Debates of May 8th, 2026

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

moved that Bill C‑11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open third reading debate on Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act.

As Canada's new government makes a generational investment in the Canadian Armed Forces, we know that any work to support our forces starts with our people. This legislation is about the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is about ensuring their safety here in Canada and around the world.

The people of the Canadian Armed Forces are at the heart of everything we do, whether they are defending our sovereignty at home, supporting our allies abroad or serving at bases and wings across Canada.

As a military parent and as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I have had the immense privilege of meeting many members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families across the country and abroad. I have an incredible amount of respect for military members and their families as they serve Canada, and I am deeply grateful for their steadfast dedication to Canadians.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces keep us safe every day. In turn, it is our responsibility to ensure that they have a work environment where they feel protected, respected and empowered to serve. Our forces deserve a workplace free from all behaviours that harm our people, threaten morale and undermine team cohesion, including the reprehensible act of sexual misconduct.

We know that a strong, diverse, united and capable armed forces is what we need to defend Canada. It is essential that we eradicate any behaviours that run counter to a healthy workplace. Our operational effectiveness, recruitment and retention depend on our ability to create an environment where our forces can grow their careers for decades to come. Bill C-11 proposes a range of important changes to the National Defence Act designed to support this essential work of keeping our forces safe and helping them thrive in a healthy workplace.

Canada's military justice system must not only reflect the values of fairness, accountability and respect, but also uphold the trust that Canadians place in the institutions that serve them. Through Bill C-11, we would fulfill the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish, and we are taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce trust within the Canadian Armed Forces.

First, this bill would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. With this bill, civilian authorities would have the exclusive responsibility to investigate and prosecute these offences.

Second, Bill C‑11 would act on eight key recommendations outlined by former Supreme Court justice Fish in his third independent review. This includes establishing stronger, more transparent appointment processes for senior CAF members who play crucial roles in the military justice system.

We are also modifying the appointment process for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services by making them Governor in Council appointees, and we are changing the term of those positions to a fixed non-renewable term of up to seven years. We are also modifying the process and authority for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, appointed by the Governor in Council, and, finally, changing the title from Canadian Forces provost marshal to provost marshal general to align with the title of other senior designations in the CAF, such as the surgeon general, the chaplain general and the judge advocate general.

Third, Bill C‑11 builds on supports provided under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by expanding access to victim liaison officers for individuals acting on behalf of a victim.

Fourth, the bill aligns the military justice system's provisions regarding sex offender information and publication bans with the amendments already made to the Criminal Code in 2023.

These comprehensive recommendations aimed at reforming our military justice system are just one part of a broader transformation of the Canadian Armed Forces. We would make important changes to how we screen new recruits, how we manage Canada's two military colleges, in Kingston and in Saint-Jean, and how we collect, store and use data on workplace harassment, among other things.

These are real, tangible and meaningful changes that would help to get more people in the door more effectively. For example, we would also be instituting a new probationary period for new recruits. This would allow applicants to enrol and to begin their training while the administrative work related to their application file is completed. This is something that multiple external examiners suggested the Canadian Armed Forces implement.

There would be added benefits to the implementation of this recommendation too. For example, during the probationary period, applicants would have to pass the required security clearance check, meet medical standards and show that they live by the Canadian Armed Forces' ethos and values. We need to ensure that our military better reflects the country it serves by drawing from the very best people Canada has to offer, but let me be clear: We will not tolerate bad behaviour.

We are already starting to see positive impacts of the implementation of these recommendations. In fact, our recruitment efforts are already paying off. Last fiscal year, we surpassed our recruitment goals, bringing in over 6,700 new regular force members. That is a 55% increase from the year before. This year, we had the highest enrolment for the Canadian Armed Forces in the past 30 years. Applications more than doubled, to over 45,000. The Canadian Armed Forces enrolled 7,310 regular force members, and 70 of the 97 critical roles are now filled.

This is good news for Canada, for Canadians and for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we still have work to do to foster a culture within the Canadian Armed Forces that is rooted in dignity, inclusion and respect for everyone who serves. We know we need to keep our foot on the gas to create a modern 21st-century workplace that can foster the next generation of the Canadian Armed Forces. As I have mentioned in previous debate on this legislation, Bill C-11 would fulfill several recommendations put forward in the reviews conducted by former Supreme Court Justices Arbour and Fish.

In addition, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs submitted its 15th report, entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”, in June 2024. This study was the largest study that the committee had ever undertaken. Almost 100 individuals appeared over the course of 23 meetings, and in that report, passed in the House, the committee's recommendation 40 reads:

That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities.

I would like to note that we are also making important progress on many of the other recommendations as part of our broader cultural evolution efforts. For example, in the independent external comprehensive review, Justice Arbour detailed 48 recommendations on everything from recruitment to training and oversight. I am very proud to share that, to date, we have implemented 47 of those 48 recommendations.

We made progress on Madam Arbour's first and second recommendations, strengthening our approach to addressing sexual misconduct by clarifying the full spectrum of terms and definitions into three categories: conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature, sexual harassment and sexual assault. This would ensure that we are better able to address each form of inappropriate conduct through the proper legal, administrative and disciplinary means.

The Canadian Armed Forces has also adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of harassment and violence. This change now allows the defence team to take a unified approach to addressing cases of workplace harassment and violence, applicable to both public servants and members of the armed forces. All incidents of harassment and violence within the defence team will be managed through the workplace harassment and violence prevention program. This measure came in response to Ms. Arbour's third recommendation.

We also acted on recommendations seven and nine of Justice Arbour's report by allowing Canadian Armed Forces members who experience sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, sexual crimes or any other form of discrimination based on sex or gender in the course of their duties to contact the Canadian Human Rights Commission directly.

As many members know, the former external monitor, Madam Jocelyne Therrien, provided regular public evaluations of our progress in implementing these recommendations, including releasing six biannual status reports over the course of her term. Madam Therrien's thorough and objective assessment of our progress has been critical in informing how we are implementing these recommendations, and we thank her for her commitment, guidance and dedication.

In April 2021, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces launched a comprehensive initiative aimed at aligning the culture of the Department of National Defence and the professional conduct of its personnel with the fundamental values and ethical principles we aspire to uphold as a national institution. Since then, we have taken significant steps to evolve our culture and implement concrete changes, including taking measures to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination.

This work encompasses a wide range of responsibilities, such as developing policies and programs that address systemic misconduct, improving mechanisms for monitoring and reporting misconduct, and overseeing the development of a framework for professional conduct and organizational culture that combats discrimination, harmful behaviour, bias and systemic barriers.

To support these efforts, and as we reaffirmed in budget 2024, we are investing nearly $1 billion over 20 years to facilitate these changes within the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are proposing amendments to the National Defence Act to implement key recommendations aimed at transforming the organizational culture.

We have also launched a comprehensive plan designed to guide our efforts to implement the various recommendations. We recognize that cultural change is a gradual process that unfolds step by step and takes time. It requires sustained and ongoing effort. It is essential to the well-being and operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would also like to emphasize that changing the culture and improving the Canadian Armed Forces should be a goal that unites us as parliamentarians, not one that divides us. Improving and strengthening the Canadian Armed Forces is not, and should never be, a partisan issue.

We continue to listen and learn from members of the defence team, external stakeholders, communities and partners as we work to create a safer and more inclusive work environment. We are making real, tangible progress, but we recognize that there is still much more work to be done. This is why we also need to ensure that victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces get the support, the care and the resources they need.

In line with Justice Arbour's recommendation 14 of the independent external comprehensive review, we have worked hard to provide a suite of supports for victims and survivors. Much of that support comes from the sexual misconduct support and resource centre. This centre, which operates independently of the chain of command, provides specialized advice, guidance and recommendations to personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence on all matters related to sexual misconduct. It includes a 24‑7 hotline that offers personnel confidential support, information on available options, advice on how to help others and referrals to care and services.

I would also like to point out that the independent legal assistance program is another valuable mechanism for supporting victims. It offers free and confidential legal assistance, including legal information and advice regarding incidents of sexual misconduct that occurred in a context related to DND and the CAF. It also offers legal representation in certain proceedings related to sexual criminal offences or military offences, the victim's safety or their participation in the judicial process. By offering timely, independent and trauma-informed support, the program plays a critical role in expanding access to justice and choice for affected persons.

It is important to note that there have been important progress and tangible changes since 2021. This is precisely because of the interim directive that put Justice Arbour's recommendation number five into place in a temporary manner, until such time as legislation could be passed through Parliament. As Justice Arbour herself acknowledged in her report, removing concurrent jurisdiction by amending the National Defence Act will “take several years to implement.”

Since 2021, work on cultural evolution inside the Canadian Armed Forces has continued, and we have now implemented 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations. To block Arbour's recommendation number five would be to undo the progress of the past five years.

I want to conclude by reminding members that delivering a culture change is not only the right thing to do, but it is critical for our operational needs. This is not a partisan issue. Our national security is only as strong as our people. Our forces deserve to work in a modern, transparent and trustworthy 21st-century workplace where they can thrive.

That is precisely why we introduced Bill C‑11: to codify in law key recommendations from justices Arbour and Fish. Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation calls for the removal of CAF jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences. This is also in line with recommendation 40 of the ACVA committee. After hearing from almost 100 witnesses, parliamentarians on that committee agreed that this is the right thing to do.

In 2021, upon receipt of Justice Arbour's report, we promised Canadians and members of the Canadian Armed Forces that we would implement this critical recommendation. With Bill C-11, a promise made is a promise kept.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words coming from the parliamentary secretary, and I can agree with some of them. As a woman, I know that women are more predominantly the victims of sexual misconduct and sexual assault, so this bill means something to me.

However, for women and all victims and survivors of sexual assault, the thing that is taken from them is choice at that time. I would suggest that this bill would also remove choice for those folks who want choice in how justice is continued for their case.

In addition, she said that this was non-partisan. It is my understanding that the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc put forward amendments that were passed and that the Liberals have rejected. I would like to understand that as well.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of choice, victims and survivors deserve legal clarity, transparency and trust in the process. Justice Arbour herself called the victim's choice between military and civilian courts a false choice. This is because we would be placing a burden on the victim in a time of stress and trauma to choose between two unequal options. Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain of command interference in a Criminal Code case, does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite correct to say that this is not, and must never become, a partisan issue. I would like to ask her a question that touches a bit on the topic discussed by my Conservative colleague earlier.

Can my colleague explain why, after the Liberal government became a majority, it scrapped every amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP?

To me, things seem to be taking a partisan turn. In any case, if not partisan, it is strange. Does this mean that the Liberal government has a corner on the truth and does not need to work in collaboration with the opposition parties?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs submitted a report in 2024 after hearing from more than 100 witnesses. The committee drafted a recommendation to the House to do exactly what we are doing now through Bill C-11.

We listened to the victims and to the recommendations of a number of Supreme Court justices. The chief of the defence staff also spoke with over 14,000 CAF members. I spoke with current CAF members myself and asked them to send me their recommendations. They are concerned that bad habits could resurface if the days when CAF performed the analyses and led the legal proceedings were to return. We told them unequivocally that we were going to implement recommendation five, which is precisely what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday here, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean asked a question on Bill C-11 of the Minister of National Defence. It was a Liberal member asking the Liberal minister if the Liberals would include a sunset clause, which they had removed and which we had already agreed to at committee stage.

The parliamentary secretary actually voted for that amendment, to go from a three-year to a four-year anniversary to bring in a review and a sunset clause. Then the Liberal minister, not listening to our committee, with the report we brought forward, and not listening to the survivors of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault, decided to ram it through and take that out. Now the Liberals are saying, according to the minister, that they would be open to the unelected Senate bringing forward that amendment.

The parliamentary secretary sat on the committee, heard the witnesses say that they wanted a sunset clause, voted for a sunset clause, and then her very own minister gutted the bill and she voted for him to gut the bill of these amendments. Why?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, actually, I agree with keeping the sunset clause in the bill, and I support the idea of having that put back in. I agreed in committee to put that in, including a four‑year sunset clause with a review of both houses of Parliament. I agree that we hope the Senate, when it does the review of this bill and is going through that process, includes that recommendation and any other recommendations that will strengthen the bill.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her hard work. She has been working on implementing these changes for a long time.

As she explained in her speech, many changes have been made. Almost all of Justice Arbour's recommendations have been implemented. I believe this is an important step for justice and for people who want to work in the armed forces.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. For racialized people, for women who have been victims of abuse of power, can she explain to us what we can expect regarding these changes aimed at encouraging more women and people of colour to apply to join the armed forces?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that back in 2021, when we launched the inquiry into what had happened within the Canadian Armed Forces, very few people wanted to enlist. There was a lack of trust. Families did not want their children to join the Canadian Armed Forces. I myself have two children and a daughter-in-law who are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. How could I ask another family to let their children enlist in the CAF knowing that they might become victims?

We have made efforts to change the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces. We have implemented 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations. Today, we are seeing a significant increase in enrolment. Our plan is working.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know she is very passionate about this issue. She is standing up for women who have been victims of sexual misconduct while serving in the military. Bill C‑11 addresses many of the recommendations in Louise Arbour's report.

Honestly, what surprises me is that some victims appeared before the committee during its study, and the victims themselves were asking for more protection. As a result, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP all introduced amendments, which were adopted based on the victims' evidence. However, because of its majority in the House, the government rejected them.

I do not know how the member can face any of those victims, who must be disappointed today.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always listened to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families, and I always will. I have been listening to them for years now, and I have heard their accounts.

We introduced Bill C-66 in the last Parliament. It was the same as Bill C-11. We introduced this bill in response to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, as well as those of Justice Arbour, who made it very clear that those powers should be removed from the Canadian Armed Forces. No employer in Canada conducts its own investigations and prosecutions involving its own employees.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Justice Arbour for her report, as well as congratulate her on her recent appointment as Governor General.

With the world more and more uncertain and divisive, I would like to ask my colleague if she can speak to the importance of passing this legislation as soon as possible.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous response, we brought forward Bill C‑66 in the last Parliament to enact this, to make it permanent into law. Unfortunately, that did not go through. We are bringing it forward. We were very clear in the election that we were going to do this. We made sure everyone knew we were doing this, and we are going to finish it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always important that I get to participate in these debates. First and foremost, I just want to thank the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard, who are out there every day, risking life and limb to keep us safe here at home, to secure our borders and to protect our security.

It is often said that having a strong military actually ensures that we have economic prosperity. Having a prosperous country hardens our national security and our national defence. We need to continue to support those in the armed forces in everything that they do.

On Bill C-11, we have worked very hard on the bill for the last year. As the shadow minister of national defence, this is something that is near and dear to my heart, in standing up for those who have served or are serving and who have been dealing with sexual misconduct and sexual assault. Nobody should have to go to work and experience danger that is imposed by their fellow colleagues. When we have to deal with individuals who are being aggressive, individuals who are going to carry out sexual misconduct, that is not a safe work environment.

We look at the brave women and men who serve. They have already decided to step up and do one of the most dangerous things in the world, which is to protect our great nation. Instead of fighting the enemy, they are actually fighting off their fellow soldiers, aviators and sailors who are carrying out sexual misconduct. We have to stop that.

I tell members that I am so disappointed in the Liberal government for not listening to those who serve, not listening to the survivors, not listening to veterans and not listening to police forces across this country, who have all said that we need to ensure that the agency of the victim is protected and that they have the choice to choose which justice system their cases are heard in, whether it is in the military justice system or in the civilian system.

The Liberal government decided to be performative rather than pragmatic. Rather than taking the advice of veterans, rather than taking the advice of those who carry out military justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, rather than listening to police agencies and barristers and military justice experts, the Liberals are ignoring all of that because of the one thing they continue to hide behind, which is the Arbour report.

The government decided to choose political expediency instead of actually bringing in a function within the military that works for everyone, not just those few at the top of the Canadian Armed Forces who are just trying to push this off their table. The Liberals are trying to pass the buck rather than take responsibility.

We heard from so many of the victims at committee, when we studied Bill C-11. The reasoning they brought forward was the inspiration to make the amendments that we proposed at report stage, which were supported by the committee. I fear that, by the Liberals ignoring that advice, that brave and courageous testimony that we heard at committee, the Liberals are retraumatizing these victims.

It just breaks my heart to know that these brave souls stepped up to tell their personal stories of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, sometimes happening many times over their careers. To have that thrown by the wayside at report stage, by the Minister of National Defence, proves that the government is not listening to those who are impacted.

In reality, with what Bill C-11 does, especially here, as we are at third reading, all sexual misconduct and assault is going to be pushed off into the civilian system. There are higher thresholds there before a case will even proceed to prosecution and actually have success within the civilian justice system.

That means that more of these perpetrators, more of these individuals who are committing sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, are going to walk free. Bill C-11 would remove all accountability, all prosecution and the ability to court-martial and carry out punitive measures against those perpetrators. Whether it is high-level or low-level sexual misconduct, removing that from the military would mean no accountability for those who are accused of carrying out sexual misconduct. That also would mean there would be no justice for those who have experienced sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Liberals decided, now that they have their new-found, stolen majority, to run roughshod over Parliament and run roughshod over committees, and overturn all the hard work we did. We worked across party lines to bring forward very reasonable amendments to Bill C-11 that would make Bill C-11 work for those who are serving and work for those who are having to deal with sexual misconduct. We want to be able to use all the tools that are now available within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside the Canadian Armed Forces.

Instead, the Liberals decided to make the bill narrowcasted and unable to carry out the justice that victims of sexual misconduct are looking for. They are using their stolen majority and are even ignoring the advice of the Liberal members who sat on the national defence committee and helped make many of the amendments that were gutted at report stage.

