MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Alex Ruff

Follow by RSS

Ruff advocates for maintaining parliamentary oversight in defense procurement and defending firearms owners against government confiscation schemes, while pushing for victim-centered justice within the military. He often frames his arguments passively, stating the fund is “being funded on the taxpayers’ credit cards.” He leverages his 25 years in uniform to defend rural interests and demand clearer accountability from government bodies.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
89 / 100 over 35 statements
Signal 78 / 100
Relevance 89 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Loses points more than most for Wording that hides who did something, or who will.3.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.8 A story that illustrates instead of making a point.2.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.6 Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.2.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.1 Loses points less than most for Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 35 of 43 statements graded so far.

Statements 43

Government Orders ·

Canadian Space Launch Act

In response to a question from Marilyn Gladu

“We need better oversight in this space bill. The government must report to Parliament and write national security reviews into the law. We must properly check company ownership and any objects flying over Canadian territory.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will first address the point of the member opposite about Geoff Sheerin, the founder of the Canadian Arrow team. It is great to hear that he is still here in Canada using his brilliance and his ingenuity to continue to grow Canadian innovation. If she was to ask Geoff, he would say that unfortunately many members of that team of Canadians actually had to go to the United States and moved to the United States in order to find employment opportunities going into the future. To specifically address the member’s question around the types of amendments I would suggest, I sort of highlighted some of them. This needs to be reported to Parliament. There needs to be better oversight. It needs to be written into what is going to trigger things like national security assessments on to the review process and for the government to make a firm commitment, so that for a payload or ownership of companies launching from Canada, we would have the appropriate oversight over anything that would be flying over Canadian national territory.

“Canada needs its own space launch program, but this bill is weak on national security. It leaves rules about foreign ownership and security screening to the minister instead of putting them into law. I want the ministers in charge to answer my security questions before we move forward.”
  • A repeated line

