Debates of Oct. 6th, 2025

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Statements are to be made through the Chair.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. If we were to take a look at what was being said on the floor of the House of Commons last year, it would be very clear we could have passed Bill C-66. It did not pass and get royal assent because the Conservative Party had an agenda that was politically self-serving, as opposed to serving Canadians. This is the reality. I would debate that issue anytime, because that is the truth.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.

I want to let you know that I will be splitting my time, should any remain, with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

First of all, I want to tell people what this bill does, if they are not aware. It is similar to Bill C-66 from the last Parliament with some language changes in English and French to fix some errors.

It essentially amends the National Defence Act to transfer the jurisdiction of offences of a sexual nature to civil authorities when the offence takes place in Canada, but it remains under the Canadian Armed Forces if it occurs outside of Canada.

The legislation incorporates recent amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and publication ban rules into the National Defence Act and tries to increase the independence of the people who are involved in these prosecutions and investigations from the chain of command.

It also identifies different levels of review, including the minister, to try to get greater accountability.

I want to say right up front that I am very happy to see this bill coming to the House; it is just a shame it has taken so long.

I have been here in the House since 2015. I can remember in 2015 when the first report, the Deschamps report, came out. Minister Sajjan sat on it for five years and did nothing to address the sexual misconduct that was rampant throughout the military. At that point in time, a light was shone on it.

We were doing a study in 2021, at the status of women committee, which I was chairing. I know there was a study done as well at the defence committee. However, this was at at the time when General Vance had allegations of sexual misconduct against him and the PMO and Minister Sajjan knew about the allegations. Did they investigate him? Did they suspend him while they investigated? No. They gave him a $50,000 raise. What did that say to the victims who were waiting for justice? They had been waiting for five years, since the Deschamps report, and then this broke. Then there was all the filibustering at the defence committee by the Liberal government. There was not that same problem at the status of women committee.

We had testimony after testimony from women who had experienced sexual violations, such as gang rape in the first eight weeks of being in the military. We heard horrific stories. They were hard to hear. It was really disheartening to know that all of the survivors did not believe anything would change in the military after all this time. It was disheartening to see the government demand another report and get the Arbour recommendations, then a year later demand a third report. It has been 10 years and now all of a sudden it seems to be in a total hurry. I think victims could be not blamed for thinking that it is virtue signalling. That is what we have seen from the government to this point.

That said, I want to talk about a couple of things.

First, I want to talk about the actual problems I see in this bill. Basically, when we look at the testimony that was heard, what was clear was when there were allegations of sexual misconduct, especially against a senior officer, the old boys' club would gather around and there was punishment given to the complainant. In some cases, if they were overseas, they were returned home as if they were discharged or demoted out of the situation. I am sure there was some good intention of protecting and not having the victim have to work day after day in the environment with the perpetrators, but obviously this is not an acceptable trauma-informed way of dealing with the situation.

I do not have a problem with moving the jurisdiction to the civil courts; however, what I would say is this. When I was on status of women, we heard testimony of sexual violations. About 40% of them do not even get a police report done. Of the 60% that get a police report done, only 5% of them make it to trial. Of the 5% that make it trial, only 1% ever get a conviction. Of the 1% that get a conviction, the penalty is measured in months of house arrest or community service compared to the trauma the victim has experienced.

While we can say that yes, it was the recommendation of all the reports that we transfer the issue out of the CAF and put it into the criminal court system, we have a problem in our criminal court system. We do not have enough judges. We do not have, in many cases, any penalties, and are letting repeat sexual violent offenders out on bail. We hear about it day after day. I have a pile of examples I could read.

Are the survivors of sexual misconduct in the military going to be better off if they have to go through the current court system? Many of the rapists are getting off on the Jordan principle, which says that if they wait a certain amount of time and there are not enough judges and they cannot hear their case, then they go free. That is not justice. That is one of the concerns I have. The legislation would not really fix the problem of making sure we deal with the problem and get justice for the victims.

The second thing I am concerned about is how the criminal courts and that legal process would interface with the military. How would they exchange information to co-operate in investigations and prosecutions? I see that there would not really be anything in place to allow them to share the information, and that is problematic.

The other thing is that international incidents that occur would still be investigated under the prior system under the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard testimony from people who served overseas and who were sexually assaulted, and the resolution there was not good, so not changing that would, again, not address the problem for the victims.

