Debates of May 27th, 2026

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, led by the hon. member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.

[Members sang the national anthem]

Open Parliament Network

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

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas, I was proud to welcome last week, here in Ottawa, more than 80 parliamentarians from 25 countries from across Latin America and the Caribbean, alongside indigenous leaders and youth, for the 10th gathering of the Open Parliament Network.

ParlAmericas has become the leading interparliamentary organization of the western hemisphere, connecting and engaging national legislatures to strengthen democracy, co-operation and collective action on trade, innovation, security and sustainability.

Through Canada's leadership on AI, security, climate action, food security and democratic governance, Canada is helping set the frameworks others will follow. We also witnessed the signing of an MOU between the United Nations' development program and ParlAmericas, reaffirming the commitment to collaborative legislative action and strengthening co-operation throughout the Americas and the Caribbean.

Muchas gracias to the participating parliamentarians who made the gathering possible, memorable and successful.

Shine On

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament, I attend some fantastic events with some of the most amazing people in the world. Shine On was one such event, held on a beautiful Niagara evening. It was hosted by John Howard of Megalomaniac winery, and we could feel right away that it was something special. It really spoke to the kind of community we have and that I am so proud to represent.

What stood out most to me at the event was the leadership from Kevin and Linda Luttjehuizen and their daughter Kaitlyn. Kevin and Linda are proud owners of Harmony Jewellers. They have raised over $1 million for the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital Foundation and McNally House Hospice, two of the most important organizations in our community. What an incredible contribution that is by this family.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Harmony Jewellers. After five decades of support from the community, they are making sure they return that support in a meaningful way. Given the challenges that Harmony Jewellers and its staff have faced over the past year, seeing that kind of generosity and resilience on display was remarkable.

It was one of those nights that remind us of what our community is really all about.

Robert Irving

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, with the death of Robert K. Irving earlier this month, New Brunswick has lost one of its greatest business and community leaders. Mr. Irving and his brother, Jim, were co-chief executive officers of J.D. Irving, Limited, which employs more than 20,000 New Brunswickers and drives economic activity that employs thousands more. At the time of his death, Robert Irving had been the face of JDI's operation in the greater Moncton area for nearly 50 years.

He was often the face of philanthropy in our community as well, publicly and privately contributing to more good causes, large and small, than anyone could count. Mr. Irving will also be remembered for his founding and ownership of the Moncton Wildcats, the Québec Maritimes Junior Hockey League team that delighted and inspired hockey fans from around New Brunswick and also across Canada.

On behalf of the people of Moncton—Dieppe and the entire community, I want to offer my sincere condolences to his wife, Jill, to his four children and to his entire family. May he rest in peace.

Fiesta Week

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of Oshawa's most cherished annual traditions, Fiesta Week.

For 52 years, Fiesta Week has brought our community together through cultural performances, traditional foods, costumes and displays from around the world. This year, residents and visitors will once again experience long-standing Greek, Caribbean, French Canadian, Polish, German, Ukrainian, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian pavilions. We are also proud to welcome the new Indian pavilion and welcome back the Hungarian pavilion. Volunteers work all year long preparing for this week-long celebration.

I encourage everyone to join us in Oshawa from June 21 to 27 to experience 14 incredible cultural pavilions in our city. The doors are open, and people do not want to miss it. Follow along with Oshawa Fiesta Week on Facebook.

Happy Fiesta Week, Oshawa.

Développement Vaudreuil‑Soulanges

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 40th anniversary of Développement Vaudreuil-Soulanges, a pillar of economic development in our region. For four decades, it has been staunchly and passionately supporting the entrepreneurs, municipalities and organizations that help make Vaudreuil-Soulanges a vibrant, innovative and prosperous region. Thanks to its leadership, hundreds of projects have been launched, businesses have grown and our community has flourished, while remaining close-knit and continuing to provide a high quality of life.

I want to acknowledge the remarkable work of the entire team at Développement Vaudreuil-Soulanges, its partners and all those who have contributed to this collective success over the past 40 years. On behalf of the people of Vaudreuil, I wish this organization many more years of success.

Don Seaman

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the remarkable life of the iconic Albertan Don Seaman. His influence in Alberta and all of Canada will be felt for generations, especially by his friends and family and by the business leaders he mentored.

A visionary pioneer of Alberta's energy sector, Don helped build Canada's economy, but his impact will reach far beyond business. In the true spirit of “build it and they will come”, Don helped build a field of dreams in Okotoks, where Seaman Stadium is the crown jewel of Canadian baseball. He literally placed the building blocks not only of a stadium but also of the renowned Okotoks Dawgs Baseball program, which stands as a proud symbol of his commitment to youth, sport and country. Through the Donald and Eleanor Seaman Family Foundation, he supported education, health care and community development, and he improved countless lives.

Now as we celebrate Don's beloved Dawgs' 20th baseball season in Okotoks, I will remember him sitting in the warm summer sun watching baseball, savouring a life well lived with thousands of friends in what we now call our field of dreams.

Paramedic Services Week

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from May 17 to May 23, we mark Paramedic Services Week, a time to honour the dedicated professionals who respond with compassion during Canadians' most difficult moments. In Orléans and across Ottawa, paramedics serve our community every day with courage, professionalism and care. To all those who answer the calls, I thank them.

It was very important for me to recognize their work and fully support the project to build a national paramedic monument in Ottawa. This monument will be a lasting symbol of our gratitude and will pay tribute to paramedics' dedication and sacrifice.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership of Norm Robillard, a retired paramedic from Ottawa, and the vital work that has been done by the Canadian Paramedic Memorial Foundation.

Paramedics deserve recognition equal to their dedication. Their service inspires unity and gratitude in communities across Canada.

Terry Fox Humanitarian Award

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I will have the honour of co-hosting the annual Terry Fox Humanitarian Awards, where 15 exceptional young Canadians will be recognized for receiving one of our country's most prestigious scholarships.

From Surrey, B.C., to St. John's, Newfoundland, the 2026 cohort represents communities across our country united by a shared commitment to service, compassion and leadership. These students carry Terry Fox's spirit forward through leadership in community service, academics, athletics and humanitarianism while the award is supporting them through their undergraduate studies so they can continue making a difference in their communities and abroad.

To the 2026 cohort and graduating recipients, I say that Parliament recognizes and commends their remarkable leadership and dedication to serving others. They reflect the very best of Canada and serve as an inspiration to Canadians across the country.

I would also like to recognize award recipient Pania Ghaneian and award graduate Caleb Small from my riding of Barrie South—Innisfil. On behalf of the community, I say that we are incredibly proud of all they have already accomplished and are excited to see all they will continue to achieve in the years ahead.

Broadcasting Hockey Games

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of Ottawa Senators fans in the Outaouais region, and we salute them. However, there are also a lot of fans who love truly great hockey, and they want to watch the Montreal Canadiens' playoff games at the Slush Puppie Centre.

However, the National Hockey League and the Senators are standing in their way. They invoked territorial rights to prevent Habs games from being broadcast in the arena. If the Senators want their games to be broadcast, all they have to do is not get eliminated after just four games.

As a result, the people of Gatineau are missing out on a great event. Worse still, a local mental health organization is missing out on tens of thousands of dollars, because proceeds from ticket sales were supposed to go to it.

Yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously joined the City of Gatineau and 7,700 petitioners in calling on the league and the Senators to back down. Quebec is Habs country, and that includes the home region of “Le Démon Blond”.

Fans should be able to get together to cheer the Canadiens on all the way to the cup, because the people of Gatineau are chanting “Go, Habs, go”.

Steel Industry

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie—Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have some great news for the House. On Friday the Minister of Industry joined me at Tenaris, and we announced over $70 million in funding towards a project that is going to maintain 811 jobs and is also going to create 200 new jobs.

As members know, I was elected in 2015, and when I was elected, Tenaris had only 25 people working there. It lay the blame squarely on the previous government for lack of inaction on supporting steel. However, today we are celebrating 1,111 workers who are working to support Canada to become the energy superpower the Prime Minister has said we will be, and the Tenaris workers are going to make that vision become a reality. Let us celebrate the success in front of the tariffs and this unjust, unreasonable situation.

I congratulate Tenaris.

Civic Education

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to welcome 58 students and staff from Jacob Hespeler Secondary School in my hometown of Hespeler, who are visiting Parliament Hill today to observe our democracy in action. These students are taking part in an important learning experience, gaining first-hand insight into Canada's parliamentary system, civic engagement and public service.

I would like to recognize the dedication of the teachers and chaperones, Dave Lambert, Ashley Pederson, Mishelle Bird and Cole Boland, for helping to guide and inspire the next generation.

I welcome all 58 members of the Jacob Hespeler Secondary School visiting today to Ottawa. I hope their visit encourages them to stay engaged and involved in shaping the future of our communities and our country. To the Liberal members across the aisle, Conservatives will be asking hard questions today that pertain to the real-life future prospects of these young people. I beg them to try actually answering today and put on a proper show.

Sexual Violence Prevention Month

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May is Sexual Violence Prevention Month in Ontario. Every day, news stories show how widespread and devastating intimate partner and sexual violence is across Canada. These are not isolated incidents. They are not private matters. They are part of a systemic crisis with real human and social costs.

In Canada, a recent report shows that sexual violence costs nearly $15 billion every year in lost wages, counselling, investigation, courts and more. About one in three police-reported violent incidents involves IPV, and we know that this is the tip of the iceberg.

Bill C-16 would expand protections, increase access and help address systemic vulnerability, but cops, courts and counselling are all after the fact. Prevention must be the goal, through education, early intervention and addressing root causes, including gender inequality, racism and discrimination.

I thank Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, support teams at the University of Guelph and Guelph General Hospital, Victim Services Guelph, Guelph Police Service, and groups like them across Canada. Ending sexual violence is not just their work. It must be all of ours and it must be done every day.

Gas Prices

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just the other day, while I was filling up on gas in Stoney Creek, a member of my community commented on how ridiculous these gas prices are, and I could not agree more. Gas prices are 10% higher in Canada than they are in the United States, which is costing Canadians an average of 16¢ more per litre.

Canadians want relief. The Liberal finance minister says they have already acted, but they have only acted on one-third of the taxes for one-third of the year. Our Conservative plan to remove all Liberal taxes on gas and diesel would save a family of four in Hamilton $1,200 per year.

If the Liberals support our Conservative motion today, we could bring real relief at the pumps. It is what Canadians want, but more importantly, it is what Canadians deserve. Canadians have been getting squeezed for way too long, and this is a great opportunity to put money back in their pockets. Let us do the right thing today and vote yes for our Conservative motion. Let us give Canadians the win they deserve.

Canadian Athletes

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we saw during the Milano Cortina 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, Canadian athletes show us what is possible when talent, hard work and opportunity come together. Today, we have the privilege of recognizing and thanking these extraordinary athletes here in Ottawa.

Last winter, team Canada brought home 21 medals, finishing eighth in the overall standings, and at the Paralympic Winter Games, Canadian athletes proudly added 15 medals. Every athlete competed with heart, perseverance and excellence. With podium finishes and many personal bests, they demonstrated the talent, character and determination that define Canadian sport.

To all our athletes, we want to say that we are proud to have seen them wear the maple leaf and represent Canada on the world stage.

I would also like to thank the coaches, families, volunteers, support staff, officials, and the Canadian Olympic Committee and Canadian Paralympic Committee for their dedication to our athletes.

On behalf of all Canadians, I thank them for inspiring the next generation of Canadian sporting heroes.

Government Priorities

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are finding themselves on the outside looking in. The Liberal government is wasting insane amounts of money and driving up inflation while our citizens cannot afford to eat or house themselves. It is enough to blow the hat right off one's head. It has spent $300 million on the PrescribeIT scandal, $800 million on their gun buyback program, $12 billion on foreign aid, $19 billion on government insiders, $1 billion on health care for fake refugees and $200 million on a concrete launch pad. It is like something right out of Spaceballs.

Canadians are right to be angry. They are being forced into food banks, living on the streets and waiting years for basic medical procedures while the Liberals keep on wasting taxpayer dollars. Why is it that our people are always at the back of the line in their own country? When will the Prime Minister start putting Canadians first?

Jeff Kovalik-Plouffe

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in life, if we are lucky, our paths will cross with those of some truly extraordinary people. My dear friend, Jeff Kovalik-Plouffe, was one of them.

On May 12, we lost this incredibly kind, generous and loyal man at the age of only 43. He gave back to the community and served proudly as a key member of the University of Winnipeg Wesmen basketball team. He served admirably in senior roles supporting federal ministers here in Ottawa, one of whom was my late father, Jim Carr.

Jeff was well known to many who sit in this chamber for his incredible spirit. He managed my father's campaigns, as well as mine in 2023. When my dad was diagnosed in the hospital with cancer, Jeff was there. As my dad neared his final breath, Jeff was there. Whenever I needed him, Jeff was there, notwithstanding everything that was going on in his life. Jeff faced more health challenges than anybody should ever have to endure, but he met every one of them with strength, courage and grace. He never complained. He just kept going.

We will miss him dearly, and we are very grateful for the contributions that he and his family have made to this country. May his memory be a blessing.

Finance

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while families are wondering how they will pay for their groceries each month, this Liberal Prime Minister continues to max out the national credit card to fund one scandal after another: $300 million wasted on PrescribeIT, $200 million on a space project located on land that cost next to nothing, $742 million on confiscating firearms from law-abiding hunters. The result: higher costs, higher taxes, higher debt and higher inflation. Gas prices have soared by 28.6%. Grocery bills continue to stretch families thin.

When will this Liberal Prime Minister put a stop to his credit card budgets?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, early this morning, even before this MP or his colleagues rose to speak, Canada announced that we are back in the business of building military jets. We also announced that we are exporting liquefied natural gas to Europe. These are incredible partnerships with Europe. These are incredible partnerships that will create jobs and opportunities right here in Canada. That is how we will build a country.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will soon realize that, just like the Liberals' other announcements, these announcements are merely illusions. Nothing ever comes of any of their announcements. Canadian families are working harder than ever, so why are they getting poorer? The reason is because this government is spending taxpayer money like there is no tomorrow. Food inflation is 3.8%. Families are now spending over 100% of their income on food and housing.

This Liberal Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. Is he going to stop spending recklessly for his buddies' benefit and start looking after ordinary people instead?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just referred to some good news today for the over 3,000 people who are about to get jobs because of the new partnership between Saab and Bombardier. Finally, we are going to get a surveillance aircraft not only for Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces, but for the whole world. The United Arab Emirates, France and several other NATO countries want to buy this aircraft, which is finally going to be manufactured in Canada by Canadians.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, costly Liberal policies drive inflation up, forcing Canadians to pay more for gas, food and rent. Members do not need to take my word for it. The April stats prove it. Inflation, gas prices and food prices are all up, yet the Liberal Prime Minister keeps spending: $290 million for the failed PrescribeIT scandal, $200 million for a gravel space pad in a Liberal riding and $742 million for a failed gun grab. It is more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card.

The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal with nothing to show for his waste. When will he stop?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, do members know what Canadians are not talking about? It is whatever was written by the Leader of the Opposition for that member.

Do members know what they are talking about? They are talking about the first-ever long-term contract for liquid natural gas off our west coast, a partnership with indigenous peoples, a partnership that lasts and a partnership with our allies, and that was all before noon. There is the first-ever deal with Sweden to manufacture military aircraft here in Canada, with 3,000 jobs. That is just before noon. We are just getting going.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want empty promises and empty announcements. The minister can deflect, but the reality is that rent has skyrocketed. After years of costly Liberal housing failures, energy prices rise because the Liberal government's identity is to punish Canadian energy and target regular families.

With the Liberal Prime Minister, it is more costs, more inflation and more of the same. He is just another Liberal. Will he finally admit that his tax-and-spend agenda has failed, stop using the credit card and support the Conservative plan to make Canada affordable again?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for that member. There is almost $1 billion for a small craft harbours. The member may not speak to her constituents, but they speak to me. They are excited. They see this as an opportunity. I invite the member to speak to her constituents.

Aerospace Industry

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to describe a gullible listener, we used to say, “I have some swampland in Florida for you.” Now, thanks to the Minister of Defence, we can say a Canadian version: “I have a gravel pit in Nova Scotia for you.”

At the low cost of just $200 million, the Liberals are trying to build a spaceport. The problem is that the company that is leasing it is paying just $13,000, and construction will cost only $70 million.

If the construction is $70 million, and the lease is only $13,000, why are Canadians forking out $200 million?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have really good news. Today we announced our commitment to procure the GlobalEye, Saab's airborne early warning and control aircraft platform. This investment will open new opportunities for Canadian workers, and it is projected to create 3,000 jobs in the Canadian aerospace and defence sector. This is going to be a key resource for the Canadian Armed Forces to enhance our North American security by detecting and deterring threats across the Arctic and beyond.

We are just getting started.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague begged the Liberals to try to have some respect for this place and answer the questions, but that is the essence of the scam. It is just illusions. The Liberals have figured out how to turn a gravel pit into a money pit. It is more costs and more debt, all on the national credit card.

If everything is above board and hunky-dory, as the minister claims, why does he not table in the House the lease agreement and give us the details? While he is at it, maybe he could explain why it is Liberal insiders who lobbied for it and Liberal insiders who would benefit from it.

Will the minister come clean today and give us a copy of the agreement?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, they do not want to hear them, but here are the facts: enhanced recruitment, up 61%, the highest in 30 years; biggest pay raises in a generation; major infrastructure renewal on 33 bases; new rifles, new kit and new uniforms for women; 7,500 new housing units, 800 of which are under construction; serious investments in Arctic offshore patrol ships; P-8 maritime patrol aircraft; 11 new SkyGuardian drones; space-based polar communications; and Arctic over-the-horizon radar. We are just getting started.