That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting Bill C-11 at third reading. It is a slap in the face to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It ignores advice that came from the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, who said that they can do the job and that they have changed because of the implementation of many of the recommendations from the Arbour report. They have upgraded their skills and processes to investigate, to prosecute and to hold those to account within the Canadian Armed Forces.

As a matter of fact, they would still have to do that for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when they are outside Canada. Sexual misconduct and sexual assault, as defined by the Criminal Code, would still be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces military justice system and under the superintendency of the judge advocate general. It would still be prosecuted if someone is stationed in Latvia, England or Kuwait. Wherever we have our forces stationed, its members would still be subject to military justice, except when they are in Canada. When they are in Canada, that is taken away from the military and from the victims who want choice.

I have to say how important choice is. It is about making sure that those victims maintain agency and franchise over their rights and decide which system is in their best interest. We know things have changed since Justice Arbour had her meetings and hearings with Canadian Armed Forces members. That is going back seven years now and the military has adjusted. New agencies have been put in place.

Let us look at some of the testimony.

Hélène Le Scelleur appeared at committee a couple of times going back several years. She said the following:

Survivors must have the right to choose between civilian and military systems at all times, regardless of location or rank. Choice is not procedural. It is freedom: freedom from our aggressors and freedom from the silence that institutions have imposed upon us. I want to be clear that even with this choice, neither system is sufficient on its own. The military system understands the operational context. The civilian system provides independence and oversight.

We would have balance and what the government wants to do is remove that balance.

In another committee hearing a few weeks ago, we talked about how important it is to have choice in cases where someone was in a jurisdiction where their official language was not spoken. In her case, being from Quebec, a francophone, even though she is bilingual, she said:

... when we're talking about really specific things related to trauma or sensitive issues, I don't think I would be doing it in my second language, because when you're vulnerable, you don't have access to all of the vocabulary you would normally have. I would rather have the option of choosing the military way to make sure that I am going to have services in French, instead of the example you provided of staying in Alberta and having my case dealt with there when I'm from Quebec.

She went on to talk about how she would not be able to get the high-level French support that she would need to go through the civilian justice system within the province of Alberta.

Brigadier-General Hanrahan, who is the Canadian Forces provost marshal general and also the person in charge of the military police and the National Investigative Services, said, “At any point in the process with concurrent jurisdiction”, which means having both the justice system in the military and having access to the civilian justice system, “there's an ability to have a choice change....Concurrent jurisdiction allows us, from an investigative perspective and a prosecutorial perspective, to work with the victim to help them work through those choices at any point along that process.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in its submission to the national defence committee, said when it came to the provisions of Bill C-11:

Bill C-11 would deny victims and survivors the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint might be investigated. This approach departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing.

The one sad part in all of this is that the government is not providing any extra resources to local police forces, when our military bases are set up to take on these extra cases, that they are going to have to investigate on base now. It is not giving any extra resources to the provincial justice systems, so the courts would not be able to deal with the influx of cases that may be brought in. We know that the Jordan framework kicks in, the clock starts ticking and that justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, at the end of the day, we know that with the backlog that already exists within the civilian courts across this country in all jurisdictions, because of the lack of judges, prosecutors and court time, a lot of these cases are going to be thrown out.

We know that, with low-level sexual misconduct cases that are dealt with right now within the Canadian Armed Forces, if they were transferred over into the civilian system the prosecutors would not proceed with the case if they did not think they were going to be successful in front of a judge. That is why, again, we need to provide the choice to our victims and our veterans.

Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who is the former director of military prosecutions, said, “Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator.”

That is exactly what Bill C‑11 does. It gives the power to the perpetrator, taking it away from the victim. That is disgusting.

I have to say that we heard from a lot of military experts, some of whom are professors, some of whom used to serve in the military, some of whom are doing both; they are professors of law as well as captains within the Canadian Armed Forces, majors or higher. Afton David is one of them. She said:

I would submit that from my perspective, they should all have a choice…considering both the safeguards and entitlements to the accused, but also the safeguards and entitlements to the victims now within the military justice system, I think we should at least give it a chance to deal with all the levels of sexual misconduct.

Even though all of these changes have happened within the Canadian Armed Forces, the Liberals are throwing it out.

We talked about the civilian system. We heard from lawyers across the country. The Barreau du Québec said it “considers that it would be appropriate to resolve these challenges by amending the bill so as to give victims the choice to decide which system would be best for them, given the circumstances of their situation.”

We should not be going carte blanche and trying to force every case into the civilian system. We need to make sure the lower levels are handled within the military justice system so that appropriate measures can be taken, the code of service discipline is maintained and, at the end of the day, the administration of justice happens, whether it is with respect to a low-level sexual misconduct, inappropriate touching, comments and things like that versus an actual full-on sexual assault.

One thing that came from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that I think we need to consider is that the CACP “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction.” It says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”.

If we look at how Bill C-11, and clause 7 in particular, is written, it would take away the power of the military to actually do its own investigations. If all the evidence is on base or at a training exercise, that evidence could not be collected by the military police. They would have to wait till the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Quebec provincial police or the local municipal police agency showed up to start taking statements from witnesses and making sure it collects all the evidence. What would happen when we are training on Operation Nanook, up in the High Arctic? How would they get there in a timely manner? We always have military police accompanying our forces wherever they are.

We talk about making sure there is ongoing accountability, and I will just touch on some of this quickly. Dr. Karen Breeck is a retired veteran who has worked with members of the veterans community who have experienced military sexual trauma. She says, “The bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases.”

Jessica Miller, who is a survivor, wrote, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates, and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.”

This is important to note. We have already had the civilian system at play since the minister gave the directive to the director of military prosecutions to start prosecuting all cases of sexual misconduct in the civilian system four years ago. We have four years of data now, and that experience has not been in the best interest of the victims. All we have to do is look at some of the high-profile cases that have gone before the courts and have been thrown out or had the charges stayed because of a lack of evidence or because they did not hit the threshold of actual prosecution.

Afton David also said, “Bill C-11 effectively nullifies the code of service discipline's jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences that occur in Canada, rather than transferring jurisdiction. That decision risks passing responsibility to the civilian system without resolving the systemic causes that produce a loss of confidence in military justice in the first place.”

That is a problem. We are going to lose more confidence. We are going to continue to have a situation where all this is going to be removed from the military. That is going to erode leadership and allow leadership to turn a blind eye to the sexual misconduct happening within the Canadian Armed Forces because it will be expected that the civilian system will be handling it.

There is so much more here if we want to really look at doing what is right. Rory Fowler says, “If we want the leadership of the Canadian Forces to ensure that everybody in the Canadian Forces is treated fairly, is listened to and has a voice, then you have to give them the tools to do so. When they fail to use those tools, you have to hold them accountable, and that goes all the way up to the Minister of National Defence.”

He goes on to say that “you can't legislate good leadership and you can't legislate culture change. What you can do is have legislation that allows you to hold leaders accountable.”

Bill C-11 would do none of that. The leadership would still get to pass the buck.

We have talked about the concern that there might be political interference with this bill, that it has been done with political expediency. I have to say, there was a sunset clause, and I asked the parliamentary secretary about it. It was clause 70.3. We added five paragraphs. It was unanimously accepted at committee. The sunset clause is important, and unfortunately, the government took it out.

Knowing that we are opposing the bill, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on National Defence for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 7 to 9, 15, 17, 40, 60 and 61 with the view to amend the bill so as to better reflect the views expressed by military sexual assault survivors and military justice experts in their testimony before the committee”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The amendment is in order.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not surprised, but I am disappointed in the Conservatives for their position on Bill C-11. I think they undervalue the tremendous work that former Justice Arbour did in providing the recommendations that the essence of the legislation is all about. There were 48 recommendations. I believe 36 of them have already been implemented. At the core is the transfer of cases from military authorities to civil justice authorities. That is the very core. Arbour met with hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, everyone from victims to advocates. She herself, who is going to be our next governor general, is recognized around the world as someone who has incredible credentials.

Why is the Conservative Party not agreeing with those recommendations and the essence of the Arbour report?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always disappointed with the member for Winnipeg North. He does not listen to anyone because he is always too busy flapping his lips. If he actually read the testimony we had at the national defence committee, if he had actually heard from victims, they would all have told him that things have changed since Arbour did her report seven years ago. She did all her interviews, she wrote her report, and it was not accepted by the government until five years ago.

The director of military prosecutions within the Canadian Armed Forces even said that he gave the directive to start doing concurrent prosecutions, allowing victims to choose to go into the civilian system. Here we are five years later, and he said that if it was not for Bill C-11, he would have rescinded that order because the Canadian Armed Forces are doing a better job at prosecuting those cases, and victims are telling us that the Canadian Armed Forces are doing a better job of prosecuting those cases than—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Question and comments, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his meticulousness and excellent work, as well as on his insightful analysis of the work of the parliamentary secretary across the way.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments. I hear him talking about the amendment that was intended to give victims a choice. We hear a lot of talk in Parliament about the need to consider victims and ensure they receive support and care. We had voted to uphold a request from victims, namely to have a choice, and the government unilaterally removed that provision after securing a majority, through backroom deals to boot.

I would like my colleague to respond to that. Does he not think there is a danger or a shift on the part of the Liberal Party, which believes it has a monopoly on the truth?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP worked very closely together to bring about the amendments that we wanted at committee. Even Liberal members of the national defence committee wanted to see changes brought in. The importance of choice is something that we heard over and over again. It was the only way we could ensure that the victims would be getting the justice that they so rightly deserve. With the changes that have already occurred within the Canadian Armed Forces, there are more and more opportunities for victims to get the help they need and carry through with the prosecution that gives them the justice they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague just to elaborate a bit more on where the improvements have happened. In fact, ever since that direction to try to move many of the Criminal Code sex offences over to the civilian courts, unfortunately, there have been obstacles that the military police have run into, and lots of these police jurisdictions refuse to accept it because of that higher threshold, so there are victims not getting the justice they need.

However, because this law, Bill C-11, has not passed, the military police are able to do that. Not only have they learned. Not only is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights there, which has come in within the military. Not only has all of this changed, but we actually have landed on the solution and we do not need to change things. Right now, we have a military police system that will try to move things over to the civilian courts when a case is severe enough, but at the same time, they can ensure that justice is served. Would the member agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his incredible service to this country as a colonel within the Canadian Armed Forces.

He is right. So much has changed over the last five years. The Victims Bill of Rights has come in. It was adopted by the Canadian Armed Forces. It is in the National Defence Act now. That ensures the rights of the victim are always paramount and ensures that victim-focused lens in how we deal with every single case. We know that the military sexual misconduct resource centres have been set up across the country to provide assistance to those individuals who have experienced sexual misconduct, to make sure they get the counselling they deserve and also to determine which system works best for them based upon their case.

We know that the training within the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the Canadian Armed Forces military police, as well as in the prosecution and defence counsel services, those that are within the judge advocate general's purview, have all improved to the point that it is better than the civilian system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, can the Conservative Party now confirm that it wants us to go back to the old system and not have the civilian justice system involved?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in Bill C-11 that we did support. The problem is that at report stage, the government removed all of the amendments that actually improved the bill and have gone back to a paternalistic system that would not work for victims. We cannot support it.

Mother's Day

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

Mr. Speaker, Mother's Day was not invented by Hallmark Cards. In the late 1800s,there was an annual mother's day for peace. It was started by mothers and women who were sick of seeing the ravages of war after the Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War. They started an annual day to call for an end to war.

In 2026, let us think of the mothers of Ukraine, whose children are being stolen by Putin to erase their culture. Let us think of the mothers of Palestine, whose grief is unending. Let us think of our indigenous mothers, whose daughters are still missing and murdered. Let us think of the mothers of Russia, whose children are being stolen by Putin for an illegal war.

This Mother's Day, whether it is for mothers in Israel or in Sudan, we know that Mother's Day is all about love, but let us take a moment and let Mother's Day be a cry for peace.

Diversity and Inclusion

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

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, educators are working to ensure that our schools are places where all students feel safe, respected and able to learn.

Organizations, such as the ARC Foundation, support this effort through initiatives like SOGI 123, which provides educators with age-appropriate tools and resources to foster inclusive and respectful school environments. This helps schools strengthen policies, promote kindness and ensure that students, regardless of background, identity or experience, can thrive.

Research has shown that inclusive school environments can reduce social exclusion, bullying and discrimination, which benefits not only 2SLGBTQIA+ youth but also all other students in feeling safe and supported. It is important to ensure that our schools reflect both inclusion and trust, which allows society to learn and accept the diverse world around them. Every young person in Canada deserves dignity, respect and the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Natural Resources

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in a recent video, the Prime Minister called Canada's closeness to the United States a weakness. This anti-American attitude, combined with the Liberals' decades-long opposition to pipelines, has caused the Americans to look elsewhere to meet their energy needs.

Last month, the Americans suspended sanctions on oil imports from Russia. That is right, even Vladimir Putin is better at selling natural resources to the United States than the Prime Minister is.

What a shame it is that the Keystone XL pipeline has not been built yet. Western Canadian oil should be flowing through that pipeline right now at $100 per barrel, and the wealth generated should be increasing the standard of living right here in Canada. Instead, the money is going to Russia to pay for its illegal war against Ukraine.

Canadians and the world expect better from the Prime Minister. When will he unlock our resources so Canadians can afford to live?

Retirement Congratulations

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate firefighter David Gamble on his retirement from the Oromocto Fire Department after 37 years of service.

Mr. Gamble has always had a reputation for doing things the right way. His uniform was meticulous, his tools were clean, his gear was organized, and 7:30 a.m. meant radio check time, no exceptions.

According to his colleagues, it was largely thanks to his consistency and attention to detail that he was so dependable and trustworthy at work. Mr. Gamble demonstrated an old-fashioned work ethic in everything he did.

His colleagues are not the only ones who have recognized his commitment to the job. In 2010, the Governor General awarded him with a Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal. Now, it is our turn to applaud his exceptional contribution. Please join me in thanking firefighter David Gamble for his dedication and professionalism over the past 37 years.

Veterans

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a plea to the government that we need to do better.

This week, Veterans Affairs hosted the long-delayed national Afghanistan war memorial groundbreaking. This monument will recognize the commitment and sacrifice of the over 40,000 sailors, soldiers, aviators and special forces operators, along with hundreds of Canadian civilians, who served in Canada's longest combat mission, which was from 2011 to 2014. It will serve as an enduring testament to the 158 Canadian Armed Forces personnel and seven Canadian civilians who made the supreme sacrifice. It is on all of us to ensure that they and their families are never forgotten.

Where we, and the government, need to improve is in having the Afghan veterans be front and centre with this project. Unfortunately, on Monday, this symbolic groundbreaking spent more time focused on the monument itself instead of the veterans and their families. I am committed to doing what I can to ensure, when this monument is built and officially unveiled in 2028, that Afghan veterans are the focus. I plea with the Liberal government to do the same.

Lest we forget.

Anniversary Wishes

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an important anniversary in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou.

This year, the Cercle de fermières de Courville is celebrating its 50th anniversary. For half a century, this group has served as much more than a place to pass on textile and craft-related know-how. It is a true pillar of community life, a place of gathering, solidarity and engagement. Over the years, members of the Cercle de fermières de Courville have preserved its precious traditions while allowing them to evolve, by sharing them with new generations and by adapting them to the present day.

I want to thank the founders, current members and the members who will someday take over the reins, and offer them my congratulations on 50 years of history and collective pride.

Flood Emergency Response

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize the communities across Saskatchewan and in my riding of Prince Albert that are facing serious flooding.

This week, the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency reported that 34 communities are under local states of emergency, with 20 active flooding incidents. Families are dealing with flooded roads, damaged property and the uncertainty that comes with rapidly changing conditions. With significant road closures and communities under pressure, first responders, volunteers and neighbours are working around the clock to keep people safe, but they should not have to face this alone. I urge all levels of government to act without delay by working together to deliver emergency response, evacuation support and disaster assistance to those affected communities.

To those back home, their bravery, strength and co-operation has helped save people's homes and properties. I thank all those who have stepped up to help their neighbours through these difficult times.

Health Care

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, the Prime Minister and the government understand the real value of our public health care system.

One of the wonderful initiatives we are taking is investing $5 billion over three years to improve the infrastructure of our health care systems. These are things such as improvements to emergency services, hospital capital and other health care facilities, so provinces can prioritize what they believe is important. Personally, I am plugging for the Seven Oaks General Hospital re-establishing its emergency services.

The bottom line is that, as a government, we understand and appreciate the needs of our health care system. As a government, we will continue to support our health care because we believe in Canadians, and Canadians want public health care.

Public Safety

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, shoplifting is no longer a petty crime. It is becoming a growing crisis, affecting public safety, affordability and confidence in our justice system.

Across Canada, police have reported that shoplifting has increased by 66% over the past decade, with annual losses at nearly $10 billion. In Richmond, police recorded more than 1,700 shoplifting cases last year. In the first two months of this year, reports surged another 70%. Businesses are spending more on insurance and security instead of spending on growth. Retail workers face intimidation and unsafe conditions. Consumers are paying the price through higher costs.

Canadians feel abandoned by a system where repeat offenders are arrested, released and soon back in the very same stores again. People are left asking how much worse this crisis must become before meaningful action is finally taken by the Liberal government.

La Pointe-de-l'Île Walking Club

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the Santé-Marche Roussin group in my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île. It is a walking club for people aged 50 and older, affiliated with the Roussin community centre in Pointe-aux-Trembles.

