Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my last speech in this place. Having been here since 2015, I am retiring as of the end of the summer, and I appreciate this opportunity. I am going to begin with some comments about my husband, very briefly, though. He is my rock. At the age of 14, I wrote in the front of my Bible, “I want to marry someone who puts God first, me second and our children third.” Well, God outdid himself, and I had the opportunity to marry a man to whom, in my card for Father's Day, I wrote, “You are everything I ever dreamed of”, and then on the inside, it said, “plus a whole lot of things that never even crossed my mind.” We were married, have had quite an amazing life thus far and expect that to continue. Marty has a heart for ministry, so we went into ministry at a point later in our lives, and he was church planting, very entrepreneurial. There was a wonderful family from church we decided to take out for pizza one day, and they had a little girl named Katie. She jumped out of the car when we got to the restaurant, ran up to Marty, jumped and said, “Look, God, I got new shoes.” I had to explain to Katie that he was not God. I say that because I want to extend it over now into my appreciation for the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the current leader of His Majesty's official opposition. He is not God, but he is amazing. He has gifts that this country needs. He has the ability to process like no one I know. We experience this in our caucus meetings all the time. I will stop there, but his heart is what drives him, as does his love for being a servant leader and caring about people. When my mom passed away, he phoned me. When this happens to anyone in our caucus, he makes that call, and no one ever feels rushed when he is talking with them. With what happened at Tumbler Ridge, he was there not just for the service. I do not know if he would be appreciative that I am sharing this, but it is just who he is. He stayed until every one of those people had an opportunity to meet him and talk with him. He is gifted at understanding what needs to happen in this nation to give people their country back. I have been so honoured to be part of this caucus, and I wish nothing but the best for him as he moves forward with the most amazing group of people who serve in this caucus together. They all want to be named, but I am not going to go there. We are a team. What I love is something I learned when I was the only female on a board at a college where I was the athletic director. I learned, when I went to those meetings, to do my thing, make sure I am heard, argue as much as necessary and then go for coffee. That is what this team does, and it will be the best thing to ever happen to Canada in well over a decade, if not longer. I apologize to Mr. Harper, but I think it is going to be even better. I am so appreciative of my leader and my colleagues. Then there is my staff. I would love to name them all. I have been so blessed to have people in my office who love the things that I love, support the things that I support and go the extra mile over and over again to make sure I am prepared. I could not do my job without my staff who are in my riding and, certainly, those here on the Hill as well. I am so grateful for every one of them who has been a part of my team. I want to thank the pages and all the folks who help us out in the lobby and put up with us on a daily basis. They are remarkable. I have a special place in my heart for our PPS, our protective services. When I was not allowed to do my job on the Hill because I would not share my status in regard to the COVID-19 vaccine, I was not allowed to be in the House, but I decided to come in finally. The Sergeant-at-Arms figured that out and escorted me. I was going to be apprehended, I believe my whip said. I did not know what that meant, but the Sergeant-at-Arms just escorted me down the Hill, and I said that I did not hold him responsible for what he had to do. Nobody recognized me. They had phones outside the door here, over there and downstairs. They were trying to find me. They could not find me, because in every campaign, I look a little different. I said, “You have to do a better job of this. You have to protect us.” The next day when I came to work somebody shared that there was an 8 1⁄2 by 11 laminated picture of me from Facebook on every desk in the precinct. To this day, they know who I am and that is great. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to split my time, just so you know. The things I want to share are the things that I loved having the responsibility for here. I have been on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs since I came to this role. I have such a deep appreciation for our veterans. I am just a civilian; I had to learn, and I still do not know everything I need to know. They are so gracious to me. It means the world to me that I have had the opportunity to be part of the study, “Invisible No More”. Our women who joined the Armed Forces faced great duress because they were not really welcome there. Now Bill C-11 means that they do not get to make the choice of where they are going to take their cases, whether to the civilian court or to the Canadian Armed Forces court. However, I love them and I appreciate the opportunity I had to be part of that. There is a group called the Mefloquine Rally warriors who were injured by that drug, when it was taken for malaria back in the days of Somalia. Something terrible happened on that deployment. They have suffered, and the government has not recognized that. They will continue to fight until that recognition is given. It was done improperly; there was no study of this unlicensed drug. It is a huge issue, and I want them to know that I am with them and will continue to be with them. I have been to every event that they have had over the course of the past 10 years. They will not give up on asking for an apology, a return to the Somalia inquiry and the care that they should have. Service dogs is another area that is very special to me. Saskatchewan is a lovely province. Shame on all who have not been there yet. It is interesting, we only have 1.3 million people in that entire gorgeous province. Somehow even CBC forgets that we have weather when doing the weather report. We do have veterans. There are over 150 who are couch-surfing or living on the streets in places like Regina and Saskatoon. However, there is nothing there for them officially because our province is too small. We have begun something called the Yorkton Veteran Foundation that is going to change that, and I am very excited about that in our future. The other thing that I will share today is that I have had the incredible opportunity in this place, to do not one, not two, but three different private members' bills. For those at home, a private member's bill is something that an individual member gets to speak on and bring forward to possibly be passed. It may or may not be part of the member's party stance or something that is needed according to other people, but it is something very important to that member, their riding and the people they serve. Many members get their name pulled out of that hat, but never get the opportunity because they are too far down the list. My predecessor was here for 22 years, and I do not believe ever had that opportunity. My passion is caring about violence against women. The first bill was Bill C-225, protection of pregnant women and their preborn children act, Cassie and Molly's law, in 2016. I phoned this young man named Jeff Durham from Windsor and asked if I could be helpful to him. He did not understand how what happened to his wife, who was seven months pregnant, meant that the law did not recognize her baby. Now, we know there are issues around this topic in other ways, but this was a situation where she was confronted by an intruder in her home, someone she and her husband knew. He worked alongside them. He panicked. He did not want what he was doing to be found out, so he attacked her and killed her. She was more than seven months pregnant, seven weeks from having her baby. They had already named her Molly. The individual was charged, went through the whole system and was facing his sentence. Jeff could not believe that, through this whole thing, there was no mention of Molly. It was like she did not exist, period. This was a mom who was excited about having her baby. She was not with Jeff anymore but they lived in the same block so that they would be close. They were setting up their baby rooms. I did what I could to bring that forward as Cassie and Molly's law. Of course, in the House, it did not pass but it brought huge attention to the fact that pregnant women are the most vulnerable when it comes to femicide, yet, in the House, they are never included in that conversation. I find that deplorable. I then did one on sex-selective abortion. One has to ask why. The Morgentaler decision was made, that it was too onerous for women to seek an abortion. They struck down what was there, but the Supreme Court said that there must be new legislation and that it must come with a determination of when that fetus is considered viable. None of that has ever happened. When I brought this forward, it was because I do a lot of trade shows and whatnot. I always have forms for people to sign, one on firearms and one on palliative care. We have a member over on that side of the floor. I wonder if she will get it done. I then had one on protecting pregnant women. A lot of women came and talked to me and said they wanted access to abortion. I said, “Fine.” The truth is that 84% of Canadians want access to abortion. I said that there was a DART & Maru/BLUE poll that was done. The National Post headline said that Canadians are not as divided on this issue as politicians and media would like you to think. They went further and asked if respondents thought it was okay to have a sex-selective abortion. The answer was no, that there should be a law against that. This came from the same 84% of people, as 16% of people did not fit into that category. They are for the abortion-at-any-time-for-any-reason law. Did we know that Canada has nothing? We have no laws. We are the only democratic country in the world that has nothing. Our only friend in that field, other than democratic countries, is North Korea. This is appalling. That decision enabled me to bring forward the sex-selective abortion act. Women and nurses, who are pro-choice, as the vast majority of these people are pro-choice, want choice but they do not want baby girls to be killed simply because they are girls. I was in a feminist class. I was going to talk about being a woman in politics. As we walked in, the teacher said they had changed their mind, that they wanted to talk about that but that they had heard I had just put forward a bill on sex-selective abortion and they would like to talk about that. I thought, I am in a feminist class. What is that going to feel like? They were absolutely appalled. Of course, it did not pass. That is fine. I then had one more opportunity under our leader, and I brought forward the violence against pregnant women act, regarding, again, a situation where a third party attacks a woman, knowing that she is pregnant, causing physical or mental harm. The only thing it was calling for was that it would be considered an aggravating factor. Joyce Arthur, who is the queen of the pro-abortion movement, said she could vote for it if it did these things, and it did them. It was two sentences. As soon as it was tabled, the previous prime minister and all of the women on the other side of the floor did a Twitter attack on me. When I had presented it in the House, in the first minute, when one just describes it, three colleagues from that side of the floor, women, clapped for it. I have to split my time apparently. I am already at 15 minutes, but I am told I can keep going. When they clapped for this particular bill, it told me that people on that side of the floor, whom I know, have friendships with and meet with on a regular basis, value protecting pregnant women and want to see recognition that when a woman is carrying a child, they should have protection. In this case, Sherry and Chan Goberdhan lost their daughter, Arianna. Arianna had a very frightening marriage. Her estranged husband wanted her to come over. She was due to deliver, and her mom said, “Don't go.” She said, “It's okay, he just wants to talk.” He proceeded to stab her in the abdomen 21 times. When he was in prison and wanted to have a relationship with another woman, he took the picture of their wedding, removed her picture and put his picture up. There are terrible people in this world who attack women and are in relationships where they are brutal. However, this case had absolutely nothing to do with anything that the pro-choice community does not want to see. It is for the protection of women when they are having their children. If we are truly concerned about feminism and women being attacked, on that side of the floor and on this side of the floor, it is something we could have all agreed on, but we do not, and that is fine. That is the reality of the makeup of the House. I can tell members that, from that study, and with 84% of Canadians wanting choice, when people saw that Twitter war, they went berserk online. We will not find any of the comments any more. They have been scrubbed. They are not there. However, they said, “What is wrong with you that you don't understand this is about women needing protection? Why do you always bring up abortion?” Well, I can tell members why. It is because it has become a tool on that side of the floor, actually the whole House, other than our party where we get to vote according to our conscience, that will not allow anyone to be part of their caucus if they have the same values here. Although, when the three women clapped, I thought, “Okay, this is good.” They actually ended up being three of the members who stood up in the House and tried to accuse me of bringing forward an anti-abortion law. That tells us the kind of stress women on that side of the floor have, and people who value family and value women have, when women are being coerced within a terrible relationship or are facing a situation where they are being abducted, and the perpetrator is not accused of anything until they hurt that woman and possibly injure or kill the child as well. It is tough to stand here today and say this on the day that I am leaving. I know it is divisive in some ways, but this place needs to represent Canadians and Canadians' views. Never before—

