Debates of June 11th, 2026

Second Reading and Concurrence in Senate Amendments

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great work across this country on Bill C-9. Maybe there are some well-intentioned Liberals across the way, but we made these same arguments around medical assistance in dying. We said that there was going to be pressure on seniors to end their life and that MAID was going to be pushed on people who are affected by mental health issues, and that is exactly what has been happening.

If Bill C-9 really becomes the law of the land, where does the member see this going? How could it actually affect pastors and preachers at Christian churches across Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his support on this and for the work he has done in standing up for freedoms.

I will say two things on this. The first is that where the problematic parts of the bill are coming from is itself a signal. It shows that the Liberal government does not fundamentally respect the role that faith plays in society, and religious freedom. When that is the frame the Liberals have already established for their outlook, we have to be very concerned about how that is going to unfold in other ways.

The second is that all of us see, or should see, in our constituencies the work that faith groups and people from across the faith spectrum do, from food banks to homeless shelters, all of this. If we take away the right for faith communities to live out their values and beliefs, we also have to be prepared to give up that philanthropic benefit that gives us so much in this country.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated that my colleague talked about the various faiths right across the country that are supportive of this. When we had the opportunity to speak at a committee, and I did, I said that everyone has faith; it is just a matter of where they put that faith. An individual who is an atheist contacted me and said “Cathay, thank you so much, because what this is about is freedom."

I would like the member to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to be able to work alongside my colleague from Yorkton-Melville. I believe I said it in my remarks today, but it bears repeating: Religious freedom for one is religious freedom for all. It includes the right of people of all faiths to live out their values. It also includes the right of people of no faith to criticize religion. Sometimes I may find that hurtful, but I do not trust the government, nor do we want a society in which the government is the arbiter of values and beliefs.

Often people will bring up the idea of the separation of church and state. By opposing Bill C-9, we would actually be protecting that sacred separation by keeping the state out of places of worship. I hope my Liberal colleagues will support our amendment to the motion, to get rid of this bill once and for all.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member was knowledgeable in his comments and his speech on Bill C-9.

I spoke to this bill. As an indigenous person, coming from the Indian Act and knowing that natives did not have rights until the last 50 years, I was shocked at this. The issue is the potential attack not only against faith leaders but also against the fundamental principle of freedom of all manners. I cannot understand why the House has not taken the charter seriously. We are actually playing politics with it.

With respect to the motion that my colleague has put on the floor, is there any chance the Liberal government will come to its senses and support it? If not, what are the options for us as Conservatives on behalf of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to work alongside my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I have been such an admirer of his work for a great many years. I look across the aisle, and the eye rolls I see and the giggles I hear make me think that perhaps we do not have a huge amount of faith that the motion will succeed, but I hope that the Liberals who are not perhaps listening to this right now will do the right thing.

My colleague has made some tremendous observations, in and out of the chamber, about the government's history with indigenous peoples, and this is something I value learning more and more about. I think the takeaway is that regardless of someone's beliefs, regardless of their identity, the very worst thing the government can do is impose its value system and its belief system on them. That is what we need to stand up against quite firmly and irrevocably.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has spoken so eloquently on Bill C-9 from the beginning, and I want to commend him for seeing Bill C-9 for what it is. It is the government's attempt to censor what people say and do in this country.

Does he see a pattern in the behaviour of the government? With whatever social problems seem to exist in this country, the Liberals' response is not to let Canadians make decisions for themselves, think for themselves or speak for themselves, but to tell them what their truth is and that if they do not believe their truth, they are bad people.

Does he see a pattern here?

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall that in one of my earlier interventions in this House, I wanted to do a history of Liberal censorship, but I had only 20 minutes and I knew I would run out of time.

We have now seen four iterations of the online harms act: Bill C-8, Bill C-22, Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. It may sound like I am rhyming off numbers in a bingo game, but all of these bills would restrict the rights of Canadians.

I mentioned censorship, and the Minister of Public Safety appeared. It is like Beetlejuice.