Climate Change

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would say this, but those of us with an environmental conscience end up missing Justin Trudeau every so often. I sometimes find myself thinking that the Leader of the Opposition misses him too, but for different reasons, and I am sure the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie misses those days. He has finally had enough of the government and the Prime Minister backtracking all the time and giving up on the environment. They have literally forced out a highly credible spokesperson on environmental issues.

Does the government realize that its climate betrayal has gone way too far this time?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleague that our benches are full of members who are ready and willing to continue fighting climate change and protecting the environment. Canada is a global leader for its efforts, its nature strategy, its methane regulations and its international climate financing.

We are continuing to do the work, and we are doing it as a team.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed such a thing as climate change. We can combat the effects of climate change, but not by scrapping the carbon tax, not by funding new oil pipelines, not by suspending environmental assessments and abandoning biodiversity protection measures, not by scrapping greenhouse gas emission caps, and not by abandoning emission capping targets.

Will the government start listening and reverse course on its huge climate betrayal blunder?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take lessons from the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who authorized oil drilling on Anticosti Island.

If the member wants to talk about the work we are doing here, Canada is a global leader thanks to the work we do. When it comes to protecting nature, we just protected an area in British Columbia that is larger than Prince Edward Island.

We are continuing to make progress with our nature strategy. We have one of the cleanest power grids in the world. We plan to double its capacity through our electrification strategy, working with Hydro‑Québec and our other partners.

We are getting the job done.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the leader that there has been no drilling on Anticosti Island. Furthermore, the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie attempted to change the government and Canada from within. He failed, though I commend his courage in trying. As he said, he had little to no impact under Mr. Carney's government. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party's environment caucus—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The leader of the Bloc Québécois knows that members may not be referred to by name in the House.

He may continue.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I should have said “the Prime Minister”.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Party of Canada's environment caucus says that its job is not to talk about or protect the environment, but to support the Prime Minister. Now that the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie has left, is there anyone with an environmental conscience left in this government?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond again. We have a team here. The benches are full of members. We are united in building Canada, building it well, protecting the environment and fighting climate change. What we are seeing is that, with the electricity strategy, as I said, we have one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world.

When I spoke with Hydro‑Québec, they asked us how we could help them build better electricity grids in the province. That is what we will do through investment tax credits.

That is exactly what we need to ensure we continue to fight climate change.

Rail Transportation

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were promised that life would become more affordable if they trusted the Liberal government. Instead, families are falling further behind as the cost of everything keeps rising. After years of reckless spending, inflation, debt and more taxes, the Liberal Prime Minister is proving more costly than Justin Trudeau.

How does the Liberal government justify spending $90 billion, which is more than its entire deficit, on the Alto rail boondoggle in a transportation corridor that is already the most heavily serviced in Canada?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of the podcasts, bizarre workout videos and empty parking lot press conferences. They are tired of it.

On this side of the House, we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. Abroad, we are signing trade deals that bring billions of dollars to our country. At home, we are cutting taxes. It is time for the Conservatives to put down the kettlebells and help us build Canada strong.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will ask members to try to refrain from provocation.

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from desperate Canadians who are frustrated that the Liberal government prioritizes wasteful projects over the needs of families. In Haldimand—Norfolk, people are crushed by the cost of gas and basic necessities and the price of groceries, and they are choosing to pay their bills rather than putting food on the table. Now the government wants to spend $90 billion on a rail line that most people will never use, while Canadians are lining up at food banks just to survive.

Which Liberal insider stands to profit from this tax—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Minister of Jobs and Families.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, constituents I am meeting in my riding are talking about the changes in their lives through the Canada dental care plan. People who have never been able to get dental care, who have not been covered by plans, for the first time in their lives are able to see the dentist. People with young children who have not been able to bring their children for dental care now have coverage.

Let us talk about child care for a minute. Over 900,000 children are benefiting from child care, and families in Ontario, that member's province, are now seeing savings of, on average, $13,000 per child. These are all things the Conservatives voted against.

Government Priorities

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were billed $195,000 for inflight catering for the Prime Minister for three trips: Scottish salmon fillet, sautéed beef with world-famous creamy sauce and, for dessert, luxury Normandy butter cups. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends on his elite palate was first taken from a hard-working Canadian. This Prime Minister means more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card.

Will he cut out his fine dining and rein in his inflationary spending, so Canadians can afford to eat?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister travels, does the member know what happens? He brings back jobs. He brings back investment. He brings back opportunity for indigenous people to participate with equity in projects. He brings back technology. He brings back expertise. He brings back military and industrial benefits to Canada.

The Prime Minister travels. Oh yes, he does, and do members know what he does? He brings back jobs, investment and energy to Canada.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is the member saying that $195,000 for steak and fine wine is necessary for the Prime Minister to do his job? That is shameful.

In April alone in Canada, Canadians saw gas rise 28%, food rise 3% and hydro rise 20%. At a time like this, Canadians expect fiscal restraint because, for them, the cost of food and shelter is more than 125% of their income.

If the Prime Minister really wants luxury Normandy butter cups, can he just put them on his own credit card instead of on the backs of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, we can be proud to have a Prime Minister who not only is travelling across the world to bring back investment and jobs but also is working in a very difficult environment across the world as the international rules order is shifting. That is what Canadians expect.

We were able to create jobs across this country. We have been able to create more than 70,000 jobs since last fall, and we will continue to do so.

Taxation

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we see another month gone and another disastrous report card on Liberal affordability measures. Food inflation is up, yet nobody on the Liberal benches can tell me their plan to increase food production. Rent is up, despite a fourth housing bureaucracy presented as a silver bullet. Now gas prices have surged 28% in April, the largest monthly increase ever recorded. Liberals promised relief, but instead, food, rent and fuel are further out of reach.

Today the Liberals have an opportunity to bring down food and fuel prices by taking all the tax off all the fuel for the rest of the year. Will the costly Liberal Prime Minister and his get-along gang vote in favour today?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians voted in this new government to get results, and that is what we are doing.

The member opposite voted against every measure we are taking to support Manitobans. We are investing in housing, infrastructure and aerospace. In fact, I just met with students from the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union, Local 254. They are so excited about our Red Seal program and are working hard to get that $5,000 bonus. I do not understand why the member opposite keeps voting against these measures.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in typical Liberal fashion, there was nothing about the fuel tax.

The Liberals' half measure on fuel tax is just three months away from expiring. Does the member know any Canadians who have felt real relief? I sure do not. In fact, the only people I see waving the “mission accomplished” flag are people like the minister who are Liberals. Everyone knows that it will take years to truly solve the Liberal inflation crisis. The least these tired, costly Liberals could do is give Canadians a real break on all their fuel taxes.

Is the Liberal plan really to tell Canadians that their affordability crisis will be solved by the end of summer? Seriously? Why do they not take all the tax off all the fuel for the rest of the year and give Canadians some real relief today?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we focus on affordability. They are focused on bluster. We just paused the consumer excise tax on gas, which is 10¢ a litre. Combine that with the cut—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We need to lower the decibels.

The hon. secretary of state may continue.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we cut the excise tax on gas, which was 10¢ a litre. We cut the consumer carbon tax, which was 18¢ a litre. That is 28¢ a litre for Canadians when they fill up at the pump.

That side continues to vote against every affordability measure we have ever put forward. They do not have Canadians' interests at heart.

We are going to focus on delivering affordability for Canadians on this side of the House.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Windsor families are tired of being failed by this Liberal government. They are paying about 30¢ more per litre of gasoline than people across the river in Detroit.

This Liberal Prime Minister is the same as the previous one. He is very expensive and has nothing to show for his spending. All we get from him is more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card.

We Conservatives have a real plan. Canadian families are looking for relief. Let us provide it by removing all federal gas taxes for one year, with no more half measures.

When will the Liberal government get it done?

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Secretary of State (Labour)]

Mr. Speaker, that member knows very well that we have taken a number of initiatives that have helped Windsor families. People in Windsor know that the member has voted against every one of those measures.

However, what we know is that it is time to invest and build. Canada is building again. Today, we announced Canada's first European LNG agreement, which will attract more than $30 billion in investment. We are building new nuclear in Ontario, critical mineral projects in Quebec, like the Nouveau Monde Graphite's Matawinie mine project, and in the Prairies, major infrastructure across the country from Newfoundland and Labrador—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

Intergovernmental Affairs

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, drawing on his deep understanding of Quebec, the Prime Minister, who said a few months ago that the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was just one big hug fest, very clearly told us yesterday that he thinks a majority of 50% plus one on sovereignty issues is unclear. In that case, I think we ought to start by overturning the 1995 referendum and starting all over.

Evidently, this time he should have minded his own business. The Quebec National Assembly reminded him of that with a unanimous motion. There are about 170 Liberal members here, about 40 of whom are from Quebec. I want to know if the members—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can help the leader of the Bloc Québécois. I think I know what question he was going to ask. The answer is the same as it was earlier this week.

I realize that the Bloc Québécois members are experts at picking fights, sowing division and creating controversy where none exists. As my colleagues just said, we are fundamentally focused on issues that matter to Quebeckers and all Canadians. We are trying to work with the Quebec government, as well as with businesses and workers in Quebec and across Canada. That remains our priority, and things are going well.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly was unanimous in not sharing that view. Some people support sovereignty. Others are on the fence. Some people say they want it later, and some do not want it at all. However, Quebeckers all agree that they have the right to make their own decisions, 30 years on from the shenanigans surrounding the previous referendum.

Are the Prime Minister and the government telling Quebeckers that they should not count on Ottawa to defend democracy and their rights and that they can only count on their own will as Quebeckers?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Bloc Québécois is once again trying to create division and controversy where there is none. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois is well aware, we are working with our Bloc colleagues and with all MPs to find ways to address the U.S. tariff threat and support the businesses and workers across Canada that are dealing with completely unjustified tariff threats.

We will continue to do this work and I would like the Bloc Québécois to work with us on these issues that are important to Quebec.

The Economy

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, food insecurity is a very real problem. In my region of Chaudière–Appalaches, demand is skyrocketing. One food aid organization has seen a 66% surge in visitors in just three years. The situation is so critical that some organizations will soon have to tighten up their eligibility criteria and, unfortunately, turn away families and requests for help. As we know, the increase in demand is caused by this government's costly policies.

When will the Liberal Prime Minister finally help Canadians pay their bills and feed their families properly?

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. We sit together on a committee and always have lively discussions.

What perplexes me about her speeches in the House is that I get the impression there is a disconnect between what she advocates for in committee and what she calls for in the House. She is always very keen to support community organizations, prioritizing support for families and women, yet that is not what I hear once we are in this chamber.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government's housing and inflation crisis is tearing families apart. Rents have jumped 3.6% in one year. Since 2021, there has been a 31% increase. Today, food insecurity is so severe that some Canadians have to spend 120% of their income just to put food on the table or pay for housing.

When is this Liberal government going to put an end to its costly, out-of-control budgets and finally take the cost-of-living crisis seriously? Now would be best.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, we take this very seriously, particularly the housing crisis. We have established a federal agency called Build Canada Homes. It is rare for federal agencies to be created. Under this agency, the government's priority is affordable housing. We understand that. A large portion of people's income goes toward housing. This is especially true in the riding I represent, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est.

This is the government's top priority.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I met with many constituents of Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier over the past few weeks, and it is glaringly obvious that the cost of living has become unaffordable. Seniors and young people are paying dearly for the effects of this Liberal government. For 10 years, the Liberals have tried program after program. Nothing has worked. Alarm bells should be ringing now that people are being forced to dip into their savings just to put food on the table.

When is the Liberal Prime Minister going to stop recklessly wasting money on Canadians' credit card and start making life more affordable for Canadians?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hochelaga—Rosemont‑Est just asked a highly relevant question. What is inflationary spending? The Conservatives tell us that our spending is making life harder for Canadians. However, people rely on dental care. People rely on the Canada child benefit. People rely on the GST rebate for groceries. Conservative MPs seem to object to these measures, but we cannot understand why. Do they have a plan to help people, or is it all just empty opposition rhetoric?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are out of touch, which is unfortunate. The member should have listened to my question. I will ask another one.

There was a global energy crisis in 2014. The price of a barrel of oil was $100, but the price at the pump was only $1.34 a litre. That was during the Harper era. Today, the price of a barrel of oil is the same, but gas costs 40¢ more per litre. That is the result of Liberal policies.

Will the Liberal Prime Minister take the bull by the horns and implement measures to help Canadians make ends meet?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we will not take any lessons from those Conservatives. Rather than standing up and asking the same question over and over every day this week, my colleague, whom I respect, should instead stand up and vote in favour of Bill C-30, a bill that will put more money in the pockets of 12 million Canadians. I know people in Portneuf who will be happy about that.

Will the member do the right thing for the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier? I know they are listening today, and they expect their member of Parliament to stand up for them when they need some support.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are throwing out all sorts of statistics to make us believe things are going well. However, it is always the same story: higher costs, higher taxes, more debt and more credit card spending. For me, the real statistics are what I see when I am out in my community. People constantly tell me they have to make choices just to put food on the table and pay the rent, something they never had to do before.

Will the government finally get the message and stop making Canadian families pay for its costly mismanagement?

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague explained, Build Canada Homes is there for affordable housing. We are welcoming athletes to Ottawa today and making sport affordable through a $755-million investment to make sport accessible to all. We are developing projects and programs for our society on so many issues, including tax cuts. On this side of the House, we are taking swift action to help the people in our ridings. In my riding of Thérèse‑De Blainville, I can say that organizations are thanking us for everything we are doing for our constituents.

Sport

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watched with pride as over 250 Canadian athletes competed this year in the Milano Cortina Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Nothing makes us prouder than cheering on team Canada, so can the Secretary of Sport tell us how the Government of Canada is supporting these incredible athletes?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville knows what it takes to be an Olympic medallist, an Olympian. He has raced the marathon at the Olympic Games for team Canada, so I thank him very much.

Today we welcome the 2026 team Canada Olympic and Paralympic athletes to Parliament Hill. Every time team Canada athletes compete, they represent our country and wear the maple leaf. It makes us proud.

Our world-class teams and athletes deserve a world-class sport system. That is why we are building Canada strong, from playground to podium, by investing over $755 million into the Canadian sport system over the next five years to improve access to higher sport participation, host more international sporting events and support our incredible national team athletes.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 74,000, three‑quarters the size of Red Deer, is the number of rejected refugees still in Canada getting luxury, taxpayer-funded health care that Canadians can only dream of. They are supposed to be deported, not given better care than those paying for it. Worse, the Liberal government has lost track of 28,000 of these fraudsters. They have vanished into our communities and are still billing Canadians.

Where are these 28,000 fraudsters, and when will the Liberal government deport them?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, this is a temporary program for health coverage. It covers essential services. The cost is tied to volumes. The good news, which the Conservatives do not want to hear, is that we brought the volumes down by 59% because of a Liberal budget, because of a Liberal bill. As the PBO said this week, we will save taxpayers over $400 million annually.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal House leader defended luxury health benefits for asylum claimants whom his own government rejected, stating they are “the most vulnerable people on...earth”. Really? How about William Imona-Russel, the rejected asylum claimant who raped two women and murdered a 20-year-old girl while still in Canada? Under the Liberals, criminals like him remain eligible for luxury health benefits like physiotherapy and home care.

Do the Liberals still believe these rejected asylum claimants deserve better health benefits than Canadians?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that criminals should be in jail. We believe that criminals should be prosecuted to the full—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. government House leader, from the top, please.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that criminals should be prosecuted and jailed to the full extent of the law. We also believe that Canada has an obligation under international treaties to accept vulnerable people from war-torn and ravaged areas around this world. Every single Canadian I know, except perhaps that member, would give care to a vulnerable human being who arrives on Canadian shores and needs our care.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal asylum system is a dumpster fire. The minister told Canadians the government stopped paying for asylum seekers' accommodations, but it is now simply bankrolling municipalities to do that for it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has found that nearly 74,000 failed asylum claimants are also still receiving luxury health benefits. After a year, the Prime Minister's immigration system looks like the anniversary edition of the last 10.

Will the Prime Minister stand up, admit that his Justin Trudeau-inspired immigration policies have failed and finally end the luxury health benefits for failed asylum claimants?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I know that member and I respect him, and I know he knows that I am here to manage immigration and migration responsibly to strengthen our rural communities. That is exactly what we are doing. Our asylum claims are down 59%. The PBO confirmed with us that because of the measures we have taken with co-pays and with Bill C-12, we will be reducing those costs by $400 million annually. We will continue to protect those who are in need of protection.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a non-citizen on a student visa organized major theft from an Alberta store not once, but 14 times. They were convicted of a major crime under Canada's Criminal Code, which carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison.

They should have been deported, as the law requires, but today we found out that they were not. The National Post reported that a judge gave them a sweetheart deal, house arrest, so that they could avoid deportation. By voting against our bill to ensure non-citizen criminals do not get sweetheart sentences, the Liberals sent a message that it is okay for non-citizens to commit major crimes.

Why?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that there is nothing in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that allows judges to discount any sentences. She also knows that, Canadian or not, no one can commit a crime on Canadian soil with impunity, including those who are on asylum and anyone else. We have brought in measures. We have brought in criminal bills. The Conservatives keep avoiding voting with us. We expect them to let us, in the next couple of weeks—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. There is not anything in the Criminal Code. That is why we put forward a bill to put something in the Criminal Code to stop this. When she had an opportunity to sway the justice minister to support the bill, the man who created the massive Liberal dumpster fire that she is perpetuating, she said, “No, it is fine.”

Today, the Liberals are defending this abysmal practice. This is divisive post-nationalism that the Liberals have put forward for years. The respect for the rule of law is a minimum requirement for anybody in our country, and when they erode that, they erode our national identity. Every normal Canadian would agree with this.

Why do the Liberals not agree?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the issue that the member raises has been an issue in Canada for a number of years. She should know well that the Supreme Court of Canada, in 2013, actually ruled on this specific issue. What is interesting about the timeline of that decision is that she was sitting in the federal cabinet at the time and chose to do absolutely nothing about it.