Mr. Speaker, I will move on to this. I move: That the motion be amended: (a) by adding after the words “be disposed of as follows:” the following: “(a) the bill shall be divided into two bills: (i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting timely access to data and information, which shall be composed of clauses 2 to 40 of Bill C-22, (ii) Bill C-22B, An Act respecting the obligations of electronic service providers in relation to authorized access to information, which shall be composed of the remaining provisions of Bill C-22, provided that Bills C-22A and C-22B shall each be reprinted and the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion;”; (b) in paragraph (a) by replacing, (i) the words “the bill”, wherever they appear, with the words “Bill C-22A”, (ii) the words “30 minutes”, in subparagraph (ii), with the words “three hours”, (iii) the words “by 4:30 p.m. on June 15, 2026”, in subparagraph (ii), with the words “prior to the adoption of this order”; (c) by deleting paragraphs (b) to (f) and substituting the following: “(c) Bill C-22A may be taken up at the report stage at the next sitting of the House following the completion of the provisions of subparagraph (b)(iv) of this order; (d) not more than five hours shall be allotted to the consideration of Bill C-22A at the report stage and not more than five hours shall be allotted to the consideration of Bill C-22A at the third reading stage, provided that at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at the report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at the third reading stage, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of Bill C-22A then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (e) if Bill C-22A is taken up at the report stage on Friday, June 19, 2026, (i) report stage motions may be considered if filed with the Clerk of the House before 6 a.m. that day, (ii) if a recorded division is requested in relation to the report stage, it shall not be deferred, (iii) if Bill C-22A is concurred in at the report stage, a motion for third reading may be made immediately thereafter, (iv) if a recorded division is requested in relation to the third reading stage, it shall not be deferred, (v) the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment if required for the purposes of this order; and (f) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-22B, (i) the committee shall not commence consideration of Bill C-22B before Monday, September 21, 2026, (ii) the committee shall receive at least six further hours of additional witness testimony, concerning the essential tools required by law enforcement to fight modem crimes within a framework respectful of Canadians' personal privacy, before commencing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22B, (iii) the Privacy Commissioner of Canada or his representatives shall be invited to appear as witnesses during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22B.”; and (d) by deleting paragraph (g).

