Why not have those direct consultations, those direct conversations with the ministers, the Crown and the indigenous peoples and then get the projects done? I think that removes a layer of bureaucracy that is not necessary at this time. (1715) [Expand] Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Clarke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member and I share a reverence for an old book that describes how when a nation has sins, it puts all the sins onto a goat and drives the goat out, and with it all the sins of the nation. Does the member see the analogy here? When the government failed to live up to its treaty obligations, it put this commissioner up as its scapegoat. [Expand] Richard Bragdon: Mr. Speaker, I will say this with respect to scapegoating, which is an old practice for sure: someone else always ends up bearing the responsibility for the sins of others. I think what is happening is that we are seeing a tendency in politics of late, and this can happen in any political party but is evidently in place here now, where it is always the fault of someone else, somewhere else, some other jurisdiction or some other nation somewhere around the world. Real responsibility starts at home. We must get our own house in order so we can bring about change here. The real responsibility is here, in this House, with us making the right decisions for Canadians. [Expand] Grant Jackson (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Brunswick for that excellent speech. It has certainly been eye-opening, particularly for our members across the way. Despite the second son in that scenario he mentioned perhaps just being a Liberal, we know that good parents love their children whether they vote the way their parents do or not. I wonder if the member down the way would describe in a bit of detail why he thinks the Liberals often get so addicted to the creation of additional bureaucracy to push more issues away from the decision-making of cabinet in order to deflect rather than take accountability for their actions and their own decisions. [Expand] Richard Bragdon: Mr. Speaker, oftentimes when there are more layers between the ultimate decision-makers and those who are on the receiving end of those decisions, it is a means of protection, a means of shielding. The ultimate responsibility is when we peel back the layers and say that it is time we took action, took responsibility and got to work, because to delay and to further delay is to ultimately deny. What we need to do is get to where we take action and implement the modern treaties to help put in place the infrastructure that is going to help all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. [Expand] Lori Idlout (Nunavut, Lib.): Uqaqtittiji, honestly, I am quite disgusted with the mockery and the way this debate is going. I am probably the only indigenous member in this Parliament at the moment. It is really unfortunate to hear the speech mock how hard indigenous partners have worked to ensure that this commission can be created. I would love an apology for how this member prefers to respect— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac. [Expand] Richard Bragdon: Mr. Speaker, by no means was any disrespect intended, ever, toward our indigenous friends. We are having a lively discussion about the implementation of a particular recommendation of government. I will say that we have had some of our indigenous friends and colleagues from this side of the House speak very adamantly and passionately against this proposal as well. That includes some indigenous friends who serve on this side of the House. I am sure they would not expect an apology— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I have a point of order from the member for Brandon—Souris. [Expand] Grant Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I think you will reflect that the member for Nunavut questioned the attendance of certain members in the chamber in her comment, which was not a question, and that is, of course, against the rules of this place. [Expand] Hon. Arielle Kayabaga: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member did not mention anything of the sort. She called out what she felt were disrespectful comments from the member opposite, and she asked for an apology. [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I listened carefully to what the member for Nunavut was saying— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me finish the ruling. There is a standing order that says one cannot make a reference to the presence or lack of presence of a member in the House of Commons. That is not what the member was referring to, in my understanding. She was reflecting on members' indigenous ancestry. Since I, as Speaker, do not know whether members have ancestry, nor would I assume anything, I saw nothing in her statement that infringed on the rules. I do invite members to reflect on the Standing Orders and the fact that we should not do indirectly what we cannot do directly. We should always be careful to abide by the rules. I did not hear anything that violated the rules. That being said, now I will invoke Standing Order 10, which says that members cannot debate with the Speaker on the ruling. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. (1720) [Expand] Tamara Kronis (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I come to the House from the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Snuneymuxw First Nation and the Stz'uminus First Nation. We are also home to a thriving Mid Island Métis community. Getting to know people in these communities has deepened my understanding of the interconnectedness of people to the land, the human connection we all share and the link between our generation and both the past and the future. These concepts have been invaluable to me in shaping how I think about the work we do here in the House. Therefore, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation bill, in a spirit I hope all members of the House can share: a genuine commitment to reconciliation that is meaningful, reasonable and affordable for the people we serve. While there are no modern treaties currently being implemented in my riding, that does not mean that these issues are distant from us. As we move forward together, we will need outcomes that are clear, durable and widely understood. Most important, we will need to build genuine trust, not just through words but through consistent action over time. Modern treaties aim to resolve broad claims and to create long-term certainty. They are meant to provide a stable foundation for partnership, economic development and self-determination. These are not symbolic documents. They are binding agreements negotiated in good faith that set out how land, resources and governance will work together for generations. When Canada signs a treaty, it makes a promise. That promise must be honoured, but there have been real problems in the implementation of these agreements. That is a serious concern, and it deserves a serious response. As I contemplated this debate, I was reminded of a simple story about a village that once built a bridge across a wide river. The village people threw themselves into the task. They hired an engineer and achieved broad agreement on the design. The bridge was constructed, and when it was ready to use, the opening was celebrated by everyone because it promised to connect people and create opportunity. Satisfied with a job well done, the engineer moved on to other projects. One day, a little girl noticed some small cracks in the bridge and reported them to the village leaders, who convened a meeting to see what they should do. Some said the bridge was still strong and the cracks just needed to be filled in. Others said it needed to be replaced entirely. Committees were formed, and reports were written, but the cracks were left untouched. One day, after a heavy storm, the bridge simply gave way. In the end, the problem was not how the bridge was built. The problem was with the way it was maintained. When everyone is responsible for doing something, no one is responsible. Modern treaties are meant to be that bridge. They are meant to connect people, resolve uncertainty and create a foundation upon which opportunity can be built and realized. If not properly implemented, no agreement can deliver the certainty or opportunity that it was designed to provide. Bill C-10 attempts to remedy that problem, and I think all members of the House agree that Crown accountability is essential to reconciliation. We agree that Canada must meet its obligations, not just on day one but every day. We agree that transparency matters, and we agree that reconciliation must move beyond words to real results on the ground. There is less agreement on how best to achieve that. Bill C-10 proposes the creation of a new federal bureaucracy, headed by a commissioner, to oversee the implementation of modern treaties. At first glance that may sound like a practical solution, but when we look more closely, we have to ask a simple question: Would this actually cause the federal government to fulfill its treaty obligations, or would it create yet another layer of bureaucracy mired in paperwork and backlogs, without delivering the outcomes people are waiting for? Before I turn to that question, I want to address something that many Canadians are feeling right now. Across the country, and particularly in my home province of British Columbia, there is growing uncertainty and debate around DRIPA, UNDRIP and recent court decisions involving aboriginal rights and titles. Some of those concerns will come to this place, but not today. Bill C-10 is not about expanding rights, redefining land claims or changing property ownership. It would not create new treaties. It would not alter existing ones. It would not affect private property. (1725) The bill would deal with a narrow question: Once a treaty is signed, will the federal government fulfill the commitments that it made in the treaty? When it does not, the bridge I spoke about collapses, resulting in conflict, protracted litigation, angst and more uncertainty. The concern with Bill C-10 is therefore not about whether accountability is needed, but whether this particular approach would deliver it. Every one of these treaties has a dispute resolution mechanism. In the recent Musqueam agreement, it is right at the front, almost in anticipation that it will need to be referred to. Moreover, we already have an institution in this country whose sole purpose is to hold government to account. The Office of the Auditor General is independent and respected, and it has a clear mandate to examine whether government programs are achieving their intended results. Creating a place for the activities contemplated for the commissioner for treaty implementation within the Office of the Auditor General would make good use of the tools we already have, strengthened where necessary, rather than creating an entirely new bureaucracy. This approach would preserve independence, avoid duplication and respect the need for fiscal responsibility, because we also have to be honest about the cost. Every new office comes with a price tag. Staff, administration and reporting structures all add up, in the case of this office, to about $10.6 million over four years. At a time when Canadians are facing real pressures, it is reasonable to ask whether those resources would be better directed toward actually implementing treaty commitments rather than creating all the trappings of yet another bureaucracy. It is also reasonable to ask, as my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois repeatedly did during their speeches, whether the least expensive option here would be for the Crown and the minister to abide by and implement the treaty provisions so that this additional office would be unnecessary. Where is the ministerial accountability? That brings me to another concern that deserves attention and has been raised by many of my colleagues. The proposed commissioner would have the ability to report and make recommendations, but not to compel action. If the government has failed to act on existing findings, what assurance do we have that another report and another office would change that? Reconciliation cannot become an exercise in process. It must be measured by progress. Meaningful reconciliation means honouring commitments in a timely and consistent way. Reasonable reconciliation means using existing institutions wisely, avoiding duplication and ensuring that accountability mechanisms are strong and effective. Affordable reconciliation means recognizing that resources are not unlimited and that every dollar spent on administration is a dollar not spent on housing, infrastructure or economic opportunity. These principles are not in conflict with reconciliation; they are essential to it. Many modern treaty nations support the bill. Their voices matter, their experience matters and their frustration with the modern treaty implementation process is entirely justified. We should listen carefully to what they are saying, but listening also means asking whether the proposed solution would deliver what is needed. Listening means making sure the cracks in the bridge are addressed, not just talked about, studied or reported on. If we are serious about implementing modern treaties, then the Crown should implement them. The minister should focus on clear timelines, measurable outcomes and consequences when commitments are not met. Reconciliation must bring people together. It must build trust, not erode it. The commissioner should not be a way to avoid ministerial or governmental accountability. That is the spirit in which I approach Bill C-10. The path forward must be practical, effective and focused on results, because at the end of the day, reconciliation is not about creating offices in Ottawa, but about building and maintaining the bridges that we build in a way that makes people even more confident about building bridges, so that we can continue to do that in a way that ensures that the promises behind them remain strong for generations to come. (1730) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disheartening that the Conservative Party has taken the position of deleting the entire bill, showing its opposition to something that would be really important in Canadian society. Having a commissioner for modern treaty implementation would be a positive thing. I genuinely believe that the general feeling among indigenous leaders and beyond is supportive, recognizing that the commissioner could play a critical role in advancing modern treaties. I understand why it is, because it has been very clear that the Conservatives oppose it. It is unfortunate. Does the hon. member believe that she is onside with a majority of the indigenous communities? [Expand] Tamara Kronis: Mr. Speaker, I think a majority of the indigenous communities in the country join me in lamenting the fact that the government does not keep its word. [Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague her thoughts on spending $10.6 million over the next four years when, as we have heard many colleagues on our side outline, this is probably what the parliamentary secretary and the minister of this portfolio should be doing anyway. [Expand] Tamara Kronis: Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I talked about the importance of building bridges. There is no question that there are things we could do with this $10.6 million that would benefit first nations and that would benefit Canada. The truth is that the reason to avoid spending this money is to keep the commitments and to implement the treaties. If we do that, what we would get in return is priceless. What we would get is reconciliation. [Translation ]