At the end of the day, we all have to stand firm for freedom in this House and this chamber. We need to fight against 10 years of a Liberal record of pushing against it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am not sure if that touches on acknowledging the presence or absence of a member, but we will let that go.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 12:14 a.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, when I rose in the House previously in question period, I asked the Minister of Public Safety about charges being stayed against two fentanyl traffickers who were arrested and in court in Swift Current. Police found 17.5 pounds of fentanyl in their car, and their charges were stayed. That 17.5 pounds of fentanyl is just under four million doses. Effectively, 17.5 pounds of fentanyl could kill close to four million people. That is enough fentanyl to kill just about all of the people in Alberta and Saskatchewan combined in one traffic stop. The individuals' charges were stayed, they were released on bail and now they are out in the general public. This is getting ridiculous. It is getting out of hand.

Let us look at the tone the government has set over the years with its soft-on-crime approach. Let us look at Bill C-75. The “earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions” is the main theme of what Bill C-75 has meant for people like drug traffickers.

Let us take a look at a few other cases in and around Saskatchewan. On April 8, another individual was found with 51 grams of fentanyl. It is not nearly as much as 17.5 pounds, but it is deadly, nonetheless. On April 16, another person was found with 282 grams of fentanyl and 556 grams of cocaine. On May 15, 227 grams of methamphetamine was found on an individual. These are deadly amounts of drugs that people have in their possession, and these people are generally released out into the public.

Just yesterday, here in Ontario, an individual who was out on bail was arrested with 30 grams of cocaine and 22 grams of fentanyl, which has a street value of about $5,200. This person was out on bail for a previous drug possession and trafficking charge for a street value of $125,000. This is getting insane. These are the kinds of things that people are seeing on the streets.

Canadians are getting sick and tired of seeing people who have large amounts of fentanyl, which is a deadly drug that can kill tons of people. We have all seen the headlines. People are getting so sick and tired of this. Fentanyl is getting into our high schools and many places where it should never be. We are seeing people overdosing in parks and public spaces. The drug epidemic is getting out of hand, and people are getting so sick and tired of it.

When on earth is the government going to actually do something to make sure that people trafficking 17.5 pounds of fentanyl will not be allowed back out on the streets?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and the concern of the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley. I want to acknowledge the deeply troubling circumstances that have prompted this debate and, I think rightly, his concern.

The seizure of a significant quantity of fentanyl near Swift Current is a stark reminder of the lethal impact this drug is having on communities across Canada. I have seen it even in my riding in west Toronto. I recognize the anguish and anger that people in Canada feel when organized crime exploits communities and fuels violence.

As organized crime is evolving, our legislative frameworks need to address emerging forms of advanced, online and globalized crimes while protecting our communities. We have been doing this with a series of pieces of legislation through reforms designed to enhance community safety and increase confidence in the criminal justice system. Our proposed reforms aim to strengthen bail and sentencing for violent repeat offending, improve protections for victims and modernize lawful access and other Criminal Code tools to better address serious and organized crime.

We have been part of the debate in this House on Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. The hon. member referred to criminals who are out on bail. That is a central part of our government's efforts to improve community safety and keep criminals off the street. We campaigned on this in the election campaign. Our proposed reforms would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen bail and sentencing responses to serious and organized crime, including those connected to the production and trafficking of illicit drugs. The bill would make bail more difficult to obtain in certain cases, including for individuals involved in organized crime, through a very important new measure, new reverse onus provisions, something the party on the other side has been calling for. This is a critical step forward. In these situations, detention would be the starting point, and the onus would be on the accused to demonstrate why they should be released. Reforms would also require police and courts to place greater weight on public safety, victims' needs and witnesses when making bail decisions, and would mandate closer scrutiny of bail plans, including in cases involving random or unprovoked violence, again, making bail harder to get. Bill C-14 would also create tougher sentencing provisions for organized crime offences, ensuring that sentences better reflect the serious harms caused by the illicit drug trade, while discouraging others from participating in these activities.

