Debates of June 11th, 2026

Marine Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's national shipbuilding strategy focuses on building and maintaining vessels, but there is no plan for responsibly retiring them. More than 900 derelict and end-of-life vessels sit off B.C.'s coast, threatening the marine environment. While aging navy and Coast Guard vessels approach retirement, Canada lacks the capacity to safely recycle them here at home.

Will the Prime Minister finally commit to investing in dry dock infrastructure, in world-class ship recycling facilities and in regulations, and make ship recycling a core component of the national shipbuilding strategy?

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

Mr. Speaker, ship recycling is a multi-billion-dollar, worldwide industry and also an opportunity. Indeed, as the member points out, there are many derelict vessels, including many owned by the people of Canada.

We will continue to work very hard on this file. I am very well aware of the interest in the Port Alberni area in engaging in this industry. We are extremely interested in it, and I will be very pleased to continue working with the member on that issue.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, we already knew that the cost of acquiring the F-35s had skyrocketed, going from $19 billion to $28 billion. However, we learned that, in addition to the 72 U.S. jets, the Liberals are thinking of buying another 72 fighter jets, the Gripen, for a potential fleet of 144 fighter jets. The questions are simple.

First, is that true? Second, how much will it cost? Lastly, could this money be better invested to meet the needs of Canadians?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are acquiring a new fleet of fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The member knows that.

We are reviewing all procurement approaches so that they align with the interests of Canadians and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. We are committed to acquiring what the air force needs, while guaranteeing economic benefits for Canadians, including Quebeckers.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Oral Questions, the President of the Treasury Board was asked a question. Now that he has had a chance to find the page, would he like to provide an answer?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That is not a point of order.

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), be read the third time and passed.

Protecting Victims Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:08 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading of Bill C-16.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #153

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to ask this long-awaited question, as my colleague the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would say. As we know, millions of Canadians look forward to this every week. I have even heard that people in France are waiting for this moment. Apparently, we are quite popular.

Last night, an article on the Radio-Canada website stated that the Prime Minister had adjourned the House. Understandably, everyone is wondering why we are still here today.

Can my dear colleague from the government tell us if we are, indeed, here? Will we be here tomorrow? Will we be here next week? If so, what business does the government have planned for all those days?

I hope the government is not planning on using time allocation again and again. That said, if we are here, we will do our job. However, we have to actually be here.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are clearly entering the home stretch before we head back to our ridings to spend a little more time with our constituents. When Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day rolls around, I think people, especially those from la belle province, want to go home and be with their loved ones. I hope that will be the case, both for the deputy House leader of the official opposition and for myself. In the meantime, we have a lot of work to do.

I point this out as gently as I can to my esteemed colleague, but we were intrigued the other day when the Conservatives voted to extend sitting hours until midnight. I want to emphasize that it was until midnight. We thought we were going to work together and do things for Canadians, but three hours later, shortly after dinnertime, the Conservatives voted to adjourn the House. This contradiction puzzled us and left us a bit skeptical about their willingness to work. We shall see how things play out over the next few days.

This afternoon, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, followed by debate on the Senate amendment relating to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 12, which relates to the proceedings on Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. After question period, we will proceed to debate on the Senate amendments made to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, followed by second reading debate of Bill C-27, the final self-government agreement for the Tlegohli Got’ine act.

As for next week, on Monday we will resume consideration of Government Business No. 12, followed by consideration of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act.

Next Tuesday's meeting will be dedicated to the consideration of Government Business No. 11 concerning proceedings on Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.

Other priority bills next week will be Bill C-27, the final self-government agreement for the Tlegohli Got'ine act; Bill C-29, the financial crimes agency act; and Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act.

As members can see, we are planning to race to the finish line, and we are optimistic that the Conservatives and all opposition party members will work with us and with Canadians to achieve great things.

Bill C-25—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition but not to the exclusion of some members from the government.

Members should keep their interventions to approximately one minute, and they may speak more than once.

I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, after 11 summers in the House, it is interesting to see what happens, typically, every year in June, under this government. The Liberals cannot manage their agenda throughout the entire year, so they fall so far behind. They have put us on late-night hours, where we are sitting until midnight, and even then they have to cut debate short with these time allocation motions because they cannot handle the fact that we are here to debate on behalf of Canadians who have sent us to this place to debate the government bills and to make sure they are the best they can possibly be.

I strongly oppose the time allocation motion, which will shut down debate once again, just as the Liberals have been doing in committees any time we try to hold them accountable for their failed attempts at governing this country.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, l first want to say to my hon. friend, in the spirit of the season, that I can well understand why anyone with the very evocative riding name of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies would be very anxious and excited to return to that place. It sounds like an amazing place, and I hope to visit the member someday.

