House of Commons Hansard #120 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was victims.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Military Justice System Modernization Act Third reading of Bill C-11. The bill, C-11, proposes modernizing the military justice system by transferring jurisdiction over sexual offences to civilian authorities, a recommendation of Justice Arbour. While Liberals contend this is vital for reform, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois criticize the government for using its majority to reject committee amendments that would have permitted victim choice between court systems. Opposition parties argue this change disregards survivors' agency by mandating a singular legal path. 15600 words, 2 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Food and Drugs Act Second reading of Bill C-265. The bill, introduced by the Liberal Party, creates a pre-approved drug list to expedite the special access program for patients facing life-threatening conditions. While proponents emphasize reducing bureaucratic delays, Conservative Party members expressed concerns regarding potential loophole exploitation by pharmaceutical companies and the inclusion of controlled substances. The Bloc Québécois also noted the need for better federal-provincial consultation. 8700 words, 1 hour.
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 LiberalSecretary 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.
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 LiberalParliamentary 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 LiberalParliamentary 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.
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 LiberalParliamentary 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?
National DefenceOral Questions
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 LiberalParliamentary 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 LiberalParliamentary 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.
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 LiberalParliamentary 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 LiberalParliamentary 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.
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 LiberalParliamentary 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.
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 LiberalMinister 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 LiberalMinister 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—
Indigenous AffairsOral Questions
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?