When it comes to looking at some of the other issues we have heard about, today under the military system, if somebody is accused, then the military covers the cost of the litigation for them. Therefore if there is a complaint that is not valid, and frivolous complaints can come forward, it can be very expensive. If we move all of that to the criminal courts, then the individual is on the hook for the expenses, whether the charge is a valid one or not. That is another area where the government should take a look at what it has put before the House and see whether there is a way of shoring that up so it can determine that if there is pernicious prosecution, the military can pay for it.

Another thing in the bill is that the government has created a whole bunch of new term limits, and they are not consistent across everyone. I believe that the intent is to make people more independent from the chain of command, which I support, but it is not clear to me why the terms are all different and why the government would put new roles in place. To me, it would create a lot of bureaucracy. If we look at the Liberal government and its record, this is what it does. If the Liberals want to solve a housing crisis, they create not just one bureaucracy; they are on number four. When it comes to defence procurement, the Liberals have decided the broken system would be fixed by putting a new defence procurement bureaucracy in place. It is the same for the major projects system, and I could go on.

There are still things we need to repair, and at the end of it all, it comes back to trust. The victims do not trust the current government, because it spent 10 years doing nothing, and they do not believe the Liberals now. I do not know why the Liberals think people would believe them until they see actual action and something put in place that would get victims the justice they need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in getting the member's thoughts in regard to the 48 recommendations. We have been very clear throughout the day that 47 of them are well under way, and we are anticipating that we could have them complete before the end of the year. The recommendation that has a question mark on it is actually Bill C-11.

I wonder whether the member is in a position to provide some assurance to members of the forces and to others that, from her perspective, she would like Bill C-11 passed before the end of the year so we could unanimously say that all 48 recommendations have been complete.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of confidence that the amendments I have just gone over, which are all reasonable amendments, would be accepted at committee, based on the history that I have seen, where the Liberals continually turn down the common-sense amendments of the Conservatives. This is our only opportunity to air those concerns and get them in the public, but certainly we will support the bill's going to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent work. It is almost 10 years that we have been together in Parliament, and I think she has been involved in the work of the status of women committee for all or most of that time.

One observation I would have about this debate is that the Liberals are speaking a lot about the changes they are making to military justice, in particular, bringing this into a civilian context. However, this is also about a context in which we have a dramatic increase in violent crime across the board in this country. We are seeing more burden placed on our police officers and courts. This follows the application of a failed Liberal ideology to the justice system. One needs only to consult violent crime data to see that violent crime was going down prior to 2015 and started going up after 2015. It is not hard to identify what might have been a significant contributing factor to that change in trajectory.

Would the member have any thoughts on how the bill fits into the larger trajectory of events around violent crime in this country?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, rape is up 76% in this country. We do not have enough judges. Rapists are walking on bail. Repeat offenders are walking on bail. As I have said, the conviction rate is slim to none.

We cannot move things from the military justice system to the criminal justice system unless the criminal justice system is fixed so that women and men who are sexually assaulted in Canada get justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, those statistics are alarming, for example, that we continue to see a very low conviction rate. That is discouraging, no doubt, to those who have been victims and might be considering coming forward or in instances in which we have perpetrators who are repeatedly released on bail, even though they are repeat violent offenders.

We had an opportunity today to try to take some action on that, when the Conservatives put forward a constructive proposal through our opposition day motion to move forward the jail-not-bail private member's bill. The government is trying to create anticipation around a bill that has yet to come forward whereas we, as Conservatives, have already prepared a bill and put forward a solution. The Liberals voted against even advancing that to committee. Victims cannot wait any longer.

I wonder if the member would like to reflect on the results of that vote today and what message the Liberals' opposition to our constructive proposal sends to victims of crime.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have already outlined the fact that Canadians have lost trust in the Liberal government. This is just another fact. Obviously we need bail, not jail.

For six months, the justice minister has had an opportunity to introduce the things that would reverse what is in Bill C-75, which gives people bail. It talks about the least restrictive punishment at the earliest possible opportunity. That means fines and bail today. That is what is happening.

That is not justice. That is not going to make victims want to come forward, because going through the process of the investigation and the trial is very punishing to them. There is no evidence for how they are going to be protected by the Canadian military while this civil process is going on. Are they going to be protected in their jobs? Will they be exposed to their perpetrator? What will happen? What will be done to protect those people?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always with great pride that I rise here in the House on behalf of the people of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

That is especially true when we are discussing our armed forces since the Valcartier military base is a just a few kilometres from my riding. It is very well represented by the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier. As with all members who have a military base in their area, there are hundreds, even thousands, of military personnel, former military personnel, and military families living in my riding.