    “The risk of regulatory capture is high.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauce. Before I start, I want to again acknowledge the unfortunate terrible tragedy in Wainwright this past week and send out my condolences and prayers to all the families of those fallen soldiers, but in particular to all the injured families and those injured soldiers who are still recovering. It is my understanding there are still approximately a dozen of them who are in critical condition and fighting for their lives. Any thoughts and prayers that we can send to them would be of the utmost importance as they continue to carry on. Those thoughts are a reminder to the House and all Canadians listening that we know our soldiers are required to train as they fight. They still have to get out the door. Those soldiers who were implicated in this terrible tragedy are set to deploy in the coming months to Latvia in service to our nation. We are here to debate Bill C-28. Really, the debate has just started. I think we are only on the second day. There has barely been any debate on this, so I am looking forward to ensuring all members of the House who want to speak to this piece of legislation will have the opportunity. What is Bill C-28? It is an enactment that would amend the Aeronautics Act to establish a legislative framework for space launch and re-entry activities in Canada. It would amend certain definitions to take into account new terms, such as “launch vehicles” and “re-entry vehicles”, and authorize those terms to be defined by regulation. It would also remove certain decisions related to the launch and re-entry from review by the Transport Appeal Tribunal of Canada. It would expand the tribunal’s regulation-making powers, including in relation to launches and re-entries and the operation of launch and re-entry sites, as well as in relation to the application of certain international agreements and standards. This enactment would also introduce new authorities related to the liability and indemnification for launch and re-entry activities. Here is a bit of my own background. I spent 25 years in the military. When I was at university at the Royal Military College of Canada, I received an honours degree in space science. I had the pleasure of being exposed to this stuff, and I am going to date myself, back in the mid-nineties. In particular, we had a lecture or course, which I remember well, on space law. I am not a lawyer. I do not pretend to understand what has evolved, but I remember the fascinating discussions and debates we were having 30 years ago on the challenges of space and how it applies to aeronautic laws, etc. It all comes to some of the challenges with the arming of space, how we protect it and how we maintain that international peace that is evolving around there. I do not think 30 years ago we could have predicted just how industrialized space has become. I want to talk specifically about why I personally think having domestic launch capability is important, but it needs to be done right. If we go back 20-some years ago, we had the XPRIZE. Elon Musk even competed in this competition and did not win, but we had Canadian companies involved in it. One in particular was the Canadian Arrow. As part of their requirements to launch their rocket as part of that XPRIZE competition, they needed a launch site with a coastal area with open water at least 100 feet deep with a range footprint of 40 miles by 30 miles. The team lead was Geoffrey Sheerin out of London, Ontario, and they started this back in 2000. As to their mission and goals, I will quote Geoff: “We entered the competition to build and fly a manned suborbital vehicle. The X PRIZE makes it possible under the umbrella of a race to motivate and consolidate help from industry. We hope to make Canada into the space shuttle capital of the world.” I have a personal connection to that team as well, because Gregg Mackay, the structural engineer and the vice president of engineering for Canadian Arrow, is on that team, and Gregg graduated from RMC with me in 1997. He is from Fenelon Falls here in Ontario, and he now resides in my beautiful riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. He is a high school teacher, and I know he is likely listening this morning, with 32 of his students, so I think we have actually likely tripled the number of normal watchers here for the House. It is great to have individuals and those students listening. I am going to quote Gregg here: ”We were a very proud Canadian team. The choice of the name ‘Canadian arrow’ was no mistake. (An obvious nod to the Avro Arrow). We were insistent on a Canadian vehicle, designed by Canadians, built in Canada, based in Canada, launched in Canada. Without the need to go suborbital, a very limited down range capability, and with a water landing, there is no reason why many locations in Canada would not have suited. As we neared completion of ground testing, and vehicle development, we started to look at launch sites. We were very quickly offered space at American launch facilities. It became equally obvious that we were up for a very enormous challenge in acquiring permission to launch from Canada. Despite months of negotiation with various departments, we were turned down for all our requested launch locations. With a slim possibility of a Churchill launch site. We had been leading the competition (in the eyes of many experts who were following the competition) but the delay in locating a launch test facility within Canada eventually played a major part in an American team winning the prize ahead of us. We never gave up on being a 100% Canadian team, but that ultimately cost us the prize.” I am saying that just to outline that this is something important, but we need to do it right. Here are my concerns with Bill C-28 as it is currently drafted. It does not address basic national security safeguards needed in statute. It does not address the possibility of foreign ownership. I do not see anything in law, even within the bill itself, that would allow for the screening of operators and payloads. I find it interesting that the government is constantly speaking about sovereignty and security while promoting this bill, yet the legislation, as I mentioned, would fail to embed basic national security safeguards into statute. There would be no statutory requirement for foreign ownership or control screening of launch operators or payloads. There would be no requirement for beneficial ownership transparency. There would be no statutory tests within the legislation for payload mission profiles or end use. There would be no mandatory integration of intelligence or national security assessments into the approval process. Instead, these issues would be left to regulation or at the discretion of the minister in the public interest. In a specialized industry like space, the risk of regulatory capture is high, so my question is really around this. This is why I am bringing it forth: Why would the criteria for approval and indemnity not be written into the law itself? Is it because the government, the Liberal government, wants to somehow reward insiders and take away the transparency and accountability that comes with parliamentary oversight? It is really hard for Canadian innovators, or any innovators, to invest the necessary capital in a black hole of uncertainty. How would this framework that is built on undefined future regulations give confidence to new Canadian start-ups or does the government really just want to keep this controlled within the industries and companies that are already tied in directly to the Liberal government? I would note we have one example with the Maritime launch site, I believe it was called, where the government committed $200 million to that project earlier this year, and included $20 million per year backdated for a year. I would note that the first $20 million was paid upfront, despite no operational milestones being met by the company yet. In principle, and in conclusion, I personally support the need for domestic space launch capabilities here in Canada. The example I provided of the Canadian Arrow is just one example of why this is so important. That being said, my initial analysis of Bill C-28 indicates that instead of setting the conditions for a transparent, accountable framework that would enable Canadian ingenuity and entrepreneurship, the Liberal government is actually asking Parliament to waive parliamentary oversight and fails to adequately address national security concerns. I am going to be listening intently to the many more days of debate on this bill, specifically for the speeches that I can expect from the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of National Defence, as I am anticipating they will be keen to provide answers to these important questions.

