Debates of June 3rd, 2026

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, led by the pages.

[Members sang the national anthem]

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, were those pages not wonderful in singing O Canada? They have created such a sense of harmony in the House.

There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion scheduled for today be taken first.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

AI Data Centres

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people in Vancouver East want the federal government to stop the “invest now, regulate later” approach of the Prime Minister's AI data factory strategy. People are deeply concerned that the proposed AI data centres in dense residential neighbourhoods would bring constant air pollution from on-site diesel generators, 24-7 noise and impacts on water. It makes no sense to have water-intensive AI data centres on valuable land near their homes while historic drought conditions and water restrictions loom.

People in Virginia, home to the largest concentration of data centres in the world, learned that industrial-scale data centres are incompatible in residential neighbourhoods. In Ireland, 22% of the power supply is now reportedly used by data centres, adding hundreds of dollars to home hydro bills.

In the middle of an affordability and climate crisis, Van East constituents want people's rights to housing, quality of life, water security and affordable home power supply to come first, ahead of tech giants.

National AccessAbility Week

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

Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate National AccessAbility Week, which began in 1988. Inspired by Rick Hansen's Man in Motion World Tour, this week honours the contributions of Canadians with disabilities and reminds us that we can always build a more inclusive and accessible society. This year's Canadian theme is “Building a Strong, Accessible Canada.”

More than eight million Canadians face barriers in everyday life. Many of these obstacles are built into our homes and workplaces. As the father of a son with a disability, and a friend of Rick Hansen and of Canada's first chief accessibility officer, Stephanie Cadieux, I have seen first-hand the importance of designing our communities equitably.

This week, we celebrate the progress we have made so far and acknowledge the work of advocates whose leadership continues to break down barriers and inspire positive change. Together, we can continue building communities where everyone can participate and thrive. Let us create a fair and welcoming society for everyone.

Seniors

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we recognize Seniors Month in Ontario as well as Seniors' Week in Alberta and in British Columbia, it is important that we not only celebrate seniors but also highlight and confront the challenges too many of them are still facing today.

Too many single seniors, often older women, face high living costs while receiving fewer financial supports than couples do. A single senior can pay almost 10 times more in taxes than a couple with the same income, despite facing many of the same household expenses. At a time when affordability remains a serious challenge, many are struggling simply to keep up with housing, grocery and everyday costs. Single seniors should not be penalized by our tax system simply because they live alone.

Nekai Walks

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite all parliamentarians to join us this evening for a special screening of Nekai Walks, hosted with our trusted partners at YAAACE, an organization doing extraordinary work with young people in Toronto. Taking place later today in Wellington 310, this powerful documentary tells the story of resilience, recovery and community in the face of gun violence. As we approach the National Day Against Gun Violence, on June 5, the film offers a timely and deeply meaningful opportunity to reflect and to learn.

I am especially pleased to welcome to the Hill, Devon Jones, founding director of YAAACE; Nekai Foster, the young man at the heart of this film; and the film's director, Rico King.

I encourage all of my colleagues to attend this important and inspiring event.

Seniors Month

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

Mr. Speaker, as we mark Seniors Month in Ontario, we are reminded that modernization must include everyone. As new digital systems and artificial intelligence reshape daily life, we must recognize that not every Canadian has equal access to technology. In many rural communities, reliable Internet and cell service still do not exist. Seniors tell us that they are increasingly being excluded as essential services like banking become digital by default.

We cannot create a future where some Canadians are unable to participate in society. Progress is not measured by how advanced our systems become. It is measured by whether people still feel seen, valued and able to participate in society. No Canadian should lose access to society because technology has moved faster than infrastructure. Canadian seniors are not obstacles to modernization but part of Canada's great future.

Luc Vachon

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the career of Colonel Luc Vachon as he prepares to retire from the Canadian Armed Forces, after 33 years of loyal, dedicated service to Canada.

Throughout his career in the Royal Canadian Air Force, Colonel Vachon served with professionalism, integrity and distinction in a wide range of operational staff and command appointments, contributing to Canada's commitments both at home and abroad. As commander of 14 Wing Greenwood, he demonstrated exceptional leadership and a deep commitment to the military members, civilian employees and families who served at one of Canada's most important air wings.

I enjoyed working alongside him on projects that have benefited the military members and civilians in our region. His dedication has earned him immense respect in our community.

On behalf of the residents of Acadie—Annapolis and all Canadians, I want to thank Colonel Luc Vachon for his remarkable service to our country and wish him every success and happiness in his retirement.

Farmers’ Days Rodeo and Exhibition

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, from June 5 to 7, thousands will gather in Stony Plain to enjoy the Stony Plain Farmers’ Days Rodeo and Exhibition.

Organized in partnership with the Kinsmen Club of Stony Plain, Farmers' Days showcases the agricultural heritage, community spirit and volunteerism that make our region such a special place to call home. For three days, Stony Plain will come alive with the Kinsmen rodeo, parades down Main Street, a midway with games and live entertainment, and the Farmers' Days market featuring over 160 vendors. Families can enjoy activities, from the heavy horse pull to train rides and petting zoos, that are fun for the whole family.

Farmers' Days is a celebration of the best of our Parkland region: our hard-working people, volunteers, local businesses and the strong community spirit that brings neighbours together, year after year. I invite everyone to come and enjoy this great celebration in our region.

Finally, I want to thank the Town of Stony Plain, the Kinsmen Club, the sponsors, the volunteers and the organizers for making this celebration possible. I wish everyone a fun and enjoyable Farmers' Days weekend.

Oakville West Youth Council

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding young leaders of the Oakville West Youth Council, who are joining us here on Parliament Hill today. This has been a remarkable year for this group. Together we visited the Halton Regional Police Service headquarters to see the work that our law enforcement does, Sheridan College to learn about future career paths to pursue and Oakville Museum to learn about why Black History Month is important and Oakville's contribution to it.

They also participated in a mock committee study on artificial intelligence, among many other meaningful experiences, including today's meet-and-greet with the Prime Minister. At every step, they have demonstrated curiosity, leadership and genuine commitment to learning and serving their communities. Spending time with these young people gives me tremendous hope for the future. They are thoughtful, driven and deeply engaged. They are not simply preparing to become leaders someday; they are already leading today.

I thank the Oakville West Youth Council.

Road Safety in Yellowhead

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sorrow for a community in Yellowhead. Two men and two children lost their lives on O'Chiese Road last Friday. While the RCMP investigation is ongoing, local leaders have warned for years that a tragedy like this would happen on that road. In March, I met with the O'Chiese First Nation council to learn about the long history of trying to get this road fixed. I drove the road myself, and it was atrocious.

The nation repeatedly sought assistance from the Liberal government, but its requests were ignored by multiple ministers, so the nation asked me to deliver a binder documenting the safety concerns and requests for action, which I did in March in the House. Months later, there is still no action.

Today, a community is grieving an unimaginable loss. My thoughts and prayers are with the families, their loved ones and all those affected by this tragedy.

There can be no more procrastination. I call on the Liberal government to work with Clearwater County and the Province of Alberta to finally provide its share of the funding needed for O'Chiese Road to be made safe.

Housing in Indigenous Communities

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has launched a campaign to denounce the glaring underfunding of housing in indigenous communities. The organization focused on the situation in the Atikamekw community of Manawan.

Isolated and dependent on federal funding, Manawan is facing a severe housing crisis. Housing is inadequate, often unsanitary, overcrowded and poorly maintained: conditions that violate the right to adequate housing. The consequences are serious: the spread of disease, lack of privacy, increased violence, poverty and homelessness.

Despite the council's efforts, the lack of funding remains. Amnesty International and the community are calling for urgent action, and we are echoing their demands: invest heavily and sustainably, work in partnership with communities, adapt policies to guarantee dignified living conditions and put an end to discrimination.

Chief Sipi Flamand took these requests directly to the Prime Minister. We are calling on the Prime Minister to act now.

Rare Diseases

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although we call them rare diseases, cumulatively they affect over 3.2 million Canadians. They are debilitating and potentially life-threatening.

One Canadian family watched their healthy 14-year-old child suddenly begin suffering from severe headaches, vision problems and exhaustion. After months of uncertainty, the child was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive and deadly brain cancer. Through early intervention, surgery, treatment and extraordinary courage, that child survived and today continues to inspire others facing rare diseases.

Our government has committed $1.4 billion through agreements with all provinces and territories under the national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, to improve access to affordable and life-saving treatments. The Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders is calling on Parliament to strengthen the next phase of the strategy beyond 2027 by improving access to diagnostics, treatments, research and care for all Canadians living with rare diseases.

No family should lose hope because help came too late.

The Economy

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Instead he delivered the only recession in the G7. He promised growth. Canada lost more than 112,000 jobs in just three months. He promised investment. Business investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters. He promised prosperity. Today, one in four Canadians faces food insecurity.

The recession is real. I hear it from families and seniors every day. It is real for families struggling to afford groceries. It is real for workers coming home from work and telling their kids they no longer have a job and that they are going to have to sell the house. It is real for Canadians watching their savings disappear while costs continue to rise.

The Leader of the Opposition has called upon the Prime Minister to hold an emergency debate to explain the plan to reverse the recession the Liberals have created, because Canadians deserve answers. Canadians deserve a plan, and Canadians deserve a government that will unleash Canada's economy once again.

Cuisine collective Hochelaga-Maisonneuve

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Hochelaga has grown around a core value: solidarity. In this regard, the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve community kitchen, or CCHM, which works to promote food security and social and occupational integration, is a shining example of the group's strength.

The CCHM is celebrating its 40th anniversary. I know the people at this organization. They have probably baked the cake themselves. For four decades, this organization has been bringing together, feeding, empowering and training thousands of people by focusing on dignity, confidence and kindness.

For the past 10 years, the food hub on Hochelaga Street has been under the direction of Benoist de Peyrelongue, an innovative, ambitious and persuasive man with boundless energy and a big heart, who is here with us today. This project brings together urban agriculture, seedling greenhouses and a professional kitchen for food processing.

I wish this wonderful organization a happy anniversary.

I will close with a word of warning: the CCHM's pickled carrots can be highly addictive.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals elected a Prime Minister they thought was an economic genius. They got fooled that he was a master negotiator. He sold himself as the guy to hire in a crisis. He caused a crisis in the U.K. and then ran away from it. Then he came to Canada and deceived people with his fearmongering and caused a recession within a year.

Canada is now the only G20 country in a recession. We have the highest household debt and the worst housing affordability, and unemployment, especially among young people, is at shocking levels. Investment is down for five straight quarters. Do not worry, though, folks. The Prime Minister has a genius master plan: He hides from question period and the media. He blames everybody but himself and mutters something about needing more immigration to fix the messy—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am going to have to stop the member there. In my view, that was not parliamentary. I am sorry, but we have been over this many times.

The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles.

Medical Relief Group Canada

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to acknowledge the remarkable work of the non-governmental organization Medical Relief Group Canada, which promotes the Canadian values of solidarity, generosity and compassion both at home and abroad. Recently, the organization sent a large shipment of medicine to Lebanon and personally oversaw its distribution to ensure that this essential aid reaches those who are most vulnerable and in the greatest need.

I also want to express my sincere appreciation for the founders and leaders of this organization, who are on the Hill today, for their vision, dedication and leadership both at home and abroad.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the tragic effects of Liberal policies on the economy. Liberals want to be judged by their intentions, announcements, illusions and gimmicks, but Canadians will see the effects of Liberal policies in the grocery store aisle, at the gas pump, in the pink slips that are piling up and in the real numbers reported by Statistics Canada. The reports are in: Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. We have had recession levels of unemployment for months, with youth unemployment approaching 15%. One in four Canadians is food-insecure, and food bank use has doubled since 2020.

The Prime Minister is not working, and he certainly is not working for Canadians. Canadians want jobs, homes and hope. There is hope for this great country, but Liberals need to stop pretending that everything is fine. It is not. Canadians want a government that leaves behind the illusions and instead focuses on delivering results.

Social Workers

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

Mr. Speaker, today, social workers from across Canada are gathered in Ottawa to celebrate the profession and mark 100 years of the Canadian Association of Social Workers. Having worked in the field myself before entering politics, I fully appreciate the vital role that social workers play in supporting the delivery of health and social services in our communities, to our families and among the most vulnerable. At a time when Canada continues to face overlapping social, economic and public health challenges, the role of social workers has never been more crucial.

Throughout 2026, CASW and its 11 provincial and territorial partners will celebrate the centennial with the theme “Reflecting on Our Past, Reimagining Our Future”. This theme is intended to guide the profession as it reflects on the evolution of social work, uplifts the voices of leadership shaping the profession today and envisions the next 100 years grounded in equity and reconciliation.

Please join me in celebrating social workers and the next 100 years of the profession in Canada.

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, all in the group of 20 nations are faced with the same tariffs, wars and energy prices, yet 19 of the G20 countries are not in recession. One country is in recession.

Will the leader of the only G20 country in recession please stand up?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That is not a question; it is a request. We will go on to the next question.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has had two consecutive quarters of shrinking GDP. It is the only country in the G20 that can say that. We have lost 112,000 jobs in the first three months of this year, and that has left our country with a quarter of its people in food insecurity.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether we are in a recession or in a technical recession?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first, may I wish the Leader of the Opposition a very happy birthday? Second, I will even give him his question back.

It is my little gift to him.

What the government is doing is putting in place the foundations of an economy that will be stronger, more resilient and more independent. In the face of U.S. tariffs, in the face of global uncertainty and in the face of higher energy prices, we are seeing business investment accelerating. We are seeing wages growing at twice the rate of those in the United States. We are seeing this country put in place the conditions for sustained prosperity.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the birthday wishes. I am 47 years old, but that is 50 with inflation. What I really want as a birthday gift from the Prime Minister is someone who will actually answer the question. Canadians deserve answers, not misinformation.

We have had two consecutive declining quarters of GDP growth. We are the only country in the G7 that can say that. We are the only country in the G7 that has seen the economy shrink in three of the last four quarters. We are the only country whose GDP is smaller than it was a year ago, when the Prime Minister took office.

Will the Prime Minister tell us, are we in a recession or in a technical recession? Which is it?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is very painful, on someone's birthday, when you give them a present and they give it back to you.

I will do a little research for the Leader of the Opposition. If he would like to ask the C.D. Howe Institute, it knows the answer to that question. He could ask the OECD, which today predicts that Canada will have the second-strongest economy in the G7 this year and next. That is the answer.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it was the only promise he made during the election. He gave the same forecast a few days ago. After that, we found out that Canada is the only G20 nation in a recession. That means Canadians are skipping meals, 112,000 people have lost their jobs, and we have the second-worst unemployment rate in the G7.

Can the Prime Minister rise and answer a very simple question: Are we in a recession or just a technical recession?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again the official record of Parliament needs to be corrected. I made a number of promises during the election campaign. The first was to save Canadians from the horrible policies of the Leader of the Opposition. The second was to introduce policies that would create a more resilient, more prosperous, stronger, more sustainable and more independent economy. This is what we are doing.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, instead, all the Prime Minister delivered was a recession. He promised he would have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He has delivered the only recession in the G7. While Canadians line up around the block to try to collect from the food bank, the Prime Minister spends $200,000 on inflight meals for just three flights, including $4,200 on crème brûlée and $593 on luxury Normandy butter cups. No wonder he is so out of touch with the people whose jobs he has killed.

Can he tell us whether he will ground his plane, and will he stand up and tell us if are we in a recession?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what I will tell the House is what I hear from international investors and businesses when we travel. What I heard in New York is that Canada is the most attractive destination for foreign infrastructure investment. What I hear from major global investors, who want to invest more than $100 billion in this country, is what we are already seeing, which is foreign investment that is running in this country at twice the rate of any other G7 economy. That is—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the multinational corporations he is profiting are very pleased with the way things are going. As for the Canadian people, who are living under his recession, it is another story. They have not had $200,000-meals on three private flights. They do not have tax havens so they can shelter from the high tax burden he imposes on everyone else. He cannot even bring himself to utter the word “recession,” even though the tech spec definition tells us that he is the only Prime Minister, the only leader in the G20, who has created one.

Will the Prime Minister stand in the House and answer this question: Are we in a recession or a technical recession?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are in an economy that is fundamentally being transformed by a government that has a plan to create a stronger, more independent and more resilient economy, a sustainable economy, an economy that moves from reliance to resilience. We are already seeing business investment, Canadian business investment, up 10% in machinery equipment. We are seeing our non-U.S. exports up, and they are on course to double. We are seeing the strongest inbound investment in—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Order. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

Canadian Identity and Culture

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

Mr. Speaker, here is yet another betrayal of Quebec culture: On day two of the CUSMA negotiations, the government is already asking the CRTC to drop the 15% levy required of major online streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video. After scrapping the digital services tax, Ottawa is once again sacrificing funding for cultural content by allowing web giants to avoid paying their fair share. We are talking about $3.4 billion.

Does the Prime Minister know that he is supposed to defend culture, not bargain it away?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government is starting by standing up for ordinary people. We are focusing on affordability. This decision is primarily about ensuring affordability for Quebeckers and Canadian families. At the same time, we are investing an additional $600 million in Canadian and Quebec culture.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister previously abandoned the digital services tax without any concessions from Washington; there was nothing at all. As a result, he deprived the cultural sector of $1.4 billion. Today, he is asking the CRTC to backtrack on the 15% levy imposed on large online streaming platforms. That would mean once again giving up on $2 billion that would essentially come from the United States. He is depriving the cultural sector of billions of dollars, while saying he would spend $600 million of taxpayer money to make up for that.

How can he justify the fact that everybody is losing, except for the web giants?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have some news for the member for Beloeil—Chambly. Who pays for that streaming levy? Everyday Canadians do, through streaming fees. That is the truth. At a time when we are focused on purchasing power, we decided to support the cultural sector and focus on affordability for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, he is forgoing $3.4 billion a year that would come from the United States, and taking $600 million out of taxpayers' pockets. By asking the CRTC to cancel the 15% levy, the Prime Minister is doing something even worse than merely capitulating. He is validating the Americans' claim that Quebec culture and the French language are barriers to trade. By replacing the levy with public funds, he is validating the Conservatives' criticism by making taxpayers pay for the web giants' share. That is their reasoning. The Prime Minister is sending the message that he is weak.

Will he reverse this cowardly decision?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government is investing in Canadian culture, in francophone culture and in Quebec culture. They are pillars of our identity. We are supporting Canada's cultural sector more than ever with the decisions made today and in the budget, which the member for Beloeil—Chambly voted against. We have invested $750 million in Canada's cultural sector.

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is about the human cost of Canada being the only G20 country in the recession. Zahra from Toronto lost her administrative job at a real estate business. She cannot find a new job, and now has to sleep on a friend's couch.

What is the Prime Minister going to tell her, if he cares enough to stand up and answer? Is he going to tell her that she is just technically homeless and technically jobless?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish the Leader of the Opposition a happy birthday. I hope his day improves.

The government is focused on building a stronger economy. We recognize the scale of the challenges that this country is facing from abroad. We are focused on that administrator. We are focused on farmers in Battle River—Crowfoot. We are focused on a future that is stronger, more durable, more independent, more resilient and more sustainable.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a joke. This is a woman's life. The Prime Minister has given us the only recession in the G20, and he stands up and starts joking about her state of affairs. She is sleeping on someone's couch.