We can be proud of our military, which shone with distinction when it was called upon around the world. It happened in World War I with the Battle of Vimy Ridge, in World War II with the tragedy of Dieppe and the Normandy landings, but also during the landings in Italy, in which my father participated with the very prestigious Royal 22nd Regiment.

Closer to home, there are all those who served in the war in Afghanistan. I want to remind everyone that Canadians died there, including a young man from Loretteville, close to where I was born. Corporal Jonathan Couturier died on September 17, 2009, when he was barely 23 years old. He served under our flag, and it is important that we remember that.

The Canadian military has had its moments of glory, but it has also had its share of trials and tribulations, like any organization. As with any organization, depending on the social situations in each era, there have been challenges to be faced. I remember very well that when I was about 10 years old, in the mid-1970s, a tragedy happened not far from my home in Loretteville. A soldier who no longer had his wits about him because he had drunk a little too much alcohol unfortunately killed some children. This incident brought a lot of attention to the problem of alcoholism in the Canadian Armed Forces. What did they do? They took the problem and dealt with it properly. They succeeded in significantly reducing that alcoholism that was rampant among members of our army in the 1970s.

Members will also remember the infamous and unfortunate scandal in the mid-1990s involving the Airborne Regiment, when Canadian soldiers in Somalia dishonoured our flag and their uniform by engaging in behaviour that was completely unacceptable. That is why the regiment was disbanded in 1995 by prime minister Jean Chrétien, as everyone likely remembers.

As I said, whenever challenges arise in the military, they must be addressed, and the Canadian military has always seized the opportunity to resolve difficult situations.

The current situation involves sexual misconduct in the Canadian military. Yes, that is the reality we have to deal with. That is why we are gathered here today to discuss Bill C‑11, which directly addresses this concern about sexual misconduct in the Canadian military, particularly with regard to the chain of command and the utterly reprehensible incidents that have occurred in recent years.

Bill C‑11 is reminiscent of Bill C‑66 from the last Parliament. Essentially, when there are cases of sexual misconduct, the bill aims to have the judicial process take place in the civilian system and not in the military police system, under military law. In addition, the government would appoint the military leaders who are responsible for discipline.

Regrettably, the issue of sexual violence is not something new. The Canadian Forces and Canadians have been dealing with it for more than a decade. It was in 2014 that Stephen Harper's Conservative government tasked former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps with investigating the everyday reality of sexual violence in the Canadian Forces. One year later, Justice Deschamps tabled a scathing report that showed, unfortunately, in black and white, that sexual violence was a serious problem. About ten recommendations were made, which were adopted by the Harper government.

Then came the 2015 election and, unfortunately, a period of total darkness on the issue of sexual violence.

For years, under the Justin Trudeau government, neither its ministers nor its MPs chose to do the right thing. True, other inquiries were held, yet this only raises the question of why they were necessary, given that the evidence already confirmed the need for immediate action to solve the problem of sexual violence in our army.

For five years, the government was asleep at the wheel. It called for another inquiry by two different judges who each conducted their own inquiry, even though we all knew as far back as 2015 that action was needed. Still, the government did nothing. Obviously, what shocked everyone into action was the incident involving General Vance, Canada's top soldier. Here was a soldier who held the Canadian army's most powerful position, who was initially the focus of rumours, then allegations, then substantiated evidence and then a trial.

Why is it that, for all these years, nothing has been done? Why is it that this government, for 10 years, has done everything it can to cover up the affair? Why is it that, while this case was being studied by a parliamentary committee on April 12, 2021, the Liberal government, along with the Bloc Québécois, decided to put an end to the parliamentary inquiry? This was followed by many other developments that I will have the opportunity to discuss later, the next time this bill comes before the House.

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

Taxation

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to talk about a question I asked a couple of months ago. This was in my original question:

...Canada's fiscal watchdog confirms another broken Liberal promise, this time on the Liberals' tax cut. On the campaign trail, the Prime Minister promised Canadians an $800 income tax cut, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer just confirmed that the average Canadian will save $15 a month, and low-income seniors will save only $10 a month....

That was definitely not the promise on the campaign trail.