For our part, we are in the midst of launching the most serious set of criminal law reforms to strengthen the Criminal Code that this country has seen in generations. Regardless of one's immigration status, if they commit a serious crime, they should be met with a serious penalty and, where a court deems appropriate, that can and should include deportation.

Public Safety

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister called Beijing Canada's greatest security threat. That was during the election. Despite this, within a year, he signed a memorandum of understanding with Communist China as it relates to security matters. I have been asking for that memorandum of understanding for over five months. The minister and the Prime Minister have refused to disclose it.

When will they produce the memorandum of understanding that was signed with Communist China?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Canada has had an MOU with China on combatting crime in various forms since 2010. These have never been made public. As with the potential release of any sensitive national security document, we are carefully following the advice of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. We will continue to work collaboratively with international and law enforcement partners to combat transnational criminal networks to keep Canadians safe. Canada will always be guided by three principles, including the rule of law, protection of Canadians and the defence of—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about history, let us talk about history. When in the past did a Prime Minister call Beijing Canada's greatest security threat, and then within a year sign a memorandum of understanding? Never before had we heard stories of foreign interference to the same degree. Never before had a Prime Minister said exactly what he said.

Why is he unprepared to shine the light? The Liberals do not want to shine the light and they do not want to inform Canadians. Will they do it today, yes or no?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that we have had some form of an agreement on safety and security since 2010 with China. They have never been made public, including under the opposition who were in government at that time. We will continue to work in collaboration with law enforcement and with our international partners to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. We are a country of the rule of law and we will be guided to protect Canadians and to defend Canada's democracy and sovereignty.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago, Canadians did not feel safe on their own streets. After a year of the same old Liberal government, they are now afraid in their own homes. In Cambridge, people are being attacked where they sleep. A 60-year-old senior was assaulted in his own home. A homeowner had his wallet taken while the offenders also tried to steal his car. In the middle of the night, a woman was sexually assaulted by a stranger who broke into her home. This is what happens when repeat offenders are let back out instead of being kept behind bars. Canadians are paying the price.

How much worse does it have to get before these Liberals stop letting criminals cycle through the system and start keeping Canadians safe in their own homes?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been working aggressively to put forward many pieces of legislation, a record number, over eight pieces of legislation, in the House that address these issues and that address public safety, to make more changes to the Criminal Code of Canada than any other government has made.

We are strengthening bail laws and we are making sentences longer, but the provinces also have to do their part. What we have heard is that many Crown attorneys dismiss charges, even to the point where we have seen prisoners accidentally released. The provinces, too, have to resource their courtrooms.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal minister just told Canadians to feel safer because they proposed a band-aid for a system they broke. Canadians do not need another paper promise. They need to be safe in their own homes. The Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws let repeat offenders walk free and come right back through Canadians' front doors. Police are forced to arrest the same offenders again and again because the system keeps letting them out.

Criminals are not getting the message and are getting bolder because they know they will not face real consequences. A system that will not keep them behind bars is not protection. It is failure. It is like putting a screen door on a submarine; it is completely useless.

When will they shut down this revolving door and start protecting Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are strengthening penalties and we are giving law enforcement the tools they need to catch criminals. Just last week, Peel Regional Police arrested over 65 individuals connected to organized retail crime. These are criminals who were going out and looting our small businesses. We are working to make sure that bail laws are strengthened.

Do members know who has been getting in the way? The Conservatives have. Time and time again, police chiefs across the country are telling us they need the tools in Bill C-22 and the—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Sport

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watched with pride as more than 250 Canadians competed in the Milano Cortina Olympic and Paralympic Games this year. Nothing makes us prouder than cheering on team Canada.

Can the Secretary of State for Sport tell us how the Government of Canada is supporting these outstanding athletes?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, today we welcome the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic athletes from team Canada. They represent our country and wear the maple leaf and we could not be more proud.

Our world-class teams and athletes deserve a world-class sport system. We are building Canada strong from playground to podium by investing over $750 million to strengthen Canada's sport system.

I congratulate all members of team Canada. Go, Canada, go!

National Defence

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after much hype, the Minister of National Defence paraded the Snowbirds in front of the media for all of Canada to see. He then shamefully announced that the Snowbird team was grounded after the 2026 season and that the people behind them were losing their jobs.

Which Liberal government was wrong, the one that spent $30 million to keep them flying or the one that is prematurely grounding them? Both L3Harris and Magellan Aerospace, who inspected the jets, say the Tutors are safe to fly until 2030.

Was the squadron ever asked if the team could fly until 2030?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action to ensure that Canadians can continue—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan should allow the minister to answer the question.

The minister can begin from the top.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action to ensure that Canadians can continue to enjoy the iconic nine-plane Snowbird formation for generations to come, and the member knows that. Instead of hyping things up, why does he not work with us? We announced a commitment to procure the CT-157, the Pilatus C-21, that will serve both the future Snowbirds team and pilot training. This new capability will be based at 15 Wing Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and is expected to be operational by the latest in the early 2030s. We intend to procure these aircraft quickly and we will do so.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if they are safe to fly now, why are they not safe to fly next year? The Liberal government took over a decade to sign the F-35 contract, which is now under review and delayed. If the Snowbird replacement follows that timeline, the team will not fly again until the 2040s.

For 55 years, the Snowbirds have been a jet team. The replacement the minister has announced is a propeller aircraft. Who made the decision not to pick jets?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, what we will not do on this side of the House is take our lead from social media sites. What we will do is work with the Royal Canadian Air Force. We will listen to the experts there. That is exactly what we have done. As the air force advances its air and space modernization efforts, we remain firmly committed to a future air demonstration capability that continues this proud legacy. Canadians across North America can look forward to the Snowbirds' distinctive nine-plane formation for generations to come in an outstanding replacement plane.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Rural Development, the only Liberal MP in Saskatchewan, called the grounding of the Snowbirds and the potential loss—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That was not provocative and it created disorder, so we will let the member start from the top, please.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Rural Development, the only Liberal MP in Saskatchewan, called the grounding of the Snowbirds and the potential loss of 80 jobs a very, very joyous and happy event. Given his track record for 26 years as an MLA, including eight as a cabinet minister for the NDP, this is not surprising. He destroyed our province for a generation, and he is living up to that record so far in his first term in Ottawa.

The Snowbirds are a Canadian icon, so why are the Liberals not keeping their promise and keeping this national symbol?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before we start, I would remind the member to go through the Chair, please.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, more Liberals from Saskatchewan are coming, so the cavalry is on its way.

We will take no lessons from the Conservatives over there. Why? Because they did nothing for 10 long years.

Since their absence from Saskatchewan to come over here and do nothing, what has happened back home? This headline reads, “Saskatchewan Value Added Agricultural Revenue Reaches Record $8.4 Billion”, which is twice as much as 10 years ago when you guys left Saskatchewan, so we will not take any lessons from you guys—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I did not live in Saskatchewan. I never left it. It is a great province, but I never lived in Saskatchewan and I never left it.

The hon. member for Cardigan.

Indigenous Affairs

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow, but as we are dealing with climate change, and it continues to increase the frequency and severity of emergencies like flooding, wildfires and storms, it is critical that indigenous communities are recognized as equal partners in emergency preparedness and response efforts that keep community members safe.

Can the Minister of Indigenous Services update this House on the historic agreement signed with the Abegweit First Nation and the Government of P.E.I., and on how our government is advancing indigenous-led approaches to emergency management and community resilience in P.E.I. and across the country?

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, we have just signed a historic, first-of-its-kind, multilateral emergency management agreement among the Abegweit First Nation, the Government of P.E.I. and our new government. I want to thank Chief Gould and his council for hosting this important event. The agreement recognizes Abegweit First Nation as a full and equal partner in emergency management. It strengthens planning, preparedness and coordination in regionally specific ways that are culturally appropriate and responsive to community needs.

Working in partnerships with indigenous people is something I am proud of doing.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, after the Prime Minister took office, China announced a 25% tariff on Canadian seafood. A few months later, I was sitting right here listening to the Liberals brag about how they sold out the automotive industry, allowing thousands of Chinese spy cars onto our streets, to save the seafood industry, but that deal covered only two species. Other seafoods, including sea cucumber, are still at 25% tariffs.

Will the Prime Minister go to the wharves and speak with the Canadians whose jobs are at risk to justify this fishy deal?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the member that I meet regularly with harvesters on the wharves, as well as here in Ottawa and across the country. I also meet with ambassadors across this country to bring forward the need for our seafood to enter into markets. I have colleagues who are doing the same thing.

I am going to ask the member if he is going to support small craft harbours, with almost $1 billion dollars in support for this industry. I will be watching how he votes.

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we will hear the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie address the House one last time.

I thank him. I salute him. He is a man of integrity and courage.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Will she find the courage to fight for climate? Will she find the courage to fight for our future?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the House and all Canadians that I and the entire team of people on the Liberal benches fight every day against climate change. We fight for good, strong climate policy that is unifying and pragmatic, and it will work. We are taking action. We are protecting nature. We are protecting the environment.

We are going to continue to do that work because we know that is what is best to build a strong Canada.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of three delegations: the delegation of Commonwealth Parliamentarians, hosted by the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; Andrew Parsons, president of the International Paralympic Committee; and the recipients of the 2026 Terry Fox Humanitarian Award.

It being 3:17 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 30, the House will now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to welcome Canada's 2026 Milano Cortina Olympic and Paralympic Games athletes.

(House in committee of the whole to recognize the 2026 Winter Olympic Games and Paralympic Games athletes, Francis Scarpaleggia in the chair)

And Canada's 2026 Olympic and Paralympic athletes being present in the chamber:

Canada's Olympic and Paralympic Athletes

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

On April 30, 2026, the following motion was adopted by unanimous consent of the House:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole in order to welcome Canada's 2026 Milano Cortina Olympic and Paralympic Games athletes, provided that: (a) the Speaker make welcoming remarks on behalf of the House; (b) the names of the athletes present be deemed read and printed in the House of Commons Debates for that day; (c) when the proceedings of the committee have concluded, the committee shall rise; and (d) only authorized photographers be permitted to take photos during the proceedings of the committee.

I know that my hon. colleagues are as excited as I am to welcome these extraordinary Canadians. We have many athletes to celebrate, too many to fit all together at once in the chamber, so we will be welcoming them in two waves.

This means that we must be patient and disciplined to ensure that everything runs smoothly.

I draw the attention of colleagues to the last item of the motion I have just read and ask members not to take photos during the proceedings.

Now it is my great privilege and pleasure to welcome onto the floor of the House of Commons Canada's Olympians and Paralympians from the 2026 Milano Cortina Games.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Members and athletes sang the national anthem]

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Dear athletes, you are nothing short of extraordinary.

“Extraordinary” is the word that describes each one of you.

You inspire us with your dedication to excellence and your commitment to bringing out the best in yourselves, thanks to the years of training, sacrifice and the determination it takes to become the best.

We also recognize that no one achieves the heights of Olympus without a team, so let us celebrate the coaches, families, administrative and support teams, staff and the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic committees for their hard work and dedication. Through all your efforts, team Canada won 21 medals, including five gold, during the Olympic Games; and 15 medals, including three gold, during the Paralympic Games.

On behalf of all parliamentarians, thank you. You made us so very proud.

Thank you all for coming here today.

We will now welcome the next group of Olympic and Paralympic athletes.

[members]

Hear, hear!

[Members and athletes sang the national anthem]

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Bonjour and welcome to you all.

Welcome to Parliament.

On behalf of my colleagues here in the House, it is a great pleasure to welcome you today. Canadians across the country are so proud of you. Everyone appreciates the years of training, sacrifice and determination it takes to become a world-class athlete.

Your example of hard work and dedication in the pursuit of your sport is such a source of inspiration. You motivate all of us to perform to the best of our abilities, no matter what our field of endeavour, and in this way, you are helping to build a better and stronger Canada. Indeed, that is the power of greatness. It expands beyond the individual and touches everyone.

We are so proud to have you with us today, and we want to recognize the special people who have been by your side on your journey to excellence, the coaches and your families, as well as the administrative and support teams and the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic committees, for their constant support.

Thanks to your efforts, the Canadian team won 21 medals, including five gold medals, at the Olympic Games, and 15 medals, including three gold medals, at the Paralympic Games.

On behalf of all members of Parliament, I would like to thank you for representing our country so well. We are proud of you.

Before I end, I would like to say, pursuant to the order made on Thursday, April 30, the names of the Olympic and Paralympic athletes are deemed read and will be printed in the Debates of the House.

Canada's 2026 Olympic and Paralympic athletes:

Brooke Ailey, Kailey Allan, Cynthia Appiah, Emma Archibald, Rob Armstrong, Taylor Austin, Jesse Bachinsky, Evan Bichon, Danaé Blais, Ivanie Blondin, Vincent Boily, Olivia Bouffard-Nesbitt, Mackenzie Boyd-Clowes, Rachel Brown, Florence Brunelle, Cédrick Brunet, Josip Brusic, Kaylie Buck, Collin Cameron, Florence Carrier, Jane Channell, Hallie Clarke, Skye Clarke, Dominic Cozzolino, Antoine Cyr, William Dandjinou, Gilbert Dash, Jay Dearborn, Dylan Deschamps, Maxime Deschamps, Laurianne Desmarais-Gilbert, Brooke D'Hondt, Rikki Doak, Jasmine Drolet, Rémi Drolet, Kevin Drury, Laurent Dubreuil, James Dunn, Trinity Ellis, Kalle Eriksson, Mike Evelyn O'Higgins, Jasper Fleming, Tracy Fleury, Ina Forrest, Amy Fraser, Liliane Gagnon, Brett Gallant, Elena Gaskell, Arnaud Gaudet, Felicity Geremia, Rachel Germain, Piper Gilles, Dillan Glennie, Stephen Gogolev, Alexis Guimond, Auren Halbert, Daniel Hall, Laura Hall, Sandrine Hamel, Ben Heldman, Tyrone Henry, Liam Hickey, Carolina Hiller-Donnelly, Maximillian Hollmann, Chris Holmstead, Elizabeth Hosking, Brittany Hudak, Mark Ideson, Lewis Irving, Anton Jacobs-Webb, Brianne Jenner, Anders Johnson, Collinda Joseph, Rachael Karker, Adam Kingsmill, Ashley Koehler, David La Rue, Marjorie Lajoie, Maxime Laoun, Marie-Jade Lauriault, Romain Le Gac, Jessica Linton, Andrew Longino, Melissa Lotholz, Brendan Mackay, Alison Mackie, Valérie Maltais, Dylan Marineau, Emerance Maschmeyer, Alexander Massie, Nicole Maurer, Brooklyn McDougall, Evan McEachran, Tyler McGregor, Xavier McKeever, Audrey McManiman, Trennt Michaud, Emma Miskew, Kelsey Mitchell, Liam Moffatt, Aurélie Moisan, Madison Mullin, Ali Nullmeyer, Kurt Oatway, Megan Oldham, Pascale Paradis, Lia Pereira, Jocelyn Peterman, Christina Picton, Beattie Podulsky, Paul Poirier, Bianca Ribi, Dawn Richardson Wilson, Gavin Rowell, Brian Rowland, Leo Sammarelli, Courtney Sarault, Maddie Schizas, Hannah Schmidt, Cassie Sharpe, Skylar Sieben, Amelia Smart, Cameron Spalding, Deanna Stellato-Dudek, Thomas Stephen, Katherine Stewart-Jones, Laurence St-Germain, Luka Stoikos, Abigail Strate, Embyr-Lee Susko, Marion Thénault, Marielle Thompson, Jon Thurston, Tyler Turner, Naomi Urness, Elliot Vaillancourt, Devin Wardrope, Isabelle Weidemann, Amelia Wells, Greg Westlake, Sarah Wilkes, Natalie Wilkie and Mark Zanette.

And Canada’s 2026 Olympic and Paralympic athletes having left the Chamber:

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The committee will now rise.

The House resumed from May 26 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:50 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Richmond—Arthabaska relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The question is as follows.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

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

Vote #126

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from May 25 consideration of the motion that Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assault against persons who provide health services and first responders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill S-233 under Private Members' Business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, and we are enthusiastically supporting the bill.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats also agree to apply the vote, and we enthusiastically support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote, thank the good lord, and vote yes.

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

Vote #127

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

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

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Public Safety and National Security

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to virtually present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, entitled “Canada-United States Border Management”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Georgina's Law

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

moved that Bill S-242, An Act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence, be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to introduce Bill S-242, an act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence, also known as Georgina's Law.

This is an initiative by our colleague Senator Fabian Manning, who decided to take action after meeting with Georgina McGrath, a survivor of domestic violence.

This bill proposes that the government pursue, on a permanent basis, national action to combat violence against women and intimate partner violence, while also—and this is important to emphasize—requiring accountability for its performance.

Here are some statistics. In Quebec, there have already been 10 femicides since January alone. Across Canada, a woman or girl is killed every 48 hours in an act of gender-based violence. There has been a 76% increase in sexual assault in Canada. We are facing a national crisis affecting women.

Bill S-242 will serve as the guiding principle that brings together every province, every territory, and every community so that everyone can mobilize, unite, and overcome this challenge.

Bill S-242 is another tool in our arsenal for protecting women.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

Public Safety

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today.

The first one is regarding the alarming increase in repeat violent offenders being released on bail. The petitioners have witnessed a sharp increase in car theft, gang violence and drug-related deaths. In fact, one constituent warned me about a car theft at my house just this week. Violent crimes have increased by 50%. Violent gun crime has surged by 116%. In 2022, 256 Canadians were tragically killed by people out on bail, thanks to Liberal catch-and-release policies under Bill C-75.

The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Justice, urgently, to reform Canada's bail laws and restore safety on our streets.

Salmon Fishery

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is regarding the ongoing challenges British Columbians are facing regarding recreational access to coho and chinook in British Columbia.

