Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, we have seen the Liberals are privatizing, or are talking about privatizing, four of Canada's largest airports, which produce a half a billion dollars in revenue. They are talking about modernizing Canadian ports, which we know basically means they are going to privatize them. They are even privatizing and putting out to tender the contract that the Commissionaires, which hires veterans, gets. Now the Liberals are undermining workers' rights. We hear a lot of people say that the Liberals have taken on the Conservative agenda, but I will ask my colleague, is this the Conservative agenda? Would the Conservatives have even gone this far, when it comes to privatizing Canadian public services?

Madam Speaker, the government says it will coordinate consultation through a new Crown consultation hub, which is what they have called it. Ultimately, who gets to decide if and when that consultation is complete? My colleague talked a lot about first nations. Will indigenous nations have a meaningful say in determining whether their concerns have actually been addressed in that consultation process, or will the government be the one marking its own homework? Who will decide when that is complete and what that timeline looks like?

Madam Speaker, I want to go back in time. The northern gateway pipeline was rejected by the courts in part because the Crown's consultations with the affected first nations were found to be inadequate. The lesson of that should have been clear to the government, and that lesson is that rushing consultation can delay projects rather than get them built. My question is this: Why is the Liberal government repeating the same mistakes of the Harper Conservatives by prioritizing an arbitrary timeline over getting consultations with indigenous peoples right the first time? The government is repeating the same mistakes, and this will just end up in the courts again, wasting everybody's time and money.

Madam Speaker, over the summer, the government consulted with labour, unions and different organizations. Federal unions have been calling for section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to be removed after governments, especially the Liberal government, have used it to order workers back to work and undermine their collective bargaining rights. The government is proposing new language, as we know, around section 107, and calling these changes “guardrails”. However, unions are telling us these changes could actually weaken workers' bargaining power. Organized labour still has no answer on who brought these ideas forward and who asked for these changes. The Conservatives are saying they are friends with labour. Do they support these changes or do they know who asked for these changes?

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about their mandate, but nowhere in their election platform did they talk about privatizing Canada's airports, selling off Canada's ports, building a publicly funded pipeline, outsourcing the Commissionaires' contract that supports veterans or turning a blind eye when the public health care system is being attacked by Alberta and being privatized. Where in their election platform is any of this? They are outsourcing the—

Mr. Speaker, today we honour the life and extraordinary service of respected elder Angus Campbell of the Ahousaht First Nation, who passed away on September 10 at the age of 72. For more than 50 years, Angus served his nation as chief councillor and council member, dedicating himself to strengthening Ahousaht and improving the lives of its people. Through personal tragedy, change and challenge, he persevered with dignity and resolve. He brought wisdom, continuity and a deep commitment to his people throughout his years of leadership. Angus was also a devoted father to five children and three adopted children, and a source of love, guidance and strength to his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. His legacy endures in the people he served and in the progress he helped achieve. Klecko klecko to Angus Campbell. May he rest in peace. May his service to Ahousaht be remembered for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, here we are just three days into the fall sitting of the House, and I am once again having to drag the government back into the House for an adjournment debate to protect our universal public health care system. Back in April, I asked a question during question period referencing the fact that the Minister of Health stood here and called herself “the guardian of the Canada Health Act”. After months of delay, she has failed to act while Alberta Premier Danielle Smith expands American-style pay-for-access diagnostics and two-tiered health care. Canadians cannot afford more stalling while our universal health care system is being undermined. Since that time, on September 1, Alberta's Bill 11 has landed on our doorstep. The Canadian Health Coalition, which I want to thank for its tremendous work advocating for our public health care system, commissioned a legal opinion stating that Bill 11 is the most serious threat against public universal health care we have seen since the Canada Health Act was passed in 1984. The first parts of Premier Smith's draconian Bill 11 in Alberta just recently came into force at the beginning of this month, with the rest being enacted in the coming months. Bill 11 opens the door to the privatization of public health care in Canada. As Friends of Medicare has so succinctly said, we must slam it shut. Shockingly, despite my repeated attempts at ringing the alarm bells around Alberta's Bill 11 here in the House, through the media and in many meetings with the Minister of Health asking that she enforce the Canada Health Act to protect our public health care system from a threat that no one voted for, it was not until the eve of the recent coming into force of the bill that the minister finally said that she would be considering the ramifications of the bill. If the minister is truly the guardian, why is she taking so long to enforce the law and stop the erosion of our public health care system? This is an issue of national unity. What can happen in Alberta does not necessarily stay in Alberta. Canadians are united in their opposition to the insults and damage flowing from the American President towards Canada. The Prime Minister has been travelling abroad and hosting summits with billionaires here at home, so what happened to “elbows up” and “Canada strong”? Protecting our health care is Canada strong. That is nation building, but eroding our public health care system through inaction and failure to enforce the Canada Health Act is not Canada strong. It weakens Canada. It is not Canadian. It erodes the security of the very thing Canadians most closely identify with as part of being Canadian. Canadians do not want American-style health care, the queue-jumping for people with money or the so-called dual practice, which is now under way in Alberta. I will ask the government this again. Why has it not enforced the Canada Health Act to prevent the erosion of our public health care system, something that Canadians identify with in our shared values as a healthy and inclusive society? People should use their health care card, not their credit card, to get the help and services they need when it comes to their health.