We have seen the food bank usage across our country. Four million users were at the food bank in Toronto. I just saw a new report that said that since 2015, since the Liberal government took office, food bank usage in Canada is up by 142%. That is a staggering number.

All I hear time and again from the Liberals is that there is no hidden food tax, which is factually incorrect. There is. There is a tax on fertilizer. There is a tax on food packaging. There is a second carbon tax coming in. There is an industrial carbon tax. Only someone who has their head in the sand would not realize that this is going to increase the cost of food.

I grew up on a farm. A lot of my friends took over their family farms. I know that in Canada, one thing that our farmers are very proud of is that they are producing more with less. They are producing more of what goes into food with fewer acres of land, with less water and with less fuel because they have GPS and have great technologies. If farmers are producing more food with less, if there is no hidden tax and if the government is not putting in policies that make food more expensive, then we would think food bank usage would go down, not up.

I know that my friend from Whitby is going to answer this question, and it is a simple question. If food bank usage has gone up by 142% in the last 10 years, why is he telling Canadians that they have it so good?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I have a difference of opinion with the member opposite. I know that food bank usage is something that has increased, but I also know that the members opposite have a horrible track record when it comes to actually standing up to support Canadians. They voted against feeding 400,000 hungry children with the national school food program, an investment of $1 billion over five years to feed kids across the country, and I do not understand how Conservative members can stand up in the House to complain about food bank usage and then simultaneously, as those words come out of their mouths, on the same day get up to vote against feeding 400,000 hungry kids. It just does not make any sense.

Our government firmly believes that the measures we are taking will build the strongest economy in the G7 and bring down the cost of living. We heard that from the Governor of the Bank of Canada last week, who said that the government is on the right track and that we will boost productivity and real wages. The investments we are making to make everything more affordable are the only way.

Since we were elected in 2025, we have been focusing on delivering a plan to address the cost of living challenges that have eroded Canadians' quality of life. That means change that will put more money in the pockets of Canadians and change that builds a more affordable Canada.

The government is well aware of the affordability challenges, and our hearts go out to people who are challenged and are struggling to make ends meet at the end of every month. That is exactly why we are doing the things we have been doing.

Rents have gone up. House prices have gone up. An entire generation of young Canadians has been questioning for some time how they can afford a place to live today and whether they will be able to afford a home of their own in the future. That is exactly why our government is taking immediate action to address this crisis. Key to the plan that we have put forward is bringing down costs so Canadians can keep more of their hard-earned paycheques and can spend them on what matters most to them.

We believe that the economy is only truly strong when it serves everyone, but we know that many Canadians are struggling to get ahead. That is why we have delivered a middle-class tax cut for 22 million Canadians. Math is math, and I know that opposition member has a hard time with it sometimes, but two-income families will save $840 per year. That is not insignificant. I know members opposite balk at that and say it is only this amount per month, but families that are truly struggling actually need that $840 back in their pockets.

We are also cutting GST for first-time homebuyers on homes under $1 million. We know, from committee testimony this week, that 97% of new homes are under $1 million. That is $50,000 back in the pockets of first-time homebuyers that they do not have to spend to purchase their first homes. That enables families in my riding of Whitby, and families all across the country, that want to get into the housing market to make it that much easier.

Yes, we know it is hard, but that is exactly why are putting in place measures that will help them. These are just a few measures. Obviously, this measure will continue to spur on more construction of new homes across Canada, which is key.

We have also obviously eliminated the consumer carbon price, a price that members opposite said, for over two years in the House, was responsible for food inflation. I do not know how they explain food inflation continuing to rise, when they said forever that that was the only cause of it.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member can yell all he wants and insult me, but it was not me who said the tax cut did not measure up. It was the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The member just said it was $800. I will take the Parliamentary Budget Officer's word when he said people would get $15 a month and low-income seniors would get $10 a year.

The way the member is talking, everything is great. It is pretty easy to vote against a food program, because I believe, if tax payers pay less and the Liberals stop stealing their money, they would be able to feed their own kids, and that is what the people I represent want. They want the government to get out of their pockets.

The member talked about food price inflation. That member was a cheerleader for the carbon tax. He said it was the best thing in the world, then he flip-flopped so he would get re-elected. He really has no principles. Yes, the carbon tax was taken off, but then they had the industrial carbon tax. Then they had the second carbon tax come in and called it the clean fuel standard, which will add 17¢ a litre by 2030. Then, they had the fertilizer tax, and they had the packaging tax, which all make food expensive. That is why Canadians cannot afford food at the grocery store anymore.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite likes to label everything as taxes and claim that there are hidden taxes. He almost sounds like a conspiracy theorist, but obviously Canadians know the truth, which is that there are no taxes on their food.