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much, and I thank you for your patience through this unusual event, I think. I thank everyone who has spoken and all who are here. It blows me away. I cannot forget to just quickly thank my riding. The people there are just phenomenal. I thank my family as well. It has been an honour to serve here. I am not leaving because I do not love the job. It is great, and we have a great House here. Let us make Canada proud.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures. This legislation addresses a practice that should not even exist. Every Canadian has the right to make medical decisions for themselves, free from coercion, intimidation or force. When that right is violated, the consequences can be lifelong. Bill S-228 would explicitly recognize forced or coerced sterilization as aggravated assault under the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code states that, “Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.” Bill S-228 would add clarity by making it explicit that a sterilization procedure counts as wounding or maiming. It would also reinforce the principle that sterilization must never occur without free, prior and informed consent. The Criminal Code has a needed exemption for medical professionals, but there is a gap when it comes to coerced or forced sterilization. Even though it happens by a licensed professional in a medical facility, it is still an invasive assault with permanent consequences. This conversation is not just about legal definitions, though. This is about women in vulnerable situations being coerced into a decision that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. It is about the dignity of the individual and the responsibility we share to protect those who may be vulnerable to abuse or exploitation. It would be easy to dismiss forced sterilization as a historical issue, but, quite shockingly, we have allegations and documented cases of coercion from less than 20 years ago. The practice of forced sterilization is disturbing, but its origin in eugenics is especially troubling. The history of eugenics influenced laws and public policy in Canada, especially in the early 20th century. Some of those laws remained in place until the 1980s. In that history, individuals were judged on the basis of disability, race, poverty, social status and other characteristics, and were labelled as unfit to reproduce. These harmful ideas led to sterilization laws in some provinces and influenced policies that disproportionately affected indigenous people, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. Thousands of individuals were subjected to sterilization procedures, often without meaningful consent. While those laws were eventually repealed, the attitudes that allowed them to exist did not disappear. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights found evidence that forced and coerced sterilization continued long after formal eugenics legislation ended, and that reports of such practices have continued into recent decades. The lessons of the 20th century are clear. Whenever a society begins to judge the value of a human life based on ethnicity, disability, social standing or any other characteristic, fundamental rights are put at risk. When individuals are treated as problems to be managed rather than people deserving dignity and respect, abuse follows. Now we have an opportunity to further reject that ideology. Bill S-228 affirms that every Canadian possesses equal worth, equal dignity and equal protection under the law. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and others have been disproportionately affected. Many have described coercion that occurred in moments of extreme vulnerability, such as while recovering from childbirth, under the effects of medication or facing significant pressures from authoritative figures. These accounts demand our attention. Coming forward to share deeply personal experiences requires extraordinary courage. Many have spoken publicly, not only to seek recognition for what happened to them, but also to ensure that future generations are protected from similar harm. One of those survivors is Katy Bear, a Cree woman from my home province of Saskatchewan, where, regretfully, this took place all too often. She testified that she was pressured into sterilization shortly after giving birth at the age of 21. I will read some of that testimony, taken from a CBC News article. It reads: Bear says she had never considered a tubal ligation before she underwent the procedure at Saskatoon’s Royal University Hospital in 2005. At the time, she was still in the hospital recovering from the birth of her fourth child. “They [health staff] told me it was contraception,” recalled Bear. “I was told because I was 21 and had four kids, that I probably shouldn't have any more, that my kids would be taken away by Child and Family Services.” “I thought, it's a threat.” Both she and her partner at the time were employed and owned their own home, she said. “I never had anybody say I was under the watchful eye of the ministry, of being a bad mom,” said Bear. “They rolled me in, gave me a consent form and they said, ‘just sign this, that's all you need to do.’” Sadly, hers is not the only story by far. Nicole Rabbit, a member of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, appeared before the Senate committee studying Bill S-250, the predecessor to this legislation. In her testimony, she spoke about her own experience and about the impact forced sterilization had on her family across generations. She shared that in her family alone, she, her mother and her niece had all been sterilized against their will. It went across generations. Reflecting on the harm caused by these practices, Ms. Rabbit told the committee, “It’s like you wiped out a generation.” Those words should weigh heavily on every member of the House. Every human life has inherent value. No government, institution or authority figure should ever have the power to decide that someone is less worthy of having a family because of their ethnicity, disability, economic circumstances or background. The experiences shared by survivors remind us of the consequences of that principle being forgotten or not being enforced. Forced sterilization is not simply a medical procedure performed without consent. It is a violation that affects families, communities and future generations. The harm extends far beyond a single moment in a hospital room. It leaves lasting impacts that survivors carry for years and, often, for decades. Other indigenous women have recounted similar experiences before parliamentary committees and in media reports. Some have described lasting feelings of grief and loss. Others have spoken about the erosion of trust in medical institutions and the difficulty of discussing what happened, even with close family members. The impact of forced or coerced sterilization extends far beyond the procedure itself. For many survivors, it affects family relationships, emotional well-being and future life plans. It can also create lasting feelings of institutional betrayal and broken trust in the institutions that are expected to provide care and protection. I will remind this place that institutions are made up of people, and Parliament has a responsibility to respond. Bill S-228 represents an important step in that process and that response. Clearly identifying forced or coerced sterilization as an aggravated assault would strengthen protections within the Criminal Code and affirm the importance of informed consent, which is something that should be spread across absolutely every procedure by medical professionals. It would also provide greater certainty for victims and survivors. Criminal law should clearly reflect the seriousness of conduct that permanently alters a person's reproductive capacity without their genuine agreement. At its foundation, informed consent requires more than a signature on a form. It requires that a person understands the nature of the procedure, the consequences involved and the alternatives that are available. It must be given voluntarily and without pressure. Consent obtained through intimidation, manipulation or coercion is not consent. That principle should be beyond dispute. The legislation gives Parliament an opportunity to reaffirm that principle in a meaningful way. I want to especially celebrate the people who have made this happen. Senator Yvonne Boyer is an amazing leader who has done an amazing thing in advocating for survivors and ensuring that their experiences cannot be ignored. Her work alongside indigenous organizations, legal advocates and community leaders has contributed significantly to the growing awareness of this issue across Canada. Most importantly, I want to recognize the survivors. To the survivors who have courageously shared their experiences, I want to express my incredible thankfulness. Their willingness to speak has brought attention to an issue that, unfortunately, many Canadians knew little about. Their advocacy has helped create the opportunity for meaningful change. While legislation alone cannot undo the pain that many have experienced, it can help ensure stronger protection for the future and provide a clear framework for accountability.