House of Commons Hansard #107 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was students.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities Conservative Members and Bloc Québécois members debate the government's recent budgetary policy excluding students at private vocational institutions from federal student grants. Conservatives argue this policy is discriminatory and ignores the vital role private colleges play in addressing critical labour shortages in rural and underserved areas. Liberals defend their broader investments in youth employment, while Bloc members criticize federal overreach in education, advocating for provincial jurisdiction over such decisions. 25200 words, 3 hours.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on a point of order regarding Bill C-11, an act to reform the military justice system. After reviewing six amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Speaker declares them inadmissible because they violate either the parent act principle or exceed the scope of the bill as approved at second reading. Consequently, these amendments are declared null and void, and the bill is reprinted. 1500 words.
Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act Report stage of Bill C-10. The bill proposes establishing an independent commissioner to oversee the implementation of modern treaties with Indigenous peoples. Proponents argue this body provides necessary accountability and transparency regarding federal commitments. However, Conservative members oppose the legislation, characterizing it as unnecessary bureaucracy that duplicates existing oversight mechanisms. They argue that the government should prioritize fulfilling its obligations through current departmental structures rather than incurring additional costs to address persistent implementation failures. 15300 words, 2 hours.
Use of Federal Lands for Veterans Members debate a motion from the Liberal Party instructing the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to study repurposing surplus federal property to support veterans. While Liberals argue this planned study will create a necessary road map for better services, Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois oppose the motion, labeling it an inefficient use of legislative time that interferes with committee independence and misuses private members’ opportunities. 6500 words, 1 hour.
Message from the SenatePrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-225, an act to establish national Thanadelthur day.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on behalf of those who have been cut out of the conversation on the Liberals' pipeline MOU with Alberta Premier, Danielle Smith, and the Canadian taxpayers who are continually on the hook for big oil subsidies. It is time for their voices to be heard. The MOU fails to respect first nations' emphatic stance against a new pipeline to the north coast; fails to respect the crucial principle of free, prior and informed consent; and fails to respect the B.C. government's clear stance that the oil tanker moratorium must stay in place.
However, there is another group this MOU fails to respect, which is Canadian taxpayers. The federal government already subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of $30 billion, and with no proponent lined up, this new pipeline could be yet another taxpayer-funded, subsidized boondoggle.
We have seen this film before with the Trans Mountain expansion. In two separate investigations, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found TMX to be a net loss. Since the government purchased the pipeline in 2018, its costs have ballooned from $7.4 billion to $34 billion.
In the long term, subsidizing fossil fuel export infrastructure is a losing game and a bad investment. In a climate-safe scenario, around 70% of new LNG projects would never recover their costs due to low demand and a structural oversupply. Carbon Tracker projects that, in the long term, the financial risks of new Canadian oil and gas projects are double their potential rewards, and while taxpayers lose out, big oil is reaping the rewards.
The top five Canadian oil companies made over $25 billion in profits just last year and will make $90 billion in windfall profits from the war on Iran. Big oil is already raking in profits off a pipeline they wanted but refused to buy, and now they want another one. While the Liberals and Conservatives will not even ask big oil to support relief for everyday people through a windfall profits tax, the government is instead subsidizing them further with a gas tax cut that big oil should be covering.
Between this MOU and the over $1.8 billion in subsidies for mainly foreign-owned LNG projects, the government appears ready to repeat the same mistake it made with TMX.
These giveaways to polluters also hurt our health and the health of future generations. We remember the hundreds who died in the 2021 heat dome in British Columbia. We have seen the devastating effects of wildfire smoke, including the tragic death of nine-year-old Carter Vigh. Health Canada points out that these are not distant risks. These are happening now.
There are also growing legal issues. Cases before the courts argue that government failure on climate action violates Canadian charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person. A case in Ontario supported by Ecojustice reached all the way to the superior court before the provincial government gutted its environmental regulations to evade legal scrutiny.
Internationally, an ICJ advisory opinion finds:
The failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from [greenhouse gas] emissions, including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel fuel subsidies, may constitute an internationally wrongful act....
It is absurd to ask Canadian taxpayers to subsidize big oil and then go back to ask them to finance their own climate crisis, but that is exactly what the Liberals are doing here. Canadians deserve clarity. Is the government going to commit to a pipeline and tanker project that ignores indigenous consent, deepens the climate crisis and exposes Canadians to financial and legal risk, or will it respect rights, protect communities and invest in a sustainable future by cancelling this backroom deal?
Maggie Chi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the important issue raised by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.
Let me start by being absolutely clear about what the government has said publicly and consistently. The Prime Minister has stated repeatedly, in the House and outside it, that projects should move forward with the agreement of the impacted jurisdiction and the impacted indigenous nations. This has not changed. So far, no project has been proposed before the regulators. There is no decision to lift the oil tanker moratorium. What the member referred to is a memorandum of understanding between Canada and Alberta. The MOU does not sidestep indigenous rights or decision-making.