Will the Prime Minister stop being so flippant about the suffering that he has caused in the lives of Canadians and tell Zahra whether her homelessness and joblessness are just a technicality?

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

Mr. Speaker, do the Conservatives know what is not a joke? It is when someone loses their job and there is nothing there to catch them, yet if the Conservative members had their way, that is exactly what would have been facing Zahra. They voted against the very measures that we put in place to protect people like Zahra—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We really cannot hear now.

Not from the top, but the minister may continue. Let us have a little more quiet so we can hear what the minister has to say.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I find to be a joke is that, when the government steps up, not only to lay the foundation of prosperity for the future but also to protect people like Zahra by putting into place things like modernized employment insurance, which the Conservatives routinely laugh about, they vote against those measures, time and—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the question is for the Prime Minister about the real human cost of Canada being the only country in the G7, and in the G20, that is in a recession. Brad from Ontario wrote me to say that his family hung on during the Trudeau years, but since the Liberal Prime Minister took over, he is at risk of losing everything. He sold his home and had to get rid of all of the savings he had accumulated for his retirement.

Will the Prime Minister have the decency to stand up, look Brad in the eye and tell Brad if we are in a technical recession or a real recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, I speak to a lot of people like Brad in my own riding of Gatineau. What they ask me is why there is such apparent glee on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and his troops when they march in here. Canada faces some economic headwinds from an unprovoked trade war, and they blame Canada. Canada faces economic headwinds from a war in the Middle East, and they blame Canada.

People cannot help but notice that the Leader of the Opposition and his entire bench walk in here with glee when Canada faces—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when there is only one country in the G20 facing a recession, while all the other countries face the same wars and tariffs, then we know it is appropriate to blame the Liberal government. The member talks about glee. Jacqueline has no glee. She actually had to put her dog down because she cannot afford the veterinary bills along with the inflation in her food, her rent and her gas.

If the Prime Minister actually cares about Jacqueline, will he stand up and answer the question? Are we in a recession or a technical recession? Which is it?

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

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians do not need at this time is these slogans, these clips and this empty rhetoric from that side of the House. Jacqueline knows, and she should know, that every step of the way, the Leader of the Opposition has voted against every affordability measure in the House. Jacqueline knows it, and we know it. Canadians know it.

When it comes to affordability, we are going to stand with families. We are going to stand with workers. We are going to support our industries. We are going to build Canada strong together.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Colleagues, it is too loud in the House. I will not point any fingers, but it is too loud.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Prime Minister. If he actually cared about the people who wrote these letters, he would stand up and answer the questions himself instead of having a member get up to condemn slogans and then list five of them in a row.

Here is another letter, which is from Thomas in Sarnia. He runs a painting business, but is now stuck in a bind. The cost of his paints are too high to keep his prices low, and if his prices are too high, nobody can afford to hire him. He is worried he is going to lose his business. This is the human cost of being the only country in the G20 that is in a recession.

Will the Prime Minister tell Thomas if this just a technical recession? Is he technically on the verge of bankruptcy?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize the critical investments we are making in Canada's economy right now to help these same people the opposition mentions. Yesterday, we announced investments in Quebec in infrastructure, including $2.5 billion in community centres, infrastructure to build more housing and to scale up our affordable housing across the country, $1 billion to be invested to upgrade our hospitals and emergency rooms, and over $6 billion to invest in public transit to help people get around affordably and to create the jobs that make this country prosperous.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is the same pattern with the Prime Minister every time. He gets a fancy title, and he turns it into an absolute disaster. A tiny group of insiders get fabulously rich making everyone else poor, and when it comes time to be accountable, he goes into hiding, not even able to respond to the Canadians who wrote letters about their economic desperation, with Canada being the only G20 country in recession. Nathan from Ontario lost his job and is not sure how he is going to cover expenses for his type 1 diabetes, as severance money is now running out.

Will the Prime Minister have the decency and the courage to look Nathan in the eye and tell him—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State for Small Business and Tourism.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing the impacts of change and global uncertainty driven by U.S. tariffs. That is why our government has a clear plan. We are diversifying trade, creating good jobs in this country, building faster and investing in workers while making life more affordable. This plan is working.

Canada is projected to have the fastest growing economy in the G7. We are going to take care of Canadians. In fact, when it comes to affordability, an average family of four will save up to $20,000 this year, and that will help them with the average cost they are experiencing each and every day. We are going to protect Canadians while building Canada strong.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been almost a week after Stats Canada reported that Canada had the only recession in the G20. The Prime Minister has been in hiding ever since. He has the worst attendance record in question period. While Canadians are losing their jobs, he will not even show up to do his job.

I ask questions on behalf of Zahra, Jacqueline, Brad, Kevin, Nathan and countless others who do not know how they are going to pay their bills.

Will the Liberals stand up for once, own up for once and tell us, are we in a technical recession or a real recession? Which is it?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not take that leader—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are going to start over.

The hon. secretary of state.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not take that party seriously at all. We have the former failed leader doing bizarre social media videos and screaming at fences. We have the current failed leader doing empty parking lot press conferences with no substance: gimmicks, props and slogans.

On this side of the House, we are investing in major projects, housing and trade diversification. They are not serious about the economy. Canadians see it. Canadians know it. Canadians made a choice to stand behind a world-class statesman and a world-class business and economic leader who is going to build our country—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

Indigenous Affairs

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has denounced the inhumane housing crisis that the Atikamekw nation of Manawan is experiencing.

In Manawan, as many as 23 people may be crammed into housing that is often unsanitary. These conditions contribute to the spread of respiratory illnesses. They hinder children's development, their academic success, and even their basic needs. They exacerbate domestic violence. In short, these are unacceptable living conditions that would never be tolerated anywhere else.

Why does the government continue to allow the underfunding of indigenous housing to leave communities in these conditions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear a question on such an important issue, which is a first. We know that housing is a top priority in indigenous communities. That is why I am proud to be working with my colleagues to launch the program to build Canada strong and build homes in indigenous communities. We will build these homes together with them, to meet their needs. I am proud to be doing this work with them, and we will stay the course.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the indigenous housing crisis has been denounced for decades by every community. It is not just a matter of housing. It is also a matter of human rights, education, health, safety and dignity.

It has been five years since the government took on an obligation under international law to address this crisis. The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador has already calculated that there is a shortage of 10,000 housing units in Quebec alone, not to mention the fact that 8,000 housing units need to be renovated and 4,000 others need to be decontaminated.

The federal government promised that this would be fixed by 2030. When will they work with communities to come up with a predictable and achievable plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, for decades, there was underfunding and discrimination in this file. I am proud to work with the only government that has decided to take a stand and add funding to this file to meet the needs of indigenous nations in Quebec and across Canada.

I am proud to be doing this work. I am very pleased to note that, under urban and rural programs, in big cities and in the north, we are doing this work together, not only with the nations, but also with people in urban centres. That is very important.

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the government's excuses for the Liberal recession kept changing. First, they said it was world factors. Then we pointed out that none of the other G20 countries are in a recession. Mexico, which shares a border with the U.S. and is fully integrated with the U.S. economy, is not in a recession. Only this country, under this Liberal Prime Minister, is in a recession.

His explanation yesterday was, “We see some weakness, in part because of clear decisions by the government.” That at least is fair.

He claims that we are not bringing enough immigration. If that is the case, why is it that Canada has the lowest per capita GDP growth of any G7 country?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are in a trade war, something the Leader of the Opposition conveniently forgets or does not forget, depending on how it serves him.

That is why today, with the lumber tariffs remaining unjustified and unfair to workers, businesses and communities, we have announced enhanced BDC loans, two new direct lending facilities, $400 million to regional development agencies and billions of dollars to support our forestry projects across Canada.

We are going to continue to work with provinces and territories—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot even get up and defend his economic record as it is so bad. Instead, he has one of his backbenchers explain that the Liberals are spending billions and billions of dollars on new bureaucracies they have set up. That is exactly why the economy is in a recession. It is because he has continued on with the same Liberal policies of the last 10 years: the same anti-development laws, the same expansion of bureaucracy, the same corporate welfare, 12 new government agencies, and Canadians paying the bill with higher and higher prices.

We all know that Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Can he explain why Canada has the lowest per capita GDP growth in the G7?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want theatrics. The Conservative leader knows full well that we are in a trade war, which is creating real headwinds for the Canadian economy. However, we have a plan and we are confident in that plan.

One key pillar of that plan is building infrastructure, major projects in the national interest and community infrastructure like roads, bridges and hospitals right across this country with Canadian steel, Canadian lumber and Canadian unionized workers. At the end of the day, we made a historic investment in the skilled trades. That is how we build Canada strong.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister really believed any of that, he would get up and say it himself. Instead, he states a few falsehoods and then goes into hiding; he cannot defend his own position.

He is spreading false information when he says investment is up. Let me quote verbatim from Statistics Canada, the Liberals' own government stats agency: “Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.”

Does this meet the master economist's definition of a technical recession, yes or no?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are hearing here is not the sound of fury. It is the sound of nothing. He has no plan. He has no fiscal plan, no economic plan, no industrial plan, no defence or security plan, no supports and no social plan, but what he does have is a track record of spending $9 million in his personal office in 2024.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Prime Minister, but he continues to be unable to defend his own economic track record. This was supposed to be his great strength, but once again, we see the same thing every time he goes anywhere. He gets a fancy title and a tiny group of people get very rich, making everybody else poor. There is a small group who get handouts and favours, whether for space pads or $200,000 for meals in private jets, while the Canadian people end up paying the price with the only recession in the G20.

Will he stand up today and tell us, are we in a technical recession or a real recession? Which is it?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, in the House today, there is a lot of rhetoric coming from the other side. Let me say that I have been travelling across the country talking to farmers. Nobody over there has been talking to farmers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Order. We are definitely not going to finish on time today.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, every time I get on my feet in this House and talk about farmers, it is a good day. If that is what it takes to get a reaction over there about how important farming is in this country, then that is what we need to do, and I will do it every time.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Prime Minister. This is supposed to be his great strength. Remember we were told he was a master economist. I guess he must have some sort of unique ability to be the only leader in the G7 to find a way to negotiate his economy into a recession. Every other one of the 19 countries has avoided a recession. Mexico, neighbours with the United States as well, has avoided a recession. It is because of the Liberal policies that he continues to implement and even accelerate that we find ourselves in this place.

The problem is that the Prime Minister cannot get us out of a recession if he cannot first admit that we are in one. Will he stand today and tell us if we are in a recession?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with everyone in the House and all Canadians listening some good news: almost $1 billion for small craft harbours. What this means for Canada's rural coastal indigenous communities is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Order. Let us hear the answer.

The hon. Minister of Fisheries may continue for now. Who knows? We may have to stop again.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, these small craft harbours are the core of our rural coastal indigenous communities. That support is generational.

I am also working with my colleagues across the country to ensure that for the fisheries fund, another critical source of support for harvesters in this country, the funding is out shortly.

Persons with Disabilities

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is Red Shirt Day, which we also mark during national disability week.

This week, we are highlighting the contributions of people with disabilities and the need to promote a barrier-free Canada. This year's theme is “Building a Strong, Accessible Canada.”

The Canada disability benefit and the disability inclusion action plan are building a more accessible and inclusive society for all.

Can the Minister of Jobs and Families highlight how the spring economic update is helping to build a barrier-free Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, inclusivity is not just the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. When people have a chance to thrive, our entire country grows.

In our economic update, we announced 43 disabilities that would be eligible for a streamlined disability tax credit application. We have also expanded the list of practitioners who can certify people for the credit.

The disability inclusion action plan and the Accessible Canada Act will continue to guide our government's work toward a barrier-free Canada by 2040.

International Trade

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the question is for the Prime Minister. Obviously, American tariffs on Canada are wrong, but so is forced labour. The Liberal government refuses to crack down on forced labour products coming into our supply chain from the Xinjiang province in China. For example, in 2024 alone the Americans blocked 6,947 shipments of products originating in the Xinjiang province in order to stop forced labour. Here, the Liberal government stopped only two shipments in five years.

Will the government ban all products coming from the Xinjiang province and end slavery once and for all?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has some of the most rigorous forced labour laws in the world. We condemn forced labour everywhere it exists, including in my meeting last Friday with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of China. Every good that enters this country is subject to rigorous import controls and screening. We allocated $600 million in last year's budget to address forced labour. We prioritize the inclusion of comprehensive labour provisions in free trade agreements to promote international labour standards. We stand with workers everywhere—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals announced $600 million to stop two shipments and they stand with workers everywhere in the world. Are they kidding? They are undermining Canadian wages by having multinationals take away Canadian jobs and give them to regimes that use forced labour and slavery. Now, Canadian workers are facing potential tariff threats that will compound the cost to Canada.

The Prime Minister has never condemned the genocide and slavery in Xinjiang province because of his corporate interests. Will he stand up today and say that he is condemning that kind of forced labour in Xinjiang?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to underline that Canada will always protect the rights of workers within and outside this country. The $600 million allocated in last year's budget was on top of a number of measures that we have taken in our negotiations, in our free trade agreements with other countries around the world, a point I emphasized last Friday when I spoke with China's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I want to say that our economy, at the same time, has grown by more than 17% in terms of our exports. We will build Canada—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Prime Minister. I asked if he would stand in this House and condemn the forced labour practices by the regime in Beijing being carried out on people in Xinjiang province.

I know this is a tough issue for him because his company in China is seeking to expand its business. His company took a $200-million loan from a Chinese state-backed bank, so he does not want to compromise those interests.

Will he put people before profits, and stand up today and condemn forced labour in Xinjiang province, yes or no?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is on the front lines of our relationship with China and countries around the world. We wholeheartedly and emphatically condemn forced labour wherever it occurs. In addition, in our free trade negotiations with countries around the world, we underline and ensure that we are condemning forced labour.

Finally, we will continue to grow the Canadian economy strong, not only concluding 20 agreements on the economy, security and defence worldwide, but also ensuring that we are responsibly—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to stand up and condemn the forced labour in Xinjiang province because, of course, he does not want to jeopardize his corporate profits, in which he is continually invested, even though they come at the expense of Canadian workers. Canadian workers lose out when they have to compete with forced labour, and Canadian workers lose out when there are punitive tariffs as a result. I will give the Prime Minister one last chance: Put people before profit.

Will the Prime Minister stand up and announce that he is going to ban shipments of any goods from Xinjiang province, which is renowned for forced labour, yes or no?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister before me said, forced labour is absolutely unacceptable. That is why we are always working hard to ensure that we have our supply chain completely protected. That is why various departments within the Government of Canada, as per the strict laws we have in place, work all the time to ensure that we stop any shipments that are a result of forced labour. In fact, that is why, in all our trade agreements, we make sure that we have stringent labour provisions to uphold international labour standards.

We will continue to do so, to make sure that we protect Canadian workers and workers abroad.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, Donald Trump's tariffs are unjustified and indefensible, but so is forced labour. The Liberal government has done nothing to protect Canadians from products made with slave labour. For example, the Americans, under Joe Biden, blocked 6,949 shipments of goods from the Xinjiang region. The Liberal government has blocked two.

When will the Liberal government ban products from Xinjiang?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, forced labour is unacceptable. We must ensure that our global supply chains are free of these kinds of abusive practices. We are working closely with the relevant minister and the entire government to reduce forced labour in the supply chain.

This is also why we are making it a priority to have comprehensive labour provisions included in the free trade agreement, to promote international labour standards.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Prime Minister. We already know that Canadian workers lose out every time the country imports a product made with forced labour, because that reduces wages and takes jobs away from Canadians. Canadians are also losing out because of the U.S. tariffs on goods purchased from regions where forced labour is used.

When will the Prime Minister finally take action to ban all products from the Xinjiang province?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, all goods entering the country are subject to import controls and rigorous verification processes. The Canada Border Services Agency conducts risk analyses to identify and intercept any goods that are likely to have been produced using forced labour, and it reports back to Parliament every year.

We will protect Canada's interests while standing up for high labour standards for all workers.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister was asked a direct question. He refuses to stand up, and he cannot even condemn forced labour and slavery, because it runs counter to his corporate interests. This is the old story with him.

A small group of Liberal insiders, members of the club, multinational corporations, get fabulously rich, making everyone else terribly poor. While his corporate profits have gone up, and he is dodging his taxes on those profits, the Canadian people are suffering even more with the only recession in the G20.

Will he stand up today and reverse those policies?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, it is worth repeating that forced labour is completely unacceptable. We take all steps necessary to ensure that we keep our supply chain free from forced labour. We, in fact, put a lot of work and rigour into ensuring that, in all our trade agreements, we have stringent labour standards and provisions according to international labour standards.

We will continue to do that work. We will continue to enforce our laws. We will continue to make sure that our supply chain is free of forced labour so that we can protect Canadian workers and workers abroad.

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, while Canadians suffer, the Prime Minister is silent. He sits back while 112,000 jobs have been lost in the first three months of this year alone. We have the second-highest unemployment and the only recession in the G20. We have an economy that has lost investment in five consecutive quarters, and $20 billion of net investment has fled the country. There is a 32% increase in mortgage delinquencies, and people who cannot make their monthly payments risk losing their homes.

Will the Prime Minister stand up in the House of Commons and at least acknowledge that he created this recession so that he can tell us how he is going to reverse the policies so that we can get out of it?

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have been busy building the strongest economy in the G7. We started with budget 2025, with generational investments in infrastructure, housing, productivity and defence, and the numbers that just came out prove it.

In a sense, we have seen a record level of investment in this country. We have seen that investment in machinery and equipment is up. We have seen that investment in intellectual property is up. We have seen that government spending is down.

We are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, instead of standing and answering the question, the Liberal Prime Minister has his finance minister not just state slogan after slogan, but slogans that are exactly false.

One of their slogans is: The fastest-growing economy in the G7. He has the only recession in the G7. The other slogan is: more investment. Statistics Canada says business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline. Then he says that government spending is down. He has doubled the deficit.

Why is it whenever the Liberals say something is up, it is down?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to talk about numbers with the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, the OECD came out this morning to say that Canada would have the second-fastest growing economy for 2026-27.

More importantly, on this side of the House we are focused on affordability. The good news is that, on June 5, 12 million Canadians will receive support. On this side of the House, we know how to build a strong economy. We know how to build a resilient economy, and we know how to take care of Canadians in their time of need. We will build Canada strong for all.

Infrastructure

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is making historic investments to help communities build the infrastructure they need to grow and prosper. Yesterday, we announced a major agreement with Quebec to support public transit and the infrastructure that is essential to our communities. These investments help build stronger, better-connected communities across Quebec.

Can the minister explain how this agreement will translate into meaningful benefits for Quebeckers and their communities?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Yesterday, with the Government of Quebec, we announced more than $10 billion for infrastructure and public transit. This is one of the biggest investments in the history of Quebec. We are supporting the infrastructure needed for housing construction, health care infrastructure, and public transportation projects. Now is the time to build.

Health

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, documents now reveal that the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT failure processed fewer than 5% of prescriptions at its peak. That means that, after burning through $300 million, PrescribeIT failed to deliver 95% of prescriptions.

When Conservatives on the health committee tried to investigate, Liberal MPs turned off the cameras. Then they abruptly shut down meetings. Yesterday, they blocked an emergency meeting to prevent the health minister from testifying.