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters, is what I am going to be discussing tonight, including child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures that are part of the bill. It is a broad justice omnibus bill that combines victim protection and criminal law modernization measures, but it also has a fundamental restructuring of mandatory minimum sentences. Also, there are some good parts to this. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners will keep Canadians, especially women, safe from having non-consensual intimate images created and shared. I am thankful the government has adopted the proposal from the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill in her bill, Bill C‑216, to do exactly that. The bill also criminalizes coercive or controlling conduct within intimate relationships. This is something that I have been very concerned about. I believe the behaviours that are the precursors to serious injury and death of women in those relationships often happen when women are most vulnerable. The government has basically failed to mention that when women are especially vulnerable is when they are pregnant and expecting a child. Provisions from the same bill to bring in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse materials have also been taken up, helping our kids feel safe from the most despicable crimes, and I hope it will keep them safer from those crimes. I applaud the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, whose calls have been heard to make the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder. Sadly, the Liberals opposed the member of Parliament for Edmonton Gateway's bill to introduce a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for all forms of extortion. However, at the very least, Bill C‑16 introduces an aggravating factor for sextortion. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not anywhere near enough. There are some good things in Bill C‑16, but of course, as we are hearing today, there are some very serious concerns with it specifically. Despite the positive additions, it continues with the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda. It would empower judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code other than for murder and treason. The Liberals want to empower judges to ignore mandatory sentences for such things as aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearm offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm. These are some of the things that the government is prepared to declare are not violent crimes worthy of further mandatory sentences. By creating a general safety valve, Bill C‑16 introduces a sweeping sentencing change, allowing courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimum capabilities when applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. I have nowhere to put this. If mandatory is not mandatory, then we have an issue with our judicial system's being given the opportunity to play around with this. This provision would apply to nearly all mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code and other federal statutes, effectively converting mandatory minimums from binding sentence floors into discretionary benchmarks. While custodial sentences would still be required, Parliament's ability to set firm baseline consequences for serious violent crimes would be significantly weakened, encouraging lighter sentences for violent and repeat offenders, as well as the long-term erosion of mandatory minimum sentencing as a policy tool. This would result in more, not less, violent criminal activity on our streets. Victims, advocacy groups and the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime are in disbelief. In 2021, instead of fulfilling the responsibility to review the Victims Bill of Rights, as was outlined, the Liberals began a study through the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. According to the ombud for victims of crime, the committee eventually produced a December 2022 report titled, “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. Critics, including the ombud, argued that the review was not as comprehensive as the legislation warranted. Although 13 recommendations were made, many of the most significant remain outstanding to this day. The federal ombud continues to argue that victims rights remain largely symbolic rights that are not enforced. Let us comment on the fact that this is what is happening to the victims, but look at what is happening with respect to the sentencing of those who perform violent crimes against those victims. In 2024, it was stated that many of the recommendations could significantly improve victims' experiences if they were implemented. Many of the more significant recommendations remain outstanding, such as the automated notification of rights. One of the biggest complaints is that victims are still generally required to seek out information themselves. Victims are still not automatically informed of their rights and services, or of offender status, parole processes and restitution options, yet the accused are informed of theirs. What is wrong with this scenario? Also outstanding is stronger enforcement of victims' rights. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights gives victims the right to information and whatnot. However, there is still no broad mechanism allowing them to go to court and obtain a remedy when those rights are violated. National minimal service standards are also outstanding. The committee and ombudsperson called for more consistent national standards, but the government has not provided those national standards, leaving victims to try to navigate services that vary significantly between provinces and territories. Why has the Liberal government treated the Victims Bill of Rights as largely symbolic and failed to strengthen victims' rights in a meaningful way? Why instead are victims seeing the insertion of this poison pill in the form of a safety valve in Bill C‑16, which is dangerously weakening Liberal criminal justice policies and giving more leniency to criminals, in sentencing reforms? That is what is happening here. This poison pill is antithetical to preventing violent crimes. It would be giving more leniency. There should be one track in Bill C‑16 for victim protection, coercive control, deepfake offences and trial efficiency measures. It is typical of the federal government members to bring forward such a bill. Quite honestly, they know that much of it was put forward by our members, yet they put something in there that is antithetical to the goodness that could be done on behalf of victims while lessening the amount of violent crime that continues to grow in this country. That is because of the laws it has allowed, such as bail and not jail and lowering the sentencing requirements for those committing very serious violent crimes. Each component should be studied on its merits. Let us study the bill separately from the desire that the Liberals have to basically remove mandatory minimums from our judicial system. We would be able to support the victim protection and procedural component of Bill C‑16, but the mandatory minimum sentencing safety valve is definitely something that should not be part of the bill. Why does it even matter? Parliament sets mandatory minimum sentences for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore them, there would be nothing mandatory about it. The vast number of mandatory minimum sentences have already been deemed constitutional, and now the Liberals would be putting them in jeopardy when they have already passed that test of constitutionality. They would be allowing judicial activism. As a matter of fact, they are encouraging it toward lesser sentencing. On top of that, they are using hypotheticals rather than the real situation in front of them to make decisions that are actually causing more harm to victims and creating more violent crime in our country. The court's responsibility is to interpret and use the laws created by parliamentarians that are in the best interests of those who face the terrible conditions of violent crime. We have heard about many of those today. We continue to see the erosion of Canadians' safety when criminals' rights are put ahead of victims' rights. This is part of the problem with this approach to the charter. We have already indicated that a vast number of mandatory minimum sentences have been deemed constitutional, yet the government would be giving the judicial system, an activist judicial system, a window to go out and make huge changes to that. The passage of this provision would be a total abolition of our duty as elected representatives to keep Canadians and their communities safe. The Liberals should split this poison pill out of the bill so that parliamentarians can work together to pass Bill C‑16.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was really pleased to see some of the items in this bill with regard to protecting women when they are being attacked, and I am a little surprised, because when the government had opportunities to support private members' bills, two of them mine, that would have given protections to women and recognized when they were being attacked simply because they are pregnant or, in a case where the attacker, a third party, knows they are pregnant, there was no recognition at all of that circumstance. I call that a poor failure on the part of the government.

