Debates of Oct. 26th, 2026

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, food insecurity is not just a problem for Canadians. It is a global challenge. No matter one's circumstances, everyone deserves access to safe, nutritious food.

In my riding of Spadina—Harbourfront, local food banks, such as Spadina-Fort York Community Care at the Waterfront Neighbourhood Centre, work tirelessly to support our community. The local food infrastructure fund has been an integral tool for supporting these organizations and earlier this year, our government announced a new $20-million community support stream.

Can the minister please update the House on how this funding will be distributed across the country and the impact it is going to have for Canadians?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the government is taking immediate action through the groceries and essentials benefit, through the school of food program and through the local food infrastructure fund community support stream. Food Banks Canada and Second Harvest will both receive up to $10 million. These two recipients will distribute that food to eligible food banks and not-for-profit, community-based organizations across the country.

We are focused on the present, but we are also building our national food security strategy for the future.

Justice

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, families in Richmond Centre—Marpole are concerned. With just days before the October 29 deadline to appeal the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling on drug trafficking, the Liberal government still owes Canadians an answer. What are they waiting for, the Public Prosecution Service? The tail should not wag the dog. The Attorney General has the authority to direct an appeal.

Will the Liberals exercise their authority to protect Canadian families from drug traffickers, or is there something the Liberals do not want Canadians to know?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, traffickers cause real harm. That is why we have been working hard to make sure they get serious punishments. We have passed many different Criminal Code reforms in this House.

As for the appeal, we will let the Public Prosecution Service make its decision. It still has time, and I trust that it will make a good decision.

Indigenous Affairs

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today first nations chiefs are in Ottawa at the first nations-first ministers meeting. A main topic of concern is Bill C-39, which first nations across the country have called to be withdrawn, including BCAFN, UBCIC,Treaty 6, Onion Lake, NAN, COO, APNQL and the Iroquois Confederacy representing hundreds of thousands of first nations. Chiefs have been clear that the success of this meeting will be judged by the Liberal government's actions.

The resource minister says that he respects indigenous rights, so will he withdraw Bill C-39 now, yes or no?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the member. Right now, first nations are meeting with premiers from across this country and our government in one of the most historic first ministers meetings with first nations. First nations shaped the agenda for this meeting and we value the opportunity to hear directly from the leaders addressing their concerns and having honest conversations about the opportunities and challenges ahead.

We are doing historic and important things in Canada and indigenous people will be important in shaping this future together.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of Ghana.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural Sector

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:08 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Drummond relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the result of the vote:

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my phone was not working. I vote no.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were technical difficulties. My vote is no.

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

Vote #181

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion defeated.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the orders for the second reading of private members' bills originating in the Senate, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has deemed should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the report is deemed adopted.

Agricultural Research

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present two petitions.

The first petition calls on the government to suspend staff terminations at Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada and to continue operating the research centre, research farms and the organic and regenerative research program for at least 24 months to provide cost-benefit transparency and to ensure that irreplaceable research capacity and long-term studies are not lost due to hasty decisions.

The petitioners are urging not to base our good public health decisions on political sound bites. They have to be based on research.

International Trade

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The second petition comes from my constituents in Winnipeg Centre who are expressing their concern with the government's ongoing violation of international law by its refusal to close the loopholes in Canada for weapons exports that enable Canadian-made arms to be used for war crimes and genocide. My constituents call on the government to fulfill the end of peace and to close this loophole once and for all.

I will always support my constituents in upholding international law, and I join them in demanding that the Liberal government do the same.

Wildland Firefighters

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table a petition on behalf of wildland firefighters. It is timely, as representatives from the BC General Employees' Union and NUPGE are here in town.

The petitioners cite that, across Canada, wildland firefighters perform life-threatening public safety duties, including wildfire suppression, evacuations and the protection of communities, ecosystems, property and critical infrastructure during increasingly severe wildfire seasons.

Petitioners highlight that, despite performing the same dangerous work as other firefighters, wildland firefighters are excluded from the firefighter category in the national occupational classification, which is a misclassification that limits their access to recognition, benefits and protections available to other firefighters and public safety workers. This recognition has been afforded to wildland firefighters working directly with the federal government as well as to other firefighters across the country, allowing them to fight for the appropriate workforce protections and benefits they need as firefighters, first responders and public safety personnel.

Petitioners also highlight that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security unanimously supported the action to address this inequity but that no corrective action has been taken so far.

The petitioners want the government to immediately correct the misclassification of wildland firefighters in the national occupational classification by recognizing them as firefighters, and remove any and all federal barriers that prevent wildland firefighters from being recognized as the firefighters and public safety workers that they are.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, An Act respecting production, procurement and investment in relation to national defence and national security, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a riot broke out on Friday, October 16, 2026, at La Macaza Institution, in my riding, caused by understaffing. Frontline officers found themselves in the middle of what could have been a very dangerous situation. I want all my colleagues who were not aware of this situation to know that it was very alarming. Without the expertise of the officers on the ground, the situation could have ended very differently.