Constituents are calling in good faith on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to leave the current salmon allocation policy alone and to uphold the cultural rights and traditions of all British Columbians to access fish, especially on the Fraser River.

Agriculture

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I would like to present today is on behalf of Canadian organic growers who are concerned about the closure of the organic and regenerative research program at the Swift Current Research and Development Centre.

Petitioners note that this was the only dedicated organic research initiative within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Therefore, they call on the government to reinstate the program and strengthen public research in organic and regenerative agriculture within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to align with the government's own goals of increasing agricultural exports abroad.

Freedom of Speech

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise and present a petition signed by Canadians from across my province of Saskatchewan, and actually many from my riding of Saskatoon South, who strongly oppose Bill C-9 for its infringement upon the fundamental right of free speech. Many of the people who signed the petition in Saskatchewan in the last couple of months came to Saskatoon as we held a round table, and many of these people are upset with Bill C-9 and what the current government is doing with the infringement of their rights.

Canada Revenue Agency

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today on behalf of fellow chartered professional accountants and other tax preparers who are concerned about how the Canada Revenue Agency authorizes its tax representatives. The petitioners point out that the CRA has moved to an online-only system, through “My Account”, creating real barriers for Canadians. Seniors, those with disabilities and those who have unreliable Internet and digital skills are left behind. It is unfair. Many of these individuals rely on trusted tax preparers to help them meet their obligations. Under the previous system, only a year ago, certified e-filers could securely and efficiently process authorizations on behalf of their clients. That process worked up until a year ago, but now it has become difficult to get the representatives authorized.

The petitioners acknowledge the importance of preventing fraud. However, they believe the current system unfairly penalizes the vast majority of honest taxpayers and tax professionals because of the actions of a small number of bad actors. They are calling on the government to direct the CRA to restore the accessible authorization methods for approved tax preparers and to ensure that fraud prevention efforts are targeted only at those who are bad actors.

Wealth Inequality

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to table this petition on behalf of people living in Port Alberni, in my riding. They highlight and want to draw the House of Commons' attention to these facts: that wealth inequality in Canada is rising, with more Canadians struggling to afford the basics of life while corporate profits continue to break records; that austerity measures often exacerbate inequality; that the federal government is implementing austerity measures, including a massive cut of $25 billion to publicly funded jobs and programs that Canadians rely on; that the federal government has cut and plans on further cutting taxes on the wealthy; and that climate change is worsening, causing Canadians a projected $25 billion in losses each year.

The petitioners highlight that a wealth tax could, as per the Centre for Policy Alternatives, generate more than $32 billion in its first year alone. They are calling on the government to reverse the sweeping cuts to Canadian jobs and services and to put forward a bill to fund good-paying jobs, public services and the transition to a sustainable economy by making corporations and the wealthiest Canadians pay their fair share.

Human Rights in Iran

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of over 1,000 residents of Kingston and the Islands and surrounding communities, I am pleased to present a petition that highlights the limits to freedoms that exist around communication, Internet access, etc., in Iran. In particular, they are calling on the federal government to assist in maintaining Internet access for those who are affected, to advocate for investigations into humanitarian violations, to support international initiatives to protect detained citizens and to facilitate humanitarian pathways for family reunification.

Registered Disability Savings Plan

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a petition today on behalf of residents of Perth—Wellington who are advocating for Canadians living with disabilities. They are calling for an increase in the lifetime contribution for the RDSP and, further, that these contributions be indexed annually to the rate of inflation.

Arms Exports

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from constituents of the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, because the constituents tell me their MP would not table it.

The petitioners note that Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019, committing to prevent the transfer of arms where there is a substantial risk that they could be used in human rights abuses, war crimes or crimes against humanity. They also note that a significant loophole in Canada's export laws currently allows Canadian-made weapons, parts and components to be exported to the United States, from where they may be transferred to third countries. They note that international bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council, and independent UN experts have called on all states to halt arms transfers where there is a substantial risk of their use in violations of international humanitarian law.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to enact legislation to close existing loopholes in Canada's arms export laws, including removing exemptions for the U.S., strengthening oversight and ensuring that Canadian arms are never used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we return to petitions, I just want to remind members to not provide extraneous information to the House that has nothing to do with the context of the petition, such as referencing whether another member did or did not want to table a petition.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Canada Pension Plan

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

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting an e-petition that has the signatures of just under 5,000 Canadians, raising an issue that seems pretty much a no-brainer.

The death benefit from the Canadian pension plan has been frozen at the same level since 1998, at $2,500. Obviously, the cost of living and the cost of a funeral, the cost of dying, in this country have more than doubled since 1998.

Since many Canadians outlive their savings, the petitioners are asking the House of Commons to consider that the CPP top-up death benefit really applies only to people who have never received CPP. The number of people who are suffering and who are living below the poverty line calls us to consider this: that the House of Commons and the government increase the CPP death benefit.

Petitioners have calculated the inflation-adjusted 2025 value of where the benefit was in 1998, so they are calling on the government to increase the CPP death benefit to $6,400 and to provide tax deductions and credits for families for funeral expenses and other final expenses, to help all Canadian families afford a dignified funeral and burial for their loved ones.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035 and 1036 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Motions for Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some. hon. members]

Agreed.

Premature Disclosure of a Bill and its Elements to a Third Party

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege that the Bloc Québécois raised the other day. I would like to add a few comments for the Speaker's consideration.

I think the specific situation described by the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères speaks to a worrying, broader trend with the Liberal government and its cozy relationships with corporate insiders. At the root of it is a Prime Minister who remains invested in Brookfield through what is called “carried interest”, despite that company's extensive presence in many fields where the Prime Minister and his ministers have control of powerful policy levers that can greatly influence Brookfield's asset prices and revenue streams.

The House's ethics committee heard last autumn about Brookfield executives being able to call up the Prime Minister and secure private meetings with him. That is something the average Canadian certainly cannot do. The government's first major bill in the present Parliament, Bill C-5, was about empowering Liberal ministers to waive red tape for select insiders, rather than getting out of the way of economic development for the benefit of all Canadians.

The Major Projects Office, established to provide a concierge service for the Liberals' approved insiders, is being staffed with friends of the Prime Minister from Bay Street whose salaries are being topped up by banking and corporate interests and who very well may stand to benefit from the decisions their loaned-out employees are making. The Prime Minister's approach to bureaucracies he does not like has not been to fix them to work better but to add another layer of bureaucracy and bring in corporate friends to run them.

The list of examples goes on, including now the Bloc's observations about Air Canada's getting an inside track on changes to the handling of air passenger complaints. Of course, the Liberals' proposed fix for air passenger complaints is to replace Canadian public servants with European-modelled consultants, adding to the Liberals' unrelenting, multi-billion-dollar addiction to outsourcing as it hands out contracts, hand over fist, to well-placed, friendly consulting firms.

There is an age-old saying in this town: “Whenever the Liberals are in office, it is all about who you know and the PMO.” That is probably more true now than it has ever been. These are issues that, quite honestly, vigilant committees need to stay on top of, though I know the Liberals' engineered majority on committees will make sure these issues will not see the light of day. That is why a question of privilege and the proposed referral to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would be quite timely.

I would urge the Speaker to find a prima facie case of privilege in this case so we can get the wheels in motion on a study about yet another apparent cozy corporate crony relationship to the Liberal government and its parliamentary proposals.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the official opposition House Leader. It is noted.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Health.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Delta, BC]

moved that Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few months after I turned 25, I embarked on my first overseas trip, one that, without my knowing it, would set the course of my entire life. I was heading to Berlin for what was then a little-known gathering: the very first conference of parties on climate change, COP1. History was being made, and I was lucky enough to be in the room.

Like many of my peers at the time, I was setting off for the old world with my backpack, but unlike them, I was not going to be backpacking across Europe. Instead, I slept on a gymnasium floor with 600 young people from all over the world in what had, a few years earlier, been East Berlin.

We had a common goal: to convince governments around the world to agree on an ambitious plan to tackle climate change.

The experience made me realize not only how crucial the climate crisis and, as I would later discover, the nature crisis are, but also how important international collaboration is to finding solutions to these complex issues.

Over the next two decades, I channelled this conviction into environmental work with NGOs, advocating for change, mobilizing support and building bridges between science, civil society and public policy. It was this experience that ultimately led me to politics.

In 2019, then prime minister Justin Trudeau asked me to join the Liberal team to help accelerate action on climate change. When I became environment minister, my mandate included developing Canada's first comprehensive climate plan to meet our international obligations. We also developed the country's first comprehensive adaptation plan to prepare and protect Canadians from the dangers of a changing climate, changes that we can no longer avoid, and those plans were working.

These plans, through policies, regulations and legislation, have been designed to ensure that Canada makes its fair contribution to reducing pollution and protecting Canadians from the devastation we are already seeing in communities from coast to coast to coast.

Before making the final decision to run, there was one thing I asked: the ability to distance myself from the decision by the government to purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline. As an environmentalist with deep understanding of the scientific consensus on the urgency and need to rapidly reduce heat-trapping gases, I had opposed a number of oil and gas projects and had criticized the Trudeau government for moving ahead with the purchase of TMX.

Many of my political opponents have used these positions to try to portray me as anti-development. That has always made me smile a little, because throughout my professional career, I have championed numerous development projects across the country, such as wind and solar projects, public transit and active mobility initiatives, the electrification of our public transit system, including boosting sales of electric vehicles, and, more recently, the high-speed rail project.

I was onstage in Edmonton in 2015 when then NDP premier Rachel Notley announced her climate leadership plan. Again I was roundly criticized by some environmentalists for doing so, but I have always believed in collaborating with provinces within the framework of the scientific reality of climate change.

Much has changed since then. Just 10 years ago, for every dollar invested worldwide in fossil fuel production, another dollar was invested in clean and renewable technologies. Today, that ratio is two to one in favour of renewable energy. Last year, global electric vehicle sales reached nearly 23%.

There are not many reasons that lead people to enter politics. In my case, it was a desire to pursue my quest for a better environment, for the fight against climate change, and for nature protection. These intense, demanding and deeply meaningful seven years have been among the most formative of my life. I leave proud of what we have accomplished together.

After nearly seven years serving as the member for the beautiful riding of Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, the time has come for me to seek new avenues to continue my life's work. I will therefore be resigning my seat in the House later this summer.

I am profoundly grateful to my children, family, friends, staff and constituents, as well as volunteers, many of whom have come to Ottawa today to be with us and who have made this work possible. They gave me far more than I can ever give back. Mr. Speaker, I will not mention the fact that some of them may be here in the House, because you would tell me I am not allowed to do that.

The journey that began in Berlin more than 30 years ago is not over. It is simply continuing in another direction, with the same urgency and renewed hope.

The fight for our planet is the struggle of our generation, and I fully intend to keep fighting. It has been the honour of my life to represent my community and my country.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a rookie in the chamber, a new member of Parliament having served barely, not even, three years. However, I can acknowledge that public service comes at a price, a cost to our friends, our family and all our loved ones.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie certainly has committed himself to this service. We could say that he has very deep convictions. Perhaps we would not agree on anything. Probably we would not agree on anything, but his deep convictions might have been taken a bit too literally by him over the years. In fact, as colleagues may know, the hon. member was arrested in Lakeview in my riding, scaling former premier Ralph Klein's home, and was taken into custody. In a sense, he may have served more time in Calgary than I have.

Let me just say that it is a complex issue, because we know that his policies have caused hardships for over a decade. His policies have caused so much hardship for so many families across this country that the price that has been paid by millions of Canadians for his determination has been a very heartbreaking one for all Canadians to bear witness to, but rest assured that his legacy lives on with the current Liberal Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has kept the tanker ban in place. The Prime Minister has kept the “no more pipelines” ban. The Prime Minister has kept the net-zero doctrine. He has kept the EV mandate. The Prime Minister has made sure that his legacy of plastic lids on coffee has been maintained, and in Calgary we cannot use compostable bags. He has kept the industrial carbon tax.

One must ask, as I conclude, if the member draws some satisfaction from the Liberal Prime Minister's carrying on his legacy.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I heard a compliment in there somewhere. I think if all of us listened really hard, we would find it. I will take it.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to heartily commend the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, the former minister of environment and heritage, for his public service. I am even taking the unusual liberty of addressing him by name, Steven, this one last time.

He and I have known each other for 25 years. Back then, he was with Greenpeace. He had long hair and a longer beard, but with fewer grey hairs. He enjoyed climbing towers and installing solar panels on premiers' homes. Some people even called him “Jesus of Montreal”.

We crossed paths for years within the Quebec, Canadian and international environmental movements, and at over 30 international climate conferences, or COPs, which he participated in and excelled at, including a number which he attended as environment minister.

Without a doubt, one of his greatest achievements was the Kunming-Montreal agreement on biodiversity, a resounding success that would not have been possible without him. His accomplishments also and obviously include the climate change plan, which may not have been perfect or ambitious enough, but was by far the most ambitious in Canada's history.

We have certainly had our differences when it comes to the best way to serve the environmental cause. We did not always agree on the best strategy to take. We were sometimes critical of one another, but I never doubted his commitment to fighting climate change.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and myself, I want to wish him all the best going forward. I know that he will continue to advocate for the environment and climate in other forums and other groups, and I would be pleased to be able to work with him again one day. It is unfortunate that he is leaving, but it is a consequence and an illustration of a fundamental divide in Canada.

He was by far the most ambitious environment minister in the history of this country, the one who did the most. He is, without a doubt, the best environment minister this country has ever known. However, it was too much for Canada, and yet despite always being between a rock and a hard place, he truly did everything that he could. For that, I sincerely thank you, Steven.

Now that he might have more free time on his hands this summer, I heard that, if he wants to have a bit of fun and if he wants to send a clear message to the government about climate change, he can always visit the CN tower.

The question that I want to ask him today and the one that is on everyone's mind is this: Will he take this opportunity to give us a sneak peek at what he plans to do next?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague and friend from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Repentigny, for his kind words, on his own behalf and, as I understand it, on behalf of his party.

The political arena can sometimes be very difficult, but it is also a place where we can accomplish great things.

When the United Nations approached us in spring 2022 to ask us to host COP15 in Montreal, a conference that normally takes a year, if not two, to organize, we had only six months to do so. On top of that, we had to work closely with China, which was presiding over the conference, a country with which our diplomatic relations at the time were rather limited. The prime minister at the time, Mr. Trudeau, supported in particular by our former foreign affairs minister and current minister responsible for economic development, did not hesitate to support me in embarking on this adventure with the entire Canadian community, including NGOs, indigenous peoples and many private-sector companies. In the span of two weeks, we succeeded in convincing 196 countries to protect 30% of the planet. Today, this is referred to as the “Paris agreement for nature”, the equivalent of the Paris climate agreement.

People can achieve great things by getting into politics. I urge everyone watching who is wondering whether they should one day take the plunge to go for it, pursue their dreams and do everything they can.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time he has spent in the House. I certainly will not forget when he was first elected in 2019. I had been here for four years, and I was sitting in the House when he was about to give his first speech. He turned around to me and said, “Do I start talking now?” He was just getting his feet established here, but it did not take him long to become a force to be reckoned with in the House.

I thank him for the time he spent with us and for always pushing the government, for always pushing us individually, to do more and to be more thoughtful when it comes to climate change and what we could do. He always pushed us to do better no matter the circumstances.

The member opened his speech by talking about a young 20-year-old who travelled for the first time to engage in activities around climate change. What would he say today to that young 20-year-old to give him advice?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government whip for everything he has done for me personally and professionally in the House. He has been an incredible ally, as have many people on both sides of the House.

To answer his question, like I said in French a few moments ago, I would tell this young 25-year-old, wide-eyed Canadian going abroad for the first time to believe in his dreams. If I told him then that one day he would serve as a member of Parliament, that he would even be the minister of environment and climate change, I am not sure that 25-year-old would have believed that. We should believe in our dreams. Sometimes they come true.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resignation should be of serious concern to all Canadians. It is a huge wake-up call, hopefully for everybody. What our colleague is doing today takes incredible courage. It takes courage to stand up for climate science and environmental protection for future generations when powerful interests inside government are pushing in the opposite direction.

As New Democrats, we have had the opportunity to work across the aisle with our colleague when he was a former minister on a number of important issues, including climate accountability, biodiversity protection and building a fair transition for workers and communities. We may not have always agreed, but he understood that the climate crisis demands action, not delay. The people of Laurier—Sainte-Marie were represented by someone who consistently fought to put the climate crisis and environmental protection on the national agenda. Now the government is weakening emissions caps, backing away from environmental protection and putting fossil fuel expansion ahead of climate leadership while Canadians face devastating fires, floods and extreme weather.

We as New Democrats want to thank the member for his courage and his public service. We want to wish him well and encourage him to keep fighting for climate justice and for the future of our planet. We look forward to continuing to work with him to tackle the climate crisis.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. NDP colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his comments. He has been an incredible ally and friend in the House. He is right that we have worked closely together on a number of issues. I have always appreciated his dedication to environmental issues and to working together to find solutions, something that is not always necessarily easy in this place. For that I want to thank him.

I want to assure him that the fight is not over. I will continue my battle for a greener, safer planet outside of this great House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague and dear friend, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

I just want to say that it is an honour to work with him here. We have been friends for a long time, of course. It was an honour to work together as MPs in the House. It is a great honour for me. It is true that I will miss him here in Parliament, but I know that we will continue to work together.

I do not know in what fashion, I do not know how, but I know that courage should be respected regardless of views. What we are dealing with is a crisis, but it is heartbreaking in this moment.

I would like to thank the residents of Laurier—Sainte-Marie for their wisdom in electing him as their MP.

The only question I would have would be to give the member one more chance to tell us, of all the extraordinary things he has accomplished in his service to this place, what achievement he is most proud of or would want us to remember.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my long-time friend, the leader of the Green Party and member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her remarks.

We have indeed known each other for a very long time. We worked together before we entered politics, although her political career began much earlier than mine. We have a lot in common, including our birthday, which is coming up soon, for those who are interested.