Food prices are a real challenge; we are not claiming that they are not, but what is hard to accept is that the member opposite votes against every affordability measure. He seems to forget how household budgets of fixed-income families actually work. If they save money on child care, save money on taxes, save money at the pump and save money on dental checkups for their kids, they have more money to spend on groceries. That is common sense. It is funny that common sense is not so common in the Conservative Party today.

It is great to be here tonight and correct the record. The member opposite says he has principles, but he does not follow through when it is time to stand up for Canadians.

Finance

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question concerning whether the Liberals have the courage to reverse the course of the financial crisis.

The member opposite talks a lot about food banks and income supports, but people, in general, do not want to have to use those things. They want to keep their paycheque, but they cannot keep their paycheque, as he mentioned, if they lose their job. Over 80,000 people have lost their job since the Prime Minister took office.

The Liberals and the member opposite have been talking a lot about tax cuts for a lot of Canadians since they have been in office, but we need to remember that someone cannot receive a tax cut if they do not have a job. Over 80,000 people have lost their job. The members opposite can talk about having food banks and dental services available, but people just want to take care of themselves. They want to be able to afford to put food on the table themselves by keeping their job.

Last month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revised Canada's economic outlook downward and delivered a warning we cannot afford to ignore. According to the PBO, our growing deficits are “alarming”, “stupefying”, “shocking” and “unsustainable”. I do not think he is making that up, and those are shocking statements. He said that while Canada has not gone over the edge, it is looking over the cliff.

With the Prime Minister, the Liberals have nearly doubled the deficit spending since March. This year's deficit is projected to be $68 billion, far exceeding the $40-billion ceiling Justin Trudeau promised last year, but instead of reversing course, the government has committed to even more spending, and ordinary Canadians are shouldering the cost.

In B.C., where my riding is, and throughout Canada, people are losing their job. Mills are closing because they are unable to secure a softwood lumber deal. People are losing their job, and I hope my colleague across the aisle will not talk about the Liberals' helping people as much as they can with services like food banks and that type of thing. That is great temporarily, but how are we going to give people their job and their dignity back in places like sawmills, where generations have worked yet they are now shutting their doors.

Canadian families are falling behind. Their paycheque buys less at the pump and at the grocery store, if they still have a paycheque. Generations of families who have worked at a certain place are losing their job. They do not want a handout; they want to keep their job. I know I have repeated that, but it seems like the Liberals do not understand. It is great to have safety nets, but let us keep businesses going by being fiscally responsible. The damage is not limited to one sector; when one industry falls in a small town, local economies suffer, small businesses suffer and the cycle deepens.

Will the Liberals have the courage to reverse course on the financial crisis?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's question although I disagree with many of the premises of her argument, if it could be called an argument. I heard her talk about the importance of jobs. That is exactly what our government is focused on.

We did not ask for the trade war that we are in, which is obviously having a negative impact on our economy, but we have stepped up time and time again to support tariff-affected industries, whether it is steel and aluminum, automotive or lumber. For every single industry that has seen an impact, we have stepped up and offered liquidity support. We have offered a remissions framework. We have offered a $5-billion fund to help SMEs pivot and adapt to the changing economy. We have offered re-skilling programs for any workers who are displaced. It goes on and on, in terms of the supports that we have offered.

We are the ones who have been standing up for our industries, all while we stimulate our economy and move forward with nation-building projects that are essential infrastructure to get goods to market. We know exactly what is within our control, which is that the government can invest in and encourage private sector investment in the industries that Canada sees a strategic advantage in. That will create jobs for the future. That will help us get goods to market.

Simultaneously, our government is actively pursuing economic co-operation with many different countries around the world. We heard just recently that our Minister of International Trade secured a deal with Indonesia, which has an economy of a very significant size, almost double the size, I believe, of Canada's, with significant market access for many of our businesses. Again, that is just an example of one thing that our government has done to help.

The member opposite mentioned the PBO's comments. I thought maybe it would be good to review a few quotes from former PBO officers as of last weekend. Former PBO Kevin Page thinks, “If you put the deficit and debt in perspective, we are not in a bad place with respect to other countries. With respect to our credit rating, we are actually in a pretty good place.” That was a direct quote.