We also have Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which would further strengthen the Criminal Code so that dangerous offenders are held to account and victims are better protected. Notably, it would create a new offence for recruiting youth into crime, directly targeting the way organized crime draws young people specifically into drug trafficking and other serious offences.

Finally, a subject of great interest to the House, Bill C-22, the lawful access act, would modernize Canada's lawful access framework so law enforcement has the tools it needs to investigate serious organized crime networks, including those that drive the fentanyl trade.

Taken together, these measures, the strongest set of criminal justice bills proposed by the party on this side of the House in generations, demonstrate a very strong commitment to public safety by dismantling organized crime and addressing the significant harms caused by drug-related offending in communities across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the common theme we see with the Liberals is that they go easy on criminals, and then all of a sudden they introduce all these new laws that try to make up for their own undoing of previous laws that were in place and would have helped deal with a lot of this.

There are other chronic issues that are at play here. Six out of 10 provinces have requested more judges appointed to the King's bench. There is a shortage, particularly in my province of Saskatchewan, which led to this individual with 17.5 pounds of fentanyl having their charges stayed. The Liberals made a commitment in the last election to hire 1,000 more police officers. We have yet to see them follow up on that at all. I do not think any new officers have been hired, let alone dealing with the people who are retiring. The borders continue to be a sore spot for drugs coming in. Basically zero containers are scanned coming into Canada, so all kinds of drugs and who knows what else are pouring into our country, and it is putting our citizens at risk and in danger. How else do we end up with 17.5 pounds of fentanyl getting on the streets down Highway 1?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the investments that we have made, including those commitments of 1,000 RCMP officers and 1,000 CBSA officers, have the promise to really make a dent into this. I had the pleasure of touring a CBSA facility last summer in the Windsor area and hearing from the frontline leaders of the CBSA. They told us how important this was and how the advanced scanning available through the CBSA is making real inroads. Those operational things, reforms and those things happening on the ground, combined with the legislative reforms I mentioned earlier, reflect the government's determined and balanced approach to protecting community safety while bolstering confidence in the criminal justice system.

Science and Innovation

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pursuing a question I first asked on April 14. I have been concerned for some time that the new Liberal government has less respect for science than previous governments had. We recently mourned the death of our colleague Dr. Kirsty Duncan. In all the eulogies, people remembered her as the first minister of science in Canada. We may note, and I hate to say this, that she will be the last minister of science in Canada, because there is not one now.

The gravitas, the importance, of scientific briefings and scientific advice from core government departments that are science-based is sorely lacking. This is reflected in the cuts to Environment and Climate Change and to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to basic scientific research. Whole branches of science are being shut down in this country.

A scientific expert, an anthropologist and taxonomist, contacted me because the whole national collection of insects in the Diptera order has been shut down. There are no scientists to pick up this work. They have all been laid off. An international petition was launched; 495 scientists from 47 different countries are raising the alarm about Canada's dropping the ball. It may seem to people that it is obscure to keep track of what species of insect we have in our collection, but it can cause enormous economic damage when we lose the brainpower to know which insect is which. If it is an exotic species that does not belong in a particular forest, we need to know about it soon, and we need to take action.

There are cuts across the board. An open letter was sent just today to the Prime Minister's office, from 425 scientists from many jurisdictions, including internationally, concerned that the cuts to the ocean protection plan mean that we simply will not be able to understand and protect our marine environment.

These are serious matters, and I asked the Prime Minister, in April, if he had ever consulted his chief science adviser about these cuts. The hon. parliamentary secretary made a good go of it, saying that, in general, people appreciated the advice of Dr. Mona Nemer, the Prime Minister's chief science adviser. However, since I asked the question, I have had it verified that the Prime Minister has not once sat down to meet with his chief science adviser. This is deeply worrying.

Changes are being proposed, such as in the massive discussion documents issued May 8, that would have profound impacts, endangering endangered species. Also, we are losing the precautionary principle. If we look, buried in the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30, we find the single biggest assault on bringing evidence and science to bear on the dangers of pesticides to human health and the environment. However, buried in an omnibus bill, it will be studied only by the finance committee, which had no time to hear from witnesses really concerned about this issue.