Madam Speaker, I have deep respect for my colleague. I want to thank him for volunteering tonight and for coming in. I am going to ask him to volunteer to stand up against a province that is in violation of the Canada Health Act. They are moving toward a private model. That is clear. This undermines the Canada Health Act. It is the responsibility of the government to enforce it. If the government is truly the guardian of our public health care system, it needs to act. It needs to act now. Innovation is one thing, but breaking the law and the rules of the country is another. That is the responsibility of the government. It is the NDP that is showing up here at night. I am volunteering to show up, to stand up for Canadians, because no other party is coming in here to stand up against the privatization of our health care system. We will stand strong to protect our public universal health care system. I hope the government will act and act soon.

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour today to rise to table petition E-7298, signed by more than 22,000 Canadians, recognizing the essential role nurses play in our public health care system and the serious recruitment and retention challenges facing the profession. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to amend the Income Tax Act to create a refundable federal tax credit for registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, registered psychiatric nurses and nurse practitioners, modelled on the tax credit for personal support workers that was introduced in the 2025 federal budget. I want to thank Linda Silas, who is a nurse, a trade unionist and president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, for sponsoring this petition. I would like to highlight again that Canada is facing a persistent nursing shortage, driven in part by recruitment and retention challenges, heavy workloads and rising cost of living pressures. I hope that the government will act on this petition.

Madam Speaker, New Democrats support relief for people right now. They are struggling to make ends meet. This bill alone would cost over $5 billion. I will remind the House that oil and gas companies are posting record profits. We have never had more profits than right now in the oil and gas sector. Conservatives in Britain have even brought in an excess profit tax, but we cannot get Liberals here in Canada to even consider it. I would ask the Minister of Finance the following. Is there a number? Is there a threshold? Is there an amount of profits? Is it $200 billion? Is it $300 billion? What is the number before the Liberals bring in an excess profit tax? This amounts to corporate welfare. That is exactly what is happening here. This bill should not be on the backs of everyday people.

Madam Speaker, a report from the Centre for Future Work is predicting that we are going to see an additional $50 billion in consumer costs, or a 4.2% increase in inflation. That is if the Strait of Hormuz closed today. We have not seen an increase of even one cent on the production of oil and gas, yet oil and gas profits are skyrocketing. At the same time, the Centre for Future Work is predicting that we are going to see a $65-billion-plus increase in excess profits. What this bill would do is actually increase the debt. Canadian taxpayers pick up the tab anyway. We want them to get relief right now. Does my colleague agree that an excess profit tax would help alleviate the pressure on the Canadian taxpayer and that oil and gas, when they are winning big like this, should contribute more? We heard the Conservatives even say that the Liberals have taken their agenda and are implementing their agenda. We know that Conservatives in Britain implemented an excess profit tax on oil and gas, but these Liberals will never do it. We are seeing record profits. There is no threshold of profits before they implement an excess profit tax.

Mr. Speaker, who is the government listening to? Canada's biggest corporations are making record profits, yet yesterday the Liberals introduced legislation trying to take away workers' right to strike. Withholding labour is the workers' bargaining power. It is how families fight back against corporate greed so people can feed their kids. We are asking, precisely who asked the Liberal government for these changes, and can the Liberals explain how they think weakening bargaining power helps Canadian families?

Mr. Speaker, it is rare when New Democrats and Conservatives agree on something, and we certainly agree that it is critical that we provide relief to people who are struggling right now. However, we believe that big corporations and big oil and gas should be paying for it, not creating more debt to taxpayers. One more thing we agree on is, as my colleague talked about, the lack of debate on the greatest threat to the Canadian economy with the tariffs and the countertariffs that are happening right now. I think about small businesses in my riding that have sales less than $1 million. There is no relief for them right now from the government. There is no debate happening to talk about those issues taking place right now, and it did not happen this summer, like my colleague talked about. Could the member talk about how this is impacting small businesses in her community, which are not getting any help during the greatest threat to our Canadian economy right now in our history?