Another direct quote from Kevin Page is this: “I think the analysis that we've seen from finance, from the PBO and from the [International Monetary Fund] last year, is that Canada is fiscally sustainable.” Another quote from Kevin Page says, “Well, I think the language from the current Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Jason Jacques, is just wrong, and he should walk that back, quite frankly. He should tell people that our fiscal situation is sustainable.”

How about another one from Kevin Page? He said, “I think it's definitely inflamed certain passions around Canada's fiscal situation that I think are not consistent with the numbers.” Another one from the former PBO is, “We're a AAA country, so like, where do you see ‘shocking’? It's not shocking to see a deficit go up, because the economy is slowing and we have NATO commitments. To me, it's sustainable.” Again, that is from the previous PBO.

Former PBO Yves Giroux said, “I would...personally...wait until we see what's in the budget before making such a statement...[because] we'll have a much better idea...on the evening of Nov. 4”.

These are comments from two well-respected former PBOs that obviously conflict with those of the interim PBO, but it just goes to show members that there are many credible experts out there, including the Bank of Canada governor, who thinks that our fiscal plan and new fiscal budgeting framework are ways of stimulating the Canadian economy and creating a virtuous circle between investment and economic growth. That is going to create jobs.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if the member does not really trust the current PBO. It is interesting that he does not believe what our current PBO has stated. It is too bad, I guess, that former PBOs are much better experts than the person who is in that role right now.

I want to talk about a certain industry, the forestry industry. The member talked about how money was tagged for different industries. Let us talk about the forestry industry. I toured six mills through the summer. At each one, I asked how much money they had received from the government. They all need help; they are desperate. None of them has received a penny.

Can the member tell us how much any industry has received?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, a number of measures are in place providing support to tariff-impacted industries. Maybe the member opposite would do me the kind favour of supporting the constituents she mentioned by providing that information to them, all of which is publicly available.

I want to talk for a moment about fiscal management and the fact that our government is extremely responsible in managing and stewarding the country's resources. Today, we made an announcement about a budgetary cycle change. We will now move to having fall budgets and spring economic updates. This is a really great move to help give a lot more transparency to Parliament, but also to ensure that the stakeholders we rely upon and work in partnership with have more predictability and can invest in ways that help get the objectives and outcomes that Canadians deserve.

Taxation

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the past two weeks, I have twice asked the government why there is still a 35% tariff on Russian fertilizer when it is clear that this is not causing a net decline in Russian exports, nor a fall in the price paid worldwide for Russian product.

The purpose of the tariff, when it was imposed in the spring of 2022, was to punish Russia for the invasion of Ukraine. That year, a total of $115 million in tariff revenue was collected on fertilizer and fertilizer precursors, but because the contracts with Russian suppliers had already been signed and the fertilizer had already been loaded onto ships, the cost ended up being borne not by the Russians but by the Canadian farmers who were on the hook for these purchases. This debacle prompted one contemporary analyst to observe in December 2022, “Sanctions should be punitive. But for tariffs on fertilizers, there was no evidence that Russian companies were affected at all.”

By the start of 2023, Canadian agricultural organizations were calling for the tariff to be lifted, pointing out that Canada was alone among G7 nations in imposing tariffs on Russian fertilizer. I do not see any evidence that our farmers are any less supportive of Ukraine than the rest of Canadians, but I think they wondered, quite reasonably, why in this country, unlike the rest of the world, farmers were being singled out to pay a vastly disproportionate share of the financial burden for supporting Ukraine.

Since 2023, direct Canadian imports of Russian fertilizer and fertilizer precursors like urea have largely dried up, but this has not had the hoped-for effect of driving down the total worldwide demand for Russian urea or monoammonium phosphate. Here is what has happened instead. Canada now imports about 50% of its urea and about 60% to 70% of its monoammonium phosphate from the United States, up significantly from four years ago. In the meantime, the U.S. has increased its own direct imports from Russia, making up the demand shortfall.

A position paper prepared earlier this year by the Grain Farmers of Ontario reports as follows on the implications of what I just described:

Granular, fertilizer grade urea is an indifferentiable commodity, meaning individual tons are very difficult (if not effectively impossible) to trace. The vast majority of US urea exports to Canada enter the country through inland border crossings, but that doesn’t mean the urea received can't be a blend of imported Russian tons with domestically produced American tons.