Mr. Speaker, no victim should face a situation where they do not get justice from our courts. It is very frustrating to see the limitations, in a lot of ways, of our court system. At the same time, I am really frustrated with the fact that the federal government continues to pass the buck to our provinces. As one member was saying, we have had growth in populations and immigration has gone far beyond our capacity as a country to handle schooling, housing, jobs and education. I would also say, it has gone beyond our capacity for dealing with individuals who come to our country who perhaps add to the challenge of those court systems getting through all of their cases.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that observation. That is part of the problem we have. The government has introduced, over this last five to 10 years, bills that basically give more and more leniency than the expectations of citizens and people in our country to obey the laws of our land, treat other people with respect and not create scenarios where violence is allowed. It is not only allowed but also seems to be encouraged. “Poison pill” is something we use in the House to describe the Liberal government's legislation over and over again. As a matter of fact, my constituents are starting to use this term, because they see the good in a bill, but then they recognize when something has been interjected that is contrary to the value of a bill and is going to harm citizens rather than protect them.

Madam Speaker, in speaking with our shadow justice minister, something he brought to my attention was that there are many mandatory minimums that are no longer protected, and we tried to give that protection back through our amendments, that have actually already been tested by the Supreme Court and found to be constitutional. What does that mean, when they can now simply decide to change the ruling?

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to return to a question I asked the Prime Minister in April on his reckless spending. I am grateful not solely because the answer I received from the government was inadequate and devoid of hope for Canadians, but because I believe a whole generation’s future hangs in the balance. The poor choices the government has made over the past 10 years have put young people at a severe disadvantage. They are the future engine of our economy. They are the future tax base that will be asked to support an aging population and compete with a rapidly developing world. A responsible government would provide them with the opportunities and conditions to succeed. A responsible government, as it stands, however, we do not have. We have a federal Liberal government that has failed to meet the moment. This is a matter that I believe should command the concern of absolutely every parliamentarian. In short, this is a federal government that has created an economic hole of its own design, is attempting to spend itself out of that hole and, simultaneously, refuses to take the common-sense steps that will create the long-term growth that Canadians desperately need. These young people, current and future taxpayers, are entering the working world with a bill that none of them anticipated and none of them deserve. Fully aware of the consequences, the Prime Minister chose to add another $54 billion of spending on the national credit card this year. Added to other out-of-control deficits over the past decade, Canadians will be saddled with $407 billion in interest alone over the next six years. As I stated in my original question, by 2031, today’s 18-year-old first-time voter will be the workforce facing an additional $462 billion in national debt. With numbers like this, it is not at all surprising that Canada has the highest food inflation, the highest housing costs and the highest household debt in the G7, but this stark reality does not even factor in the youth jobs crisis. After years of Liberal stagnation and mismanagement, youth unemployment is now hitting 14.3% and overall youth employment is at one of the lowest points in decades. Students are being hit especially hard, with more than 17% of those looking for work and not able to find a job. Last summer, student unemployment reached levels not seen since the great recession. Young Canadians are trying to pay tuition, gain experience and build a future. A cost of living crisis has come and many cannot find work. Even graduates with post-secondary education are increasingly unable to find jobs related to their training. After years of Liberal policies that have driven away investment, burdened small businesses and failed to match training with labour market needs, young Canadians are paying the price. They deserve opportunity, not unemployment. Through the Conservative youth jobs plan, our side of the floor would unleash the economy by repealing anti-resource laws, cutting taxes to drive reinvestment and eliminating red tape that is shutting youth out of the job market. We would fix immigration by repairing credential recognition and realigning immigration with labour and housing realities. We would move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to training and ensure that the Canada student financial assistance program provides relatively more support to students pursuing in-demand fields. We would also build homes where the jobs are by proposing a 100% capital cost writeoff for companies that build workforce housing. I am encouraged that the HUMA committee recently released an all-party unanimous report on youth unemployment. The report makes key recommendations to advance much of what Conservatives have proposed. Now is the time for the government to listen to Conservatives and their own MPs by implementing all of these recommendations. This is a critical moment. Rising unemployment and the cost of living will drive more Canadians to the breaking point, particularly Canada’s youth. While the Liberals have no youth jobs plan, Conservatives have done the work and are determined to deliver results and real hope for their future. We will unleash the economy and restore the take-home pay Canadians need to break out of this Liberal debt cycle of their own creation.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but we will have $407 billion in interest alone over the next six years, and by 2031, the youngest voters will be facing the workforce with an additional $462 billion in national debt. That is not good money management by the government. Nothing has changed under the Prime Minister, and nothing will change until the government's reckless spending is stopped. For proof, Canada's youth need look no further than the G7 or even the G20, where Canada is the only member in a full-blown recession. Major banks, as well as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, are forecasting sluggish growth this year, and debt-to-GDP ratios are expected to continue to remain high, with virtually no chance of a decline over the next five years. It is no wonder the PBO is also reporting that the Liberals are borrowing an extra $7 billion over their own budgeted amount. That is an additional $72 billion piled onto the backs of our youth this year alone, when they are already overburdened and desperate for relief. Conservatives warned that inflationary spending would weaken economic growth, drive away investment and leave Canadians—

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the school food program. We have school food programs in Saskatchewan for kids who come to school hungry. I think it is really important. However, the government committed $216.6 million annually to the food program and is making it permanent. An additional 400,000 children will benefit from this commitment every year. There are 5.5 million students in school right now and 3.5 million are in elementary. With the money the government is giving, it works out to $2.70 per day per child. How is that caring for children? Why does the government not give the money back to the parents through a proper economy and let them feed their own kids?