[Expand] Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill that seeks to ensure that the federal government honours the treaties it has signed. I wonder if we should apply this concept to more federal government matters. The first thing that springs to mind is the famous notwithstanding clause in the Constitution that was adopted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government, because the current government seems intent on challenging it. It seems to me that having a commissioner to ensure that the federal government honours its commitments under both the Constitution and international treaties could be a good idea. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this. [English ]

[Expand] Tamara Kronis: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure that I see the connection between the notwithstanding clause and the bill that we are speaking about today. What I would say is that the Government of Canada needs to do a better job of connecting and communicating with Canadians so that they understand why it is making the decisions it is making and we can avoid disputes in the first place. [Expand] Lori Idlout (Nunavut, Lib.): Uqaqtittiji, I wonder what the hon. member has to say to the many first nations and modern treaty organizations that have negotiated for over 20 years to get this bill tabled. This is their hard work, which was co-developed with the federal government. What does she have to say to them about what their efforts have meant in making sure that the bill could be tabled so that we could have the role of the commissioner created? [Expand] Tamara Kronis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on how important it is that, as members, we keep our word with our constituents and that we do not break our trust with them. The reason it has taken 20 years to get here is that the government has not kept its promise. These treaties need to be implemented, and all people in the House should be honouring their constituents. (1735) [Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to recognize all the volunteers across Canada for National Volunteer Week. In my home riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, there are many members of my community who give hours and hours every week to make our city flow. They are the oil between the gears. Without them, kids would not play soccer. Honestly, without volunteers, I would not be here representing Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. For decades, governments have talked about reconciliation, but without accountability, those are just words. Frankly, words are not good enough. Canadians expect action. Indigenous communities deserve results, yet time and time again, what we see from the Liberal government is delay, deflection and more bureaucracy. The Liberal government's Bill C-10, which would create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, looks less like a meaningful solution and more like an attempt to paper over a decade of broken promises to indigenous peoples. We do not need another layer of bureaucracy to tell us what we already know. The Office of the Auditor General has said it. Indigenous leaders across the country have said it. All Canadians can see it for themselves. The government is failing to meet its obligation, and Canadians expect better. Now, let us take a step back and talk about what modern treaties actually are. A modern-day treaty is a comprehensive land claim agreement that is negotiated between first nations, Inuit or Métis groups and the federal government. The purpose is straightforward. It is to resolve long-standing issues around land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. These agreements can cover a wide range of areas, including land access to resources, financial compensation and governance rights. Once in place, these treaties carry the force of federal law. They can clarify or, in some cases, replace rights set out under historical treaties. Let me be clear that Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous communities who want to move beyond the outdated and restrictive Indian Act, but what we do not support is the Liberal approach of throwing more taxpayer dollars at the problem while failing to deliver real results. Creating another office in Ottawa would not fix what the government has failed at. If we want to understand the real issue here, we need to look at the government's actual track record. Let us take a look at the facts. In October 2025, the Auditor General tabled a report titled “Follow-up on Programs for First Nations”. The findings were clear and, frankly, they were deeply concerning. The auditor found that Indigenous Services Canada “had made unsatisfactory progress in implementing the actions [on] 53%...of the recommendations” made since 2015. That is 18 out of 34 recommendations, which is more than half. At the same time, the department's spending on programs increased 84% since the 2019-20 fiscal year. Let us think about that. Spending has gone up dramatically, but outcomes have not improved in a meaningful way. That should concern every single member of the House. The Auditor General has also identified several key barriers preventing progress. The first was a lack of continued attention from management, and that raises a simple question. If there is no constant leadership and focus, how can these programs succeed? The second barrier was a lack of clarity around service levels. Systems become overly complicated when they are layered with bureaucracy. It becomes harder, not easier, for communities to access the services they need. The third barrier was a lack of support to build capacity in the first nations communities, and this point is critical. If we are serious about reconciliation, we need to empower communities, not trap them in systems they cannot effectively navigate. (1740) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the interruption. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That motion no. 1 in relation to the report stage of Bill C-10, an Act respecting the commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be deemed negatived on division, and that the motion for the concurrence at report stage of Bill C-10 be deemed moved and deemed adopted, on division. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Accordingly, Motion No. 1 is defeated on division, and the bill is concurred in at report stage on division. (Motion No. 1 negatived and bill concurred in at report stage)

