Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt)
4043-03-22 12:20:00
Thank you. We will now move on to Mr. Dong for five minutes..
Mr. Han Dong (Don Valley North, Lib.)
4043-03-22 12:20:00
Thank you, Madam Chair. This study is great. It kind of takes me back to where we were in 2020. We were fighting a war against COVID-19 and a war we weren't prepared for. I remember, while the health care workers were fighting on the front line, the entire population was working together, whether donating PPE or looking after a neighbour or a friend in quarantine. Then we had our MPs and senators working together. I remember the days when we had those technical briefings on a daily basis. We put aside politics and would give ideas, observations and public service. And you were there every day taking the advice and acting on it. The entire nation was fighting against one single enemy. I really miss those days, by the way. With that, I just want to say a sincere thank you to Public Health and especially to the procurement folks. You guys worked magic in a hyper-competitive market. It's not buying product to satisfy wonks. It's actually buying product to save lives. So every country was being super-competitive going to market and purchasing PPE. Unfortunately, Canada did not have the capacity to produce our own PPE, and you folks had to work around the clock—literally, because some of the producers around the globe are in different time zones. So I just want to say a sincere thank you to the witnesses here today. To Mr. Thompson, can you tell us how your department, in a very short period of time, secured the amount of PPE Canada needed? In Parliament we talk about how the provinces are really having shortages, but we actually never see the bottom of the barrel. It was because our international procurement was doing the magic for a short period of time, and then domestic production capacity caught up. But tell us, what exactly did you do to secure those contracts?.
Mr. Paul Thompson
4043-03-22 12:20:00
As I alluded to in my remarks, a lot of it was just pure effort at the beginning, with the teams working around the clock. But it was also leveraging flexibilities we introduced to make it easier to secure products, such as the ability to delegate authority so we could move quickly, and to use sole-source contracts or advance payments where required. Those were just some of the flexibilities we needed, because we knew when there was a supply available, we needed to move super-fast to secure it..
Mr. Han Dong
4043-03-22 12:20:00
Exactly. On the report, 50% of the suppliers got this financial viability assessment. That means 50% didn't. Can you tell us what percentage of the contracts weren't honoured—i.e., for whatever various reasons they couldn't deliver the product at the end of the day?.
Mr. Paul Thompson
4043-03-22 12:20:00
With respect to situations where there was advance payment as part of the mix, the vast majority of those were delivered in accordance with the contract. And in the very small number of cases where there didn't happen, there's legal action to recover the payments. But it was a successful endeavour in the vast majority of cases, and the goods and/or the services were delivered in accordance with the contracts..
Mr. Han Dong
4043-03-22 12:20:00
To build on this success going forward, do you see perhaps a need to develop an emergency procurement protocol so that in case we have a global pandemic or something major happens, the government can have a different set of rules in terms of procurement that will protect the public interest and the integrity of the system? Meanwhile, we get products procured quickly..
Mr. Paul Thompson
4043-03-22 12:20:00
That is certainly one of the lessons learned, and the Auditor General's report is helpful in this regard as to how we can institutionalize some of these practices and make sure that we approach it more systematically. We have a checklist, as was alluded to earlier, so that we know when we're in a situation like this we can follow a set of predetermined procedures. We have procedures in place to rely on financial experts, for example, on this issue of financial viability of the suppliers. Compared to the beginning of the pandemic, it has been a lot more systematized for if and when we face similar situations going forward. We still are facing challenges, for example, with procuring rapid tests, which is one of the key areas where we continue to push..
Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt)
4043-03-22 12:20:00
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I would like to thank the witnesses for coming today. We need to suspend the meeting to go in camera. Members, you will have to log off and log in for the in camera part of the meeting. Thank you. [Proceedings continue in camera].
Ted Falk (Provencher)
2026-03-11 17:30:00
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully and my Liberal colleague was speaking, at the end of his speech, about the benefits to an organization like Hatch. Who does Hatch work for? Actually, I want to ask a few more questions. When the Prime Minister travels to China, who gets a billion-dollar loan? When the Prime Minister travels to Washington, who gets an $80-billion nuclear contract? When the Prime Minister travels to Europe, who gets a multi-year lease extension? When the Prime Minister travels to India, who gets a $2.6-billion uranium deal? The answer is the same to each one of those questions: Brookfield does. Part of this agreement is preferential access for Brookfield in Indonesia's renewable energy, clean-tech and critical minerals sectors through reduced barriers. Who is the Prime Minister working for, Canada or Brookfield?.
Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville)
2026-03-11 17:30:00
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is focused on Canadians and on building Canada strong. It is about diversifying our economy and making us more resilient. Right around the world, he is well respected to do that, and that is why people in Europe, Asia and around the world are reaching out to Canada. It is because the Prime Minister is out there working as hard as he can to deliver for Canadians. I could not be prouder of the Prime Minister and the work that he is doing in diversifying our economy. We have some big goals and we are going to achieve them..
Andréanne Larouche (Shefford)
2026-03-11 17:30:00
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to ask my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton that question, but I will ask this colleague instead. I am a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and we are very interested in finding ways to strengthen laws to ensure that the products we buy are not tainted with blood. Working groups have pointed out the existence of forced labour and human rights violations in Indonesian supply chains. We really want to encourage the government to include strong protections for workers, indigenous communities and the environment. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the agreement that offers these groups binding protections. On the contrary, the agreement represents a step backwards on the progress that has been made to protect workers in Canadian trade agreements. My question is this: Why did the government fail to include this crucial issue?.
Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville)
2026-03-11 17:35:00
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to talk about this agreement. As members can see, it is a comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Within that partnership, there are labour provisions. There are environmental provisions that are part of this agreement. It is an agreement that is looking to raise standards and provide the stability and the predictability that we are all looking for. We believe in a rules-based order, and that is what an agreement like this agreement between Canada and Indonesia brings to the table. This is the type of agreement that I would hope the member would support. I would think that she is going to be voting in favour because she understands that this agreement would actually raise the standard and bring us to a better level..
Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan)
2026-03-11 17:35:00
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for being such a strong advocate for jobs in his riding and for the city of Mississauga. Could the member share with the House which sectors he believes hold the greatest opportunities for trade diversification and for expanding Canada's trade in the years ahead?.
Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville)
2026-03-11 17:35:00
Mr. Speaker, there are many sectors, but I will speak to one in particular for the member and his many constituents, which is the aerospace sector. Indonesia is spending about $1 billion in aerospace as it grows, buying planes for commercial use, for defence, etc., and Canada has only a bit of that investment. We get about $3 million or $4 million of $1 billion. We could double, triple or quadruple and more the amount of trade that we are doing in the aerospace sector. However, every sector is touched. Be it forestry, agri-food, manufacturing or energy, it is every sector right across our country. This is a very complementary agreement that would work between Canada and Indonesia in terms of what our needs are. I foresee great growth in terms of our trade with Indonesia through this agreement..
Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2026-03-11 17:35:00
Mr. Speaker, the question I asked earlier to the Bloc Québécois, to my friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, was specifically about an Indonesian company that has bought up most of Canada's pulp and paper mills. It is called Paper Excellence. This agreement, and its investor-state agreements, will limit our ability to regulate to protect our forests and those jobs. Does the hon. member not agree?.
Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville)
2026-03-11 17:35:00
Mr. Speaker, I have so much respect for the member. These are the types of agreements, as I said in my previous answer to a question, that raise our standards to be able to make everybody better. Within the forestry sector, or any other sector, this is what we can do within the agreement. What countries, companies and investors are looking for is stability and predictability in a modern agreement. I have so much faith in our negotiators. We have the best negotiators in the world. We have tremendous trade negotiators. When they go to the table, they are always looking to make things better, so that is what this agreement does. It is looking at always improving, and that is why I am so bullish on this agreement for what it will do, not only for Canada but also for Indonesia, as we continue in our goals for diversification..
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2026-03-11 17:35:00
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent to put the question on Bill C-18 at third reading. .
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2026-03-11 17:40:00
Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried on division..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-03-11 17:40:00
Is it agreed?.
Some hon. members
2026-03-11 17:40:00
Agreed..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-03-11 17:40:00
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed).
2026-03-11 17:40:00
The House resumed from December 4, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C‑246, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-03-11 17:40:00
Is it agreed?.
Some hon. members
2026-03-11 17:40:00
Agreed..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-03-11 17:40:00
The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. .
Mr. Paul Thompson
4043-03-22 12:20:00
With respect to the importance of moving to domestic production, there has been a significant shift over the course of the pandemic to more domestic supplies. Dr. Kochhar spoke about the NESS in particular, but if you look more broadly at procurement of PPE, our estimates are that about 50% of the contracts are with domestic companies and about 40% of the value is going to domestic companies..
Andréanne Larouche (Shefford)
2026-03-11 17:40:00
Mr. Speaker, I already had an opportunity to speak about this bill for four minutes. It was at the end of the last hour. I was given four minutes to begin the debate on Bill C‑246, which deals with consecutive sentences for sexual offences. The bill aims to acknowledge the seriousness of sexual violence. Some sexual offences are among the most serious crimes in our society. They leave deep and lasting scars on victims. Victims experience psychological trauma, relationship challenges, loss of trust and sometimes an inability to get back to a normal life. Yes, indeed, sexual offences are among the most serious crimes in our society. According to Statistics Canada, level 1 sexual assaults in Canada increased from 57 to 87 per 100,000 population between 2015 and 2022, which is an increase of 52%. I also mentioned a number of figures in the first part of my speech, but I want to start with a few statistics. In Quebec, these offences increased from 45 to 98 per 100,000 population, which is an increase of 119%. In absolute terms, 20,466 sexual assaults were reported in Canada in 2015 compared to 35,956 in 2022. However, these figures should be interpreted with some caution. The important nuance is acknowledging the effect of the #MeToo movement. A large part of the increase in reports can be explained by the #MeToo movement. This movement, which emerged in 2017, has really raised collective awareness, made victims more willing to report their attackers and improved police practices in classifying complaints. In short, this does not necessarily signify an increase in the number of assaults committed, but rather an increase in the reporting and visibility of these crimes, which is a good thing. The objective of Bill C-246 is to amend the Criminal Code to require that sentences for certain sexual offences be served consecutively rather than concurrently. In other words, when a person commits multiple sexual assaults, the sentences would be served one after the other, rather than at the same time. The offences covered include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill in principle and wants it to be studied in committee, because sexual offences are serious crimes that require serious penalties. Consecutive sentences can be an acknowledgement of the seriousness of each offence and of each victim. This acknowledgement is important because victims of sexual assault often show tremendous courage in coming forward to report their attacker. We are well aware of this, but we do have some reservations. There are several factors that raise concerns. Consecutive sentences already exist. The Criminal Code already provides for the possibility of consecutive sentences. Section 718.3 provides that sentences may be served consecutively when the offences do not out of the same event or series of events. Some judges already have the discretion to impose such sentences when the situation warrants it. There is also the principle of proportionality. The Criminal Code establishes proportionality as a fundamental principle of sentencing. According to this principle, the sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The bill could potentially limit judges' ability to tailor the sentence to the specific circumstances of each case. Another thing in the Criminal Code is the totality principle. This principle provides that judges must ensure that combined sentences are not excessive. The totality principle requires that the overall sentence remain proportionate to the overall culpability of the accused. It is clear, then, that mandatory consecutive sentences could, in some cases, lead to sentences that would be considered disproportionate. Another consideration is interaction with minimum sentences. Many sexual offences already carry mandatory minimum sentences. Combining mandatory minimum sentences with mandatory consecutive sentences could result in extremely long sentences that no longer take special circumstances into account. How would this be viewed by the system? As for case law, there is the Bissonnette case. The Supreme Court ruled on the issue of consecutive sentences in the Bissonnette decision. In that case, a man had murdered six people at the Quebec City mosque in 2017. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that imposing consecutive sentences violated the principle of rehabilitation, so that case law already exists. Harsher penalties are not the only solution, either. We often hear this at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It is important to remember that increasing penalties is not in itself a solution to reducing crime, because crime is influenced by multiple factors, such as social conditions, inequality, support for vulnerable people and resources allocated to prevention. In closing, I want to talk about Quebec's example of using specialized courts. Quebec chose an interesting approach after the #MeToo movement. An expert panel drafted 190 recommendations to improve support for victims in the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”. In 2021, the Quebec National Assembly even unanimously passed a motion to create courts specializing in sexual and domestic violence. Since 2022, these courts have been rolled out in 24 cities across Quebec. They include specialized training for judges and judicial stakeholders, a specialized division of prosecutors and judges, support for victims to help them better understand their rights, and changing the layout of courthouses to ensure victims are welcomed safely and appropriately. In conclusion, sexual assault is a serious crime that must be denounced and strictly punished. Victims need to feel that their words are heard and that their suffering is recognized. Bill C‑246 therefore raises important issues. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that it can be studied in committee, where its principle will, as always, be carefully reviewed to ensure that the core principles are upheld and, most importantly, that they actually strengthen victim protection..