Why are the Liberals blocking the health committee from investigating the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why the Conservatives keep blocking the committee study on HIV. I do not think the Conservatives are all that interested in health issues. Since I have spoken with them several times about PrescribeIT, perhaps they could let the committee work move forward before we talk about that again.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are denying Canadians transparency on the $300 million that was wasted on PrescribeIT. At the health committee, they turned off the cameras, shut down meetings and blocked the minister from testifying. Conservatives are prepared to work through the summer to get to the bottom of this scandal.

Why are the Liberals blocking the health committee from investigating this $300-million PrescribeIT failure?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: The Conservatives are blocking the committee's study on AIDS because they are not interested in this country-wide crisis. Meanwhile, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance the day before yesterday and a Conservative member asked me questions about the PrescribeIT program, which I answered. I believe I have answered the Conservatives' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is a question the Minister of Health has never answered. She knows that PrescribeIT was a $300-million waste of taxpayer money. She knows the organization in charge of that program was so badly run she had to get the CEO fired just last month.

Given that she knows all this, what I cannot understand is why she would give that same organization, one that cannot point to one tangible thing it has accomplished in 10 years, another $50 million of taxpayer money this year? It does not make sense.

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I was unaware that I had given the organization money. There is a big difference between budgeting for $50 million and actually disbursing it. What I want to say to the opposition is that, as I already told them, we are currently reviewing the organization's mandate. At the same time, I would argue that, yes, Canadians need connected health systems. We need health data infrastructure across the country.

Finance

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have spent the last week talking down Canada's economy, industries and workers. Meanwhile, our government is making historic investments to grow the economy and strengthen Canada's future, from tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure to reaching NATO's 2% target, and $6 billion for the skilled trades.

Can the minister tell Canadians how these investments are helping us respond to economic headwinds and build a more resilient and prosperous economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, what a great question from a great member who has great leadership.

I have some good news. I know that the Conservatives can't see good news when it is in front of them, but let me tell them something. In budget 2025, we laid the foundation for growth in this country. We made generational investment in housing, generational investment in infrastructure, generational investment in productivity and innovation, and generational investment in our defence. That is leading us to have the second-fastest growth in the G7.

We are going to build Canada strong together.

The Economy

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just had a lengthy question period, but once again, the Prime Minister has shown us that when adversity strikes, he does not stand up. He answered only six questions from the Leader of the Opposition and gave no explanation as to why Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. We will give him another chance.

Can he stand up and explain to us why, after all his grand speeches and empty promises, and despite the fact that all G20 countries are facing the same global conditions, Canada is the only country experiencing a Liberal recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for being the fourth member other than the Leader of the Opposition to be allowed to ask a question today.

Canadians do not understand why, on a day when we are announcing major investments in the forestry communities of Quebec and Canada, and the day after announcing $10 billion in infrastructure across Quebec, this member from Quebec cannot talk about the progress being achieved in Quebec.

Indigenous Affairs

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has sidelined Bill S-2 as amended, despite a court-ordered deadline to end sex- and race-based discrimination and the second-generation cut-off in the Indian Act. The UN has called on Canada to fix this by adopting Bill S-2 as amended. The majority of first nations agree and do not want more consultation. Officials and ministers say it is up to the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister stop the delay tactics, meet with first nations women leaders, as requested, and pass Bill S-2 as amended, now, to end the discrimination and violations of the charter and international law?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is well aware that Bill S-2 is in front of the committee for study. I welcome her input.

We are there to ensure that enfranchisement, the intention of the bill, is responded to. We continue to work closely with groups across the country, hearing their input. I am open to supporting these communities, because enfranchisement quantifies who indigenous people are under the Indian Act.

We are trying to ensure that we remove the barriers of the Indian Act for first nations people in this country. I am working on that.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Hospital and Surgical Health Services for the Province of Alberta.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We are here to ask questions and get answers. We are not allowed to point out someone's absence. The Prime Minister was here for once—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The member is not allowed to say that. Members are not allowed to point out whether a person is present or absent. I am not sure how many times I have to keep saying that.

The House resumed from June 2 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Economic Policies

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Given that it is 3:20 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Calgary East relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

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

Vote #130

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from June 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑31.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the votes, but Conservatives will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members agree to apply the vote, and will be voting against.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the vote from the previous vote, with New Democrats voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote, and I will be voting against.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote, and I will be voting against.

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

Vote #131

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on part 4, division 17, which is clauses 339 to 364 of the bill.

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

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

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, but Conservatives will be voting against.

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

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the vote with New Democrat members voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote, and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

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

Vote #132

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare part 4, division 17, or clauses 339 to 364, of the bill carried.

The next question is on all remaining provisions of the bill.

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

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

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting against.

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

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the vote from the previous vote, with New Democrat members voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote, and we are voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

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

Vote #133

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare all remaining provisions of the bill carried.

The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, at the second reading stage.

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

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

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 19 minutes.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 11 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Jobs and Families

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement on Social Security between Canada and the Republic of Moldova”, done at Gatineau on March 13, 2026.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to rise today.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, eight reports of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group.

The first concerns the interparliamentary group's participation at the national conference of the Council of State Governments, which is known as CSG, in New Orleans, Louisiana, from December 4 to 7, 2024.

The second concerns the IPG's participation at the Canadian embassy's inauguration event for the 47th President of the United States of America in Washington, D.C., on January 19 and 20, 2025.

The third concerns IPG's annual congressional visit to Washington, D.C., on March 4 and 5, 2025.

The fourth concerns IPG's participation at the CSG's South Southern Legislative Annual Conference in Birmingham, Alabama, from July 19 to 23, 2025.

The fifth concerns IPG's contributions to the Pacific Northwest Economic Region's 34th annual summit in Bellevue, Washington, from July 20 to 24, 2025.

The sixth concerns IPG's participation at the CSG Midwest Legislative Regional Conference in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, from July 27 to 30, 2025.

The seventh concerns IPG's contributions to the legislative summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures in Boston, Massachusetts, from August 4 to 6, 2025.

The eighth and final report concerns the IPG's participation at the CSG Eastern Regional Conference in Providence, Rhode Island, from August 17 to 20, 2025.

Exercise of Powers Under the Building Canada Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Special Joint Committee on the Exercise of Powers Under the Building Canada Act, entitled “Review of the Governor in Council’s and the Minister’s Exercise of Their Powers and Performance of Their Duties and Functions Under the Building Canada Act”.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the official opposition's dissenting report for the Special Joint Committee on the Exercise of Powers Under the Building Canada Act, Bill C-5. The committee heard that a minimum of 275 projects were submitted to the Major Projects Office in the last year. The federal government has made 22 related announcements, yet not one has a national interest designation, with not a single new project that was not already at end review stages or was not already being built.

Conservatives highlight potential conflicts of interest around seconded private sector and bank employees with salary top-ups; national security reviews, including Beijing's state-owned enterprise involvement in major projects; the role of the sovereign debt fund; and the federal government's refusal to confirm whether the Prime Minister considers a Pacific pipeline in Canada's national interest.

Conservatives put forward common-sense amendments to improve and pass Bill C-5, to define the national interest, to entrench promised two-year reviews in law, and on the federal Crown's duty to consult to get to “yes” in a good way with indigenous people on major projects. The Liberals defeated them.

Conservatives still call on the Liberals urgently to repeal or reform the 12 laws and seven regulations in Bill C-5 that Liberals admit block building. Conservatives will demand accountability, transparency and real deliverable action from the Liberals, not just photo ops, to ensure private sector projects can get built in Canada by Canadians for Canadians for self-reliance, affordability, national and economic unity, and to be stronger at home for unbreakable leverage abroad.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Mental Health Parity Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, An Act to enact the Mental Health, Addictions and Substance Use Services Act and to make consequential amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to table this bill, which aims to create parity between physical and mental health in our public health care system. The mental health parity act proposes a framework for the federal government to partner with provinces and territories to provide public coverage for community-based mental health, addictions and substance use services. The goal of this bill is to make mental health services accessible to all Canadians through our public health care system. This bill would incorporate the principles of the Canada Health Act: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. It would also incorporate provisions to promote public accountability and to reduce regional disparities in coverage.

I want to thank the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, the Canadian Mental Health Association and all those who spent years advocating for mental health parity. I also want to thank my colleague, who has been a champion for mental health, the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona, for seconding this bill. I hope all members will support this bill as a step towards building a stronger, healthier Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Textile Labelling Act

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑281, An Act to amend the Textile Labelling Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand and introduce my private member's bill today, entitled “the made in Canada flag act”. I would like to thank my friend and colleague for Saskatoon South for seconding this bill.

This act would require Canadian flags sold in Canada to clearly display their country of origin. Currently, there is no requirement for Canadian flags manufactured abroad to be labelled with their country of origin.

This is about honesty and fairness. Canadians deserve to know where their flags come from. If it is made in Canada, that is something to be proud of. If it is not, Canadians still have the right to make an informed choice. If Canadians want to buy Canadian-made flags, the choice should be obvious.

The proposed legislation would require Canadian flags that meet minimum size requirements to display a country-of-origin label directly on the product as well as on its packaging. This act would close a loophole that allows foreign-made flags to be sold without clear origin labelling and support Canadian manufacturers facing unfair competition from mislabelled or unlabelled imports, promote transparency, inform consumer choice and protect the integrity of the Canadian flag, a national symbol central to our identity.

This legislation would not ban imports or impose tariffs. It would simply ensure transparency. It is a practical measure that supports Canadian jobs and helps Canadians shop and display their national pride with confidence.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Service Dogs for Veterans Act

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Veterans Well-being Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be introducing the service dogs for veterans act to help ensure that service dogs are available to every veteran who needs one, regardless of where they live in Canada. This bill would make it so that service dogs are an eligible form of rehabilitation support under the Veterans Well-being Act. It would create a national training and certification standard for service dogs in coordination with the provinces and territories.

This bill was inspired by a meeting I had with a great veteran, Cindy Weir, and her service dog, Gracie, who are here with us on Parliament Hill today. Cindy is the founder of Veteran’s Elite Canines, a non-profit based in Brockville, Ontario, supporting veterans living with PTSD and operational stress injuries through their expertly trained service dogs.

There are other incredible organizations like Veteran's Elite Canines, people like Cindy, and the extraordinary dogs, like Gracie and Ghost, who are both here today, that have been working to establish national standards for trainers, handlers and dogs to support the veterans community.

I look forward to members hearing about the life-changing impact service dogs have for veterans. I encourage them to vote in support of the service dogs for veterans act.

I want to thank my colleagues, the hon. members for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Airdrie—Cochrane and Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, for their support.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Trans-Canada Highways

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise with more petitions from northern Ontario calling on the government to designate Trans-Canada Highway 11 as a project of national interest.

This call is growing louder across our region. Just yesterday, the Ontario Minister of Northern Economic Development and Growth, George Pirie, met in Ottawa with the Canadian government alongside Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association president Rick Dumas, Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities president Dave Ploudre and Rural Ontario Municipal Association president Christa Lowry to discuss the urgent need to improve Trans-Canada highways 11 and 17.

This is just one example of the collaborative effort from leaders across the province to continue pushing to further improve Trans-Canada highways 11 and 17 safety in northern Ontario.

Framework for National Urban Parks

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by Canadians from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. They call upon the House of Commons to develop and make available a framework for national urban parks to ensure the governance of all national urban parks includes meaningful participation from indigenous nations, rights holders and community representatives.

BC Ferries

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table this petition, which was signed by residents of my riding just this last weekend. They highlight that ferries are essential marine highways that connect coastal communities, workers, families, businesses and supply chains to the rest of Canada. Vancouver Island is approaching one million residents and BC Ferries carries more than 22 million passengers annually.

According to an analysis by the Library of Parliament, BC Ferries received approximately $1.63 in federal operational support per passenger in 2024-25, compared to $291 for federally supported east coast ferry systems. Canadians in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia deserve strong federal ferry support because these services are part of essential national transportation infrastructure.

The petitioners also highlight that current federal ferry funding agreements rely on outdated constitutional arrangements and formulas created decades ago when Vancouver Island had roughly half its current population. Vancouver Island and coastal communities should not have to become separate provinces in order to receive fair ferry funding from the federal government. It is no longer sustainable to operate one of the world's largest ferry systems without stable, long-term federal operational support.

The petitioners cite that they want the government to modernize federal ferry funding policies and provide fair, stable, long-term federal operational support for BC Ferries as essential national transportation infrastructure.

Canada Post Corporation

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

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. They are calling upon the Liberal government to stop its cuts to Canada Post rural delivery. In particular, they cite their concerns about the impacts that this is going to have on rural communities, indigenous communities, seniors and disabled communities, and the fact that this decision has not been released publicly and with very limited public input.

Therefore, petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to stop the cuts and immediately launch a fully transparent public mandate review that allows all stakeholders to provide meaningful input.

Religious Freedom

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions on behalf of the residents of my riding of Niagara West on Bill C-9.

In both petitions, the petitioners are concerned that the Liberal and Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from sacred texts. The petitioners also say that the state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. They believe freedom of expression and religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

Finally, the petitioners call upon the government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

Cannabis

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on a totally separate issue that I would like to present. It was initiated by a constituent of mine, Jim Jeffs.

The petition calls on the government to remove the licence of cannabis producers that allows the escape of cannabis odours. It also asks to raise the minimum age of possession of cannabis to 25 years and not allow the production of cannabis in edible form.

Finally, the petitioners ask the government to act on the recommendations from the Cannabis Act review, which include setting and monitoring targets for reducing youth and young adult cannabis use, and reinstating health warning messages that pertain to serious cannabis-related mental health risks, including psychosis and schizophrenia.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, today being June 3, we have hit the seventh anniversary of the tabling of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry.

The petitioners call the attention of Parliament to the ongoing harm toward indigenous peoples and communities, through both historical and ongoing colonization and genocide. The petitioners point out that the legal and social change needed to address the high rates of violence against indigenous women and girls was pointed out in the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry, and there are over 231 calls for justice.

The petitioners point out that the federal government is jointly or directly accountable for 76 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, but has only acted on 13 to date. Of the 231 calls for justice in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, there have only been, at this point, three dealt with according to the last data.

The petitioners call on the government to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to prioritize funding and policies that advance Canada's process for reconciliation and justice.

Spaceport Project

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Richmond Hill South, where petitioners are concerned that the Liberals have committed $200 million to a private spaceport project that has yet to conduct a single orbital launch; that the Liberals have agreed to rent a launch facility that is not yet ready, while failing to provide clear milestones, timelines or accountability for delivering functional space launching capability; and that Liberal insiders and connected individuals are tied to the project, reinforcing concerns about insider benefit and political favouritism.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to, number one, release all documents related to the $200‑million spaceport Nova Scotia agreement; number two, reveal which Liberal insiders and connected individuals stand to benefit from the project; number three, explain why Canadians are paying $200 million for a launch facility that is not yet ready; and number four, end reckless Liberal spending and stop rewarding politically connected projects with taxpayer money.

Cod Fishery

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the recreational food fishery. The petitioners are calling on the government to allow all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador fair and equitable access to the food fishery by allowing them to go out on the water seven days a week to fish for cod, regardless of what zone they live in.

Limited three-day-a-week access creates a safety risk as residents go out on the water in unsafe conditions. More importantly, they want the same access as the rest of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Salmon Fishery

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of British Columbian recreational anglers who are concerned about proposed changes to recreational access for coho and chinook salmon, specifically along the Fraser River, in a revised policy by the Government of Canada.

Petitioners call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to maintain current access for recreational fishers; to not prioritize commercial access for these two species, as is the case for other salmon species, to maintain the recreational fishing economy; and to allow all British Columbians to practice their cultural traditions of harvesting safe, beautiful food that feeds their families.

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. 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078 and 1079 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

Motions for Papers

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C‑16.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C‑16, in Clause 28, be amended by deleting lines 9 and 10 on page 18.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

I am happy to rise today on Bill C-16, as this is a very far-reaching bill.

My colleague and I have studied this bill very carefully and sought to amend it significantly while it was reviewed by the justice and human rights committee. The amendments were submitted by women's legal organizations, including NAWL and LEAF, and Senator Kim Pate. I thank them for their participation in trying to strengthen the bill.

As noted in the title, the government claims that the bill is about protecting women and children, but this is very difficult because, I have to say, although the bill is a response to violence, it fails to actually address what women's organizations and gender-diverse organizations have been wanting: more money and more support in trying to prevent violence before it occurs. It was those very amendments that were submitted to try to improve the bill, based on the advice of organizations representing women and gender-diverse people, nearly all of which the Liberals and the Conservatives together voted down. It is unfortunate.

It is also important to note, and make people aware of, the failing record of the Liberal government when it comes to upholding the safety and well-being of women, children and gender-diverse people. Instead of prioritizing this crisis facing women and children across the country, the government has been fast-tracking legislation that undermines our safety.

In fact, just yesterday, the CCPA published a report on behalf of the National Family and Survivors Circle demonstrating that the Liberals' failure to adequately fund programs surrounding the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and their failure to advance any progress toward implementing the 231 calls for justice, is actually placing indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks in more difficult and violent situations.

This is very personal to me because the very riding of Winnipeg Centre has been noted as “ground zero” for the ongoing genocide of indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks.

This is the very government that right now is stalling Bill S‑2 at committee, stalling on taking sexism out of the Indian Act, sexism that has been perpetrated against indigenous women, something that was noted by the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal at the UN as one of the resulting impacts of what it called the “ongoing genocide [of] Indigenous Peoples” in Canada.

We know that since the pandemic, rates of gender-based violence have actually increased, not decreased, and the government has allowed, in the middle of an ongoing crisis of violence, prevention programs to expire by doing things like cutting funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality. Meanwhile, this year's child poverty report by Campaign 2000 states that child poverty has increased for the third consecutive year and has more than doubled since 2020, reaching 10.7%, or 802,000 children. At this rate, the report says, it will take almost 400 years to eliminate child poverty in Canada.

It is one the reasons that since being elected, I have tried to fight for a guaranteed livable basic income to be implemented. We know that income guarantees in this country are not livable, and we know that women's organizations across the country have indicated that a guaranteed livable basic income is one of the most foundational programs that the government could put in place to assist with the elevating crisis of violence against indigenous women and girls, all women, in this country.

Instead of finding programs or investing in prevention programs, the Liberals have joined the Conservatives in advancing carceral approaches to public safety that fail to address the roots of the crisis of violence against women and children in this country. Investing in prevention before the crime happens, before the femicide happens, is something that would create meaningful change so that we would never have to hear about the unfortunate circumstance of violence that occurs because of a lack of investment in violence prevention programs. It is really sad that the government only wants to deal with the crisis after the fact, after the murder or the violence has taken place. We need to invest in prevention, and that is something that has been echoed strongly by women's organizations and gender-diverse organizations across the country. Investing at the latter end without dealing with prevention means we will not see, unfortunately, a significant decrease in violence.

The NDP has always taken seriously the safety and well-being of women, gender-diverse people and children. We welcome a formal acknowledgement of femicide in the Canadian Criminal Code. We are advancing solutions to get at the root of the problem we face rather than simply dealing with it after it is too late.

Take, for example, what I worked on with families and advocates with the implementation of the red dress alert system, something the government fails to fund, to ensure that should somebody go missing, they must be found. Where is the funding? Where is the support for that initiative?