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, our Canadian Forces' morale has been attacked, traditions have been erased and attrition has become highly damaging to our capability to defend Canada. The Canadian Forces' Snowbirds must continue to be the souls of our Canadian military. They exude Canadian pride and international reputation for expertise, precision and high standards that have given our allies confidence in us in the past. Will the Liberals do the right thing and save our souls, save our Snowbirds?

Mr. Speaker, I am really curious about the member's brother who served in the air force. I would love to have a conversation with him around the Snowbirds and encourage the Liberals' support. They are such a wonderful representation to young people who would also like to join the air force. I want to note one thing from the British Columbia Supreme Court when it released its decision. It concluded that the Cowichan Tribes hold aboriginal title to a portion of their lands, including private lands held in fee simple. Justice Young made a number of findings and issued a series of declarations that, according to—

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has expressed our concerns on this side of the floor. I think of 18-year-olds right now facing their futures. Over the next six years, they will be going to school, getting a trade, occupation or profession, and they will be in the seat of dealing with $406.6 billion in interest over those six years added on to increasing debt. How does the member feel about the reality of what the government is doing to the next generation of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, this costly credit card budget means more debt, more costs, more spending, more taxes, more of the same. Out-of-control deficits have taken the breath away from working Canadians with $407 billion in interest over the next six years. Nothing has changed, and nothing will change for the future of today's 18-year-old first-time voters if the government is not stopped dead in its tracks. By 2031, they will be the workforce, facing an additional $462 billion in national debt. What have Canadians gained from the Liberals doubling Trudeau's deficit and charging the next generation with their credit card budgeting?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, having listened to and read a lot of the testimony, that what the member just mentioned about the concerns of one of those witnesses is absolutely true. At the same time, Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” She goes on to indicate that it should not be an either-or but a both-and. We know that victims come with different perspectives. What the government has done is chosen what is best, most applicable and appreciated by itself and the Canadian Armed Forces. It removes it from the very place where the issues are being done. They—

Mr. Speaker, I have no experience in the military, and I do not serve on the national defence committee, so why am I here? I serve on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have been there since 2015. As a matter of fact, I am the matron of the committee. I am the only one who has been there this entire time, outlasting a decade's worth of 10 ministers and different members every time the government has had an election. I have experienced everything on that committee, in my heart and in my mind, with all of those who have come to share their stories and their concerns. I am standing here today simply on behalf of the survivors of military sexual trauma in whatever form. We did a study of women in the military, and out of that study came the report “Invisible No More”. Survivors spoke of their experiences, and I have to say there is no other way to hear what the government should be doing than to sit down and not just read the report but watch and listen to every one of those individuals who took the risk, and were brave and courageous, to come and share exactly what has happened to them in the military. I am hearing the concerns that it was so devastating, and it was not treated properly, so we are going to move it all over to civilian court. These women know what is happening here. They are not being heard and are not being respected. They do not want to have everything shifted over to the civilian court. There are reasons for that, which are rational and were shared at the committee, and they are being completely ignored. Why? It is because the government wants it to go away. It wants our national defence to be able to function without this in the rear-view mirror. That is not what the survivors want. They want the option to take their perpetrator to civilian court or to do it within the military. As a matter of fact, if members read all of Bill C-11, they will see there were good reasons, and means, to also give them the choice to move between the two. This is not complicated. It could be done, and every member of the military who has been attacked in some way should have the opportunity to have that choice. Out of that same report, “Invisible No More”, a recommendation came forward to have a VAC women veterans council. It was announced on December 2, 2024. I was at the installation ceremony for the members who were chosen and celebrated the creation of the council that spring. It joined a plethora of advisory councils that have had minimum input and minimum impact on the decision-making of the government. Believing that their contribution would be different, the members were excited, and then time went by. I attended a major conference where members of the council were represented, and they were praised for their participation and input in making this conference take place. I later learned from a number of them that no, it was just word salad. They were not consulted. On January 14 came a letter of resignation from six out of the 12, including five of the eight Canadian Armed Forces members, who put in their letter of resignation because they saw none of what they had expected to have happen in that group. This is what the letter said: Today, more than ever, we believe in the importance of coming together, speaking collectively, and demanding accountability. Meaningful change will not come from symbolic structures or performative consultations, but from clear institutional commitment, dedicated and transparent funding, and mechanisms that genuinely recognize lived experience as expertise. This is something I have come to realize over my decade plus on that committee. These women are always considered, but they are never recognized as experts in what they present at that committee. We are seeing that again today in the way they are being responded to. In response to Bill C-11 in its original form, concerns actually came to light at an appreciation event for women who served in the Canadian Armed Forces, including those who had contributed to the study, that was sponsored and put on by the Liberal women MPs on the veterans affairs standing committee. I was not formally invited, but I showed up. It was there that these contributors expressed openly that they were not happy with Bill C-11 and that it would not do what they need it to do. I had the opportunity to represent them and talk to my colleagues in national defence. They listened. The government is not listening. As a matter of fact, it is being punitive to the very people it should be supporting. I am just going to quote a couple of the individuals I have come to know and be good friends with. I love their tenacity, their grit, their truthfulness and the fact that they do not see themselves as victims. They are survivors, and they love the armed forces. Their biggest desire is to see this gone, but they do not believe that can happen if suddenly there is no accountability. We know that the chain of command is culpable here. It is part of the problem. I get the rationale, but it is not right, and it is punitive to the very people the government should be supporting. I am going to quote Donna Van Leusden. She said: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed— That creates trauma. That is sanctuary trauma. —and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did. She was involved in actually putting together a program that they could have function within the Canadian Armed Forces. They were even doing tests, and it was working. There are a lot of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have seen what has gone on and did not want to be part of that, do not want to be part of that, and looked forward to having this as an option. It was shut down. I am going to quote Christine Wood, who is the one who bravely said at that meeting of the committee and veterans that they were not happy with Bill C-11, and she explained why. She said: I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military. We have different views, do we not? However, it is not an either-or. It is a both-and. She went on to say: I support it because the CAF must uphold [its] own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices. To be clear, I'm not defending the status quo. The military justice system...failed me [too, but] replacing one system that's broken with another system that completely and consistently fails victims of sexual offences does not create justice. It simply relocates the problem, and...removes the responsibility of the CAF for fixing it. Transferring all Criminal Code sexual offences will, in my view, increase the number of high-harm incidents. This is important. Low-level sexual misconduct must be both reported and pursued, because these are the early warning[s]...of a toxic, sexualized culture. Requiring a young, newly enrolled CAF member to walk into an RCMP detachment to report a low-level incident is unrealistic, and it will suppress reporting. Heather Vanderveer said, “Survivor autonomy is one of the strongest predictors of recovery after institutional betrayal and sexual trauma. Bill C-11 risks creating a system where survivors feel processed through the justice system rather than empowered within it.” This is wrong, and it is going to cause more problems than it fixes.