Connie Cody (Cambridge)
2026-03-11 17:45:00
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act, which is legislation rooted in dignity, accountability and respect for people who have survived sexual violence. Sexual crimes are among the most serious violations a person can experience. The harm reaches far beyond the moment of the offence. The effect goes beyond the physical. It can affect a person's sense of safety, trust and self-worth. For survivors, the impact does not end when the assault ends. It can follow them for years and often for a lifetime. It shapes how they move through the world, how they relate to others and whether they feel safe in their day-to-day life. In our justice system, sentencing is meant to reflect the gravity of an offence. This principle exists not only to hold offenders accountable but also to ensure that the harm done is fully acknowledged. No sentence can undo what happened, and no verdict can erase trauma, but sentencing sends a signal to survivors and to society that these crimes are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and that perpetrators will be punished accordingly. Tragically, this is often not the reality. We have seen cases where individuals are convicted of multiple sexual offences, sometimes against multiple victims, yet are given sentences that do not reflect the scope of what they have done. In Toronto, a physician was convicted of nine counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation, taking place over nearly a decade. His patients came to his practice with the expectation of professionalism and care. Doctors swear an oath to do no harm. Instead, his patients were betrayed and victimized by someone who held a position of authority and trust. What was the penalty for this doctor? Despite the number and seriousness of the offences, this total sentence was just three and a half years. In British Columbia, young women were deceived by a man posing as a talent agent and were assaulted after being lured to so-called auditions. Even with multiple survivors, the sentence amounted to just 18 months. Unfortunately, these are not isolated examples. Sexual offences are increasing across the country. Since 2015, reported sexual assaults have risen significantly, and women account for the vast majority of people harmed. Offences against children have also increased sharply over the same period. So many lives have been permanently changed. In my own community, I have spoken with families, advocates and frontline workers who support women and girls as they rebuild after sexual violence. These are not distant stories. They involve real people who were harmed by someone they knew, someone in a position of trust or someone they were supposed to feel safe with. What I hear repeatedly is not a call for vengeance; it is a call to be fully seen and understood by the justice system. When survivors see that offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences serve sentences nearly identical to those imposed for a single offence, despite multiple convictions involving multiple acts of harm, it can feel as though their individual experience disappears into the process. The perception of being reduced or overlooked can deepen the harm long after the courtroom doors close. For survivors and their families, the journey through the justice system already requires extraordinary courage: reporting the assault; reliving it in court, often multiple times; and facing scrutiny and disbelief. What is sometimes less visible is how long that process can last and how much it demands. Court proceedings stretch over months or years. Survivors are asked to recount the most painful moments of their lives over and over again in unfamiliar, intimidating settings. They are cross-examined and wait for decisions that will shape their sense of justice and closure. When that process ends with a sentence that appears disconnected from the number or seriousness of the offences, it can undermine faith not only in the outcome but also in the system itself. Sentencing should reflect what the court has found to be true. When convictions establish multiple sexual offences, the sentence should reflect that multiplicity. Bill C-246 would align sentencing outcomes with judicial findings, ensuring that repeated criminal conduct would be treated as such. Bill C-246 would address a loophole in the Criminal Code that allows concurrent sentencing, meaning that sentences for multiple sexual offences can be served at the same time. In practice, concurrent sentencing can result in offenders' serving nearly the same amount of time whether they commit one sexual offence or several, even when the number of offences and victims is greater. The law recognizes the convictions as separate, but the sentence often does not meaningfully distinguish between them. It can create a perverse kind of discount, where additional crimes do not meaningfully increase accountability for each offence or each person harmed. For people carrying the impact of sexual violence, this can feel as though the law is counting time rather than harm. It leaves the impression that additional violations are absorbed into the process rather than recognized as separate acts of violence. When the law treats multiple sexual offences as one, survivors are left feeling that only part of what happened to them truly counted. Consecutive sentencing corrects that imbalance by ensuring that each offence is treated separately, because each act caused its own harm. This approach also speaks to public confidence in the justice system. Canadians expect that when serious crimes occur repeatedly, the law responds in a way that reflects that reality. When sentences appear compressed or reduced, it can erode trust and raise questions about whether the system is equipped to deal with repeat sexual offending. Clear, proportionate sentencing helps reinforce the idea that the justice system recognizes patterns of harm and responds accordingly. It supports deterrence, not through harshness but through certainty and accountability. Bill C-246 would require consecutive sentencing for sexual offences, ensuring that each offence carries its own penalty and that each survivor's experience is treated individually. This approach already applies when sexual offences are committed against children. The bill would extend that same principle to adult survivors, recognizing something fundamental, which is that sexual violence causes profound harm regardless of age. Age should not be the discerning factor, as everyone deserves the same clarity and protection from the law, whether the abuse occurs in childhood or adulthood, whether it happens once or repeatedly and whether it takes place in a home, a workplace or a community setting. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect the lived realities survivors face, not just the technical structure of the Criminal Code. The bill would not change definitions or create new offences. It would simply ensure that when harm occurs more than once, the response of the law reflects that reality. Consecutive sentencing affirms that each act of sexual violence stands on its own and that each survivor's experience is acknowledged fully, not absorbed into a legal calculation. This is not about retribution. It is about responsibility. It is about affirming that every survivor is a whole person, not a fraction of a case filed, and that sentencing should reflect the full scope of the harm inflicted. This is about the standards we set for our justice system. This should not be a partisan issue. It speaks to dignity, respect and restoring confidence in a justice system that too many Canadians feel has fallen short when it comes to sexual violence. To survivors, the bill would send a clear message that they are seen, that their experience will not be minimized and that the law will recognize the full reality of what they endured. To the people who commit these crimes, it would send another message: Each act of sexual violence carries consequences, and each offence will be answered in full. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, for bringing forward this important legislation. I encourage members on all sides of the House to consider what the bill seeks to correct, and to work together to ensure that our sentencing laws reflect both the seriousness of these crimes and the dignity of the people who survive them. Justice should never be reduced, bundled or discounted..