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent to call it 5:43 p.m., so we can begin Private Members' Business. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Private Members' Business

[Private Members' Business]

[English ]

Use of Federal Lands for Veterans

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion. [Expand] Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing this motion forward and for raising this important issue about how we support veterans. This motion proposes a study on how unused federal lands and buildings could support veterans, including with housing and community services. We support studying these ideas, but let us be clear: This is a non-binding motion. It asks only for a study. Veterans do not live in studies. Already many of them are facing insecurity now, and we already know enough to act. If this motion passes and the government operations committee undertakes this study, it must hear directly from veterans about their lived experiences, including the veterans ombud, retired colonel Nishika Jardine, who has been working tirelessly to advance the concerns and urgent needs of veterans. This includes mental health supports for veterans and their families, suicide prevention, rehabilitation and other critical services in addition to housing. I also want to thank the Legions in my riding, across Vancouver Island and across this country and the local non-profit housing organizations that support people experiencing homelessness, including many that support military and RCMP veterans and their families. In the Comox Valley alone, 16 veterans have been identified as homeless, representing about 12% of the total homeless population. This should never happen in a country like Canada. The Government of Canada pledged a sacred obligation to support veterans and their families. This is to ensure care, compassion and respect. This is often, as members know, referred to as the “social covenant”. However, the motion before us would not deliver that. We can see what works. In Esquimalt, the Veterans House, formerly known as Cockrell House, has been helping veterans transition out of homelessness with safe, stable and on-site supports. I also want to acknowledge Angus Stanfield from the Royal Canadian Legion for getting that off the ground. The model works. It provides dignity, stability and community. However, it totally relies on donations and volunteers, which is why it is not scaled up. Certainly, we need to implement and use government lands to ensure that all veterans have a safe place to live. We cannot be relying on non-profits to do what the government clearly has a responsibility to do. At a time of a housing crisis, these lands should be used to house people, especially those most affected, including veterans and their families, and of course, indigenous peoples. No veteran and no veteran's family should ever be without a home in this country. We have heard directly from veterans about what this failure looks like in practice. From Comox Valley, retired sergeant William Webb, who served in the 1st Regiment of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, told a parliamentary committee in 2019 that after nearly 20 years of service, he cycled through nine case managers and ultimately became homeless. He said, “Case managers are not aware of what to do when a veteran, like me, is soon to be homeless and then becomes homeless.” If the system does not know what to do when a veteran becomes homeless, then the system is not working. We need to be honest about how we got here. In 1992, the government pulled out of housing. We know this can be fixed. There are plenty of opportunities, but let us face it: The opportunity is now. Keep public land public, build housing, fund it properly and prioritize veterans and their families. (1745) [Translation ]

[Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will avoid moving the motion again. In any case, I am not the sponsor. The explanation and description of the motion have already been provided, so I will get straight to the point. The Bloc Québécois will not support this motion, and I will explain why. The motion instructs the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of surplus federal lands and buildings “by serving as centers that provide services for veterans”. However, the outcome is already stated: “serving as centers that provide services for veterans”. If the outcome is already known, it will not be a lengthy study. It is as though we already know the end. The motion also says that the government is meeting the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on military spending earlier than committed. That is not true, because the government committed to reaching the 2% target over 10 years ago. The motion also states that an increasing number of Canadian Armed Forces members will lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans in the coming decades. That makes sense, but it distracts from the real problems, which are unfortunately caused by the government's actions. For example, according to a recent study by the Auditor General, serving military personnel are facing serious hardship in accessing housing. The difficulty in securing affordable housing is directly linked to government decisions on immigration, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said: “We estimate that rents are currently 26% higher than they would have been without increased immigration”. The housing crisis, which is largely caused by the Century Initiative policy, has an inevitable impact on veterans' access to housing throughout Quebec and Canada. Access to health care is lacking, whether in relation to disability benefits, issues with Canada Life, or the privatization of services through contracts with private companies under the partners in Canadian veterans rehabilitation services program. Worst of all, however, apart from the inaccuracies in the motion and therefore in the text itself, is that it instructs the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to conduct a study according to a specific timeline. Committees are usually allowed full control over their own work. Why would the House suddenly impose such a timeline? To be clear, the motion would allow voting by members of non-recognized parties who do not sit on the committee. This means that people who are not involved in the committee would come and make decisions about committee work they had no hand in. The motion contains nothing to improve the situation. It simply forces the committee to conduct a study based on foregone conclusions, vague though they may be. It says that the buildings and lands must be used to provide services to veterans. The motion imposes a six-month deadline to conduct the study and draft a report containing the committee's findings. By forcing it to meet a strict deadline, the motion is effectively gagging the committee. The situation is all the more unacceptable considering that, as we speak, the only two recognized opposition parties are currently a majority on the committee, and we could end up being forced to follow a timeline that is not of our choosing. Veterans' needs are indeed numerous. These include housing, health care, disability benefits, and recognition of skills acquired in the military, to name just a few. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is better suited than the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to examine veterans' needs and come up with concrete recommendations. The other problem with this study is that most services fall under provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa does not deliver health care. The provinces do. Ottawa does not build affordable housing. It is usually the municipalities. Ottawa does not tackle homelessness and addiction. Once again, it is the municipalities and the provinces. The best solution for Ottawa, then, is to transfer its surplus buildings to the provinces instead of looking at creating new parallel structures. The motion refers to providing services using federal buildings, but a number of civilian partners can contribute to the solutions and are better equipped than the federal government to do so, especially since these services often fall under provincial jurisdiction. (1750) For example, the government could transfer its buildings and land to the provinces. That is the solution I mentioned earlier. The provinces could then put them to good use by building affordable housing, for example, something that provinces and municipalities already do. To truly help veterans, Ottawa needs to take proactive steps. The Liberals, like the Conservatives before them, turned a blind eye to cases of sexual misconduct in the armed forces for years, leaving many veterans with psychological issues after their service. The same is true when it comes to the transition from military to civilian life. Ottawa is not doing enough to support service members as they leave the military. They are accustomed to a life that is completely structured and controlled by the military, and they sometimes find themselves ill-equipped to cope with their new reality afterward. One of the most pressing issues right now is housing. This is a situation that has major repercussions for the entire population, but particularly for veterans, and yet the motion makes no mention of it. I am not suggesting that there are bad intentions behind the motion, but its many negative or ill-informed aspects outweigh any good intentions. I am going to use the time I have left to talk a bit about the housing problem that serving military members are also experiencing. The motion states that the number of veterans will only increase in the coming years. However, the Canadian Army is facing serious difficulties in providing housing for serving members, as demonstrated by the Auditor General's recent audit on the matter. As part of the audit, a total of 227 high-priority repairs were identified across 32 buildings at three military bases. In its latest estimate, National Defence revealed that it needed between 5,200 and 7,200 additional residential units for its members in 2019. Its plan to build new housing has still left a deficit of at least 3,800 homes. That is also a glaring and significant problem. I still have a little time, so I will say a few more words about the House's interference in the business of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In our view, granting the House the power to intervene in a committee's affairs is completely unacceptable. As I said earlier, parties like the NDP and the Green Party certainly belong in the House, but they are not recognized parties, so they have no role to play in the committees. Nonetheless, they will have the power to influence and impose their opinions on a committee's work even though they are not committee members. The House of Commons does give the committees direction, which is all well and good, but committees are masters of their own proceedings. They can call witnesses and compel the production of documents they need for their work. That power rests exclusively with committees. They can define the nature and scope of their studies without additional instructions, and they can delegate all or part of their powers to subcommittees. In light of these three problematic issues, we believe this motion is naive and grants MPs even more power over committee proceedings. We oppose that. I hope all parliamentarians give this motion plenty of thought. [Expand] Marianne Dandurand (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as we come to the end of the debate on an important motion that I hope will make a real difference for veterans across the country, people who have served Canada with courage and commitment. Motion No. 16, which was introduced by my colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, seeks to instruct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings to provide services for veterans. At the heart of the motion is a very clear objective, which is to improve access to services for our veterans. In contrast to what my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton said, the federal government is indeed responsible for taking care of the veterans who fought for our country. This is also directly related to the essential work of Veterans Affairs Canada, which offers programs to support those living with significant physical or mental health problems, as well as their families. The motion comes at a particularly good time. As my colleague pointed out, the Government of Canada is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces and is meeting its NATO commitments ahead of schedule, contrary to what my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton was saying. This week, in fact, we announced that the Canadian Armed Forces have reported a record number of enrolments over the past year. There are 7,310 people who joined the ranks in the 2025‑26 fiscal year, which is the highest number of enrolments in three decades. What that really means is that over the next decade, we need to prepare to see thousands of military personnel transition to civilian life and become veterans. The motion before us does more than just address today's significant challenges. It also aims to anticipate needs that will emerge in the future, through planning that must be thoughtful and effective, for veterans, communities and taxpayers alike. When we ask Canadians to serve their country, we commit in return to offering them support, care and guidance. These commitments do not end the day they take off their uniforms. We still have responsibilities toward them. Ultimately, the motion represents both an obligation and an opportunity: the opportunity to better care for our veterans, who have truly given so much to protect us and uphold our freedom. The federal government is responsible for a large portfolio of underutilized lands and buildings that are deemed surplus to its needs. The motion proposes examining how these properties can be repurposed to support programs for veterans. These spaces could, for example, be used to provide training, education, health care, mental health services, or even affordable housing for veterans. The member for Cumberland—Colchester often cites the example of the Ralston armoury. This is a historic building that is deeply linked with Nova Scotia's military heritage and was home to the Nova Scotia Highlanders Regiment, the regiment that landed at Juno Beach on D‑Day. However, this building is now in administrative limbo. In 2016, it was declared to be surplus. In 2020, it was closed because of structural issues, and it was then closed again in 2025 for environmental reasons. The local community has rallied to try to preserve it, but without a clear vision or long-term commitment, the building is at risk of staying unused despite its obvious potential and the needs we have. As the member pointed out, the armoury could become a real resource centre for veterans. It could be a place to provide affordable housing for those transitioning to civilian life, mental health services, peer support groups, career counselling, community spaces and perhaps even a refurbished museum to showcase the Highlanders' legacy. There are other buildings like this across the country, in communities represented by many members. This motion invites us to reflect on how we can transform these public assets into concrete solutions that honour the past while meeting current needs. (1755) As MPs, we have a responsibility towards our veterans. For that reason, we must support the motion. Exploring the possibility of giving these properties a new lease on life also allows us to build on initiatives already in place to support veterans and improve access to housing. In September, our government launched Build Canada Homes, a federal agency dedicated to the large-scale construction of affordable housing. The initiative also makes use of public land. It offers incentives to developers. It attracts private investment and supports modern construction methods to deliver the housing Canada needs, and that includes housing for veterans. We are also continuing to fund the veteran homelessness program, which was launched in 2023. In November 2025, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced an additional $22.5 million in funding to support initiatives aimed at preventing homelessness among veterans across the country. These are important measures, but we need to be honest: We have a duty to do more. This is where exploring the potential of underused federal properties comes in. It is a real opportunity to take concrete action. Veterans have unique needs and require services adapted to their reality. If the government has surplus federal lands or buildings that can be used to provide these services, it should make every possible effort to do so. The transition from military to civilian life can be hard sometimes. Veterans may need support for any number of reasons. It takes time, support and resources to adapt after leaving a structured environment like the Canadian Armed Forces for a somewhat more unpredictable existence. Many veterans also face physical and mental health issues after their service, including PTSD and other physiological or psychological conditions. Adapted services delivered by Veterans Affairs Canada can help prevent difficulties from worsening and stop problems from becoming more severe. If the government can use surplus federal lands and buildings to provide more services to veterans, it should give the matter serious consideration and make it happen. As my colleague pointed out, this motion could be beneficial for everyone. For veterans, it means better coordinated services in places that are accessible and rooted in the community. These services include housing, health care, employment supports and peer networks, without unnecessary barriers or excessive distances. For communities, it means turning underused buildings into hubs for local revitalization, creating jobs, supporting vulnerable populations and strengthening community infrastructure. For taxpayers, it means better use of existing public assets, potential savings and better outcomes. For members of Parliament, regardless of party, it means one simple thing, that is, working together to come up with concrete solutions for the people we represent. There is no greater service than that provided by the men and women who have served in our armed forces. Our veterans deserve to have access to the support they need when they need it. It is in that spirit that I invite all members in the House to support the motion to study the use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings to better support our veterans. (1800) [English ]

