Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2026

Artificial Intelligence

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I do not think we can trust any of these AI companies, and Bill C-34 would not make them behave in ways that would make them trustworthy. They have to be held accountable.

As much as I support the intent of Bill C-34, proposed section 85 says:

The purpose of a penalty is to promote compliance with this Act and not to punish.

These are multi-billion-dollar profit-making criminals. They plunder the earth for their profit. They do not care about children's safety. They will not care about Canadian children's safety until they are really afraid of the punishment.

I hope that when we go to committee and go to clause-by-clause, the government will agree that it is important to put in threats to their profits and put in strict liability and personal liability for directors on the boards of companies like Anthropic and others so they realize that for shareholder benefit, they have to be punished.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all share the concerns the member has. The reality is that part of what we will do with the new regulator we are putting in place is make sure that it will be able to hold big tech accountable. Three per cent of revenue for these global giants would be the penalty. That is a real issue. If they do not care about people and do not care about the well-being of Canadians, they will certainly care about profits.

That is why we are building a strong regulator. That is why we are taking into account the comments of the member opposite and so many others, to make sure the regulator has teeth, has the ability to put penalties in place and has the ability to go after folks who do not comply and who choose not to work well with this government and work well with the policies that are going to protect all Canadians.

That is the work we all need to do together. I look forward to her further comments and further interventions on this legislation. I am hopeful that we will be able to build a stronger regime that all Canadians can be proud of.

Health

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians who followed the government's advice, and in many cases, its mandates, have come to me and to colleagues such as the member for Niagara West. They share their lived experiences of having done what they were told they needed to do during the COVID crisis. They are now living with permanent injuries, lost incomes, mounting medical bills and the sense that the government they trusted has abandoned them.

At September's Allison Inquiry, Canadians heard directly from the injured. Fifty Canadians, chosen from more than 1,400 who applied to testify, described the vaccine injury support program as an unmitigated disaster. Of the roughly $56 million paid to the contractor, Oxaro, by the federal government, about $36 million went to administration, and only around $20 million actually reached those who were injured. That is one-third, an abysmal failure, highlighting the Liberal government's inability to take their concerns seriously.

Health Canada has recorded approximately 12,000 serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, yet out of the more than 3,500 filed, only a few hundred claims have been approved. A majority of assessed claims have been rejected outright. Claimants describe years of delays, lost medical records, gaslighting and dismissals, like it is all in their heads, as well as the exhaustion of fighting a system that the government claimed was there to help them.

We have heard from Canadians who were diagnosed with life-altering conditions. Many Canadians have suffered from myocarditis and stroke. When our free health care system would not provide the care they needed, some people were forced to sell their possessions and travel abroad for treatment. Some lost their careers, including those in the military, who still cannot go back to service. Some were offered medical assistance in dying while they were fighting for recognition. Members can think about that for a moment. The Liberal government asks someone to do something, they comply, and when things go wrong, the government offers to kill them instead of paying off the damages that it had a compensation program for. It is immoral, and it erodes public trust in our institutions.

These are not abstract statistics. They are friends, family members, farmers, nurses, students, parents and children who trusted the process. After COVID-19 vaccinations, we have vastly more documented serious adverse health reports than we did during the tainted blood scandal, yet compensation remains limited, and the process has been encumbered by bureaucracy, slow and not transparent at all.

Social media commentary and the public record of the Allison Inquiry make the same point repeatedly. People who complied are still waiting, while administrative overhead consumed the majority of the funds. The Liberal government did not learn from the testimony either. Canadians are still describing the same obstacles: red tape, narrow eligibility for serious and permanent injury, multi-year waits and inadequate amounts that do not cover lost income or ongoing costs.

An independent inquiry was necessary because of the Liberal government's failures on accountability and timely support. These Canadians do not deserve to be dismissed. They deserve recognition, fair process and meaningful financial support for their injuries and the economic harm they are living with. The Liberals promised results. All we have received is talk, and it is long past time to deliver on those promises.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one. While vaccines save lives, we understand that in very rare cases, some people experience adverse impacts. That is why the vaccine impact assistance program exists. The vaccine impact assistance program provides support to Canadians who experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving an authorized vaccine.

This program has been administered by the Public Health Agency of Canada since 2021. As the member notes, there were concerns about the old program, the vaccine injury support program. We have heard those concerns, which is why we acted. We compared how Canada addressed these challenges with how other G7 countries and the Province of Quebec managed these cases, and we realized that we needed to update the program so it was more responsive.

Since taking over the administration of the vaccine impact assistance program on April 1, the Public Health Agency of Canada has made great strides in strengthening services and information for claimants, maintaining approved financial supports and putting claim assessment and processing procedures in place. There is still work to do in addressing the backlog of pre-existing claims. Thanks to the agency's efforts, we are making sure that these cases are dealt with, with the compassion and care they deserve.

Our work on improving the vaccine impact assistance program shows how our government will always work to support vulnerable Canadians. This is important work, and we are committed to getting it right.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that vaccines save lives and that the government recognized the problem and is working collaboratively to support people. That is a familiar response, but like so many things the government does, the facts do not always match the rhetoric. Taking a failing third-party program in-house and renaming it does not erase the $36 million that went to administration while injured Canadians received roughly one-third of that amount of money. It does not clear the backlog, raise the approval rate or restore the incomes and health of people who have been waiting years and are still waiting.

Urgency would mean results. Canadians who followed the advice and the mandates are still struggling. Talking about caring, while the money has gone primarily to bureaucracy, is not support. It is the opposite of the promise that was made. A government that cannot keep promises made to the vulnerable, one that does not value life but offers death as a solution for its own mismanaged programs, is not one that Canadians should believe in or trust.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government made changes to supports for Canadians who were injured by authorized vaccines because it was the right thing to do. We have taken over administration of the vaccine impact assessment program. We are addressing the backlog, and we are making sure every case gets the attention it deserves. We will continue to refine the delivery of the program and make sure that it is there for vulnerable Canadians.

