James Bezan

[Arctic Gateway, April 22nd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, Canada needs an Arctic gateway to get our energy, commodities and resources from the prairies to the world. Hudson Bay offers two great locations: at Churchill and Port Nelson. Sitting on the shores of Hudson Bay, they offer the shortest shipping routes from the Canadian prairies to Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Energy companies stand ready to move liquefied natural gas through Port Nelson. The port of Churchill is already connected by rail and hydro and has enormous potential to enhance intermodal traffic through CentrePort.

Conservatives have been calling for the renewal of the port of Churchill for years so we can protect Canada's Arctic sovereignty and get our LNG, oil and critical minerals to market. Alberta supports it. Saskatchewan supports it. Even Manitoba's NDP premier supports it.

The Prime Minister is the only one left standing in the way, and his Major Projects Office has completely ignored this underutilized Arctic gateway. He has had all the power he needs for over a year, but we have heard nothing but silence. It is time for the Prime Minister to stop stalling and start delivering for Manitobans, and all western Canadians.

[Points of Order, April 20th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on Friday afternoon by the deputy government House leader concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11.

The six amendments contested by the honourable member for London West, almost 10 weeks after they were reported by the committee, have one thing in common: They were originally ruled out of order by the committee's chair. Let me remind the House that a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible.

Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3327 of the Debates, on an amendment that the committee had made to Bill C-4, you reached a different conclusion from that that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had reached concerning the need for a royal recommendation. Similarly, on December 2, 2025, you reached a different conclusion from that of the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning the application of the so-called parent act rule to an amendment to Bill C-12 in a ruling found on page 4435 of the Debates.

The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority.

Bill C-11, as introduced, makes provision for the appointment, when necessary, of an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Moreover, Bill C-11 makes provision related to the responsibility of the judge advocate general and the chief military judge.

Amendment CPC-1 would make provision of a similar effect concerning vacancies in the office of the judge advocate general. In these respects, I would argue that the amendment is consistent with the scope and principle of Bill C-11, as the role of the judge advocate general is integral to the scope of the bill. To illustrate the importance, it was included in the summary of the legislation. Additionally, the importance of legislation allowing for acting roles in the Canadian Armed Forces' chains of command were addressed with the provision for an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Not only is this within the scope of the study, it fixes an unintended omission of the Liberals in the drafting phase and would ensure accountability for a role that has been vacant for extended periods of time in the past. This amendment would ensure consistency across all leaders within the military justice system.

As the deputy government House leader observed, this would require the amendment of a provision of the National Defence Act, which was not subject to other amendments in Bill C-11. While she argued that that would breach the parent act rule, I would disagree with her on this point and refer the Chair to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, delivered October 24, 2018, where he explained, starting on page 22797 of the Debates:

The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.

However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill....

The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment.

Along similar lines, amendment CPC-16 would add a timeline for the designation of a chief military judge when the office becomes vacant. What is interesting here is that the 120-day time frame in amendment CPC-16 is a product of a Liberal subamendment, and that amendment, as amended, was unanimously adopted, including by the Liberal members present voting for it that day.

Elsewhere, Bill C-11 makes provision for the appointment of a victim's liaison officer, who would have the responsibility of, in the words of the chief of the defence staff at committee, “ensuring they have the appropriate support to navigate the justice system”.

Amendment CPC-10 would make similar provision for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused. This would be consistent with Bill C-11's proposal to ensure that individuals from outside the justice system who find themselves interacting with that system have the appropriate support to navigate it, which the chief of the defence staff testified about herself. As such, I would submit that this amendment is within the scope and principle of Bill C-11.

Next, there is amendment BQ-2, concerning an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Bill C-11 is largely about addressing sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Measures such as an inspector general for military sexual misconduct would, I respectfully submit, fall within the scope and principle of a bill that addresses military sexual misconduct. It too was unanimously supported by committee.