I want to assure her that I will continue to be there for her and for everyone who wants to work on issues related to fighting climate change and protecting biodiversity. I will never be far away if they need me. I will always be happy to help.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No.2

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mirabel on May 25, 2026, on the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-31, the second budget 2025 implementation act.

The member is of the view that division 17 of Bill C-31, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, should be separated out for a distinct vote at the second and third reading stages.

Standing Order 69.1(1) states:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

The matter in question specifically concerns paragraph 2 of Standing Order 69.1, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills:

The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The government's objective in division 17 of Bill C-31 is to clear the backlog of air travel complaints by engaging a neutral third-party dispute resolution organization and to enhance both the transparency of the complaints process and the enforcement of passenger rights regulations. I am certain that all members will agree that ensuring a timely resolution of air passenger complaints will better support our tourism industry and address travel costs.

The hon. member for Mirabel has argued that division 17 should be separated out for the purpose of voting as the provisions are “within a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget.”

The member's first two arguments run counter to the objectives of Standing Order 69.1(2), which protects the various targeted or broad measures included in budget documents from being separated from the budget implementation bill.

The question at hand is the linkage between division 17 and budget 2025. In his ruling of November 6, 2018, Speaker Regan noted the complexity in addressing what is not always explicit. He stated:

...establishing such a link is not always obvious.... Sometimes commitments are very specific and targeted, while other times the language may be vaguer. A generally stated policy intention may translate into a series of detailed and technical legislative amendments. Accordingly, a provision announced in a few sentences may require pages of legislative changes to implement.

Page 100 of the 2025 budget document announced that the government was taking action to catalyze investment in our airports and ports so that we could encourage more tourism in Canada and bring down travel costs for Canadians. Further, page 218 of the budget document notes a review of the administration monetary penalties and fines for violations of certain legislation or regulations. This included those that address air passenger rights.

In line with this commitment, the amendment to the Canada Transportation Act increases the maximum administrative penalty payable to corporations for certain violations of the Canada Transportation Act or its regulations. The precise details of the proposal were subsequently announced in the 2026 spring economic update document. In conclusion, I submit that the broad policy objectives were announced in the 2025 budget, as provided for under Standing Order 69.1.

Lastly, in response to the member for Mirabel's intervention, I would like to clarify that Standing Order 69.1 does not contemplate the division of a bill for the purpose of a committee referral. This would be a separate and distinct question for the House to consider.

I thank hon. members for their attention in regard to this particular matter.

Premature Disclosure of a Bill and its Elements to a Third Party

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one other item I would like to address. I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères respecting Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2.

The member alleges that information that was made public prior to the introduction of Bill C-31 was a breach of the privileges of members of the House. The member cited a number of precedents in raising the matter. I would like to draw to the attention of members clear rulings from Speakers that categorically state that public consultation by the government with stakeholders on matters of public policy is a normal and expected part of the policy development process.

The question of whether the privileges of members have been violated in the case of the premature divulgation of the contents of a bill turns on when the information is publicly disclosed. Precedents are clear. The period between the publication of the long title of a bill on the Notice Paper and the introduction of the bill in the House is the time frame in which the government, and indeed all members, must ensure that the contents of the bill are not publicly divulged.

On June 8, 2017, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege respecting the premature divulgation of a bill. In this ruling, the Speaker stated:

The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation. Speaker Parent explained on February 21, 2000, at page 3767 of Debates:

Although the members of the House should always be the first ones to examine legislation after it has been introduced and read the first time, this rule must be balanced against the need for the government to consult both experts and the public when developing its legislative proposals.

When ruling on a similar matter on November 1, 2006, Speaker Milliken concluded that the government had not divulged confidential information on the bill, nor the bill itself, but rather had engaged in consultations prior to finalizing the legislation in question. At the same time, he explained at page 4540 of the House of Commons Debates:

The key procedural point...is that once a bill has been placed on notice, it must remain confidential until introduced in the House.

Let us review the facts of the matter before the House. The member states that on April 8, 2026, Air Canada made a public announcement respecting a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints, and on April 28, the Minister of Finance delivered the 2026 spring economic statement in the House, which included this particular proposal. On May 1, the Minister of Transport announced a plan to clear the backlog of air travel complaints. On May 4, the notice of a ways and means motion respecting measures to be included in the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, was tabled in the House, which included a measure respecting a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints. On May 6, the House voted on the ways and means motion, and the government then introduced Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2.

This is consistent with the practice of the government undertaking consultations on matters of policy to finalize a policy proposal in advance of any implementing legislation being put before the House. In fact, on May 4, as stated earlier, the government tabled the notice of ways and means in the House with all measures that were contained in Bill C-31.

The member has not stated that the government made public statements about measures that were on notice and were not before the House. Therefore, according to well-established practice and precedent, the government fully respected the importance of ensuring that the House had first access to the legislative measures contained in the ways and means for the second 2025 budget implementation bill while the implementing bill was on the Notice Paper.

As a result, I submit to the House that the member has not demonstrated a case to substantiate that the House was not the first to see the content of the bill during the notice period, since all of these legislative measures were tabled in the form of a ways and means motion before the bill was placed on the Notice Paper on May 4, 2026.

Finally, the member references public statements about the measure in question that clearly precede the notice of the bill by nearly a month. The second reference the member makes is that the statement he referred to on April 28, 2026, was the spring economic update made by the Minister of Finance in this House, which also precedes the notice period for a bill to implement this measure.

It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the government respected practices and precedents by ensuring that the House was the first to have access to this and other measures contained in Bill C-31.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I just wanted to ask for unanimous consent to split my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed to split the member's time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Yes, it is agreed that time will be split.

The hon. member.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the fine member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

The costliest budget in Canadian history outside of COVID is back to haunt us once again. This is the biggest deficit outside of COVID that the government dropped on top of Canadians, and it is back. It is back to traumatize them once again. Canadians are visiting food banks at record numbers. Insolvencies are up and Canadians just cannot afford the cost of living. With the crisis that the current Liberal government created, Canadians are being reminded once again of how irresponsible the Liberal government is with Canada's finances, and the tough position that the Liberal government put Canadians in.

In fact, in the current Liberal government, this out-of-touch Prime Minister says that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. By every measure in every Canadian's life today, that is simply untrue. One just has to go to the grocery store. This Prime Minister admits he does not do his own groceries, so it does not really matter to him. When people go to the grocery store or fill up their gas tank, or just in everyday life, everything has gotten expensive.

When we dig deep into why that has happened, we see that ever since the Liberals formed government, everything got worse. The economy got worse. Crime got worse in this country. This did not happen by accident or by some global forces, which the Liberal government always likes to blame. This happened because of changes that the Liberal government itself made.

Before the Liberal government, when we had a sound, responsible, strong Conservative government, the middle class was one of the strongest in the entire world. In fact, there used to be articles written back then saying that the American dream had moved to Canada. However, it did not take long for the Liberal government to come in and destroy all that great work, and then the Canadian dream went away.

When I was growing up, it was not uncommon to have one household income to run a house. People could afford a house back then, too. These failed Liberal policies, these out-of-control deficits, changing laws to make it easier for repeat offenders to get out, and all the bad economic policies that the Liberals imposed on Canada, which drove out $1 trillion of Canadian investment to the U.S., ended up making Canada more unsafe and more unaffordable than ever before.

It was this Liberal Prime Minister who was advising the then prime minister, Justin Trudeau, that the interest rates would be low for a long time, so people should go out and buy and spend as much as they want. After giving that advice, he gave other pieces of advice that completely made Canadians' lives miserable. That was to make sure that the Liberals spent and racked up deficits on Canadians. In fact, there was the most growth in the deficit and the most spending that ever happened in Canadian history at that time. Canadians' bank accounts were wiped out and their cabinets were wiped out of food. That is why we now see 2.2 million Canadians going to food banks. The cost of housing has gone up. The cost of food has gone up. The cost of gas has gone up. All of that is because of Liberal taxes and Liberal policies.

Canadians are working harder than ever now. In fact, who is using those food banks is becoming more and more concerning. It is now people in households of two income earners who are going into food bank lines, because their incomes are still the same, but everything else has gone up. The cost of housing has gone up because of inflation that the current government created. Rents skyrocketed under the Liberals. There are food taxes, including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. There are all these other things. Driving out investment also drove out competition, which would have helped bring down the cost of food and fuel.

Whereas the out-of-touch Liberal government only took off 10¢ per litre, a third of the tax for a third of the year, Conservatives were calling for all fuel taxes to be removed for all of the year. That would have helped save families 25¢ per litre, or $1,200 for the whole year. That would have been real savings. Conservatives would also completely remove this carbon tax in the form of a clean fuel standard that the Liberals implemented.

When we look at the economy, $1 trillion has left. Why did it leave? Let us look at some of the projects that could have been built, but were not, under the government because of its radical eco ideology. Nothing is getting built. In fact, the Liberals have put up even more barriers so that nothing could be built in the last 11 years. Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill, ensures nothing can be built in this country, whether it is a pipeline, mine or dam. In fact, when I talked to a mining company in B.C., they said that it takes about 18 years just to get a permit approved, and that is a maybe. What Canadian would want to invest in a project like a mine that may get built in 18 years?

Then the Liberals put up Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which does not let our product leave the west coast and go to the Asian markets. They introduced the industrial carbon tax, which makes Canada less competitive, but also makes the cost of the goods that Canadians buy more expensive: food, fuel and any other goods.

The Prime Minister says that no one uses steel. He is obviously out of touch. Canadians are using steel; it is in almost everything. When someone is building a home, there is steel in that home. It is also in cars and a lot of other goods. Steel is very much being used, yet the Liberals put an industrial carbon tax on it. That is the hidden tax that, at the end of the day, whoever is buying the goods has to pay. Canadians are paying it. It is bad, reckless Liberal policy.

Canadians are stuck with the bill, which is why we see record food bank usage. When we look at Canadian households, one in four now are food-insecure. These are not stats that we heard about before; not until the Liberal government took over. Right now, Canadian households are the most indebted in the G7 because the cost of everything has gone up and, as I said, incomes have not moved at all. In fact, Canadian household debt has reached $2.6 trillion in Q4. For every dollar of disposable income that Canadians earn, they owe approximately $1.77.

We are seeing delinquencies go up as well. In the first three months of the year, 1.4 million Canadians have missed a payment on a credit card or mortgage. Canadians are putting essentials, more and more, on their credit cards, and they are either putting everything else back on the shelves because they cannot afford it that week, or making really tough decisions they should not have to make. We need to turn that around.

Under a Conservative government, we would get rid of these antidevelopment laws, including Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the industrial carbon tax, so we could get many different projects up and going, including LNG, oil and gas, pipelines, mines and dams. Whatever they are, not only would Canada be more self-reliant, but we would create good jobs and a good economy. That would not only serve Alberta; that would help the unity crisis that the out-of-touch Liberal government has created. In fact, it would help Canada, and it could help the world because we could have our low-carbon energy in places that need it the most around the world. We would also cap government spending and the wasteful spending of the Liberal government. We would bring back the Canada that we all knew, where hard work would earn Canadians a good paycheque with low taxes. With that same paycheque, they should be able to afford groceries and a house in a safe neighbourhood.

That is what a Conservative government will do when we come back.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the member and several others opposite stand up, it is often the same string of hyperbole and cynicism that we hear over and over again. I often think about how sad it would be to live in a world that is that cynical all the time about everything.

I grew up in Canada's steel city, Hamilton. My family worked in the steel industry. Steel is in our blood.

I want to give the member opposite the opportunity to acknowledge the harm that Donald Trump and his illegal and unjustified tariff war against Canada have caused to Canada's economy.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the member can tell his Prime Minister that steel is still used around the world. His Prime Minister does not believe anyone even uses steel. Second of all, he can tell his Prime Minister to remove the industrial carbon tax that gets put on that steel.

The member, in particular, is completely out of touch. His government is completely out of touch. It is his government that has caused the pain to Canadians. Donald Trump did not impose a carbon tax on Canadians. Donald Trump is not the one who made Canada's permitting process the second-worst in the entire OECD. Donald Trump is not the one who is sending more and more Canadians to food banks. It is the out-of-touch Liberal government, and he should apologize for that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very important question for my colleague about the government's amendments to the Excise Tax Act under Bill C-31. We have noticed that none of those amendments address the inequity and injustice between producers of mead and producers of blueberry spirits.

A few years ago, the Bloc Québécois persuaded the government to exempt small local and regional producers from the excise tax so that they could make a living from their production. The government granted an exemption to mead and apple cider producers, but it did not grant the same exemption to producers of berry-based or maple spirits.

Does my colleague think that the government is making a mistake? By refusing to exempt producers of berry-based spirits from the excise tax, it is limiting the economic development of our regions.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the translation was a bit behind, so I hope I heard the question right.

If the question is about the excise tax, Conservatives, from day one, every single year, put forward motions at the finance committee and I have written letters to the finance minister saying there should be zero tax on these beverages and that should be frozen. At a time when restaurants are closing more than ever before because of high Liberal taxes and the high bureaucracy and regulatory burden the Liberal government has created, we need to do as much as we can, not just for the people producing the beverages but also for the restaurants and the knock-off effects after that.

The Liberal government is obsessed with taxing businesses to death. It needs to reverse course so that restaurants are opening more than they are closing in this country.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know why grocery prices are so high. It is because there are a couple of grocery chains, including the ones owned by Galen Weston, that are hogging all the space in the market and price-gouging at the checkout. People literally cry when they buy groceries.

The member's party has said nothing about the reality of this situation. New Democrats have a solution, and that is to offer a public option for food. We know that is the real solution. Does my honourable colleague agree, or is he going to keep supporting corporations that are starving people?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to disagree with the hon. member because we do have solutions. Conservatives have identified the problem. When the Liberals drove out $1 trillion of investment, they also got rid of the competition. Competition in a free market helps to drive costs down. We would eliminate, in their entirety, the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard and any other taxes the Liberals implemented that make the cost of food go up.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary East for his intervention today and for laying out exactly how bad the Liberals have been, especially when it comes down to things like balancing the budget.

Bill C-31 is over 330 pages. We look at this thing and they are doing everything in here. So much of it has nothing to do at all with the budget. I want to speak specifically about division 16, which is on the establishment of the defence investment agency act and amending the Defence Production Act and renaming it the defence and national security production and procurement act.

We are talking about substantive changes to the way the Liberals want to do procurement. When we start dealing with major changes like this, like giving a new minister new powers with up to $1 billion of spending without any oversight or accountability tied to it, I think these types of changes need to be legislated through their own bills and debated separately. Because this is part of the budget implementation act, we are not even able to study this at the defence committee. It is going to be done through the finance committee, which has to look at everything else in the budget, not just the changes that are happening to the defence investment and procurement processes that are currently under way with the government.

We have been quite critical of how the government has gone and set up the Defence Investment Agency. What we are seeing is more layers of bureaucracy, another level of red tape, and it is just another illusion the Liberals are trying to pull on Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces. They are saying they are doing something when, in actuality, they are doing nothing. They went and hired a CEO. Doug Guzman is a lovely gentleman and I had a chance to meet him, but he comes to the table with no defence experience. He has no procurement background at all. His claim to fame is that he is an investment banker, and a very successful one at that. He used to be the Prime Minister's colleague at Goldman Sachs back in the day.

We have a junior secretary of state who is overseeing the Defence Investment Agency, but again, it does not provide that one point of accountability in ensuring that our parliamentary processes are properly respected. We have a junior minister who is still reporting to another minister who then has to report back up to the Prime Minister. A junior minister, being the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, does not sit at the cabinet table. We also have been critical about the fact that the Defence Investment Agency is about how the government can coerce more jobs out of other companies that are going to want to do defence contracts, but will those jobs ever actually materialize? How much is it going to cost the taxpayer? How much more is the defence equipment we are buying for the Canadian Armed Forces going to cost because they have tied in all these extra things they want to do with the dollars they are spending?

The top priority has to be making sure we are getting the right equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. As Conservatives, we have always supported the proud women and men who serve in uniform. We expect them to do dangerous things in the protection of Canada and to work with our allies. We have to make sure every decision we make is a prioritization of the equipment and kit that is required by the Canadian Armed Forces to do that job. We have to be capable. We have to be ready. We have to make sure the stuff we are buying is meeting those operational requirements and that we are interoperable with our allies and neighbours. Let us make sure we are not just creating more red tape, more bureaucracy or more cost in the name of a defence investment agency.

We have been down this path before. The Liberals' track record on this for the past 10 years has been pitiful, as it was under the decade of darkness back in the day under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. What we get is all rhetoric and no action. We need to make sure we are taking action. It has been more than four years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The minister of the day talked about putting Canada on war footing with the defence industry. That never ever materialized.

Here we are, four years after the fact, and the only increases in the production of munitions, artillery shells and rockets in this country have all been through contracts with the U.S. armed services, whether that is its army, air force, special services or navy. Those same benefits are not occurring for the Canadian Armed Forces, because the government has not signed any contracts.

We can have all the agencies, bureaucracies, red tape and fancy announcements, but it means nothing unless we are actually putting ink to the dotted line and signing contracts with our defence industry that would then create the jobs because we are buying stuff that the Canadian Armed Forces needs to replace the hollowed out air force and army and the rusted out navy we currently have.

Just to make that point, the results for 2024-25 for the Department of National Defence show that only 59.6% of the maritime fleet is serviceable and ready to go out on operations. The only reason it is at 60% is that it had to retire the entire fleet of our Kingston-class coastal maritime vessels. Only 51% of the land fleets are sitting at the ready and are well maintained so troops can use them. It is because of the underfunding for the national procurement of the aging fleet and because of the high operational tempo. They have been worn out and have not been properly maintained, because of budget cuts that happened under the Liberals. Over $2.7 billion a year was cut from 2021 to 2025.