One of the critical problems that women's organizations brought up, which is under the purview of the Minister of AI, is the problem of deepfakes being used and benefiting media giants like Elon Musk through AI platforms like Grok. These sexualized deepfakes are appalling and violate the safety, well-being and fundamental rights of those impacted. That is why the NDP listened to researchers and legal experts from women's organizations who strongly suggested that the language surrounding deepfakes in Bill C-16 be strengthened, since there are currently loopholes that let big tech companies off the hook and allow platforms like Grok that promote sexualized deepfakes to continue doing so.

How did the Liberal government members vote on this amendment? They sided with big tech companies, failing to introduce regulations that would actually prevent sexualized deepfakes.

I would like to note that in March, I requested information in an Order Paper question concerning meetings the Minister of AI has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI. Can members guess how many meetings he has taken? He has taken zero meetings with women and gender-diverse people.

We welcome the inclusion of femicide into—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to cut off the member. The time for debate is concluded.

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 look at Bill C-16 as very much an initiative that recognizes, as the member also recognized, the issues of femicide and coercive actions. This is something that has been, in my opinion, long overdue. I think Canada is demonstrating strong leadership on that front. It would also reinstate a number of mandatory minimums with a safety clause put in so it would be charter-compliant. These would be substantial changes to protect and continue to support women of all ages and backgrounds in Canada.

I am wondering if the member could share her thoughts on the overall principle of the legislation we are debating today.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would not deal with the root cause. It would deal with the violence after it occurs.

In my riding, there is a crisis of gender-based violence against women and gender-diverse folks. In the midst of it, there has been a massive cutback in funding to keep people safe before the murder or violence occurs. The government, if it is serious about community safety and about dealing with the crisis of gender-based violence, will listen to the experts and will stop divesting from programs and funding to keep us safe.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg Centre for raising this important issue in the House today regarding Bill C‑16. We sat together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know that she cares deeply about this issue.

I also want to thank her for pointing out that services have to form part of a continuum, and that the situation of women has to be addressed proactively, especially their financial situation, their vulnerability, and how these factors can keep them trapped in a cycle of violence.

My question is as follows. We recently conducted studies on the rise of homelessness among women, especially indigenous women who have a hard time finding housing. The witnesses also talked to us about the importance of applying the 230 recommendations arising from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What does my colleague think about that?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, call for justice 4.5 calls for the immediate implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income as one of the key calls for justice to deal with the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls.

I want to remind the Liberals that they agreed to implement the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, but where are they? They are nowhere, and they have responded to only three. Why do they not work on that if they are worried about dealing with the crisis of femicide in the country, and invest in services and support that actually keep women and gender-diverse people safe?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of very important points and amendments that should have been considered but were not, at the committee.

I wonder, because she was running out of time to finish her comments, if she could further elaborate on some other issues that she thinks members of Parliament should hear.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about deepfakes. In spite of the fact that the minister responsible for AI has been asked by several womens organizations and by people impacted by deepfakes, the government has voted to support media giants such as Elon Musk in programs such as Grok. I would like to note that this is a problem under the purview of the minister of AI, who has failed completely to address the widespread concerns and fears of folks across Canada about the social media consequences of AI.

In March of this year, I requested information on the Order Paper question concerning meetings the minister has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI, and I learned that he has taken absolutely zero meetings. Instead, the Liberals have been more concerned with—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, an essential and comprehensive piece of legislation situated on a broader strategy to keep communities safe.

The last time the bill was in the House, our hon. colleagues voted to send it to committee so it could be studied, tested and improved. I am pleased to report that this is precisely what has happened. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done serious and careful work. Members on all sides heard from witnesses, asked hard questions, proposed amendments and engaged with the substance of the bill in a way that Canadians expect their Parliament to.

The legislation has returned to the chamber today and is stronger for that work. I want to begin by thanking every member of the committee on every side of the aisle for the seriousness they brought to it.

Over several months, the committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received over 60 briefs from survivors of violence, advocates working to end gender-based violence, law enforcement, legal experts, child protection organizations and the provincial and territorial partners that administer justice every day. What was striking was not the disagreement but the breadth of the consensus that something must be done and that the bill would do a great deal of it.

While the bill may have changed in the process, the seriousness of the issue has not. In Canada, a woman is killed every 48 hours. There have been femicides in every part of this country, and behind each one is a family that grieves. I have met many of these families and heard from them first-hand as to the impact it has left on their lives. These are not statistics. They are people who shared our hallways at school, who sat beside us at work, and who were loved.

The protecting victims act would respond to that reality by moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in cases of femicide. It would ensure a first-degree murder charge where murder is committed in an intimate partner setting; where it takes place in the context of a sexual offence; where it is motivated by hatred, including hatred of a person because she is a woman; and where it is preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

As the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes put it, the automatic requalification of these homicides as first-degree murder would put an end to the inconsistencies in the current law and finally recognize these killings for what they are: femicides that exist within a continuum of domination. That is the language of people who have studied this violence for decades, and we should listen to them.

We know through extensive engagement with experts and survivors that the pattern of using violence and intimidation to control every aspect of a person's life is one of the strongest predictors that a relationship may turn deadly. By naming this conduct and criminalizing it in its own right, we would give the justice system the ability to intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal. This provision would have the power to save lives.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank the members of the status of women committee who have urged action on this for years.

The world does not stand still, and neither can our laws. The protecting victims act would modernize a range of offences to keep pace with the way harm is now inflicted. We would be modernizing the events of criminal harassment to recognize that a person can now be stalked through technology, including the tracking of someone's location through their phone.

We are also confronting the rapid spread of artificial intelligence used to create deepfakes. There is a gap in our law today, and the bill would narrow it by expanding the definition of an intimate image to include images created through artificial intelligence. We would also be criminalizing the threats of distributing sexual explicit images, a tactic regularly used to humiliate and control victims.

That same principle of confronting threats before they become tragedies runs through the child protection measure in the bill. The protecting victims act would expand the definition of a list of offences that threaten our children and would increase maximum penalties for a range of those offences.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has been unequivocal about the stakes. It has told us that online sexual violence against Canadian children, including online luring, has reached unprecedented levels, and that confronting it is not optional. I would ask every member of the House to sit with the word “unprecedented”. We would be legislating not against a hypothetical but against an epidemic of the most reprehensible acts, which is unfolding on devices in the hands of children right now.

I now want to turn to two of the more technical but no less consequential parts of the protecting victims act: mandatory minimum penalties, and delays in our justice system. These are the areas where the committee's scrutiny was most searching, and the bill is better for it. With respect to mandatory minimums, a series of Supreme Court decisions, including the Senneville decision, left real gaps in our law concerning child sexual exploitation and abuse material, among other serious crimes, but the courts also offered guidance on how these gaps could be remedied.

The bill would establish a carefully bounded safety valve, allowing a court, in the rare case where a minimum would be grossly disproportionate, to impose a different penalty that still results in incarceration. It would not simply restore the minimums that were struck down. It would shore up those on our books today that are constitutionally vulnerable. It is a measure that has received support from several parties in the House.

With respect to delays, nearly 10,000 cases in this country have been thrown out for the sole reason that they took too long, thrown out not because an accused was acquitted but because the clock ran out. There is no version of that outcome that feels like justice to a victim who must live in the same community as the person who harmed them. The bill would require the courts to consider remedies other than a stay when the Jordan timelines are at risk, give clearer guidance on which complex cases warrant more time, and streamline the introduction of evidence at trial.

Our law enforcement partners feel this too. The Canadian Police Association described how demoralizing it is for officers to build a complex case over months or years, only to watch it collapse on a timeline divorced from the realities of modern policing. They have called the bill a meaningful step toward restoring confidence in our justice system.

Finally, the protecting victims act would do more to recognize the rights of victims throughout the criminal process. Too often, people who, through no fault of their own, are drawn into a long and difficult proceeding feel lost within it. The bill would build on the Victims Bill of Rights to ensure that victims have the information they are entitled to. Building the voices of victims into this process is essential if we want them to have faith in it.

I would ask the House to hold in mind the words of Kelly Favro of Beyond the Verdict, a survivor advocate who said something during this process that I have not been able to set down. She said that survivors do not have the luxury of waiting until the theatrics in the chamber come to an end. She is right. While we debate, the violence does not pause. A woman is still killed every 48 hours. A child is still being targeted online tonight.

The cost of delay in this file is not measured in sitting days. It is measured in lives. The legislation has earned the support of survivors, advocates, child protection organizations, police associations and provinces. It has been studied, it has been tested, and it has been strengthened. My ask of the House at report stage is simple: Let us not be the reason it waits any longer. Let us adopt the bill at report stage and send it to third reading so we can give Canadians the protections they have asked us for and that they deserve.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec's response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations. It describes the objectives of protecting against gender-based violence, improving evidentiary procedures and modernizing criminal law as commendable. However, the Barreau du Québec believes that incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that could hinder their analysis, review and practical application.

Could the member comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to talk to Crown counsel, advocates and members of the bar. However, this government has a mandate to protect Canadians, and we are trying to pursue that mandate as quickly as possible. There are other areas where we are investing, but it is crucial that we update our laws quickly and not stall anymore. Lives are on the line. We heard it from the testimony that witnesses delivered before committee. In my personal opinion, we should not be waiting anymore.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the secretary of state for the description of the bill. I agree fully, and I have agreed fully for 20 years as an aboriginal leader, as an MLA and now as an MP. However, I do have a specific question about the Gladue principle. Would that principle survive, or would it get struck down with this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not override any existing principles that are already mandated by the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend and colleague that I have always put the residents of Winnipeg North first regarding the issue of crime. The Prime Minister, in the last election, talked about how important it is that we have a higher sense of security, and this particular secretary of state, who has been dealing with crime, has brought forward and commented on a series of legislative changes that would make our communities safer in many ways.

What I like about Bill C‑16 is that it would do such things as create strong national leadership on issues such as femicide. Bill C‑16 would reinstate a number of mandatory minimum penalties. The secretary of state has also been a very strong advocate through putting into place bills to deal with bail reform and other legislative needs. I would just like to get her thoughts on why it has been so important for the government to deal with the crime file in a very holistic fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, since being elected last year in this new government, we have had a very ambitious agenda on that front. We have put forward approximately nine pieces of legislation that deal with different aspects of crime. That is the most ambitious that any government has been in this Parliament.

We are changing and updating the Criminal Code so that it keeps up with the issues that we are seeing in our communities, the issues that police are confronted with and the issues that victims are speaking out about. We are making sure that we are doing our part at the federal level.

However, this issue is complex because it deals with different levels of government. As I stated in my speech as well, it is crucial to have provincial and territorial partners at the table and to make sure that they, too, are doing their part. I know that this issue is important to all of them because the premiers have raised it, so it will also be very, very important to make sure that cases are not dismissed, that Crown counsel pursues charges that are laid and that the necessary resources are provided at the provincial level in order for us to really see the results that Canadians expect.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler, Health; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Steel and Aluminum Industry; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, Indigenous Affairs.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the fine residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I sincerely thank them every opportunity I get for the trust they have placed in me as their representative for two consecutive elections.

Let me start my remarks today by stressing, and I cannot stress this enough, that there are significant positive measures contained within Bill C-16. It is a position that we have maintained from the outset.

Conservatives have worked constructively at committee and successfully improved the bill in several important respects. For example, we strengthened protections for children by improving provisions relating to child sexual offences. We successfully increased penalties where intimate images are knowingly created during or immediately following an aggravated sexual assault. We also successfully expanded the definition of intimate images to include AI-generated deepfakes or nearly nude images. We also required courts to order the deletion of illicit intimate image material within 48 hours. Our amendment to strengthen victims' rights by expanding access to information under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also passed, which is a particular measure, I might add, that has been called for by victim groups and victims themselves for a number of years.

These were all meaningful Conservative amendments that were accepted by the government and, in my respectful opinion, have improved Bill C-16. All of them were worthwhile reforms. These reforms would better protect victims. These are reforms that, most assuredly, would better protect children, and these are reforms that Conservatives were proud to support.

Unfortunately, it is time to talk about the elephant in the room. It is a very large elephant, and it was a red line that we, as Conservatives, continually pushed back and tried our best to move the government to relent on because of its dangerous implications. That provision is clause 63 of the bill, which is the so-called safety valve. The government describes this as a modest safeguard, but in practical terms, it renders virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code optional.

What is important to realize here is that there are dozens of mandatory minimum penalties currently within the Criminal Code that have withstood charter scrutiny and were upheld as charter compliant. The so-called safety valve, which would apply to all of those mandatory minimum penalties in the code, would weaken the Criminal Code, weaken sentencing regimes and weaken protection for victims. It would render virtually every mandatory minimum penalty optional. If they can be simply ignored, they are no longer mandatory. They merely become suggestions.

Parliament created MMPs for the most serious offences because Canadians expect certain crimes to carry certain consequences. Parliament determined that some conduct is so serious that it warrants minimum periods of imprisonment. It made that determination after consultation and hearing directly from victims, communities and the public. Bill C-16 would undermine that. Under the bill, judges would be empowered to bypass those MMPs for some of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code. This would include human trafficking, extortion involving firearms, weapons trafficking, serious firearm offences, drive-by shootings and restricted or prohibited firearms. These are serious crimes that are devastating lives, families and communities every single day.

Human trafficking victims suffer unimaginable exploitation. Victims of aggravated sexual assault carry lifelong trauma. Communities terrorized by armed extortion deserve protections. Families affected by gang violence deserve protections. Canadians simply deserve more from the weak Liberal government.

Parliament established mandatory minimum penalties for these crimes because Parliament had long recognized their gravity. The government now asks us to maintain the words while removing the substance. We ought not to be fooled by that approach. Mandatory should mean mandatory, full stop. If the government truly believes mandatory minimum penalties remain necessary, then they should remain mandatory. If it does not believe they are necessary, let us be honest with Canadians and repeal them outright.

Instead, the Liberals have chosen the worst of both worlds. They are claiming to preserve MMPs while simultaneously creating a legal mechanism to avoid them. We tried our best as Conservatives to improve this provision at committee. We proposed reasonable guardrails. We proposed limiting access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior criminal record. That was defeated. We proposed ensuring offenders could not receive less than one half of the mandatory minimum sentence. That, too, was defeated. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. It was defeated. Excluding extortion offences was defeated. Excluding serious child sexual offences was defeated. Excluding major trafficking offences was defeated.

I do not know what is so funny about what I was indicating there, but the Liberals are laughing at my speech.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

The fact of the matter is that the truth hurts, Madam Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker, we proposed excluding the most serious offences that Parliament had already identified as deserving MMPs. Every one was rejected. The government rejected every safeguard and every limit. It rejected every attempt to narrow the scope of the safety valve. The result now is that the floodgates would be completely open. Let the litigation begin, and let the charter applications begin. All of those applicants will declare, “Oh, Your Honour, I can't have a mandatory minimum penalty because that would be cruel and unusual punishment.” That would happen each and every time.

My question is simple: If the government trusted its own proposal, why did it refuse every safeguard the Conservatives proposed? If it believed the mechanism would only be used in exceptional cases, why refuse to define exceptional cases? The government's justification rests largely on concerns arising from constitutional litigation surrounding MMPs, yet the Supreme Court itself remains divided on that issue. In the recent Senneville decision, the dissenting judge, Chief Justice Wagner, emphasized that courts must be cautious when relying on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate legislation.

The Supreme Court warned against hypothetical scenarios that are fanciful, unrealistic, speculative, extreme or remotely connected to the actual facts before the court. It reminded us all that there are limits to what can properly be considered as reasonable hypotheticals. We proposed an amendment that would have required courts to focus on the actual offender before them, rather than hypotheticals. Again, Liberals voted against that amendment. Dissenting judges also reminded us that child sexual offences require strong denunciation and deterrence. They reminded us that society's condemnation of offences against children must be reflected consistently and rigorously in sentencing.

Parliament determined that denunciation and deterrence matters. It has determined that public safety matters and that victims matter. The Liberals are now asking Parliament to walk away from these decisions. Conservatives will not do that. It is for that reason that at this time I move an amendment, standing in my name, to delete clause 63 of Bill C-16, the provision that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty in the Criminal Code. This is to be seconded by the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will clarify. When I read out the motions, Motion No. 1, Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3, the member had submitted Motion No. 2, which was exactly the same as the motion that the member for Winnipeg Centre had submitted, and that is the one that was taken. I did notice that the member had submitted the same one. Is the member submitting a new amendment that is different from that original amendment?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. I did not listen to, nor did I take note of the content of, the amendment brought forth by the NDP member.

Are you suggesting now that it is identical in every respect to what I just read out?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will consult with the Table.

Just to clarify, the motion that the member just said he was moving is out of order because Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are already under consideration. They are already actively being debated. Motion No. 2 is exactly the same as the member's motion.

That is all cleared up. There is no new amendment that is being offered by the member. It is already under debate. It is being debated right now. This will be the conclusion of the member's debate.

Finally, I wanted to say that, during the member's commentary and debate, the member made direct reference to another member of the House. I will just remind members to speak through the Chair and not directly to other members, just to tie that up in a nice little procedural bow.

Questions and comments, the hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for me to correct the record. The member's speech was extremely sensational. I know the Conservatives are trying to get a rise out of people and tell them that somehow there are going to be no penalties for anyone in any case. There are minimum penalties that are in our Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-16 also still maintains a minimum penalty. That is what, technically, the bill would do.

In the Senneville decision, there were some questions left, and we addressed those gaps and questions through the bill. That decision did not hold that all minimum sentences are unconstitutional, but it gave some examples of where they may be in violation of section 12. It was really important for us to make sure we address that so we do not risk other minimum—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the justice committee. I was questioning witnesses. I participated in clause-by-clause. The secretary of state did not. What she is proposing is absolutely incorrect. The only limitation of Bill C-16 is that a judge cannot deviate from a mandatory minimum penalty for two offences: homicide or murder and treason. Everything else is fair game, so long as there is a jail sentence. There is nothing preventing an activist judge, a clever defence counsel or a desperate accused to say that a one-day sentence is appropriate, as opposed to, say, a one-year mandatory minimum penalty. That is fine with the Liberal government.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague contributed to this discussion at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but I would like to hear him elaborate further on this matter.

The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to Bill C-16, but they were rejected. This leaves a certain inconsistency in the bill.

On the one hand, the bill modernizes the offence of criminal harassment by introducing objective criteria based on the totality of the circumstances. On the other hand, the sureties to keep the peace under section 810 and subsection 810(3) of the Criminal Code are still based on a purely subjective criterium. This creates a real inconsistency.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. I did participate in one committee meeting at the status of women committee, where we were discussing the ineffectiveness and the tragic consequences of the enforcement of section 810 common law bonds. It is unfortunate that the whole concept of section 810 consideration did not find itself within the confines of Bill C-16. This would have been a glorious opportunity for the Liberal government to strengthen section 810 orders to protect women who have no recourse other than to ask for that type of protection. Again, the government claims to be tough on crime and claims to be very cognizant of victims' rights. Its actions speak to the opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, in so many respects, the bill is not as advertised. The Liberals have advertised the bill as one of restoring mandatory minimum penalties, but one of the things the Liberals have not restored is the mandatory minimum penalties that they removed from the Criminal Code, including with respect to serious firearms offences, like robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking, among other serious firearms offences.