Statements by Members ·

Tragedy at CFB Wainwright

“Four soldiers died and 39 were hurt in a training accident at CFB Wainwright. Military training is dangerous, but our soldiers must do it to prepare for war. We must remember these fallen soldiers, their families, and the troops who keep serving Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our Canadian Armed Forces members know when they enrol that they may be required to make the supreme sacrifice. Private Aidan Goulding, Private Shaun Farrell, Private Hayden Lykkemark and Sergeant Morgan Wong have made that sacrifice. The army trains as it fights. It does this to make sure it is as prepared as possible to face the challenges of conflict. This is inherently dangerous. As we remember these four fallen heroes and the 39 injured in this tragedy at CFB Wainwright, let us please remember that our military personnel do not stop. They are still training and they are still deploying in the service of Canada. It is what they do. The impact this has on the military leadership is often forgotten. They are the ones who need to inform the families and still lead the rest of the team to get back into the fight. We cannot forget the families. Trust me, there is nothing we can tell a family member, a spouse, a parent, a sibling, a child or a friend that removes the pain. The only thing we can do is never forget. Aidan, Shaun, Hayden and Morgan, I will not forget. Canada will not forget. Lest we forget.

Oral Questions ·

Public Safety

“The government told gun owners to ship their guns using couriers that will not ship them. The minister needs to explain this mistake. The government should stop targeting law-abiding gun owners and end this program.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, since October 1, I have multiple constituents receiving notice from the Liberal government’s gun-grab program that they must ship their firearms to the government via Purolator, FedEx or UPS by October 17 in order to receive compensation. All three couriers have refused as they restrict shipping of firearms without prior approval. Did the public safety minister even consider this requirement or is this just a way for the Liberals to keep costs down on this multi-billion-dollar boondoggle? When will the government end its attacks on law-abiding, vetted and licensed firearms owners?

Statements by Members ·

Cardiac Safety

“A charity started in memory of an 18-year-old athlete who died of heart failure put a public heart defibrillator in a busy park in Owen Sound. It is open to the public all day, every day. I want to thank the group and the community for putting it there to save lives.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the family-run Tyson Downs Association for donating a new AED SaveStation at Harrison Park in Owen Sound. Tyson Downs was an exceptional 18-year-old athlete and lacrosse player who passed away suddenly in 2023 as the result of cardiac arrest. Yesterday, this new SaveStation was officially unveiled just outside the Harrison Park Inn in Owen Sound. It houses an automated external defibrillator that is now available to the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Harrison Park is one of the busiest public spaces in our community. Families, athletes, visitors and community groups use it throughout the year. In an emergency, having an AED close by can make the difference between life and death. I want to thank the Tyson Downs Association, SaveStation, the Owen Sound Attack, the City of Owen Sound and everyone who helped make this possible. I congratulate them and thank them for helping to improve cardiac safety in our community.