[Expand] Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on Motion No. 16. I do not support this motion, and I oppose it in so many different ways I am not even sure I can get through it all in the 10 minutes allotted to me. First of all, this is one of the worst do-nothing private members' bills or motions I have dealt with in 10 and a half years. Possibly the worst, of course, was from the former member for Châteauguay—Lacolle, who used up two PMB slots just to change the name of her riding. Members will know that after every election, the parties all agree under unanimous consent to change the names of the ridings then. This member used up two slots just to change the name of a riding. For those wondering, not every member of Parliament gets an opportunity to table a private member's motion or bill. There is a draw out of the 343 of us, minus the 30 or 40 so in cabinet. Out of the ballpark 310 left, usually, depending on the length of the Parliament, whether it is two years like the 2019 one or a bit longer, maybe the top 40 names or 60 names drawn will actually get to be heard in the House. It is pretty rare and it is a great opportunity for an MP to bring through a private member's bill. We saw the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola bring in one to address intimate partner violence, which was an excellent PMB. I had an opportunity in the first Parliament I was here, in 2015, to bring in a private member's bill to eliminate discriminatory taxing of seniors by eliminating the mandatory RRIF withdrawals, which unfortunately the Liberals voted against. It is shocking to see someone come to the House, with a rare opportunity to get a PMB heard, just to basically ask a committee to do a study. What is ridiculous about it is that any MP from a recognized party can show up at that meeting, and in this case it is the operations committee I have sat on for 10 years, and just table a motion for us to study it. Currently, with the makeup of the operations committee, we all generally agree to look at different things, and we will pass them together. I think the last three studies we have done were passed unanimously among the parties, which worked collaboratively. The member could have just simply showed up at OGGO and tabled the motion, and we could have worked it out and done it instead of using up an important item like a PMB. The general sentiment, I think, of the PMB is to convert government offices to use for veterans, but it starts off by asking that the House not actually do that but recognize the great job the Liberal government is doing with its spending for the Canadian Armed Forces. It starts off not talking about help for veterans, but asking that the House recognize “that the government is making historic investments in the Armed Forces to meet our NATO funding targets”. It does not mention, by the way, that $5 billion is actually re-profiled out of pensions and another $2.5 billion is merely re-profiling the civilian Coast Guard as defence. This is the same civilian Coast Guard that the chief of the Coast Guard says there is no plan to arm. Again, instead of actually working to help veterans, this is “Will you please recognize the Liberal government and tell us how great we are”. It is a false thing. The motion goes on to instruct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the mighty OGGO, “to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands...in ways to help reinvigorate communities by serving as centres that provide services for veterans.” Unfortunately, the problem is that the final line makes it outside the operations committee's mandate. We do not have a mandate to reinvigorate communities or provide suggestions on reinvigorating communities. Perhaps HUMA does or perhaps Veterans Affairs does, but it is outside OGGO's mandate. Again, if any member wants to bring in a motion, they just have to show up any Tuesday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. or any Thursday at 11 a.m. and simply table a motion. There is no need to waste hours in the House for a motion to study something that is not actually binding on the government. (1805) I will give an example. Just last month, in the government operations and estimates committee, a majority voted and agreed that the government extend the term of the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, what we saw today was that the Liberals actually voted in their own candidate. There is no imperative on the government to actually listen to a committee study. The Canada Post recommendations that the government operations committee tabled were ignored, and what did we hear today? There is a $1.6-billion loss from the operations of Canada Post. A lot of those losses could have been dealt with if the government had actually listened to or followed committee recommendations. However, it is not forced to. The green book says, “A motion is a proposal moved by one member in accordance with well-established rules that the House do something”. They could have simply come to OGGO and moved a motion. Now what could the Liberal member have brought in instead? Her riding of Cumberland—Colchester has a child poverty rate of 25.5%. Imagine going door knocking in that community for an election, where there is a 25% child poverty rate. The Amherst women's shelter had a 50% increase in requests for beds in December 2025 compared to the previous year. Imagine going door knocking, asking people for their vote and asking about their biggest issue, and it is not child poverty, nor the fact that there is a 50% increase in requests for help at women's shelters because of intimate partner violence. I wonder how many people actually said that they wanted OGGO to study something outside of its mandate. Honestly, does anyone think a single person in that riding actually said, “Let's do that study”? There are other issues. Amherst business owners told Global News that they are feeling unsafe. Donna Gogan, the owner of a restaurant next door to a crime scene where someone was shot, said, “I wish I could say I’m shocked. I’m not shocked. I expected something like this to happen over the last year or so”. Crime is up so high. Violent crime is 50% above the national standard. Again, imagine this being the priority, to have OGGO do a study outside of its mandate, when members could actually just walk into any committee and drop a motion to study this. Thirty per cent of all renter households are living in housing that is officially considered unaffordable. We have a rental crisis as well. As of August 1, there are 7,900 Nova Scotians who need a family doctor. This riding is about one-twelfth of the province's population, so there are probably about 800 who are living without a family doctor in that riding, one out of every 12. Eight out of 37 ERs in the province were closed simultaneously due to staff shortages. In the member's riding, Pugwash, Parrsboro and Springhill experience frequent closures of their emergency rooms. People cannot find a doctor, and if they do have an emergency, these communities are shutting down access. Imagine the member hearing that, and what is her reaction? It is to come to the House and put through a motion to tie up the government operations committee. This is not a motion or a private member's bill to move something forward for the community. It is not one that would actually move anything forward that would help veterans. It is done to tie up an opposition-led committee. Those are the cold, hard facts. The member is part of the government. She could actually walk up to the vice-chair and ask them to do this. She is part of the government. If this was an issue, she could actually work inside her own caucus to address issues for Veterans Affairs. We heard Veterans Affairs come to the government operations committee on the CER cuts, the expenditure review cuts, where they are actually cutting veterans' access to pension help, when pension help shows that 90% of the reviews are going in favour of the veterans. The Liberals have cut this. Instead of actually helping veterans, the Liberals are cutting services to them. This motion does nothing to help Canadians or veterans or anyone in that member's riding. (1810) [Translation ]

[Expand] Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want to help veterans with concrete measures, not with another study. The government has known for years that lots of federal buildings are empty. A 2017 report indicated that nearly half of all federal office space was underutilized, but the government has still not taken action. The Office of the Auditor General confirmed that more than $1 billion was allocated to reducing office space with very little progress to show for it. Meanwhile, those empty buildings are still costing taxpayers dearly. Moreover, the basis for this motion is flawed. The Auditor General said that the Canadian Armed Forces fell short of its recruitment target by about 5,000 soldiers and that the recruitment system is too slow and poorly organized. The government also announced more than $4 billion in cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada. They cannot say they want to deliver more services for veterans while simultaneously shrinking the budget. Conservatives believe the government must stop wasting time, use empty buildings and help veterans now. (1815) [English ]

