Debates of April 16th, 2026

Criminal Code

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues from all parties who have spoken to Bill C-238. What we have heard during debate across all party lines is something important. There is broad agreement on the problem. Members spoke about the toll of addiction, trafficking and exploitation in their communities. They spoke about first responders, outreach workers and volunteers stretched to the limits. They spoke about the real and growing pressure on the very people who step in when others cannot. On that, we all agree. Where we differ is on the solution.

Some have suggested that the bill would add process without value, that it would create administrative burden or that it offers a promise that cannot be delivered. I would like to address those concerns this evening directly.

First, the bill would not create a new system. Restitution already exists in the Criminal Code. Judges already have the discretion to order it. Bill C-238 would clarify that restitution can include community organizations when they can demonstrate measurable costs tied to the offence. This is not duplication, but direction. It reflects what we already know, which is that harm from these crimes does not stop with one individual; it ripples outwards, into shelters, emergency rooms and counselling services, the very organizations that hold communities together.

Second, on the question of administrative burden, we have heard the concern that organizations would be required to track and document costs in ways they cannot manage, but the organizations themselves are telling us something very different. I have met with frontline workers who already track detailed data every day for funding and for reporting. They know exactly what it costs to respond to an overdose. They know what it costs to keep a shelter open overnight. They know what it costs to support a survivor of trafficking. These are not abstract numbers. These are real and documented costs. The bill would not ask them to create something new. It would give legal recognition to what already exists.

Third, there have been concerns about enforceability and that restitution orders may not always be collected. That is true today, and it is also true, unfortunately, for individual victims as well, but we do not abandon restitution because it is imperfect. We improve it because accountability matters, and even when restitution is partial, it is meaningful. It tells victims and those who support them that the justice system recognizes their loss. It tells offenders that the harm they caused has consequences beyond their sentence. This is not symbolic. It is restorative.

Finally, there has been concern that the bill could somehow take away from individual victims. Let me be clear. It would not. Individual victims remain the priority. Judges retain full discretion. The bill would simply add an additional pathway, not a competing one.

At its core, the bill is about something very simple. It is about fairness. Right now, community organizations absorb the cost of crime every single day, with limited resources and little recognition within the justice system. At the same time, those who profit from that harm are not being held accountable in a way that reflects the full scope of the damage they have caused. The bill would close that gap.

Police respond to the same overdose calls night after night. Outreach workers are stretched to the breaking point. Organizations have said clearly they are carrying these costs and the system does not see them. This is the reality that the bill responds to. It would not add burden, but it would recognize reality. It would not create bureaucracy, but it would enable accountability. It would not replace existing tools, but it would make them work better. Bill C-238 would ensure that, when harm is proven, repair can follow.

We all agree that these crimes have devastating impacts. We all agree that frontline organizations are under strain. The bill is an opportunity to act on that shared understanding, to give our courts a clearer tool, to support the people doing the work and to ensure that justice reflects the full reality of the harm. I ask colleagues to allow the bill to go to committee so we can hear directly from victims, survivors, police and frontline organizations. Rather than deciding for them, here in the House, what works for them, we must ensure their voices are part of this process.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would like to request a recorded vote on this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Fisheries and Oceans

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, and as the associate shadow minister for fisheries for His Majesty's official loyal opposition.

I am here today to debate the response to the question I posed to the Minister of Fisheries on March 26, 2026, when I asked if she would reaffirm a principle that is foundational to the management and control of Canada's fisheries: the principle that fisheries resources belong to the people of Canada. The minister replied, “Pacific salmon will remain a shared public resource managed by the federal government.” The minister also stated, “A revised salmon allocation policy will not take away [anyone's] access to the resource.”

Despite the minister's response, many Canadians remain very concerned, because it is unclear whether Canadians would continue to be able to depend on the shared public resource principle in order to access just an opportunity to fish for salmon. Canadians remain concerned because the minister's answer did not provide any specifics detailing how the Government of Canada would continue to manage Pacific salmon for all Canadians as a shared public resource. The minister did not state how much access Canadians would have to the shared public resource of Pacific salmon.

In responding, the minister also stated that suggesting that the government would not uphold the shared public resource principle was wrong and divisive. It is ironic that the minister would issue this indictment, when it was her department that published a discussion paper that contained a proposal for the shared public resource principle to be removed from the government's salmon allocation policy. Documents produced and made public by her own government have caused concerns among Canadians. They do not know how the salmon would be managed and by whom, and what organizations would influence or control the management of wild Pacific salmon.