We know that the aerospace fleet is even worse, with only 42% of our aircraft in the Canadian Armed Forces ready to serve and having the proper maintenance, but they are so aged out and so worn out. All we have to do is look at our CF-18s and the debacle with respect to their replacement. Because of the political games the Prime Minister plays with the F-35s, we have to get the F-35s to do the job.

What we are seeing in Bill C-31, in division 16, with the establishment of the defence investment agency act, is that it would lock in all the inefficiencies that are already under the Defence Investment Agency. The bill does not name who the designated minister would be. There is no title or styling for that minister; it would just be a designated minister. It could be the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, or the Minister of National Defence, which I think would not be a bad idea, or there may be the creation of another junior minister who would not have the power and strength to go to the cabinet table and make the investments that are required to drive home what is asked for by our forces.

The bill would establish more boards, more advisory committees and more people who are going to be hired. We are talking about more patronage and more Liberal insiders. We see, as we read through the bill, in clause 310, more opportunities for sole-sourcing and not running competitive competitions. Although it says in clause 322 that there would be a competitive procurement process, if we look at the exceptions, we see that almost everything could be excepted from it, and the minister would have the power to exclude companies and individuals from participating in the procurement but never say why they were excluded. There would be no transparency.

What would the procurement ombudsman say about this lack of competition and the ability to sole-source without proper explanation? If the national security exemption is required, let us make sure we use it. This would create more contracting, more consultants and more Liberal insiders getting rich, which is the type of corruption we have to prevent. That is why we are asking why there are some rather strange definitions in the bill, such as “things”.

There would be no guardrails, other than defence services, which is in clause 318, proposed paragraph 16(3)(d): “acquire defence services or professional or commercial services other than defence services”. Why are we even putting that under the defence investment act?

The fact there would be no reporting, no performance and no transparency really raises a lot of red flags. Clause 312 would provide for the ability of the minister to procure shares of corporations; replace all members, directors and officers; and then place people in there the minister wants to run those organizations or those companies. It sure sounds a lot like nationalization. We have been down this path before with the Liberal government. It is called the Emergencies Act, and this reeks of having that overreach and that unaccountable style that we saw with the Emergencies Act.

To conclude, I move, seconded by the member for Calgary East:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, since the bill fails to address meaningfully the cost of the living crisis which Canadians are facing through measures such as complete fuel tax relief, removing taxes and red tape which drive up housing costs, cutting the industrial carbon tax imposed on farmers and everyone else in the country's food chain, and eliminating wasteful government spending, all of which have driven up inflation including food price inflation”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I advise the hon. member that we will come back to say if the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary secretary to government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure Canadians would find it interesting to hear the Conservatives actually make the type of statements that were just made in regard to military expenditures. The member opposite was the parliamentary secretary for defence at the time when we invested just under 1% of Canada's GDP towards defence, towards our military. We would have to go back generations to realize the type of commitment that the Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, has made. Not only did he say 2% of GDP, but we achieved 2% of the GDP last year.

We can talk about tendering and providing the equipment that is necessary and about supporting our men and women in the forces in terms of pay increases. In a very real and tangible way, the current government has been there for our Canadian forces.

Does the member have any regrets that the Stephen Harper regime could give only 1% of the GDP?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the one thing the member for Winnipeg North never talks about is the creative accounting that the Liberals did to get the 2%. They added these in, which have never been added in before, until 2017, and then they added in the big numbers last year: veterans pensions; the Canadian Coast Guard's entire budget, even though it is not a defensive organization nor does it have the ability to be a defensive organization; and Transport Canada airplanes.

The pay raise the Liberals gave was long overdue, yet today there are still forces members who have not received the benefits or the bonuses for staying on as members, especially for those who serve in the Canadian reserves. The army reserves have not had those benefits yet at all.

The Liberals can sit here and talk the game, but we know that, even with the increases in salaries, they have clawed them back by increasing rents on our troops. They have increased the living differentials, especially for the people who are now deployed overseas in Latvia. Their take-home pay has dropped since the so-called raise, because the Liberals are clawing it back through other deductions.

If we had used the same math when we were government, our spending would have been well over 1.5%.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is more than 300 pages long and contains many questionable amendments and provisions. Among other things, there are measures that expand the government's powers and reduce transparency. There are measures that limit who can file a complaint with the procurement ombudsman and what types of complaints the ombudsman can review.

Given that procurement, especially military procurement, is set to become increasingly important, does my colleague welcome this type of measure from a transparency perspective?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that if we look at actual things the Liberals have bought for our troops, we see that they have not resulted in increased lethality or kinetic capability within the Canadian Armed Forces.

It took the Liberals over 10 years just to replace the sidearms for our forces. Today, members of the Canadian Armed Forces in Ottawa, in the national capital region, have been asked to turn in their rucksacks, sleeping bags, frag vests and body armour because there is not enough to be sent abroad for the people who are deployed in Latvia, where there could be a hot conflict in short order. We know that the people going through basic training right now do not even have enough uniforms, and there are not enough beds.

This is a failure of the government to recognize what we need to keep our troops healthy, as well as to make sure that our Canadian Forces has the equipment to deal with the conflicts of today and tomorrow.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, today's schedule has been disrupted, albeit in a positive way, by the arrival of the Olympic and Paralympic athletes we welcomed earlier. In light of that, I would like to ask you to confirm what time the consideration of Private Members' Business will begin.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It will begin in exactly one minute.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yellowhead.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague was at one point a visitor to the public accounts committee when some of the military generals were there. I specifically asked this question then, and I am wondering if he can comment about it.

The Liberals said they want the F-35, but it has changed multiple times, and now they are delaying again. If the procurement process is so bad that it is going to take 15 years, when are we expecting to actually spend the money?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Yellowhead knows, Justin Trudeau said he would never buy the F-35. He then ran a competition, and they ran it again. Guess what. The F-35 beat all the other fighter jets every single time, on cost, lethality, survivability and interoperability.

The Prime Minister is now playing politics with a jet we need in order to protect Canada and to work with our allies.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would like to inform the hon. member that the amendment is in order and we will proceed with debate on it after the bill next comes before the House.

Canada Labour Code

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing on behalf of the NDP our deepest gratitude to all the workers, unions and labour leaders who have voiced their support for this bill to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and uphold the right to strike.

In just two years, the Liberals have used section 107 eight times, each time violating the Constitution and disrespecting the rights of millions of workers on whose backs our country runs. Members do not need to take it from me. We can ask the representatives of workers themselves.

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, leads over three million workers across the country. Speaking on repealing section 107, she said, “No government should ever be able to strip workers of their right to free and fair collective bargaining. Canada’s unions will fight alongside the NDP to get this bill passed...and ensure that Canada’s labour laws protect workers, not undermine them”.

Mark Hancock, national president of CUPE, said, “It's hard to calculate the damage that's already been done by this Liberal government repeatedly stepping in to take away the only leverage workers have at the bargaining table. It's bad for workers' livelihoods, and it's bad for the constitutional rights of all Canadians. Section 107 has got to go”.

The CLC, CUPE, CUPW, the United Steelworkers, Teamsters, PSAC, the ILWU and more are all standing in solidarity behind this bill to uphold the right to strike. This is the rule of law. One of the biggest outcomes of solidarity is that workers understand their rights.

Let us talk about workers' rights. In 2015, in its decision on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the right to strike is protected by the Constitution as an “indispensable” part of collective bargaining rights. It is no wonder the Liberals have continued issuing their back-to-work orders in backrooms with CEOs rather than out in the open and on record. They are afraid to leave evidence of their unconstitutional behaviour.

Even Stephen Harper's anti-worker Conservative labour minister said, regarding the use of section 107 to end strikes, “If you find a lawyer who can tell you that it's possible...then I wish I had their advice 15 years ago. But as far as I'm concerned, you aren't able to do that.”

The issue goes beyond Canadian law. Just last week, the International Court of Justice issued a landmark ruling that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under international law. Workers fighting section 107 in Canada are on the front lines of a global workers' movement. I commend them and say, “Good on you.”

I wonder whether the Liberals care, since they are so routinely turning their backs on international law, whether it is a violation of indigenous rights through Bill C-5, migrants' rights in Bill C-12 or the right to peaceful assembly in Bill C-9.

New Democrats know where we stand. It is with international law and with workers. We know that throughout Canadian history, and throughout the world's history, workers exercising their right to strike have been absolutely critical for advancing human rights and economic empowerment.

In fact, in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, we had the Winnipeg General Strike, which was a legendary moment in our local history. Over 30,000 workers walked off their jobs in protest of exploitation and unfair wages, forcing governments to recognize their rights and helping unite workers' struggles across Canada. This legacy has lived on through the far-reaching social progress achieved by the labour movement.

Maternity leave was ensured in no small part by the 42-day strike in 1981 by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, helping set the standard for maternity leave across Canada. That was the same Canadian Union of Postal Workers whose right to strike the Liberal government violated using section 107 in 2024.

It is not surprising that the Liberals forget such important lessons when they have so routinely neglected the rights of women workers. We know that their failure to invest in a workforce strategy for child care workers, for example, is threatening women's participation in the workforce. It is also plain that their application of section 107 has had deeply disturbing gendered impacts.

Let us remember the most recent example, when CUPE flight attendants at Air Canada went on strike against unpaid labour. In a sector made up of mostly women and gender-diverse folks, it is simply sexist for Air Canada to assume unpaid work could continue to fly. However, when flight attendants exercised their legal right to strike, what did the Liberal Minister of Jobs and Families do? The minister shut them down using section 107 in less than 12 hours.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I would ask the Liberal minister this: Was 12 hours enough time to consider the devastating consequences of forcing unpaid work onto so many workers, mostly women and gender-diverse folks, just to please the Air Canada CEO, the former one who had to resign? Was 12 hours enough time to decide in favour of threatening draconian fines on all those who dared to insist that they be paid for their work?

It is proof of the senselessness of section 107 that flight attendants bravely refused the Liberal minister's ridiculous back-to-work order and continued to fight for a fair deal, receiving a groundswell of support from over 80% of people across Canada.

Section 107, we know, hurts workers everywhere. We know this from the example that breaking strikes hurts workers everywhere. Each time the Liberals invoke section 107, it tells CEOs across Canada that they can disrespect their workers' rights because the government will come to rescue them when their bad-faith bargaining results in a strike. When former Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau was asked why he had no plan in place for customers in the event of a strike, he told the whole world he did not prepare because he did not have to. He knew the government would use section 107.

That assumption, based on the Liberals' poor record, was just as real as those of the anti-worker Conservative premiers whom the Liberal Prime Minister has grown so close to. When Danielle Smith violated the charter and shut down the legal strike of Alberta teachers, and when Doug Ford violated the charter and tried to shut down the legal strike of Ontario education staff, what did the Liberal government say? There were crickets. That is because it is on the same page as these right-wing Conservatives when it comes to walking over the rights of workers.

At a time of rising inequality, inequity and economic vulnerability, we should be encouraging the extension and empowerment of unions and workers' institutions across Canada, not cutting them down. We should be supporting union drives among service workers, gig workers and unpaid care workers, affirming their right to strike should they be offered an unfair deal.

It was so inspiring to the NDP to see the beginnings of this movement as Uber drivers in Victoria won a historic victory last month by ratifying a union contract with improved pay, health and safety measures. Given its track record, I ask myself whether the Liberal government sees this victory as just another problem to be solved by draconian back-to-work legislation. For our part, the New Democrats are clear. We offer our warmest congratulations to these drivers and support the struggles for unionization among all similarly exploited, unrepresented workers. As was recently put so well by our dynamic New Democratic Party leader, Avi Lewis, “The greatest gift we can pass on from one generation to the next is a union card”.

We are giving the Liberals a chance to do what is right, to respect the charter and stop attacks on workers. However, if they refuse, we know workers will not back down against the attacks on their rights. We can just ask the Air Canada flight attendants.

During the Winnipeg strike of 1919, nobody waited around for friends of big business in the government to give workers permission to walk off the job. If the Liberal government decides to stand by its friends, the billionaire class and big multinational corporations, and vote down this bill, New Democrats are ready to stand by working communities, union leaders and human rights advocates to remind the government that it can never take away workers' power to strike.

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

Madam Speaker, does the member, or the NDP at the federal level, and I would emphasize the federal level, see any circumstance whatsoever where the government should actually have access to a tool that would be able to respond to a national labour disruption?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear. It took twelve hours for the last strikebreaking tactic to be used by the Liberal government to force mostly women back to unpaid work. The current government has a poor track record on workers' rights, including the only 30‑day time period for labour to respond to other attempts of the Liberal government to crush down the rights of workers. It is a shameful question, and it just demonstrates how the Liberal government continues to turn its back on workers.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has obviously called out the Liberals for their repeated use of section 107 to take away the right to strike. I have been here a long time, and what I find interesting and curious is that at no point in the last 10 or 12 years did anyone call for the repeal of section 107. In fact, the section has been in place for a very long time, and no one has thought it necessary to repeal it.

Would it not actually be the Liberal government's weaponization of section 107, specifically weaponizing referrals to the CIRB, to take away the right to strike and doing it eight times in 13 months that is the problem, and not the section in and of itself?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear that the Conservatives are no friends of workers either, but I have to agree with my colleague.

Our current Prime Minister seems to have a worse track record than Prime Minister Harper, if members can believe it, in the government's use of section 107, which brings up the reason that unions from across the country, including the CLC, which represents three million workers, are asking to repeal it. Who knows how many more times the Liberal government is going to force people back to work, including unpaid work, and side with the billionaire class and its corporate buddies?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I shared some time together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know she cares a lot about this cause. In her speech, she talked about the dispute between Air Canada and its flight attendants, who were doing unpaid work, and the fact that women were disproportionately affected.

Can my colleague tell us how repealing section 107 would help women and promote their cause in certain disputes?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good question.

It is true that women have some of the worst-paid work and are some of the most exploited workers in this country. It is often a gendered issue. Look at Air Canada flight attendants. That was the most recent disgusting example of the government abusing section 107, impacting a career in which jobs are held primarily by women and gender-diverse people. They also have no child care plan in place. It is another gendered issue where the government refuses to put a work strategy in place to make sure early childhood educators have livable wages and benefits. Liberals still expect us to have bake sales to earn enough money. It is such a bro club with the Liberal government right now.

It is a huge issue. I hope the government will come to its senses, if it wants any credibility with workers and unions across the country, and support Bill C-247 to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.

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

Madam Speaker, I too would like to start off, as the member opposite did, with regard to the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg. That general strike set history, not only for the union movement in the city of Winnipeg, but I would suggest for the world. In many ways, our union movement over the years is one of the reasons we have many of the social programs that we have today. The union movement overall has increased wages and benefits, and in many ways it has contributed to the lifestyle that we have here in Canada.

Ultimately, I would argue, and I have said it many times in the past, that Canada is in fact the best place in the world to call home. I do not say that lightly, because I do believe that our union movement is one of the primary reasons for that. When I ask people what they love about Canada, I often find it is about policies that have ultimately made Canada that star in the world. That is why I have always been, since I was first elected, back in 1988, a strong union advocate.

I see not only the true value and contributions that unions have made in the past and today, but also the potential that is there for the future, and I think the government does have an obligation to continue to work with the union movement, as we have over the last number of years.

I disagree with the painting that the member for Winnipeg Centre is trying to portray to Canadians as a whole and to the union movement. The best agreement is a negotiated agreement. Those are the best agreements. I believe 95%‑plus of agreements are achieved without any stoppage of work or lockouts. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to walk along with many on picket lines. I have had the opportunity here and at the Manitoba legislature. I do not think one has to be a New Democrat in order to be a supporter of the union movement, and that is something the NDP members do not realize. I will take the challenge.

When the New Democrats ask about people going back to work, do they not realize that there have been NDP governments that have actually ordered unions to go back to work? They have brought in back-to-work legislation. When I was first elected, we had a compromise brought in by Howard Pawley during the eighties that was called final offer selection. That was a compromise, because the NDP premier at the time promised to bring in anti-scab legislation but decided not to when he was elected as the premier. Instead, he came up with the compromise of final offer selection.

I am a big fan of final offer selection. Back then, we talked a great deal about it. The NDP and the Liberals actually worked together on coming up with a compromise that would have ultimately ensured that Manitoba today would likely still have final offer selection. In fact, it was the member for Winnipeg South Centre's father who negotiated with the NDP to come up with an agreement that would have seen its success. The union movement supported it in Manitoba in a very big way, but at the last minute, a bit of sabotage was done. I will not tell members which political party caused it, but I can say one thing: I and many members of the caucus back then were very disappointed, because we saw the value of it, just as we, for the first time, have anti-scab legislation at the national level, brought in by a Liberal government.

Understanding the value of the worker has been amplified in the budget process. Look at the Red Seal program. We are talking about enhancing 80,000 to 100,000 highly skilled workers through the Red Seal program. That is a real commitment.

We understand that when we talk about those major projects, the projects that we want to advance, union labour is not an option. It is essential that we get union labour involved. We will see that in many of the major projects that are on the horizon.

I took a look at what is being suggested in Bill C-247 and I posed a question. I believe it was a legitimate question. As I say, different levels of government, and the national government on occasion, have recognized that there might be a situation where we need a tool to deal with a labour dispute. We have seen that. Different levels of government, different political parties, including New Democrats, have had to use those tools.

Under this Prime Minister and this government, we have departments that are consulting. I believe the consultation has come to an end. Dozens of stakeholders came to the table to talk about labour. There is a serious attempt by the government to look at how we can improve labour conditions here in Canada. That is why I say we take it very seriously. That is why we are doing consultation with the different stakeholders.

That is why I posed the question. I did not mean it in a sarcastic fashion whatsoever. It was a very specific question to the member for Winnipeg Centre. I even emphasized the federal New Democrats. Is it the federal New Democrats' position? Even though she did not answer the question directly, I infer from the tail end of her answer that the answer is no, that they do not see any circumstance whatsoever where the national government should have any form of a tool if there is some form of a labour-business-management dispute that is causing issues. That is what I took from the comment from the member for Winnipeg Centre on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

Consulting is critical on anything with respect to labour and labour relations. Working and recognizing the value is more than just talking about it. It is taking action where we can. That is why I have highlighted a couple of things I have seen in the last couple of years that I think are very meaningful and that provide opportunities.