We are debating a Liberal motion with respect to veterans. I think my colleague from Edmonton West ably made many of the arguments I was planning to make with respect to the general absurdity of Liberal government MPs' using rare private members' bill slots to put forward motions asking committees to do studies. Briefly, to summarize those arguments, if a member believes that a committee should study an issue, the member can simply go to the committee, make the appropriate arrangements with their colleagues at the committee and move the motion at the committee to do the study. The House does not need to instruct a committee to do a study. At times it chooses to do so, but the simplest way to achieve that objective is to simply go to the committee and move a motion for that study. That frees up the private member's bill slot to put forward an additional initiative. The only reason to use a private member's bill slot in the House to do an instruction to committee is that a member cannot think of anything else to do with their private member's bill slot. That seems like a missed opportunity, when, again, they could simply go to the committee to move the study motion. Moreover, I think the committee itself is often in the best position to prioritize the various options in terms of a study. There are certainly important studies that the House may wish to bring to a committee's attention. The House can do other things, such as create special committees or provide committees with priority access to the resources of the House. There are certain powers that the House uniquely has and can exercise, but nothing in the motion before us proposes the unique use of powers that are only those of the House. This motion would direct a committee to do something that a committee could choose to do itself. Further, a member could use the time to propose legislation on this matter, which the member has chosen not to do. I know that the committee is already doing important work in a number of different areas. I want to use the balance of my time to talk a bit about some of the work that, as I know, has already happened at various committees dealing with veterans issues and to highlight some of the work being done by the opposition on veterans issues. I have had the pleasure of working with our veterans shadow minister, drawing attention to the critical issue of how veterans have been treated by Veterans Affairs Canada, particularly in the context of seeking access to other services but having facilitated death, MAID, proposed to them. It is based on these conversations and evidence gathered at the veterans affairs committee that I have put forward Bill C-260, the care not coercion act, which using a private members' bill slot to put forward specific legislation that tries to change law in a way that a motion at committee cannot. What veterans are deeply concerned about is how, in a growing number of cases, represented by multiple caseworkers from multiple provinces, an untold number of veterans are reporting that they have called Veterans Affairs Canada asking for help, asking for assistance with a stair lift, asking for mental health supports or asking for other kinds of supports, and instead of receiving the supports they have asked for, bureaucrats from Veterans Affairs Canada have proposed to them that they pursue facilitated death instead. This is wrong. It is a violation of a sacred trust. It unfortunately really drives people away from seeking the help that they are entitled to. The reality of the life of a veteran often involves a constant need to interface repeatedly with Veterans Affairs Canada to explain things that have been explained before and to advocate for things that a person should be entitled to. This constant need to be in an annoying and, at certain points, painful dialogue with Veterans Affairs Canada to seek the basic things they are entitled to is, unfortunately, a part of the life of many veterans. We should work to do better and to push for a reality in which veterans do not have to be frustrated by or even fear these contacts with bureaucrats. Instead, they should simply, as a matter of course, receive the services that they have been promised and to which they are entitled. People are not receiving the services that they are entitled to and are instead talking to bureaucrats with no direct involvement in medical services or facilitated death. They are being told if they are frustrated by all these things or if they are having such difficulty, why do they not pursue a facilitated death instead? That is wrong. I think in the past, the government has acknowledged that this is wrong when it has been unable to deny that it has happened, but we need to go further and actually ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again. That is why I put forward Bill C-260, the care not coercion act. Bill C-260 would ensure that a person in this country would not receive a recommendation or pressure for a facilitated death from a bureaucrat when they are seeking unrelated public services. It would not apply in cases where a person is asking for information about facilitated death. It would not apply in the case of a conversation with a doctor or a nurse. If Bill C-260 passes, it would mean that if someone is contacting government bureaucrats and asking about public services, they will no longer be told, if the government cannot get someone a stair lift within the time they want it, to consider a facilitated death instead. It is ghoulish and bizarre that this has happened in this country, but it has happened. It has happened many times to many different veterans in different provinces across the country, demonstrating pretty clearly that it was not just a one-off. This is something that has involved multiple caseworkers on the part of the government. I think there are many ways we can and must do better for our veterans in this country. One clear step we can take is to address the retraumatization, the pain and the frustration that is often associated with this need to continually contact and be in touch with bureaucrats in cases where those interactions have been very negative for the individuals. We can try to put parameters around what is and what is not appropriate in those conversations in order to protect veterans. Bill C-260, the care not coercion act, is concrete legislation that the Conservatives are putting forward. It builds off work that has been done at committee. I commend my colleagues, particularly on the veterans affairs committee, who have been studying the issue of veteran suicide, and who have been looking at these instances of pressure and coercion around facilitated death and other things. This is the work being done by committee. Again, I suggest members who want the committee to conduct other studies or work on other issues to go to those committees, talk to the members of those committees, and put forward ideas there for studies, as they are entitled to do. (1820) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I offer the member for Cumberland—Colchester her right of reply, for five minutes. [Expand] Alana Hirtle (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, right now, as our government is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, we must not only prepare for thousands of new service members to put on the uniform but also consider what it means for them to one day become veterans, because while meeting the commitments we have made to our NATO allies is important, the commitments we make to the soldiers, sailors and aviators in the Canadian Armed Forces are paramount. Quite honestly, this is an area where we have fallen short in the past again and again. Through both Liberal and Conservative governments, none of us has succeeded in providing the full support that our veterans deserve. No government has gotten it perfectly right. Now, I expect I am not supposed to say that, but it is true. The way I see things is that we can stand around these hallowed halls for the next decade continuing to play the blame game or we can step up and do the right thing. We cannot, in good conscience, use our frustration at past inaction as logic for blocking action today. Over the past couple of months, I have found myself approaching this issue, this opportunity, with the words of poet and president Václav Havel humming in my ear. He said that “the real question is whether the brighter future is really always so distant. What if,” he asked, “it has been here for a long time already, and only our own blindness and weakness has prevented us from seeing it”? What if solutions we are looking for have been here for a long time already? What if the pieces of this brighter future are found in resources we already have? The motion that has been put forward is focused on the future. It is focused on veterans. It is focused on recognizing opportunities available to us within resources that already exist. Motion No. 16 would direct that we undertake a fast and focused study to examine the best ways to activate the potential in surplus federal properties across the country. Such a study would provide us with a road map for communities to adapt to their own specific local circumstances. Motion No. 16 would allow us to actually take the time to outline a strategy for local action at scale. One size does not have to fit all. What we desperately need is a plan to move us beyond these one-off agreements and delays that lead to missed opportunities and crumbling buildings. I would venture to say that not a single member in this chamber disagrees with the goal of utilizing federal properties more effectively, and I bet no one will find an MP who thinks we should not be striving for better supports and services for veterans. We already agree on these things. The motion seeks to move the situation beyond the administrative limbo that has for too long constrained the federal government from efficiently coordinating with provinces, municipalities, first nations and non-profit groups that might better maximize the potential within many government-owned properties. The North Nova Scotia Highlanders landed on Juno Beach 82 years ago this June. They fought their way across northwest Europe, they liberated villages, and they paid an unbearable price. The Colonel James Layton Ralston Armoury in Amherst, Nova Scotia, the building where the Highlanders gathered and trained and kept that legacy alive, is one of the underutilized properties I have been speaking about today, property that deserves better than the red tape of administrative limbo, property that deserves a future. I believe we can do better for the riding of Airdrie—Cochrane, better for Laurentides—Labelle, better for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, better for Cumberland—Colchester and better for communities from coast to coast to coast, and this motion is how we start. Even now, the words of Havel continue to hum, asking whether the brighter future is really always so distant. What if only our own blindness has prevented us from seeing it? I ask the membership of this chamber to focus on the future and support this motion. (1825) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. (1830) [Expand] Alana Hirtle: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, at the end of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Message from the Senate

[Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-225, an act to establish national Thanadelthur day.