The report goes on to observe that even when Russian product is not being transited to Canada via the U.S., the need to import from our southern neighbours hurts Canadian farmers and enriches American middlemen without actually reducing the net North American demand for Russian product. It states, “American companies are essentially able to benefit from both sides—importing cheap Russian urea and exporting expensive American urea.” It then says, “the Canadian farmer ends up being the one to foot the bill”.

If the foregoing is correct, why on earth are we retaining the tariff on Russian fertilizer and fertilizer precursors? Surely, Canadian farmers do not need to be further impoverished by a completely ineffective policy that does not make any difference at all to Russia or Ukraine.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I have had many good discussions with the member for Lanark—Frontenac in other committees we served on together for some time.

I would like start by reiterating our government's total support and commitment for Ukraine, a cause that, unfortunately, my Conservative colleagues across the way have chosen not to support. I watched them stand up in the House and vote against the interests of Ukraine on numerous occasions, which shocked and surprised me. Perhaps it should not be a surprise today that they seem to want to reverse course on sanctions and tariffs toward Russia.

Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, supported by Belarus, is a violation of international law and threat to the rules-based international order. Our government understands Ukraine is once again at the front line of the struggle for democracy and freedom, and at this critical time, Canada continues to be a steadfast ally in Ukraine's relentless pursuit of freedom.

I remember getting to meet President Zelenskyy and actually shaking his hand, and I reiterated to him that we would never stand down, that we would always be there to support Ukraine. It is unfortunate; I watched my Conservative colleagues have a change of heart in the House of Commons in the past Parliament.

Just last week, our colleague, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, chaired a virtual meeting, during which G7 finance ministers agreed to bolster coordinated measures to increase pressure on Russia to end its brutal war of aggression against Ukraine.

I am proud to say that since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, Canada has committed nearly $22 billion in multi-faceted assistance for Ukraine, including over $12.4 billion in direct financial support. That is the largest per capita direct financial contribution among G7 countries. This is one of the ways we are supporting Ukraine and its ongoing efforts to defend itself from Russia.

Canada took immediate action to ensure countries that violate the rules-based international order cannot economically benefit from it. That is why in March 2022 Canada withdrew on a temporary basis the most favoured nation status for tariff treatment of imports from Russia and Belarus. Since that time, the general tariff of 35% has applied on virtually all imports from these countries.

The government moved forward to make this change permanent, as announced in budget 2023 and enacted in June 2023. This permanent withdrawal reflects the enduring nature of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, with support from Belarus.

It is important for the Government of Canada to send a signal to Canadian importers to incentivize sourcing away from these two countries. To reiterate, the general tariff of 35% continues to apply to virtually all imports from Russia and Belarus, including imports of fertilizers.

As such, I would like to note there have been no commercial imports of Russian fertilizer since June 2022. That, to me, speaks of the effectiveness of this measure. This means Canadian importers have indeed moved away from Russia to alternative sources of supply.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course my hon. colleague has no specialized expertise in agriculture and is reading prepared remarks, which ignore everything I just said about how Russian supply still comes via the U.S. and an upcharge occurs. North American demand remains the same and prices remain high. This is a completely futile policy.

I want to take a moment, though, to make another point. I am so sick of hearing these self-righteous Liberals talking about what great things they have done for Ukraine and lecturing Conservatives about how we are not supportive of Ukraine.

Shortly after the invasion, my family took in a family of six Ukrainians from Dnipro in the eastern part of the country. They were our friends and stayed with us for a year and a half. On the day I raised my question, we had their nephew and niece staying in my house. I had coffee with them that morning. I would not betray my friends.

I wonder if the member, or any of his colleagues, took in a Ukrainian family. I sincerely doubt it. They are full of hypocrisy. They do not help Ukrainians any more than anybody else, and they should not engage in hollow rhetoric to that effect.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not consider it hollow rhetoric when I watched, in the last Parliament, the Conservative Party take a turn where this House stood together on supporting Ukraine over and over and over again for months, and then all of a sudden, shortly after the new Leader of the Opposition took power, there was a change in tone.

We watched the Conservative Party members stand and vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. We watched them vote against more support for Operation Unifier. I watched them at least four or five times that I can remember, and I have to say I was embarrassed to see this.

Good on the member opposite for supporting a Ukrainian family who was displaced as a result of the war, but do not lecture me on who stands up for Ukraine, because we have stood steadfast behind Ukraine from day one, and will continue to do so.

[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 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:10 p.m.)