House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was meeting.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Youth Criminal Justice Act Second reading of Bill C-231. The bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to allow courts to refer young people struggling with addiction to treatment programs. It aims to prioritize rehabilitation over punishment for youth facing drug-related charges, enabling judges to delay sentencing pending treatment completion. Luc Berthold advocates this approach, seeing addiction as a mental health issue to be treated early. 8000 words, 1 hour.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 Second reading of Bill C-15. The bill implements budget provisions, drawing Conservative criticism as a "credit card budget" that increases debt and the cost of living. Conservatives also raise concerns about a provision allowing ministers to grant "regulatory exemptions" and the lack of support for small businesses. Liberals argue the budget "strikes a balance" by investing in social programs and "creating jobs", while accusing the opposition of "filibustering legislation". Bloc members question the lack of "cell coverage" investment and the absence of a "digital services tax". 15600 words, 2 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Liaison Members debate the systematic obstruction of parliamentary committees by the Liberal government, citing examples of cancelled meetings, ministerial absences, filibustering of government bills, and the failure to advance key legislation like bail reform. Liberals counter that Conservatives are also obstructing the budget implementation bill and other legislation, accusing them of political theatre and a lack of co-operation. 20300 words, 2 hours.
Liaison Members debate the Liberal government's alleged obstruction of parliamentary committees, with Conservatives citing frequent cancellation of meetings and ministers refusing to appear or provide information. Conservatives accuse the government of lacking accountability and transparency, while Liberals argue the opposition is filibustering important budget legislation. The role of committee chairs and ministerial responsibility are key points of contention. 6100 words, 45 minutes.
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Finance and National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, it is Monday and we have good news. Canadians know it. It is all in the budget. There is a lot of good news—
TaxationOral Questions
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
The minister cannot display the budget book like that. If he wants to read something, that is one thing, but he cannot hold it up to show the whole House and those watching at home. The minister can continue.
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, I understand. I think the budget would be a great Christmas gift for all Canadians.
I just hope the Conservatives will wake up and make sure that they vote for the budget before Christmas. We are going to build our nation. We are going to create jobs. We are going to build housing. We are going to create infrastructure. This is the best gift they could give to Canadians. I just hope they will do the right thing.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, if they want to combat their own cost of living crisis, the Liberals would focus on approving pipelines that would sell more oil and boost our Canadian dollar so Canadians could buy affordable food and homes.
In fact, there was such a pipeline, the northern gateway. The Liberals killed it in a 2016 cabinet decision, a decision the Prime Minister supported. They further blocked it with a Liberal ban on tanker traffic off the northwest B.C. coast.
The Prime Minister claims to have changed his mind in a recent MOU. Will he be able to change the minds of fellow Liberals to vote for his own MOU and allow a pipeline to the Pacific?
Tim Hodgson LiberalMinister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day because the Conservatives are divided.
The Conservative premiers across this country support this MOU in its entirety. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to divide this country, and we can see through that cynical tactic. The MOU is about building a strong country. It is about doing it in an environmentally responsible way, in partnership with indigenous peoples. It would be great if the opposition joined all the other Conservatives and all of us in building this country strong.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are trying to do.
In the spirit of Christmas, I decided to take a great act of generosity and lift the words right out of the Prime Minister's MOU in order to support a pipeline to the Pacific and a repeal or an overriding of the Liberal tanker ban.
Now, of course, it would mean Liberals would have to admit they were wrong, admit they were wrong to block that pipeline and wrong about the tanker ban. Will, in the spirit of Christmas, Liberals admit they were wrong, vote for their own wording, approve a pipeline and get rid of the tanker ban?
Tim Hodgson LiberalMinister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas, I would invite the Leader of the Opposition not to cherry-pick parts of the MOU but to support the entire MOU, which is what all of the Conservative premiers across this country are doing, which is what this side is doing. It is how we will build.
Stop being cynical, and build this country with us.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I think the only division here is that the Prime Minister is divided against himself. The Prime Minister opposed the pipeline to the Pacific. Now he claims he supports it. He supported the tanker ban. Now he claims he opposed it. This is the Prime Minister who said he wanted to keep half of our oil in the ground, and now he pretends to have changed his mind. He signed an MOU. He says one thing in B.C., the opposite in Alberta, and here in the House of Commons, he hides under his desk.
Why will the Prime Minister not stand up, take a position and announce he is voting in favour of his MOU language to build a pipeline?
Tim Hodgson LiberalMinister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Alberta supports the entire MOU. The Premier of Saskatchewan supports the entire MOU. The Premier of Ontario supports the entire MOU. It would be great if the Conservatives would join us in supporting the entire MOU and building this country strong.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is suggesting there are parts of his own MOU he does not support. The MOU says there would be a pipeline to the Pacific. I took the wording right out of the agreement. There would be an overriding of the tanker ban. I took the wording for that right out of the MOU. Now the Prime Minister is hiding under his desk. Liberal members on one side of the country are saying they are against, while they are pretending in Alberta that they are in favour.
Why do they not stand up in the House of Commons, look Canadians in the eye, take one position, vote for a pipe to the Pacific and override the tanker ban?
Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and all of us and all Conservative premiers and most people in this country support every part of that MOU. What is more, the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place and says to the people of Alberta that that little thing they said was progress for their province, that made them a leader in renewable technologies, made them a leader in nuclear energy, made them a leader in interties, made them a leader in conventional electricity, is all off. He just wants this one thing. Alberta is—
Natural ResourcesOral Questions
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, for weeks, the Conservatives have been trying to sabotage Bill C-9 and the Bloc Québécois's amendment to put an end to the religious exemption for hate speech in the Criminal Code.
We have learned that the Prime Minister's Office has also been been quietly sabotaging the work of the Bloc Québécois and the Minister of Justice. If we want to know where the Prime Minister stands on any issue, we just need to look at the Conservatives' position.
Why would the Prime Minister rather sabotage his own bill than put an end to the religious exemption?
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we propose measures to combat hatred across the country. It is very important that the House pass Bill C-9 to ensure that the Criminal Code protects communities.
When it comes to the religious exemption, we need to work with the various parties to understand their perspectives, but the decision will be made by the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I look forward to hearing what they have decided after the next committee meeting.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been promising a bill to combat hate speech for six years. That is six years of making promises to groups that feel threatened and six years of saying that it is important to take action against hate.
Their bill actually had a chance of passing for once, provided that the religious exemption was abolished, as unanimously called for by the Quebec National Assembly, but the Liberals blew it. They are backtracking once again.
Why is the Prime Minister choosing to side with the Conservatives and the religious right rather than Quebec and concerned groups?
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, clearly we have a responsibility to combat crime in general, including hate crimes, all across the country. The government needs to introduce legislation to implement measures that will combat hate and improve the bail system.
It is essential that we continue to do what we can to fight crime in this country. We have seen delay and obstruction come from the Conservative Party. I look forward to collaborating with all parties in a minority Parliament, and I will very much look forward to the recommendations from the justice committee as it considers potential amendments to the current bill.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were set to vote on repealing the religious exemption. However, the Liberals cancelled the committee meeting, and it looks like they are going to cancel it again tomorrow and Thursday.
The Liberals are walking away from their agreement with the Bloc Québécois and turning their backs on Quebeckers. They are giving up on Bill C‑9. The Prime Minister rebuked his justice minister for siding with Quebec over the religious right. The Liberals' chief concern is combatting hate, but that is falling by the wayside.
How can the Liberals justify this about-face after so many broken promises?
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, this particular bill, since inception, was designed to combat hate in this country and to offer protections for minorities, including religious minorities, who are facing hate. My priority is to see the bill adopted so we can offer protections for communities who, frankly, do not deserve to be faced with the hate crimes that they have been subjected to.
That is going to require that we collaborate with different parties that have different points of view. I thank my colleague for the conversations we have been able to share. I look forward to seeing the decision that is going to be taken, not by an individual minister but by the justice committee, as it considers potential amendments going forward. I very much look forward to seeing the results of those deliberations, and I hope we can see the swift adoption of the bill.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he should be judged by the price of food at the grocery store. The food price report gave the Liberals a failing grade. It confirmed that food prices are going to increase by $1,000 a family next year, a cost they simply cannot afford. Canadians did not need a report to tell them that. They are experiencing it every single day. Canadian food banks are on the brink.
In Foothills, the Okotoks Food Bank served more than 21,000 families last year. That is unbelievable.
Why is the Prime Minister forcing Canadians to food banks instead of reducing taxes on farmers, fuel and food?
Patty Hajdu LiberalMinister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, the opposition party likes to talk about farmers, but let us talk about what farmers were going through last year, when 66% of agricultural land in Canada was experiencing drought, extreme drought, which drove up the price of beef. Not only that, but all across the world, prices for imports like coffee and tea and cocoa and strawberries and oranges went up as a result of climate change.
We focus on the things we can control. Do members know what we can control? We can control putting more money in the pockets of Canadians. Why will they not get on board?
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, this did not happen yesterday. A decade ago, when the Liberals took office, the average weekly food bill was about $160 a week. A decade later, it has doubled to $340 a week. That is $17,500 to feed a family of four. That is unbelievable in a country like Canada.
Canadian food banks cannot manage the load. These are not just strangers. These are friends, families, co-workers and neighbours, all relying on food banks.
Why is the Prime Minister sticking to his ideology, increasing taxes to grow the food, transport the food and buy the food, instead of lowering those taxes so Canadians can afford a meal?
Patty Hajdu LiberalMinister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, we are not focused on imaginary taxes. We are focused on what actually helps Canadians. Do members know what helps Canadians? More money in their pockets helps Canadians.
A decade ago, the Canada child benefit was worth up to $6,000. It is now worth up to $7,200. It has kept pace with inflation. It has made sure that families have what they need to buy those children the food they need. We have not stopped there. Everything we do is focused on making sure Canadians can weather the tides, no matter if they are good times or bad.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians he should be judged by prices at the grocery store. The results are in, and the Liberals have failed.
In my community of Brantford, the city council declared a food insecurity emergency. Liberal inflationary spending is causing a run at food banks. Grocery bills have doubled, and the outlook for 2026 is even worse.
After all of this damage, will the Liberals finally admit that their taxes and reckless spending caused this crisis and scrap them now before even more Canadians go hungry?
Heath MacDonald LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, let us drill down into the report everybody seems to be talking about. Let us quote it: “Food prices are influenced by a variety of global factors, including climate change, geopolitical conflicts, input and energy costs...food distribution, food processing...and regulations”.
It is not the Liberal Party. It is what is happening around the world, everywhere around the world. Let us get serious about this and help Canadians.