Rain or shine, for the past 32 years, folks have been getting together every morning, Monday through Friday at 9 a.m., at Pointe-aux-Prairies park to walk as a group, socialize and stay in shape. It can never be said enough: Being healthy means staying active. The healthier people are, the more productive they are and the more they can enjoy life to the fullest.

I would like to thank all the walkers in La Pointe-de-l'Île, the entire team at the Santé-Marche Roussin club, its president, Christiane Mercier, and all the club members for their contributions to active transportation, social engagement and our collective health. They are visiting Parliament Hill and are with us here today in the gallery.

I wish the Santé-Marche Roussin club continued success.

Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May 18 is not just a date on a calendar. For Tamil Canadians, it is a wound that has never fully healed. Seventeen years ago, the Sri Lankan civil war ended in a final offensive that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians in a matter of weeks. Hundreds of thousands were displaced. The wounds, psychological, familial and cultural, persist to this day.

As someone with Tamil roots, I carry this history. Tamil Canadians across the country carry it, too, in the names of relatives they never got to say goodbye to and in the trauma passed silently between generations.

Tamil Canadians across the country are asking for the truth to be spoken here, in the House, where it matters. We remember on May 18, Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, because memory is resistance and because silence encourages those who would repeat these horrors elsewhere in the world. I call on the the government and all members to stand with Tamil Canadians across the nation this month.

Housing

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the need to build 500,000 homes per year, the Prime Minister promised to build at a speed not seen in a generation. Today, the housing industry projects a nearly 20% decline in construction over the next three years, while Stats Canada reports that home ownership among young people is at the lowest level it has been since just after the Second World War.

Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that housing momentum is vanishing. Housing professionals, and Conservatives I might add, have been warning for years that the greatest threat to building more homes that Canadians can afford is in fact government fees and delays, so what has the Prime Minister done? Well, he spent the last year building the fourth federal housing bureaucracy, an agency that the PBO estimates will only add 26,000 units of the millions we need over the next five years.

Here are my suggestions for the Prime Minister: stop building bureaucracy, cut the government delays, cut the fees, cut the taxes, and get out of the way so builders can build and Canadians can afford a home again.

Safia Parveen

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on April 2, Don Valley West mourned the loss of Safia Parveen, a formidable community leader and advocate for the Thorncliffe Park neighbourhood in my riding.

Recognizing the significant benefit that nature can have on our mental health, a decade ago Safia launched the Thorncliffe Wellness Café Group, connecting newcomers with each other and their natural environment. Having been a newcomer to Canada herself, Safia knew the toll that coming to a new country can take on even the healthiest person.

Safia's commitment to improving the mental and emotional health of newcomer women was remarkable. With endless compassion, she guided countless women, helping them to stay healthy and contribute to our community.

I was proud to honour Safia and other volunteers of the Thorncliffe Wellness Café Group at my annual New Year's levee this past January on their 10th anniversary

To Allah she belongs and to Allah she returns.

Snowbirds

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

Mr. Speaker, for over 50 years, the Snowbirds of the 431 Air Demonstration Squadron have served as an iconic symbol of Canadian identity, a powerful showcase of military excellence and one of the Canadian Armed Forces' most effective recruitment tools. Canadians have felt a surge of pride when watching the Snowbirds fly overhead. Sadly, 2026 may be the final season for the Snowbirds.

In keeping with the Liberal government's tradition of cancelling our national symbols and heritage, the Liberals plan to end the Snowbirds team, without any clear plans for replacement. Liberals claim that this is merely a pause, but if the squadron is disbanded, the culture of excellence and institutional knowledge of the pilots, ground crew and support staff will be lost, and it may be impossible to recover.

The Snowbirds are not a relic of the past. They inspire future generations to step forward, serve their country and believe in what Canadians can accomplish together. This is precisely the right time to let them soar across Canadian skies. It is time to save our Snowbirds.

Community of Orléans

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

Mr. Speaker, Orléans is a community with a vibrant cultural scene. I would like to congratulate the Mouvement d'implication francophone d'Orléans, which has launched its 2026-27 artistic program, featuring shows, comedy, theatre and, new for this year, a youth component, all of which will help promote francophone culture.

Orleans is also home to a vibrant local economy, where we see new small businesses choosing Orleans to thrive. I was pleased to join two owners, Kanwar Hazrah and Chris Lanthier, for the ribbon cutting of their new A&W location on Trim Road. This location is their second in Orleans and the fifth across our national capital region. What was most fun was to meet their iconic mascot, Rooty, or the Great Root Bear, as we celebrated this milestone. I send them my congratulations.

Finance

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals like to claim they are efficient stewards of public funds. However, by 2030, they will have added $1 trillion to the national debt since taking office. Their reckless spending means taxpayers will pay $59 billion servicing that debt this year alone. That is $3,400 for every single Canadian family. This is not sustainable, and it is not something a government that cares about our finances or our future would do. In fact, their so-called savings plan is so low on the priority list that it was barely mentioned in the costly Liberal budget. With this Prime Minister, it is more cost, more debt and more of the same. Seniors who built this nation deserve better. Families just trying to survive deserve better. The future of our nation, our youth, deserves better. Under a Conservative government, Canada can and will get back on the path of prosperity.

First Responders

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, life changes in a moment. Sometimes that moment means the difference between life and death. Auston Pierce, a beloved son, brother, partner, friend and member of this parliamentary community, suffered a life-threatening injury last Friday. Auston is healing today, thanks to the swift and heroic action of an off-duty Ottawa firefighter, Jason Murray. I encourage all Canadians to learn first aid, because one day, they may be the person in the right place at the right time to save someone's life as Jason did. On behalf of the House, I express our profound gratitude to Jason for being there for Auston in those critical first moments. I am also thankful to all first responders and health care professionals.

To Auston, I say Godspeed, dear friend.

Employment

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

Mr. Speaker, today's unemployment numbers bring more troubling news. It is more job losses, more pain and more of the same, with 112,000 job losses so far this year. Unemployment is up. Youth unemployment is surging. Student unemployment is at a whopping 16%.

Conservatives are putting forward constructive solutions. Liberals are ignoring them.

Are these job numbers finally enough to wake up the Prime Minister?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, being in a trade war means that we are all rightly concerned about jobs in Canada. On this side, we want workers across the country to have good incomes and high-paying careers for generations. That is exactly what Canadians need. Unlike the Conservatives, we do not just wail and scream in the House. We are doing the hard work to support workers. We are investing in recruiting, training and hiring up to 100,000 more skilled trades workers, and we have supported Canada summer jobs, which has increased and has offered 100,000 youth jobs across the country. That is how we build Canada strong. That is how we support workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been putting forward very specific, constructive solutions from the very beginning. The Liberal plan is not working.

The member spoke about skilled trades. The reality is that, in the last month, we lost 15,700 jobs in construction alone and thousands of jobs in natural resources, utilities and manufacturing. We need skilled trades workers, and we need jobs for those skilled trades workers to work in.

Why is the government killing opportunity for skilled trades workers and others with its continuing failures on the economy?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, Conservatives in the House complain every day but they do not have any plan to support Canada's prosperity. They do not have any plan to support Canadian workers and families, and they vote against every single measure we put forward.

We are making generational investments in this country. Just take the 15 major projects that have been announced. That is going to be $125 billion of new investment and 60,000 jobs. Just take the defence industrial strategy. That is 125,000 jobs. The Canada summer jobs program is 100,000 jobs. Those are all tangible programs and initiatives that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

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

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment numbers are in for April, and Canadians are devastated, particularly young Canadians. After being forced to watch Liberal spending grow month over month, young Canadians continue to see job losses month over month. In April alone, youth unemployment rose to 14.3%, and student unemployment is over 16%. More young Canadians are unemployed now than at any time since 1976. This is a crisis for young people.

Where is the urgency from the Liberal government to deal with this? Is the plan simply to keep young Canadians unemployed, homeless, desperate and reliant on Liberal government programs to stay alive?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the trade war is definitely threatening Canadian jobs. We are all aware of that. I do not know why it is a sudden realization for the Conservatives. On this side of the House, we take those threats seriously. That is why we are stepping up to help workers with generational investments in housing, infrastructure, defence, innovation and productivity, which are creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying careers for Canadians across Canada, while at the same time we are helping people access those careers by recruiting, training and hiring up to 100,000 new skilled trades workers. That is how we build the country that we all love.

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

Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. Jobs among young people are down, not up, despite what that member has to say in the House. Young Canadians want a job and a home they can afford, neither of which they can get after 10 years of the same tired Liberals. Youth unemployment is over 14%. Housing starts are down. No new major projects are approved, and more Canadians are investing in the U.S. and the EU than in Canada. No Liberal social program is going to fix that. We need a competitive market so that investors can invest, builders can build and young Canadians can get to work.

When will the Liberals get out of the way so that young Canadians can get to work and build this country?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the job numbers come in every month. It seems that the Conservatives rejoice too much when there are job losses in this country. Why are they so jovial and celebratory when they hear that Canadians are losing jobs?

On this side of the House, we are empathetic to what Canadians are going through and we are stepping up to support them with real support: extending EI for seasonal workers, increasing tax deductions for workers that they need and helping to recruit, train and hire 100,000 new skilled trades workers. That is real support.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the definition of this costly Liberal Prime Minister: more agencies, more taxes, more spending, more credit card spending, more interest payments on the credit card and more job losses. It is always the same old story. The proof is that, after 11 years of Liberal government, all that the government is doing right now is losing jobs.

When will the Prime Minister realize that throwing money down the drain is not the way to grow the economy?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is patently false. This government is exercising fiscal restraint and discipline. We have the strongest fiscal position.

Members opposite can say whatever they want, but the International Monetary Fund, one of the experts at analyzing world economies, has said that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We are using that fiscal capacity, just as has been recommended by the IMF, to support Canadians by making generational investments that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Côte‑du‑Sud—Rivière‑du‑Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he is talking about fiscal restraint when the Liberals just doubled Canada's deficit. The current Prime Minister is an illusion. Contrary to what my colleague is saying, Canada is currently shedding jobs by the tens of thousands every month. Quebec alone lost 43,000 jobs in April, bringing the total job losses in 2026 in Quebec to 91,000. That is the fault of Liberal management.

How can the Liberals then turn around and say that everything is fine? It is unbelievable. It is impossible.

[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, it is clear that, on this side of the House, we are working hard for jobs. That is why, this week, the Prime Minister met with people from Enertec, a company that is facing difficulties because of the unjustified U.S. tariffs. The company's CEO, Julie Desrosiers, thanked the Prime Minister for promoting the buy Canadian movement in Canada and for all the innovation they will be able to carry out. They are confident that they can build and have jobs for the next year for Enertec employees.

Oil and Gas Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was meeting with his Alberta counterpart, Danielle Smith. We know that he has already promised her new pipelines, provided that the proponents foot the bill. According to what the Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie told Le Devoir, the Prime Minister has put himself in a tight spot with that promise. He promised more pipelines, but oil companies do not want to pay. Guess what? Quebeckers do not want to pay either.

Did the Prime Minister reiterate to Ms. Smith that their agreement specifies that no public funds will be used for these pipelines?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about what we are doing with public money. We are making major investments in renewable energy. When it comes to electricity and the tax credit, we are investing billions of dollars in a power grid that works well for the whole country. We are also making investments to reduce methane emissions. We are doing the work. We are continuing to fight climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, seems like there is a new pipeline in the works in Ottawa. The Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said this morning: “Where I draw the line is if the federal government decides to use any of the many mechanisms at its disposal [to buy a pipeline].” His Prime Minister's economic update gives us cause for concern. He has come up with a scheme called a “sovereign wealth fund” that contains $25 billion in public money to finance dirty oil.

Are there any other Liberals who will draw the line and refuse to pass the cost of a pipeline on to taxpayers?

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, our friends in the Bloc Québécois do not know the difference between the words “and” and “or”. We have made it clear that we will be an energy superpower in both conventional and clean energy. That is what we are doing, and it is for all of Canada and all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday that he is going to relax the regulations governing pipeline approvals as early as this week. At the same time, in his economic update, he announced a sovereign wealth fund that he is going to create using $25 billion in public money to pay for energy projects. Everyone can put two and two together.

Is the Prime Minister going to make Quebeckers pay for his dirty oil pipelines that will not even have to comply with laws and regulations?

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. Our goal is to catalyze half a trillion dollars in private sector investment. The Major Projects Office plays an important role in that. Alberta has indicated that it will submit a proposal by July 1. We will evaluate it against the criteria set out in the Building Canada Act.

According to the memorandum of understanding, the federal government is willing to utilize Canada Indigenous Loan Guarantee Corporation to help backstop indigenous co-ownership if necessary.

Youth

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after over a decade of reckless Liberal inflationary spending, young Canadians are falling further behind than ever before. Last month, Canada lost 47,000 full-time jobs, and youth unemployment is up over 14%. That is more than double the national rate.

Young Canadians are now more unemployed than at any point in recorded Canadian history. Young people cannot afford rent, they cannot afford groceries and they certainly cannot afford a home. They are sending out hundreds of résumés with no response.

Under these Liberals, it is more taxes, more job losses and more of the same.

Why is this Liberal Prime Minister making young Canadians sacrifice for his failures?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we know that youth unemployment is uneven across the country. There will be 6,600 new youth jobs in Alberta, by the way, this year.

Let us talk about the top line here. We have the second-fastest growth in the G7, the best fiscal position in the G7, 20 new trade and security deals, non-U.S. exports up 40%, highest foreign direct investment in the G7 and that is twice that of the next country, created more jobs than the U.S. last year, wages are growing, inflation is slowing, investments in affordable gas and affordable food, affordable child care and affordable dental care.

There is much more to do, but it would be great if the opposition would get serious and join us.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that this Liberal Prime Minister was supposed to be good with money, but they just lost $175 million in less than six months on a failing diamond mine that just sought creditor protection.

Young Canadians were promised opportunity, but after a decade of Liberal reckless spending, they are getting fewer jobs and less opportunity.

This year, Canada has lost 111,000 full-time jobs. We have thousands of skilled workers just waiting for this Liberal government to get out of the way. Unfortunately, it is just more taxes, more job losses and more of the same.

Why is this Liberal Prime Minister making young Canadians pay for his economic recklessness?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we are making historic investments in young people. My colleagues today have already mentioned a number of those major projects. I am sure we will get to hear that question and get expansions of that question many more times today.

Between November and April, we have reduced our deficit by $11 billion, strengthening what was already the best fiscal position in the G7.

I would ask the opposition this: In 2026, right now, with the wars and the trade wars and the crisis today dragging on the economy, is this the time for austerity budgets, slashing social programs and slashing affordability supports, as you seem to be suggesting? We are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Again, we will address comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Lakeland.

Finance

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new job numbers are out. They are devastating: 47,000 full-time jobs gone and unemployment at 7%. It is 4% in the U.S. For young Canadians, it is double the overall rate.

The Liberals' trillion-dollar debt means higher costs of everything, lower standards of living and fewer opportunities for Canadians who want to start families, plan a future and put aside savings, but they cannot afford it since the government takes and takes.

Canada is rich in natural and human resources. No one should struggle to find work.

How much longer will the Prime Minister force Canadians to pay the price for his costly credit card budgets?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives say they care about affordability, but then then oppose essential supports for families, such as child care, dental care and school food programs. They say they care about Canadian jobs, but they only celebrate the losses and are completely silent on the months when we make major gains across the country. They say they care about Canada's fiscal management while completely ignoring $11 billion less of a deficit, the fact that we saved $60 billion on government operations and we have the strongest fiscal position in the G7, according to the IMF.

While Conservatives seem to only want to see Canada fail, we are here to make sure it succeeds.

Youth

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these guys are so out of touch, they just do not give a rip about what Canadians are actually going through.

Last fall, the Prime Minister told young Canadians they would have to “make sacrifices”. Well, he sure did mean it, did he not?

New numbers show youth unemployment is at 14.3%. Young Canadians now face the toughest job market on record and struggle to afford rent, groceries and textbooks. No wonder young men and women lose hope. How can they ever get ahead? Young Canadians pay the highest price for Liberal debt, deficits and costly credit card budgets that mortgage their futures.

Over a year in, how much more will the PM force young Canadians to sacrifice and suffer?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we believe now is the time to invest and build our communities. We are creating jobs while building housing and building infrastructure. I wonder if our colleague from Alberta could let us know what projects she would cut from our budget. Is it the investment to rural communities across Alberta to expand fleets and transit services, and plan for the future? Is it the new Japanese community centre in Calgary? Is it $3 million to improve treatment services at the Conklin water treatment plant in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, Alberta? What would the Conservatives plan to cut?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada lost 18,000 jobs in April. The unemployment rate is now 6.9%. Youth unemployment jumped to 14.3%. Young Canadians are unemployed longer than at any time since 1976. Instead of results, these Liberals have given us more job losses and more of the same. The Prime Minister told Canadians they must prepare for sacrifices, while young Canadians are already sacrificing jobs, opportunities and their futures.

How much longer will the Liberal government force young people to sacrifice for its failures?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are feeling the pressure right now, and that is why we are making ambitious investments in the Canadians economy and young workers, so they can be part of building Canada strong. In our spring economic update, we announced our team Canada strong plan that invests in training and apprenticeship supports in the skilled trades. This will help train 100,000 skilled trade workers by 2030. We are going to ensure they have the tools they need to learn, grow and help us build Canada strong.

Finance

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals speak of their latest programs, but the investors have already given us their verdict. Capital is leaving this country at a record pace. Our investment per worker is the lowest in the G7. In a country that needs millions of homes, 100,000 skilled tradespeople cannot find a project to work on. A country is not built by speeches, MOUs and press releases. It is built by employers willing to invest here, and they are choosing to invest elsewhere.