With respect to the deputy government House leader's concern that amendment BQ-2 would require a royal recommendation, I would argue that the amendment was carefully drawn up to impose an obligation on the Minister of National Defence to prepare and table a report concerning a plan to establish such an office. To be clear, while this amendment would get the wheels turning in this direction, it would not directly cause the appointment of, or the expenditure involved with, an inspector general. This approach is consistent with any number of private member's bills in recent years concerning frameworks, strategies and plans that have not offended the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendment BQ-3, meanwhile, would amend clause 18 with a view to increasing the pool of potential military judges, something that clause 18 of the bill was drafted to do in the first place. Furthermore, the amendment would see a serving officer or non-commissioned member appointed as a military judge released from the forces to enhance their independence. Bill C-11 contains other measures to enhance the independence of military justice system actors and to vouchsafe this independence relative to the judge advocate general. In my view, this amendment is entirely consistent with the spirit, scope and principle of Bill C-11.

Turning to amendment NDP-4, sponsored by someone who now sits in the Liberal caucus, this amendment would ensure that everyone involved in the investigation or prosecution of the offences spelled out in subclause 70(2) of Bill C-11 has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. I would point the Chair to the committee testimony of the Attorney General of Canada in an answer to a Liberal colleague's question. He stated the following:

We need to make sure that there are systems that are ready with people who are trauma-informed, with people who have appropriate training and with people who have safeguards in place to ensure that people can share their stories, know that they're going to be taken seriously and know that they'll be given whatever testimonial aids may be necessary for them to fully share their perspective.

A now Liberal MP brought forward an amendment voted for by Liberal MPs to give effect to the Liberal minister's views, which were offered in response to a Liberal caucus colleague's concerns, and now we have the deputy House leader of the Liberals trying to throw the whole thing in the recycling bin.

What is actually going on over there? Is the Prime Minister trying to use a stolen majority to force Liberals to swallow whole the very ideas they backed mere months ago? Is this a sign of what Canadians should expect from the Prime Minister, who has shown little regard for Parliament now that he is flexing power? However, I digress.

In summary, the Liberal deputy House leader is seeking your intervention to undo key portions of the national defence committee's good work on Bill C‑11, much of which her own Liberal colleagues have supported, on the premise that the committee chair's ruling has been overturned. However, as I have laid out, a committee chair's rulings are not infallible, and in the present circumstances, the amendments concerned satisfy the necessary procedural requirements.

I would ask you to find the defence committee's third report to be entirely in order and to reject the Liberal government's challenge to usurp the work that was done by committee members in good faith for all survivors of military sexual assault and misconduct.

[Sergei Magnitsky Legislation, April 16th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, as Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine drags on into its fourth year, billions of dollars in Russian state assets are collecting dust in Canada while Ukraine bleeds. The government talks about standing with Ukraine, and the Liberals are good at writing cheques using Canadian taxpayer dollars, but they will not touch the 23 billion dollars' worth of frozen Russian assets right here in Canada. These are assets that belong to the regime in Moscow waging this illegal war.

Legal experts, security analysts and human rights lawyers agree that Canada can and should forfeit these frozen Russian assets and use them to support Ukraine's defence and reconstruction. This is why I am calling on the government to quickly pass my private member's bill, Bill C-219, the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act, so Ukraine can defeat Putin's war machine, stop his imperial ambitions and begin to rebuild after Russia's barbaric invasion.

Canada can help save Ukraine by using Bill C-219. The only question is whether the Liberal government will act to hold Russia accountable for the devastation it has caused in Ukraine.

[National Defence, April 15th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, all that bragging is just talk and no action.

It is the Minister of National Defence's job to fight for the best interests of those who put on the uniform to fight for each and every one of us. These brave Canadians are deployed to Latvia and other places around the world without hesitation. They sacrifice months away from their loved ones in the name of Canada because the minister tells them they have to. It is his job to make sure they are treated as the best that this country has to offer.

Instead of making excuses or bragging, will the defence minister take responsibility and help our military families make ends meet?

[National Defence, April 15th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberals are giving to our troops with one hand but taking with the other. The Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence love to brag about their fake raise they gave to the forces. The reality is that many of our troops are taking home less on their paycheques because of Liberal policy changes. Sadly, military families were only given one week's notice before the change to their out-of-pocket, out-of-country living allowances, in some cases reducing their take-home pay by up to $1,500.