The minister's response was also unclear on what level of access may remain for the public fisheries. She stated, “A revised salmon allocation policy will not take away [anyone's] access to the resource”, but she failed to state whether anyone's access and priority of access to the resource would be increased or in fact reduced. It is easy to say that no one's access would be taken away, but this does not mean that access would not be further limited or reduced in priority ranking.

Canadians deserve clarity from their government, especially cabinet ministers, on what the government has planned for their future access to Canada's shared public resources. What are the government's plans for the economics, the activities that put food on the table and that build family and heritage connections to the lands and waters we all value so highly?

Will the minister confirm that the public would not lose ranking in priority of access to chinook and coho salmon, and that wild Pacific salmon would be maintained as a shared public resource for the use and benefit of all Canadians?

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from my home province who also sits with me on the fisheries committee. It is a pleasure to be here to discuss the policy that he is looking for some clarity on. It is great to have another opportunity to set the record straight on the Pacific salmon allocation policy.

Wild Pacific salmon are a keystone species on the west coast. As the member likely knows, the minister was recently in B.C. to announce close to $413 million in new funding for the Pacific salmon strategy initiative. This funding will be critical to continue our government's work to rebuild wild salmon. It will strengthen science and monitoring, enable essential habitat restoration, modernize salmon fisheries and expand collaboration with partners.

While in B.C., our government also announced a next step in strengthening the long-term conservation and rebuilding of wild Pacific salmon with the expansion of mass marking of all DFO hatchery-origin chinook salmon in southern British Columbia. Expanded mass marking enhances our understanding of science, providing a clearer picture of wild salmon populations and the performance of our hatcheries. When it comes to the management of wild salmon, it starts with healthy salmon stock.

The 1999 Pacific salmon allocation policy outlines principles that guide the allocation of Pacific salmon catch among first nations, commercial and recreational fisheries. The policy does not define specific allocations for individual fisheries. Following the B.C. Supreme Court's 2018 Ahousaht decision, our government committed to review and update the policy in collaboration with first nations and stakeholders. DFO has been clear from the outset that the renewed policy will continue to prioritize conservation, followed by aboriginal and treaty fishing rights, including the five nations court-affirmed right to sell fish.

The salmon allocation policy review will not extinguish any sector's access to Pacific salmon. Pacific salmon will remain a shared public resource managed by the Government of Canada on behalf of all Canadians under the Minister of Fisheries authorities in the Fisheries Act and its regulations.

Since 2019, DFO has undertaken an extensive, multi-year engagement process with first nations, the recreational and the commercial fishing sectors. The recent eight-week open, public and extended consultation on the discussion paper, developed with partners and stakeholders, provided an opportunity for DFO to share input gathered to date and to seek input from first nations, and commercial and recreational harvesters, as well as all other stakeholders.

Discussion papers exist to engage directly with interested parties to get their feedback and considerations. They are not prescriptive. They are a tool for feedback. All viewpoints provided by first nations and stakeholders will be considered in the salmon allocation policy review. No decisions have yet been made. The salmon allocation policy review is still under way and work continues through the formal salmon allocation policy multi-party working group, which provides representatives from first nations, the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for that attempted response, but he still has not clearly answered the question that Canadians are extremely concerned with. It is the public access and the priority access to chinook and coho salmon and the ranking that they currently have.

He said that no one will have their rights to access extinguished. Being extinguished is one thing, but having someone's access reduced or losing that priority ranking is what has so many Canadians concerned. That is not just on the west coast, but it is also inland and through the prairie provinces. It extends to people in other areas who travel and spend their resources in our great province. They are looking for certainty. The minister and the parliamentary secretary have failed to deliver that certainty.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. A revised salmon allocation policy will not take away any sector's access to the resource. The policy is being reviewed, and the decisions have not been made to date. Anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong and only dividing Canadians.

Pacific salmon will remain a shared public resource managed by the Government of Canada on behalf of all Canadians under the Minister of Fisheries' authorities in the Fisheries Act and its regulations. There have been extensive public consultations on the policy. Working group tables continue, which include representatives from first nations, the commercial sector, and sport and recreational groups.

The updated policy will continue to prioritize conservation, and it will continue to recognize the constitutional priority of indigenous fishing rights. All Canadians will be respected.

Mental Health and Addictions

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

Mr. Speaker, the government promised that its approach to addiction would reduce harm and lead people toward recovery, but the evidence shows that this promise has not been kept. Canadians were told that decriminalization, safer supply and supervised consumption would reduce harm and connect people to treatment. That was the promise. However, the reality on the ground tells a completely different story.