When will the Prime Minister fix the conditions that have driven investment, jobs and opportunity out of this country?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, before I came to this place, I taught undergraduate students for 15 years, and I know the number that COVID did and now the trade war is doing on them.

What do we do when a number is being done on young people? We build them up and help them with hard skills and soft skills. That is why we have the team Canada strong plan with 100,000 apprenticeships. This summer we have 32,000 jobs with Statistics Canada in the census, a project that the party opposite would be first to cancel. That is how we build up the skills to get the kinds of careers that our students want and need, and that is why we are there for them.

Youth

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal government claims the economy is growing, young Canadians are being left behind. Youth unemployment has risen to 14.3%, nearly double the national rate, and young people across northern Ontario are struggling to find work and build a future. It is more debt, more taxes, more job losses and just more of the same.

When will the Liberal government finally deliver the jobs and opportunities young Canadians deserve?

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

Mr. Speaker, we outlined the second part of our plan in our spring economic update. Our plan is to build Canada strong with 80,000 to 100,000 new skilled worker jobs. These jobs will go to young people in this country. We recognize that young people need good employment. That is why we are announcing so many different projects throughout this country. That is why we have a plan to recruit them, train them and hire them.

Justice

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice confirmed that any future referendum will be subject to the undemocratic Clarity Act.

They want to pick the question and decide what constitutes a majority. We would remind them that a democratic majority is 50% of the votes plus one. That is the rule wherever democracy exists. We would also remind them that the difference between a democracy and a banana republic is that in a banana republic, the government interferes with its citizens' democratic choice.

Is the government going to respect democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government will always protect the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will always defend them.

We are not going to speak on that at this stage. We will wait for the results to come in and see what happens in Alberta. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear. The rules are clear. A majority is 50% of the votes plus one. There are laws on that and they have to be upheld.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they were not that clear yesterday. We will say it again: Democracy means 50% of the votes plus one. That is the threshold everywhere, for the laws passed here, for elections, for the people who are here. It is the same for everyone. An attack on that is an attack, in Quebec's case, on a people's right to self-determination. It is an attack on Quebec's Bill 99, which establishes the rule of 50% plus one for any referendum and which has stood up in court. It is an attack on the principle of free elections.

Will the Liberals stop sliding toward authoritarianism and respect democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, our party will always follow the laws regarding clarity and the threshold of 50% plus one. We have no intention of going against that law, which is very clear. We believe in democracy. We will wait and see what happens in Alberta.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, CTV has confirmed from two sources that the Snowbirds are not scheduled for their 2027 shows. For generations, the Snowbirds have been inspiring and uniting Canadians. The minister said Canadians will enjoy the Snowbirds “for generations to come”, but how many generations will it take to revive the iconic Snowbirds after the Liberals cancel them?

How many generations will miss out being inspired by looking to our skies?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, on May 19, the minister will be in Moose Jaw to provide updates on the future of the Canadian Forces' Snowbirds. The Royal Canadian Air Force is incredibly proud of the women and men who, for decades, have represented the Canadian Armed Forces with pride at air shows across North America and around the world.

Canadians can rest assured that they will be able to enjoy the iconic Snowbird formations for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, well, the question comes up. Is that never? We never got an answer. Why not answer now? Why do you not answer right now? Are you keeping the Snowbirds flying?

Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been inspired by the Snowbirds, an incredible symbol of strength and sovereignty. Now, more than ever, we need them. On what date will the iconic Snowbirds return to the Canadian skies?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Members should address their questions through the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the minister will be in Moose Jaw on May 19.

Canadians can rest assured that they will be able to enjoy the iconic Snowbird formation for generations to come. They will continue their air demonstrations with the Tutor fleet for as long as it is feasible and safe.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the defence minister was covering for cancelling the Snowbirds by telling Canadians the planes were unsafe, but according to CBC reporting, his own defence department says the Snowbirds can continue flying the jets until at least 2030.

Who are Canadians to believe, the minister or his own department? Does the minister not have confidence in his own department, or did he mislead this House yesterday?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have been pretty clear: The minister is going to be in Moose Jaw on May 19 to provide an update. I invite the members opposite to stay tuned for that announcement.

As we said, Canadians will continue to enjoy the iconic Snowbirds program for decades to come.

International Trade

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta beef is the best in the world, produced by ranchers and farmers who are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair shot.

While the Liberals talk about buying Canadian, they are negotiating a Mercosur deal that could flood our market with imported beef produced under conditions that Canadians would never accept at home. Canadian cattle producers are held to world-class standards, yet the government is prepared to reward foreign producers who do not play by the same rules.

Why are the Liberals willing to undercut Bow River ranchers instead of standing up for Canadian beef, Canadian jobs and Canadian ranching families?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the Mercosur agreement represents 300 million people and a $2.5-trillion economy. It is one of the largest markets in the world. However, we listened to our ranchers. We listened to our producers. We are listening to their concerns about the trade agreement. In fact, the study is going on at committee.

We will continue to be there for our farmers because they work hard to put food on our tables.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives support free trade, and ranchers do not need another Liberal press release about trade diversification. They need real market access and a government willing to defend their industry here at home. This is not a game, but the Liberals are acting like the beef industry is a convenient bargaining chip.

Would the Mercosur deal actually benefit farmers and ranchers in Canada?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, all agreements are considered through the lens of Canadian interests, and all agreements are considered in the context of our other agreements.

As has already been mentioned, Mercosur is an enormous market. Since the last election, the government has reached 20 new trade and security agreements. These agreements open markets for farmers and ranchers in places like China and Indonesia, two countries, by the way, that are 20% of the world population and 20% of the world GDP. Since the start of 2025, non-U.S. exports have climbed 40%. We are building a strong Canada for all: for our ranchers, for our farmers and for all Canadians.

Justice

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in communities across this country, intimate partner violence is not an abstract idea. Survivors have been clear that they need our justice system to act earlier and more effectively to keep them safe. I am proud to be part of this new government's commitment to taking tangible action to better protect Canadians.

Will the parliamentary secretary please tell this House how Bill C-16 would strengthen protections for victims of violence, and why it is so important that we move forward without delay?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her leadership. Violence driven by control and fear leaves deep and lasting harm, and far too many women and children are living with those consequences. That is why we introduced Bill C-16, one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. It would criminalize coercive control before violence turns lethal and would strengthen protections against sexual exploitation, including AI deepfakes.

Every day we delay in passing this bill, we are delaying protecting victims. I urge all members to support Bill C-16.

Indigenous Affairs

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says it disagrees with the Cowichan ruling, but Canadians still do not know what exactly the Liberals disagree with. Which part of the ruling are they appealing? On what legal basis does the government believe that private property ownership can coexist with aboriginal title?

Homeowners, municipalities and business owners deserve clarity. Why are the Liberals refusing to give Canadians certainty?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we will not be discussing our legal strategy on the House of Commons floor.

However, yesterday, the Conservatives had a lot of questions about something that is public and available for them to read, which is the Musqueam agreement. Let me read the Musqueam agreement since they will not read it themselves.

Section 5.1 of the agreement states, “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements...”.

Section 5.2 states, “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam's Rights and Title.”

There is more on the website for them.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals failed to negotiate with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost. They told their lawyers not to argue fee simple property rights, so the one argument they need is not viable on appeal.

British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law. They want answers, so we spent the week asking. Instead of answers, we got insults, intimidation and illusions. The legal directive stopping federal lawyers from defending property rights is still on Canada.ca, so Liberal claims about defending those rights are just smoke and mirrors.

Do the Liberals have a plan, or are they going to let judges make property rights vanish before Canadians' eyes?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we are not going to discuss our litigation strategy.

The Conservatives have referenced the litigation direction, but they have read only one sentence out of principle number 14. Our government will always raise valid arguments in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve.

Litigation guideline number 14 does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences, but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada has appealed the Cowichan ruling, and all viable defence—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, because the Liberal government directed its lawyers to not argue property rights in the Cowichan case, British Columbians who bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law now do not know the status of their home ownership. The Liberal government directive number 14 is still in place. This means that the legal instruction for federal lawyers to not defend property rights remains in place today. British Columbians need certainty of their home ownership.

Will the Prime Minister reverse directive 14 today?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority.

The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a New Brunswick land claim case involving private property across half the province. Supporters of the claim openly argue that aboriginal title should apply to private land. They believe that government should use expropriation powers to transfer it. The Liberals directed government lawyers to not defend private property rights in the Cowichan Tribes case in British Columbia.

Will the Prime Minister reverse this directive or will he abandon his responsibility to defend the rights of property owners on Canada's west and east coasts?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite flagging the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. They reached a very different conclusion from Cowichan. Therefore, we now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity that we are seeking in the Cowichan case, which we appealed, the Government of British Columbia appealed, the Cowichan appealed, the Musqueam appealed, the Tsawwassen appealed and the City of Richmond appealed.

It is active litigation before the courts.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

However, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are demanding clarity from the government on its legal strategy and that the government stand up and defend private property, but the Liberals are putting private property rights at risk in Canada. In 2019, the Liberal government removed arguments to support fee simple private property rights in the Cowichan case. We cannot blame government lawyers for following ministerial directives. The federal government must ensure fee simple property ownership takes priority in legal cases.

Will the Prime Minister protect private property rights in all future negotiations and legal cases with first nations, yes or no?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member opposite to read all of litigation principle number 14. He has only read the first sentence.

However, what I will talk about is the Cowichan case and the current status. As far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of litigation. However, the courts ruled against that. Since the ruling last summer, we consented to the Montrose application, and we are now awaiting a ruling from the judge on that. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. That will allow an impacted private property owner to be heard at trial.

Finance

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after one year, Canadians see that all the promises are broken and all the fancy speeches were just an illusion. With the Prime Minister, it is more costs, more taxes, more debt and more unemployment. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal.

After a decade of deficits, taxes and debt, Canada has the lowest investment per worker, the second-lowest productivity and second-highest unemployment in the G7. The Liberals will add $1 trillion of debt by the turn of this decade, but Canadians will pay this credit card through more inflation and more taxes.

Why will the Liberal Prime Minister not stop swiping the national credit card so Canadians can afford to live?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the member said “more taxes”. This government has only reduced taxes. We have cut, capped and suspended many taxes and we have enhanced tax deductions for millions of Canadian families, workers and businesses.

We have also protected federal benefits that Canadians rely on and added new benefits like the groceries and essentials benefit, which will help families with about $1,900 this year to help with the cost of groceries. We are also making it easier for Canadians to file their taxes so they can access those benefits through automated tax filing. That shows a clear commitment to addressing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should tell that to the 2.2 million Canadians at the food bank. The Liberals' $1 trillion of new debt means less growth and fewer jobs. In April, Canada lost 18,000 jobs. The unemployment rate is up. In the first four months of this year, Canada lost 111,000 full-time jobs. Youth unemployment is at 14.3%. Young Canadians already cannot afford rent, groceries or homes. Now they cannot even find a job. Liberal insiders are getting rich while Canadians are getting poor.

Will the Liberal government stop maxing out the national credit card so Canadians can afford the basic necessities of life?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives talk about jobs, but in reality, they do not want us to do anything. Listen to what the Conservatives say. Their policies, in one word, suck.

Let me tell members something. When we look at what this government has done over the last year, we see that we have been building major projects, looking to expand export opportunities and bringing billions of dollars in investment. Those things are going to create the jobs that Canadians want, not only today, but also into the future.

It is time the Conservative Party wake up, get on side and be a little more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I am just going to remind the parliamentary secretary, who is an experienced member, not to use language that could be considered unparliamentary.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

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

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in Japan is 2.4%. In Germany, it is 3.7%. In the United States, it is 4.2%. In the United Kingdom, it is 4.7%.

After the Liberals have been running our economy, Canada is at 6.9%. We shed 47,000 jobs in April alone. That is 47,000 families that now have to figure out how they are going to pay their rent or their mortgage and put food on the table.

After doubling the national debt and spending so much money, how have the results for Canadians been so terrible?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is investing in skilled trades workers, small craft harbours or sports from playground to podium, or improving access to the disability tax credit, we are building Canada strong. That is a Canada not just for a few Canadians, but for all Canadians.

We are doing that in a fiscally responsible manner. We have $11 billion less of a deficit. We have a AAA credit rating. We are in the best fiscal position in the G7. We have also had the largest increase in foreign direct investment in 20 years. The PBO just confirmed that we have strong fiscal anchors. That is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I almost do not even know where to start with that statement. The member said the Liberals reduced the deficit by $11 billion. That is not true. Under Justin Trudeau, the deficit was $30 billion. It is now $65 billion. That is not less, it is more. If they do not know that is more and not less, maybe that is why we have such a problem. When they say they are going to do things, they do not seem to understand that if they write something down, it does not mean it actually happens. That is why we have the highest unemployment rate in the G7.

Will the Liberals at least apologize to the 112,000 Canadian families that lost their jobs and are now going to food banks?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have the highest foreign direct investment in this country in 18 years, at almost $100 billion. We have the highest exports on record, including a 31% increase in exports to Europe. These are signs of our resilience and the strength of our economy. Our plan is starting to work, despite the trade action that is being launched. We really seek the other side's support in getting on board with these investments that can create jobs for young Canadians.

Foreign Affairs

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape where partnerships matter more than ever, Canada must work closely with allies, while also building new relationships with like-minded countries.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs update the House on how Canada is expanding its presence on the global stage, including through new forums and partnerships, to strengthen alliances, attract investment and support economic growth for Canadians?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this House knows that our government is significantly engaging around the world to do three things. We want to open markets for Canadian goods and services while attracting investment. We want to create jobs for young people and all Canadians. We want to ensure that our economy is resilient.

Just last week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Armenia representing Canada at the European Political Community Summit. This was the first time Canada has participated in this forum. We attracted investment. We will continue to create jobs. We will continue to build Canada strong.

Health

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal's PrescribeIT program has been a total debacle, costing taxpayers $300 million for a program that effectively no one used and that the government has since been forced to cancel. We have learned that the CEO of the program was being paid $1 million a year, including pocketing a $215,000 bonus. This happened under the health minister's watch.

Will she accept responsibility for this latest outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars?

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

Mr. Speaker, PrescribeIT was launched by the previous government in 2017 in consultation with provinces and territories. The program was always intended to become self-funded over time. When it became clear that it was not having the expected uptake and there was no path toward financial sustainability, our new government made the responsible decision to end funding to the program and redirect resources to make sure we maximize benefits for all Canadians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government is the same old Liberal government, and the buck stops with the minister. However, the minister has admitted that she asked no questions as 300 million tax dollars went up in smoke. In addition to the CEO, several other executives were paid handsomely and walked away with $60,000- and $70,000-bonuses.

Who else got rich while taxpayers got hosed as the minister was asleep at the switch?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that the program was intended for pharmacies and clinicians to do e-prescribing. After consultation with and requests from provinces and territories, when it became clear that the uptake was not there, our new government decided to end the funding to the program and redirect resources to make sure that it benefits all Canadians.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is week three of Liberal obstruction at the health committee on the $300-million prescribeIT scandal. The Liberals are desperately shielding their buddies and covering up a decade-long disaster of failed programs that did not fill prescriptions but padded the pockets of Liberal insiders.

Now the Liberals want to reward failure by giving Canada Health Infoway even more cash to blow in the future. Canadians are done with the Liberal money-laundering schemes.

When will the Liberals end the obstruction so Conservatives can get accountability for Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government was elected with a clear mandate to ensure that programs and policies are delivered smarter, faster and more effectively for all Canadians. We are refocusing our spending and Canada Health Infoway's mandate so we can support the development of national health data standards while allowing our health sector partners to deliver solutions that work for all Canadians.

Public Safety

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Standing Committee on Public Safety heard critical testimony from various witnesses on Bill C-22, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. They highlighted that investigations on child sexual exploitation are taking too long and that the bill would help law enforcement get the necessary information quicker.

Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Safety tell the House how this bill is part of our government's broader public safety initiative?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this occasion to thank the members of the public safety committee for the important work they are currently doing.

The bill is an essential piece of our government plan to ensure that communities are safe. The bill is all about victims. By making sure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to combat crime, it intends to make sure we catch the bad guys before they make more victims. It is time that law enforcement had an updated Canadian solution to counter all criminals, most of all the ones who exploit children.

Finance

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are cutting down on groceries, gas and necessities while the Prime Minister is piling up the national credit card. Life is becoming unaffordable. Inflation caused by deficit spending is eating away at their ability to afford day-to-day life. With a trillion-dollar debt, the government's approach is just an illusion while Canadians are paying the price.

Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians that his credit card budgeting is the cause of all their suffering?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House can help me with this. I have been wondering it for a while. Whose interests are Conservatives serving these days?

We hear in the House that the Conservatives are against feeding hungry kids, they are against reducing child care fees, they are against providing dental coverage and they are against high-speed rail in the most densely populated region of the country. They are against productivity-boosting tax deductions for businesses, they are against building affordable housing and they are against Canadians' being able to invest in major projects.

I have to ask this: “What do the Conservatives stand for anymore?”

Canadian Identity and Culture

[Alexandre Boulerice, Independent, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, culture has always been the common foundation of a people, the thing that shapes its core identity. Culture is the accumulation of stories, songs, music, books, films and television shows—shared works that bring us together. However, the arrival of the web giants has shattered all of that. Worse still, with the decline of traditional television, appointment viewing has disappeared.

The Liberals boasted about a deal with Netflix, but it is now basically impossible to find Quebec productions on digital platforms.

When will the Liberals take the future of our culture seriously?