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for talking about our children. This bill would create a debt of $5.3 billion. As New Democrats, we support the relief to consumers from the gas tax savings. What we do not support is putting this on the backs of future generations. We believe that big oil and gas, which is making record profits, should be shouldering and sharing some of this. We are seeing excess profits like we have never seen, obscene profits in the tens of billions of dollars. Does my colleague not agree and believe that the big oil and gas companies that are profiting from a war and showing record profits should cover the costs of what Liberals are putting in this bill, taking the pressure off everyday Canadians?

Madam Speaker, we know that Norway, where they created a sovereign wealth fund, has $2 trillion U.S. In fact, in royalties alone, the Norwegians generated over $300 billion last year because they took resources from a finite resource, from oil and gas, and they invested them. They have taken those royalties to do exactly the kinds of things that the government is talking about today, taking pressure off citizens when times are difficult. Instead, what did the current government do? It created a sovereign wealth fund that took the big oil and gas companies and let them off the hook. Right now, we have record profits with big oil and gas. Does my colleague not agree that when big oil and gas are profiting with record profits because of a war, the generational wealth should be invested in a sovereign wealth fund that can be invested in programs that can help take the pressure off Canadians and pivot to investing in renewable energy? This is a generational opportunity that is being lost right now.

Madam Speaker, again, we all agree in this House that we need to take pressure off everyday Canadians. People are struggling to make ends meet. This bill, in its intention, is a good idea, which is to remove taxes so people pay less at a time when they need help. Where I have a problem, and I am surprised the Conservatives do not join me, is that all we are doing is taking this debt of over $5 billion and punting it down the road for future generations to pick up the tab. They are the ones who are going to end up paying this, because this is going on our debt. Meanwhile, big oil and gas are posting obscene profits. We have never seen profits like this. This war is creating extreme wealth for big oil and gas and investors. I would like to know if my colleague has talked to his constituents. He should ask them if they believe that big oil and gas companies should chip in a bit more while they have these winning profits. I know from my experience in talking to my constituents that every single one of them I talk to, every one of them, thinks that the big oil and gas companies should pay an excess profit tax.

Madam Speaker, this summer we had another catastrophic wildfire season right across the country. Last year, it was in my riding. Three years ago, it was in my riding as well. We know the climate crisis is real. It is costing Canadians every day, not just when their communities get hit, but through their home insurance and business insurance. We are seeing costs skyrocketing. We know people need help. They need relief. Where do we go for that relief? Big oil and gas is posting record profits. It is an opportunity for them to chip in and help give relief to Canadians. That could be at the pump right now through a bill like this, but it could also be through helping to take pressure off people when they are trying to access home and business insurance. Does my colleague not agree that big oil and gas should be chipping in while it is winning, while it is posting record profits, so it can support Canadians, invest in clean energy and invest in supporting people?

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the challenges people are facing. One thing I will give her credit for is that she has been an incredible champion for calling for universal pharmacare. We know that in her home province, seniors are cutting pills in half because they cannot get the medicine they need when they need it. It was just last September that the Prime Minister assured the Canadian public that he was going to sign pharmacare agreements with all of the provinces and territories that had not gotten on board. Here we are, a year later, and not a single agreement has been signed in the last 12 months, including in her home province. Is my colleague going to be the champion to get those deals done? Is she still committed to universal pharmacare to ensure that people are not cutting pills in the country and are using their health card, not their credit card, to access the medicines they need?

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed sitting on the government operations committee with the member for a long time. He does great work there. We got to work together. We got to examine the government's outsourcing. When we looked at the outsourcing for professional services, the Liberal government's spending skyrocketed to over $23 billion for professional services alone. Meanwhile, people are struggling to get their pensions, to get their EI or to get support from CRA. Our offices are being inundated at a time when people are struggling with a cost of living crisis. Now the government is cutting more jobs and this austerity is going to lead to more outsourcing, because the work still has to get done. However, it is going to get done by for-profit companies. Could my colleague speak about what he has seen at his office? Could he connect the dots between the impact of austerity and how that impacts people on the cost of living crisis? Maybe the member could speak about the outsourcing that is out of control, which the government promised to rein in.

Madam Speaker, in 2022, when we had a huge spike in oil prices with the global shock from oil and gas, we saw a huge windfall in profits. A study came out that said 50% of the profits through that spike went to the top 1%. That is insane. Right now, we are dealing with something very similar. If we look back in our history, during World War II, we implemented a 75% excess profit tax on oil and gas. We could apply that today. That would generate over $46 billion. Even if we scaled that back to 20%, it would generate enough money to cover what the Liberals are proposing today, and we could do that fivefold to take the pressure off people. Why is the government not bringing in an excess profit tax? Why is the government protecting the top 1%? In the United States, 50% of profits in 2022, for example, and it is here in Canada too, went to the top 1%.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition concerning striking security workers represented by PSAC Local 71250 at the Bank of Canada. The petitioners note that these workers have been on strike since June 23 and that the Canada Industrial Relations Board has twice found that the Bank of Canada has violated the Canada Labour Code through the use of replacement workers. They are calling on the government to ensure compliance with the board's decisions, to strengthen the enforcement of federal anti-scab protections, to ensure Crown corporations respect workers' rights under the Canada Labour Code and to call on the Bank of Canada to cease the unlawful use of replacement workers and bargain in good faith toward a fair collective agreement. Workers' rights under federal law must be respected, enforced and upheld.