However, in the meantime, we are here to work. The member, perhaps, did not hear my earlier answer to his deputy House leader, where I expressed my real surprise. Yes, indeed, we are asking members of Parliament to work a little harder so that we can get the job done for Canadians, but that member voted to extend the hours until midnight. He was for that. Three hours later, he voted to adjourn the House. We did not quite understand that. That sounded like a contradiction.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the fact that the minister responsible for democratic institutions is here to get his perspective on something that happened in the National Assembly. Yesterday, they passed a bill to protect certain electoral districts. As we are well aware, each time a redistribution happens, we try to reconcile—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the member, as a member participating by Zoom has their microphone turned on again, interfering with the business of the House.

I invite the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj to start his question or comment from the top.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a law to protect certain ridings in my region, the Gaspé Peninsula, as well as one in Montreal.

With every electoral redistribution exercise comes tension between, on the one hand, population growth and the need to ensure that each vote carries similar relative weight, and, on the other hand, the importance of ensuring that ridings do not become too large. The Quebec National Assembly chose to protect certain ridings.

Similar situations exist at the federal level. My riding, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, now covers 23,000 square kilometres. That is larger than the area of Djibouti. Several of my colleagues have even larger ridings.

What does my colleague think we can do to better balance these two requirements?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat to the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj that he too must be looking forward to returning to his riding.

He does indeed represent a very large riding. I admire all members, all elected officials, who drive long distances, often very late, and in all kinds of conditions, including winter conditions. It is obviously very challenging to represent people who are spread across a vast area and who, in his case, are separated by the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I really commend my colleague for that.

That said, in a democracy, we must do everything in our power to ensure that every vote carries equal weight, whether it is cast in Montreal or in Percé. We always try to respect that fundamental principle, one that is actually recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express that this is my first full year in the House, and I find it a bit disappointing, in fact a lot disappointing, that the government had all year to get this work done, yet it is imposing closure. A bill such as this, which arguably does not have a lot of controversy attached to it, would have been very easy to pass with the process that we had allowed, yet we have these games from the Liberal government.

We are here to work as long as possible to make sure that we shine the light of transparency onto everything the government is doing, and I really would appreciate a comment from the government as to how transparency is served by closure.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine how beautiful the panorama of the Bow River is this time of year. The member has only been here for a year. I have been here 11 years and have witnessed the very imaginative ways the Conservatives conceive of to delay, stall and otherwise obstruct the passage of legislation, even, as the member points out, legislation as non-controversial and consensual as this bill is.

I do want to take a moment to express my appreciation, in terms of the development of this bill, for the co-operation that I have received from all parts of this House. It is a signal testament to this country that, at the very minimum, we can all agree on the rules of the game and change the Elections Act without rancour.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words about Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which is an absolutely wonderful place.

I would like to ask him another question.

The action that the Quebec National Assembly took to reconcile these two principles, or in other words to guarantee equality of voting power and ensure that the ridings are not too big, led to an increased number of MNAs. The number of members of the Quebec National Assembly is going to increase from 125 to 127.

Is my colleague prepared to consider that type of solution to ensure that federal ridings remain manageable in size so that citizens truly have access to their MP?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important principle, particularly for those of us who like to be close to our constituents.

It is clear that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that I mentioned allows for some variation in the populations of ridings, as well as in terms of distances and riding size.

However, in a democracy, we need to ensure that one vote carries roughly the same weight as another vote cast elsewhere. It is a matter of finding the right balance. I think the members of the Quebec National Assembly also recognize that they have merely identified a problem, not solved one. They reached a compromise.

I do not have much to say about the action that the Quebec National Assembly is taking, other than to note that it is very important in a democracy for every vote to carry roughly the same weight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the minister's response to the Thursday question, because I think it is important for Canadians who watch the debates to see the games that the Conservatives play on an ongoing basis, whether by obstructing, by wasting time or by sending conflicting messages.

A good example of that is what the House leader made reference to. One day, the Conservatives said, “Yes, we want to sit late”, but later the same day, they proposed that we adjourn in the early evening. The following day, there were two adjournment motions on Bill C-16, which is important crime legislation for protecting Canadian victims and making our communities safer. The Conservatives again, and not once but twice, moved adjournment. It seems to me that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives to try to prevent legislation from passing.

Can the House leader provide his thoughts on why it is so important that we deliver for Canadians?