Government Orders ·

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

“The Senate changed this bill, and the government should reject that change. In my riding, repeat criminals keep getting out on bail and robbing farmers. The Senate's change creates a loophole that makes it too easy for these offenders to get bail even if no one stands up for them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for getting to the crux of the challenges with bail reform and the fact that, when this bill went through the House, it was supported completely. The issue around sureties was discussed and an amendment was unanimously agreed to by all parties in this chamber before it went to the Senate. I do find it somewhat hypocritical of the government to not reject this amendment, like the other amendments that have come back from the Senate on this bill. As the member indicated, it creates vagueness. I know the member referred to rural crime. I have the same challenge in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, where the same repeat offenders, who are robbing our farmers and our rural people, are getting back out on bail. That is why we need bail reform so badly after 11 years of the Liberal government. I am now concerned that, with this loophole in the bill, these people, who do have to convince the judge, will have the ability to get back out when they should be spending time in jail if they cannot find somebody to cover for them or to be their surety.

Oral Questions ·

Justice

“The law says our national security and intelligence committee had to be reviewed by October 2022. I want the government to tell us when this late review will start. I also want the Liberals to vote for my plan to set up a committee to do it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the NSICOP Act mandates that it must be reviewed before October 6, 2022. Unlike in his response on January 29, could the House leader please provide the date the government intends to initiate the long-overdue review of the act? Further, will the Liberals support my motion, which would establish a joint committee to ensure that Parliament abides by this law?

Private Members' Business ·

Canada Revenue Agency Act

“Canada is bad at collecting unpaid taxes. I am asking my colleague if this bill will help us change our tax and criminal laws to hold tax evaders accountable.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to build on the two questions my hon. colleague was already asked, because in my opinion, when people are breaking the law or they are avoiding taxes, it is all about transparency and accountability. In particular, I want to ask him what he thinks the end result will be. Will this help and potentially enable additional changes to our tax laws and our Criminal Code? As he talked about in his speech, unfortunately, Canada has a bad track record of not collecting any of the money that has not been properly paid to the government coffers.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want my colleague to tell Canadians who will pay for this 15% streaming tax if the government does not cancel it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to give my colleague the opportunity to remind all Canadians who will ultimately foot the bill for the 15% increase if the Liberal government does not reject this streaming tax increase proposed by the CRTC and does not scrap it.

Government Orders ·

Military Justice System Modernization Act

“This bill will not give victims justice. Civilian police do not have the resources to handle all military sexual crimes, so cases will be dropped. The government removed good changes made by the committee, like an expiry date on the law and rules to collect data. The Senate should fix these problems.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, because of the programming motion and the time allocation on this, I am going to be the last individual to speak in this chamber, unless the bill comes back, and there is a very high probability that it may come back, based on the Minister of National Defence’s indication earlier in this chamber. When I spoke to the bill earlier this week, I highlighted the importance that we get it right. This is about the victims. This is about our military justice system. This is about retaining the credibility of our military police and our military prosecutors, but in the end, it is all about a victim-centred, trauma-informed decision within our Canadian Armed Forces. I have highlighted before that ultimately the decision was made in late 2021 by the director of military prosecutions, in light of the report that came out by Justice Arbour, to try to transfer all Criminal Code sexual offences to the civilian authorities. In the last five years, we have learned that the civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the resources or the capacity to deal with all these Criminal Code sexual offences. Part of the reason is that sometimes the cases are historical in nature and the courts do not view that they are in the best interest of public safety here in Canada. However, they are definitely in the best interest of justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, discipline and the necessary requirements that we need of our Canadian Armed Forces members. If all the amendments that were done, in some cases with all-party consensus, get removed and Bill C-11 passes in its current form, the challenge we are going to have is that the victims are not going to get justice. There are two things that I think we are going to see happen at the Senate. Based on the minister’s own commentary here in the chamber, he is open to the sunset clause amendment that did pass at committee, which the government has since removed, to be put back into the bill. The other thing I think needs to be included in the bill is some sort of data collection provision. The biggest challenges we hear all the time, especially as these cases get transferred to civilian authorities, are how many they actually take, how many result in a charge being laid and how many end up with something occurring. These are all very important things that I think we need to do, and I encourage those members in the other place to take this into consideration as the bill goes forward. However, the ultimate disappointment I have with the government’s decision not to respect the victims and the decisions made at committee is that we are not going to get this right. As I said before, I predict that those of us who will have the privilege of still being in this chamber in a few years will be dealing with the next iteration of this bill and, unfortunately, apologizing to the victims who are not going to get the justice they deserve.