The member suggested that the coastal first nations have been ignored or sidelined. This is not accurate. When concerns were raised, the Prime Minister publicly committed to meeting with Coastal First Nations and, in fact, met with its leadership in January. Federal ministers have consistently said that engagement must be nation to nation, meaningful and grounded in respect for indigenous rights and title. That is not a box-checking exercise. It is a legal and constitutional requirement, and it is how the government approaches all major projects.
Meaningful engagement and consultation also means meaningful economic opportunity for indigenous rights holders. That means opportunities defined by indigenous nations themselves, grounded in skills training, long-term employment, ownership and real participation in economic decision-making, not only as a condition but also as part of building durable, respectful partnerships that support shared prosperity.
As for looking at adjustments to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, we may not even need to look at the act, depending on the project ultimately proposed. If we do, I can assure members that nothing about that process would be skipped. Robust consultations would be held.
Trust is built through actions, not rhetoric. That is why the government has been clear that indigenous participation is not symbolic and not optional. Indigenous nations are rights holders. Their input and decisions matter. This is also why the government has been clear that British Columbia must be meaningfully involved. The MOU clarity stipulates that robust engagement must be held with the B.C. government and that the people of British Columbia must benefit from any project that moves forward in their province. The member is right that the coast has a history, and that history matters. It is precisely because of that history that the government has rejected the idea of ramming projects through.
Canada is navigating a complicated global moment, with real debates about energy security, climate responsibility and economic resilience. Those debates must be grounded in facts, law and respect for rights, not assumptions about decisions that have not been made. We will continue to engage and consult directly with indigenous nations. We will continue to respect provincial jurisdiction, and we will not move forward on any project unless those conditions are met. That is how we build a stronger Canada: by working together.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals may try to dismiss these concerns, but Canadians can see what is happening. The government is still funding big oil, with over $30 billion in taxpayer money and subsidies, while refusing to be transparent about the real cost.
We have already seen the consequences. Projects like the Trans Mountain expansion have shown that public financing of fossil fuel infrastructure can leave Canadians carrying the risk, while private interests take the reward, while new oil and gas development risks millions more carbon-related deaths and while charter rights concerns pile up for an ever-shrinking market. These oil and gas subsidies make no economic sense, force Canadians to pay for their own climate catastrophe and could violate international law.
In budget 2025, the government is proposing a so-called strategic financing framework to coordinate funding across Crown corporations and agencies. At a time when families are facing rising costs and communities are dealing with the impacts of climate change, Canadians deserve to know exactly what that means. Does it mean more public money flowing to oil and gas? Does it mean more risk being shifted onto taxpayers? Will the government come clean about how much more it plans to give to big polluters, and why?
Maggie Chi Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Mr. Speaker, the question before us is not whether trust matters. It does. There has been no proposal submitted before regulators so far. Any path forward must respect the rights of indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister has said this plainly, and ministers have repeated it in the House and in committee. Engagement is ongoing, not finished. Robust consultations with rights holders will be undertaken as we move forward in this space. The decisions of indigenous nations must be respected. That is not backtracking. It is how we uphold rights, responsibilities and the rule of law.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question tonight in Adjournment Proceedings that I first raised on February 5 at the end of our annual International Development Week. I raised a question in great sadness because the Liberal Party platform in the last election committed to something that mattered. It committed to not cut development assistance. That stood in stark contrast to the Conservative Party commitment to cut development assistance. It was one of those issues on which voters could make a pivotal choice. Sometimes, it seemed like they were saying the same thing: Liberals were saying they were going to get rid of the consumer carbon price and Conservatives were saying they were going to get rid of the consumer carbon price.
However, on the issue of development assistance, there was a clear choice to be made because the Liberals said, very clearly, that they would not cut development assistance. This matters, particularly in the world today, where shocking things have happened south of the border. Under the Trump administration, two critical decisions were made that imperil millions and millions of the world's poorest. One was the decision to cut all ties and cut funding. The U.S. was the biggest funder of the World Health Organization, the organization that helps with immunizations against polio, malaria and TB. A lot of us in Parliament and across Canada are Rotarians. We worked with the program to end polio that was supported by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When Trump cut funding to the World Health Organization, the U.S. cut funding to one of the biggest partners working around the world with Rotarians to end the scourge of polio. At the same time, pretty much, Elon Musk and his DOGE machine, along with his fake but real chainsaw, cut USAID, which was one of the world's biggest donor organizations, from a government state donor to the poorest of the poor.
Again, Canada's role in this is important. We have shown, if not leadership in terms of dollars, leadership in exhorting others to do it. Our former prime minister Lester B. Pearson chaired a UN agency and set a target for industrialized countries, suggesting that if wealthy donor countries would only put 0.7% of our GDP into official development assistance, we could end poverty. The closest we ever got to that target was back in 1992 when the prime minister was Brian Mulroney. At the Rio Earth Summit, Canada had 0.48%.