[David Myles, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his question.

I am proud to be part of a government that clearly understands the connection between a strong cultural sector and a strong, sovereign country. That is why we have made huge investments of over $700 million in the Canadian and Quebec cultural sector in budget 2025.

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, 2025 was the second-worst wildfire season in Canadian history, and Canadians are bracing for another devastating summer. Despite the growing climate crisis, Canada is missing its climate targets and running out of time. While more than 50 countries gathered in Colombia to discuss the transition away from fossil fuels, the Liberals did not even send a minister. Instead they came home with a plan to fast-track more fossil fuel extraction.

At a time when communities are burning and families are being displaced, why is the Liberal government doubling down on fossil fuel extraction?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I actually had the opportunity to speak with the minister of environment for Colombia and the minister of environment for the Netherlands in advance of the Santa Marta conference. They are the ones who organized it. I was unable to attend because I was here for the spring economic update, but our top negotiator was present for it. We were actually one of the few countries that produces conventional energy that was participating in this conference.

We are continuing to be there, to fight climate change and to make sure we have an important role globally.

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 12 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Interparliamentary Delegations

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas' bilateral mission in Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico, from March 2 to 6, 2026, and a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas respecting the 17th gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network for Gender Equality in Brasilia, Brazil, from September 25 to 26, 2026.

Buddhism

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petition e-6893, signed by over 3,100 Canadians, calling on the House to designate May as Buddhist heritage month.

Buddhism is a growing faith in Canada. Over 300,000 Canadians practice Buddhism, with communities in every province and territory. Buddhist Canadians make real contributions to our country every day, through mindfulness programs in schools and hospitals, through interfaith dialogue and through supporting vulnerable people in our communities.

Each May, Buddhists around the world celebrate Vesak, marking the birth, enlightenment and passing of Gautama Buddha. It is the holiest observance for 500 million people worldwide. Designating May as a natural and meaningful choice moving forward, Buddhist heritage month would complement Asian Heritage Month, Black History Month and Women's History Month, reflecting who we are as a country.

Canada is built on inclusion, religious freedom and multiculturalism. This petition asks us to live by those values.

Gaza

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding who are concerned about the lack of ability to get aid into Gaza.

Petitioners highlight that under common article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, Canada is actually required to respect international humanitarian law. Under article 59 of the fourth Geneva Convention, Israel, as an occupying power, must allow and facilitate humanitarian aid by impartial organizations.

They highlight that, under Canada's own international assistance accountability act, Canada is required, with regard to foreign aid, to uphold human rights and international legal standards. Israel's policies and actions violate all those obligations.

Petitioners are calling for the restoration of full access for UN agencies and established humanitarian NGOs, including UNRWA and the World Food Programme, and they insist on safe and immediate entry for Canadian health care workers and other international humanitarian personnel to Palestine. Last, they are asking for it be ensured that all Canadian aid to Gaza is delivered through internationally recognized humanitarian channels.

Thermal Coal

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

Mr. Speaker, petitioners have asked me to present a petition around the export of thermal coal. We note that if Bill C-33 had not died on the Order Paper on January 6 last year, that bill would have banned the export of thermal coal as the government had previously committed to do.

Petitioners point out to the government that it has the mechanisms now. By listing thermal coal as a toxic product, it could immediately ban the export of thermal coal through CEPA. They also note that we export thermal coal through the port of Vancouver, first importing it from the United States. U.S. ports no longer allow the export of thermal coal, so we ship it for them.

Petitioners ask that the government take action to regulate the mining, use and export and import of thermal coal, in accordance with our international commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

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. 974, 975, 976, 977, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000 and 1001, and a response to Starred Question No. 978, could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

Bill C-30—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement cannot be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a friend who passed away. It is related to the issue before us, because he was a great citizen who believed in justice. For him, justice meant leaving a healthy planet and clean water for future generations.

We have lost a great citizen in Louis Trudeau. He devoted much of his life to protecting the Bayonne river, and he worked to raise awareness of water issues by giving talks and writing books. He encouraged people to plant trees along riverbanks and get involved in community cleanups. He was the co-founder of the Bayonne watershed organization, and he used the proceeds from his books to fund that organization's work. As his team said so well:

Louis like[d] to remind us that water knows no political boundaries. What happens upstream also affects those downstream. His actions reflect[ed] this universal connection. Today, his legacy lives on. It flows through the rivers, whispers in the forests and echoes in the decisions that we make and in the partnerships that we build.

Mr. Trudeau will always be an inspiration. I thank him.

I am going to take a moment to compose myself before talking about military justice. I would like to set the record straight from the outset, as the Liberal Party's comments this morning were somewhat ambiguous: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑11. We always have and always will, because it is important to look after victims and it is also important to make the Canadian Armed Forces a safe place to work. A strong army is one of the foundations of a lasting democracy. We need people who are trained and properly equipped, but Canada's performance on that score has long been shoddy. We are gradually putting that right. We just need to ensure we do so reasonably, but it is essential. It is the foundation.

Not being able to guarantee the safety, physical well-being and freedom from intimidation of those who serve is a major shortcoming. That is why we have always supported the idea of improving this justice system. Stories like the ones we have heard, including those involving Mr. Vance and Mr. McDonald, who left their posts amid scandal or allegations, must never happen again. In that sense, we agree with the bill.

However, we condemn this arrogant government for using its new backroom majority, courtesy of floor crossers, to completely scrap all the work that was previously done. To me, that is serious. I hope that people on the other side are hearing me, because this is very important. Scrapping constructive, collaborative work accomplished through negotiation and goodwill is a serious matter.

The first Liberal speaker this morning said that reforming the military justice system is not, and should never be, a partisan issue. I completely agree with that statement, but her rhetoric contradicts the government's actions in recent weeks. That is where I see a major discrepancy, a major problem. It feels like I have been doing this constantly for the past few weeks, but I am once again asking the government to collaborate. We are reaching out to the government and offering to work together. However, the government has to be willing to hear us.

I am going to say something in the interest of the common good, which all of us here are expected to promote: Just because the government has secured a majority does not mean that it suddenly has a monopoly on the truth. The fact that people are members of the opposition does not make them idiots. They are capable of coming up with intelligent proposals. I am not saying that partisan politics never happens, but in the case of Bill C‑11 especially, I believe that we did some very high-quality work. Incidentally, the last person who crossed the floor from the NDP had worked on that bill. She had moved her own amendments, but she voted against them after crossing the floor. I am struggling to make sense of that.

I will get to the crux of the matter, because I do not have much time left. I want to talk about one of the things we find particularly troubling. After having met with victims' representatives and some victims themselves, it became clear that victims wanted charges related to sexual offences to be handled outside the military justice system. There was a consensus on this. However, and this is crucial, these victims also asked, with all the nuance and sensitivity that such a matter requires, that the final decision be left up to the victims. The bill was amended to reflect that. We negotiated that with the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP, and it is fundamental.

Then the Liberals got a majority and said the amendments were no longer acceptable. It is terribly sad, because some victims might prefer the other option, and that is their fundamental right. Members here can give lofty speeches about caring about victims' rights, about how they need support and proper representation, and about how our justice system unfortunately often gives the impression that it cares more about the fate of the accused than that of the victims. Then, all of a sudden, the government comes up with something like this and takes away that option. Personally, I do not understand. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary will be able to explain it to me. I would like him to explain it to me, because I really do not understand that part.

We also ensured that the legislation clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. That was removed too. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans could be appointed as military judges, and we insisted that military judges should be released from the army. The government removed that. I think it was a good measure. If we are carrying out a reform and want to ensure that judges are independent, they cannot be judges and also be subject to the directives of their superiors. They may well be called upon to interpret their superiors' actions. It is nonsense. I do not understand the logic.

The Liberals might say that they have a majority and can do as they please. Message received. Nevertheless, I would like an explanation today as to why the amendment concerning victims' choice to go through the civilian court system was removed. Also, why was the amendment that would have made judges more independent removed? It is truly sad, especially since, in their speeches this morning, the Liberals told us that they had listened to numerous victims, that they had done a really good job, that they had listened to thousands of people. I do not doubt that, but it is not enough just to listen to them; we must hear them and act accordingly.

The job of a politician is not to come in with their own solutions, to claim they have the answer and say this is what we are going to do. No, their job is to listen to citizens, the people involved in the issue, and to try to implement the best possible solution with a view to solving problems for the next generation and for the future. We are supposed to make things better, but I do not see that happening in this case.

The bill is still good, of course, but it is not as good as it used to be. That is a shame. The recommendations of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish are there, at least in large part. An amendment proposing to refer the bill back to committee was introduced this morning, and we will study it carefully. I am not saying that is the solution, but it is worth considering. In closing, I urge the government to work with opposition members. It needs to stop just saying it and actually do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot about the consultations that have taken place. I would refer the member to Justice Arbour's report and the amount of work involved in the presentation of that report. I have made reference to the 48 recommendations in total, of which I believe three dozen have been implemented.

The essence of this bill deals with one specific recommendation that is based on literally hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, CAF members and others. I believe it is the right recommendation.

What are the member's thoughts with regard to that specific recommendation where we would transfer cases from the military to the civilian court?

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree on that, as I said in my speech. The question I asked my colleague opposite, to which I have not yet received an answer, is the following: Why not retain the flexibility to give victims a choice?

In any crime, in any unfortunate event that can happen, the most important person is the victim. That person's choice and free will should always come first. I do not understand, and I imagine that my colleague does not have an answer for me because he did not give me one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was tabled by my colleague, and even the comments that just came from the member for Winnipeg North, because I agree with my Bloc colleague that this is about choice for the victims. The member for Winnipeg North keeps bringing up this issue of what Justice Arbour recommended. A lot has changed, and I gave a full speech on this earlier this week at the report stage, highlighting that we have actually gotten this right.

The system now provides that the military police try to transfer any of these Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian courts or to the civilian jurisdiction. However, police in these jurisdictions are coming back saying they cannot do it. Their threshold is too high, they do not have the resources, and now, basically, justice is not getting served. With the choice that has existed now over the last five years, we are giving victims the opportunity to make sure justice is served and for the military to take administrative action even when criminal court proceedings go through on the civilian side.

What does the member think about those comments?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I certainly agree on that. The problem I have is that it seems to me that giving victims a choice should be obvious. What is more, there was consensus, and that is the sad part. All of a sudden, the government got a majority and erased all the work that the opposition had done. I do not know what principles it used to do that. If someone on the other side can explain that to me, I would appreciate it.

As for the recommendation to make judges more independent by having them be released from the armed forces, it seems to me that this recommendation also made sense. We did not get an explanation. The government got rid of everything because it has a majority now and it controls what is going to happen. I hope that this power trip will be over soon, because otherwise, the next three years will feel very long.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to something. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé clearly described the new dynamic in his speech. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they sometimes forget that democracy is not about saying, “I won, so shut up”. They still have to listen to what the opposition parties have to say.

I know that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is also our whip, is very wise. I would like to hear his thoughts on what it means, for both this bill and our work as legislators in general, to have a government that does not necessarily listen to the opposition parties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whom I hold in high regard.

It is unfortunate, but what this means is that the common good will not always be the priority. It means that a majority government thinks that it has the corner on truth. There is no harm in taking an opposition party's amendments into account, particularly on a sensitive and delicate issue like this one. It seems to me that the least the government could do is work together.

That does not mean that we will always manage to reach an agreement, but, once again, what bothers me is that the amendments had been adopted. We worked hard and then the government just ignored everything that we did, without taking into account the work that was done and the testimony we heard in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to add my voice to those of all women and the entire population of Quebec who, this week, have experienced yet another tragedy: the 10th femicide of the year in Quebec in just four months. It is incredibly sad. It is unacceptable. As we speak, 10 women have been murdered by someone close to them simply for being women.

At the beginning of the year, I agreed to join forces with organizations whose primary mission is to support women, so that we can flag this very important message: The next one is still alive. I am joining their efforts. Yesterday, there was a rally in front of the D'Main de Femmes women's centre to say that enough is enough, that this is unacceptable, and that the entire community stands behind all these organizations dedicated to standing up for the cause of women. There are also organizations that help men better manage their anger, because it is together, as a team, that we will be able to build a more humane society and also care for women who are victims of violence. I would like to commend them and also offer my deepest condolences to the family of the woman who was murdered in Gatineau this week, the 10th woman to have been murdered in Quebec since January.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-11, which is somewhat related to women's issues. I think that sexual misconduct gave rise to this bill, which is almost the same as legislation that has been introduced before and which addresses serious needs. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We have always supported any initiatives to ensure justice and to protect women in uniform who have been the victims of sexual misconduct and who have not always felt as though the military has been on their side since it did not take the necessary steps to look after them.

Bill C‑11 amends the National Defence Act and other acts. As I said, the government already attempted to introduce Bill C‑66 in a previous Parliament, but that bill died on the Order Paper. As everyone knows, Bill C‑11 follows the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Morris J. Fish and Louise Arbour, who, in their report on the issue of sexual misconduct, made several recommendations. Bill C‑11 implements several recommendations, including recommendation number five from the Arbour report, with the aim of removing the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. The bill also responds to recommendations made by former justice Morris J. Fish by modifying the appointment process for the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. The government would select these individuals rather than having the military leadership do so, and those individuals would therefore be immune to any form of blackmail, so to speak.

The bill now allows military personnel from the rank of private to that of chief warrant officer to become military judges. Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial changes, including the option for victims to receive help from a victim liaison officer. As we know, when someone wants to report sexual misconduct, harassment or sexual violence, having a neutral party by their side to support them in everything they do is very important. Bill C‑11 has made it through a significant portion of the legislative process, including committee work, and it has been a lot of work. I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for the tremendous work he did on making it possible to improve the bill.

On that point, the Bloc Québécois members are proud to have secured amendments that improved the bill. Here are a few examples. We added the option for victims to request that a trial be held before a military court rather than being transferred to a civilian court. We also ensured that the bill clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces.

We also made a compromise amendment that is more realistic by allowing civilian authorities to transfer cases in accordance with victims' recommendations, rather than imposing an automatic transfer. This would allow for the resolution of contentious cases, such as when there are multiple victims or when transferring the case could jeopardize the possibility of a trial within a reasonable time frame. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans can be appointed as military judges and so that military judges are released from the Canadian Armed Forces.

In the meantime, the government secured a majority, as members well know. I would say that there has been an abuse of this majority, which was secured, as we all know, through floor crossers. The committee's work was thorough. The committee listened to victims, who expanded on everything that Justice Arbour had heard and recommended. Victims spoke before the committee and their testimonies were used to form the basis of the amendments that were made to improve this bill. It is understandable, then, that we see this as an abuse of the majority. The government's action is not consistent with what the Prime Minister always tells the media when he does interviews, which is that he expects members to be serious and thorough and that he does not want to see any obstruction.

What we are seeing today is a bill whose amendments were completely thrown out by a majority government, which put them to a vote and disputed them. Because of the government's majority, of course, virtually all of our amendments were defeated. Committees do serious work. If the government can do without the work of committees, perhaps it wants to abolish them. If this is happening now, will it also happen with regard to future bills?

At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we work in relative harmony. I would say that we are working to improve Bill C-22, but I have concerns. I wonder whether I will end up working on amendments that go absolutely nowhere. Will I end up putting effort into a bill whose fate has already been decided by the government? Will the government reject every amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party or the Green Party?

As we know, our democratic system is designed so that the opposition can help improve bills. In the case of Bill C-11, I think the government really missed the mark. I do not think it was really listening, and that is unfortunate. I hope this does not set the tone for all our work moving forward. I do not appreciate having my time wasted, and neither do most of my colleagues. We do not want to waste our time in committee deliberating, listening to witnesses, and then, in the end, not really knowing whether the government is going to challenge everything that had passed.

In closing, as I said, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at third reading. The bill addresses a problem that was swept under the rug by both the Harper Conservatives and the Liberals. Even though we agree in principle, we had to speak out against the government's lack of seriousness when it comes to the democratic process in place in parliamentary committees.

I would like to use my remaining few seconds to commend the courage of my friend, Alain Therrien, who decided this week to pursue his political career by running in Quebec's next provincial election and confronting the Premier of Quebec. That is to his credit. When he sat here, he was a very active leader in our parliamentary lives. I want to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in wishing him the best of luck and success in Quebec's next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, in one sense, I am encouraged that the Bloc members are going to be supporting the legislation, recognizing that we do need to take cases of sexual assaults and abuse out of the military system and put them into the civilian justice system. That is encouraging.

I hope to address the concerns of the member and of the previous speaker in my comments shortly. I would reinforce that the bill would be based on the Arbour report and its findings. She came up with a number of recommendations. Personally, I am very comfortable with those recommendations and hope to be able to substantiate it.

It is more of a comment than a question, in case the member has anything else she would like to add.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's commentary.

I think he realizes that the Bloc Québécois truly cares about helping to improve bills. We always say that if a thing is good for Quebec and good for Canada, so much the better. We always approach bills this way, and we take our work on parliamentary committees seriously.

As we have said, we are going to support this bill, but what we had proposed was not a rejection of Justice Arbour's recommendations, quite the contrary. I think that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and I said as much in our two speeches. We agree with the recommendations, but we think that certain amendments could have improved the bill to provide better support to victims. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was moved by my Conservative colleague earlier today, which is to put this bill back to the committee to, specifically, look at some of the clauses and amendments that were passed by the committee, including Liberal members of that committee, which the government, unfortunately, has removed during report stage. This is important because the minister signalled publicly in this chamber, just a day or two ago, that he is open to having the sunset clause be put back in. That was passed by the committee when it was studying the bill.