Why are the Liberals shortchanging frontline troops who are putting their lives on the line to defend Canada?

[National Defence, March 26th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is busy grandstanding once again, bragging about how much he is spending on defence, but it is all just an illusion. He stood up a new agency, hired more bureaucrats and created a taxpayer-funded bank. He is issuing massive corporate subsidies to large defence contractors and enriching Liberal insiders. Meanwhile, Canada has only 300 troops defending the Arctic, and half our equipment is unusable. We do not even have new fighter jets or anyone who can actually fly them.

Why is the Prime Minister wasting money on backroom bureaucrats and corporate insiders instead of giving our frontline troops the equipment they need?

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, March 24th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for bringing forward Bill C-235, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, which would amend the Criminal Code.

The bill is about putting victims' rights first. It would do that through amendments to the Criminal Code, which, as was already articulated very well by our shadow minister for justice, the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, would increase the parole ineligibility that a jury can recommend to a judge for people convicted of committing the most heinous of crimes, to anywhere from 25 years up to 40 years. The discretionary powers would be given to the judge, who could also take into consideration the offender's character, the nature of the crime and the jury's recommendation to impose the same 25 to 40 years of parole ineligibility at the time of sentencing.

It is important we talk about the fact that this bill is not about increasing stiffer penalties for these sadistic murderers. We are talking about the most depraved of society. We are talking about those who kidnap, rape and kill the most vulnerable, such as children, women and often the elderly. Those who commit some of the most heinous acts are those we are targeting through this bill.

The bill is about saving the families of the victims from having to go through the agony of attending these unnecessary and traumatic parole hearings. We have to remember that somebody who is serving a life sentence of up to 25 years can start applying for parole at year 23. Often, these individuals, who have been incarcerated for committing the most despicable acts of abduction, sexual assault and murder, use this as a way to feed their own depravity by having the families come in, seeing them face to face and having them live through the trauma of what happened. The bill would give the jury and judges the power to make the decision, as defined by the charter and as respected under our common law, to determine whether to give 25 to 40 years of parole ineligibility.

I originally drafted this bill back in 2013, when it was tabled as Bill C-478 in the 41st Parliament. Later that year, in 2013, I was promoted to parliamentary secretary, so I was not allowed to carry forward the bill. It was dropped and was then picked up by one of our former colleagues, Colin Mayes, a former British Columbia member of Parliament, as Bill C-587. It passed second reading and was supported by the Liberals, the NDP and some independents, along with the Conservatives, on September 24, 2014.

In 2016, I reintroduced the bill as Bill C-266 after the election, and it passed second reading on May 16, 2019. Again, the Conservatives and the Liberals supported it. That bill made it through committee and came out in 2019, but of course in 2019 we had another election, so it was lost.

In 2021, it was retabled as Bill C-267 by the member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry and was also presented simultaneously at that time in the Senate by then senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, as Bill S-224.

In the 44th Parliament, in 2022, I retabled this bill as Bill C-296, but it was way down on the Order Paper and of course never made it through. In this Parliament, here in the first draw, I am glad to see that my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has picked up this bill and is running forward with it, with some very personal experiences on this as well from people in his riding who have been impacted.

I want to talk about the nexus of why I did this. Back in 2009 and 2010, we were hearing about the terrible abduction, rape and murder of Tori Stafford. In 2010, Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and prosecuted. Then Michael Rafferty, her partner in crime for this horrendous and disgusting act, was sentenced in 2012.

During this time, while I think all of our hearts were breaking listening to this story as it played out on the airwaves, Clifford Olson was dying from cancer in prison. I heard Sharon Rosenfeldt talk on the radio about how the murderer, who killed a number of children, impacted them. When he was getting ready for parole board hearings, he would send letters to the families of the victims and describe in detail how he tortured, raped and killed their children.

It is because of that sadistic behaviour, the tormenting of families and the use of parole board hearings to feed his own sick appetite, that it became clear that we had to do something to protect the families. I knew full well that both Michael Rafferty and Terry-Lynne McClintic were going to be eligible for parole sometime around 2033 because they killed Tori Stafford.