One of those achievements that I am very proud of, as I said, is the anti-scab legislation that we introduced not that long ago and ultimately passed. The other thing within this fiscal budget is that we have now proclaimed how important it is that we expand and promote programs such as the Red Seal program. I see the value, and I believe that Canadians see the value of that.

Working with the different stakeholders, listening to what they would like to see, in a responsible fashion, with respect to our labour laws, I think is the responsible approach to take. That is the approach that this Prime Minister and the government have put into action.

I am not 100% sure, but I believe if it has not concluded, it will be concluding shortly. The best way to change labour laws is to work, through consultations, with different stakeholders in order to come up with good, solid labour laws.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this private member's bill, which I believe is exceptionally well intentioned. This is a private member's bill that has been designed due to the malfeasance of the Liberal government. When I say “malfeasance of the Liberal government,” one might be wondering what I mean. What I mean is that up until the last two years, there was nobody in this country who said that we should get rid of section 107. There was not a single union saying that. There were no national unions saying that.

In fact, section 107 was used the way it was supposed to be used for decades in this country. It has been the Liberals' weaponization of section 107 that has led us here today. Let me explain what I mean by weaponization. We should take a look at section 107 in and of itself. The section is quite valuable. It says, “where the Minister deems it expedient, may do such things as to the Minister seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace” and “the Minister may refer any question to the Board or direct the Board to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.”

The purpose of section 107 was to refer things to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and the board would then do things to maintain industrial peace. That is how it functioned, until these Liberals, by accident, discovered a secret power within section 107. When I say they discovered this accidentally, I mean they literally discovered it accidentally.

Minister Seamus O'Regan, during the WestJet mechanics strike, referred a matter to the CIRB. He asked the CIRB to impose binding arbitration. Fine, that is what the CIRB went on to do, but it also then said that it did not mean the right to strike was taken away, because that was not specifically requested in the referral.

The WestJet strike went on and, guess what? The parties reached a settlement. They reached a collective agreement themselves, which is how it should work. Conservatives firmly believe the best deals are made at the bargaining table. That bargaining can be hard. Sometimes there is pain as a result of that bargaining and the disruption, but the parties come to an agreement themselves, and that is how it should work.

What the Liberals discovered in their mistake with the referral of the WestJet mechanics strike is that all they needed to do in their next referral was add in “and the parties are not allowed to strike or be locked out.” They stumbled into this new power, and once they had this new power, they became absolutely addicted to it. They then used it seven times over the next year and a bit to take away the right to strike for Canadian workers. They routinely and repeatedly used it and specifically told the Canada Industrial Relations Board that as part of the referral for binding arbitration, it must also order the parties to cease a strike and a lockout, thereby depriving unionized workers of their constitutionally protected right to strike.

These section 107 referrals are now before the courts, and the courts will be determining the constitutionality of those referrals. I can understand why the NDP has said we need to get rid of section 107, because these Liberals have created such a toxic environment in labour relations in this country because of their repeated use of section 107. It is like they are hammers and everything, therefore, is a nail. It is the only thing they can do. If there is any labour dispute, get out section 107 and smash it to the end. That is what the Liberals been doing for the past 18 months.

It was so terrible, as my colleague pointed out, that the CEO of Air Canada was relying on the use of section 107, which is why they had no fallback position when the flight attendants chose not to follow the CIRB order saying to end the strike. Amazingly, through that defiance, they came to a collective agreement, just like when the strike went on with WestJet and the WestJet mechanics. The parties were able to find an agreement for themselves.

What is the problem here? Is the problem that section 107 allows the government to refer certain things to the Canada Industrial Relations Board? Is that the problem? No, it is not the problem, because, for decades, that power existed. For decades, it was used properly. For decades, it was used appropriately. The challenge has now come because the Liberals weaponized the use of section 107. If they had used it once, we would not be having this conversation. This private member's bill would not be on the Order Paper today. If they had used it twice, it probably would not be either, but the Liberals became obsessed with using section 107.

Why did they have to routinely use section 107? It is because they have allowed the environment in this country between employers and unionized workers to become so toxic that it was the only way they could end disputes, rather than allowing the collective bargaining process to continue. They used it to stop the work stoppage with CN and CP Rail. They used it with Canada Post. They used it with Air Canada. They used it with WestJet. It is like they had nothing else they thought they could do. In the process, they have created outrage among Canadian unions, outrage at the use of section 107. There is so much outrage that the Liberals have decided they are going to do some sham study into the use of section 107.

We know what they do with their investigations. They commenced an investigation into unpaid work for flight attendants. What investigation is necessary? They should go and have a conversation with a flight attendant. The Liberals know that flight attendants are doing unpaid work, but they conducted a study to look into whether or not flight attendants do unpaid work. It is unbelievable, actually. They might as well do a study as to whether or not people get wet when they are standing outside when it rains. Unpaid work was being done. But wait, it gets worse. One would think it could not get worse, but it actually does. The first part of their study came back and said that they need to do more study. It is literally unbelievable.

After a decade of these Liberals, the state of labour relations in this country has never been worse. We have seen the most work disruptions in the last couple of years, more than we have seen in the last 30 years. In part, it is because of how they behave. In part, it is the weaponization of section 107. In part, it is because of sham investigations into things like unpaid labour.

While I agree with the member's intent in getting rid of section 107, we do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if I can use that expression. What we actually need to do is throw out the people who are poisoning labour relations in this country.

I want to congratulate the member for putting forward this piece of legislation. I think it is exceptionally well intentioned. Unfortunately, I do not believe that section 107 is the problem. There are lots of ways to use section 107 that are not weaponized and that will not destroy the labour relations in this country. The only way to do that is to get rid of the people who are doing it. Unfortunately, we cannot support this piece of legislation.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑247, which seeks to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.

First, the right to strike, and we need to call it that, is a fundamental right that is recognized by the courts and that is protected by freedom of association. The Bloc Québécois believes that this right must never depend on the political goodwill of a federal government. I remind members that Bill C‑247 seeks to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. This section gives the Minister of Labour extremely broad powers to intervene in labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction. The minister can go so far as to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene or impose any measures the minister considers necessary.

The main issue is that there are practically no clear guidelines in the legislation at this time. I will begin by explaining a little more about what the bill would change. I will then provide some numbers. Lastly, I will remind members of our historical position.

First, with respect to section 107, there are no strict criteria tied to public health, national security or an exceptional emergency. This opens the door to political interference in strikes that are, in fact, lawful. A strike is often the last resort for workers after months or sometimes years of negotiations. If the government can intervene as soon as the pressure gets intense, the right to strike becomes meaningless.

A strike only carries weight when it creates real economic pressure. If employers believe that Ottawa will eventually intervene, why would they negotiate quickly? Why would they make compromises or concessions at the bargaining table? As a result, the existence of section 107 directly alters the balance of power between employers and workers. It encourages employers to stick to their guns rather than bargaining in good faith. The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be resolved at the bargaining table first, not in ministerial offices and not through premature political intervention.

Historically, section 107 has existed since 1984, but it was rarely invoked. What is concerning today is the rapid increase in its use. Just since 2024, Ottawa has used section 107 to intervene in at least seven major labour disputes. My colleagues have already cited recent examples in their remarks, including WestJet, CN, CPKC and Air Canada. The noteworthy thing about the dispute at Air Canada is that it was about unpaid work, which disproportionately affected female flight attendants. Other examples include the ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Vancouver, as well as Canada Post.

What was intended to be an exceptional power has effectively become a standard tool for managing labour disputes. Take Canada Post, where more than 55,000 workers were affected by the dispute. Small and medium-sized businesses pegged their economic losses at approximately $76 million per day. Yes, these disputes have a significant impact on the economy. They are a source of concern among businesses and citizens.

However, when a government limits a fundamental right, it should always do so openly, in front of Parliament. For a long time, when a government wanted to end a strike, it had to introduce special back-to-work legislation. This entailed a public debate, a vote by elected officials and political accountability. Section 107 circumvents this debate, this democratic process, by employing a much more low-key administrative mechanism.

Many labour organizations have been complaining about this situation for years. In their view, section 107 makes it possible to suspend or neutralize a lawful strike without any real parliamentary oversight. A number of lawsuits have also been filed challenging the constitutionality of these interventions. There are even some labour law experts who hold that the right to strike is an integral part of true collective bargaining.

If that right can be suspended too easily, it throws negotiations off balance, not to mention the obvious problem of creating a double standard. Prolonged lockouts, aggressive management strategies and refusals to compromise are often tolerated. However, as soon as workers effectively exercise their right to strike, Ottawa takes swift action, as if the problem were always the union, as if the right to strike were an economic obstacle and not a fundamental democratic right. The Bloc Québécois believes that true balance must be restored to labour relations.

Repealing section 107 does not mean that the government loses all its tools. The minister will still be able to appoint mediators, use conciliation, support negotiations and establish commissions of inquiry. If an exceptional intervention is truly necessary, the government can still introduce special legislation in Parliament, but it will then have to publicly defend that decision to elected officials and the public. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about. That is how the process should work.

Bill C-247 aims to protect a fundamental right, limit a ministerial power that has become excessive, strengthen collective bargaining, and return negotiations to where they belong, that is, between employers and workers. We often say this that the best agreement is always one that has been negotiated rather than imposed by force. For the Bloc Québécois, defending the right to strike means defending workers' dignity, freedom of association, and the balance of power in labour relations.

Let us look at some statistics and key points to drive home our message. As we know, there has been a recent surge in the use of section 107. Some would even go so far as to say that this section has been weaponized and has become an obsession for the Liberals. Section 107 has been around since 1984. For decades, it was used only very rarely. According to several legal and union analyses, its use has skyrocketed since 2024. As I mentioned earlier, the federal government has intervened in at least seven or eight major labour disputes by invoking section 107.

Think about the major disputes where the government has invoked section 107: WestJet, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, the port of Montreal, the port of Quebec, the port of Vancouver, Air Canada, Canada Post. Take the WestJet dispute, for example. According to CUPE, in June 2024, the government attempted to invoke section 107 even before the strike at WestJet had actually begun. Crucially, when the Canada Industrial Relations Board did not immediately suspend the strike, the employer quickly returned to the negotiating table. A court ruling forced them back to the negotiating table. Ultimately, an agreement was reached swiftly once the parties returned to the table to talk.

It is important to bear in mind that these disputes have economic repercussions. As I have already mentioned, 55,000 workers were involved in the dispute at Canada Post. That is not insignificant. Canadian small businesses were deeply affected and pegged their losses at $76 million a day during the strike. We fully understand why they were worried. Negotiations needed to resume. The parties had to get back to the negotiating table.

We are saying that there is a way to do better in terms of bargaining. The best way to resolve a labour dispute is with a framework where disputes are resolved at the table, there is no premature political intervention, the right to strike carries its full weight, and the parties are genuinely encouraged to reach an agreement.

The Bloc Québécois is acting in accordance with its historical position. I know that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean is here. One of our former leaders, Gilles Duceppe, was a trade unionist. More recently, we had another trade unionist on our team, Louise Chabot, whom I acknowledge. This is part of our DNA, and we continue to hold those traditional positions.

Section 107 makes it possible to circumvent parliamentary debate on back-to-work legislation and intervene directly in a dispute by suspending a perfectly lawful strike or rendering it meaningless. As we said, repealing this section would not leave the minister with no other recourse. The minister would still have all the mediation and conciliation powers provided for elsewhere in the Canada Labour Code. This would force the minister to play a more traditional role during labour disputes, in other words, facilitating and supporting negotiations, suggesting solutions and exerting political pressure, rather than directly short-circuiting a lawful strike by issuing a broad directive to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

This change is important. That is why we support this bill, out of respect for workers' rights and in keeping with the historical positions of the Bloc Québécois.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that we are at a pivotal moment for the Canadian economy. All over the world, trade rules are changing very rapidly. Supply chains are much more fragile, and economic and geopolitical tensions are having serious consequences here at home for the workers, businesses and communities that depend on stable, well-paying jobs.

In this context, the government's responsibility is very clear. We must protect Canadian workers while strengthening our country's economic resilience. The two go hand in hand. We cannot build a strong economy without respecting the workers who keep it running every day, and we cannot protect workers in the long term without an economy that can withstand shocks and remain competitive.

It is with that in mind that I rise today to speak to Bill C-247. I want to begin by thanking the member for Winnipeg Centre for introducing this bill. I also want to acknowledge her strong commitment to Canadian workers. The government shares the fundamental goal underlying this initiative, which is to strengthen a labour relations framework that respects workers, promotes collective bargaining and supports the country's economic stability.

We firmly believe in the right to strike. This right is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it is an essential element of free, balanced and respectful labour relations. Workers must have real bargaining power, and our government has taken concrete measures to strengthen that right. One example is Bill C-58, which prohibits the use of replacement workers in federally regulated sectors. This had been a key demand of the trade union movement for many years. This reform helps to establish a better balance in negotiations and to protect the integrity of the collective bargaining process, because, ultimately, the best agreements are those negotiated at the bargaining table. Our government truly believes in dialogue between the parties.

Collective bargaining is not always a simple process. It can sometimes involve significant tensions, but it remains a mechanism for finding lasting, balanced solutions. That is why we have the federal mediation and conciliation service, which plays such an important role. Despite what the headlines may sometimes suggest, the vast majority of federally regulated labour disputes are resolved without a work stoppage. In fact, 97% of disputes where the parties worked with the federal mediation and conciliation service were resolved this way, which shows that our system generally works well when the parties bargain in good faith and, above all, have access to the right support tools.

However, we must also recognize another reality. Certain infrastructure and sectors now play a critical role in our country's economic stability. In a context where global supply chains are already under pressure, some labour disputes can have rapid and significant repercussions for millions of Canadians, businesses, exporters and the economy as a whole.

Recognizing this reality in no way diminishes the importance of the right to strike. It simply means that the government also has a responsibility to consider the public interest, economic stability and the potential consequences for the workers themselves, because at the end of the day, when an economy slows down significantly, it is often workers who bear the brunt of the impact. That is the rationale behind section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. I want to be very clear. Its use must always remain exceptional. Our government believes that extraordinary interventions in a labour dispute should always be a last resort.

Our priority remains the same: to enable the parties to reach a negotiated agreement. In some situations, however, the economic, social and logistical effects are too great to ignore. At such times, the government has to act carefully, in a balanced way, with deep respect for workers' rights. This is not an ideological issue; it is about responsibility. I think it is possible to be deeply supportive of workers and, at the same time, pragmatic about managing the country's economic interests.

Canadian workers also understand the challenges facing our economy. They understand the importance of protecting jobs, investments and long-term economic stability. That is why the government is currently engaged in major consultations on the future of labour relations in Canada. The focus of these consultations includes how the collective bargaining process works, mediation mechanisms, certain time limits set out in the Canada Labour Code and the use of section 107.

I also want to highlight an aspect too often overlooked in the debate: the daily reality of the workers and employers directly affected by labour disputes. For many Canadians, labour relations are not an abstract concept; they directly affect paycheques, mortgage payments, the stability of small and medium-sized businesses and the ability to plan for the future.

When negotiations go well, everyone wins. Workers, employers and communities benefit. However, when disputes drag on or turn unpredictable, the problems do not just stay at the negotiating table. They quickly spill over into supply chains, local economies and sectors that depend on reliability. That is why predictability is just as important as fairness in our labour relations system.

Our goal must always be to create conditions that enable the parties to reach an agreement without unnecessary disruptions. That means strengthening tools for negotiation, mediation and early dispute resolution. It also means that both parties must have confidence in the system. Workers need to know that their rights are protected and respected, and employers need to know that there is a clear, fair and effective process for resolving disputes.

Canadians need to be able to count on economic stability and the continuity of essential services. This balance is not always easy to achieve, but it is essential.

We need to recognize that the labour market is changing. We are seeing new forms of work, changing supply chains and increased global competition for investment.

In this context, jurisdictions that are able to maintain stable, modern and predictable labour relations will be better positioned to attract good jobs and sustainable investment.

This is not about weakening workers' rights. It is about strengthening the overall framework that protects those rights in a lasting way. Ultimately, the best protection for workers is a growing, stable economy capable of creating opportunities. That is why our approach is not set in stone. It is pragmatic and evolves with the economy. That is also why we are committed to continuing the dialogue with workers, unions, employers, and all partners in the labour relations system. We believe that this ongoing commitment is not a sign of uncertainty, but a sign of responsibility. This is how we ensure that the framework remains relevant, fair and effective for years to come.

Unions, employers, workers and indigenous partners have participated in the discussions. We are listening carefully to what they have to say. Labour relations are changing, the economy is changing, and our legal framework must reflect today's realities while protecting workers' fundamental rights.

Our goal is clear: to maintain a modern, credible, balanced labour relations system that lines up with Canada's economic realities, a system that truly protects workers, promotes free and fair bargaining, and enables Canada to remain strong, stable and competitive in an increasingly uncertain global environment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway will have three minutes at this time and will be able to conclude the next time the bill is debated.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is not a whole lot I can get in at this point with three minutes, but I will say that I am proud to rise as the labour critic for the NDP and to speak to the bill.

Prior to being elected, I spent 16 years working as the director of legal resources for the Teamsters Local No. 31. In that time period, I did not just walk picket lines, as my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, said, but I negotiated collective agreements, I made applications to the labour board, I defended the right to strike, I prosecuted unfair labour practices and I did essential services designations. There was probably not a section of the Canada Labour Code that I did not deal with in those 16 years. This is not a theoretical exercise to me or to the millions of workers in this country. It affects their lives.

Here is what I know from that experience: One, collective bargaining is the foundation of union rights in this country. Two, the right of a worker to withdraw their services is a charter-protected strike.

