Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2026

Innovation, Science and Industry

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the global landscape is changing, and countries around the world are looking for ways to attract talent in critical and emerging industries. Canada has delivered globally impactful scientific breakthroughs, is home to world-class institutions and now has one of the world's largest international research attraction programs: $1.7 billion to bring the best and the brightest from across the world to Canada.

Can the Minister of Industry please tell the House how the talent attraction strategy will solidify Canada as the best country in the world for research, science and discovery?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when certain countries are cutting research, at a time when academic freedom is under attack, we believe in science and we believe in research. That is why we have launched our new talent attraction strategy with a budget of $1.7 billion to attract the best and the brightest to the country. This is one of the biggest budgets on earth to make sure that we bring them to our country.

To all those watching us or listening to us right now, please come to Canada. We have lots to offer, and we can make sure that they feel at home.

The Economy

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 0.0% was Canada's GDP growth number in November. The fourth-quarter growth number is expected to be negative. Following 10 years of near-zero per capita growth, 2025 was another lost year for the Canadian economy. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but he has not repealed any of the government's anti-development laws and taxes.

Conservatives have a plan to cut regulations and taxes. We are here to help. Will the Prime Minister adopt our plan?

[Eleanor Olszewski, Liberal, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the world has changed, but it is pretty clear, after the Conservative convention this weekend, that the Leader of the Opposition has not.

Conservatives keep going back to the same old attacks, demonizing diversity and denying climate change, but we have a plan. We are focused on what Canadians actually care about: supporting families and building Canada in a changing world. That is why we announced new affordability measures, including the groceries and essentials benefit, which will help up to 1.3 million Albertans.

It is time that Conservatives get serious.

International Trade

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in Davos, “there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along”. Well, the moment for Canada to show up is here. Canadian-made parts have been found in weapons killing civilians in Gaza, Sudan and Yemen. A Canadian-made armoured vehicle was seen in Minneapolis the day ICE shot and killed Alex Pretti.

Will the Prime Minister live by his words “to stop pretending, to name reality,” and support Bill C-233, the no more loopholes act, so that Canada is not complicit in these horrific acts against humanity?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I urge the member opposite to be accurate in her representation of Canadian law. First, Canada has one of the strongest export permit regimes in the world. Second, Canada has not approved any new permits for items to Israel that could be used in the current conflict in Gaza since January 8, 2024. Third, all permits suspended in 2024 remain suspended and cannot be used to export to Israel.

Again, I urge accuracy.

The House resumed from January 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Canada and Indonesia, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, November 5, 2025, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑18.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #62

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

Voting Procedures in the House—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on January 28 by the chief government whip concerning voting procedures in the House.

Following the taking of the recorded division on the opposition motion earlier that day, the government whip rose to inform the Chair that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley had voted both in person and electronically, but that he was not in his seat during the roll call. In response, the Chair informed the House that only his electronic vote would count.

After the deferred recorded divisions were completed that day, the government whip expressed concern that members could vote in their seat and then leave the chamber to vote again electronically, possibly casting their vote differently. He asked the Chair to provide clarity on the procedures involved in this situation or to ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look into the matter.

The Standing Orders do consider the possibility of a member voting both in person and electronically. Standing Order 45(12)(c) states: “[I]n the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person takes precedence.”

The present situation was slightly different than the one contemplated by this standing order. The member was not in his seat when he voted, which usually has the effect of nullifying one’s vote, at least when the matter is brought to the attention of the Chair. This is what occurred last Wednesday. However, since the member also properly cast his vote electronically, the electronic vote was therefore counted.

As I observed on January 28, 2026, the situation was not ideal. It was indicative, however, of the evolution in the practice that happened since the implementation of electronic voting in March 2021.

It is not uncommon now for members to vote in person, realize that there may be some issue with their vote, and cast their vote again electronically. This has happened, for example, when a member realizes that they came in late or that they needed to leave during the voting process. The Chair believes all parties have benefited at one point or another from these gradual adjustments and, until last Wednesday, had not formally complained.

The Chair continues to encourage members to maintain proper decorum during the taking of a recorded division, including by being in their seat to hear the question and to vote, when they are present in person. If members choose to vote electronically, they should leave the chamber quickly and discreetly to vote, without causing disruption, and stay out until the vote is completed. If they cast a valid vote in person from their seats and, for one reason or another, also cast their vote electronically, the former will of course continue to take precedence.

I thank all members for their attention.

Requirement of a Royal Recommendation for Bill C-222—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I also would like to read a second ruling.

In my statement of October 20, 2025, on the management of Private Members’ Business, I expressed concern that Bill C-222, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), appeared to infringe on the Crown’s financial prerogative. At the time, I encouraged members who wished to make arguments about whether or not the bill requires a royal recommendation to do so.

While no formal arguments were submitted to the Chair, the sponsor of the bill, the member for Burnaby-Nord—Seymour, in his opening intervention during debate at second reading on October 24, 2025, stated his view that the bill requires a royal recommendation and that he was working with the responsible ministers to acquire it. Likewise, during his right of reply on January 29, 2026, the member again acknowledged the need for a royal recommendation and raised the possibility that this may occur following committee stage.

In assessing whether the bill requires a royal recommendation, the Chair is guided by section 18.9 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, which states:

A royal recommendation fixes not only the allowable charge but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered.