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2026-03-11 17:55:00
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to maybe provide a bit of a different perspective and, at the same time, to recognize that sexual violence in all forms is, in fact, a horrific crime. The victims of this particular crime all deserve justice. That is one of the motivating factors in regard to why, over the last number of months, the government has brought forward a series of legislative initiatives that are, in part, dealing with the types of issues that are being raised with Bill C-246. The primary difference is that the legislation we are proposing is constitutional. There is a strong, valid argument that if we take a look at Bill C-246, we will find that it is in fact unconstitutional. I can appreciate that all members of the House would recognize the desire and the need to act on the issue of sexual violence. There are opportunities for us to be able to do that. In some legislation, what we have seen is movement in the same sort of direction that is being suggested in Bill C-246. I would cite, for example, Bill C-14. I will go over all aspects of the legislative agenda, but if we take a look at Bill C-14, as an example, that is the bail reform legislation. It took a little longer than I would have liked to ultimately pass through the House, but we did get it passed through the House, and it is in the Senate. It actually takes a look at sexual violence and says that we are going to be eliminating conditional sentences for sexual offences. It is a positive measure in terms of bail reform. It also ensures that a judge will have constitutional authority, for repeat sexual offenders, to impose consecutive sentences. This is something I would encourage members opposite to recognize. I say that in a very encouraging way, in the sense that we were finally able to deal with Bill C-14. It is currently in the other place. We are hoping they will pass it as it is, so that we can ultimately give it royal assent, but at the end of the day, there is reason for members to say that on the issue of sexual assault, there is something very tangible there. It is more than that. We take more of a holistic approach in terms of what the Prime Minister and the government have actually brought forward to the chamber for debate. We are hopeful, as we have a substantive crime agenda, of being able to pass it all. We can talk about Bill C-2 and how Bill C-2 has the potential to empower our prosecutors to potentially even prevent some sexual assaults from happening. That is one of the reasons we see a great deal of commentary that comes from the government benches, asking for the official opposition to recognize the value of Bill C-2, much in the same fashion as we saw value in the bail reform legislation. For me, I think we should take a look at Bill C-16. Bill C-16 is legislation that I would argue is just as important as bail reform. Bail reform is very important. Let us just say I would not want to have to decide which one is more important than the other. Bill C-16 is before the House in second reading. When we talk about a private member's bill, Bill C-246, we know there is a cap. The debate will end today. It is programmed. I would love to see Bill C-16 advance because, when we look at it, there are some new initiatives dealing with coercive control. The idea of femicide has been around for a long time. I would suggest that Bill C-16 really raises the bar, and not just here in Canada. I suspect other nations would take note of that because there are significant things within it. I can say that it ultimately brings back mandatory minimum sentences for sexual interference, in particular and as an example, with respect to the sexual touching of a child. That is something for which these mandatory minimums could receive support from all sides of the House. The bill would reinstate mandatory jail time for the sexual exploitation of a child, including abuse by people in positions of trust. That is a very positive aspect of the legislation. We are making sure, to the nth degree, that when we bring forward the legislation, it is charter compliant so that our courts can look at the laws being proposed and understand the severity of them. Bill C-16 does just that, as does Bill C-14. If we think of intimate partner violence and the issue of coercive control, it is something that I would say does not get enough attention when we talk about sexual violence in our communities today. However, it is very real and being dealt with. The bill deals with issues such as stalking. What about the emotional and psychological abuse that takes place, not to mention the economic abuse? These are substantial and very real. There is also physical abuse and a lot of cyber violence. These are the impacts of sexual violence. If we add in the issue of femicide, we have elevated that to first-degree murder in certain situations. That is where I think the legislation really puts justice for victims of violence upfront and makes our communities safer. It sends a very strong and powerful message. I look across the way and ask members to put some of the partisan politics to the side. I would suggest that the legislative crime agenda the government has brought forward since the last federal election is substantive. There are many aspects of several bills that deal directly with the issues of sexual violence and justice for victims. The biggest barrier for legislation ultimately passing is the political will of the chamber. On the bill before us, the opposition bill, we have two hours of debate and then it would go to committee. I would love to see some of the other issues dealing with sexual violence also advance to committee sooner as opposed to later. The reason I say that is that the bail reform legislation could be law today had we done it back in December. Therefore, I encourage members to look at the government agenda to see that the legislation being proposed would arguably be unconstitutional..
Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland)
2026-03-11 18:05:00
Mr. Speaker, I am proud and grateful to support and second Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act, brought forth by my very strong, principled Conservative colleague, mom of a sweet baby girl and a fellow Albertan, the MP for Lethbridge. I want to thank her for her advocacy on so many issues and for her leadership on this serious one. Sexual violence shatters lives. These cruel, pervasive crimes strip victims of dignity, security and trust with physical, psychological and spiritual harm, devastating consequences that for many survivors last a lifetime. Predatorial violence like rape, sexual exploitation and sexual assault leaves deep scars. Frankly, these crimes often impose life sentences of trauma on victims, yet today, the system that is supposed to prosecute criminals and protect victims hinges on a glaring, dangerous flaw. It is yet another reason so many people in Lakeland say it is not a justice system in Canada. Right now, sexual predators who commit multiple sexual offences can serve all of the sentences at the same time. That is concurrent sentencing. What that means in practice is simple. Sexual predators who commit multiple sexual offences can get discounts on their punishments. No matter how many lives they destroy or how many victims they traumatize, the time those criminals serve can remain almost the same. It seems to me this is a basic principle of justice. Multiple crimes with multiple victims should mean multiple punishments. Let me share a case that shows systemic injustice clearly. In Ontario, someone posed as a talent agent to lure young people into modelling. Two young women accepted the offer, but instead of offering opportunity, he inflicted repeated sexual assaults. He pleaded guilty and got one sentence of 18 months and another of 24 months, a total of 42 months, but due to concurrent sentencing, those two separate punishments were merged into one sentence of 24 months. That is two crimes, two victims, one sentence. That is wrong. Sexual predators who destroy lives must be held accountable to the full extent of the law. Their sentences should reflect the seriousness of every crime they commit and the sanctity and value of every victim they harm, yet today, too many offenders walk free far too soon. This is why people in Lakeland call it a catch-and-release or revolving-door criminal system, not a justice one. Too many victims struggle in a system that does not protect them. Too many families watch predators return to the streets or into their own homes while the trauma of the crime lasts a lifetime. The worst part is that it has not just happened this way. People elected to stand and pass laws in this very place, the Liberals, made it that way. Over the past decade, they have weakened penalties for serious crimes; let criminals, gangsters and terrorists run free; put law-abiding, innocent Canadians at risk; and retraumatized victims. The same Liberals passed Bill C-75, which introduced the concept of the principle of restraint, which outright directed judges to make it easier for repeat offenders to walk free on bail “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”. Let us be straight here. This so-called principle says Canadians should trust criminals to follow the rules, like the law, and their bail conditions. Yeah, that works well. The Liberals also passed Bill C-5, which allowed house arrest for serious crimes, like illegal drug trafficking and illegal drug importing, and major gun crimes, like drive-by shootings and illegal gun trafficking, while they target law-abiding firearms owners. Parliament deliberately put mandatory minimum sentences in place to deter such severe crimes, but the truth is that time and again, the Liberals directly legislated favour for criminals and punishment for victims and innocent Canadians. That has to change, so that is exactly what our Conservative Lethbridge MP's Bill C-246 aims to do. If passed, her bill would require courts