Would the member agree that the Liberals missed an opportunity to reinsert those mandatory minimum penalties? It is consistent with their soft-on-crime approach. This government has the dubious distinction of being the only government to remove mandatory minimums from the Criminal Code.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question, because that question exposes the severe hypocrisy of the Liberal government, which claims to actually give a damn about being tough on crime. When Bill C-5 was introduced, the Liberals claimed that it would address the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum penalties. Here is an opportunity, and now they are saying mandatory minimum penalties work. This was an opportunity to reinstate them. I asked the justice minister several times why they did not, and not one—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters in regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures.

This bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is the result of extensive deliberation and numerous studies on violence against women, including studies conducted by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Something definitely needed to be done about the Criminal Code. Even the Government of Quebec was asking us to intervene in that respect.

Quebec's report on rebuilding trust addressed violence against women. Quebec forged ahead and became a pioneer. It implemented measures, such as specialized courts and electronic bracelets, but some measures fell under the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction. I have had a number of discussions with members from Quebec, people who contributed to that report and who asked us to take action. This is an important bill.

Obviously, we support Bill C-16. As I mentioned, several provisions take in proposals that have long been defended by the Bloc Québécois. What is more, the bill makes important advances for victims of domestic and sexual violence and in terms of child protection.

Today, I will talk about the progress made for victims, but I still want to point out some of the ways that Bill C-16 falls short. I will end by talking about some of the Bloc Québécois's concerns.

First, there is the issue of femicide, which is finally being acknowledged. In 2024, around 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada. Now, there are even some municipalities that are describing this situation, these femicides, as an epidemic. They are saying that femicide is an epidemic. In Quebec, 25 femicides were recorded in 2024. Since the beginning of 2026, there have already been 10 suspected femicides reported in Quebec. These are chilling figures.

The bill recognizes that some murders committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence or hatred must be considered femicides. As we know, every femicide represents the collective failure of a system that was unable to protect a woman. Shelters and women's groups have been calling for this recognition for years.

It was also important to address the issue of coercive control. In fact, that was something that women's shelters and the community had been calling for. The good thing about the bill, the thing that is a step forward, is that it addresses the issue of coercive control so that it is possible to intervene before it is too late. Coercive control often occurs long before physical abuse starts. Violence may not always be physical, but it always hurts. Some examples include isolation, monitoring, intimidation, threats and financial control. Violence rarely begins with a physical assault. The Bloc Québécois therefore welcomes the creation of a specific offence for coercive control. Prevention is better than seeing the impacts of a tragedy or having one more victim.

There is also the issue of court delays. Putting an end to mistrials is a good thing, because justice delayed sometimes becomes justice denied. Here is the number of criminal trials that were stayed for unreasonable delay: in 2021, there were 13; in 2022, there were 18; in 2023, there were 96; and as of June 30, 2024, there had been 62. That is far too many. Behind those numbers are victims of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and other serious crimes. These were serious cases, but they were dismissed due to court delays.

The Bloc Québécois supports measures designed to increase consideration of case complexity in order to prevent prosecutions from being thrown out solely for procedural reasons. The Bloc Québécois even introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. Clearly, we have long been committed to this cause, so we welcome this initiative.

The Bloc Québécois had also called for a discussion on the issue of organized crime recruiting young people. Criminal gangs are now recruiting people directly on social media, and those being recruited are getting younger and younger. Young people are being used to carry out crimes because they are perceived as more vulnerable and are punished less severely. The Bloc Québécois has long been calling for the creation of a specific offence for the recruitment of minors. This measure is intended to target the real perpetrators, the adults who manipulate and exploit young people. I am thinking in particular of the tragic case of Mohamed-Yanis Seghouani, who was recruited by organized crime when he was just 14.

With regard to sexual violence and protecting victims, victims of sexual assault must be able to seek justice without being revictimized. The bill tightens the rules around access to medical records and provides greater protection for victims, while maintaining the right to a full and fair defence.

Pornographic deepfakes are being expressly addressed by legislation. The non-consensual distribution of intimate images is a growing phenomenon that demanded a clear legislative response.

The bill is also a step forward for victims' rights. It strengthens the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Victims are entitled to respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. That is important. They are also entitled to have their cases processed within a reasonable amount of time. However, these rights must be accompanied by sufficient resources for the justice system.

Obviously, I am going to talk about the need for federal transfers to Quebec, because Quebec is responsible for administering the justice system. It is all well and good to introduce more laws, but Quebec and the provinces need to be given the resources to act. I am about to use a term that may not be exciting, but that suits our purpose here, because what we are really talking about is the fiscal imbalance.

Second, this leads me to point out some of the flaws in the bill. Shelter representatives constantly remind us that femicide rarely occurs out of the blue. It is often preceded by a history of violence, harassment and coercive control. When a woman asks for help, the system must be able to intervene before it is too late. That is why I was talking about measures to allow Quebec's system to handle this issue. We acknowledge that Bill C‑16 is a step in the right direction because it explicitly recognizes this reality. However, the government must also provide the means to take action.

Regarding the lack of resources, the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women told us clearly that needs are outpacing resources. Many shelters are turning women away because they do not have enough spots. Some women have to stay in dangerous situations because no other immediate solution is available.

As far as transitional housing is concerned, leaving an abusive partner is not simply a matter of finding a spot in a shelter. Women need a safe place to live while they rebuild their lives. Several witnesses emphasized the importance of second- and third-stage housing. Without affordable housing, some women are forced to return to their abuser. Everything gets delayed. In some cases, they stay longer in emergency shelters because they have nowhere else to go afterward. They stay there, delaying the arrival of another woman in urgent need of this resource. This delays every step of the process and delays the arrival of women who need protection. We are also seeing this in the work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which is currently conducting a study on the issue of housing availability and the lack of resources to help women who are experiencing intimate partner violence.

I would also like to talk about children who are exposed to violence. Witnesses also noted that children are victims of intimate partner violence too. They are collateral victims. Even when they are not directly targeted, they live in a climate of fear and insecurity. Preventing violence also means protecting children.

As for prevention, all the witnesses pointed out that violence cannot be solved by the justice system alone. That means that Bill C‑16 will not solve everything. Prevention remains essential. We need to invest in education, equal relationships, mental health services, and support for young people. We also need to use federal transfers to give resources to community organizations. That is important. When we did our study on anti-feminism and the rise of masculinism, those were some of the recommendations that emerged. We need to teach boys and girls what respectful, violence-free relationships look like.

Concerning court delays, a number of organizations said that lengthy proceedings can discourage some victims. When a woman finds the courage to report her attacker, she should not be forced to wait years before justice is served. Court delays contribute to revictimization. Measures designed to avoid stays of proceedings are important to maintain trust in the justice system.

Victims demand to be heard, believed and protected. They also demand that the justice system be more humane. The provisions enhancing victims' rights in Bill C‑16 are an important step forward.

Third, the Bloc Québécois has a few reservations I will go over briefly. We support Bill C‑16, but it still contains some inconsistencies. I mentioned them earlier: Amendments meant to provide better protection for stalking victims were rejected. We believe that victims need to be given more preventive tools before the violence escalates. Some of the changes to bail conditions may also be too broad and exceed the bill's original objective.

In conclusion, Bill C‑16 is a significant step forward. It acknowledges the reality of femicide, criminalizes coercive control, better protects victims of sexual assault, addresses youth recruitment by gangs, and attempts to limit the consequences of court delays.

I would like to say one last thing: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, but we call on the government to keep working so that victims are truly believed and placed at the heart of our justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation there is something we should all be taking a great sense of pride in, which is the fact that we would incorporate coercive behaviour into a new offence. That is relatively unique in terms of G20 countries. The bill would also raise femicide to first‑degree murder.

I think there are a lot of positive things within the legislation. I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes that the principles of the legislation are positive and worth moving forward on.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the first point my colleague raised, namely the issue of coercive control. Following the release of the report on rebuilding trust, I met with MNAs in Quebec City who asked me to take action. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I proposed a study on coercive control. The study was conducted, we produced a report, and we tabled it.

Together with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we had to pressure the government for months, even years. Finally, after our press conference last fall, the government took action. That is good, and we welcome the move, but the government could have acted sooner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Shefford, who really knows her stuff, as members can see. She always speaks so eloquently and focuses on the common good. She is well versed in this issue. I would like to learn more about the amendments the Bloc Québécois would have liked to see adopted to further improve the situation. Can she explain to me why, in her view, the government rejected these amendments?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and comments about my speech. I also want to commend her for fighting for the feminist cause.

Regarding the Bloc Québécois's amendments, as I mentioned earlier, there are some inconsistencies. For example, the offence of criminal harassment is supposedly being modernized by the introduction of objective criteria. However, when we talk about sureties to keep the peace—the infamous peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is another study that I worked on for the Bloc Québécois, together with my Conservative colleagues—it is clear that, in this case, the criteria are subjective.

That creates inconsistencies. The Bloc Québécois wanted to see fewer of them. Our amendments sought to remove these inconsistencies from Bill C‑16.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the amendment stage, the Conservative Party put forward CPC‑13. It would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under sections 7 and 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve.

Does the Bloc Québécois believe that the government has done enough to prosecute individuals who look at child pornography in Canada?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is another issue that the Bloc Québécois wants to tackle. Obviously, I am talking about this material, the distribution of this material depicting children, especially with the increase in deepfakes and the fact that images of children can be used.

That is one of the things the Bloc Québécois is calling for. This violence against children should not exist. We could do better and we could do more.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned about the number of femicides committed each year in Quebec and across Canada. There have already been 10 in Quebec this year. This bill will take a step toward reducing them, but I feel it is insufficient. What does my hon. colleague and friend think?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I invite the hon. member to respond in less than 20 seconds.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my response will be brief. This is an important step. It is good to strengthen the Criminal Code, but if the government does not give Quebec the financial resources to address these new offences within its legal system, if the government does not provide community organizations with the necessary resources, and if the government does not look at the bigger picture, as part of a continuum of services, it simply will not succeed.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is great to see you in the chair.

I am pleased today to rise in support of Bill C-16 the protecting victims act. At its core, this legislation reflects something very fundamental: that our justice system must do much more to protect those who are the most vulnerable, especially children and survivors of violence; and that it must adapt to reflect the realities that they face today.

Before I speak to the details of the bill, I do want to begin by acknowledging the strength and the courage of survivors. The member for Niagara South, last week or the week before, hosted a meeting that many of us were invited to and we listened to half a dozen women who were victims. They were there to speak of their position as being victims of sexual violence and so on, but also of their concerns that the perpetrators were not getting strong enough sentences. The victims have a life sentence because they will carry that abuse for their entire life, whereas the abusers seem to get very minimal sentences of 18 months or two years, which seem so very minimal. I very much agree with those individuals who were speaking. They were still very distraught about what had happened to them many years before and frustrated by the lack of penalties for the abusers.

Whether the issue for those who came forward to tell stories is intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation or abuse of children, they want change and that is what Bill C-16 would bring. Their experiences were deeply moving and their points were well received. They are a powerful reminder that our justice system must continue to evolve, not in theory but in practice, so that it truly meets the needs of those it is meant to protect.

Bill C-16 represents one of the most significant updates to our criminal justice system in generations. It would do so through four clear objectives: tackling gender-based violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. Each of these pillars speaks directly to issues that the survivors I heard from two weeks ago, advocates and experts have been raising for years.

First, with respect to gender-based violence, this bill would recognize something that has too often been overlooked: that violence does not begin with physical harm. It often begins, as my other colleagues have mentioned, with patterns of control, including coercion, intimidation and manipulation, that escalate over time. By introducing a new offence for coercive and controlling conduct, this legislation would allow earlier intervention before violence becomes lethal. This is critical. It reflects again what survivors and frontline organizations have told us, which is that warning signs are often present but we have not always had the legal tools to respond to them. The bill would also ensure that murders committed in contexts such as coercive control, sexual violence or exploitation are recognized with the seriousness that they warrant. These are not isolated acts. They are part of a continuum of violence. This legislation would begin to reflect that reality in law.

Second, with respect to protecting children, the need for action is urgent. We know that the nature of exploitation has changed. Predators are increasingly using digital platforms to groom, manipulate and extort children. Bill C-16 responds directly to those threats. It would strengthen offences related to child luring and sextortion; criminalize emerging forms of abuse, including the use of threats and digital content; and reinforce accountability through stronger penalties. It would also ensure that law enforcement and the justice system would be equipped to respond to the new technologies, including the use of AI-generated sexual deepfakes, which can be used to exploit and harm victims. For children and families navigating these deeply traumatic experiences, these measures are not abstract. They are essential protections.

Third, this legislation would strengthen victims' rights. We know that, for many victims, the justice system can be overwhelming. Victims often struggle to access information, to understand processes and to have their voices heard. Bill C-16 would build on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by improving access to information, expanding participation and ensuring that victims are treated with dignity and respect. It would also expand access to supports such as testimonial aids, helping reduce the risk of retraumatization when individuals come forward. These are practical changes, but they are also deeply meaningful. They would help ensure that victims are not simply observers in the justice process, but participants whose experiences matter.

Fourth, and critically, the bill addresses court delays. Delays are not just procedural issues. They have real consequences. We have seen serious cases, including those involving sexual violence, collapse entirely because of delays. For victims, this can be devastating. It can mean that after coming forward, after reliving their trauma, there is no resolution and no accountability. Bill C-16 introduces measures to reduce these outcomes, requiring courts to consider alternatives before stays of proceedings, streamlining procedures and clarifying just how these delays are assessed. These changes in Bill C-16 are about ensuring that cases are heard and that justice is not lost to process.

What is important about this legislation, as well, is not just any single measure, but its collective impact. The bill recognizes that violence today is complex and evolving. It reflects the rise of digital exploitation affecting our children, the realities of coercive control, the vulnerabilities of children online and the ongoing challenges victims face within the system. It also responds to what we have heard from commissions, experts and communities across the country that earlier intervention, stronger protections and a more responsive justice system are needed.

At the same time, it is important to ground this work in principle. We must ensure that victims are treated with care, dignity and compassion. We must ensure that those who come forward are supported, informed and respected throughout the process. We must continue building a system where survivors can have confidence not only that they will be heard, but that the system will respond in an appropriate manner.

No single piece of legislation will resolve all the challenges. We know there are gaps that will remain. We also know that continued investment in prevention, in services and in supports will always be essential, but legislation like Bill C-16 is a critical part of that work. It provides the tools. It sets the standards and it signals clearly that protecting victims, especially children, is not optional. It is a fundamental responsibility of us all.

I am proud to be part of a government that is taking meaningful steps, both in law and in practice. I appreciate the fact that the opposition is supporting this bill and has helped move it along.

In closing, this bill is more than legal reform. It is about ensuring that survivors are heard, victims are protected, and those women who I met from Niagara South two weeks ago can look at Bill C-16 and know that we were thinking of them when we put this forward.

It is about ensuring that those who are the most vulnerable are not overlooked, but supported with care, dignity and action. For all of these reasons, I am proud to support Bill C-16 and appreciate the support of all of the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the amendment stage, Conservatives put forward CPC-13, which would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under sections 7 and 12 by enacting a notwithstanding clause, while also preventing those offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve.

I know the member to be an hon. member. I still cannot get around the fact that the Liberals would not support these Conservative amendments, which would have protected the most vulnerable in our society and ensured a level of justice for victims of child pornography. I still cannot get my head around the fact that the government will not support these measures.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is very serious about the concerns he has, as well as the rest of us, but when members are on the government side of the House and crafting legislation, we have to make sure that it is going to withstand charter challenges. We have seen too many times that we have reacted with our hearts, not necessarily with our heads, and brought in things that ended up being challenged, with court cases thrown out completely because the legislation we introduced reflected our emotions, not necessarily our responsibility, which is to make sure that the laws of the land are charter-proof.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-16, as does the Barreau du Québec. However, in a statement, it indicated that while it feels the bill's objectives are laudable, it believes that “incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that will hinder the analysis, review and practical application of these provisions”.

What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, different people have different opinions. We are very confident that Bill C-16 would accomplish exactly what we want it to do: protect victims, encourage more people to come forward, and look after our children and protect them from the many predators who unfortunately continue to be out there.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague has many years of service in the House. Perhaps she would reflect on the changes for women that she has seen in our legislation over that time.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a ton of changes have happened, but they have all been too slow. It seems that it takes a long time to start to really understand some of the difficulties different people, women in particular, are facing.

I am very proud of what has happened in the last 10 or 12 years as, really, women's rights have been getting the attention they need as we all move forward collectively to ensure that women's rights are protected. We will make sure that women such as those I met a couple of weeks ago know that their government is concerned about them and will continue to move forward legislation that will better protect them and better protect our children.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the same meeting the member referred to, the heart-on-our-sleeve meeting with victims. I heard their gut-wrenching stories and witnessed their bravery in sharing their stories, so I wanted to ask this question: Why did the government vote against excluding child sexual offences from the safety valve? If mandatory minimum penalties can be ignored, what exactly is mandatory about them?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember that when I first heard about mandatory minimums, under former prime minister Harper, I thought they were a great idea. However, what is the use of bringing forward laws that are just going to get thrown out because there is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the government has to respect? We have to use more than our heart on our sleeve when we are crafting legislation. When someone is on this side of the House, they have to take that responsibility much more seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Bill C-16 because it is legislation that would completely eviscerate mandatory minimum penalties, virtually every one on the books, other than murder and treason. The bill would eviscerate them with a so-called safety valve that would give judges wide ambit to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty set by Parliament, regard for Parliament's judgment that certain offences are sufficiently serious to impose a minimum sentencing floor, and regard for long-standing sentencing principles, including denunciation, blameworthiness and so on. It would give them the ability to instead apply a lesser sentence.

The Minister of Justice will claim that this is about saving mandatory minimum penalties in the face of certain recent jurisprudence. He has a point up to a certain point, which is that, yes, there has been some recent jurisprudence in which the courts have been more ready to strike down mandatory minimum penalties due to an expansive application of the reasonable hypotheticals doctrine following the Nur decision of 2015. In that decision, the court lowered the threshold in which the reasonable hypotheticals doctrine could be applied, to include hypotheticals that are not merely remote or far-fetched.

What that has led to in some cases is the courts' applying reasonable hypotheticals that are in fact remote, far-fetched and unreasonable. One clear example of that was the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. It was a divided, five-four, decision, but the majority, in its infinite wisdom, struck down the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession of child pornography. The facts in the Senneville case were grotesque. It involved two offenders: violent, sadistic sexual predators who had in their possession hundreds of images of child sexual abuse and torture.

The court applied a completely remote hypothetical, that of a 17-year-old boy who received a sexually explicit image from his 17-year-old girlfriend, which he then passed on to his 18-year-old friend. It is a completely remote hypothetical, but the court said that because it hypothetically could apply, the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment and violated section 12 of the charter, no matter how far removed that hypothetical was from reality and from the facts in the case.

In the face of a decision that constitutes, frankly, naked judicial activism, the only appropriate course of action for the government to take is to use the constitutional tool it has at its disposal, which is to invoke the notwithstanding clause to reassert parliamentary supremacy and Parliament's law-making powers, but the Liberals did not do that. Instead, they accepted the Senneville decision. Not only did they accept the Senneville decision, but they used the Senneville decision as a pretext to bring the so-called safety valve, which is an escape valve, into the bill.