The connection I want to make here is obvious. Let me be very clear. The inmate population at La Macaza has changed in recent years. We are not talking about a junior kindergarten here. We are not talking about a day care centre. We are talking about a prison, the La Macaza institution.

This is a direct result of the federal government's policies. As everyone knows, the government chose to cut $132 million from Correctional Service Canada. These $132 million in cuts come on top of budget cuts being made across the public service.

Now we are learning that under Bill C-40, the Crown corporation the government wants to establish would have a friend of the Prime Minister, Doug Guzman, as its CEO. Is anyone surprised? Mr. Guzman, a former Goldman Sachs executive and banker like the Prime Minister, is expected to get a salary in the neighbourhood of $700,000 a year. That is a little higher than what an MP or even a minister earns. I am outraged.

While staff on the ground work day in, day out to ensure public safety at the prisons in La Macaza, Joliette, Cowansville and Port-Cartier, they are seeing how budget cuts have a direct impact on their work. We are being asked, as parliamentarians, to vote to give a $700,000 salary to a friend of the Prime Minister. This is no joke. That is the reality and it is insulting.

I will explain why. It is because we also learned that Mr. Guzman allegedly threatened to leave the Defence Investment Agency, and that it was as a result of this blackmail that the government decided to make the agency into a Crown corporation. Agency officials testified to this at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

I want to explain to Quebeckers and Canadians what this change really means. The creation of a Crown corporation means establishing a company that is independent from government with a board of directors and a chief executive officer. The Crown corporation will not be accountable to Parliament. I want to emphasize that: It will not be accountable to Parliament. The government will not be responsible for its day-to-day operations.

As everyone knows, Canada already has plenty of Crown corporations, including the CBC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, Destination Canada and Canada Post. What do those Crown corporations have in common? They provide services. They have mandates aimed at serving the public or businesses. However, the management of military and defence procurement is not a social, cultural or economic development mandate. There is no rational argument to justify the creation of a Crown corporation in this case.

The only reason I can see is that the government wants to do as it did with Bill C-5 this spring or, worse, Bill C-39. The government and the Prime Minister want free rein to ram this through and control the whole process without any parliamentary oversight. Now that is power.

What the Prime Minister wants is to evade legislative oversight and turn Parliament into a rubber stamp. It is easy. No one says a word, and his plans go off without a hitch. His actions go unnoticed. There is no accountability, period.

Members of Parliament are being denied three roles. I have been here for seven years and I must say I have never seen anything like this. The first is the role of intermediary between citizens and the public administration. The second is the role of legislator. The third is the role of overseeing and monitoring government actions.

Otherwise, what is the point? How will lawmakers—and I am talking about all of us, not just the opposition—be able to hold the government accountable if the government keeps undermining transparency and accountability? It is troubling.

With Bill C-40, just as with Bill C-39, we are witnessing undemocratic manoeuvres to ram through measures without parliamentary scrutiny. They want to rush this through, quietly and without anyone noticing, as I have already mentioned. What would be my role on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates if I no longer had the right to scrutinize these matters, if I no longer had the right to know? What do we have to offer to all the people who elected us?

I represent the riding of Laurentides—Labelle. I represent a geographical area, but above all I represent people. My riding is home to 92,897 people. When I rise in the House, I am speaking on their behalf. I am speaking in the interests of my constituents. I am speaking with them in mind.

When the Prime Minister and the government seek to limit parliamentary power, what they are really doing is limiting the power of the people. I think that is clear.

This authoritarian streak worries me, and I am not the only one. I do not want the government to hide behind a board of directors it has appointed in order to justify potentially dubious purchases, or to pat itself on the back when a purchase proves beneficial. I do not want the Government of Canada—which, incidentally, is the only one amongst our allies to have established a system of this sort—to be able to evade the close scrutiny of members of Parliament. We deserve a government that treats Parliament with respect. That is what people want. I want Parliament to be able to work diligently, with respect for the public and with the sound management of public finances in mind.

I am concerned. Efficiency must not come at all costs, yet that is what we are being told. We are being told that the government wants to do this in order to be efficient. We have just seen that we could have been efficient by taking care of our culture and investing in it. However, a one-sided decision was made.

In closing, I agree that the process can certainly be improved. However, we must ensure that the intentions are noble and in the common interest, not in the interest of the Prime Minister's friends.

I have seen this movie before, and I hope that things will be different this time because the situation is serious. Let us treat it seriously.