Bill C-222 seeks to ensure that parents who qualify for parental benefits under sections 23 and 152.05 of the Employment Insurance Act continue to do so for the period set out in the act if their child passes away during the benefit period. It also amends sections 206 and 206.1 of the Canada Labour Code to ensure that an employee entitled to maternity or parental leave remains entitled to that leave if their child passes away during the leave.

The Chair is of the view that the bill extends the conditions under which an individual is eligible to access parental benefits, and that this in turn has the potential to result in additional charges on the consolidated revenue fund. In light of these facts, and given similar precedents with respect to bills that would have extended the length of the benefit period for employment insurance, the Chair must agree that the bill requires a royal recommendation.

The House can proceed to vote on the bill at second reading later this week, but a royal recommendation must be provided before it can proceed to a final vote in the House at the third reading stage, unless the bill is amended in the meantime in a manner that removes the need for a royal recommendation.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to your first ruling. I do want to thank you for taking the opportunity to respond to my point of order so quickly. I listened to your ruling thoroughly. I discussed it with my colleagues, and there is still some confusion around this.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was sitting in the House, rose and was identified by the Table as voting in a certain direction. He then got up, left and voted via the application. You have just said you will always accept the vote that is done in person instead of the electronic one if it is done both ways. What you are basically saying is that because the member was here personally and sitting in his seat, you should be accepting that vote. However, the member then got up and left.

Therefore there is still some confusion around the rule, and perhaps this is something that needs to be discussed among the House leadership to come to some kind of conclusion. My objective is to ensure that this does not continue to happen in the future and that we can safeguard against it.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was not in his seat when he voted.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

He was called by the Table.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, I guess that was an error, but the point is that he did vote electronically afterwards. In the absence of an in-person vote's counting, the fallback was on the electronic vote.

However, I stressed the other day that the situation was not ideal, because it does not really respect proper decorum, and I appeal to all members to respect proper decorum.

In this new procedural environment for voting, which includes electronic voting, an electronic vote can apply if the in-person vote was not legitimate.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify something, because I find the point of order raised by the government whip interesting.

In your decision, I understand that the situation applied to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, but the point raised here is nevertheless very interesting. In the case of a member who votes in person from their seat, then leaves the House before the end of the vote and later votes electronically, the vote in the House obviously does not count, because the member left their seat before the votes were tallied.

However, I do not fully understand the decision and it remains unclear to me. Am I to understand that the initial vote cast in the House, which was valid until the member left the House, can be replaced by the electronic vote cast afterwards? In a way, then, that cancels the vote cast in the House and a new one is cast electronically, which will be considered valid. I just wanted to confirm that.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That is correct.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is not usually a practice to debate a Speaker's ruling once it has been delivered, but here we are. I would just maybe offer a couple of thoughts.

The most important thing is that members are able to vote. We would hate to have a situation where constituents of a given riding do not have their representative pronounce on a bill or a motion, because of a technicality. The rules around decorum are there as an assistance to the Chair and to the Table. We can imagine the chaos if MPs were walking around, milling around, putting their hand up or having their name called out as they were moving around the table.

Therefore the rules are there to preserve decorum so votes can be orderly. Those rules are not there for the same reasons that, in the NFL, if a toe touches the white line then it is not a touchdown. They are there to provide some structure and some order. I hope we do not get too bogged down in rules for the sake of rules but accept the spirit of the rules that are there.

The hon. member's suggestion is very valid. The House leaders and whips do our very best to make sure that our members respect the rules. Every once in a while there are mistakes, and usually there is grace afforded members from all parties and all caucuses. I suggest we take these conversations off-line.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have heard from all parties, and that is where we will end with this matter.

Democratic Institutions

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition that was brought to my attention by Federico Sanchez and was signed by 44,869 Canadians. Clearly it has struck a chord.

Political honesty and public trust are critical cornerstones of our democracy. This petition touches on those themes and draws inspiration from a white paper by the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research, in Wales, where mechanisms are being considered to formally hold politicians accountable when they commit deliberate deception.

Firearms

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today.

First, I rise again to present another petition on behalf of the residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, specifically law-abiding citizens who do not agree with the Liberals' failing confiscation plan of firearms. Provinces and police associations do not agree with it. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that the program will cost over $750 million of taxpayer money.

The petitioners of Skeena—Bulkley Valley want the government to stop going after law-abiding citizens and to go after criminals instead.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I rise to present on behalf of the residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley is asking the House never to expand MAID to people suffering from mental illness. It is clear that the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley believe that Canadians with mental illness should be met with supports, treatment and hope.

Mental illness is treatable, and recovery is possible. People who are suffering should be offered suicide prevention treatment, not assisted dying.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and to present a petition on behalf of residents of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North who write in support of Bill C-218, an excellent bill by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, which seeks to stop the expansion of medical assistance in dying to people with mental illness. We believe that it would be an egregious expansion; that there should be supports offered to people who have mental illness, such as suicide prevention and other supports; and that it is not necessary to make that expansion.

It is an honour to present the petition from constituents on that issue.

Religious Freedom

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand and present a petition from the folks in my riding who are really concerned about the Liberals' Bill C-9. The petition says Canadians are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize scriptural passages, that the state has no place in the religious text or teachings of any faith community and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

Therefore the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach when it comes to matters of faith.