Adjournment Proceedings

[Adjournment Proceedings]

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

Natural Resources

[Expand] Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on behalf of those who have been cut out of the conversation on the Liberals' pipeline MOU with Alberta Premier, Danielle Smith, and the Canadian taxpayers who are continually on the hook for big oil subsidies. It is time for their voices to be heard. The MOU fails to respect first nations' emphatic stance against a new pipeline to the north coast; fails to respect the crucial principle of free, prior and informed consent; and fails to respect the B.C. government's clear stance that the oil tanker moratorium must stay in place. However, there is another group this MOU fails to respect, which is Canadian taxpayers. The federal government already subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of $30 billion, and with no proponent lined up, this new pipeline could be yet another taxpayer-funded, subsidized boondoggle. We have seen this film before with the Trans Mountain expansion. In two separate investigations, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found TMX to be a net loss. Since the government purchased the pipeline in 2018, its costs have ballooned from $7.4 billion to $34 billion. In the long term, subsidizing fossil fuel export infrastructure is a losing game and a bad investment. In a climate-safe scenario, around 70% of new LNG projects would never recover their costs due to low demand and a structural oversupply. Carbon Tracker projects that, in the long term, the financial risks of new Canadian oil and gas projects are double their potential rewards, and while taxpayers lose out, big oil is reaping the rewards. The top five Canadian oil companies made over $25 billion in profits just last year and will make $90 billion in windfall profits from the war on Iran. Big oil is already raking in profits off a pipeline they wanted but refused to buy, and now they want another one. While the Liberals and Conservatives will not even ask big oil to support relief for everyday people through a windfall profits tax, the government is instead subsidizing them further with a gas tax cut that big oil should be covering. Between this MOU and the over $1.8 billion in subsidies for mainly foreign-owned LNG projects, the government appears ready to repeat the same mistake it made with TMX. These giveaways to polluters also hurt our health and the health of future generations. We remember the hundreds who died in the 2021 heat dome in British Columbia. We have seen the devastating effects of wildfire smoke, including the tragic death of nine-year-old Carter Vigh. Health Canada points out that these are not distant risks. These are happening now. There are also growing legal issues. Cases before the courts argue that government failure on climate action violates Canadian charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person. A case in Ontario supported by Ecojustice reached all the way to the superior court before the provincial government gutted its environmental regulations to evade legal scrutiny. Internationally, an ICJ advisory opinion finds: The failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from [greenhouse gas] emissions, including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel fuel subsidies, may constitute an internationally wrongful act.... It is absurd to ask Canadian taxpayers to subsidize big oil and then go back to ask them to finance their own climate crisis, but that is exactly what the Liberals are doing here. Canadians deserve clarity. Is the government going to commit to a pipeline and tanker project that ignores indigenous consent, deepens the climate crisis and exposes Canadians to financial and legal risk, or will it respect rights, protect communities and invest in a sustainable future by cancelling this backroom deal? [Expand] Maggie Chi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the important issue raised by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni. Let me start by being absolutely clear about what the government has said publicly and consistently. The Prime Minister has stated repeatedly, in the House and outside it, that projects should move forward with the agreement of the impacted jurisdiction and the impacted indigenous nations. This has not changed. So far, no project has been proposed before the regulators. There is no decision to lift the oil tanker moratorium. What the member referred to is a memorandum of understanding between Canada and Alberta. The MOU does not sidestep indigenous rights or decision-making. The member suggested that the coastal first nations have been ignored or sidelined. This is not accurate. When concerns were raised, the Prime Minister publicly committed to meeting with Coastal First Nations and, in fact, met with its leadership in January. Federal ministers have consistently said that engagement must be nation to nation, meaningful and grounded in respect for indigenous rights and title. That is not a box-checking exercise. It is a legal and constitutional requirement, and it is how the government approaches all major projects. Meaningful engagement and consultation also means meaningful economic opportunity for indigenous rights holders. That means opportunities defined by indigenous nations themselves, grounded in skills training, long-term employment, ownership and real participation in economic decision-making, not only as a condition but also as part of building durable, respectful partnerships that support shared prosperity. As for looking at adjustments to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, we may not even need to look at the act, depending on the project ultimately proposed. If we do, I can assure members that nothing about that process would be skipped. Robust consultations would be held. Trust is built through actions, not rhetoric. That is why the government has been clear that indigenous participation is not symbolic and not optional. Indigenous nations are rights holders. Their input and decisions matter. This is also why the government has been clear that British Columbia must be meaningfully involved. The MOU clarity stipulates that robust engagement must be held with the B.C. government and that the people of British Columbia must benefit from any project that moves forward in their province. The member is right that the coast has a history, and that history matters. It is precisely because of that history that the government has rejected the idea of ramming projects through. Canada is navigating a complicated global moment, with real debates about energy security, climate responsibility and economic resilience. Those debates must be grounded in facts, law and respect for rights, not assumptions about decisions that have not been made. We will continue to engage and consult directly with indigenous nations. We will continue to respect provincial jurisdiction, and we will not move forward on any project unless those conditions are met. That is how we build a stronger Canada: by working together. (1835) [Expand] Gord Johns: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals may try to dismiss these concerns, but Canadians can see what is happening. The government is still funding big oil, with over $30 billion in taxpayer money and subsidies, while refusing to be transparent about the real cost. We have already seen the consequences. Projects like the Trans Mountain expansion have shown that public financing of fossil fuel infrastructure can leave Canadians carrying the risk, while private interests take the reward, while new oil and gas development risks millions more carbon-related deaths and while charter rights concerns pile up for an ever-shrinking market. These oil and gas subsidies make no economic sense, force Canadians to pay for their own climate catastrophe and could violate international law. In budget 2025, the government is proposing a so-called strategic financing framework to coordinate funding across Crown corporations and agencies. At a time when families are facing rising costs and communities are dealing with the impacts of climate change, Canadians deserve to know exactly what that means. Does it mean more public money flowing to oil and gas? Does it mean more risk being shifted onto taxpayers? Will the government come clean about how much more it plans to give to big polluters, and why? [Expand] Maggie Chi: Mr. Speaker, the question before us is not whether trust matters. It does. There has been no proposal submitted before regulators so far. Any path forward must respect the rights of indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister has said this plainly, and ministers have repeated it in the House and in committee. Engagement is ongoing, not finished. Robust consultations with rights holders will be undertaken as we move forward in this space. The decisions of indigenous nations must be respected. That is not backtracking. It is how we uphold rights, responsibilities and the rule of law. (1840) International Development