“This bill will not fix how crimes are handled overseas. In the end, military courts will still have to deal with them. I want the member to say if he trusts the military justice system to help these victims.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation. I want to get back to the answer to my previous question. The member stated that if one of the members of the CAF commits a heinous crime, a Criminal Code sexual offence, overseas, he has complete faith in our military police to be able to collect the data, but then it needs to be transferred to the civilian courts. Unfortunately, that is not what is going to happen when Bill C-11 passes. The same thing that occurs right now will happen when that bill passes. If the military police can find a police of jurisdiction, if there is some way to make that connection and they are willing to take that charge on, then, yes, but in the end it is going to be the military justice system that is going to do justice for these victims. Does the member have faith that our military justice system can do the job and provide justice for the victims?

“Does the government trust our military police to help victims of sexual crimes outside Canada, yes or no?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary have faith in our current military police and their ability to do justice for victims when a Criminal Code sexual offence occurs outside Canada, yes or no?

“I want this military justice bill sent back to committee. The government removed changes that the committee agreed to, including a sunset clause that the minister now says he might accept. I want to know if the member agrees that the government made a mess of this bill and is wrongly expecting the Senate to fix it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was moved by my Conservative colleague earlier today, which is to put this bill back to the committee to, specifically, look at some of the clauses and amendments that were passed by the committee, including Liberal members of that committee, which the government, unfortunately, has removed during report stage. This is important because the minister signalled publicly in this chamber, just a day or two ago, that he is open to having the sunset clause be put back in. That was passed by the committee when it was studying the bill. Does the member think it is somewhat hypocritical of the government to say, “We have screwed this up. We made a mess of it. We are going to let the Senate fix it. It can amend it and then send it back to us”? What does the member think?

“Victims of sexual crimes in the military should have a choice in where their cases go. Civilian police often lack the resources to handle these cases, which leaves victims without justice. Letting victims choose helps make sure cases are handled properly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was tabled by my colleague, and even the comments that just came from the member for Winnipeg North, because I agree with my Bloc colleague that this is about choice for the victims. The member for Winnipeg North keeps bringing up this issue of what Justice Arbour recommended. A lot has changed, and I gave a full speech on this earlier this week at the report stage, highlighting that we have actually gotten this right. The system now provides that the military police try to transfer any of these Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian courts or to the civilian jurisdiction. However, police in these jurisdictions are coming back saying they cannot do it. Their threshold is too high, they do not have the resources, and now, basically, justice is not getting served. With the choice that has existed now over the last five years, we are giving victims the opportunity to make sure justice is served and for the military to take administrative action even when criminal court proceedings go through on the civilian side. What does the member think about those comments?

Statements by Members ·

Veterans

“The government started work on the Afghanistan war memorial this week. The event focused too much on the monument instead of the veterans and their families. I want the government to make sure the veterans are the main focus when it opens in 2028.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a plea to the government that we need to do better. This week, Veterans Affairs hosted the long-delayed national Afghanistan war memorial groundbreaking. This monument will recognize the commitment and sacrifice of the over 40,000 sailors, soldiers, aviators and special forces operators, along with hundreds of Canadian civilians, who served in Canada’s longest combat mission, which was from 2011 to 2014. It will serve as an enduring testament to the 158 Canadian Armed Forces personnel and seven Canadian civilians who made the supreme sacrifice. It is on all of us to ensure that they and their families are never forgotten. Where we, and the government, need to improve is in having the Afghan veterans be front and centre with this project. Unfortunately, on Monday, this symbolic groundbreaking spent more time focused on the monument itself instead of the veterans and their families. I am committed to doing what I can to ensure, when this monument is built and officially unveiled in 2028, that Afghan veterans are the focus. I plea with the Liberal government to do the same. Lest we forget.