With that, I ask the government again, will it please rethink, stop and be concerned? The precautionary principle has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as fundamental to our legal jurisprudence. In this country, we do not want to find ourselves once again with decision-based evidence-making. We need to look at the science and do our research first, before we decide we have to build whatever fast and not be concerned with what the scientists are warning us will occur if we fail to think first, plan well and then build.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands' concern about this and her long-standing advocacy for evidence-based approaches to public policy.

With respect to the chief science officer, she is somebody I engage with and the Minister of Industry and her department engage with regularly. That is where the chief science officer is based. Also, she has significant engagement with parliamentarians, including through the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

I want to join my colleague in paying tribute, which I think we have each done in different forms in the last few months, to the late Kirsty Duncan, who had a significant responsibility in helping with the existence of the Standing Committee on Science and Research. When we think about the ways to honour her, it is by continuing the ideals and principles for which she stood, and I see those quite well reflected in the recent actions of this government.

In the 2024 budget, we made historic investments in the tri-council agencies, which are the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, as well as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. They are the federal government's main mechanisms for driving scientific discovery all the way from the discovery phase to the application phase. We made historic investments, making up after a significant period of relative underinvestment, with billions of dollars of investment going to those agencies.

We followed up on that in 2025 with another new major set of investments toward the impact+ research chairs program. We just announced almost 700 new doctoral and post-doctoral fellows coming from outside of Canada to help support the next generation of scientific research. These funds, as well as our forthcoming impact+ research chairs program, are not only crowding in other private and philanthropic funds, but generating excitement around the prospect of doing leading-edge research in science that has the translational piece, results in policy advice and helps inform government in very significant ways.

Those investments in the 2024 budget and the 2025 budget are informing Canada, Canadians, the public policy community and parliamentarians with new information to help tackle some recent challenges.

I will also note a number of our new major strategies, whether it is the national food strategy, which was launched today; the AI strategy, which was launched last week; our critical minerals strategy; our national electricity strategy; or a number of other strategies. They place at the centre evidence, research and the innovation that derives from that research. Sprinkled across a number of different recent actions of this government, we see investments in science.

The hon. member is a champion of a particular set of institutions that are very important. We are very proud on this side to be hosting the Our Ocean Conference in 2027. I know the health of the oceans is of particular concern to the member, and we have committed, through our nature plan, to protecting 30% of Canada's lands and waters by 2030. That, too, is evidence-informed, evidence-based and scientifically informed.

We believe in the investments we have made. Yes, there is some attention to be paid to government-direct research, but if the member looks at the full set of research in which we are investing and the full set of science in which we are investing, we are the place to do this scientific research. I think the results with respect to the interest of those outside of Canada wanting to come to Canada to do this work speak for themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, and he is a friend, the parliamentary secretary. Let me give him an example right now that is not hypothetical.

None of the wonderful press releases he has mentioned has done a single thing to allow the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada to have a budget sufficient enough to hold the meetings it is required to hold by law. It is supposed to assess and monitor species at risk along a continuum from threatened to critically endangered, but these top-notch scientists have to meet to do that. The committee did not have a budget to meet, so it has gone from two meetings required a year down to one, and it is not going to have enough time to plow through the backlog of species that need attention, need recovery plans and need habitat attention.

At the same time that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada cannot meet, we see a discussion paper that says maybe it is okay to lose the southern resident killer whales. It is not acceptable.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention. Although I cannot speak to the circumstances of that specific committee, I know that as a government we try to resource all the activities we say we are doing as effectively and efficiently as possible.

I want to reiterate that the status of science for this government is the status of science as represented by the investments we are making, the status of science as represented by the image we are projecting to the world of the kinds of investments we are seeking, and the status of science in the public spirit that we are trying to share, whether it is with the Artemis mission or with some of the leading work being done by some of our leading scientists, whom we try to elevate on this side of the House. That speaks very strongly to the status of science overall for this government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:24 p.m.)