I believe that all Canadians would consider it unacceptable that families have to go through this ongoing saga of parole board hearings every couple of years and that these monsters who stole their loved ones and killed them sadistically continue to have the opportunity to retraumatize the families.

There have been a number of legal arguments about increasing parole ineligibility, consecutive sentencing and the like. I can say that this bill was fashioned after Bill C-48 in the 40th Parliament, the protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murders act, as well as Bill S-6 from the 40th Parliament, which also provided parole ineligibility at the discretion of the courts, and that is charter compliant.

I want to read into the record some of the quotes that we have heard over the years.

Susan Ashley, whose sister Linda Bright was murdered in 1978 by Donald Armstrong, said, about the parole board hearings in the past, “My heart breaks having to live through this again. My heart breaks having to watch my Mom and Dad drag up their thoughts and pain from that deep place inside them where they tuck their hurt away”.

She did an interview in the London Free Press back in 2012. Susan stated, referring to Donald Armstrong, “He cannot be fixed. And to put him in the community, it's a public risk to any woman that he can have access to. My family and myself, we really don't want to see another family victimized like we were. It's a terrible thing to have to endure, it's a lifetime of pain and suffering.”

Linda's mother, Margaret, said during her victim impact statement, “This is not fair. We should not have to relive our tragedy. When I remember my daughter, let me remember her as a little girl. Don't make me think about the other awful time in 1978.... Let me tell you this has been the most difficult thing I've had to do in the last 20 years”.

Gary Rosenfeldt, Sharon Rosenfeldt's husband, who was a stepfather to Daryn Johnsrude, said publicly, after going through a number of parole hearings against Clifford Olsen in 1997, 2006 and 2010, when there was still the faint hope clause: “What's really horrendous about this...is this is only the beginning. We're going to have to do this every two years as long as Olson lives. And this is a very painful experience for myself, my family.”

Darlene Prioriello was abducted, raped, mutilated and murdered by David James Dobson back in 1982. Darlene's sister, Terri, said this about having to go through these unnecessary, repetitive and painful parole board hearings: “Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice.” In the Toronto Star, in talking about her mother reading her victim impact statement, she said, “I listened to her read it and it was like she was burying Dolly all over again. It was so upsetting for Mom. She cried. Families shouldn't have to go through this all over again.”

Yvonne Harvey of the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children said, “Although I have not personally faced the ordeal of a parole hearing, I have spoken to many individuals who have. I am certain that the primary intent of this bill, to spare the families of victims from having to attend unnecessary parole hearings, would be most welcomed.”

I ask that all members of the House allow this bill to get to committee so that we can stop the revictimization of families by these monsters who are convicted and will never qualify for parole.

[The Economy, March 24th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing Canadian workers, farmers and businesses. The Prime Minister promised he would have a trade deal done nine months ago, but we are still waiting. He is not even willing to sit at the negotiating table. While he dithers and delays, Canada has lost over 100,000 jobs in the first two months of this year alone. Our economy is shrinking. We have the second-highest unemployment, the highest household debt and the highest food inflation in the G7.

If the Prime Minister is looking for someone to blame, all he needs to do is look in the mirror. His government is running the biggest deficit in history and blocking growth with anti-energy laws. It added more bureaucratic red tape to construction projects and imposed an industrial carbon tax that punishes Canadian farmers and manufacturers. All this Liberal mismanagement results in our economy shrinking, jobs disappearing and our national debt rapidly growing out of control.

If the Prime Minister will not take blame, will he just get out of the way so Canadians can get back to work?

[Combatting Hate Act, March 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that clarification from the member for Waterloo, because we are talking about report stage. We are talking about the amendments that were made, and that it is repealing section 319(3.1) and 3(b) of the act, which is the area that provides—

[Combatting Hate Act, March 23rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, that was dealt with through unanimous consent, but we are not debating just the short title. That has been dealt with. What we are talking about is how the Liberals, on page two, would repeal paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code—