I am surprised to see the Liberals so easily violate charter rights, because they themselves claim proudly that they are the party of the charter. As the party of the charter, eight times in the past two years, they have violated the charter rights as described by the Supreme Court of Canada. That is not an NDP position, but the highest court in the land that said that workers have the right to withdraw their services as a core expression of their right to free assembly and association. Eight times this government has ended that right by sending an email.

Now, my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, is saying that NDP governments, in the past, have brought in back-to-work legislation. That is the democratic way to do it, after many days of labour action, and then back-to-work legislation is debated in the House. However, that is not what this government has done. The Liberals ended eight strikes by an email. When did they do it? It was 12 hours after the flight attendants at Air Canada went off the job, and 10 hours after the rail workers at CN and CP rail went off the job. They did not even wait a day for these workers to express their charter rights before they were violated. The only power labour has is the power to withdraw their services. That is it. If we interfere with that right, we interfere with the very foundation of collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is a success in Canada, and 99% of collective agreements are resolved without a strike or lockout. They are resolved at the bargaining table. I have heard repeatedly from the government, and all members of the House, that the best agreements are agreements reached at the bargaining table. Do members know why they are reached at the bargaining table? It is because unions and employers have a tool—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member will have seven minutes to conclude his speech the next time the bill comes to the floor.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to address the continuing, worsening youth unemployment crisis. The youth unemployment rate now is at 14.3%. We recently asked the finance minister about the youth unemployment crisis in this country. He would not agree in the House that we face a youth unemployment crisis, and he was not even able to state the youth unemployment rate. That is from the finance minister of this country, which shows how asleep at the switch the government is. It has no plan to address a crisis that it will not acknowledge and does not even understand the magnitude of.

However, there is good news as well. This week the human resources committee tabled its detailed report on a youth unemployment crisis study, which contains many recommendations that, actually, specifically reflect the Conservative youth jobs plan. As we have called on the government to confront this youth unemployment crisis, we have put forward a Conservative youth jobs plan to unleash the economy, to fix immigration, to fix training and to build homes where the jobs are, and now we have a unanimous report from the human resources committee that reflects these key Conservative priorities.

I want to congratulate the members of the human resources committee from all parties who got behind these Conservative priorities. Now it is time for a government that has been asleep at the switch for too long to recognize this crisis, to talk to young people, to read the statistical reports, to know the information and to implement a real plan that reflects what Conservatives have put forward and what is contained in this all-party report.

I want to highlight a number of the recommendations. First, this all-party report recommends that “the Government of Canada seek to reduce taxes and red tape in order to address concerns about how the taxation and regulatory environment has limited productivity growth and held back youth employment.” It is incredible, an all-party recommendation calling on the government to respond to this Conservative priority to reduce taxes and red tape.

Recommendation two states, “That the Government of Canada recognize the positive role that natural resource development, manufacturing, and all other sectors play in contributing to employment, and seek to valorize work in all sectors.”

Recommendation three deals with recognizing the role that immigration policy failures have had in contributing to youth unemployment, and addressing them.

Recommendation five calls on the government to “apply strict penalties to companies hiring illegal workers.” We have actually had cases where companies that have been punished for hiring illegal workers went on to get government subsidies. When we have this culture of permissiveness toward companies hiring illegal workers, it contributes to youth unemployment.

Recommendation seven calls on the government to “celebrate the value and dignity of trades work [and] ensure that institutions providing trade skills are treated equally and fairly”. That responds to the fact that the government has actually removed funding for grants from students attending vocational institutions. That is, if someone is trying to pursue in-demand skills at a vocational institution, the government has cut them off from getting a student grant. We would reverse that, and that is what is alluded to by recommendation seven in this all-party report.

There are many great recommendations in this report. It provides a clear blueprint for the government to follow, building on the Conservative youth jobs plan released in the fall. The government is doing nothing. Young people are getting desperate. The government needs a plan. We now have an all-party report that follows the lead of the Conservatives with specific concrete recommendations.

Is the government prepared to implement these constructive recommendations in the 10th report of the human resources committee?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his question. It provides another opportunity to remind Canadians of our government's commitment to renew the nation's workforce with targeted, dynamic investments in our young people.

We are building big, we are building bold, and we are building now. We are building at a scale not seen in this country since the end of the Second World War. We are building 500,000 homes and developing major projects in the national interest, all with Canadian steel, Canadian lumber and Canadian workers. We are not just building homes and infrastructure; we are training the workforce of the future that will build it.

I do not have time to speak in detail about all the programs, but knowing the interest that the member opposite has shown in youth employment, let me focus on some of the highlights.

Team Canada strong, a new measure announced in the spring economic update, is a $6-billion nationwide effort to recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal trades workers in the next five years. This is a plan to address the concerns we heard directly from unions, employers, industry and youth themselves.

We are launching the build Canada apprenticeship service to provide up to $10,000 for an apprentice's first-year salary. This will help employers recruit new apprentices and allow us to help match apprentices to job opportunities. We are boosting training capacity and expediting certification in the Red Seal trades.

We are helping hire new apprentices by providing a $400 per week top-up while apprentices attend mandatory in-class training and by offering a one-time $5,000 apprenticeship completion bonus to incentivize apprentices to finish their programs. This represents up to $16,000 in support for each apprentice, from recruitment through to training and hiring. It will help workers, whether they are transitioning to this new career or just getting started in the workforce.

Similarly, Employment and Social Development Canada's youth employment program is helping more than 25,000 youth with tailored employment supports for the period of 2024-28. An assessment of this program found that nearly 76% of participants who received skills training and employment supports were still employed the following year. That is an impressive success rate and a sign that our investments as a government are targeted and effective.

Equally impressive is the success we are seeing with the student work placement program. It is not only helping post-secondary students develop work-ready skills, but also giving employers the means to recruit and develop talent through paid, work-integrated learning opportunities. Again, the statistics tell us that this program is making a difference. In 2024-25, the program placed 51,000 post-secondary students with employers. That makes more than 300,000 opportunities since 2017. The beauty of this program is that it prepares young Canadians for their careers with employers in many sectors right across the economy.

As we build this future workforce, private sector employers play a crucial role. It is why we have also introduced new measures to support strategic sectors of the economy and advance major projects. We are creating good, well-paying jobs and our government is continuing to announce significant measures to help employers do just that.

Let me assure the member opposite that we take youth employment extremely seriously and we are working with all of our partners to make sure that they are equipped with the skills and opportunities that they need to thrive. This is work that we are going to continue to do and work that was set out so prominently in the spring economic statement as part of a massive new investment to help our young people have the skills they need for the future.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is really incredible listening to the way the government talks about the youth unemployment crisis, because fundamentally it seems that it does not understand the task. The task is to address the youth unemployment rate. It is to address the fact that we have a high and climbing youth unemployment rate. It is to address the fact that youth employment is at one of its lowest points in decades. It is to address the real facts on the ground.

In response to these questions, the government never actually talks about the youth unemployment rate. It never points to success in terms of, in aggregate, getting more young people into work. It always wants us to be impressed by the amount of money it is spending, by the fact that it is continuing existing programs and by the fact that it has hopes and ambitions for things that it might do later on.

Can the member acknowledge that it is not working and that the youth unemployment rate is high and increasing, that their plans are not achieving the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. secretary of state.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was in the home province of the member opposite just last week. I was meeting with the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, talking about the amazing work that is being done there to graduate young people into the trades. It is work that we continue to build on. Just yesterday, I met with the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum. They called our investments in the spring economic statement a project that made them feel heard. They said that their concerns about how we increase the number of apprentices and increase the number of skilled trade workers across the country are being focused on, and that these are incredible concrete initiatives to improve the recruitment, retention and training of our skilled workers in Canada.

We are making these investments precisely because we know that the future of our country's economy, the future of our workforce and the future of so many young Canadians looking to build careers in good-paying jobs depend on our ability to have a skilled trades workforce that meets our needs. That is exactly what we are going to continue to do.

Fisheries and Oceans

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

Madam Speaker, tonight's debate is about fisheries policy on the west coast, but it is also about something bigger. It is about whether coastal communities on Vancouver Island and across British Columbia are treated with the same fairness and respect as other parts of the country.

On the west coast, commercial fish harvesters, the people actually doing the fishing, are being pushed out. Corporate concentration and growing foreign ownership of licences and quota are driving up costs and draining wealth out of coastal communities. We actually do not even know who owns much of the quota because there is still no public registry. Meanwhile, on the east coast, an owner-operator model protects independent fish harvesters and keeps the value in local communities.

Eight years ago, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans made unanimous recommendations to bring those same protections to the west coast, yet eight years later, there still has not been any meaningful action. That delay has real consequences. Every year, more access, control and wealth leave the hands of independent fish harvesters and coastal communities. It is a huge economic leakage.

This is not a new problem. The solutions have already been identified, but what has been missing is the Liberal government's willingness to act.

For many Vancouver Islanders, this is part of a larger problem. We often hear about western alienation. It is real and few large populations in Canada understand that feeling better than Vancouver Islanders, not because we want to leave Canada. Vancouver Islanders believe that Canada is stronger together, but people begin to feel alienated when they are ignored, under-represented and treated unfairly for decades.

A perfect example is our ferry system, which is a huge cost barrier to getting our seafood products to market. As coastal peoples, we understand that ferries are not a luxury. They are essential highways that connect communities to the rest of Canada, which is why we deserve strong federal ferry support. According to the Library of Parliament, last year, BC Ferries received approximately $1.63 in federal support per passenger, while federally supported east coast ferry systems received approximately $291 per passenger, roughly 178 times more support than BC Ferries received. Marine Atlantic received 300 times more support.

This is not about taking away support from Atlantic Canadians. Their ferry systems are essential national infrastructure. The issue is that Vancouver Islanders are asking why essential marine highways on the west coast are not treated with the same level of federal importance. The federal government keeps pointing to constitutional agreements signed more than 80 years ago and funding formulas created nearly 50 years ago, when Vancouver Island had about 450,000 residents.

The government now points to temporary pandemic relief and repayable Infrastructure Bank loans as proof that the system is fair, but emergency COVID funding was temporary. Atlantic ferry systems also receive pandemic support. Loans still have to be repaid by British Columbians through fares and borrowing costs. That is not the same as ongoing federal operational support.

Today, Vancouver Island is approaching one million people and BC Ferries carries more than 22 million passengers annually. These are essential marine highways connecting workers, seniors, families, students, truckers and businesses, including those in the blue economy and our supply chains.

Premier Eby made the point clearly. The federal government should not reward provinces that threaten separation while ignoring regions that continue working constructively within the federation. Unlike some provinces, Vancouver Islanders are not threatening to separate from Canada because they are frustrated by this unfairness, but people are asking why consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have continued treating us like an afterthought.

It does not stop there. Nearly one million people live on Vancouver Island, yet not a single senator clearly rooted on Vancouver Island has been appointed in more than 55 years. Meanwhile, New Brunswick, with a comparable population, has 10 Senate seats. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador together have fewer people than Vancouver Island, yet they also hold 10 seats. That means no Vancouver Island senator on the Senate fisheries committee.

This is what being ignored looks like. Vancouver Islanders are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for fairness: fair ferry funding, fair representation and fair fisheries policies that protect coastal communities. As Vancouver Islanders, we love this country. We believe in Canada, but we know this country is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the issues raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is aware that many fish harvesters on the west coast are facing economic challenges. That is why, in February, the Minister of Fisheries announced two new objectives to guide the licensing reform work happening under the west coast commercial fisheries modernization initiative. These objectives are to support working harvesters so they have more control over their fishing activities and keep a greater share of the benefits from their fishing effort, and to modernize the licensing regime to support harvesters in pursuing their business objectives and adapting to change.

Work is already under way. The government is engaging on fishery-specific policy options to achieve these objectives, starting with the crab and prawn fisheries. As part of this effort, DFO is gathering perspectives on the feasibility and implications of various policy options, such as made-in-B.C. versions of owner-operator and fleet separation requirements, and other ideas raised by participants and harvesters. DFO will also launch a survey of licence and quota holdings and leasing agreements to ensure that policies are informed by robust and current data.

The government understands the challenges that harvesters are facing, but those who rely on the fishery have told us that a cookie-cutter approach will not suffice. Careful consideration will be given to different ways that fisheries have evolved in British Columbia compared to on the east coast, when contemplating owner-operator type requirements or other policy ideas that can support active harvesters and the flow of benefits to local communities.

The government knows how important it is for Canada's fisheries resources to stay in the hands of Canadians. That is why we completed a beneficial ownership survey in 2022 to learn more about foreign participation in Canadian fisheries. While the results told us that 98% of respondents reported being Canadian-owned, we are conducting further research and analysis to deepen our understanding about who actually is benefiting from Canada's west coast fisheries.

DFO believes in transparency of fisheries data and is actively working to improve data transparency for the benefit of active harvesters, new fishery participants and all Canadians. We have published interactive socio-economic data dashboards for fishery participants to learn more about the economics of their fisheries, and we are collecting more socio-economic data. We have also taken steps to make public data sets more accessible by publishing a web-based portal to facilitate access to publicly available licences and quota information.

The Government of Canada remains committed to supporting the economic health and prosperity of coastal communities that rely on fishery resources. We know that fishing activities are an important cultural and economic feature of many coastal communities in B.C. The government will not take a one-size-fits-all approach.

The west coast commercial fisheries modernization initiative will provide important opportunities for first nations and fishery participants to shape the future of licensing policy, ensuring that any policy changes are practical, effective, and suited and tailored to the west coast context, not a replica of the east coast.

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

Madam Speaker, the speech I just gave was about a growing feeling on Vancouver Island and across the west coast that our communities are too often treated like an afterthought. Talking about a survey that was done four years ago, or a new survey that the Liberals are going to do eight years after the fisheries and oceans report, just says it all. The frustration could not be more clear.

Another example is what happened last year on the Fraser River. Nearly 10 million sockeye returned, one of the strongest runs in decades, yet independent fish harvesters, including indigenous commercial harvesters, were effectively shut out while families struggled to keep their boats and businesses afloat.

Nobody is arguing against conservation. Weak stocks need to be protected, and treaty obligations with the United States through the Pacific Salmon Commission must be respected, but when Canada's own commercial fleet is denied fair access during years of proven abundance, it undermines confidence in the system.

I want to know today from the parliamentary secretary what concrete changes the government will make before the 2026 Fraser sockeye season to ensure that this never happens again.

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

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to supporting and strengthening the economies of our coastal communities.

Fishing is an important part of many coastal communities on the west coast. This government is taking steps to actively work with first nations, harvesters, licence holders and processors to explore potential solutions that reflect the unique realities of the west coast.

The Minister of Fisheries recently announced two new objectives guiding work to modernize west coast fisheries. The first is supporting harvesters to have more control over their fishing activities, to keep a greater share of the benefits from fishing. The second is modernizing licensing to support harvesters in pursuing their business objectives. This government will work closely with west coast fishery participants on options for how to achieve these objectives and address the concerns of fish harvesters.

Fisheries on the east and west coasts have evolved very differently. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. This is why this government is working with those involved to develop solutions—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Riding Mountain.

Health

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, on April 28, the health committee held an emergency meeting on the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT program failure. During that meeting, the parliamentary secretary for health moved a motion to shut off the committee cameras. She never explained why.

I will ask her directly. Why did she shut off the cameras?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this topic, and I welcome the chance to put some facts on the record, so let us look at the facts.

The fact is that PrescribeIT was launched by the previous government in 2017 after extensive consultation with provinces and territories. To create the program, the previous government worked with Canada Health Infoway, an organization that has received funding and support from Conservative and Liberal governments alike since its creation in 2001.

It is also a fact that any program like this needed to begin at the federal level. If we look at similar countries that transitioned to e-prescribing, whether the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand, these systems were launched through federal governments or national agencies. Of course, in Canada, provinces and territories are responsible for health care delivery, which is why PrescribeIT was built with the idea of it becoming self-sustaining, with the provinces and territories taking on their share.

Another key fact is that PrescribeIT may have worked as a technology solution, as we have heard, but it did not have the support from provinces and territories financially, nor did it achieve the ideal uptake for the program to be self-sustaining. I am sure the member opposite will agree that it is important for both to happen.

That is why our government took the step of announcing back in February that we were ending the funding for the program and working with Infoway on the next steps, and we are already seeing results on this front. Last week, Quebec came to the table with Infoway and signed an agreement to transition to PrescribeIT using provincial funding, exactly as the long-term model envisioned. We also know for a fact that other provinces and territories are watching how the deployment unfolds because they all recognize the value of modernizing our health data infrastructure and making sure that prescribers and pharmacists have the best tools available to serve their patients.

What is disappointing is that instead of engaging seriously on these issues and topics, Conservatives continue to focus on rhetoric and procedural games rather than the broader issue of how we modernize health care for Canadians. We have before us the opportunity to study urgent public health crises, including the public health emergency declared for HIV in Manitoba, but it has been delayed by that member from Manitoba through partisan obstructions.

At the same time, I commend my hon. colleague the member for Winnipeg West for standing up for vulnerable Canadians.

There are many important issues before us: strengthening public health preparedness, responding to infectious disease threats, supporting health workers and improving digital health systems across the country. I ask the member to join us on this front.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member did not answer my question. Canadians want to know why the Liberal parliamentary secretary for health turned off the cameras at the health committee during an emergency meeting on the $300-million PrescribeIT program failure.

It is a very simple question. Why did she vote to turn off the committee cameras?

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians expect us to approach issues like this with a focus on outcomes. The reality is that PrescribeIT was created to help modernize the way health information is shared and to reduce reliance on outdated systems. Like many large-scale digital health initiatives, there were challenges, lessons learned and important questions about long-term sustainability. Our government made a decision regarding future federal funding while ensuring that provinces, like Quebec, could continue moving forward with deployment models that meet their own needs.

What is important now is that we focus on strengthening digital health infrastructure—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now 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 7:14 p.m.)