Does the member think it is somewhat hypocritical of the government to say, “We have screwed this up. We made a mess of it. We are going to let the Senate fix it. It can amend it and then send it back to us”? What does the member think?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the official opposition is using the tools at its disposal to make the government realize that it has taken the wrong path by outright rejecting all the amendments that had been adopted by Conservative, Bloc Québécois and Liberal MPs, too; it is worth pointing that out.

I hope that the government, through this permissible parliamentary strategy, will realize that it made the wrong choice and will make amends on behalf of the victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of transferring sexual assault cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system, as well as to the amendment aimed at granting victims the right to speak, or even a right of veto, so that they can make a choice in this regard. I know that my colleague is an experienced social worker. She has extensive experience in mediation and conciliation. She has met many people in her career.

I would like her to speak to us about the importance of respecting victims in this type of situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of my professional association of social workers, so I cannot use that title anymore. However, I had a very rewarding career as a social worker that helped me to realize that when we are helping or supporting a victim, their consent is important. It is also important to understand how the victim wants to approach the process, how they want to go about it, so that they can feel as though justice has been served for the injuries, violence and harassment they experienced and for their work environment's failure to listen and to provide support.

In that sense, I think that the decision should rest with the victims. Since I did not participate in the work of the committee, I would also like to understand why the government did not agree that victims should have the right to make their own decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C‑11 and to share a few thoughts. I would like to address both the previous speakers from the Bloc, who talked about the government since it has become a majority. I want to be very respectful. The last member spoke about when a bill goes to committee and whether she should prepare amendments, as she is not sure whether the amendments would actually be listened to by the government.

The government has demonstrated, in a very clear fashion, its desire, and in particular that of the Prime Minister, to work collaboratively with opposition members, with all members. If members have good ideas, we want to hear about them. That is a message that the Prime Minister has been very clear on.

We actually have some very good, tangible examples that have taken place in the last week. In fact, the very first action of the government since having a majority in the House of Commons was to pass a Conservative private member's bill, Bailey's law. Then, just the other day, I was speaking on silver alerts, another Conservative private member's bill. We are seeing that bill go to committee. Yesterday, I was speaking about how corporations are not necessarily paying their taxes, because of bankruptcy, and how we could get more information about that through the CRA. Again, that legislation passed third reading yesterday.

That, in itself, speaks volumes in terms of the government's willingness to continue to work collaboratively with opposition parties. I would encourage the member to continue to look at ways we could improve legislation. The government has a healthy, strong legislative agenda as we try to look at ways we could develop, promote and make public policy that Canadians from coast to coast to coast would benefit from. That is the driving factor behind the government, and I believe we have demonstrated that. There is a reason that the amendments to this bill were ultimately rejected at report stage, and I will go into that shortly.

Before I do that, I want to say I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. Even though it was just over three years, it helped shape who I am today. I love my country, I love the community in which I live, and I want to make our Canadian Forces stronger and healthier and to build an environment that is respectful and encourages involvement by those who want to be members of our regular force or our reserves. I like to think all members want to see that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I must say, you look great in that chair. I believe all members would like to have that sort of an environment in our forces.

We have made significant gains to that point. Last year, there were around 7,000 new members going into the regular force. Thousands more applications are being received. The size of our reserve forces is also growing. I believe the Prime Minister has helped changed the mindset that people have when looking at the Canadian Forces today.

Over the years, I have witnessed first-hand how governments have talked about increasing the overall funding, compared to GDP, to the Canadian Forces. We had a president of the United States speak on the floor of the House about the importance of Canada contributing its fair share toward our forces and the United Nations. We were at an all-time low 18 years ago; I think it was just under 1% of Canada's GDP. Our Prime Minister today, during the last federal election, made a commitment to get it to 2%. Not only have we achieved it, but we literally achieved it months ago. For the first time in generations, Canada is back up to 2% of our GDP in supporting our Canadian Forces.

When we talk about the importance of building Canada strong and secure, our Canadian Forces play a critical role in that. The recruitment, in terms of numbers, and the level of interest today are far greater than they were a year ago because, I believe, people are understanding and appreciating that this is a government and a Prime Minister that are committed to building a stronger Canadian Forces. There are many benefits to doing that. If we look at the industries that support our military, our industrial industries, there are many different opportunities for businesses with the growth we are bringing to our Canadian Forces. It is an excellent opportunity. For example, in Winnipeg, I believe we will see growth in our aerospace industry as a direct result of the commitment to grow our Canadian Forces.

We can look at the important role that our reserves play in our forces. We all have, if not directly within our constituencies then close to our constituencies, reserve regiments or military armouries. It is wonderful to see first-hand those individuals who have committed to be part-time members of the Canadian Forces. Again, we see that growth. A combination of things has enabled that to take place.

It was not that many years ago, eight or nine years ago, when the serious issue of sexual exploitation, harassment and abuse was making headline news in media throughout the country. A decision was made that we needed to act upon that. How could we build the Canadian Forces without making sure the people who are prepared to make the sacrifice to participate feel they will be respected?

When we look at Bill C-11, what we need to really appreciate and understand, for those who are following the debate, is what Justice Arbour put on paper and the amount of effort she put into providing a report to the House of Commons. I believe that her report was right on. The recommendations she provided were right on. I made reference earlier to the recommendations that have been implemented, that I believed it was three dozen out of 48. I was really out. It is actually 47 of 48 recommendations that have been put into place. With the passage of Bill C-11, it would mean 48 of the 48 recommendations would be in place.

If we flash back to the time when Madam Arbour was hired to take on that position and come up with the report, there was no lack of interest from a wide spectrum of stakeholders, from first-hand victims of sexual abuse, which would include rape and others, to individual stakeholders who were on the periphery but wanted to provide direct input. These are the individuals I have mentioned; we are not talking about a dozen or so. Whether directly or indirectly, there were 100 going up to 1,000 contributions to the “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans” report by Madam Arbour. I cannot recall anyone being critical of that particular appointment.

The last time we were debating this legislation, and I was talking about Madam Arbour, I had no idea that she was going to be Canada's Governor General. However, it is encouraging to see the response to that appointment, and how exceptionally well she is being received into that position. It does not surprise me, because when I was talking about Madam Arbour, I talked about her credentials.

In doing this report, there was no doubt a great deal of thought in making sure we got the right person to do it. One can do a quick Google search and get a good sense of who Madam Arbour is, as a jurist or an advocate, here in Canada and internationally. She is very familiar with the issues at hand, which put her in a great position to do the study and provide it to the government so that the government could ultimately straighten things out and build a more respectful, inclusive Canadian Forces.

When we take a look at the timeline, we see that in October 2021, Madam Arbour submitted the interim recommendations to immediately refer sexual assaults and other criminal offences of a sexual nature under the Criminal Code to civilian authorities. On June 3, 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal issued a statement regarding the transfer and referral of cases alleged to have been committed by CAF members from the military police to federal, provincial and municipal police services. In August 2022, the Canadian Forces provost marshal amplified the original direction that came from December 2021 to state that all military police investigations into allegations of criminal offences of a sexual nature were now to be processed through civilian courts.

There has already been a major shift in that direction. If we look at the report, we see that there are 48 recommendations, and 47 of them have actually been implemented. Here is the one that has not been implemented. It says:

Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases.

I want to highlight the word “exclusively”. I suspect that many of the arguments committee members would have heard at the last committee meeting, Madam Arbour would have also heard in the representations that were made to her.

It continues:

Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity. Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the MP may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. This should include:

Sexual offences found in Part V of the Criminal Code;

Sexual offences found in Part VII of the Criminal Code, including but not limited to sexual assaults; and

Any “designated offence” as defined in subsections 490.011(1)(a), (c), (c.1), (d), (d.1) or (e) of the Criminal Code, to the extent not already captured above.

That is the only recommendation, from what I understand, that has not been implemented of the 48 recommendations. It is a very clear and concise recommendation, I would suggest to members opposite. That is why I appreciate how the Bloc is positioning itself on the bill.

I have a deep respect for what takes place in our standing committees. I understand the pros and cons, the filibusters, the things that come before standing committees, the difference in personalities, how personalities can make a difference and even how a chair can make a difference, but let there be no doubt that there are opportunities for us to see wonderful things come out of the standing committees.

I do not want to take away from the standing committee, but I am confident that Madam Arbour would have been aware of the issues raised at the standing committee.

There is no indecision in her recommendation. People will say that things change in time. Well, what was the Conservative Party of Canada's position a month ago? What they are saying, in essence, is that they have changed their position. Based on what? How does that counter the full report and the 48 recommendations? To what degree was that seriously taken into consideration within the Conservative caucus?

Our newly appointed Governor General, who has to be apolitical, had a report. She had incredible credentials.

We took a look at recruitment today. The numbers are high, a 30-year high in terms of people wanting to become a part of the regular forces, and the reserve numbers are also going up. We are changing the attitude. There is a more respectful culture within our Canadian Forces.

We need to continue to move forward on this legislation, as it will pass. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that whether it is bringing our military to the 2% GDP, supporting our members of the Canadian Forces financially or providing a modernization of the industrialization of Canada's military supplies, we are going to be there to reinforce a strong and secure Canada.

The Canadian Forces play an absolutely critical role, and this legislation is very important. I would suggest that the Conservative Party recognize that the last 12 months have demonstrated very clearly that the government is on the right track, and we need to continue to move forward.

I will not vote for the amendment that the Conservatives want. The Conservatives are suggesting that it go back to committee and that they do not support Bill C-11. I believe that is a mistake and they should be revisiting it and changing their position. It would be nice to see unanimous support for Bill C-11 passing as is being proposed by the government today.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary have faith in our current military police and their ability to do justice for victims when a Criminal Code sexual offence occurs outside Canada, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence, given the direction from Madam Arbour, that for offences that take place outside Canada there is a role for the military police, and that they are more than capable of fulfilling that role, such as the gathering of evidence and working with civilian authorities back in Canada. I think that is the right direction, as has been instructed by Madam Arbour's report, which has my full support.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon pointed out in their speeches that, with its new majority, the government has a frustrating tendency to no longer listen to the opposition parties. That is what happened with this bill. Some amendments were set aside.

I know that the member for Winnipeg North enjoys sparring in the House. Since he rises on just about every issue, he can probably tell me whether the government's new way of doing things involves ignoring the opposition parties' opinions and adopting an “I won, so shut up” attitude.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed the issue of collaboration at the very beginning of my comments. I talked about how, at the first opportunity we had when we had a majority of members on the floor of the House of Commons, the first action that was taken was the passage of Bailey's law, which was a Conservative private member's bill.

We have the silver alert legislation, which is again another Conservative piece of legislation, and we indicated we wanted to see it go to committee.

Just yesterday we passed at third reading, amendments to a bill that deals with the CRA.

The government has been very clear, and the Prime Minister has indicated very clearly, outside and inside this chamber, that we want to work collaboratively with opposition members, provincial governments, municipalities and indigenous communities. That is the right thing to do. We want to build that stronger and healthier country for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about his time serving in Canada's Armed Forces.

Just recently, I had the opportunity to spend some time at the HMCS Star in Hamilton speaking with recruits, reservists, veterans and cadets, the young men and women in Canada's military who are so proud of their country and their service. I spoke with the commander who talked about the increase in recruiting and interest in serving in Canada's military and the new opportunities for an advance presence in Hamilton.

I wonder if the member could comment on our role, as the federal government, in making sure that everyone who is serving Canada in our military, in the Armed Forces, is protected and safe in their service.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question because I think it goes two ways. The government has a responsibility. We are living up to that responsibility. Again, I will reinforce that, after this bill passes, the 48 recommendations will in fact be put in place. They are respectful, inclusive and absolutely critical. We need to continue to support our forces in the manner in which we have over the last 12 months. Second to no other Prime Minister in generations, we have a solid commitment.

I also want to make reference to this. The member mentioned my time in the Armed Forces. I had the honour to serve for just over three years, which was an absolute privilege. It is the skill sets that are gained by members of the forces that turn out to be such a wonderful asset in the future. Whether one is in the forces for three years or 30 years, there is a great deal of benefit had by all.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation.

I want to get back to the answer to my previous question. The member stated that if one of the members of the CAF commits a heinous crime, a Criminal Code sexual offence, overseas, he has complete faith in our military police to be able to collect the data, but then it needs to be transferred to the civilian courts.

Unfortunately, that is not what is going to happen when Bill C-11 passes. The same thing that occurs right now will happen when that bill passes. If the military police can find a police of jurisdiction, if there is some way to make that connection and they are willing to take that charge on, then, yes, but in the end it is going to be the military justice system that is going to do justice for these victims.

Does the member have faith that our military justice system can do the job and provide justice for the victims?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the recommendation is fairly clear. It is recommendation number five from the Arbour report. I recommend that the member opposite read the recommendation.

I do believe that military police, in dealing with the issue outside of Canada, have a level of expertise in collecting and protecting the integrity of evidence and securing the situation so that we can ultimately see justice served.

Not all communities or theatres in which the Canadian Forces might participate have the same rule of law or the same court system or justice system that would match the Canadian system. I think the way it has been recommended—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question, since I still have not received an answer. The parliamentary secretary and I know each other quite well. We all know that he has a way with words, but I want to ask him to refrain from skirting around the issue by talking about other things, like the recommendations from Justice Arbour or anyone else.

We developed an amendment in committee that would allow a victim—male or female, since either is possible—who is in fact the most important person in these circumstances, to choose whether their sexual assault case would be handled by the civilian courts or a military court. That can be done. We do not own the truth, contrary to what the government might think.

I would like to get an objective and sincere answer. Why was this amendment removed? I understand that the Liberals have a majority and that they can decide, but it was a good amendment. Why did they remove it?

I would like to hear a rational explanation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will give it my best shot. It is because of a specific recommendation. Justice Arbour knew, consulted and worked with hundreds if not thousands of people, directly or indirectly, including victims. Her recommendation says that these offences “should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases.” There is an exemption if it takes place outside of Canada.

I personally have more confidence in that report today than in what has been brought before me. That is the reason.

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

Mr. Speaker, because of the programming motion and the time allocation on this, I am going to be the last individual to speak in this chamber, unless the bill comes back, and there is a very high probability that it may come back, based on the Minister of National Defence's indication earlier in this chamber.

When I spoke to the bill earlier this week, I highlighted the importance that we get it right. This is about the victims. This is about our military justice system. This is about retaining the credibility of our military police and our military prosecutors, but in the end, it is all about a victim-centred, trauma-informed decision within our Canadian Armed Forces.

I have highlighted before that ultimately the decision was made in late 2021 by the director of military prosecutions, in light of the report that came out by Justice Arbour, to try to transfer all Criminal Code sexual offences to the civilian authorities.

In the last five years, we have learned that the civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the resources or the capacity to deal with all these Criminal Code sexual offences. Part of the reason is that sometimes the cases are historical in nature and the courts do not view that they are in the best interest of public safety here in Canada. However, they are definitely in the best interest of justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, discipline and the necessary requirements that we need of our Canadian Armed Forces members.

If all the amendments that were done, in some cases with all-party consensus, get removed and Bill C-11 passes in its current form, the challenge we are going to have is that the victims are not going to get justice. There are two things that I think we are going to see happen at the Senate. Based on the minister's own commentary here in the chamber, he is open to the sunset clause amendment that did pass at committee, which the government has since removed, to be put back into the bill.

The other thing I think needs to be included in the bill is some sort of data collection provision. The biggest challenges we hear all the time, especially as these cases get transferred to civilian authorities, are how many they actually take, how many result in a charge being laid and how many end up with something occurring. These are all very important things that I think we need to do, and I encourage those members in the other place to take this into consideration as the bill goes forward.

However, the ultimate disappointment I have with the government's decision not to respect the victims and the decisions made at committee is that we are not going to get this right. As I said before, I predict that those of us who will have the privilege of still being in this chamber in a few years will be dealing with the next iteration of this bill and, unfortunately, apologizing to the victims who are not going to get the justice they deserve.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, May 4, 2026, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 1:30 p.m. so we could begin private member's hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Food and Drugs Act

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

moved that Bill C‑265, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (List of Therapeutic Products Pre-approved for Special Access), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian physicians are, at times, even in life-threatening situations, prevented from using the drugs they believe they should be using. My private member's bill looks to change this by making significant changes to the special access program, or SAP. These changes would considerably reduce the red tape associated with the program, create a pre-approved drug list for medications frequently requested and approved, and allow pharmacies to stock many life-saving medications in anticipation of their use.

Furthermore, it would transfer the authority to make difficult decisions about whether to use an unapproved drug in a life-threatening situation, where the evidence of the efficiency of that drug is unclear, to the expert clinicians rather than the bureaucrats in Ottawa.

The SAP was created under the food and drug regulations. It states that medications not approved by Health Canada may be made available for medical emergencies, which Health Canada interprets as “serious or life-threatening conditions when conventional therapies have failed, are unsuitable, or unavailable” in Canada.

Why are medications not approved by Health Canada? There are several reasons. Sometimes these are medications that are still undergoing clinical trials, but at times there are medications that have gone through vigorous testing. For example, the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto told me that they are frequently part of big, randomized control trials. It can take four years from the time those trials show efficacy to the time they are actually able to give those medications to people. On average, it takes Health Canada a year to a year and a half longer than the FDA to approve a medication.

For other medications, including, at times, medicines that have been previously approved in Canada, or medicines for rare diseases, the Canadian market is simply too small or the profit margin is too slim for manufacturers to want to seek approval in this country.