Government Orders ·

Military Justice System Modernization Act

“Civilian police often refuse to take sexual offence cases from the military, so victims do not get justice. The military police have improved and can handle these cases properly. We do not need to change the system.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague just to elaborate a bit more on where the improvements have happened. In fact, ever since that direction to try to move many of the Criminal Code sex offences over to the civilian courts, unfortunately, there have been obstacles that the military police have run into, and lots of these police jurisdictions refuse to accept it because of that higher threshold, so there are victims not getting the justice they need. However, because this law, Bill C-11, has not passed, the military police are able to do that. Not only have they learned. Not only is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights there, which has come in within the military. Not only has all of this changed, but we actually have landed on the solution and we do not need to change things. Right now, we have a military police system that will try to move things over to the civilian courts when a case is severe enough, but at the same time, they can ensure that justice is served. Would the member agree?

Oral Questions ·

International Trade

“Beef farmers in my area are worried about trade talks with South American countries. Bringing in more foreign beef will hurt local farmers and our food supply. The government should focus on selling Canadian beef to other countries instead of hurting our cattle industry at home.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Bruce County and Grey County beef farmers have publicly expressed concerns about the ongoing negotiations with Mercosur. They said, “This won’t just hurt farmers—it will weaken rural communities and reduce Canada’s ability to produce its own food.... In Ontario...where most imported beef enters the market, the impact on local farmers would be severe.” Canadian beef producers are waiting to get more access in markets across the world. Should the Liberal government not be prioritizing export market access abroad instead of displacing the Canadian cattle industry at home?

Government Orders ·

Report Stage

In response to a question from Harb Gill

“This bill lets the military avoid responsibility by handing cases to civilian police. Civilian police are already too busy, and their rules are different. This will hurt victims, and we will have to fix this mistake later.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I do not know if anybody is going to be held to account. That is going to be the problem with this, because ultimately it is an abdication of responsibility and accountability within the CAF, which is what I highlighted in my speech. It is about handing this off and saying that police officers are able to deal with this. As the member noted, they are already overloaded. Their threshold is much higher than the military’s and I think we are not going to do the victims justice. They are going to be the ones who will suffer from this and we will be back at this trying to fix this mistake a few years from now.

In response to a question from Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

“The government is making a mistake with this military justice bill. We need to focus on the victims. The government should listen to the military witnesses and keep the changes our committee recommended.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I could use a really derogatory term, but I will not. My point is that it is the government that is making a mistake. Ultimately, I think we need to get this right. This is about the victims. The committee did so much hard work. The witnesses testified. I am not taking anything away from what Justice Arbour brought forward. This is a tough position for the CAF and the senior leadership of the CAF. However, I dare say that if we go back and review the testimony put forward at committee by the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the Canadian director of military prosecutions, they weighed their concerns on this. Again, this is ultimately about taking care of the victims. I do not think the government is going to get it right if it removes the hard work of the committee and what it put forward as recommendations.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The military has already made big changes since the Arbour report. It has more independence, more support for victims, and better military police. We do not need to transfer these cases away from the military justice system now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary with respect to Justice Arbour, things have changed. In previous speeches we have outlined this. The victims’ bill of rights is no longer there. We have a sexual misconduct resource centre available. The independence has gone forward. The military police have actually fixed and addressed the key things that allowed for the situations upon which Justice Arbour made her recommendations. It was brought up previously in the debate that unfortunately Justice Arbour chose not to show up at committee to testify. Things have changed. In the military, the last thing we do when we do a mission analysis is ask whether the situation has changed. Since 2021, the situation has changed, as I highlighted during my speech, based on the recommendations that came from Fish and Arbour. The system is pretty much there. Let us use the rest of Bill C-11. With this transfer, I think we are getting it wrong.