Labour

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today about workers who are working at a federal institution and have been on strike for 134 days. It is a federal institution that has twice been found breaking the law and the government refuses to take action despite the rhetoric that it is here for workers.

Today marks 134 days since PSAC security officers in Ottawa have been on strike. These are frontline security officers. They are first responders. They protect Canada's central bank, its assets and the people who work there. They deserve respect from the managers and executives whose safety it is their job to protect. Twice, the Canada Industrial Relations Board found that the Bank of Canada had broken federal labour law by using scab workers against these striking employees, and the Bank of Canada continues to use scabs even after being ordered to stop.

I want to be very clear about this issue. The employees on strike are asking for one simple thing. They are asking to keep the wording in their collective agreement that they already have. The bank is demanding concessions on scheduling rights. That is it. If the Bank of Canada stepped back from that, the strike would be over. The PSAC workers have offered to go to arbitration, and the bank has refused.

At a moment in time when workers' rights across this country are under attack because of the tariff war, because of Bill C-39 and because of so many things the government is doing, the fact that the Bank of Canada is not negotiating in good faith with PSAC workers, who have been on strike for 134 days, is unconscionable.

I want to bring this back to something that we have also heard from the minister. When I asked this question in September, the parliamentary secretary said, “Mr. Speaker, let me be crystal clear. We will always protect the rights of workers, and we will always support workers' constitutional right to strike.” That was in September, but what we have seen is a pattern from the government of undermining collective bargaining, taking away workers' right to strike and weakening the ability of workers to stand up for their own actual human right to withhold their labour.

The Canada Labour Congress president, Bea Bruske, warned Parliament at committee on October 20 that employers who expect government intervention have less incentive to bargain seriously. The Unifor president, Lana Payne, told the parliamentary committee on October 26 that the national interest test in Bill C-39 is so broad that virtually every single strike could qualify, because every strike has an economic impact.

I am looking at one side, and I see PSAC workers who are not being treated fairly by the Bank of Canada, which has been found guilty twice of using scab labour. Then we have a government that says it will continue to fight for the right to strike for all workers but brings forward legislation such as Bill C-39, and the government has been told by Unifor, CUPE, CLC, USW and so many labour leaders that it breaks the right to strike. This is a problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton Strathcona for the opportunity to set the record straight.

Workers power this country. The government will always have their backs and stand up for their rights.

Let me be clear from the outset. Bill C-39 would not take away their right to strike. It would not take away a single right that workers have today. Free and fair collective bargaining, including the right to strike, is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the foundation of Canada's labour relations system, and it remains so. We cannot build a strong economy without respecting the workers who keep it running every day. We also cannot protect workers without an economy that creates new jobs and can withstand shocks.

The federally regulated private sector underpins key sectors of our economy and employs one of the most skilled workforces in the world, with more than one million workers and more than 22,000 employers. They deserve a labour system that protects them and delivers strong collective agreements at the bargaining table.

Today, that system works well. About 95% of labour disputes are resolved without a work stoppage, but in a small number of difficult cases, negotiations break down and become entrenched. When that happens, existing tools are not always enough. Bill C-39 would strengthen a system that already works, with straightforward objectives: supporting good-faith negotiations and strengthening collective bargaining.

During consultations, we clearly heard that some bargaining parties need more support earlier. The bill would strengthen the tools, supports and processes available so that unions and employers could find solutions together. It would create earlier and more adaptable supports for these difficult negotiations. It would create a process to appoint a special mediator, who would work with the parties to resolve differences and reach agreements at the bargaining table. It would also encourage good-faith bargaining, a responsibility that applies to both parties.

Strikes and lockouts can be part of the bargaining process, and government intervention in a labour dispute should always be a last resort. Bill C-39 would keep existing powers under section 107 of the Canada Labour Code only for the very small number of disputes that become entrenched and where the impacts reach well beyond the bargaining parties. It would add requirements and greater clarity and transparency before they can be used to intervene in a dispute.

Before interventions can be considered, a special mediator would work intensively with both parties and provide greater transparency about what is breaking down at the table. That means more accountability, not less. It means more room for bargaining, not less. A national impact assessment would also determine whether the labour disruption has significant impacts on Canadians and the broader economy.

An economy is only as strong as its workplaces, and our workplaces are only as strong as the protections and relationships that hold them together. We will not build Canada strong by weakening workers' rights. We will build it by helping workers and employers reach agreements, by keeping workplaces safe and by making sure they succeed together in a rapidly changing economy. That is what this bill would do.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why workers across the country are so frustrated with the Liberal government. The Liberals constantly say that they are on the side of workers, but when it came to taking away section 107 from the Canada Labour Code, they voted against taking it out. When it came to listening to labour leaders like Bea Bruske, Lana Payne and Marty Warren, who said not to bring forward Bill C-39 because it takes away workers' right to strike, they did not listen.

The legislation the government brings forward helps employers. It does not help workers. This is not a government that is here for workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to think this government has abandoned Canadian workers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This government has said time and time again that we will always respect workers' rights. Bill C-39 would not take away the right to strike. That right is protected by the charter and it stays. What the bill would do is give workers and employers more support to reach agreements together. We are also backing workers with action. We are adding more officers to enforce their rights and keep workplaces safe. We are investing in skilled trades, training, apprenticeships and union workers across the country. We are investing in projects that will build Canada strong.

Canadian workers power this country, and our government will continue standing with them every step of the way.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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 6:52 p.m.)