Mr. Speaker, the member gave the government credit for actually bringing forward this legislation, well, not really credit, but he attributed it to them. I would not go that far. This legislation is a result of pressure from modern-day treaty nations that have called for this, because of the government's failure to implement treaties and dragging its feet. That is what this is about, and it includes the Maa-nulth first nations in my riding. I also think about nations in my riding that have signed agreements with the government that are not modern-day treaties, like Tla-o-qui-aht. The government is dragging its feet on promises it has made. We hear the government constantly talking about nation-building. Does my colleague agree that nation-building is signing modern-day treaties, signing agreements with indigenous peoples, and that fast-tracking that should be a priority for the government? That is good for the economy. That is good for nation-building.

Mr. Speaker, we recall that the United Nations special rapporteur warned that Canada's temporary foreign worker program can create conditions resembling modern-day slavery. Last month, the San Group, a company operating in Port Alberni, was fined $429,000 and banned for two years for serious violations involving migrant workers. My office met with those workers, and they were terrified. They feared losing their jobs, their status and the money they had borrowed to come to Canada. It was NGOs, the Salvation Army's Michael Ramsay and Kim Tran, a local Vietnamese interpreter, who stepped up and helped out because the federal government was not there to support these migrant workers who were trying to get help. A two-year ban certainly is not enough. Exploited workers deserve timely support, open permits and a pathway to permanency. Does my colleague agree that this program needs to be fixed and that there needs to be funding to support workers?

Mr. Speaker, as I highlighted earlier, a Port Alberni company was fined $429,000 for its violation in its treatment of migrant workers, and it was given a two-year ban. Clearly, two years is not enough. The company operates other companies, and the rumour is that it actually has temporary foreign workers working for them as well. It took local people to help them out, because the government failed to be there. There is no funding in Bill C-30 to create more funding to support workers whose rights are violated. I would like to hear the member's opinion, first, about the program itself and, second, about the importance of ensuring that when workers' rights are violated, they get the support they need. Many people have filed complaints about employers who are abusing the program. There has been no follow-up and no feedback. Temporary foreign workers are often hired without the labour market opinion having been done in the right way. Workers who are looking for work are not getting hired. We hear in my riding about abuses of workers by employers, but there is no follow-up. There is nothing. When workers are in trouble, they are not supported. When people complain about workers being violated, they do not get support, and the workers they are concerned about do not get the help they need. I wonder if my colleague can speak about the changes that are needed in the program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back to a part of the conversation in which my colleague talked about the government's removing regulations on dangerous pesticides. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced his food security strategy, and the Liberals are removing important regulations that protect Canadians regarding pesticides. At the same time, the government is cutting public agricultural research capacity at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. These cuts would close research facilities, eliminate scientists and technicians, and end programs like the organic and regenerative agriculture research program. I would like to hear from my colleague about whether, when food security and food sovereignty matter more than ever, my colleague sees the importance of the government's pausing its changes on these regulations, pausing these cuts and actually working with farmers to protect Canada's public agricultural research system?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues for allowing that to happen. Today is Brain Injury Awareness Day. It is an honour to table this petition on behalf of the families impacted by 165,000 new cases annually of brain injury in our country. They highlight that brain injury survivors face a 200% increased risk of struggling with addictions after sustaining a brain injury. Despite the federal government committing $11 billion over 10 years to improve community support in mental health and addiction services, none have been specifically targeted to brain injury. The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C‑206, develop a national strategy to support and improve brain injury awareness prevention and treatment and the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with a brain injury.

Mr. Speaker, June is Brain Injury Awareness Month, a time to recognize survivors, families, caregivers and first responders whose lives are forever changed by brain injury. In Courtenay—Alberni, Amelia Hayden, a retired RCMP officer, knows this impact deeply. She was on duty the day Constable Gerry Breeze was injured, and she remained a source of support to his family throughout his recovery and after his passing. Their story reminds us why Canada needs a national brain injury strategy. It is why I introduced Bill C-206. In the last Parliament, former MP Alistair MacGregor's bill passed unanimously at every stage to report stage but died because of prorogation. The call to action is non-partisan, and on Wednesday, June 17, as Canadians take part in a national pause for brain injury, we hope all parties will support a call for a national brain injury strategy in this fall's budget.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, in Atlantic Canada, they receive about $125 per person in ongoing ferry subsidies for operating costs. In British Columbia, it is about $6 per person. In fact, BC Ferries receives only 3% of overall expenditures in funding from the federal government for operating costs, versus Atlantic Canada's 43%. My colleague will cite that the Liberals provided funding for COVID relief, which they did for Atlantic Canada, too, or loans that have to be repaid by ferry users that accumulate to about $26 million in savings over 25 years. It is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to Atlantic Canada. Does my colleague believe the current agreements are outdated and need to be modernized? He talked about increases in fuel. BC Ferries, just last week, added a 5% surcharge because of fuel. Is my colleague going to stand up for our coastal communities today?

Mr. Speaker, I asked a Liberal colleague earlier today about ferry funding. I was explaining that the federal government contributes 43% of operating costs for Atlantic ferries. In British Columbia, they contribute 3%. The government contributes $6 per capita to the average British Columbian for operating costs for ferries, but on the east coast, it is $125. The Liberals say it is because of constitutional agreements and because those ferries are travelling province to province. Does my colleague think that Vancouver Island and coastal B.C. need to become a province just to get funding when it comes to operational costs for ferries? Living in a coastal community, ferries are essential transportation. I stood in the House, and I heard a Liberal parliamentary secretary agree that it is essential transportation. This is about fairness. People on Vancouver Island pay the same amount in taxes as people in Atlantic Canada. We do not even have a senator on Vancouver Island. We have not had one in 55 years. They have 10 senators in New Brunswick. They have six in Nova Scotia. They have 10 between P.E.I. and Newfoundland. P.E.I. and Newfoundland do not even have the same population as Vancouver Island. Neither does New Brunswick. In Nova Scotia, it is the same. We are not asking to reopen the Constitution. We are just asking the government to do something that is fair.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to table a petition on behalf of constituents from my riding. It is signed by members of the Tseshaht and Hupačasath nations in Nuu-chah-nulth territory. They highlight that an essential part of reconciliation is addressing the harms first nations have experienced, including the devastating loss of language and culture; that there is a growing number of indigenous language learners, but the number of remaining fluent speakers is falling; that the changes to federal funding for indigenous language programming, especially in British Columbia, have put the preservation and revitalization of first nation languages and cultural heritage at risk; and that there is an urgent need to invest in indigenous language revitalization before it is too late. The petitioners are calling on the government to ensure that there is fair, adequate, long-term funding to protect indigenous languages and for indigenous language programming.

First, Mr. Speaker, no one is arguing the importance of this bill. However, there are Senate amendments that are very good and that we support. The government rejected them. Now it is proposing closure instead of having proper debate on the bill. We want to get it right. I think that is important. I think we all want to work together in the House to make sure we have the best legislation and in moving it forward quickly. At the same time, this is not the right tool for us to have the proper debate, which has not been held in the House. Closure is not the right tool.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's national shipbuilding strategy focuses on building and maintaining vessels, but there is no plan for responsibly retiring them. More than 900 derelict and end-of-life vessels sit off B.C.'s coast, threatening the marine environment. While aging navy and Coast Guard vessels approach retirement, Canada lacks the capacity to safely recycle them here at home. Will the Prime Minister finally commit to investing in dry dock infrastructure, in world-class ship recycling facilities and in regulations, and make ship recycling a core component of the national shipbuilding strategy?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to say a couple of kind words about my good friend from Beaches—East York. I will start by saying that it is disappointing. In the last few weeks, this is the third progressive member of Parliament from the government caucus who is leaving this place, especially at a time when we need progressive politics. I cannot think of another member of Parliament in the history of this country who has fought and worked more to end animal cruelty and stand up for animal rights. It has been a privilege to watch him work, and we all know we have to carry that work forward. We will take his crusade with us. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill talked about courage, and I really want to emphasize that. He stood with the NDP well before the supply and confidence agreement on pharmacare. I am disappointed that he does not get to see it exercised in his home province. I hope the government will take that to heart. He stood with my bill, Bill C-216, on a health-based approach to tackle the toxic drug crisis. He was an outlier in his caucus and he stood with us to make sure that we had a plan to respond to the toxic drug crisis. I want to thank him for his support. I want to highlight one thing, which is his job as a minister. He took it to heart when we asked for support for a pool upgrade in my riding. He understood the need for seniors to have a safe place to exercise and how it was community medicine. He constantly texted me, emailed me, phoned me and checked on the project. He worked so diligently. I was so taken aback by his persistence to try to get something done. It resulted in the single largest federal government investment in mid-Vancouver Island for a recreation facility. My community is grateful. I hope he will visit my community so that we can celebrate the incredible work he put into our project. I want to thank him for his work and courage, and I look forward to seeing what he does next.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some good points. The number one project in my riding for Build Canada Homes is a project to serve some individuals with intellectual disabilities. We know that many people with intellectual disabilities are served by L'Arche Canada, L'Arche Comox Valley in my riding. I am sure it is L'Arche in Regina—Lewvan. Right now, Build Canada Homes is holding the project up. It is saying that it does not meet the criteria for supportive and transitional needs. How can people with intellectual disabilities not meet the criteria for transitional needs? This is a project that is supported by L'Arche Canada. Build Canada Homes is saying that it cannot do anything right now. The minister's office says it cannot talk to Build Canada Homes and cannot get involved. These people have nowhere to go right now. They are the most vulnerable people in our society. They count on us. Maybe my colleague can speak about how this is such a disaster right now.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. Before I get started, I want to give a shout-out to Laurel Collins, the former MP for Victoria, who, as you might recall, was a champion in tackling gender-based violence and laid the groundwork for today. If Bill C-16 is about protecting women and children, we need to get it right. We need to listen to the experts, and many of them, including women's organizations, survivor groups and legal advocates, have repeatedly called for greater investments in prevention, housing, income security and violence protection programs, yet we have seen Liberals and Conservatives continually vote against amendments that we put forward, especially from the member for Winnipeg Centre. Maybe my colleague can speak about why the Conservatives voted against those amendments instead of focusing on stopping violence before it happens, because that is a critical component.

Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleague. The main concern that we have been having as New Democrats is that we see the Liberals right now, and they are cutting critical programs that are essential for prevention. They are also letting programs expire. Maybe my colleague can explain how the government expects to reduce violence against women and victims of intimate partner violence when they are cutting the very programs that are critical for prevention. We have heard from the experts time and time again that not only do they need to be maintained, but the investment needs to be increased significantly. It is essential to this conversation.

Mr. Speaker, here I am again, tonight, at the hour of 12:14 a.m. Fair ferry funding is a critical issue to Vancouver Islanders and to coastal British Columbians. It is such a serious issue that it cannot go unanswered. I am sure that the Liberals were hoping I would not show up tonight, but here I am. I am here because ferry affordability, economic competitiveness and transportation equity matter to the nearly one million people who call Vancouver Island home and to the coastal communities that depend on BC Ferries every day. For many of my constituents, BC Ferries is not just a convenience; it is a necessity. It is a critical transportation link connecting people to work, health care, education, family and economic opportunity. The Liberal government recognizes ferries as essential transportation infrastructure in Atlantic Canada, but it continues to treat British Columbia differently. Last July, the Prime Minister announced a 50% reduction in fares on federally supported ferry routes in Atlantic Canada. That decision recognized an important reality. Ferry affordability matters because ferry transportation is essential infrastructure when we have the longest coastline in the world. I agree with that funding. The question is why the same principle does not apply to British Columbia. The people of B.C. pay the same federal taxes as Canadians living in Atlantic Canada, yet when it comes to ferry funding, we receive dramatically different levels of support. BC Ferries is one of the largest ferry systems in the world. It operates 25 routes, serves approximately 1,600 kilometres of coastline, maintains 47 terminals, operates a fleet of 37 vessels and carries more than 22 million passengers a year. According to the Library of Parliament, federal operational funding accounts for approximately 3% of BC Ferries' operating revenues. By comparison, federal funding covers approximately 43% of operating costs for federally supported ferry services in Atlantic Canada. This disparity is also evident on a per capita basis. British Columbians receive approximately five to six dollars per person in federal operational ferry support, while Atlantic Canadians receive approximately $125 per person. These numbers reveal a significant imbalance in how the federal government supports essential transportation infrastructure across the country. Let me be clear. This is not an argument against supporting Atlantic Canada. I support those investments. This is an argument for fairness. B.C. is currently in the midst of a ferry fare review. It is around their services. BC Ferries has warned that without additional funding, customers could face fare increases of more than 30% over the coming years. Reductions in services could also happen, or both. At a time when Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, that prospect should concern every member in the House, especially coastal MPs from B.C. The current funding framework is rooted in historical arrangements developed decades ago, when Vancouver Island had roughly half its current population. Today, Vancouver Island is approaching a million residents and is comparable to the size of New Zealand's South Island. It is home to a major regional economy that depends on reliable and affordable ferry transportation. If the current model no longer reflects the realities of modern Canada, then it is time for a review and a modification to fix this agreement. Vancouver Islanders and coastal people in B.C. should not have to become a province to qualify for fair federal support for essential transportation infrastructure from the federal government. If ferry affordability matters in Atlantic Canada, it should matter in British Columbia. I am calling for a real response tonight from the federal government. We need to see action for coastal British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague for staying up late tonight to show up for this important debate. I am going to correct a couple of things. First of all, the pandemic relief that the federal government provided to BC Ferries was also provided to the east coast. It was equal in terms of per capita. Second, the loans that the member cited are repayable loans. Even with the loan interest at $26 million a year and the $38 million, when we look at loan savings per year over 25 years, that does not even come close to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the federal government subsidizes on the east coast. There are approximately 350,000 passengers on the east coast and 22 million at BC Ferries, yet the federal government gives hundreds of millions of dollars to Atlantic Canada, which we support, but they shortchange British Columbians. It has been far too long since the government has reviewed the essential ferry funding for British Columbians. It is time for the government to fix it. The population of Vancouver Island is more than the population of New Brunswick, more than that of Newfoundland and Labrador and P.E.I. together, and almost the same as that of Nova Scotia. This is long overdue. I am here at 12.22 a.m. not because I think this is fair. It is unfair.

Mr. Speaker, Alberta is considering several routes for a new diluted bitumen pipeline and export terminals through northern British Columbia, yet the Nisga'a Nation says that neither Alberta nor the federal Liberal government has discussed any oil pipeline proposal with the Nisga'a government. Reconciliation cannot mean making decisions first and talking to first nations later. Will the government commit today to meaningful consultation, accommodation and free, prior and informed consent of affected first nations, and to upholding the north coast oil tanker ban?

Madam Speaker, five years ago, the Liberals promised to ban flavoured vaping products that appeal to youth. Health Canada drafted the regulations years ago, and evidence from Canada, Quebec and the Netherlands shows that flavour bans can reduce youth vaping without increasing smoking rates, yet shelves remain stocked with bubble gum-flavoured, cotton candy-flavoured, berry-flavoured, mango-flavoured and watermelon-flavoured products designed to attract young people and increase the risk of nicotine addiction. The evidence is clear and the regulations are ready. Who is blocking these regulations, and when will the Liberal government finally ban these youth-targeted flavoured vaping products?

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of residents of my riding. They highlight that Israel's policies and actions violate the obligations set out under the Geneva Convention, which it is required to respect; that Canada is required to respect international humanitarian law; and that Israel, as an occupying power, must allow and facilitate humanitarian aid by impartial organizations. The petitioners clearly ask that Canada publicly and unequivocally reject the militarized aid model currently used in Palestine; demand the full restoration of access for UN agencies and established humanitarian aid, including UNRWA and the World Food Programme; insist on safe and immediate entry for Canadian health care workers and other international humanitarian personnel to Palestine; withhold Canadian funding from any entity or model that does not comply with these principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence and humanity; and ensure that all Canadian aid to Gaza be delivered through internationally recognized humanitarian channels.

Madam Speaker, we all want to prevent discrimination and violence in this country, but fast-tracking and shutting down debate is not going to help improve this legislation. We have a lot of important questions. We do not want to wait until there are complaints, tribunals or criminal sanctions after the fact. We want to talk about what we are going to do to prevent it. We have not heard from the minister or the government on how they are going to invest in anti-bullying in schools; in mental health supports for vulnerable youth; in housing and homelessness, which is something that we have heard is clearly important on this; in community-based violence protection; in support for victims of hate incidents and discrimination; and in training in federally regulated workplaces, which is under the purview of the federal government and the minister, before complaints happen. We have a lot of questions that have not been addressed by the government. Can the minister explain when the funding is going to come in on prevention, instead of it happening after the fact?

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to work with my colleague on many climate-related issues. Earlier, I raised some concerns to the justice minister on responding to those who have been victims of discrimination and violence. Certainly, we understand the important work around dealing with complaints and the criminal sanctions piece, but there is still nothing when it comes to funding and when it comes to prevention around discrimination and violence, especially for vulnerable youth. I tabled a bill yesterday calling for parity for mental and physical health so that people get services when they need them. Does my colleague agree that the government should be supporting legislation to have parity for mental and physical health? This would be so that mental health is an insured benefit and people, especially youth, could get the supports they need when they need them.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, An Act to enact the Mental Health, Addictions and Substance Use Services Act and to make consequential amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to table this bill, which aims to create parity between physical and mental health in our public health care system. The mental health parity act proposes a framework for the federal government to partner with provinces and territories to provide public coverage for community-based mental health, addictions and substance use services. The goal of this bill is to make mental health services accessible to all Canadians through our public health care system. This bill would incorporate the principles of the Canada Health Act: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. It would also incorporate provisions to promote public accountability and to reduce regional disparities in coverage. I want to thank the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, the Canadian Mental Health Association and all those who spent years advocating for mental health parity. I also want to thank my colleague, who has been a champion for mental health, the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona, for seconding this bill. I hope all members will support this bill as a step towards building a stronger, healthier Canada. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table this petition, which was signed by residents of my riding just this last weekend. They highlight that ferries are essential marine highways that connect coastal communities, workers, families, businesses and supply chains to the rest of Canada. Vancouver Island is approaching one million residents and BC Ferries carries more than 22 million passengers annually. According to an analysis by the Library of Parliament, BC Ferries received approximately $1.63 in federal operational support per passenger in 2024-25, compared to $291 for federally supported east coast ferry systems. Canadians in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia deserve strong federal ferry support because these services are part of essential national transportation infrastructure. The petitioners also highlight that current federal ferry funding agreements rely on outdated constitutional arrangements and formulas created decades ago when Vancouver Island had roughly half its current population. Vancouver Island and coastal communities should not have to become separate provinces in order to receive fair ferry funding from the federal government. It is no longer sustainable to operate one of the world's largest ferry systems without stable, long-term federal operational support. The petitioners cite that they want the government to modernize federal ferry funding policies and provide fair, stable, long-term federal operational support for BC Ferries as essential national transportation infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Centre, despite our differences. I also have respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Confederation, who on May 27, 2025, in the House said, “We will ensure the future sustainability of programs that have already saved families thousands of dollars a year. This includes child care and pharmacare.” I am going to talk about pharmacare, because right now in Alberta there is not a pharmacare plan, something we fought really hard for as New Democrats. Does my colleague think that people in Alberta's not having diabetes medicine or birth control is the responsibility, or blame, of his premier, Danielle Smith, or is it the Prime Minister's fault?

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dental care plan is one of the most significant expansions of public health care in a generation. For too long, millions of Canadians went without dental care because they could not afford it. They delayed treatment, lived with pain and watched manageable dental problems become serious health issues because the cost was out of reach. The New Democrats fought to make this program a reality because access to health care should never depend on the size of a person's paycheque, pension cheque or bank account. Today, millions of Canadians have access to dental care because of the Canadian dental care plan. This is a success worth protecting. It is why I rise tonight to raise a serious and growing concern. My office has been contacted by Canadians who have applied in good faith, were approved, received care and renewed their coverage as instructed. Many believed everything was in order, only to receive letters saying their eligibility was now under review or they may no longer qualify. Many affected are retirees, former union members, veterans and pensioners who made decisions about dental coverage through their unions or employers years ago, sometimes decades, based on the rules that existed at the time. Some were told that if they opted out of their dental coverage, they could never rejoin. When the Canadian dental care plan became available, they applied honestly because they believed they did not have access to dental coverage. The government reviewed their applications and approved them. Now they are being told that information on a T4 or T4A tax slip suggests they may have had access after all. Susan from Errington believed she qualified because she had opted out of her pension dental plan before December 11, 2023, and could not re-enroll. She has documentation supporting her position but no clear timeline for a decision. Ian from Parksville left his former employer decades ago. He declined dental coverage because the premiums were nearly equal to the pension benefits he receives. He was told he could never rejoin. Now he fears being asked to repay benefits he received in good faith. Allan from Coombs, a retired veteran, opted out of dental coverage in the 1990s because he could not afford the premiums. He was told he could not rejoin. Now he is caught in an eligibility review because rules appear to be changing decades later. Joyce from Lasqueti Island had not seen a dentist in eight years because she could not afford private coverage. The plan finally gave her access to care. Now she worries that coverage may be taken away. These constituents are not alone. We know people across Canada do not know whether they will lose their coverage, whether they can renew, whether documents have been received or whether they will be asked to repay benefits already approved by the Liberal government. Many cannot even speak directly to the officials reviewing their cases. They are directed from one department to another with no clear timeline for a decision. Even members of Parliament have limited ability to obtain updates. This is not simply a question of paperwork. It is a question of access to health care. Will the government maintain coverage and protect renewal eligibility while reviews are under way? Will it establish clear service guidelines and standards, provide applicants and MPs with a dedicated point of contact, and ensure that Canadians who acted honestly and in good faith are not denied dental care because of gaps between government systems and the reality of their circumstances? The Canadian dental care plan is improving lives. We must not allow bureaucracy, confusion and administrative barriers to undermine that promise.

Mr. Speaker, I truly hope the Liberals will address these issues. I have another emerging issue that I want to raise. My office has been inundated with calls from seniors, retirees, veterans and pensioners who are confused, anxious and afraid of losing the Canadian dental care plan coverage because of yesterday's June 1 renewal deadline. Many applied honestly, were approved and received care but are now being told their eligibility is under review. Others missed the deadline because of unclear communication, delayed notices or confusion and now must reapply, risking a gap in coverage. The government needs to understand the anxiety that this has caused. Requiring renewal creates unnecessary barriers, especially for seniors and vulnerable people navigating government systems. The renewal deadline must be extended. No Canadian should lose dental coverage because of administrative confusion. The government must provide clarity and ensure no one is left without the care they depend on. Will the government fix this?