Many drugs that are available under the SAP have been widely used for years. For example, IV caffeine, which is routinely used in neonates, was, for a long time, available only through the SAP. Similarly, ibuprofen lysine, which is a treatment for patent ductus arteriosus in premature infants, has been used for over 30 years, but again, only through the SAP. IV methadone, to prevent narcotic withdrawals in ventilated patients, has been available in the United States for over 20 years, but in Canada it still requires the special access program.

As well, for drugs for rare diseases, the number of patients who have been treated may be too small to be able to statistically prove efficacy, which is what is required for Health Canada approval. Currently, medications that have not been approved by Health Canada can be accessed through the SAP or an N-of-1 clinical trial, with one patient, which is an even more cumbersome process.

The SAP and the clinical trial process need to be reformed. Before telling this House some of the troubling stories as to why, let me say that I know there are a lot of really good people working for Health Canada. When I talked to clinicians about the SAP, many told me that, in general, Health Canada people were really good.

However, many pharmacists, particularly pharmacists working in children's hospitals, told me about having to spend considerable time each week faxing or on the phone with the SAP, often for drugs they have been using for years. They repeatedly have to fax requests for the same medication the same week.

Setting up a clinical trial with an N of 1, which is required for rare diseases and experimental drugs, is even more cumbersome and costly, so much so that one children's hospital told me they simply do not have the resources to do that.

In another case, an ICU doctor at a children's hospital told me of spending six hours resuscitating a child with liver failure and bleeding esophageal varices. For four hours during that time, the pharmacist was on the phone trying to get approval for a drug that is the first-line treatment for this condition in the United States. They had it on hand, but it required SAP approval. Finally, they got it. The child lived. However, the clinician told me that had that child been on that medication to begin with, the child would have never been in that situation.

In addition, I have heard of numerous cases of progressive neurological diseases in children where access to a medication that would have significantly delayed the progression of the disease was refused, stayed or significantly delayed by requiring it to go through the clinical trial process.

This is even though, as one pediatric neurologist told me, if a kid is started on this medication while the kid is still able to walk, the child will continue to be able to walk, and if it is started while the kid is still is able to speak, the kid will continue to be able to speak, but if this is not done, the child will not be able to.

Infectious disease people were particularly critical of the current program. One hospital told me about a neutropenic child, which means they have a low white blood cell count and are susceptible to infection, who had sepsis due to a drug-resistant organism. The hospital had the antibiotic, but it was only available through the SAP program. It was 5:30 at night and neither the SAP program nor the manufacturer were available. As a result, the child was only started on the antibiotic the next morning, 18 hours later, even though the evidence clearly shows that antibiotics ought to be started in the first hour in this situation.

Another infectious disease specialist told me of having a patient in their ICU, again due to a drug-resistant organism. The patient was in their thirties. The drug could only be accessed through the special access program. It took seven days for approval. Unfortunately, the patient died one day before that. This specialist told me this was not uncommon. He also said that, if Health Canada did not think there was a problem, it was because it did not have to look family members in the eye and tell them that their loved one died when there was a treatment that could have saved the patient.

In another case, a newborn with a mother who was HIV positive, the child should have received antiretrovirals within six hours. They applied, and the antiretroviral was given at 15 hours, even though it was yet to be approved. Health Canada finally came through with the approval 48 hours after it was requested.

Someone from Alberta Children's Hospital sent me a very nice email. They told me they had recently conducted a retrospective review of all patients who received two antibiotics before and after the introduction of a future use pilot. This pilot enables hospitals to use on-hand stock and immediate treatment when certain criteria are met. Basically, it is similar to the pre-approved drug list in my bill, Bill C-265. They found that the program significantly reduced time-to-drug initiation from the time of request. In the case of one antibiotic, it was a little over seven days, and in the case of another, it was over 10 days, and both were reduced to less than an hour from the time of diagnosis.

Of note, the pre-approved drug list in my bill would be akin to the future list program. The pharmacists, in their letter, concluded, “while we do now have these two antibiotics as future-use, the institutional approval to stock them took approximately six months per application, and there remain additional critical antimicrobials that are not included in the pilot.” They concluded, “Bill C-265 would go a long way towards addressing these issues.”

I will give one last case. In pediatric ICUs, when there is a kid who will not stop seizing, they like to use pentobarbital, which is the go-to drug in the United States, but it is only available here under the special access program. Instead, they use phenobarbital in really high levels because it is simply easier to access.

Access to medications under the SAP is often denied because the drug is somewhere on an ongoing clinical trial. Yes, where possible, people should go in clinical trials. However, in some cases, this creates considerable hardship for the patient. For example, I had one friend who had cancer. His brother had to bring him back and forth from Thunder Bay to Duluth to get chemotherapy because the special access program denied him access. Similarly, I heard from the pediatric hospital in Montreal that it has to send patients to Toronto because the randomized control trial is in Toronto.

I trust my bill would go a long way in addressing all of these issues. Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, the number one ranked children's hospital in the world, came to me with its problems with the special access program a number of months ago, and I said, “Why don't you write me a PMB?” The first version of the PMB was in fact the hospital's, and it has gone through several reincarnations since. Sick Kids has certainly had a lot of input.

I also want to thank my colleagues who work at Sainte-Justine Hospital in Montreal, who helped me a lot with the bill.

I would also like to thank Princess Margaret in Toronto, the Health Sciences Centre in Winnipeg, the BC Children's Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, the William Osler Health System in Brampton and the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre.

I thank all the clinicians, pharmacists, lawyers and administrators who helped me draft this bill. This is as much their bill as it is mine. I would also like to thank William Stephenson, law clerk and drafter extraordinaire, for his magic in turning ideas into actual laws.

What would the bill do? It would do a few things. First, it would establish a pre-approved drug list. Pharmacies could stock medications on this list in anticipation of their use and medications could be used without prior approval. There would be a requirement for notice afterwards. Presumably, the pre-approved drug list would include pretty well all the drugs in the scenarios I just talked about. I would also suggest that some of the chemotherapy drugs that it takes Princess Margaret four years to be able to use could be on the list.

A committee of experts would advise the minister as to what drugs ought to be on the list. Furthermore, the minister would be able to limit the use of drugs on the pre-approved drug list. For example, they could limit the use of antibiotics to infectious disease specialists or require that they be used in certain settings, like an ICU, or that they be used only by doctors with certain qualifications. For other non-approved products, either for use in the emergency treatment or for the prevention of the progression of serious or life-threatening conditions, this requirement would remain. The special access program would still exist.

However, the bill would explicitly address many of the current problems associated with the system. For example, once implemented, Health Canada could not deny someone access to a drug simply because a randomized controlled trial was going on somewhere in the world, all other available and approved drugs have not been tried or the evidence for the use of the drug was dated. These are all reasons I hear of frequently for access to a drug being denied.

In addition, importantly, the act would create a presumption, which would be determinative when the evidence for use of a drug may be unclear. This presumption would allow two clinicians with the requisite expertise in the field to override a denial if they attest to the treatment plan as being the one in the best interest of the patient, to the benefits outweighing the risks and to the patient having given full and informed consent knowing of a higher risk with an unproven drug.

The drug approval system needs to be improved for other reasons. For example, treatments in cancer are now targeted to the specific genetic sequence of that cancer, so being able to expeditiously do a randomized controlled trial and show statistical evidence of the efficacy of a drug rapidly is pretty well impossible. We need a drug approval system that is more nimble than what we currently have.

In conclusion, to deny someone who may be dying access to a medication that expert clinicians believe might help them is, I think, cruel. I also think that most Canadians would agree that the decision of whether to try such a drug when the evidence is unclear is best left to clinicians with an expertise in the area rather than bureaucrats in Ottawa.

I do have a word of caution. We also need to protect the public from unsafe medications and from the predatory marketing of pharmaceuticals. Health Canada certainly has a duty to look after the public interest. We must, as much as we can, continue to safeguard against the marketing of drugs that have not been proven. In addition, we do not want the SAP to be used as an end run around our drug approval system, and I have tried to put in provisions to ensure that in this legislation.

There are competing interests involved, and what is required is compromise. I believe this bill is such a compromise. I again thank all those who helped me and all members who are here for coming out on a Friday afternoon.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on this private member's bill. It is very important work.

Former health minister Rona Ambrose banned substances, such as heroin and other dangerous drugs, from the special access program, stating that the Government of Canada puts the safety and security of Canadians first. Is there anything in the legislation that would restrict non-marketed drugs, such as prescription-grade heroin, from being added to the pre-approved list of therapeutic products?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult question. There is, as I recall, a provision that would allow the minister to restrict the use of a drug to protect the public interest. We certainly have to ensure, and I think this is most important, that there is no diversion of those drugs. There are examples, and I would suggest one would be IV methadone, which perhaps should be on the pre-approved drug list to only be used for ICU patients who are already on methadone and would otherwise be going into withdrawal.

There are good reasons we might want to put that on the list, but I understand the member's concerns. It would certainly be something we could talk about when it goes to committee.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his bill, which is intrinsically valuable and very interesting. I only have a small concern that I wish to share. Generally speaking, prescription drugs and health are areas of jurisdiction that fall to Quebec and the provinces. When we look at this bill more closely, it is clear that it is lacking a process for carrying out direct consultation.

Perhaps the member should have included some form of consultation with Quebec and the provinces in the bill. Is that maybe coming later?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this great question. People who work at Sainte‑Justine Hospital in Montreal helped me a lot with this bill.

It is challenging to identify jurisdiction when it comes to health. The two levels of government each have a role to play in this field. The provinces are responsible for regulating medical professions, while the Government of Canada has responsibility over prescription drugs.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on this excellent bill. I know he has worked very hard, consulted several experts and sought a range of opinions. It really is a remarkable piece of work.

Some people fear that pharmaceutical companies might use the special access programs to circumvent the usual authorization procedures. Does the member have a view on this matter?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for asking me another question in French. It is a good question, but I find it difficult to answer it in French. It might be better if I answered it in English.

This is something that I struggled with. We do not want companies to have their drugs go on the pre-approved drug list rather than seeking approval for them. There are provisions that would allow the minister to require the company to give reasons why the companies are not seeking approval from Health Canada and to remove the drug from the pre-approved drug list if it thinks it is necessary. I contemplated the possibility of putting penalty provisions in if a company were to use this process to circumvent authorization by Health Canada—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I am wondering if, in his discussions with families and organizations that have been advocating for this, the member has seen first-hand the way that Health Canada's bureaucracy has created so much paperwork and administrative burden that it prevents people from getting access to health care. How would this bill help?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is mostly the pharmacists who have to spend the hours and hours going through the process. The pre-approved drug list should greatly simplify the process to access drugs. I will say that families across Canada are frustrated with this program.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-265, an act to amend the Food and Drug Act with respect to a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access.

I want to start by telling the House about a child. Let us call her Emma. She is a seven-year-old girl diagnosed with a rare metabolic disorder that has no approved treatment available in Canada, yet her physician knew exactly what drug she needed. It had been approved in the United States and used successfully in Europe. Peer-reviewed literature supported its use. The benefits were proven.

Emma's doctor filled out the forms to get permission to use the non-approved drug through what is called the special access program. They submitted the request, then waited and waited. Health Canada's special access program came back with questions. More documentation was required. The application needed revision.

More time passed, and Emma's condition progressed. Her parents, who had already spent months fighting for a diagnosis, now spent every waking hour on the phone, chasing approvals and begging for clarity from a bureaucratic apparatus that seemed entirely indifferent to the fact that on the other end of this paperwork was a little girl whose window for treatment was closing. By the time the approval came through, Emma had lost ground she would never recover.

Emma's story is not unique. It happens across this country to children and adults alike, and it is happening because of a system that prioritizes a bureaucratic process over patients.

Health Canada's special access program was designed with a noble purpose: to provide Canadians who have exhausted all available treatments with access to non-marketed drugs that are proven safe and effective elsewhere. It receives more than 16,000 applications per year, more than 1,000 every single month. It is a necessary program to ensure that Canadians can access the medications they require.

Here is the issue. A significant number of those applications are for drugs that are well established, that have been approved in trusted foreign jurisdictions and that Canadian clinicians have already successfully requested through this very same program, sometimes dozens of times. Often the reason why these drugs have not been approved through the normal process is simple: Canada is not a large enough market to justify the cost of the full regulatory submission.

Health Canada's regulations, meant to keep Canadians safe, are also making it nearly impossible for many people to access the treatment they need in order to survive. For a rare disease especially, the patient population is too small. Canada may never be commercially attractive enough to bother. Every single one still requires a brand new application from scratch for each individual patient.

Think about what that means. A pediatric oncologist who has prescribed the same drug for the same rare condition 17 times still has to submit a fresh application for patient number 18 and wait for a Health Canada reviewer to tell them what they already know: that the drug is safe, that it works and that the child needs it.

For routinely accessed therapies, the special access program serves no function beyond introducing delays and unnecessary administrative burden. When a special access program application is denied, families and clinicians are left with gut-wrenching choices: forgo treatment entirely, enter into a clinical trial program or uproot their lives to seek care outside Canada. According to the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, only 60% of rare disease treatments even make it to Canada. Most arrive up to six years later than in the United States and Europe. Six years is a childhood.

What would Bill C-265 do? It proposes a reform to this broken system. First, it would affirm something that should frankly go without saying, that a licensed physician may administer a lawfully available therapeutic product in an emergency when it represents their best clinical judgment. We should not need legislation to say this, yet here we are.

Second, and this is at the heart of the bill, it would require the minister of health to establish and publicly maintain a pre-approved list of non-marketed therapeutic products for serious or life-threatening conditions. Products on this list could be ordered by practitioners directly, without going through the current case-by-case approval process.

To be eligible for this list, a product must have previously received a letter of authorization, have previously held an authorization that was not cancelled for safety reasons, or be currently authorized by a comparable foreign regulator. In other words, these are drugs that we already know work, that trusted peer regulators have already vetted. An independent expert advisory committee would have to be consulted before any changes are made to the list.

The bill would also codify the criteria for issuing emergency letters of authorization so doctors would not be denied these letters for frivolous bureaucratic reasons.

Conservatives recognize the challenges with the special access program, we support making access to life-saving care easier and we support the bill's advancing to committee. However, we have concerns about several provisions that require amendment before we could offer unqualified support. Let me be clear about what worries us.

First, the bill would create a presumption of approval for a letter of authorization when two specialist clinicians submit a joint treatment plan. That sounds reasonable on the surface, but there would be no requirement for those two clinicians to be independent of each other or independent of the treating practitioner. This would open the door to rubber-stamping by associate colleagues, and it could undermine the entire purpose of requiring multiple clinicians to attest.

Second, the bill contains no explicit exclusions for controlled substances from either the letter of authorization process or the pre-approved list. That means substances like pharmaceutical-grade heroin could potentially be placed on this list. There would be a removal mechanism for misuse and diversion, but inclusion should never be possible in the first place. Some members of the House may recall that this is not a theoretical concern.

In 2013, when Rona Ambrose served as minister of health under former prime minister Harper, she took decisive action to restrict special access program approvals for substances like pharmaceutical heroin. At that time, drug enablement advocates were using the special access program to expand access to substances such as heroin. Minister Ambrose recognized the public health risk that special access program authorization for heroin could normalize the prescription of addictive substances in the name of harm reduction or safe supply.

Those restrictions were undone by the Trudeau government. Now, under Bill C-265 as currently drafted, there would be nothing stopping the minister from placing substances such as heroin on the pre-approved list, from which any qualified practitioner could order it directly.

Third, the pre-approved list could become a back door for drug manufacturers seeking to bypass the standard Health Canada regulatory approval process. The sponsor of the bill has publicly acknowledged this concern himself. The bill would allow not just practitioners but also pharmacists, hospitals and medical non-profit organizations, which is an undefined term, to submit products for the list.

Here is how this could be exploited. A pharmaceutical company with a product that is approved in another country but lacks Canadian approval could fund an undefined non-profit health organization. That organization could then submit the product for inclusion on the pre-approved list. Once it is on the list, the manufacturer could sell the product directly to Canadian practitioners without ever going through the safety and efficacy reviews required for full Health Canada approval. They would avoid the cost and the scrutiny that exists in Canada.

The bill would require that products meet “appropriate quality and safety standards”, but it does not define what those standards are or who would verify them. It says that the minister may require manufacturers to explain why they are not pursuing full approval, but “may” is not “must”. We need to ensure that the pre-approval list would be reserved for genuine cases of unmet need, not be used as a shortcut for pharmaceutical companies looking to avoid regulatory review. The broad criteria have potential to invite targeted lobbying efforts, which could be a loophole for pharmaceutical companies to exploit. We need to address this in committee.

While we are at it, let us name the elephant in the room. The reason we need this bill at all is that the Health Canada bureaucracy has made the existing special access program so administratively burdensome that clinicians are drowning in paperwork while their patients deteriorate. The Liberal government and the bureaucrats at Health Canada have built a system that puts—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am afraid I have to interrupt the hon. member. It is time to move on.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-265. It is worth emphasizing that the intention behind this bill is a very noble one. Facilitating access to therapeutic products for patients seeking access to innovative drugs or therapies when that is their only remaining option is a highly commendable objective, it must be said. I would like to point out that many members, like myself, have probably, at one time or another in their careers, received letters from patients who wanted access to a drug that is not available in Canada but is available elsewhere in the world. I am sure that all my colleagues also understand that everyone wants to have access to the best treatment when they are fighting for their lives.

For this reason, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting my colleague's bill. The bill will streamline applications submitted under Health Canada's special access program. Creating a list of pre-approved drugs will make it easier to process applications. This program allows a physician or dentist to request access to a drug that is not available for sale in Canada. To qualify, certain criteria must be met. First, the drug must be requested in an emergency situation, in other words for someone suffering from a serious or life-threatening illness.