Mr. Speaker, the tone in which the member presented his question is appreciated. I voted for the report. When we voted for that report, we were saying to all those suffering individuals that we were there for them, we heard them and we wanted to see change. I voted for that recommendation at that time. Over time, those same individuals who gave testimony have had time to process it. What is interesting is that what ended up being the recommendation in that report is also a recommendation that was put forward by that one individual. There are others who did excellent work too. It needs to be changed.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that nothing around here moves the way I would make it move, if I were the one in charge. “Cathay for prime minister.” No. I am quite happy to not be in charge. That being said, the reality is that politics interfere often. I think the member knows that as well, even from where he sits. The member asked why in the world this has happened. That is a really good question, and it does not get asked often enough. I firmly believe the reason all of this excellent opportunity to give our veterans the best chance to change the culture of the armed forces has been denied is that it is more politically expedient for the government to make it go away.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated what my colleague spoke to in regard to how things have already progressed and moved along, which has given to a lot of those survivors something that that party does not like to appreciate: hope. I just had an interaction with one of those survivors, who was in absolute tears because she sees and knows how many of her colleagues she is going to have to help. She said that they will say “life is over”, and they will be added to those numbers who have lost their lives because of this and not survived. What does the member have to say to that?

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing an awful lot about Justice Arbour's report. It was made in 2022. Since then, a lot of time has passed and a lot of improvements have been made. When a report like that is made, I would think Justice Arbour would want to come to committee, share the rationales and say whether they are still effective or if there needs to be change. For some reason, she did not show up at all. Can the member articulate why someone in that position would not show up at committee to give their input?

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I will present briefly. The first petition is one that I continue to receive from constituents and Canadians right across the country with respect to Bill C-9. We know the bill has passed over to the other side, and hopefully it is being properly vetted. I believe the Senate will do the work that is required, which was perhaps not done properly in the House. It is with respect to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, which are fundamental rights that must be preserved in our country. The goal is to have the bill properly vetted by the Senate so that, when it comes back to the House, it no longer exists.

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a second petition, which draws the attention of the House to the fact that, in the current federal criminal law, a preborn child is not recognized as a victim in violent crimes. Today, when a pregnant woman in Canada is assaulted or killed, we offer no legal protection for the preborn child. Therefore, no charge can be laid specifically for the death of the child. The death or injury of a preborn child is a violation of a woman's right to protect and give life to her child. The Kaake family of Windsor, Ontario, continues to grieve the loss of Cassandra and her preborn daughter, Molly. Cassandra was 31 weeks pregnant with Molly when they were brutally murdered in December 2014. The petitioners are calling upon the House to pass legislation that would recognize preborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against their mothers, allowing two charges to be laid against the offender instead of one. We need to value choice.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate everything the member has spoken about this morning. I listened very closely. My constituents have been looking forward to this, specifically around the issues of longest ballots and combatting foreign interference. However, there is angst for constituents in the fact that implementing the foreign registry has been so delayed while at the same time the federal government is moving towards a law enforcement agreement with China. I would like the member to speak to that and to the concerns around making sure that what we are saying is also what would be accomplished and accomplished quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my hon. colleague's comments on Bill C-25 intersecting with the importance of the implementation of the foreign interference registry. My constituents are very concerned about this delay, noting that, at the same time, they know there are foreign police stations in our country and the government is working on a law enforcement agreement. How does he see that working together?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague had to say today specifically around something my constituents are concerned about, as are his, which is the delay in the implementation of the foreign interference registry, which is really important, as we have heard today, to make this bill as efficient and good as possible. I would like him to speak a bit more to the fact that the government is delayed in bringing this forward and yet has already moved forward with the law enforcement agreement with China, which causes the kind of concern he mentioned in his speech.

Mr. Speaker, my first petition is being presented on behalf of citizens and residents across Canada who are calling on the government to reverse the planned cuts of 665 AAFC staff and closures of the organic and regenerative research program at the Swift Current office and the Lacombe, Guelph, Quebec City, Indian Head, Scott, Portage la Prairie and Nappan research facilities that serve our agriculture industry.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am presenting today is in regard to Bill C-9. I have many petitions on this issue, which has passed from this House to the other place. I have been requested to continue to present them because the bill will come back. The petitioners are hoping that this particular concern around the ability of all scriptures for all religions in our country to be protected as they are supposed to be is addressed and that, in the future when the House on the other side is doing the research, it will truly do its job and have the witnesses and stakeholders that will present what we hope will bring what Canadians want, an end to Bill C-9.