[Expand] Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question tonight in Adjournment Proceedings that I first raised on February 5 at the end of our annual International Development Week. I raised a question in great sadness because the Liberal Party platform in the last election committed to something that mattered. It committed to not cut development assistance. That stood in stark contrast to the Conservative Party commitment to cut development assistance. It was one of those issues on which voters could make a pivotal choice. Sometimes, it seemed like they were saying the same thing: Liberals were saying they were going to get rid of the consumer carbon price and Conservatives were saying they were going to get rid of the consumer carbon price. However, on the issue of development assistance, there was a clear choice to be made because the Liberals said, very clearly, that they would not cut development assistance. This matters, particularly in the world today, where shocking things have happened south of the border. Under the Trump administration, two critical decisions were made that imperil millions and millions of the world's poorest. One was the decision to cut all ties and cut funding. The U.S. was the biggest funder of the World Health Organization, the organization that helps with immunizations against polio, malaria and TB. A lot of us in Parliament and across Canada are Rotarians. We worked with the program to end polio that was supported by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When Trump cut funding to the World Health Organization, the U.S. cut funding to one of the biggest partners working around the world with Rotarians to end the scourge of polio. At the same time, pretty much, Elon Musk and his DOGE machine, along with his fake but real chainsaw, cut USAID, which was one of the world's biggest donor organizations, from a government state donor to the poorest of the poor. Again, Canada's role in this is important. We have shown, if not leadership in terms of dollars, leadership in exhorting others to do it. Our former prime minister Lester B. Pearson chaired a UN agency and set a target for industrialized countries, suggesting that if wealthy donor countries would only put 0.7% of our GDP into official development assistance, we could end poverty. The closest we ever got to that target was back in 1992 when the prime minister was Brian Mulroney. At the Rio Earth Summit, Canada had 0.48%. Now, tragically, the Liberals have broken that promise. We were never as close as we were under Mulroney, but we have dropped quite a bit. Breaking their promise, the Liberals, under our current Prime Minister, cut $2.8 billion from development assistance. At a time when the world looks to us to step up and help repair the damage done by the hole created by the U.S. stepping away from the poorest of the poor, we are doing the same and stepping away instead of stepping up. In a moment of sadness on February 5, I posed the question and pointed out to the minister that this is the first time in 50 years that Canada has not had a full cabinet minister responsible for development assistance. Rather, we have a secretary of state who I know means well, but a secretary of state for development assistance is not the same thing as having a cabinet minister at the table. I hope to pursue this matter. [Expand] Maggie Chi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding Canada's commitment to international assistance. This is an important issue that speaks directly to Canada's values and our role within the global community. In this vein, I want to acknowledge the deep commitments of international development organizations and their frontline workers who advance peace, prosperity and stability around the world. Their work reflects Canada's values and our long-standing belief that international assistance is an essential pillar for global security and shared prosperity. Let us be clear. Our government remains firmly committed to Canada's international assistance priorities. We continue to fight poverty; advance gender equality; strengthen health, education and food systems; build climate resilience; and deliver urgent humanitarian aid. These investments are not optional. They are essential to preventing conflict, responding to crises, promoting prosperity and security, and fostering lasting stability. Canada's international assistance spending grew significantly in recent years to respond to global crises, from the COVID-19 pandemic to Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Budget 2025 announced a reduction of roughly $2.7 billion over four years, returning spending to the more sustainable pre-pandemic levels. In today's fiscal climate, it is more important than ever that our international assistance, including official development assistance, be strategic and impactful. Moving forward, we are prioritizing results and effectiveness to ensure every dollar supports meaningful impacts and outcomes. Providing international assistance also strengthens Canada's security, economic resilience and global influence by promoting the stability vital to our shared prosperity. It ensures that international assistance efforts not only reduce poverty abroad, but also generate mutual benefits including economic opportunities for Canadians. This is why our government takes a pragmatic and principled approach. We are focusing our multilateral and bilateral efforts where Canada can advance shared priorities, strengthen economic resilience and support stability, helping our partners grow while benefiting Canadians at home. We are using all available tools to maximize the impact of our assistance, while remaining guided by our core values of human rights, gender equality and poverty reduction. Despite the challenges, there is opportunity. Partner countries are seeking relationships that support their priorities and give them space to grow, helping them build stronger economies, improve governance and strengthen climate resilience. By positioning Canada as a trusted partner, we not only advance these outcomes abroad, but we also advance our own security, economic interest and global influence. Our international assistance is focused on creating a more stable, prosperous and resilient world. Canada's long-standing experience in international assistance underscores that leadership is measured by effectiveness, credibility and long-term engagement. This why we continue to work with trusted Canadian partners, multilateral institutions and local organizations to deliver results. As the world evolves, Canada remains committed to our international assistance objectives and unwavering in addressing poverty, inequality and instability. Canada leads with purpose, compassion and pragmatism to deliver real results at home and abroad. (1845) [Expand] Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, oh, I wish that was all true. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for saying we are committed, but if we are committed, why have we cut when the Liberal budget promised it would not be cut? This is at a time when the world is screaming out that there are increased humanitarian pressures. There are humanitarian pressures in Gaza, in Darfur, in Ukraine and all around the world, and if anyone looks to Canada for help, we have cut development assistance by $2.7 billion this year. We cannot talk out of both sides of our mouth forever. It catches up with us. We must do more. Canadians care about the poorest of the poor. We know that in the climate crisis, there will be more environmental refugees, more people turning up on our shores, looking for help and looking for assistance. The U.S. has turned insular, turned more selfish than ever. Canada needs to look outward. We need to be more generous than ever. [Expand] Maggie Chi: Mr. Speaker, continued commitment to international assistance is important, but commitment alone is not enough. Global challenges are increasingly complex, from pandemic conflicts and climate change to shifting geopolitical dynamics. Budget 2025 reduces international assistance by $2.7 billion over four years, making it even more important that every dollar is strategic, effective and results-driven. Without a strategic, pragmatic approach, even well-intentioned aid risks being diluted and less effective. Canada must continue to focus not only on what we fund, but on how we fund it, prioritizing partnerships and tools that deliver measurable and sustainable impact. This includes supporting initiatives that reduce poverty while also creating mutual benefits, such as opportunities for Canadian businesses and promoting regional and global security and stability critical to our shared prosperity. Principles remain essential, including respect for human rights, gender equality and poverty reduction. Our pragmatism ensures our resources achieve maximum results. Leadership is measured by results and Canada's credibility depends on the differences we make on the ground. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.) Hansard - 107 (April 21, 2026) Explore By: Table of Contents
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )