Debates of Oct. 21st, 2025

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Jonquière for introducing Bill C‑228, which is a private member's bill. I am grateful for his work on this important and timely issue.

The debate on this bill touches on fundamental principles of our democracy and our constitutional framework. In a global context marked by geopolitical uncertainty, it is essential to ensure that Canada's treaty-making system reflects today's reality.

First, I rise today to reaffirm the integrity, transparency, and accountability that are already built into Canada's treaty-making process. This includes the essential step of tabling treaties in Parliament. This step is a more recent addition to our tradition, but it has been respected and supported by Canadian governments of all political stripes since the January 2008 announcement of the policy on tabling treaties in Parliament.

Since the introduction of the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament in 2008, successive governments have maintained a strong commitment to transparency by regularly tabling treaty texts before the House. These documents, along with negotiating positions and impact assessments, are made available to parliamentary committees, allowing Parliament to exercise oversight.

Our government will always take a strong stand for transparency in Canada's international agreements and partnerships. As we endeavour to diversify our relationships abroad, we agree that there can be no compromise on transparency to Parliament.

We agree that as we focus on diversifying our relationships and treaty relations abroad, there must be no sacrifice on openness with Parliament.

As members of the House know, the authority to enter into international treaties on behalf of Canada belongs to the elected government. Like many of our allies who also follow the Westminster model, our government has a mandate to negotiate, sign and ratify treaties on behalf of Canada for all Canadians.

It is important to recognize that the constitutional authority to enter into treaties rests with the elected government of the day, consistent with the Westminster parliamentary tradition. As with many of our allies who share this system, the executive branch is tasked with negotiating, signing and ratifying treaties on behalf of all Canadians.

At the same time, parliamentary control and transparency are central to our democratic governance. The current policy framework offers a number of opportunities for parliamentary participation by the provinces, territories, indigenous groups and relevant stakeholders, from preliminary consultations during treaty planning and negotiations, right up to tabling of the treaties prior to their ratification.

For nearly 20 years, since 2008, successive governments have tabled treaties in Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the policy on tabling treaties in Parliament. This process is not a mere formality; it embodies the philosophy that underpins our system of government.

As we begin the debate on Canada's current treaty-making process, it is important that we all understand what exactly our current policy is and what level of openness, input and transparency it affords to Parliament.

First, a government's accountability in the treaty process begins well before signing or ratifying a treaty. It begins with the planning stage. As the policy states, when a negotiating mandate is developed, public servants must demonstrate that they have conducted a comprehensive consultation process. This process involves not only federal departments, but also, depending on the subject of the treaty, the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, as well as civil society in the form of non-governmental organizations, academia and industry.

Second, these consultations continue throughout the negotiation phase. Stakeholders are consulted, including provincial and territorial governments where certain provisions of the treaty fall within their constitutional jurisdiction. In the case of multilateral negotiations, representatives of these groups are often part of Canadian delegations.

Third, for agreements of major economic importance, including trade agreements, additional transparency measures were put in place in 2020. These additional measures require that the government table in Parliament a notice of intent to negotiate at least 90 days before the discussions begin and that negotiation objectives be tabled 30 days before.

Fourth, the requirement to table the text of international treaties in Parliament before taking any action intended to bind Canada is an essential component of our commitment to accountability.

During these treaty-tabling periods, opposition parties have the option to seek a vote and pursue a debate in the House regarding the treaty in question.

Fifth, where the fulfillment of the obligations in a treaty requires amendments to federal legislation, a bill to implement those obligations is presented to this House and follows the standard procedures for the adoption of law. This again provides significant opportunities for review, examination, debate and approval by parliamentarians.

Finally, the commitment to public transparency is also reflected in the publication and registration of treaties. Once in force, they become publicly available, they are registered with the United Nations and they are kept in the public domain, ensuring their visibility both in Canada and internationally.

For treaties with significant economic implications, such as free trade agreements, the government introduced enhanced transparency measures in 2020. These include the requirement to table a notice of intent to negotiate and the negotiation objectives in this House before talks begin. Furthermore, Parliament's approval is required before implementation legislation can be enacted, ensuring legislative scrutiny before these treaties take full effect domestically.

In summation, the current parliamentary review process for treaties has seen over 450 treaties brought before this House since 2008, providing members with opportunities for examination, debate and, if desired, votes. When treaties require amendments to federal laws, such changes must pass through the normal legislative process, offering further opportunities for parliamentary review.

It is true that Bill C‑228 seeks to strengthen parliamentary participation by requiring prior approval of treaties. That is an honourable goal shared by every member of the House.

However, we should be cautious about any changes to our ratification process, particularly when they may introduce delays and uncertainties that could hinder Canada's ability to negotiate effectively and respond swiftly to evolving global circumstances.

This year alone, nearly 20 treaties have been tabled in Parliament. Under the process outlined in this bill, each of these treaties would have had to spend months in committee and months more awaiting the drafting of a government report, meaning several years' delay in the implementation of international agreements that have earned our country a global reputation as a reliable partner.

This balance between executive flexibility and parliamentary oversight is complex. Other Westminster democracies, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, offer useful examples.

In the U.K., treaties are laid before Parliament prior to ratification under the Ponsonby rule, allowing scrutiny while preserving executive discretion. Australia and New Zealand follow similar practices, where parliamentary review occurs after negotiations.

In short, when one considers the extensive transparency measures that have been in place for over two decades, the notion that treaty-making in Canada lacks transparency is not borne out.

In conclusion, I have outlined key steps in Canada's treaty process, a process that ensures that each negotiated agreement is guided by the principles of democracy, transparency and respect for the constitutional framework. This system is robust, it provides for appropriate consultation and it allows for parliamentary participation through the tabling period.

I understand and share the concerns raised by my Bloc Québécois colleague. We are operating in a complex global environment, and Canada's international relations decisions carry more weight than ever.

I thank my colleague for his thoughtful contributions and for highlighting the vital role Parliament plays in shaping our foreign policy, and I look forward to continuing our collaboration.

As we continue to consider Bill C‑228, it is critical that we reflect not only on the transparency and oversight mechanisms already in place in Canada, but also on the constitutional principles that define the roles of the executive and Parliament in the treaty process.

I look forward to the rest of this debate.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for bringing this bill forward. I think it will give us an opportunity to talk about the treaty process here in Canada and in the House of Commons.

The first multilateral treaty negotiated and signed by Canada was the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The first bilateral treaty negotiated and signed by Canada was the Halibut Treaty between Canada and the United States in 1923. Before that, the United Kingdom negotiated, signed and ratified treaties on behalf of all of the countries in the empire. Full treaty authority was not fully delegated to Canada until 1947, with the issuance of the Letters Patent, 1947. As I think my colleague mentioned, there are some 4,400 treaties that Canada has entered into or has been bound by over the years.

An important starting point for this particular private member's bill is discussing the nomenclature of a treaty. Under the Vienna convention that codified international practice in 1969, Canada defines a treaty as “a single instrument” or “two or more related instruments” and indicates that treaties can come in various forms of description. They can be called treaties, conventions, agreements, protocols or some similar word. They can be a simple exchange of diplomatic notes or a simple exchange of diplomatic letters. All of these are incorporated into what Canada considers to be a treaty.

What is not a treaty is an arrangement or a memorandum of understanding. Those two documents are not considered by Canada to be treaties, although other states consider them to be treaties.

It is important to start with that description of what we in Canada call a treaty before we go on to a discussion of the bill.

When I look at Bill C-228, I note that it further defines a treaty as an amendment to a treaty. Treaties are not simply the original bilateral, multilateral or plurilateral agreement; any amendment to such an agreement is also considered a treaty in the definition provided by the bill.

The bill then goes on to define what a major treaty is. When I read the bill, a major treaty seems to encompass pretty much all treaties. They are almost one and the same. A major treaty is defined as any treaty that requires for its implementation “the enactment of an Act of Parliament”, “the conferment of new powers on His Majesty in Right of Canada”, or “the imposition of a tax by Parliament”; “imposes a significant direct or conditional financial obligation on Canada”; “concerns the transfer of part of Canada’s territory”; “requires Canada to impose...economic or military sanctions on a state”; or “concerns the territorial jurisdiction of Canada”. In the final two descriptions, a major treaty is any treaty that “concerns international trade or investment” or “concerns Canada’s participation in international institutions”.

When we look at what a major treaty is as defined in the bill, it pretty much encompasses all treaties. A very broad set of treaties would be defined and captured by this bill.

What the bill would do can be summarized by three elements. The first is it would codify existing policy and practice by the Government of Canada and the practice here in the House of Commons, which my hon. colleague across the aisle called the Ponsonby convention.

As an aside, I might mention that one of the primary schools I went to when I was a kid was Ponsonby Public School, which is just down the road from where I grew up. It was probably named after the person who authored the convention, but it is the Ponsonby rule that had been in place in the United Kingdom since 1924. That rule in the United Kingdom has been codified into law by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

What we currently do here in practice in the House, what the government currently does in policy, which was enacted by the Harper government in 2008, is being proposed to be codified by the bill that is before us, and I think that is an interesting idea. It is something the U.K. has done, but in practice I do not think it would make any real change to the way we consider treaties here in the House.

The second and third elements of the private member's bill would change significantly how we deal with treaties. The second element is that “the Minister must obtain the advice of the House of Commons regarding the treaty before ratifying it.” In other words, the minister needs to ensure that a debate and a vote take place in the House as a whole for each treaty laid before the House. The third element of the bill is that all major treaties would be reviewed by a committee of the House and that the committee would have to report back to the House.

I think the second and third elements of the bill would be a problem, and I want to explain why. As my hon. colleague mentioned, there are some 4,400 treaties that Canada is party to. Let us just assume that they have been negotiated over about 100 years; that means about 44 treaties a year. That would be a lot of treaties for the House to debate and to vote on each and every time. It would be a lot of work for a committee to review and report back to the House each and every time.

Seeing that the House typically sits only 26 or 27 weeks a year, we would be looking at having a day of debate and a vote in the House pretty much three days out of every two weeks the House is sitting, and the committees of the House would also be tasked three times every 10 sitting days with reviewing and reporting back on a treaty.

I looked at the statistics for the last five Parliaments, beginning with the 41st Parliament, about the number of treaties that have been laid before the House. In the 41st Parliament, which lasted about four years, there were 142 treaties that were laid in front of the House, which is roughly 110 a year. In the 42nd Parliament, which sat for four years, there were 91 treaties that were laid before the House, which is a rate of roughly 22 treaties each sitting year.

In the 43rd Parliament, which was the pandemic Parliament, when arguably, even though it lasted for a year and a half, we really sat for only about a year, 32 treaties were negotiated during the roughly 20 to 30 weeks the House sat. In the 44th Parliament, over three years, 62 treaties were laid in front of the House. Just in the first eight weeks of the current Parliament, I counted ministers' laying before the House 17 treaties, at a rate of roughly more than two a week.

When I look at what the bill proposes, I think it would be an undue burden on the House and its committees. I think that three treaties every 10 sitting days being laid before the House, triggering a debate with a commensurate vote, and three treaties every 10 calendar days being sent to committee for review and report would put a big burden on the House and distract us from the other critical work we need to do in this place.

I will finish by saying that I think this is a well-intentioned bill that has allowed us to shine a light on the Ponsonby Rule, which has been in place here in the chamber since the Harper government issued the policy through a ministerial statement in 2008. Some of the aspects of the bill are interesting, such as the codification of that rule into law, but I think the way the bill has been worded in its second and third elements, related to a review and vote in the House and its committees, would put an undue burden on the House.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade to speak to Bill C‑228. This bill, which I think is very important, seeks to strengthen transparency and parliamentary oversight around trade agreements. Ottawa's lack of transparency in these matters is downright monarchical.

I have been here for six years, and as my colleagues have said, not once have we voted on a trade agreement. We have always voted on bills to implement agreements. This means that it is virtually impossible to amend them and they are always tabled under very tight deadlines.

I also find it somewhat ironic to hear people saying that we have a policy on treaty-making. Apparently, because we have had this wonderful policy since 2008, everything is fine. I find it ironic to hear that today considering that the policy was violated just a few days ago. This policy, which is not a law and is therefore non-binding by definition, normally provides for a 21-day period between the announcement of the content of an agreement and the introduction of a bill. However, the bill on the protocol on the United Kingdom's entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership was introduced after only 15 days, so I find it very funny to hear today that this policy is perfect when it was not even respected just a few days ago. In other words, perhaps they need to find a better argument. Let us get the message across to them.

Whatever the issue and whatever the political leanings of the government, Ottawa does not appreciate its opponents scrutinizing its actions too closely. When it comes to trade agreements, secrecy is the name of the game. Canada is living up to its monarchical tradition by keeping the agreements it signs under wraps, no doubt for fear that they would fall apart under scrutiny, much like a vampire exposed to the sun.

As a member of Parliament, I experienced this in December 2020. I was on the Standing Committee on International Trade and we were asked to study the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom but without seeing the text of the agreement. Who would have thought that possible? We heard from witnesses, senior officials and representatives of organizations. Their recommendation was to adopt the agreement, despite concerns about this thing or that. At one point, I raised my hand to say that I had not read the agreement. I asked the witnesses if they had information I did not have. One by one, they each told me that they did not know, that they had not received any information. Is that not unbelievable? It really was a theatre of the absurd. Only in Canada could such a thing happen.

When Canada's foreign affairs department was created in 1909, the minister was supposed to table before Parliament an annual report on the department's operations. This report would logically include an overview of Canada's international discussions and commitments. This was somewhat of an attempt to demonstrate the beginnings of a desire for transparency. In 1995, at the height of globalization, the department's act was amended to give the minister a freer hand by granting him jurisdiction over international trade, to the detriment of Parliament. The 1909 annual reporting requirement was abolished in 1995.

I will take another look back in time. In 1926, the House of Commons passed a resolution stating that “...before His Majesty's Canadian Ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.” That is what was passed, but in actual fact, this practice was applied unevenly for 40 years until it was finally abandoned in 1966. A parliament worthy of the name should adopt procedures aimed at increasing the level of democratic control over agreements.

My political party, the Bloc Québécois, introduced seven bills on the procedure for reaching agreements between 1999 and 2004, requiring the minister responsible for the ratification of an agreement to table it in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, within a reasonable time frame, and requiring the approval of members of Parliament before any ratification. As a result of the Bloc Québécois's efforts, it is now policy that an explanatory memorandum be submitted within a reasonable time before an agreement is ratified by elected members, but no government has ever had the courage to create binding legislation. As I said, this policy was violated just a few days ago, yet they have the gall to use that as an argument today. It is unbelievable.

As a result, the government can act arbitrarily, as the Liberals have just done once again. We are certainly not a British regime where Parliament is supposed to have partial veto rights over ratifications. While fundamentally desirable despite being ridiculously inadequate, this policy consisting in asking members what they think after the fact could be a means of controlling Parliament. Rather than really involving members in the drafting of international agreements, this policy is merely an instrument to sound out the opposition parties' position, since they are presented with a finished product that is all ready to go.

Some parliaments around the world even consult elected members before starting negotiations to obtain mandates on sectors to be promoted or protected. That is vastly different from what we have here. The United States, for example, has a law that protects the sugar sector, while the European Union frequently holds votes to ask its members what they would like to see protected, promoted or, conversely, removed from the table. The principle makes sense. Members of Parliament are elected by the public to represent the interests and values of their constituents. Given its lack of transparency before, during and after trade negotiations, Canada has a long way to go when it comes to involving members of Parliament in the process. It also falls far short when it comes to involving the provinces. However, this is another issue that the current bill does not address. Nevertheless, it shows how ridiculous Ottawa is when it comes to democracy and transparency.

The way the process works in Canada can be summarized as follows: First, cabinet unilaterally adopts the mandate and keeps it secret. Second, the Canadian negotiators report only to the federal executive branch and are not accountable to anyone regarding the status of discussions. When they appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade, they tell us next to nothing, regardless of whether the meeting is in camera or public. Third, the government alone ends the negotiations and signs the final text before sharing it with anyone. Fourth, public debate can only begin once negotiations have concluded. At that point, the signed text is impossible to change. Parliament is essentially relegated to the role of rubber-stamping the treaty. It never votes on or debates the treaty itself, but rather an implementation bill. Ultimately, we can change next to nothing or nothing at all. We end up with an implementation bill that is a few pages long for treaties that can sometimes be 5,000 pages long.

Parliament simply adopts the changes to the laws that will allow the treaty to come into force. During the study of the bill, any amendment that would affect the draft treaty is ruled out of order because it is only the implementation bill. I find it unfortunate that our Conservative friends are opposed to our bill, as far as we know, because virtually all of their proposed amendments to the free trade bill with Ukraine were rejected and ruled out of order. I voted against the Conservatives' proposed amendments, because I disagreed with them. However, each time they were ruled out of order, I still voted with the Conservatives in committee to challenge the chair's decision, because it seemed logical to me that these proposals should still be debated and put forward.

Today, the Conservatives are defending the same policy that prevented them from changing anything back then. What a brilliant move. Ultimately, Parliament ends up doing its job with a knife to its throat, and that is what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to do my job, which is unfortunately to enforce speaking times.

The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-228, legislation that would fundamentally reshape how Canada affirms its treaties.

I will admit that this is not quite the agreement I hoped to be speaking to after more than five months of trade negotiations with the U.S. Still, Bill C-228 raises issues that go to the very heart of how Parliament exercises its constitutional role.

The intent behind this private member's bill is commendable. It seeks to give Parliament a stronger voice in the treaty process to make the approval and adoption of agreements more transparent and accountable. Those are principles I support, but while the goal is worthy, I believe the way this bill goes about achieving it is flawed. At the risk of echoing some of the thoughtful concerns by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills North, I would like to briefly outline the key provisions of this legislation.

As written, the legislation would do three things. First, it would formalize the practice of ministers tabling major treaties in this place prior to ratification, along with an explanatory note. Second, it would require a committee of the House to review any proposed treaty and report back to the House. Third, it would require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to obtain the advice of the House before ratification.

While I am all for giving this place a bigger voice in the machinations of government, I am concerned about the second aspect of the bill, namely the requirement of a committee of the House to review and report back. My concerns are threefold. First, what is the purpose of sending proposed treaties to committee? Second, can the committees, as they are currently constituted, actually carry out the massive increase in workload Bill C-228 would necessitate? Third, and perhaps most important, I am concerned about a potential chilling effect it may have in a negotiating process.

To be clear, this is not a question of effort. The reality is that there are just not enough hours in a day, a week or a month for parliamentarians to thoroughly scrutinize the dozens, if not hundreds, of additional documents that could be sent to the relevant House committees.

To provide some context, since 2008, 467 treaties have been tabled in the House. By my napkin math, during that same time period, 341 pieces of government legislation have passed committee and received royal assent. We already face severe limitations on our ability to analyze legislation and conduct studies at our committees. With the addition of proposed treaties being sent into the room, the very few hours we have would be reduced even further. This means less legislation passed, fewer treaties approved, fewer private members' bills agreed to and fewer studies in committee.

For a microcosm, in the 41st Parliament, former prime minister Stephen Harper and his strong, stable, national majority government tabled 142 treaties in the House. If this bill were law then, that would mean that that Parliament would have had 142 additional study topics and 142 other very important committee meetings that would not have occurred. This is assuming the absolute best-case scenario, where each treaty is approved by all parties with little or no debate. Who knows how long a treaty may require at committee.

This leads to my second concern with the proposal to send this to committee, which is the simple question, why? Parliamentarians do not have the capacity to amend or change the wording of a proposed treaty. We are simply there to say yea or nay. We are not involved in the negotiation process. The government is, with ministers, skilled public servants, subject matter experts and diplomats hammering out minutia after minutia. I am curious as to what members would envision the committee process would look like. Would we treat the treaty like legislation? Almost everyone in this place has done line-by-line consideration of legislation before. We know how tedious, but necessary, it is.

Let us engage in a bit of a thought experiment. Let us say that tomorrow this legislation achieves royal assent, and additionally, the government announces we have a renegotiated CUSMA. It is a trilateral trade deal with revisions and additions. CUSMA then gets sent to the international trade committee. The agreement is about as long as the previous one, ringing in at just under 1,900 pages. What happens next? Do they do line-by-line consideration or clause-by-clause consideration? How are the offices expected to do due diligence in understanding each clause in the little time we have?

Does the committee supply simply a nay or yea? Does this end the deal? How much time is given to the committee and its members to consider the document? Does a 10-page treaty get the same amount of time for MPs to familiarize themselves with as a 2,000-page behemoth? Does rejecting the treaty mean that trade talks collapse?

This highlights an unfortunate reality that the legislation could not meet. Either the process is fulsome and done with attention to detail and due process that it deserves, in which case it quite possibly cripples the workload of the relevant committee, or it turns into a rubber-stamping process, in which case it is irrelevant and not needed. This, of course, ignores the other elephant in the room: It provides all parties with another legislative process that could be politically weaponized, further delaying the process.

All of this leads to a third issue that, in my opinion, is by far the most serious. This may be the first time that members will ever hear a Tory say this in the House, but the legislation's most worrisome aspect is the potential effect this will have on limiting the authority of the current government to do its job. The legislation would have a massive chilling effect on the government's ability to negotiate in good faith with other governments. Simply put, why would the nations of the world put any faith or effort into the treaty negotiation processes if the entire process can be derailed or held up in Parliament? This is particularly poignant given what is happening right now in Washington.

To be clear, the Conservatives wish nothing but total success to the government in its negotiating efforts with the U.S. We all want what is best for Canada and the U.S. We may disagree on how we are going to get there, but our goal is the same. I would like to take this opportunity to place on the parliamentary record my continued commitment, that of my team and myself, to extend our co-operation and support to the government negotiating team in any way we can. I reiterate to the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister directly that my door remains open and that my commitment to constructive co-operation and engagement with our U.S. neighbours is unwavering.

However, I want to be clear: Members should understand that the willingness to co-operate does not exempt the government from rightful scrutiny and criticism where it is warranted. It also means that the government needs to signal its intent to actually engage with the opposition to get the best deal possible for Canada and end this unjust, unprovoked trade dispute. To bring this back to Bill C-228, the last thing I would like to do during any negotiation process is to signal to any potential trading partners that the government does not have the agency to negotiate on behalf of the government.

In closing, Bill C-228 is guided by good intentions to strengthen Parliament's role in treaty approval. However, as drafted, it risks slowing decision-making and blurring the line between advisory oversight and executive responsibility. I would like to applaud the member for Jonquière for his vision and efforts to empower this place, but, unfortunately, I cannot support the implementation of that vision as is.

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

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, during question period in the spring, I pointed out that the Liberal government had no plan when it came to the then already-metastasizing youth unemployment crisis. Things have continued to get worse and the government still has no plan.

Youth unemployment, according to the latest StatsCan numbers, has jumped to 14.7%. We are now approaching half a million unemployed young people in the country between the ages of 15 and 24. This means hopes eroding and opportunities lost. Young people who want to work hard, contribute and get ahead are not able to because of the failed policies of the government.

We have called on the government to adopt a plan to reverse its bad policies, a plan to help young people get back to work. We have done more than just suggest that it put forward a plan. We have actually put forward a plan ourselves.

Last week, the Conservative Party released our Conservative youth jobs plan here in Ottawa. That plan was released in a constructive spirit, in the hopes that the Liberals would adopt our youth jobs plan as part of their budget. They have no plan, but we have a plan, and we put it forward in the hopes that the Liberals would adopt it.

Our Conservative youth jobs plan has four elements. We are calling on the government to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are.

When it comes to unleashing the economy, the Liberals need to reverse policies that are blocking economic development. They need to repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48, get rid of the production cap, eliminate the industrial carbon tax to allow our energy sector to move forward. More than that, they need to address the red tape and high taxes that are making it so difficult to start and grow a business.

They need to implement our proposals to stimulate economic activity. We proposed, in the last election, that the government eliminate the capital gains tax for dollars that are immediately reinvested here in Canada.

These measures would unleash our economy and help young people get back to work.

The second part of our plan is to fix immigration. We put forward constructive proposals on immigration, recognizing that under the Liberal government, the system has gotten way out of whack with our labour market needs. We keep hearing experts, during public hearings at the human resources committee study, speak about how Liberal policies on immigration have particularly exacerbated challenges for youth and working-class people by not having effective screening based on skills and by not aligning our immigration system with our labour market. The Liberals need to address these immigration failures. They need to unleash the economy, fix immigration and fix training.

We have proposed significant new investments to support union-based training and support trades programs in high schools. Also, student loan programs should offer relatively more generous support for students pursuing studies in high-demand fields. Right now, loans and grants are offered regardless of the program students are studying in. We are proposing that relatively more generous support be offered to students who are pursuing in-demand fields.

Finally, we need incentives to assist employers that build employee housing so that they build homes where the jobs are. We are proposing a 100% accelerated capital cost writeoff for employers that build employee housing. This plan would help get housing built where jobs are and would make it easier for unemployed young people in regions of high unemployment to move to areas where there are jobs and opportunity and find housing along the way.

This is our plan to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. The Liberals have no plan to address the metastasizing youth unemployment crisis. Conservatives have a plan. Will the Liberals adopt our plan in the budget?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs and Families]

Madam Speaker, governments, businesses and workers are navigating new challenges because labour is changing at a dizzying pace. We are looking at a whole new kind of labour market. Many workers are retiring from important sectors, which will lead to critical labour shortages. Some 600,000 skilled trades workers will retire by 2031. That means 600,000 new job opportunities are opening up. On top of that, we expect 400,000 new jobs to be created by the end of this decade alone.

Canada's workforce has a generational opportunity to renew. That is why we have a plan to help Canadians gain a foothold in the job market.

It starts with youth employment. The Canada summer jobs program has a proven track record of providing many young Canadians with their first job. Since 2019, more than 460,000 young people have been helped by the program. After 70,000 jobs were initially created for the summer of 2025, this spring we added 6,000 more opportunities for young people.

That one program is working, year after year, to set young people up for a lifetime of success. In fact, we have supported over 138,000 opportunities for youth under the youth employment and skills strategy, which includes Canada summer jobs, the Canada service corps and the student work placement program.

Our goal is clear: to help young people develop their skills and gain the experience they need to enter the labour market as adults. So far, I have focused mainly on youth employment, because youth are at the heart of our economic future. However, our plan to help people get into the workforce is much broader.

Each year, the Government of Canada invests nearly $1 billion annually in apprenticeship supports through grants, loans, tax credits and employment insurance benefits. The skilled trades are one of the most important areas of job growth in Canada. Canada needs more homes for people, and in budget 2024, the government unveiled an ambitious plan to build 3.87 million new homes by 2031. However, we cannot build houses without the skilled trades, so we need to train thousands of new skilled tradespeople right now.

There is currently a high demand for many skilled trades. This includes automotive service and repair technicians, power line technicians, millwrights, horticulturalists, and truck and transport vehicle mechanics, to name a few.

Each of these trades contributes directly to building a more prosperous Canada.

We are working hard to strengthen Canada's economy. We are investing in this country's very deep pool of made-in-Canada talent, because we will always support Canadian workers and their families. The Government of Canada is delivering for Canadians and providing opportunities so this country can grow the workforce of tomorrow.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, respectfully, the parliamentary secretary's response generally proved my point. She said there are changes in the workforce coming, and then she highlighted, as the government's response to those changes, the continuation of a program, the Canada summer jobs program, that has existed since the 1990s. I had barely been born when the program started.

The continuation of a program that provides, on average, eight-week-long summer paid employment is not a response to the metastasizing crisis of now close to half a million young people being unemployed. They are not looking for eight-week jobs; they are looking for permanent jobs. That is why we need to unleash our economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are.

We need to support the trades, and the tone matters. The government has spent 10 years running down trades workers and the sectors they work in by attacking the natural resource sector, by attacking the forestry sector and by undermining the value of trades work. When will it get a plan?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am quite happy the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan repeatedly asks questions about our plans to get Canadians into good jobs. It gives us the opportunity to talk about our great array of programs supporting our boundless ambition to create a skilled workforce for the future.

Canada summer jobs is not just about eight weeks. Everywhere in my riding, when I go to visit the employers who hire young summer students through the program, they are all asking for more positions, more money and longer times, so it must be making a difference.

Our plan is to invest in training, because that is the key to a prosperous economic future. This plan—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We do not heckle during adjournment debate, please.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, our plan is to invest in training, because that is the key to a prosperous economic future. This plan is working. Canada is adapting to a changing world and building stronger, more resilient communities.

Young Canadians who want to work should know that their employment aspirations will be met. There are jobs.

Health

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand here at the late show.

On August 12, The Globe and Mail published an article with the following headline: “Spanish drugmaker using Canadian-donated blood plasma for products sold abroad”. Was the Globe and Mail report false, yes or no?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago the member opposite raised this question and used it as an opportunity to spread unfounded conspiracy theories and get clips for social media. Here we go again today. Once again, the member opposite is using his time to spread unfounded conspiracy theories and get clips for social media.

The answer today is the same as it was two weeks ago. I will spell this out clearly, even though we know the Conservatives will continue to spread incorrect information.

Despite what the Conservatives would have us believe, Health Canada has no role in the day-to-day operations of Canadian Blood Services. It regulates the safety of blood and plasma collection and products made from blood and plasma. Canadian Blood Services operates independently from the federal government, working with the provinces and territories, outside Quebec, to collect plasma.

The provinces and territories determine how plasma is collected in their jurisdictions, including the role of paid plasma collection. Canadian Blood Services has confirmed again and again that it does not sell the blood or plasma it collects from Canadians. It is selling a waste by-product called albumin to Grifols. Canada has more than enough albumin to meet the needs of Canadians.

Grifols turns this waste by-product into life-saving plasma. Canadian Blood Services then buys back the plasma at a significantly reduced rate, increasing our domestic blood supply. In fact, not only does this increase our blood supply, but it also creates jobs. A manufacturing facility for plasma products recently opened in Saint-Laurent, Montreal. This will establish Canada's first end-to-end domestic blood supply chain.

At a time when provincial and territorial partners need to increase their blood and plasma supplies, it is deeply disappointing that the Conservatives would rather spread misinformation and fear via social media clips. Canadians can rest assured that if they have donated plasma to Canadian Blood Services or Héma-Québec, it is going to Canadians.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat The Globe and Mail's headline, which reads, “Spanish drugmaker using Canadian-donated blood plasma for products sold abroad”. Those are not my words; they are from The Globe and Mail, which is a very well-respected media outlet.

On September 11, 2025, the CBC published an article with the following headline: “Blood donors surprised Canadian plasma products being sold abroad[:] Spanish drugmaker Grifols using donated plasma byproducts to manufacture albumin”.

Was the CBC's report false, yes or no?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no evidence to suggest that Canadian Blood Services is not working in the best interest of Canadians. It operates at arm's length from the federal government, but we have confidence that Canadian Blood Services is making sure Canada's blood supply is there for Canadians. We hope the Conservatives will stop trying to discourage Canadians from donating blood to Canadian Blood Services and focus on saving lives rather than getting clicks.

Public Safety

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to my question in June about the over 70% increase in major assaults in Ontario since 2015, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime assured me new legislation was coming that would solve this problem. It is now well past June, and we still do not have that legislation, but I understand it is coming.

In fact, the situation is much worse than just a few months' delay. We have had 10 years of the Liberal government, and in fact, it has created the mess with bail through Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

The Prime Minister has made some comments about what the legislation would include, but I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary. Would the new legislation repeal the principle of restraint that currently requires violent offenders to be released “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”, yes or no?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address concerns about public safety and bail reform. Canadians are rightly concerned about repeat and violent offending. They expect our justice system to keep communities safe while upholding the rule of law.

Let me be clear. Former Bill C‑75 does not require courts to release violent offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. That characterization is simply false. Bill C‑75 modernized and clarified the bail provisions in the Criminal Code. It ensured that non-violent, low-risk individuals were not detained unnecessarily, while giving judges the discretion to detain dangerous individuals when public safety was at risk.

These reforms codified the principle of restraint, a long-standing rule of criminal law that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2017 in the Antic decision, which requires pre-trial detention to be ordered only when necessary to ensure the accused's attendance in court, to protect the public or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail unless there is just cause for detention. These are the cornerstones of a free and democratic society. That said, the law is clear: No one should be released on bail if they pose a flight risk or a danger to the public, or if their release could undermine confidence in the justice system.

In 2024, Parliament strengthened these protections through former Bill C‑48, which expanded the reverse onus provision for intimate partner violence and made targeted amendments to better deal with repeat offenders and violent offences involving firearms and other weapons.

The federal government is also investing $1.8 billion over four years to hire 1,000 new RCMP employees, increase federal policing capacity, and crack down on financial crime, online fraud, and organized criminal networks. This includes increasing the recruitment allowance and allocating new resources to the recovery of illicit assets.

Our government is working with the provinces, territories and local law enforcement to address the root causes of crime while investing in affordable housing, mental health and substance use supports, and programs for at-risk youth.

Stringent federal laws are only a part of the equation. Bail is a shared responsibility. The provinces and territories have to ensure that courts have sufficient resources, that justices of the peace are properly trained and that community supervision programs are in place. Without these supports, even the most robust federal laws are destined to fail. That is why our government continues to call for cross-jurisdictional collaboration. Public safety requires coordination, investment and evidence-based solutions, not slogans or scapegoats.

Canadians deserve safe communities and a fair justice system. Let us move forward together, with targeted, practical reforms grounded in principles, not in politics. Let us turn away from fear and division.

Let us focus—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for York—Durham.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, when a member makes an accusation that another member is engaging in misinformation, I believe it is incumbent on that member to back that up with facts. When I quote from the Liberal's legislation, and it is accused that it is misinformation, that is simply not true.

Despite the parliamentary secretary's response, I did not hear an answer to my very simple question, which is this: Will the new bail legislation that the Liberal government has promised repeal the principle of restraint?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that we cannot announce the measures that will be in the upcoming bill, which will be announced this week. He knows full well what our obligations are, and I hope he is not asking me to betray them.

Let me be clear: Our government is taking action. Our government is ramping up its efforts with new legislation and major investments. We are supporting our provincial and territorial partners. We are working as a team, and we will continue to fund the courts, train justices of the peace and expand community-based solutions.

We will be introducing a new reliable, robust and constitutional bill in the coming days.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now 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 6:51 p.m.)