Mr. Speaker, basically, right now oil prices are very high, and that means the government is bringing in tons and tons of money. In light of that, young people are seeing this and asking why the government will not do the full recommendation from the Conservative Party, because it can certainly afford to do that and not make it even more difficult for young people who are facing these challenges as constituents of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the world is using more oil now and will be for the next 40 years. We have the most efficient, environmentally appropriate means of getting oil out of the ground. We have that ability and that resource. However, what I am hearing from people in this House is that they would rather get it from other countries that are not as conscientious as we are about our environment. I know that Quebec itself has a great deal of oil under the ground, but it is choosing not to do that right now, not until it becomes its own nation, I understand. Why do the government and these individuals not understand the reality that our government is making incredible money on that oil price right now and it will not—

Mr. Speaker, I am standing today on behalf of petitioners who presented petitions in regard to Bill C-9 when the bill was in the House of Commons and have continued to say that we must keep this in front of our House as it is before the other House, and who want to ensure that it knows as well that Canadians are not happy with the response of the government to date. They look forward to the day when Bill C-9 does not come into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark a very important occasion in the history of Canada and Parliament. Sixty years ago, a prairie girl was inspired by her grade 6 teacher's lessons celebrating Canada's 100th birthday, so inspired that a seed was planted in her heart. What she was not taught, and what, I dare say, was not even known at the time, was that a special event was being planned on the Hill by parliamentarians to come together to thank God for Canada's biblical values of faith, family and freedom: the first National Prayer Breakfast of Canada. This morning, over 1,500 followers of Christ from across every province and territory gathered for the 60th annual National Prayer Breakfast, now the longest-running parliamentary event on the Hill. It is no accident that Bill C-9 will be voted on tomorrow. Called upon by religious leaders, legal experts, civil society organizations and hundreds of thousands of people of all faiths, I will vote against Bill C-9, as it would repeal the good-faith religious speech defence in our Criminal Code. God is here today. He will still be here tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, a perfect storm is brewing on Canada's Prairies, and the Liberal government is refusing to act. The exploding population of Richardson's ground squirrels and farmers' loss of strychnine to control them spells disaster for the upcoming growing season. Widespread infestations have led to severe damage to cropland and pastures. The removal of a tool that farmers have used for generations is forcing them to resort to far worse alternatives. These ineffective methods of gopher control are resulting in economic losses, more injury to livestock and a crisis for farm and food sustainability. The Liberal agriculture minister made a commitment to farmers that he would support the application of strychnine for emergency use. The Prime Minister promised to change the mandate of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to consider the cost of food in all regulatory decisions without putting health and safety at risk. These promises have not been fulfilled. Canada's farmers are calling on the Liberals to support farmers' choice in pest management and approve the emergency use of strychnine for provinces that request it.

Mr. Speaker, the words “Bill C-9” are words that I think are known well right across this whole nation. I have multiple petitions here today that I will present to the House from the citizens and residents of Canada. The petitioners indicate that they are very concerned about the Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 that would be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, which would literally criminalize individual people for sharing and talking about their faith in the scriptures. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights in Canada and they have to be preserved. Therefore, these individuals are calling on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, not attack it, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the Atlantic coast, just today we learned that LNG was brought up all the way to Canada from Australia. What happened to the incredible LNG that Canada has, and the opportunity to take care of ourselves? It is Canada first, remember? Which does the member across the floor think is more environmentally friendly: shipping LNG all the way up from Australia or bringing it across our own nation?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of individuals who also support the member for Cloverdale—Langley City's bill, Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to medical assistance in dying. They understand that the Government of Canada intends to expand medical assistance in dying, or MAID, to individuals whose only medical condition is mental illness. Mental illness, they say, is treatable; recovery is possible, and experts agree that it is currently impossible to predict when a mental illness is truly irremediable. They are calling on the government on behalf of families and communities who are concerned that people who could recover through treatment and support may instead lose their lives. Bill C-218, the right to recover act, would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that mental illness alone is not considered a grievous and irremediable condition for the purpose of MAID. Therefore, they, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to pass Bill C-218 to stop the expansion of MAID to those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to continue to stand in the House, as are many on this side of the floor, in support of residents and citizens of Canada who are very concerned about the amendment put forward by the Liberal and Bloc parties to amend Bill C-9, which could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state, they say, has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights, and we need to preserve them. Therefore, they, the individuals, the undersigned, call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, my first petition is in support of the member for Cloverdale—Langley City's private member's bill, Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying. These individuals say that the Government of Canada intends to expand medical assistance in dying to individuals whose only medical condition is a mental illness. The petitioners say mental illness is treatable, recovery is possible and experts agree that it is currently impossible to predict when a mental illness is truly irremediable. They have brought forward other issues as well. All this supports the request that the Government of Canada pass Bill C-218 to stop the expansion of MAID to those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of petitions that I want to present this morning, and there are so many coming in that I cannot do them one by one. They are all in regard to Bill C-9. These citizens and residents of Canada draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following issue. Canadians are concerned about the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9, which could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place, the petitioners say, in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach in matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, I am standing on behalf of individuals who are in support of MP Tamara Jansen's private member's bill, Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to medical assistance in dying. The Government of Canada intends to expand medical assistance in dying to individuals whose only medical condition is a mental illness. However, petitioners say that it is treatable, recovery is possible, and experts agree it is currently impossible to predict when a mental illness is truly irremediable. Expanding MAID in this way risks suggesting that some lives are beyond saving while many Canadians still struggle to access timely—

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He is absolutely correct on that point. The Government of Canada intends to expand medical assistance in dying to individuals whose only medical condition is a mental illness. Mental illness is treatable, recovery is possible and experts agree that it is currently impossible to predict when a mental illness is truly irremediable. Petitioners have many reasons to suggest that this bill is not in the best interests of Canadians. Families and communities are concerned that people who could recover through treatment and support may instead lose their lives. Bill C-218, the right to recover act, would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that mental illness alone is not considered a grievous and irremediable condition for the purpose of MAID. Therefore, these individuals are calling upon the Government of Canada to pass Bill C-218 to stop the expansion of MAID to those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.

Mr. Speaker, I have one other petition. Citizens across this nation have been very concerned about the direction Bill C-9 is going and have indicated that they are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, these individuals call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach in matters of faith.