to impose consecutive sentences for individuals convicted of multiple sexual offences, so each crime would carry its own penalty, each victim would be honoured and each predator would serve the full weight and time for their crimes. This law is needed now more than ever because while the Liberals like to talk about standing with victims, the reality is different. Since 2015, sexual assaults reported in Canada are up nearly 75%. Sexual offences against children, and this is almost unimaginable, are up by nearly 120%. Between 2015 and 2019, there were more than 27,000 sexual assault charges and over 33,000 sexual offence charges. These numbers are shocking alone, but all MPs must recognize the truth and never forget that each of those numbers is a victim, a person, a human being, violated. Each number is a young adult who no longer feels or is safe in their own home, a woman who checks her locks at night and still cannot sleep, a man who suffers in silence because stigma still stops many male victims from speaking out, and a survivor who carries invisible and, at times, literal physical trauma into every part of their life. The numbers do not lie, but they are not just statistics. They are Canadians whose dignity, security and sense of self-worth were stolen on top of horrific physical violation and the damage and harm of long-lasting fear. That is why they are called survivors, and that is why we here owe them our greatest duty. Criminals can serve sentences that do not reflect the severity of their crimes. When that happens, victims are erased, unseen, unheard and devalued, which is reprehensible. If we are all to stand here with straight faces and say that there is a justice system in Canada, then it should punish those who prey on the vulnerable and ensure effective corrections to prevent recidivism. However, today, the max penalty for sexual assault against an adult is 10 years. If we compare that to property crimes like robbery or breaking and entering, which are also out of control under the Liberals, the max penalty can be life in prison. If this was sexual violence, it would be like robbing three banks but only being jailed for one, or breaking into six homes and only being punished for two. How does that make any sense at all? No Canadian should accept that. The people of Lakeland certainly do not, but it is exactly what happens today with sexual offences. It sends a clear message to sexual violence victims that their sanctity and suffering does not count. It tells predators that their crimes may carry fewer consequences. How the heck are the ones who committed the crimes getting the better end of the deal around here? It also sends a clear message to the many indigenous people in Lakeland and across Canada, who are disproportionately harmed by sexual violence and other violent crimes. Culturally sensitive approaches are important, but Canadian law should show without a shadow of a doubt that every single victim's life matters and every single criminal will be held to account. In 2021, the ethics committee investigated the exploitation of victims of non-consensual or child sexual assault material of rape, sexual assault and human trafficking on platforms run by MindGeek. The survivors' words seared me, as did the clarity that the laws already exist to combat this but were not enforced. Just as it was then, it is true today that the laws exist for all of those crimes and predators can be held accountable, but that does not happen. A senior counsel at the justice department said, “I am not sure it's the problem of the law. The problem...is the application of the law”. Therefore, the tools exist, but the problem is that they are not being used. That is a fact, and this is the loophole for convicted sexual predators that can be closed, which is what the MP for Lethbridge wants to do. I say to all MPs to ask themselves and really reflect on this: What message does not enforcing laws and discounting sentences really send to women and girls and to men and boys across Canada who have been victims of sexual violence? What message does it send to those who are recently recovering, afraid to speak out, because they fear their abusers will be out of jail? MPs can get up here and make speeches on days like Red Dress Day, International Women's Day and the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, but without action, it is just words on paper and hot air out of our mouths. Liberals have a chance to act by voting for this bill. Some victims will spend their lives trying to rebuild safety. Some will move. Some will never rebuild it. Some will struggle to trust again. Anxiety for some will be so great that they leave their jobs. Families and friends will watch loved ones change because of their trauma. Some will end their own lives. The truth is that just one person can change entire lives in horrible ways, but it does not have to be this way. Each person here has the power of just one vote, and we can change entire lives for the better. I urge MPs to protect survivors and support this bill. It is not partisan. It does not matter if a member wears blue, red, green or orange, every MP holds the same duty to defend survivors and real justice. Parliament together can send a message to both survivors and to predators that sexual violence is never okay and that those who perpetrate it will be punished, because every survivor matters and every crime must count..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-03-11 18:15:00
I recognize the member for Lethbridge for her right of reply..
Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge)
2026-03-11 18:15:00
Mr. Speaker, I have said it here before, but I will just say it again: There is a type of discount that is reasonably exciting for us, like a sale, a two-for-one or 15% off. These are reasonable discounts, but these types of discounts in our court system do not belong, and it should alarm us when they do. That is exactly what concurrent sentencing allows, and in particular with regard to sexual assault, it should be disheartening and even alarming for all of us in this place. Since introducing Bill C-246, I have heard from dozens and dozens of Canadians who have taken the time to write to me, give me a call or meet with me in person. I believe that their voices are urgent, I believe that their pain is real, and I believe that their calls for justice are unmistakable. Rudy contends that predators, especially those who repeatedly prey on the innocent, should never, ever get easy passage. Marilyn wrote to the justice minister and copied me on the correspondence. She asked where the minister's morality was. Where was his humanity? Where was his justice? She said the most vulnerable members of our society were counting on him, and he should stand with the victims, not with the criminals. Leah urged that we act now to resolve reduced sentencing for perpetrators. Bill summed it up very plainly, saying that sex offenders should not receive reduced sentences, full stop. We have many examples throughout years of history and throughout different provinces, different cities and different communities, of teachers who are committing abuses, of doctors who are committing abuses, and of uncles, aunts, friends, neighbours, boyfriends and spouses. All of these individuals are given a place of trust, a place of prominence and a place of respect in the lives of those they then go on to violate, and this violation is not something small. It is something big, and it goes to the heart of a person and is carried with them for their entire life. These crimes are shattering, yet the so-called justice system gives predators a discount, while victims will carry the trauma for the remainder of their lives. My private member's bill would change that. It would mandate that consecutive sentences would be given for sexual offences, ensuring that each crime carries its own penalty, that each victim is recognized and that voices matter. As Cait Alexander, the founder of End Violence Everywhere, has said, “Concurrent sentencing tells survivors that what happened to them counts less.” She goes on, “Every victim is a whole human being, and every crime deserves its own consequence.” Kelly Favro from Beyond the Verdict contends that “Consecutive sentencing admits that each offence caused real harm. That gives survivors confidence to come forward because it tells them the system will not automatically minimize what they went through”. This is so important. Victims must have confidence in the system if they are to come forward. The Liberals have signalled that they will oppose this legislation. They claim that it fails to comply with the charter, but I would offer that the hypocrisy in that statement is quite palpable. The Liberals have imposed consecutive sentences, under Bill C-14, for certain crimes. The inconsistency is stark, because consecutive sentencing is perfectly acceptable when it serves the Liberals' policy agenda, but suddenly it is problematic when it confronts an issue that they would rather ignore or turn a blind eye to, like sexual assault. The charter is being invoked selectively rather than consistently in order to defend political choice rather than the principle of justice and standing with victims. It is disheartening to watch as the Liberals turn this into an opportunity for gamesmanship rather than working collectively with other parties to benefit Canadians. I will end with this: Every sexual assault that is committed is a distinct harm, and it is against a distinct individual, and every crime must carry weight. We cannot afford to be a society that sends the message that somehow one victim matters more than another, and we cannot be a society that sends a message that somehow says that criminals get off the hook easily. This type of messaging must stop, and that is what this legislation seeks to do. I urge the House to stand with victims and vote yes..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-03-11 18:20:00
The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair..