At the health committee, witnesses made it clear that overdose rates have not come down in any meaningful way. Communities are still suffering. Families are grieving. First responders are still overwhelmed. In many places, public spaces that should be safe for children and families are now sites of open drug use, chaos and fear.

In my riding and across British Columbia, people see this every day. Local governments, first responders and health authorities are left carrying the cost of a federal experiment that never should have been imposed in the first place. We know that when British Columbia sought this decriminalization exemption, no other province followed, not one. No other province came forward to ask to copy this model. That alone should have raised serious questions for the federal government. Instead, the Liberals treated British Columbia like a laboratory experiment.

The Liberals say these policies are about compassion. Conservatives believe in compassion too, but compassion means helping people get better. It means treatment. It means recovery. It means giving people a path out of addiction and not trapping them in it.

One of the most troubling realities raised by local health authorities in my riding is what happens when someone is finally ready to seek help. It can take up to two years to get a treatment bed. Imagine someone finding the courage to say, “I need help,” only to be told there is no space, no timely support and no real path forward, but there are more drugs.

We also heard serious concerns from witnesses about the Liberal approach to so-called safer supply. The theory is that if government provides cleaner drugs, people will eventually stabilize and then seek treatment. However, the second part of that argument is simply not happening. We do not have the treatment in place. Instead, many of these drugs are diverted, sold and exchanged for substances users actually want. That means the government is not ending addiction but actually feeding into it.

Now we have more evidence that calls the Liberal narrative into question. A peer-reviewed Canadian study on the closure of a supervised consumption site in Red Deer found no increase in deaths, no increase in emergency department visits and no increase in opioid-related EMS events after the site closed. In other words, when the site closed, more people actually moved to recovery. That matters because Liberals keep telling Canadians that these sites are the answer, even when the evidence shows that recovery-oriented care delivers better outcomes.

Canadians deserve better than this false choice between neglect and normalization. They deserve a government that will invest in treatment, prioritize recovery and restore hope to families who feel abandoned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Health, and we work very collaboratively. I appreciate her passion and her work on this issue. We have spent a lot of time talking about this issue and trying to figure out best solutions and a path forward. I think the member will agree that there is a multitude of causes, and it requires a multitude of solutions.

Our government has taken strong measures to keep toxic drugs off the street. We understand that we must use every measure at our disposal to save lives and keep communities safe. That means we cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to respond to these challenges. In the member's speech, she also touched on this a little. Families who have lost loved ones would also say that the issue is very complex. It could be mental health, it could be injuries, it could be addictions, etc. We are keeping all options on the table.

We are responding using law enforcement. Through Canada's border plan, we are giving law and border enforcement the tools they need to detect and disrupt illegal fentanyl and its precursors, keeping these drugs off the street.

It is not only a law enforcement issue and problem. We also need to fight and treat addiction, and I think the member also referenced that in her speech. It means we invest in programs that prevent people from getting addicted in the first place, but that we also support treatment and recovery, so that anyone battling addictions has the support they need to break the cycle.

It also means helping communities respond to urgent needs and emergencies. Through programs like the substance use and addictions program and the emergency treatment fund, we are helping communities offer support and education to vulnerable Canadians.

The most important thing in all of this, however, is that we understand the federal government cannot fight this problem on its own. No single organization or level of government can. That is why we are working with our provincial and territorial partners, communities and indigenous organizations, direct care providers, researchers and people with lived experiences.

Together we are putting forward solutions that will help save lives and keep communities safe. I look forward to continue working with the hon. member, my friend and colleague on tackling this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the aisle, who I know cares deeply about this crisis.

We all want the same thing. We want to end this crisis or at least make a move towards ending it. Canadians are living the consequences. B.C. is living the consequences of the model of decriminalization that did not work. Hopefully no other province is asked to go through what we have had to go through.

The Liberals say this is about helping people, yet when someone is ready for treatment, they are told to wait months or even years. That is not compassion. We now have Canadian evidence showing that when access to these sites is removed, more people actually seek treatment.

Why will the government not prioritize recovery instead of defending policies that keep people trapped in addiction?

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

Mr. Speaker, we understand and recognize this is a major challenge facing Canada, which is why we are using every option at our disposal to deal with this issue. It requires a multitude of solutions and measures, including law enforcement, prevention, as my colleague has mentioned, treatment and community supports that could support folks in recovery as well.

We are already seeing that drug-related deaths and hospitalizations are decreasing nationally, which shows that our approach is working. We also see the toll this crisis has taken on individuals, families and communities across the country. We will continue to tackle this crisis and work across party lines to make sure that we can balance public health and public safety.