This program is a last resort, since it means that all other attempts have failed and that the medication is not available in Canada. The manufacturer sets the cost of the drug. In some cases, it may be offered free of charge, but it is possible that certain costs might have to be borne by hospitals, public or private insurers, or even, in some cases, by patients or their families. Applications submitted under the SAP are reviewed based on a variety of criteria, including the level of urgency, available alternatives, medical history, and evidence of the new drug's safety and efficacy.

The bill would streamline the processing of these applications, as the list of approved drugs would reduce the administrative burden associated with assessing the safety and efficacy of a new drug. In theory, this would help reduce processing times. However, we have some concerns regarding the effects of this bill. First, Quebec and the provinces are not included in this initiative. That is what I pointed out to my colleague in my question earlier. As everyone knows, they are the ones that run our health care systems, especially our drug insurance programs. For access to these drugs to become a reality, it is imperative that Quebec and the provinces be consulted so that they can harmonize their systems. Otherwise, only the wealthiest individuals will be able to access drugs, which runs counter to a fundamental principle at the heart of the Canada Health Act: the principle of accessibility.

We would like to know whether the sponsor of the bill considers the current cost provisions in the SAP to be sufficient. This is certainly something that can also be looked at in committee. Quebec already has a program that allows patients, under specific conditions, to access drugs not covered by the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec. It is known as the exceptional medications and exceptional patient program. It does not provide access to drugs that are not marketed in Canada, but it does provide access to drugs that are not on the list of insurable drugs. The bill would therefore not interfere with Quebec's programs.

We still want Quebec and the provinces to be consulted, because it is the hospitals and doctors in the provinces who will have to navigate this program. As for the procedures for adding drugs to the list, we will need to address ethical questions surrounding the creation of the advisory committee and the application process. To that end, the Bloc Québécois will take the time to consult with experts and stakeholders during the committee review of the bill. We will therefore wait until the committee stage to decide on the next steps.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin today by telling members about a child who is sick and whose parents have been told that there is a promising treatment, but it is not yet available in Canada. It is not because it does not work, and not because it is not safe, but because the paperwork has not caught up. The system was not designed with that child in mind.

As a father of three beautiful girls, I cannot imagine the sense of desperation that parents would have in that moment. I definitely feel it imperative to support the bill before us and do everything we can to prevent parents from having to go through this in those life-changing moments. This is the problem that my colleague for Thunder Bay—Rainy River is trying to solve through his private member's bill, Bill C-265.

I am proud to rise today in strong support of this bill, brought forward by my friend and colleague, who is an ER physician and a member of this House. He understands, better than most of us, what it means when a patient's time starts to run out.

This is not a partisan issue. This is about whether we are ready to put patients first, empower clinicians and help reduce barriers to saving lives.

I bring a particular lens to this bill. I have never been a physician, but before coming to this House, many years ago, I spent time working in medical research ethics at the University of London, St. George's Medical School, where I helped oversee more than 500 clinical trials and research projects. I sat in review meetings, I read the research protocols and pored over the applications. I have seen what it takes for promising treatments to move through the system, and more importantly, how long it takes.

I know what rigour looks like, and I know what evidence-based medicine looks like. I can tell members, with confidence, that this bill does not cut corners. Instead, this bill would cut red tape. Those are two very different things.

I have also seen the other side and spoken with families who were told to wait, who were told to be patient, and who watched their loved one deteriorate while a treatment that might have helped sat across a border or in a regulatory queue. That experience stays with us. It is why I wholeheartedly support this bill, and it brought me here today to this chamber to say that we can and must do better.

I will describe what our current system looks like in practice. A doctor, let us say a pediatric oncologist in the world-renowned SickKids Hospital in Toronto, has a nine-year-old patient. She has a rare form of cancer. Her family has exhausted the standard treatments. Her parents are desperate. Her doctor knows about a treatment being used successfully in, say, Europe. It has passed clinical trials abroad. It is being administered to children just like her in Germany, France and the United Kingdom, but it is not yet approved here in Canada. The doctor goes through the special access pathway and fills out forms. She waits, she follows up, she waits some more, she follows up some more, and weeks pass. The child, in that time, is getting sicker and sicker.

Now, picture the same scenario at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, which is one of the top cancer hospitals in the world. Its specialists are seeing the same thing: cutting-edge science at their fingertips, but bureaucracy stands between the treatment and the patient.

This is not hypothetical. This is happening right now in hospitals across the country. Delays are holding up access to life-saving medication, and the impact is not just medical; it is financial and emotional. Families are spending their savings travelling abroad for treatments that are available only elsewhere. Parents take unpaid leave. Siblings grow up in the shadow of a crisis. Our system has the power to ease this, but has not yet.

What would Bill C-265 actually do? I will break this down in plain language, as I understand it, because this matters to every Canadian, not just those who work in medicine.

Right now, if a doctor needs to access a treatment that is not yet fully approved in Canada, they have to navigate a slow, complex, case-by-case process every single time. Bill C-265 would change that by creating a pre-approved list of therapeutic products for special access. Think of it as a curated catalogue of treatments that have already been vetted, that have already been shown to work in other rigorous health systems, and that can be accessed more quickly when a doctor determines a patient needs them. Think of it as a pre-cleared lane at the border. The work has already been done, and the safety checks have already been run. When a doctor needs to act, especially in an emergency, they should not have to start from scratch: They can use their clinical judgment to determine what treatment is in the best interest of the patient.

Critically, the safeguards are in the bill. The bill would not allow just anyone to access any drug any time they feel like it. The health minister would retain the ability to restrict access for specific uses and to specify limitations on practitioners and the settings for those usages. The minister could add new products and remove any of them the moment safety concerns arise.

The integrity of our drug approval system would also be protected. The bill would not allow big pharma to circumvent Health Canada's rigorous regulatory approval process. The bill would give the minister the ability to, on reasonable grounds, ask a manufacturer of a therapeutic product for an explanation if they suspect they are trying to circumvent the regulatory approval process, and could remove that product from the list immediately if the reasons given are deemed unsatisfactory.

The bill would also bring real transparency to the process. There would be a public list of approved products, updated regularly, with annual reporting on access timelines and outcomes. Both practitioners and manufacturers would be required to report. This is accountability built right into the heart of the legislation, not as an afterthought.

One of the things I love most about the bill is that it would trust doctors to be doctors. We train our physicians for over a decade and put them through the most rigorous education and examination in the world, then in the moment of a medical urgency or emergency, we ask them to stop, file paperwork and then wait. When lives hang in the balance, they should be empowered in those moments to do what they do best. Imagine if we asked a firefighter rushing into a burning building to first complete a request form before grabbing the hose. Bill C-265 would empower physicians to use their clinical judgment, especially in emergencies, while still operating within a clear, accountable framework.

The bill includes another important proposed provision: for the health minister to issue letters of authorization for emergency access to new drugs. This would be for emergency situations, when a patient's life is at stake. The letter of authorization would be used by weighing the benefits and risks to the patient if the drug is used or if it is not used, along with all available medical evidence. In cases where the information available may not be conclusive enough, the minister could grant authorization if two practitioners who are expert clinicians with specialized knowledge agree that the use of the therapeutic product is in the best interest of the patient.

If requests are denied, the bill would require written justification of the minister's decision. The bill also outlines limitations of the minister's ability to refuse a letter of authorization, and it includes an emergency hotline to help practitioners access this process at all times. This would mean no more silence, no more wondering why, and greater transparency for doctors, patients and families.

Let me give another example of why this matters. Rare diseases are, by definition, rare. There may be only a few hundred Canadians living with a specific condition. Because the market is small, pharmaceutical companies do not always prioritize getting approval here first. They go to the United States or Europe. Full approval in Canada comes years later, if at all, so a parent in Halifax, Saskatoon or Ottawa watches their child suffer, knowing that a treatment exists, has been proven and is being used right now in other countries but cannot be accessed here. That parent is not asking for miracles; they are asking for fairness, for their child to get the same chance as child born in another country gets.

Bill C-265 would give Canadian patients that fighting chance. It says that if the evidence and international approval are there, we would not make patients wait while the system catches up.

I want to take a quick moment to recognize that it took a lot of work to get this bill to the floor of the House of Commons. Our colleague, the member of Parliament for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, did not write the bill on the back of a napkin. He consulted extensively, talking to patients, families, physicians, emergency room doctors, oncologists, and specialists in rare diseases, and he engaged with legal experts, ethicists and regulatory professionals. This is what good legislation looks like. It is built from the ground up and shaped by the people who live with the consequences every single day.

I also want to acknowledge the patients and advocates who pushed for this change. I give kudos to them. This bill belongs to them.

Good health policy is always a balance. We want to be rigorous. We want to make sure that we give Canadians safe, proven and accountable medications. We also want to be compassionate. We want to be fast enough that the system does not make the decision for the patient before the doctor even gets a chance to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to put a few words on the record about the important bill before Parliament today.

Bill C-265 is a piece of legislation that seeks to address an important issue that affects Canadians who are struggling with serious and life-threatening medical conditions. The reality is that, in Canada, individuals suffering from serious medical conditions or rare diseases may not be able to access the vital therapeutic products that are designed to help them when conventional treatments cannot. Some therapeutic products might not be approved for use in Canada and others are not marketed in Canada. These products may be well-established and approved by jurisdictions that Canada trusts, but Canadians cannot access them in the way they typically can access other drugs or other health products.

Health Canada's current special access program was set up to address this issue, but it has serious flaws. The program exists as a way to get non-marketed drugs that have been proven safe into the hands of the Canadians who, oftentimes, have no other options. The issue is that this process of actually accessing these products can be lengthy and overly bureaucratic. The special access program has strict rules requiring health care practitioners to apply for what is known as a letter of authorization before they can access certain non-marketed therapeutic products for a patient.

Health practitioners in Canada are unable to prescribe unlicensed or non-marketed products in the same way they would for medications that are already available in Canada and to Canadians. Instead, approval for use is given on a case-by-case basis by the special access program for each patient seeking access to these unapproved or non-marketed therapeutic products, even if another Canadian was already approved for the same prescription drug. This has created a system where treatment has been proven effective in other countries, and even approved for other Canadians and proven effective, but, because of the administrative burdens of the program, it is still out of reach for new individuals who are diagnosed with a particular condition and who need access.

Receiving over a thousand applications monthly, or more than 12,000 applications each year, the special access program has been a critical pathway for Canadians to receive medications that could help them, but it faces significant delays. At desperate moments in the lives and the health care journeys of those suffering with severe conditions or concerns, this delay often results in thousands of Canadians' losing critical hours, days, weeks or months waiting for a letter or a response to their request, in other words, bureaucratic approvals, as they watch their health decline. In some cases, Canadians lose this precious time waiting just to find out that it is not a positive response and that their application has been denied by the program. This can lead applicants to seek out alternative treatments outside the country or even leave them, sadly, in too many cases, with nowhere else to turn.

Canadians deserve timely access to care, and Conservatives understand that bureaucratic delays are a problem with the program. To address these flaws with the special access program, Bill C-265, which we are considering today, offers important changes that attempt to reshape how unlicensed or non-marketed products are accessed by Canadians. Bill C-265 seeks to make amendments to the Food and Drugs Act to require the Minister of Health to create a publicized list of pre-approved, non-marketed therapeutic products to treat serious or life-threatening conditions. This would include a 120-day deadline for the minister to make a decision about adding such a product to the list. Further, the bill would set limits and criteria related to the Minister of Health's power to refuse emergency letters of authorization for pharmaceutical products.

Bill C-265 would also reinforce the basic principle that health care practitioners should be able to use therapeutic products that are legally available when in the best interest of their patients, which we should all be able to support.

Conservatives understand how and why the special access program needs refinements, and we appreciate the member opposite for bringing forward some proposed solutions to that program. However, we do have a few concerns with the bill, which I hope to outline here as well. Without guardrails in place, the bill has the ability to create risk here in Canada, both for the health of Canadians and the influence of corporations. That said, I want to be clear that we do see potential in this bill and how, in principle, it could benefit Canadians who struggle with different stages of accessing these therapeutic products that may have already been approved and are used by other Canadians.

To get this bill right, considerations must be given to how it would come into force and what unintended consequences it might have without key amendments. One of our broader concerns with this legislation is the lack of a safeguard against controlled substances like diacetylmorphine, also known as heroin, being included on the list. As written, the new authorization process creates an avenue for the Minister of Health to potentially add harmful and illegal substances to the pre-approved list. These are provisions that were removed by a previous government, after having been on the list in the past. Simply put, this would mean health care practitioners could access substances like pharmaceutical-grade heroin, even though they are considered restricted or illegal drugs in Canada.

Under the previous Harper Conservative government, intentional restrictions were placed on the special access program to prevent the approval of many such restricted substances. Despite that work being reversed by Trudeau Liberals, we have an opportunity with this bill to get it right and prevent addictive substances from being placed on this pre-approved list where they could pose significant risks to our public health. This bill would also create blind spots within the pharmaceutical approval process and a lack of oversight of which products are added to the pre-approved list. Not only would it give the minister the power to add or remove products, but it would also allow them to set criteria, standards and conditions without limitations.

A potential safeguard to put in place to ensure due diligence with the pre-approved list is an advisory committee that would need to be consulted before the list is amended. Unfortunately, we have no idea who would sit on that committee or who would determine its composition. Given the important role this advisory committee would play, Conservatives would need to understand its composition and ensure the selection standards are clear.

Finally, our concern is that Bill C-265 would open the door for corporate influence that directly contradicts safeguards already in place for pharmaceutical companies that want their products in the Canadian market. I know the previous member has spoken to that already today. The bill seeks to allow those therapeutic products that are placed on the pre-approved drug list to be exempt from the Food and Drug Act's regulatory power, which means companies could sell their products in Canada without being subject to the stringent reviews that Health Canada requires of the normal process. A similar regulatory bypass created in this bill comes in the presumption of approval for a letter of authorization if just two expert clinicians put forward a joint treatment plan.

While the principle makes sense on the surface, the bill offers no way to ensure these individuals are independent from one another or a verification that one of the two experts is not the practitioner responsible for treating the patient who is seeking the approval. There must be checks and balances in place to ensure drugs added to the pre-approved list and that received the letters of authorization meet clearly defined and verified safety standards.

In closing, Conservatives stand firm in our belief that Canadians deserve timely access to health care. We appreciate that the member is trying to deal with that very real and challenging issue many Canadians face. We also believe that when they access that care, Canadians should not lose their life savings because of unforeseen health complications or expensive prescription drugs.

Conservatives support getting this well-intentioned bill to committee, where we can strengthen it by strengthening safeguards to ensure controlled and addictive substances can not be added to the pre-approved list; improving oversight and accountability around the minister's authority and the advisory committee responsible for review products; closing loopholes that could allow pharmaceutical companies to bypass Canada's existing regulatory approval process; and ensuring the emergency authorization process includes clear independence and verification standards for expert clinicians.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to speak today to Bill C-265, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. The bill attempts to address a very real and human problem. I laud the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for bringing it forward so we can have the collective opportunity to think about and act on this important issue.

As we have heard this afternoon, across Canada there are patients facing serious illnesses, rare diseases, aggressive cancers and rapidly deteriorating conditions whose approved treatment options either have failed or simply do not exist. In those moments, no one cares about ideology or partisanship. What they need is hope. They want time. They are looking for options, for anything that might help when all other doors appear to be closed. That is the purported purpose of the existing Health Canada special access program. Under the program, health care professionals can request access to therapies that are not yet approved in Canada for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions. In many cases, the program has in fact provided compassionate access to potentially life-saving treatments.

Bill C-265 seeks to streamline parts of that process by creating a publicly maintained list of therapeutic products that could qualify for faster access under certain circumstances. There is merit in studying this proposal carefully at committee, and I am pleased to rise today to support doing exactly that, because government systems should work efficiently to respond to real human needs. When bureaucracy creates unnecessary delays for critically ill patients, we have a responsibility in this place to ask whether those processes can be improved while maintaining proper safeguards.

I believe we should also recognize the difficult realities faced by patients living with rare diseases. Members of my immediate family live with a rare disease called hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies, or HNPP. We are lucky that it was diagnosed within a reasonable time and has so far had minimal impact on our lives. However, many rare disease patients spend years searching for diagnoses, specialists and treatment options.

Families become experts themselves because they have no other choice. They monitor clinical trials around the world. They follow developments in the United States and elsewhere. They advocate tirelessly for access to therapies that may still be working their way through Canada's approval process even though they are available elsewhere. For patients in these situations, time matters. It is frustrating, terrifying and a host of other emotions to watch someone we love suffer and in some cases die while bureaucratic rules put up roadblock after obstacle, barrier, impediment and hurdle.

This issue is particularly relevant for many of our communities on Vancouver Island and across rural Canada. Patients without family doctors already face long travel times for specialized care. Families in rural areas often experience delays in accessing diagnostics, specialists and advanced treatments. Whether we or someone we love is fighting a fast-moving illness, every additional layer of delay can feel overwhelming. Bill C-265 seeks to address that concern by allowing certain therapies to be placed on a pre-approved list for faster consideration under the program.

The idea deserves thoughtful examination, and many people in the House, including the proposer of the bill, have talked about the issues that need to be studied at committee, so I am not going to go through them here. What I am going to do is thank my colleague across the way for taking the time to really think about what we can do in this place to help real families and real people across the country to live full, better lives not spent chasing therapies they may or may not be able to access in the long run.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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.

Before we adjourn, I will wish all mothers in the House and across the country a very happy Mother's Day.

It being 2:17 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 25, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:17 p.m.)