What about the Nur decision and the cases that have followed? I say that, yes, it is an issue, but this is not the solution. The solution, when faced with decisions such as Senneville and Bissonnette, I restate, is to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Seeing that the Liberals have absolutely no appetite to ever invoke the notwithstanding clause, there is another path, which is to introduce legislation to bring in new mandatory minimum penalties that would clarify and narrow the application of the offence as the mandatory minimum would apply to. However, that would take hard work, and the Liberals have not availed themselves of doing that. Instead what they offer is the broad escape valve. The Liberals have characterized it as a modest safeguard. They have claimed that it would, in effect, apply only in exceptional circumstances.

If that is the case, if it is not about totally eviscerating mandatory minimum penalties, which the Liberals are on the record as consistently opposing, by the way, over the past 10 years, then at the very least what is required is reasonable guardrails. Guardrails are completely missing from the legislation. There is no direction to the courts, no exceptional circumstances clause, no direction on how Parliament would demand or assert that the courts apply mandatory minimum penalties, and no direction with respect to the circumstances in which the escape valve could be used.

Conservatives brought forward at the justice committee multiple amendments to provide guardrails, including a guardrail that could apply only when the accused does not have a prior criminal record, a guardrail that the mandatory minimum penalty could be cut only by half, a guardrail that the escape valve would not apply in cases of child sexual offences, and a guardrail that the crime not include weapons trafficking, armed extortion or aggravated sexual assault. The Liberals voted against all those guardrails.

If in fact this is a modest safeguard and would apply only in exceptional cases and circumstances, then why is it that the Liberals were so reticent to define what those exceptional circumstances would be? Could it be because this is the same Liberal government that has the dubious record of being the only government in Canadian history to bring in legislation, Bill C-5, that repealed mandatory minimum penalties, by choice, involving serious crimes, including serious gun crimes and drug offences? I am not talking about minor possession; I am talking about trafficking and producing schedule I drugs, such as fentanyl, that have killed tens of thousands of Canadians over the past 10 years.

Could that be the reason why they were so reticent, so opposed to defining safeguards or guardrails around the escape valve? Could it be that the bill is not as advertised but that, despite the protestations of the Minister of Justice that it is about saving mandatory minimum penalties, the true intent of the bill is to eviscerate them? Make no mistake about it; mandatory minimum penalties would be eviscerated. They would have no meaning. The floodgates of litigation would be opened.

It begs the question, what good are mandatory minimum penalties if they can be disregarded on an ad hoc basis? For that reason, I and my Conservative colleagues cannot support this soft-on-crime bill from the soft-on-crime Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are no floodgates here, but there is a lot of contrast between the Conservatives and the government on the issue.

There are laws in place that have been ruled as unconstitutional, in violation of the charter, so a lot of the minimum penalties have been thrown out. The current government and the Prime Minister would reinstate minimum sentences. Yes, there is the exceptional clause so the course could be stayed, we would be allowed to continue and things would not be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Conservative approach is the notwithstanding clause. How many times is the member going to have to bring in the notwithstanding clause to deal with the legislation? Is it twelve times or 20 times? What is the limit?

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

Mr. Speaker, the solution is not to impose a blanket escape valve and leave it to judges to, at their discretion, disregard or bypass what Parliament has judged to be a minimum sentencing floor related to the seriousness of the offence. That is what the Liberals have done.

The Liberals have completely surrendered Parliament's law-making power as it relates to mandatory minimum penalties. They had many options, including the notwithstanding clause and including bringing in new mandatory minimums. At the very least, as we said, if the Liberals are insistent upon an escape valve, then there needs to be robust safeguards. We brought forward robust safeguards. They voted them down every step of the way at committee.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, I stood up in this place and went through a bill that the then Liberal government had passed. It got rid of a number of mandatory minimum sentences. I think it was Bill C-5, if I remember correctly. It got rid of the mandatory minimums for extortion with a firearm. I said at the time, “Hey, that must be a lot of fun, having somebody shoot at your house or hold a gun to your head and extort money out of you.”

What has happened with extortion in Canada since then?

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

Mr. Speaker, extortion has increased significantly. I believe extortion is up more than 80%. The member is quite right that the Liberals removed mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences including armed extortion, robbery with a firearm and weapons trafficking. It was not because the courts instructed the government to do so or because they were found to be unconstitutional but because the Liberals ideologically opposed mandatory minimum penalties.

Over these past 10 years, they have a record of being soft on crime time and time again, and this bill is another example of it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Liberals improperly broadened the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards that are applicable to intimate partner offences? This raises serious concerns in our view.

The amendments I am referring to simply remove the violence criterion from the procedural safeguards for crimes committed between intimate partners, without replacing it with a targeted alternative criterion.

What does my colleague think?

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

In short, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. For example, there was an opportunity to fix section 810 orders at committee. I believe there were amendments brought forward that would have done that. What did the Liberals do? They voted against those amendments, just like they voted against every amendment to put in place robust guardrails around this escape valve with respect to mandatory minimum penalties.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a very short question from the hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the past that when the Conservatives have gone against mandatory minimums in cases that the Supreme Court has held are unconstitutional, there have been floods of litigation after. As a result, people did not get convictions, and so it is really important—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the minister. I did say a very short question.

I will allow the member to respond in under 20 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has chosen a path. I think it is a flawed path, but it is a path nonetheless, and that is to provide for an escape valve. The question becomes, if this is an exceptional valve, in exceptional circumstances, why not define what those circumstances are? Why leave it completely—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is also a privilege to rise, as I always do on matters of justice and the Criminal Code, in support of victims.

That is one thing that distinguishes the approach my Conservative colleagues and I take to crime and justice matters from that of the Liberals. We look out for the rights of victims, and they look out for the rights of offenders. We root our approach in the facts on the ground, what law enforcement advocates say, what members of law enforcement say and what victims advocates say. They rely on legal theory and, so often in doing so, ignore the gruesome realities of some of the most heinous acts of crime we see in our country.

A lot of the discussion about mandatory minimums for sexual offences, for example, such as child sexual exploitation and abuse material, was exacerbated when there was, last year, a horrendous Supreme Court of Canada decision called the Senneville decision. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that for someone possessing thousands of images and videos of children as young as four being subjected to brutal sexual acts, a one‑year mandatory minimum sentence in that case was cruel and unusual punishment because of some “reasonable hypotheticals” in which someone else, in an entirely different set of circumstances, might be charged, under what the court said were more sympathetic terms, with possessing child sexual exploitation and abuse material.

Conservatives offered a very reasonable solution: to reinstate the mandatory minimums for people trafficking in and possessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material; and to defend them with the notwithstanding clause, a tool in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms given to legislatures to ensure that the will of the people and, indeed, basic decency are upheld in our laws.

Now, Bill C‑16, the government has said, was its answer to this. To be fair, members of the Liberal Party have certainly expressed disgust with the facts of the Senneville and Naud case, but where we diverge is that their answer to this is a bill that would give all judges a so-called safety valve, to say that a mandatory minimum sentence seems like it might be cruel and unusual punishment in a certain case and, therefore, they will not apply it. “Mandatory minimum penalty” has three words. The first is “mandatory”. If we give judges a safety valve to unilaterally declare, on their own terms, that they do not need to uphold the mandatory minimum, it is no longer mandatory. It is not even a minimum. In some cases, it is not even a penalty.

Why that is so important here is that in the Senneville and Naud case, the trial judge made that very determination. The trial judge thought that the mandatory minimum penalty for these two men, who between them possessed thousands of images of young boys and girls being subject to acts I will not read in the House, was cruel and unusual punishment. That judge would have availed themselves of the very safety valve the Liberals are now seeking to enshrine in Bill C‑16.

Why is this so particularly troubling? I am very proud of some of the work that the justice committee, on which I have the great privilege of sitting, did on Bill C‑16. In fact, I am proud of some of my own amendments, which have been adopted into this bill. An example is the way the bill deals with those who are victimized by intimate images being distributed. This is a horrible crime that we see affecting more and more Canadians, especially young Canadians. I have spoken about this with high school students, who just accept this now as a fact of life. This is something that we need to have a very strong response to in the Criminal Code.

We also see, through emerging technologies and artificial intelligence, the dissemination of deepfakes, or deepnudes as they are sometimes called: artificially generated images and videos that look very real, showcasing someone in a state of undress or engaging in a sexually explicit act. These things are disseminated and shared and victimize people in much the same way that the sharing of actual non-consensual intimate images does. This is important because the law needs to catch up with the technology.

I heard from witness testimony. I spoke to women's advocates in particular, like Liz Brown from Valora Place in St. Thomas, and Jennifer Dunn from the London Abused Women's Centre. I spoke to Chief Thai Truong, chief of the London Police Service, and Chief Marc Roskamp of the St. Thomas Police Service. I spoke to people including a personal friend of mine who was herself a victim of an artificially generated nearly nude image's being shared. What happens is that these images are shared, and oftentimes the most important thing is for the image or video to be taken off-line, so one of the amendments I put forward at the justice committee would force tech giants to remove this material within 48 hours. I am grateful I had support for that from my Liberal colleagues.

Another amendment I put forward was one making it so that the definition of “intimate image” would not exclude things based on a technicality. We changed it to include “nearly nude”. This was, again, something that was brought forward in testimony we heard from witnesses. We also added, and this came from previous work that my colleague the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill did in her bill, Bill C‑216, a definition specifically of artificial intelligence-generated material, which would ensure that new technology is captured by what we are trying to do here. We would not need to come back as members of Parliament to the drawing board because we find that the law does not actually capture all the cases we are seeing.

As we were working on this, I was very proud. This was an example of all parties working together to support victims. However, as we got through the clause-by-clause process on Bill C‑16, we realized that the big sticking point remaining was the Liberals' own poison pill, making it so that their so-called restoration of mandatory minimum penalties would not be, in fact, a restoration at all. They would be allowing any activist judge who fundamentally does not even believe in carceral sentences, which, sadly, we have seen a fair bit of in the justice system, to unilaterally declare that they do not think a mandatory minimum is appropriate. This would take away the “mandatory” of mandatory minimum sentences and ensure that the very people who commit these heinous acts we are talking about, and not just acts of a sexual nature but breaking any criminal laws really, are actually able to get a pass.

This is something that I feel we need to say, in the strongest possible terms, we will not stand for, and it is with a great deal of regret that I say this is what the Liberals have done to Bill C‑16. I have a great deal of regret that these provisions that I am very proud of and that I can stand up here and say would help victims are embedded in a bill alongside other things that would actually make things far worse for victims of crime. The bill now has this poison pill that the Liberals would not address, which would basically take any mandatory minimum sentence, including minimums that have not even been declared to be unconstitutional by a court, and subject it to the so-called safety valve, which means it would become optional. It would become discretionary.

Interestingly enough, I spoke about what some of these circumstances would be at committee with justice department officials. When judges are formulating their picture of the circumstances of an offence and an offender, the officials indicated that one's immigration status could actually be captured by the bill. If a mandatory minimum sentence would jeopardize someone's status as a resident of Canada, someone who is not a citizen and is convicted of a criminal act, that could be factored into a judge's saying that a mandatory minimum is no longer appropriate. The justice minister said something different, and herein lies the problem. If the minister and the department officials are not even on the same page about what this safety valve would do, how can any judge looking at it, even in good faith, take it and make laws and decisions that are going to support victims?

We will always stand up for victims. That means listening to them and advocating for them, but it also means advocating for a justice system that does not let perpetrators and offenders, including those behind some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, get a pass. It is regrettable that this is what this Liberal bill, Bill C‑16, would now do.

Bill C-16—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters.

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 to the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of said bill.

Old Age Security Act

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

moved that Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always very moving to have the privilege of introducing a bill that one cares about. I will be reading my speech because I want to share my message in full and I do not want to run out of time.

For a society to live in peace, its citizens must live with confidence. They have to feel certain that their government is taking care of them, that it is working for their well-being and that it is keeping its promises. When a person retires, that is the moment of truth. That is when the unspoken agreement between the citizen and the state must be honoured. It should be the time to reap the rewards of decades of hard work, a time of dignity, not a time of mere survival. However, today, too many new retirees await this freedom with a sense of dread.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am calling on my esteemed colleagues and fellow citizens to correct an injustice. We are living in one of the wealthiest societies in the world, one that prides itself on its social safety net, its values, its compassion and its commitment to mutual support. However, today, we are seeing this safety net become ever more fragile. There are more and more holes in it. We are abandoning the very people who built our schools, our hospitals and our businesses. We spend our lives imagining a retirement where we want for nothing, where we can have a well-deserved rest and where we can live out our lives in complete security.

However, for thousands of new retirees, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement no longer constitute the promised safety net. Instead, they are life rafts and they are taking on water. We are not talking about charity here. We are talking about a social contract. These men and women paid their taxes for 40 or 50 years. They contributed to the country's economic success. They raised the generation that is now leading Quebec. The implicit promise was simple. If people worked hard and contributed to the common good, then the state would make sure that they wanted for nothing as they grew old. We are way off the mark.

Not only are we way off the mark, but it is now clear that the Liberal government did not keep this promise—one among many, some might say. Young retirees are being forced to keep working just to make ends meet. Is this the sneaky way that the current Prime Minister and his predecessor have found to effectively raise the retirement age, without anyone noticing? If so, it is dishonest and unworthy of the office.

This government tried to address the discontent but only managed to create an even greater injustice. It officially established two classes of retirees by deciding to increase OAS by 10% for those over the age of 75. On the one hand, we have older seniors, who are deemed worthy of additional assistance, and on the other, we have young retirees aged 65 to 74, who are essentially being told to fend for themselves. What is the logic behind that discrimination? At the grocery store, does inflation ask how old the customer is? Are rent, gas or heating costs lower when someone is 70 than when they are 76? What happens on the night before a retiree turns 75? It takes just as much air to blow out 65 candles as it does 75.

The government says that seniors aged 65 to 74 are still active and can work to supplement their income. This is an insult to those who have had physically demanding careers and who, let us face it, are worn out. Asking a 68-year-old construction worker, warehouse worker or restaurant server to go back to work just to pay for groceries is not really a solution. It is an admission of failure. It means accepting that the government has failed in its duty.

We in the Bloc Québécois will not back down. That is why, since 2021, we have been making every effort to put an end to the injustice caused by these two classes of seniors. We are often told that this would be financially unsustainable. We are told that increasing pensions for people aged 65 to 74 would cost the public purse billions of dollars. That is true. It is a significant amount.

However, what is the cost of not doing it? How much does it cost our health care system when a senior eats poorly because fruit and vegetables have become a luxury? How much does social isolation—which leads to depression—cost? How much does the loss of dignity cost? It is not just a matter of compassion; it is also a matter of public health and safety.

Thorough research has provided irrefutable evidence that the most egalitarian societies are the ones that fare the best. I am not going to mince words: The harms caused by inequality affect women first and foremost. Once again, women are statistically the ones who have the lowest pensions. They are the ones who live the longest in solitude. By refusing to help seniors aged 65 to 74, this government is perpetrating a form of economic harm against our mothers and grandmothers. It is taking the women who kept our society going—often from the shadows, often without pay—and putting them in a vulnerable position. Causing them anxiety about the future is truly unworthy of this House.

Study after study clearly proves it. When the wealth gap is narrowed, crime falls significantly and confidence rises. Mental illness declines. Obesity, chronic stress and violence—especially violence against women—decline. Conversely, the wider the wealth gap, the sicker the body politic.

Colleagues, for a society to live in peace, it takes confidence. I said it before and I am saying it again. However, poverty among seniors undermines that confidence. It creates anxiety not only for retirees, but also for their children and grandchildren, who see their own future as a threatening prospect, rather than a comfortable one. How can they trust a government that cheats their parents and flouts the social contract?

By allowing seniors' spending power to collapse, the government is making a conscious decision to increase future social costs. It is opting for more people in hospital beds, more psychological distress and more insecurity. Of course, there are those who will solemnly claim that the cupboard is bare, that the debt is too big. Honestly, that is a risible argument.

When it comes to finding millions of dollars to subsidize oil and gas giants, who do not need financial support, the money seems to appear out of thin air. When it comes to buying a pipeline in western Canada that will never serve our interests, the cheque book is often wide open. When the big banks are making record profits while raising fees on consumers, the government looks the other way. When billions of dollars end up in tax havens without being taxed, we are told it is really complicated. It is so complicated to get the money back from the tax havens.

However, when a 72-year-old grandmother asks for what she is entitled to, namely enough money to pay her heating bill, just like her 76-year-old neighbour, suddenly everyone has to be responsible. They pull out the calculator and talk to us about fiscal discipline. This is not really a problem of revenue. It is a problem of choice. It is a political choice, a political decision. Clearly, this government's choices are not the same ones the public would make. The government prefers to help those who pollute, those who make massive profits, and neglects those who built Quebec. As someone who devoted her entire career to seniors, I think that is completely outrageous.

We are not asking for the moon. We are asking the government to honour a social contract. Is it too much to ask to maintain what little balance still remains? I repeat: Our seniors are not asking for charity. They are demanding respect. What we are seeing today is a government that is deliberately and knowingly choosing to create and maintain two classes of seniors: one that deserves to be helped and another that is left to fend for itself. This age-based discrimination is unworthy of a modern society. The people that my colleagues and I represent think that this is unacceptable, and I am sure that many members of the House from all political parties agree with them.

We are not here to beg for favours. We are here to correct an injustice and appeal to every member of the House's sense of reason. For a society to live in peace, it must treat those who built it with respect. What is needed now is more than just rhetoric on election day or during an election campaign. What folks need are cheques that will cover groceries and rent.

It is time to stop seeing retirees as a budgetary burden or an expense column in an Excel spreadsheet. They are our society's collective memory. They are our roots, and it is absurd to cut off the water supply to our roots under the pretext of saving money. In the name of dignity, we call on the government to stop its petty calculations. It needs to stop dividing people. It needs to stop dividing seniors. We need to give them back what they entrusted us with.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Many citizens heard that today would be quite a memorable day in my career as a member of Parliament. Seriously, over the past week, I have received hundreds of letters, emails and notes encouraging me to continue on this path, because seniors know that their living conditions and their dignity are not being respected at all.

People in my riding, as well as the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ, the largest seniors' group in Quebec, representing several thousand people, are making this their top demand. I also spoke with the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and with retirees from Quebec, who share the same demand. It is not too complicated. They are asking for fairness and justice. They are calling on the government to correct this age-based inequity and discrimination.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues. In the last Parliament, my colleague from Shefford sponsored Bill C‑319, which went through a lengthy legislative process. Although it died on the Order Paper, a number of members in the House supported that bill. We hope the House of Commons shows the same cohesion and consensus again.

Not only does Bill C‑261 seek to correct the injustice, but it also seeks to increase the GIS maximum exemption amount. It is important to clarify that. The bill provides for a 10% increase in OAS, but it also increases to $6,500 the maximum amount a person can earn before their GIS is reduced. Around 20% of seniors in my riding tell me that they are forced to work. However, for GIS recipients, any income over $5,000 is subject to a clawback. As the saying goes, that is like trading four quarters for a dollar. That is what my grandmother used to say. What do all these seniors end up doing, then? They end up working under the table or just making do, because they basically need every penny of their income to make ends meet.