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2026-03-11 18:20:00
Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-03-11 18:20:00
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions..
2026-03-11 18:25:00
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved..
Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni)
2026-03-11 18:25:00
Mr. Speaker, I am here again tonight to once again remind the House and, of course, the Liberal government about a massive gap in our emergency preparedness framework: the lack of a standing federal plan to prevent, prepare for and actively respond to marine debris spills. To begin, I want to recognize some of the environmental champions who have been calling attention to the urgency of this issue: Lilly Woodbury from Surfrider Pacific Rim; Karla Robison, who helped deal with the tsunami fallout from the Japanese earthquake at Fukushima; Josh Charleson and Josh Temple, both from Coastal Restoration Society; and organizations like Ocean Legacy and Living Oceans. These people and groups have been doing the work on the ground in coastal communities. They have been raising the alarm for years, but the government still has not addressed the gaps. It is time the Liberal government listened and actually took action. In 2016, the Hanjin Seattle lost 35 shipping containers just off the coast of Tofino, spreading millions of pieces of damaging styrofoam and plastic across the beaches. In 2021, even worse, the ZIM Kingston lost 109 shipping containers in a spill just south of Ucluelet, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca off Victoria, dumping toxic chemicals, toys, household appliances and other plastic items off our coast. Those are going to appear and resurface for the next 100 years and beyond. Last November, near Bella Bella, a freighter carrying a full load took on water. If not for the quick response of the Heiltsuk nation, it might have caused a devastating marine spill with reverberating effects on the environment and nearby communities. Each time, it was not the federal government taking the first response and leading the cleanup. It was municipalities, volunteers and, again, often first nations and indigenous communities. While the work they do is incredible, they can only respond rather than act to prevent the worst effects of marine debris spills, straining limited resources in this process. That is why, in 2022, the fisheries and oceans committee called for the government to step up with regulations against expanded polystyrene foam in packaging, a stronger polluter pays liability model and a coordinated cleanup plan involving all stakeholders, especially first nations. That is also why the Transportation Safety Board reported in 2024 that Canada is not properly prepared for marine emergencies, including marine debris spills, and advised that a well-resourced response plan will protect marine ecosystems and save lives. That is exactly why I am here. It has been over a year since that report came out and four years since the committee report, and there has been nothing from the government. Transport Canada committed to act on these recommendations, yet in all that time, there has been no concrete action, no improved liability framework and no standing response plan. It has been pure inaction, plain and simple. However, there is a clear path forward here. Canada has standing oil spill response teams at the dock, ready to move. I want to thank them for their deeply valuable work. With new equipment, training and capacity, these crews could actually step in and also respond to marine cargo spills as well, giving much-needed support to existing cleanup efforts. A small ecosystem service fee could be applied to each container coming to port, which could help fund critical response capacity while keeping the financial onus on transnational shipping corporations that are doing business, not on everyday Canadians. A polluter pays model, as with oil spills, could apply here. Again I will remind the government that the time to act is now. We learned on Monday that cargo volumes at the Port of Vancouver rose to a record high of 170 million tonnes in 2025. More traffic, alongside increasingly dangerous navigating conditions due to climate change, mean that spills will only become more common and more devastating without a real plan. Let us not ask coastal communities to wait for the next disaster. I ask the House to please pass my bill to establish a national strategy on shipping container spills, build out rapid response capacity with an ecosystem service fee, and take proactive steps to protect our coasts..
Mike Kelloway (Sydney—Glace Bay)
2026-03-11 18:25:00
Mr. Speaker, our government has been clear that we must protect our oceans, including our coastal environment. That is why we have taken steps, including working with key federal stakeholders and the private sector, to prevent spills of oil and of hazardous and noxious substances in Canadian waters. Through the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and its regulations, the government strictly regulates air emissions and vessel discharges, as well as ship design and construction, based on international standards, and we often exceed those standards. Pollution prevention is at the heart of Canada's marine regimen. We know that spills, chemical discharges and marine debris represent real threats to the health of marine ecosystems. This regulatory and legislative framework is reinforced by a robust regimen for spills when they happen. The Canadian Coast Guard leads when spills occur and coordinates the deployment of rapid response teams and specialized equipment. The work with industry, provinces and territories, and most importantly indigenous communities because of their local and traditional knowledge, is essential in minimizing the impact of spills. They are not left to address the situation alone. This is a cross-government approach where we have sought to incorporate, utilize and learn from indigenous knowledge in our national response system and subsequent responses. Our framework is based on a simple and central principle that the polluter pays. It is enshrined in the Canada Shipping Act, which contains substantial penalties for polluters, and other relevant legislation that places the financial responsibility for cleanup and restoration on those responsible for incidents and accidents. The Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act is another example of empowering authorities to address vessels that pose a risk to navigation or the environment and to make owners responsible for the cost of removal and remediation. The framework helps to ensure that owners remain responsible for their vessels throughout the lifetime and reinforces the principle that the polluter pays. Concrete steps have been taken to strengthen marine safety and environmental protection in collaboration with indigenous people and stakeholders. The Canada Shipping Act of 2001 has been amended to strengthen marine emergency responses by enhancing Transport Canada's authorities to ensure early action by the responsible party to prevent and contain marine emergencies, expand the preparedness, respond to a regimen including spills of hazardous and noxious substances, and strengthen the compliance and enforcement regime. Transport Canada has also updated the regulations to strengthen preparedness in the event of oil spills from a vessel. Our government is taking further steps to strengthen marine environmental protection by requiring more rapid access to marine emergency services, such as firefighting resources and emergency salvage capacity, as the recent incident in Bella Bella required, and improving preparedness and response for incidents involving hazardous and noxious substances. These actions and our regimen recognize that a strong safety system is crucial for protecting our marine ecosystem and our coastal communities. It is the foundation for a growing trade and economy in a sustainable fashion..
Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni)
2026-03-11 18:30:00
Mr. Speaker, we can ask coastal communities how the Liberals' regimes are playing out. If a spill were to happen today, nothing has changed. It would be municipalities, conservation groups and first nations caught holding the bag. Promises and statements like that do not protect coastal communities. The Transportation Safety Board said that Canada is not properly prepared for marine emergencies, including marine debris spills. The owners of the ZIM Kingston are only on the hook for six years under the current regime the member talked about. A hundred shipping containers landing on the bottom of the ocean are going to take a lot longer than six years to surface. We are calling for the government to actually act, follow up on its own transportation board recommendations, listen to the recommendations and introduce a coordinated response plan that includes coastal communities, with an ecosystem service fee so industry actually pays for it and cleans up our coast when there is a spill..
Mike Kelloway (Sydney—Glace Bay)
2026-03-11 18:30:00
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this important debate. I will say that Canada does have a strong marine safety system in place. The system works to prevent marine incidents from happening in the first place. When an accident does happen, the Canadian authorities are prepared to respond in an effective manner that mitigates impacts on mariners, marine ecosystems, coastal communities and, indeed, our supply chains. The Canadian Coast Guard, the agency tasked with an incident response, is absolutely spot on in terms of working with first nations and indigenous communities to mitigate the impact of spills when an accident occurs. Our marine safety regimen ensures that responsible parties can be identified through the life cycle of a vessel and can be held to account for pollution incidents. I do appreciate what the member is saying, and I particularly appreciate the importance of including indigenous knowledge and first nation communities in all that we do in transport..
Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City)
2026-03-11 18:35:00
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin with something that happened in my riding, because sometimes the most honest way to understand an economic problem is simply to listen to the people living with it. A woman named Amy from Cloverdale wrote to me recently. She works hard, pays her bills and tries to live responsibly, but she told me that grocery shopping has become something that she now dreads, not because she is buying luxuries, but because basic food is becoming harder to put in the cart. Meat, once a normal part of meal, has become something she buys only occasionally. When she heard that prices are expected to rise again this year, she wondered whether Canadians will eventually be on their hands and knees, begging the government for relief. I heard a similar concern when I visited seniors in my riding this week. These are men and women who spent decades working, paying taxes, raising families and contributing to this country, yet many told me that they are now studying grocery flyers and cutting back on foods they never imagined giving up at this stage in their lives. The question they asked is the same as Amy's, and it is very simple: How did it become this hard to buy food in Canada? The Prime Minister once told Canadians to judge him by the price of groceries, and Canadians are doing exactly that. The numbers are troubling. Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7, with grocery prices rising more than 7% over the past year, which is far faster than overall inflation. Coffee and beef are up dramatically. Everyday staples are rising faster than the rest of the economy. Roughly 70% of the food Canadians eat is produced right here in Canada. When Canadians see food prices rising faster here than anywhere else in the G7, they begin asking whether the explanation lies closer to home than the government would like to admit. There is a very simple rule in economics: When governments make something more expensive to produce, the price of that thing eventually rises. When we look at the policies affecting food production in Canada today, we see farmers facing higher costs from the industrial carbon tax on fuel, fertilizer and farm equipment; truckers facing the fuel standard tax, which raises the cost of transporting food across this country; and food producers and processors facing a packaging tax projected to cost Canadians more than $1 billion. None of these policies appear on a grocery receipt, but their costs travel through the system, from the farm to the processor to the truck, and finally to the grocery shelf and when they arrive at the checkout counter, which is where Canadians experience them. When I think about where those rising costs eventually lead, I cannot help but think of my own family. I have 22 grandchildren, and like every grandparent, I want them to grow up in a Canada where hard work still allows a family to afford the basics of life. The seniors I spoke to were not only worried about prices but asking something deeper, about fairness. These are Canadians who spent decades paying taxes into this country, yet they now find themselves watching every dollar they spend on groceries while government spending seems to grow in every direction. Some of them asked how it is possible that people who paid into this country their entire lives are struggling to keep up with the basics, while individuals whose refugee claims have already been rejected can still remain in Canada for years and continue receiving benefits, including coverage for dental care, prescriptions and other health services that many seniors still have to pay for themselves. Canadians are patient people, but they expect one thing from their government, which is not to make the essentials of life harder to afford. Canadians like Amy and the seniors I spoke with this week are asking a very simple question: When will the government stop the policies that are driving up the cost of food, so that Canadians can afford to feed themselves again?.
Mike Kelloway (Sydney—Glace Bay)
2026-03-11 18:35:00
Mr. Speaker, indeed we live in rapidly changing times, uncertain times. Around the globe, trade relationships that help to ensure good jobs and affordable products are being disrupted. Here at home, the rise in tariffs is posing significant challenges to Canadians, and particularly to those working in trade-exposed sectors such as manufacturing. The Canadian government is also aware that the cost of living is putting financial pressures on Canadian families and small businesses. The Prime Minister recently announced new measures to make groceries and other essentials more affordable. For example, in order to bring down costs for Canadians, Canada's new government is introducing the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. It was formerly known as the goods and services tax credit. Also, we are increasing that amount by 25% for five years beginning in July. On top of that, we are providing a one-time payment this spring equivalent to a 50% increase in the 2025-26 value of the GST credit. Combined, this means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years. I am proud to say that the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will provide additional and significant support for more than 12 million Canadians. Also, this government is setting aside $500 million for the strategic response fund, to help business owners address the cost of supply chain disruptions without passing the cost on to Canadians at the checkout line. For the same reason, we will create a $150-million food security fund under the existing regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized businesses and the organizations that support them. We cannot control what other nations do, but we can control how we respond. As the member opposite may remember, on our very first day in office, we cancelled the divisive consumer carbon price, bringing gasoline prices down by approximately 18¢ per litre in most provinces and territories. Now we are delivering on a tax cut that will impact 22 million Canadians, one that will save a two-income family up to $840 this year. We are also eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million. There are other things we are doing in relation to building Canada strong and building homes where they are needed. This is an important time. It is an important time to invest in Canadians. I think of the national school food program, which impacts hundreds of thousands of children, in particular when I think of my riding of Sydney—Glace Bay. I have talked to teachers and families who have talked of the essential impact of that measure and how it creates healthier kids, provides dignity and, indeed, provides hope, not just for families but for the children it is designed to help. I will conclude by saying that these are tough times. We have a government here that is compassionate and also fiscally minded when it comes to ensuring that we have the firepower to help people, and that is what Canadians do, in my opinion. Just like Cape Bretoners do back home, we help those in need, we help our brothers and sisters, and we help people we do not know. These programs are designed to help people, giving them a leg up, and boy, across this world, these are trying times, as I started off with in my speech. However, I will say that I believe in Canada. I believe, and I have seen it many times in this chamber, that when we come together, we have good debate, but at the end of the day we need to put slogans aside and focus on solutions..
Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City)
2026-03-11 18:40:00
Mr. Speaker, the families and seniors in my riding who are carefully studying grocery flyers deserve a straight answer about why food keeps getting more expensive. We often hear the government members say it is a global problem, but if that were true, every country would be feeling it equally, and they are not. Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7. When we look at where Canadians are being hit hardest, we see that it is not on imported luxuries. Ground beef is up 22%; whole chicken, nearly 13%; pork, more than 13%; and even romaine lettuce has jumped 17%. These are not imported luxuries. These are foods raised and grown by Canadian farmers, yet families and seniors in my community are paying more for them every single week. Food prices are 27% higher than five years ago, and food bank use has doubled since 2019. People in my riding do not want to have to rely on food stamps. What they want to know is why decisions are being made in Ottawa that keep driving up the price of Canadian food..
Mike Kelloway (Sydney—Glace Bay)
2026-03-11 18:40:00
Mr. Speaker, I think this is an immensely important discussion and debate we are having here tonight. When we look at the government and the measures that I spoke about in my opening speech, we see that these are measures that matter to Canadians. We are also focused on building the economy with major projects from coast to coast to coast that will put people to work and back to work and will enhance the skill sets they have. I will say this. I am entering my seventh year in the House, and particularly in the last couple of years, when we put forward ideas and solutions to help Canadians, oftentimes the opposition will bring up the problems. When it is time to vote on solutions, the opposition is not to be found. I think that lacks some credibility. I do not question the sincerity, but I do question the credibility, of being a part of the solution. What we are focused on is the solution..
Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill)
2026-03-11 18:45:00
Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that some agreement can break out in this place tonight. I would just like to note that colleagues in the House of all political stripes spent a lot of time debating Bill C-12, which includes some measures that I think need to pass quickly in order to begin to restore some order to the immigration system. However, I have been closely following some of the proceedings in the other place, and I am becoming concerned that colleagues in the other place may be unduly holding up proceedings on the bill, which has been substantively amended by the House. We came to agreement. We sent it over there in December, I believe. It has been several months at this point. I would like to see some movement from colleagues in the other place. I am just wondering if my colleague on the other side would agree and perhaps would also offer some encouragement to colleagues in the other place to respect the will of the House and to get on with it..
Leslie Church (Toronto—St. Paul's)
2026-03-11 18:45:00
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-12, the government is always interested in ensuring that legislation passed in the House moves quickly through here and the other place. I am going to take a moment to address the question that I think prompted this evening's late show. I want to take a moment to address Canada's actions with respect to the officials of the Iranian regime and the integrity of our immigration system. The government is unwavering in its commitment to hold this regime to account while protecting the safety and security of Canadians. Canada has taken some of the strongest measures in the world against the regime. On November 14, 2022, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Canada designated the Islamic Republic of Iran as a regime that has engaged in terrorism and systemic breaches of human rights. Canada has also listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity. This designation rendered tens of thousands of senior Iranian officials permanently inadmissible to Canada, including heads of state, intelligence operatives, diplomats, judges and senior members of the guard. In September 2024, Canada strengthened this measure by extending the start date of the designation back to June 23, 2003. That is the date Iranian Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi was arbitrarily detained, tortured and died in custody. Her case shocked Canadians and highlighted the regime's systemic human rights abuses. As a result, anyone who has served as a senior official of the Iranian regime since that date is inadmissible to Canada. Canada's immigration system includes rigorous screening both before and after arrival. Everyone who needs a visa to travel to Canada must apply in advance. Applicants provide personal information and biometrics, including fingerprints, which are checked against Canadian and international databases to verify identity and assess potential security risks. Immigration screening is a joint effort involving Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the CBSA and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Cases that raise concerns may be referred for in-depth security screening before a visa is ever issued. Individuals determined to be inadmissible may have their visa refused, lose their temporary or permanent resident status in Canada, and be subject to enforcement action, including removal. These cases can be complex and must be handled in accordance with Canadian law and due process. Since November 2022, IRCC has cancelled 234 visas for individuals who are inadmissible because of the Iranian regime designation. This number does not include applicants whose visa applications were refused from the outset on the same grounds. Removals by CBSA officers have increased over the last two years, and similar results are expected in 2026. The government has also committed to hiring 1,000 additional CBSA officers to strengthen the agency's capacity and help protect the safety of Canadians. I also want to address the question raised about the Immigration and Refugee Board. The IRB is an independent tribunal. It adjudicates admissibility allegations brought forward by the CBSA, which has the burden of demonstrating the individual is inadmissible on security or other grounds. Removal hearings are generally public. However, by operation of law, certain proceedings before the immigration division must be held in private. This includes hearings where the person concerned has made a refugee claim. In order to protect the safety and security of individuals in all other matters, the hearings are held in public. Even in private matters, it is always open to the media to make a request that the hearing be public. These requests are decided on a case-by-case basis, balancing the public interest in openness against other important considerations, such as the safety and security— .
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-03-11 18:50:00
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill..
Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill)
2026-03-11 18:50:00
Mr. Speaker, I would say this. What the IRB has done is interpret the provision under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act around senior officials in a way that would exclude, and did exclude, a man named Mahdi Nasiri, who was the supreme leader of Iran, the Iranian regime's key representative at its propaganda newspaper, the political deputy of the policy council of Friday imams and the deputy at the supreme leader's representative outlet at the U.A.E. Would my colleague agree that it would be incumbent upon the government at this point to at least review the law and come back to Parliament with suggestions on how to strengthen the provision that is within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to ensure that men like this do not continue to be admissible to Canada? .
Leslie Church (Toronto—St. Paul's)
2026-03-11 18:50:00
Mr. Speaker, Canada screens those entering the country for potential criminal activity and links to terrorist groups. We have designated the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorist entities. That has made senior Iranian officials inadmissible to Canada. Since November 2022, the IRCC has cancelled 234 visas for individuals who are inadmissible because of the Iranian regime designation. This number does not include applicants whose visa applications were refused from the outset. The CBSA is going to continue to increase removals and has committed to hiring 1,000 additional CBSA officers to strengthen the agency's capacity and help protect the safety of Canadians. The government is going to continue to use every tool available to protect Canadians and to ensure that those linked to human rights abuses and terrorism are held accountable..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-03-11 18:50:00
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 6:52 p.m.) .