Justice

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on January 29, I asked the government House leader to let the House and Canadians know when we could expect the long-overdue, three and a half years overdue, review of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarian Act to be initiated. He stated at that time that he would “consider the matter and report to the House at the appropriate time.” Unfortunately, over two months have passed since I asked this question, and the House and Canadians have heard diddly-squat from the Liberal government with respect to the review that is already three and a half years overdue.

Since asking the question, I even decided to help the government out by introducing Motion No. 29, which would initiate this review by forming a special joint committee of MPs and senators from all the recognized parties and Senate groups. Ultimately, I am here tonight to ask once again when the Liberal government is going to initiate this long-overdue and mandated review. I will use the remainder of my time on why I believe this long-overdue review is necessary, with a focus specifically on the NSICOP Act. I have had the privilege of being a member of NSICOP for the last four years.

Number one is that it is the law. It is written into statute. Number two is that I would note that when I reviewed the debate around Bill C-22, which created NSICOP in the 42nd Parliament, there were many questions put to the Liberal minister of public safety at the time and to PCO officials, especially with respect to the perceived lack of independence of the committee. Ian McCowan, the deputy secretary to the cabinet for governance at PCO at the time, provided the following response to my predecessor, the former MP for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the great Larry Miller: “Obviously something you'll have noted is that a five-year review is built in. I imagine there will be a regular review of the statute.”

My point is that the reassurance of the Liberal government at the time when addressing these concerns brought up by MPs during the standing up of this committee was that there would be a mandated review. Again, that is a review that is long overdue.

Number three is that NSICOP was built very much on the model of the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the ISC, but not fully. There are a few key differences.

One is that the chair of that committee is elected, not appointed by the Prime Minister. The second is that the ISC has a vice-chair but we do not have one in Canada. Third, the ISC tables its reports directly to Parliament following a redaction process, whereas NSICOP conducts a very similar redaction process but then our reports are submitted to the Prime Minister, who then has 30 sitting days to table them in Parliament. In my opinion, a good example of this tabling that had an unnecessary delay was NSICOP's latest report on lawful access. This report was given to the Prime Minister on March 4 of last year, but it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15, something that is really relevant to the current debate on Bill C-22 this week.

Finally, on resourcing, there is a lack of interpreters with the appropriate security clearance, and the size of the secretariat is a concern. There is a small and mighty team at NSICOP, composed of only 12 people.

These all need to be looked at. This is just a short list of the high-level reasons why I think this long-overdue mandated review is needed now. All the government needs to do is move Motion No. 29, or something similar, to form the necessary committee now to get this necessary review under way. I am hoping the government will make that commitment tonight and let Parliament know when we can expect the review to start.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to answer the question from my colleague, the member opposite, whom I have had the privilege and delight to work with on NSICOP, as a former member and former chair of that very same committee. I want to highlight just how seriously the government takes the work of NSICOP.

During my time as chair and as a member, the committee submitted a special report on lawful access to communication by security and intelligence organizations, which was tabled in Parliament, as the member opposite mentioned, in September 2025. One of the key recommendations of the report is that the government should develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to address Canada's lawful access challenges, drawing from the committee's review and findings. The government has acted decisively through the introduction of Bill C-22, the lawful access act. I sincerely hope that the member opposite will support it.

I want to reiterate the important work that is done by each and every member of the committee. I am fully aware that the mandate of the committee has been up for review since October 2022. The government is fully cognizant of this. I know and believe that this will be done in due time. I know that the member opposite asked the minister this very same question again in question period today, and the minister will report back to the House on this very same issue as soon as an answer can be given.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I do take the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice at her word. She is somebody I really enjoyed working with while we were on NSICOP. I know she firmly believes in the importance of the committee. I am not trying to take away from the incredible work that NSICOP has done over the last seven or eight years of its existence.

My point is that we need that review now because the act can be improved upon. I think the committee's continued work and its ability to do even more things, not only to help the government but also to help Parliament and all Canadians, is extremely important.

To her point on Bill C-22, she has my personal commitment that I will do everything in my power to get it to committee and make sure that it gets the necessary scrutiny and review, something I believe in.

I just want to end with saying that the review of the NSICOP Act needs to happen now.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is duly noted.

I have two points. First, the member opposite will support Bill C-22, and I applaud him for that.

The second point is that we understand that a review of the committee is long overdue, and the minister will report to the House as soon as he has news on that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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 6:38 p.m.)