In closing, I can say that this truly comes from the heart. I know that my colleague across the aisle secured a royal recommendation to pass a bill that will allow bereaved parents who have lost a child to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits. I therefore hope to convince the government that it has a great opportunity to right a wrong and, of course, grant a royal recommendation to my bill. This bill will allow seniors to live better. Above all, they will see that this injustice and discrimination have finally been addressed. It is a matter of respect, and frankly, there is no room for compromise. Again, I appeal to my colleagues, from the bottom of my heart, to support Bill C-261.

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

Mr. Speaker, right now in Canada, clawbacks for old age security commence at $95,000, but individuals aged 65 to 74 earning up to $152,000 and those over 75 earning up to $157,000 can still receive old age security. While I understand the intent of the legislation before us today and what the member is referring to, does she not understand that the costs for old age security would exceed $100 billion within the next five years? How are my children going to pay for this monumental expense?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am truly offended by such arguments. It makes no sense. I do not know if all seniors 65 and older in his riding are rolling in money, but in Quebec, 1,869,000 people are 65 or older, and nearly half of them receive the GIS. Honestly, I cannot imagine repeating what I just heard to these people who are struggling to make ends meet.

I understand that the Harper government may have been a little less hypocritical. It raised the retirement age to 67. When the Liberal government took office, it lowered the retirement age, but it did so in a roundabout way. It seemed to be telling people to keep working.

I know Ghislaine—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We must move on to the next question.

The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this to the forefront because I have been speaking to seniors. They are not retiring at 65 and they are not retiring at 75 because they cannot afford the cost of living that the Liberal government has placed on them. Even though I will be supporting this bill, which I will be speaking to shortly, we need to do better. The people who built this country deserve to retire in dignity and, right now, that is not happening. Does my hon. colleague think that maybe we should even increase the exemption for GIS to $10,000?

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

Mr. Speaker, that warms my heart. I was wondering whether all the Conservatives were going to vote against the bill after hearing her colleague speak before her. I sincerely thank her from the bottom of my heart.

I believe that the bill increases the exemption amount to $6,500. That gives seniors who are 65 and older some flexibility if they wish to work, so that they are not penalized as much if they want to continue working.

I look forward to hearing my colleague talk about my bill. I am very pleased to hear that she will support it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. We have been passing the baton to one another, and I now pass it on to the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

My colleagues and I at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women are currently hearing from witnesses as part of a study on senior women. We are hearing about older women finding themselves on the streets. Homelessness is on the rise. Demand for food hampers is on the rise. What we are hearing is seriously catastrophic.

In the last Parliament, with the exception of the Liberals, even the former Liberal MPs who became independent voted in favour of the bill I introduced on this subject. The Conservatives voted for it, the Green Party voted for it and the NDP voted for it.

In committee, a report was even adopted unanimously. Everyone voted in favour, including the Liberals. However, once the matter came before the House, the Liberals changed their tune and voted against it. I would like to know what my colleague expects from the vote this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I expect the Liberals to show some compassion, realize they made a mistake and seize this opportunity to fix it.

There is no reason to vote against this bill, which will improve the quality of life for our seniors. The evidence is clear. Old age security is about $750 a month. No one would think of that as a fortune. We are not begging for anything. We are not asking for anything other than fairness for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74.

I look forward to hearing the government members explain why they are not supporting this bill, because there is no good reason not to. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-261 and to highlight the supports that the Government of Canada provides to seniors across the country.

After a lifetime of hard work, of investing in and building our country, Canadians unquestionably deserve to retire free from the anxiety of struggling to make ends meet. This became even more pressing in recent years. Canada and the rest of the world witnessed a rupture of unprecedented scale: a global pandemic, disrupted supply chains, overseas wars and an unstable international order. These events have all contributed to the rising cost of living, with seniors often among the most affected.

That is why the federal government is taking measures to make retirement even more affordable for Canadians. We have implemented targeted measures, such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will be deposited into Canadians' bank accounts starting Friday. This benefit will provide additional support to approximately three-quarters of seniors living alone.

At the same time, Canada has one of the most reliable public pension systems in the world. This system includes old age security, which is available to all Canadians aged 65 and older, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, which provides additional support to low-income seniors who receive an OAS pension.

However, we know that as people age, their income tends to decrease, while certain expenses may increase, particularly health care costs. This situation is made all the more difficult by dint of the fact that seniors have fewer opportunities to increase their income through work. Many are therefore at risk of depleting their savings over time. That is why, in 2022, the Government of Canada introduced a 10% increase in OAS for seniors aged 75 and older.

We are directing support to the seniors who need it most, while recognizing that the oldest Canadians often face distinct socio-economic challenges and greater financial vulnerability. This decision was based on data and helps avoid lumping all older adults into the same category.

Evidence tells us that seniors over the age of 75 are more likely to be in vulnerable financial circumstances and more likely to need support. The decision to increase OAS by 10% was in recognition of the more precarious life circumstances that happen more often at age 75 and upwards.

Let us crunch the numbers to get a more detailed view. In 2020, more seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement compared to those aged 65 to 74. There are also more seniors with a disability in that age group. According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, in 2017, 47% of seniors aged 75 and over had a disability compared to 32% of seniors under 75. That is quite a jump, and one that is often associated with additional costs and financial burdens.

This policy has already helped more than 3.3 million seniors. They received more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase. The benefit, of course, is indexed, and so that will continue to go up. What is more, this measure lifted almost 21,000 seniors out of poverty in 2021, and over 31,300 in 2022, the majority of whom were women. This was the right decision at the right time. It is measured, targeted and responsible.

It is just as important for payments to be reliable and timely, especially for seniors who depend on them to meet their basic daily needs.

By dedicating the necessary time and resources, we ensure that essential benefits continue to be paid on time, as Canadians have come to expect. This work ensures that all Canadians receive all the benefits they are entitled to, reliably and without interruption.

We are strengthening programs such as old age security while ensuring that they are administered reliably and effectively, particularly for those who need them most.

By 2059, seniors are expected to represent almost 25% of Canada's population. They are the fastest-growing age group, and we need to know how best to provide support. This support has never been more important.

Aside from the direct financial benefits, think about a program like New Horizons for Seniors. It makes a huge positive difference in people's lives. It allows local community groups to provide programming to enrich the lives of seniors in their neighbourhood. It helps seniors stay connected to each other and to their community. It is about creating spaces where every senior belongs. It is about supporting projects for seniors led by seniors that help them stay active, engaged and connected.

I can say that in my own riding of Toronto—St. Paul's, we have many organizations that benefit from the New Horizons for Seniors grant, including one of my favourites, the Yonge Eglinton Community Centre, that offers a tremendous range of programs for seniors, to make sure that they are local, engaged, active, meeting with one another and ultimately healthy as they age.

Since this program started in 2004, the program has funded over 45,000 projects in more than 400 communities. It reaches more than 900,000 seniors each year. Investments in the program now exceed $1 billion, and the work continues. This year, we invested $54 million to help bring more than 2,600 of those community-based projects to life.

In Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, the riding of the member who sponsored this bill, our government has funded 12 projects, representing a total investment of $238,000 going to seniors in her community.

I am also pleased to inform the House that the latest intake cycle for the New Horizons for Seniors program opened yesterday. Organizations across Canada can now apply for grants of up to $50,000. That is double the previous maximum of $25,000 to support projects that improve the well-being of seniors and strengthen their communities.

I think that, as every member of this House knows from the operation of this program in their ridings right across the country, this is exactly the type of program that is making a difference in the lives of seniors. Countless seniors talk about how the programming that comes from these grants changes their lives, has made them healthier and has made them more active in the community. It is certainly something that we continue to support wholeheartedly.

Supporting older Canadians has always been a priority for this government. It will always be a priority for this government.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of King—Vaughan. Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for bringing forward this important piece of legislation and for contributing to the discussions on supporting seniors across the country.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the seniors who built this country. As many members know, I was fortunate enough to be raised by my grandmother and my great-grandmother. They taught me some of life's most valuable lessons. They taught me the importance of helping neighbours, living within one's means, saving for a rainy day and leaving things better than we found them. Like so many grandparents across the country, they led by example.

Seniors built the community that we live in. They raised families, started businesses, volunteered countless hours and contributed to the prosperity we enjoy as Canadians. After a lifetime of hard work, they deserve to retire with dignity and financial security, yet, for too many seniors today, that promise is increasingly out of reach. Canada is in the midst of an affordability crisis that is placing real pressure on fixed incomes. Housing costs have risen sharply. Grocery prices remain elevated and everyday essentials from utilities to transportation continue to strain household budgets. For seniors, there is no flexibility to simply earn more so that they can keep more. When prices rise, their purchasing power falls. This is the reality facing seniors across King—Vaughan and across this country.

That is why Bill C-261 is so important. In 2021, the government increased old age security by 10% for seniors over the age of 75. What that decision did was create two classes of seniors. A senior who is 74 years old receives one level of support, while a senior who is 75 receives another. The question many seniors have asked me is simple. Why? Why is one senior considered more deserving than another? Why does affordability suddenly become a problem at age 75 but not at age 74?

The reality is that inflation does not care how old someone is. The cost of groceries is the same. The cost of heating a home is the same. The cost of filling a prescription is the same. Many seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 are facing exactly the same challenges as seniors over the age of 75. They are living on fixed incomes and watching the cost of everyday necessities continue to rise.

Over the past several years, I have spoken with seniors across the country. I have heard from people who are cutting back on groceries. I have heard from seniors who are delaying medical appointments, postponing home repairs and worried about whether their retirement savings will last.

What concerns me the most is that many of the seniors facing the greatest financial pressures are those living alone. A single senior does not pay half the rent because they are one person. They do not pay half the hydro bill or half the property taxes. A single senior often faces higher costs relative to their income because there is only one with whom to share those expenses. Many of these seniors are widows. Many are women who spent decades raising families, caring for loved ones, and contributing to the communities. A 68-year-old widow living alone can face the same affordability challenges as someone who is 76 years old.

The bill would also increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. This is another important measure. Many seniors choose to continue working. Some do so because they enjoy staying active. Others do so because they want to supplement their retirement income due to the affordability crisis the Liberal government has caused. Conservatives believe work should be rewarded, not punished. Seniors who are able to, want to and choose to work should be able to earn and keep more of their money without the clawbacks. At a time when many sectors continue to face labour shortages, experienced seniors bring tremendous value to workplaces through mentorship, training and leadership. We should be encouraging their contributions, not discouraging them.

Recent data reinforces just how widespread the impact of the cost of living crisis on these seniors has become due to the Liberals. According to Food Banks Canada's 2025 HungerCount report, seniors now account for 8.3% of all food bank clients, up from 6.8% in 2019. At the same time, food banks are seeing more than 2.2 million visits in a single month, breaking all records.

The National Institute on Aging has also warned that financial vulnerability among older adults is increasingly driven by structural factors, such as housing costs, inflation and living alone. In particular, single seniors, especially older women, face a significantly higher risk of economic insecurity due to fixed incomes and the rising cost of essentials. Together, these findings show that affordability pressures are not limited to a narrow age group but are affecting seniors broadly across Canada, regardless of whether they are 65, 75 or 85 years old.

I recognize that this bill faces challenges. Like its predecessor, Bill C-319, this bill will likely require a royal recommendation because it involves new public spending. I hope that my Liberal colleagues in government will recognize this session that affordability challenges do not begin at the age of 75. Seniors deserve fairness, and that means ensuring that support is available to all seniors who are struggling with the rising cost of living due to Liberal mismanagement.

Conservatives have consistently stood up for seniors. Conservatives believe they should be able to afford groceries, medication and housing. Conservatives believe that if they choose to continue working, they should be rewarded rather than penalized by the government. Conservatives believe that after a lifetime of hard work, they deserve a government that respects their contributions and understands their challenges.

As Parliament considers this bill, I hope members remember the senior who often falls through the cracks, the widow living alone, the senior renting on a fixed income, and the older Canadian who has done everything right but is struggling to keep up with the rising costs due to the affordability crisis that the Liberal government has created. Bill C-261 would not solve every challenge facing seniors, but it would help restore fairness to a system that currently treats some seniors differently simply because of their age.

For those reasons, I will support Bill C-261, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a simple yet fundamental question: Is it acceptable for people who have worked their entire lives, raised their families, paid their taxes and built our communities to now be living in poverty?

Bill C-261, introduced and vigorously defended by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, aims to restore fairness for seniors and allow them to live with dignity.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for OAS to be increased for all seniors, starting at age 65, because dignity does not begin at age 75. The two classes of seniors are an injustice created by Ottawa. In 2021, the federal government granted a 10% OAS increase, but only to those over the age of 75. We saw this coming and, as early as the 2019 election campaign, we criticized the idea of creating two classes of seniors. This decision created two classes of seniors: those entitled to a benefit increase and those left behind. However, the cost of groceries, housing, transportation, insurance, electricity and medications are also rising for seniors aged 65 to 74.

Quebec has approximately 1.09 million people aged 65 to 74, compared to about 875,000 people aged 75 and older. This means that the majority of seniors were excluded from this increase. The Bloc Québécois rejects this injustice. The government cannot acknowledge the vulnerability of seniors while excluding a large portion of them. The current economic reality is grim. In March 2025, nearly 744,000 Quebeckers received the guaranteed income supplement, which is a sign that many seniors are living on very modest incomes. More than 53% of Quebeckers aged 65 and older live on less than $35,000 a year. What is even more concerning is that 32.5% live on less than $25,000 a year. These are not abstract numbers. These are people who sometimes have to choose between paying their rent, buying their medication, eating properly or heating their homes.

According to the reports, some retirees are living on around $1,960 or $2,000 a month. Once the rent, electricity, insurance, telephone bills, transportation costs and medication have been paid for, there is very little left for groceries and unexpected expenses. We are talking not about comfort here, but about financial survival. The housing crisis is also affecting seniors. That, too, needs to be discussed. The housing crisis is not just affecting young families; it is also hitting seniors hard. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités reports that housing has become unaffordable for more than half of all households made up of the poorest 20% of people aged 65 and over. Nearly a quarter of senior households are living in housing that is considered unacceptable, meaning that it does not meet the criteria for affordability, quality and adequate size.

The work on homelessness from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has highlighted a reality of growing concern: Seniors are at risk of homelessness following a rent increase, eviction, separation or the death of a spouse. For a senior living on a fixed income, a rent increase of a few tens or hundreds of dollars can upend the entire financial balance. After a lifetime of hard work, no one should have to fear becoming homeless.

Poverty among seniors is also an issue in terms of health. When seniors do not have enough money, they do not cut back on frills. They cut back on essentials. They cut back on groceries. They put off buying medication. They avoid certain medical travel. They cut back on heating. They isolate themselves because they can no longer afford to go out, get around or participate in activities. Poverty among seniors thus becomes a challenge in terms of public health, food security, mental health and human dignity.

Senior women are particularly vulnerable. We hear that often. Senior women live in especially precarious situations. In Quebec, the median after-tax income for women aged 65 and over is about $24,100, compared to $34,200 for men. This difference can be attributed to careers that were interrupted, lower-paying jobs, part-time work and years spent taking care of children, loved ones or sick spouses. Senior women are also more likely to live alone, particularly once they become widowed or following a separation.

During the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's proceedings, several witnesses pointed out that financial insecurity can trap women in situations of domestic, psychological or economic violence. When a woman cannot afford to find new housing, pay a security deposit, furnish an apartment or ensure her financial security, she may remain in a dangerous situation simply because she has no other option. Increasing the income of older women is therefore not just an economic measure. It is also about safety, autonomy and protection.

The committees also highlighted the importance of having a better understanding of economic violence. Some women have never had full control over their finances. Others are financially dependent on a spouse. Some are afraid and have little savings. They might have some private retirement funds but little room to manoeuver. When retirement, a separation or the death of a spouse occurs, they end up in a highly vulnerable position. Isolation also exacerbates the situation. An isolated older adult has less access to information, less support in filling out forms, fewer networks to find housing and fewer people to turn to in a crisis. A basic income then becomes a practical tool for reducing dependence, vulnerability and isolation.

Seniors also want to contribute to our society. That is another aspect of the bill. It is important to reject the stereotype that seniors are only recipients of services. More than 170,000 Quebeckers aged 65 and over are employed. More than half work full time. On top of that, 81% of seniors consider themselves to be in good, very good or excellent health. Many want to stay active, share their experience, work a few hours, volunteer, support their family or contribute to their community. The problem is that the current system can penalize them when they want to earn some extra income. That is why the bill also proposes to increase the exemption for employment income from $5,000 to $6,500. That measure would enable seniors who want to work a little more to do so without being penalized when their benefits are calculated.

Bill C‑261 includes two primary measures. First, it increases the full OAS pension by 10% for all pensioners 65 and older. In practical terms, it allows seniors from 65 to 74 to receive the same amount as pensioners 75 and older. Second, it raises the exemption on employment income from $5,000 to $6,500 for the purposes of calculating the GIS. Both measures have the same objective: to give seniors more breathing room, to acknowledge their contribution and to allow them to live with more dignity.

I want to address some criticism. There are people who will say that this measure is too expensive. However, the real question is this: What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of homelessness among seniors? What is the cost of the preventable hospitalization of someone who lowered their dose of medication or stopped eating enough? What is the cost of social isolation? What is the cost of lowering the income of older women and forcing them to stay in abusive situations because they cannot afford to leave? Investing in seniors' incomes means preventing much more serious and costly social problems.

Others fear that the old age security increase will reduce the guaranteed income supplement. However, an increase in OAS does not affect pensions under the Quebec pension plan and does not automatically reduce the GIS. There may be specific effects depending on certain tax situations, but the measures are clearly aimed at improving the disposable income of the vast majority of seniors.

It is ultimately a matter of consistency. The government says it wants to fight poverty. It says it wants to prevent homelessness. It says it wants to support women who are victims of violence. It says it wants to encourage active aging. The government cannot claim to be fighting against the vulnerability of seniors while maintaining a policy that excludes most seniors. However, the government still refuses to correct an obvious injustice toward seniors aged 65 to 74.

In conclusion, seniors built our communities. They have worked, paid taxes, raised families, supported loved ones, built businesses, sustained our regions and passed on their experience. Today, many are living on less than $25,000 or $35,000 a year, while the cost of housing, groceries, medication and essential services continues to rise. Bill C‑261 is a matter of fairness, respect and dignity. It is also a concrete response to the risks of homelessness, poverty among senior women, isolation, economic violence and the loss of purchasing power. We have a duty to correct the injustice created between seniors aged 65 to 74 and seniors aged 75 and over.

For that reason, the Bloc Québécois encourages all parliamentarians to support this bill and send a clear message to seniors that they matter, that they have contributed and that they deserve to live and age with dignity. I seriously urge us to put an end to this injustice and show some dignity in the House. I hope there will be Liberals who will fight to challenge the party line and vote in favour of this bill.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about an issue that matters to Canadians in every region of our country, which is how we can better support seniors and ensure they can live and age with dignity, security and independence.

Seniors have helped build the Canada that we know today. They have raised families, built businesses, contributed to their communities, volunteered their time and strengthened our economy through decades of hard work. For example, in my riding of Honoré-Mercier, Italian Canadians helped build Rivière des Prairies decades ago, and with their hard work, built a strong community.