Now, tragically, the Liberals have broken that promise. We were never as close as we were under Mulroney, but we have dropped quite a bit. Breaking their promise, the Liberals, under our current Prime Minister, cut $2.8 billion from development assistance. At a time when the world looks to us to step up and help repair the damage done by the hole created by the U.S. stepping away from the poorest of the poor, we are doing the same and stepping away instead of stepping up.
In a moment of sadness on February 5, I posed the question and pointed out to the minister that this is the first time in 50 years that Canada has not had a full cabinet minister responsible for development assistance. Rather, we have a secretary of state who I know means well, but a secretary of state for development assistance is not the same thing as having a cabinet minister at the table.
I hope to pursue this matter.
Maggie Chi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding Canada's commitment to international assistance. This is an important issue that speaks directly to Canada's values and our role within the global community. In this vein, I want to acknowledge the deep commitments of international development organizations and their frontline workers who advance peace, prosperity and stability around the world. Their work reflects Canada's values and our long-standing belief that international assistance is an essential pillar for global security and shared prosperity.
Let us be clear. Our government remains firmly committed to Canada's international assistance priorities. We continue to fight poverty; advance gender equality; strengthen health, education and food systems; build climate resilience; and deliver urgent humanitarian aid. These investments are not optional. They are essential to preventing conflict, responding to crises, promoting prosperity and security, and fostering lasting stability.
Canada's international assistance spending grew significantly in recent years to respond to global crises, from the COVID-19 pandemic to Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Budget 2025 announced a reduction of roughly $2.7 billion over four years, returning spending to the more sustainable pre-pandemic levels. In today's fiscal climate, it is more important than ever that our international assistance, including official development assistance, be strategic and impactful.
Moving forward, we are prioritizing results and effectiveness to ensure every dollar supports meaningful impacts and outcomes. Providing international assistance also strengthens Canada's security, economic resilience and global influence by promoting the stability vital to our shared prosperity. It ensures that international assistance efforts not only reduce poverty abroad, but also generate mutual benefits including economic opportunities for Canadians.
This is why our government takes a pragmatic and principled approach. We are focusing our multilateral and bilateral efforts where Canada can advance shared priorities, strengthen economic resilience and support stability, helping our partners grow while benefiting Canadians at home. We are using all available tools to maximize the impact of our assistance, while remaining guided by our core values of human rights, gender equality and poverty reduction.
Despite the challenges, there is opportunity. Partner countries are seeking relationships that support their priorities and give them space to grow, helping them build stronger economies, improve governance and strengthen climate resilience.
By positioning Canada as a trusted partner, we not only advance these outcomes abroad, but we also advance our own security, economic interest and global influence. Our international assistance is focused on creating a more stable, prosperous and resilient world. Canada's long-standing experience in international assistance underscores that leadership is measured by effectiveness, credibility and long-term engagement. This why we continue to work with trusted Canadian partners, multilateral institutions and local organizations to deliver results. As the world evolves, Canada remains committed to our international assistance objectives and unwavering in addressing poverty, inequality and instability. Canada leads with purpose, compassion and pragmatism to deliver real results at home and abroad.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, oh, I wish that was all true. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for saying we are committed, but if we are committed, why have we cut when the Liberal budget promised it would not be cut? This is at a time when the world is screaming out that there are increased humanitarian pressures. There are humanitarian pressures in Gaza, in Darfur, in Ukraine and all around the world, and if anyone looks to Canada for help, we have cut development assistance by $2.7 billion this year.
We cannot talk out of both sides of our mouth forever. It catches up with us. We must do more. Canadians care about the poorest of the poor. We know that in the climate crisis, there will be more environmental refugees, more people turning up on our shores, looking for help and looking for assistance. The U.S. has turned insular, turned more selfish than ever. Canada needs to look outward. We need to be more generous than ever.
Maggie Chi Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Mr. Speaker, continued commitment to international assistance is important, but commitment alone is not enough. Global challenges are increasingly complex, from pandemic conflicts and climate change to shifting geopolitical dynamics. Budget 2025 reduces international assistance by $2.7 billion over four years, making it even more important that every dollar is strategic, effective and results-driven. Without a strategic, pragmatic approach, even well-intentioned aid risks being diluted and less effective.
Canada must continue to focus not only on what we fund, but on how we fund it, prioritizing partnerships and tools that deliver measurable and sustainable impact. This includes supporting initiatives that reduce poverty while also creating mutual benefits, such as opportunities for Canadian businesses and promoting regional and global security and stability critical to our shared prosperity. Principles remain essential, including respect for human rights, gender equality and poverty reduction. Our pragmatism ensures our resources achieve maximum results. Leadership is measured by results and Canada's credibility depends on the differences we make on the ground.
International DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The motion that the House do now adjourn is 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 6:50 p.m.)