While I am here, I would also like to wish Italian seniors in my riding a happy Italian Heritage Month.

Seniors deserve a retirement that is secure, dignified and supported by strong public programs. Over the past several years, the federal government has taken steps to strengthen Canada's retirement income system and improve the financial security of older Canadians. We increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over, responding to data that showed that the older people get, the more expenses they have.

We have also strengthened the Canada pension plan, helping future retirees receive higher pension benefits. In fact, in the recent spring economic update, our government signalled our plans to reduce Canada pension plan contributions to 9.5%.

Additionally, recognizing the rising cost of living, we provided targeted support to Canadians. Measures such as pausing the federal fuel excise tax, cutting income tax for middle-class Canadians and investing in housing, infrastructure and the economy are helping Canadians across the country no matter their age.

It is important to acknowledge the intent behind Bill C-261. All members of the House share the goal of improving the well-being of seniors. For example, I think of my colleague from Winnipeg North, who is probably one of the strongest advocates for seniors and inspires us all here today. We recognize that many seniors face financial pressures and that income security remains a critical issue. However, it is also important to ensure a balanced and sustainable approach to the Canadian pension system so that it continues to benefit generations to come.

When our government increased old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and older, that decision was informed by evidence showing that older seniors generally face greater financial vulnerability. As Canadians age, they are more likely to experience declining health, increasing health care-related expenses and reduced opportunities to supplement their income through employment. They are also more likely to outlive their savings and other retirement resources. This is a sound decision supported by data.

With respect to the proposal to increase the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption, we recognize the value of helping seniors who choose to remain in the workforce. Many older Canadians continue to work part-time, whether to supplement their income, remain active or just maintain social connections. That is why in 2019, the federal government increased the GIS work exemption to $5,000, allowing seniors to keep receiving their full pensions without being penalized for taking up some time to supplement their income.

Canada's population is aging. The number of seniors is growing rapidly, including in my own riding, and expenditures on the retirement income program continue to increase. This reality requires thoughtful policy decisions that balance the importance of our public pension system with the current workforce, which supports it and expects it to be there for them when they retire.

Our government knows that supporting seniors and investing in younger Canadians are not competing priorities. We can and must do both. That is why we have supported measures such as strengthening and protecting retirement benefits for seniors while also investing in housing, skills training, education and affordability measures that help younger Canadians build secure futures and grow the economy.

Every member of the House wants seniors to live with dignity and financial security. We all share a commitment to ensuring that older Canadians receive the support they need. For the generations that built this country, that commitment remains unwavering.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise, as we were not sure I would have enough time.

I would like to thank my two colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, who spoke so eloquently, as well as my colleague from King—Vaughan, who gave a really poignant speech about seniors. She is able to do so because she travels around many ridings. As the Conservative Party of Canada's critic for seniors, she is well aware of everything to do with seniors and what affects them, especially when it comes to the cost of living.

I think that, in the House, we all have an opportunity in front of us. As members of Parliament, we have an opportunity to use our power to correct a situation that is hurting seniors aged 65 and over. I hope we all have enough dignity and foresight to show compassion and take action.

The problem is very simple. In 2021, the Liberal government decided to take an important step, make a meaningful gesture, by increasing the pensions of seniors aged 75 and older by 10%. However, it stopped halfway. The government omitted a significant portion of seniors from its approach, namely people aged 65 to 74. They were completely excluded from this increase. That created inequity and an unusual situation. As parliamentarians, as people who meet with seniors all the time, we cannot allow this situation to continue. We absolutely must use this opportunity to fix this.

Our Bloc Québécois colleagues tried to do so once. Everyone here agreed, except the Liberals. The bill died on the Order Paper because it required a royal recommendation, since it involved spending.

My colleague worked tirelessly to reintroduce a bill. Since we are so stubborn, we decided to support it once again. We are giving our colleagues on the government side an opportunity to take action and get it right.

Seniors are not asking for a handout. These are people who have worked hard all their lives, who have contributed to society and who, at age 65, need an income, especially during these very difficult times when the cost of living has skyrocketed to levels not seen in 40 years. While their fixed incomes remain the same, the cost of living continues to add to their headaches. Between paying for food, medication and housing, seniors can no longer make ends meet.

What the bill says is that we will be fair and fix the situation. Someone somewhere made a mistake, and we are going to fix it. We will allow seniors aged 65 to 74 to receive the same increase, an increase of 10%, as was granted to seniors aged 75 and over in 2021.

Another interesting approach in the bill is that it gives seniors who want to continue working the opportunity to do so without being penalized because their income is too high. That plays a role in determining the amount they can receive under the GIS.

The bill tabled by Mrs. DeBellefeuille proposes an increase from $5,000 to $6,5000 to accurately reflect the situation of many seniors who decide to work. Some work because they have to in order to make ends meet. Others do so to keep up their spirits and stay in good health. Still, it is not right for the government to creep up from behind and take their money.

I congratulate my colleague.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would remind the hon. member that she cannot use the names of her colleagues in the House.

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

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

Steel and Aluminum Industry

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, steel is not just another commodity in a trade ledger. Steel is the backbone of our economy. It builds our bridges, our transit systems, our housing, our energy projects and our manufacturing capacity. It is quite simply economic sovereignty in physical form, and if we cannot make it here, we are not economically sovereign.

Steelworkers were in Ottawa recently to remind the government of that reality, and they were very clear. They did not come for photo ops; they came for a plan. They came for a national steel strategy, because steelworkers know something the government too often forgets: We do not build national economies by shutting out the people who actually do the work, the people who actually build.

The United Steelworkers are calling for a comprehensive national steel industrial strategy, one that invests in domestic capacity, that strengthens supply chains and that protects good union jobs across this country. They are joined by the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents over three million workers who have been equally clear that workers must be at the table when decisions are being made about their futures. Right now, that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing CEOs and political insiders included in advisory structures. We are seeing labour excluded or minimized, and we are seeing the very people who built this economy treated as an afterthought in the decisions that shape it.

That raises a simple question for me: How can the government claim to stand with workers while locking them out of the room?

We have seen what happens when we invest in Canadian steel capacity. In Sault Ste. Marie, recent steel investments that were supported by the United Steelworkers and Local 2251 helped modernize production, and that is a great step, but it is a one-off. That is not a strategy, and what we need in this country is a strategy to move us forward. When steel is strong, the communities in which steelworkers work are strong, and when steel is weakened, everything else follows.

I asked the government two simple questions. Will it work with the United Steelworkers to develop and implement a comprehensive national steel strategy? Why has it excluded labour, specifically the USW and the Canadian Labour Congress, from the CUSMA advisory council? Of course, we were happy to see that Unifor was included in that, but for the three million Canadians represented by the Canadian Labour Congress, not having the CLC at that table is a very big oversight.

We are in a period of extraordinary trade instability. Tariffs and trade disruptions from the United States are not theoretical. They are real, and they are already hurting Canadian workers. That does not mean things on a spreadsheet. That means people not being able to pay their mortgage, not being able to pay their bills and not knowing where their next paycheque is coming from.

We need to see more urgency, we need to see more action and we need to see the government recognize the impact this is having on Canadian workers.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to comments by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding the buy Canadian policy and the use of Canadian materials in public projects.

We have taken decisive and unprecedented action to help Canadian steel and aluminum producers secure a larger share of the Canadian market. With that in mind, one key element of our response to U.S. tariffs is to ensure that, moving forward, we become our own best customer. We are therefore prioritizing Canadian steel and aluminum in government procurement contracts through our buy Canadian policy. This policy ensures that federal spending prioritizes Canadian suppliers. For example, Canadian steel and aluminum will be used in future infrastructure projects, including ports, bridges and energy projects.

The government's buy Canadian policy stimulates our economy while supporting local businesses and workers. By gearing government contracts to Canadian businesses, we keep investments in our country, support small and medium-sized businesses and strengthen supply chain resilience. This approach helps create good-paying jobs, encourages local production and reduces dependence on unstable global markets. It also ensures that taxpayer dollars provide communities with maximum benefits, while fostering sustainable and reliable production. It is worth noting that this approach does not mean we are closing our borders. Rather, it means we are building a stronger, more independent economy that puts Canada on the road to long-term prosperity and shared growth.

To further facilitate this transition, notably through the $5-billion strategic response fund, we are supporting companies that are shifting their production to Canadian supply chains. This program will provide Canadian steel and aluminum companies with the support they need to manufacture products that are in demand in the domestic market but are not yet produced here. Furthermore, in a trade environment marked by growing protectionism, the ongoing need for investment in defence equipment manufacturing and critical infrastructure is helping Canadian companies shift their production to meet domestic needs.

Our government remains focused on stimulating domestic demand so that Canadian businesses and workers in the steel and aluminum sectors can maintain and expand their operations. Above all, we will continue to support Canadian workers and businesses affected by the instability caused by the arbitrary and unfair tariffs imposed by the U.S. government.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that response shows that the government is not acting with the urgency that workers require. Instead of a place at the table, and instead of an actual strategy, the government is giving announcements without accountability and consultations without inclusion, and it is getting public dollars without finding guarantees.

This is why New Democrats are very clear: Every federal dollar spent to support Canadian industry must come with enforceable conditions, not voluntary commitments and not good intentions, but legal and binding protections for Canadian jobs, Canadian production and Canadian workers. There must be no more blank cheques to corporations and broken promises to workers. If taxpayers take the risk, workers deserve the return. This is not radical. This is basic accountability.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government remains in constant communication with businesses and workers in the steel and aluminum industries.

On April 29, the Prime Minister's new Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations held its first meeting. This forum will help us better understand the impact of the situation and strengthen our ability to respond to future developments.

While quick responses remain important in the short term, our government will continue to work with industry to develop long-term strategies that build resilience, support workers and position Canadian businesses to succeed in an ever-changing and competitive North American market.

We will always protect Canadian interests and promote stable, predictable and fair international trade.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight because, on May 6, I asked the Liberal Minister of Health how much more money she was planning on giving Canada Health Infoway, given that it had blown $300 million on PrescribeIT for no tangible benefit to the taxpayer. She answered that the CEO of Canada Health Infoway's “behaviour was [totally] unacceptable”, and that is why she asked the board of directors to fire him. Then she said that she was going to give Canada Health Infoway another $50 million this year. I will say, I am grateful that she gave a clear-cut, numerical answer rather than dodging the question. That is commendable. However, that clear-cut, numerical answer was totally unacceptable.

Why would she give such a backward organization another $50 million this year? That is my question.

I have a bit more time, so I want to say that I took the unprecedented step tonight of emailing this question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Health's staff. I would never break the rules in this place and comment on the presence or absence of another member; however, I do want to share that I have a terrible feeling that I will be disappointed and that neither of them will answer my question tonight.

When this organization came to health committee, I asked its chair, after $4 billion had been pumped into this organization, after 20 years, could he name one tangible program, something it managed, directed, built or designed, that is currently benefiting taxpayers? He could not. He only said that it rolled out a lot of federal funding, answering in vague platitudes.

It seems to me that Canada Health Infoway has become a slush fund. The Liberals shovel money at it and then Liberal insiders shovel money around, including to lobbying firms such as Crestview Strategy and, I think, Summer Strategies was the other one. Obviously, it is badly run. The Liberals say it is independent, but then the health minister calls it up and gets the CEO fired.

Why would they give such a backward organization another $50 million this year?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not disappointed that I am providing an answer or a perspective on a very important issue.

There is a big difference between the Conservatives' approach and the government's approach in dealing with the important issue of health care. The issue the government has been attempting to deal with is something that incorporates the Internet and AI and includes many different stakeholders. The purpose of it is to see how we can deliver a better service to Canadians in the whole area of health care.

I had the opportunity to visit a doctor or two over the last six months, and I found it quite intriguing to see a doctor pull up information on his computer, make a prescription request and see the medications I have received. When people go from one doctor's office to another doctor's office and then to a pharmacy, I suspect they are all getting very similar information, information that is advantageous to the consumer or client, the individual receiving it.

I say that because I think it is important for us to recognize that as we advance through technology, there is a role for a national government to look at ways it could potentially complement or, in many ways, lead the reforms or manage the changes that are necessary in order to deliver the quality of health care that Canadians expect and deserve. That means, at times, that when we take that leadership role, if there is no take-up on it from other jurisdictions, provinces in particular, at some point in time, we need to recognize that we might have to change what the initial objectives might have been. It does not take away from the fact that the government does have a responsibility in delivering, as much as possible, and contributing to the best health care system we can have.

What I see in this whole program is something a little different from what the member is putting on the table. I see a government that has recognized that the federal government does have an obligation to provide, where it can, some leadership on important files. I am sure if the member were to consult with his constituents, he would find that his constituents, like mine, want a national government to show where there are opportunities for technology. Even though it might not have developed to the degree we would have liked to see in terms of the buy-in, I believe that at the end of the day, we will have a stronger health care system because there will be other entities, whether territories or provinces, that will be able to reflect on what Ottawa was attempting to do and learn from it in different ways.

I would suggest that there are many different stakeholders in our health care system, whether they are pharmacists, clients or doctors, and at the end of the day we all have a way to contribute in managing the changes that are necessary to ensure that we have first-quality health care. At times, there might—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's first question, I am terribly disappointed. That was no answer at all.

I know my constituents very well. I am from the Waterloo region. It is the tech capital of Canada. My constituents, those who work in tech, would love to get a $50-million contract to do nothing. This organization, after 20 years and $4 billion, has done nothing tangible. I am asking the government why it is giving this organization another $50 million, and the member could not point to anything it is going to do. It is going to look at some things. He went to his doctor's office and the doctor was using technology. I am a doctor, and doctors use technology without Canada Health Infoway blowing $50 million on lobbying firms to tell us to use it.

The government needs to stop it. My constituents beg the government to stop it. Do not give this $50 million away. Give it back to taxpayers, build hospitals or hire nurses with it, but stop doing this, please.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many different things the federal government does in terms of improving the quality of health care for Canadians. The member said to build hospitals. We actually have a capital fund of $5 billion that is going to be out there to assist provinces in doing just what the member is suggesting. For example, I have talked about the Seven Oaks General Hospital and the Victoria Hospital re-establishing emergency services.

I compliment the member for providing medical services to his constituents and beyond. I think we need to start thinking of ways, as I am sure the member would acknowledge, for us to reform, make changes and demonstrate leadership in our health care area. If we are not prepared to manage the changes that are needed into the future, we will not be able to deliver the type of quality health care Canadians want to see. I am sure he would recognize that fact.

It does not mean that every area is going to be laid out in a perfect form. I just believe that, at the end of the day, it is important, whether it is the federal government or provincial government, that we look at ways to incorporate technology and use the technology—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister a simple question: Will the Liberal government defend the private property rights of British Columbians in response to the Cowichan decision, yes or no? The member for Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby said that Conservatives, myself included, were fearmongering. However, British Columbians were not imagining what was happening. Real people and real businesses are already feeling the consequences of the Cowichan decision. Real estate deals have been abandoned. The provincial government has had to backstop mortgages, and investment is draining out of British Columbia. A survey from the Business Council of British Columbia found that almost 74% of B.C. businesses plan to decrease investment due to uncertainty over DRIPA, which is the provincial equivalent of the federal UNDRIP legislation; 73% said it is harder to access external financing; and one in three respondents said they are reducing hiring plans.

The CEO of Wesbild Holdings said to Global News, “If you asked us today whether we’re going to invest in land in B.C., the answer is no.” In March, the Vancouver Sun reported that property values in Richmond could decrease by up to 40%. For many families, that means their home, their biggest asset, is suddenly at risk. This is not theoretical. Business owners and homeowners are facing the consequences of the government's refusal or denial to prioritize and protect fee simple titles.

Last week, the government could have made a commitment to defend private property and remove previous instructions to its lawyers. Instead, it left British Columbia in further uncertainty, sending a signal that Canada is becoming a riskier place to invest. Thankfully, the Supreme Court refused to hear the New Brunswick Wolastoqey Nation case.

Conservatives will continue to push the government to pursue a policy and a legal position that protects private property rights for all British Columbians.

[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, let me start by pointing out that the Government of Canada will be in a much better position to speak publicly once we have formally submitted our arguments for the appeal. The Cowichan case remains before the courts, and it is important that all members of the House, including me, speak carefully and responsibly while that process is under way.

I will emphasize that keeping private property predictable and stable is our priority. We are carefully considering all viable arguments on the appeal to protect private property rights while also respecting the Constitution.

I recognize the uncertainty and concern many Canadians might be feeling right now, particularly private property owners in British Columbia. We hear those concerns and are working to get the clarity that everyone in Canada is deserves. Private property ownership is a foundational part of Canada's legal system. It gives people predictability and confidence in their homes and businesses. It is important to Canadians, it is important to our economy, and it is important to all of us.

All parties to the decision are seeking greater clarity from the courts as its interpretation and implications are clarified. To gain that clarity, the Government of Canada's grounds for appeal are focusing on specific legal questions.

We are also hoping to gain additional clarity through the Montrose application, which seeks to reopen the trial in a limited way and add Montrose as a party to the proceedings. The Montrose application was heard by the British Columbia Supreme Court on May 25 and 26, 2026. Justice Young has reserved her decision, and there is no indication of when she will give her decision.

Canada's response is consistent with the position it took in 2017 when Canada applied for private landowners within the claim area to be made aware of the case. It is important that parties that may be affected by the court's decision have an opportunity to be heard. Private landowners are best placed to share any uncertainty they are feeling arising from the decisions that could impact them.

If the Montrose application is successful, it would allow Montrose to participate formally in the proceedings as a party or intervenor, and it would reopen portions of the trial so evidence and perspectives related to the impacts of the ruling on Montrose can be considered by the court. It would also introduce evidence that was not before the court during the trial.

Our approach going forward continues to be grounded in respect and constructive dialogue with all parties. This is the foundation for both advancing reconciliation and addressing further uncertainty. This approach is also how we negotiate on modern treaties and self-government agreements with first nations. These types of agreements provide clarity, stability and long-term predictability for everyone. Importantly, these measures provide a path forward that respects privately owned property while addressing land claims responsibly.

We will keep working to gain the needed clarity that the member opposite seeks and that, I am sure, all British Columbians and all Canadians seek from the courts to build a future grounded in respect, stability and lasting predictability for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his response this evening. I am glad he raised the Montrose application.

What is problematic is that when the court case commenced, it was only the City of Richmond and not the Government of Canada that explicitly made arguments in favour of fee simple land. Part of the uncertainty today is because the Government of Canada did not make those arguments or use the language that even the parliamentary secretary is using this evening in favour of property rights.

My hope for British Columbia is that the Government of Canada revises its legal arguments with the opportunity from the Montrose application and stands firmly in favour of private property rights to move Canada's economy forward and improve exports out of British Columbia, which are in question as a result of this case.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern.

As I said in the remarks I have given here tonight, we understand that the decision may cause uncertainty and concern for private landowners. People want to know what this means for their homes, their communities and their futures. We hear those concerns, and we take them very seriously. Keeping private property predictable and stable is fundamental, and we will advance all viable arguments in court to protect it. Our goal is to advance reconciliation in a practical and responsible way that both respects indigenous rights and also gives property owners confidence and peace of mind.

We will keep working collaboratively with all parties to the litigation and remain available to them throughout this process.

[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 7:16 p.m.)