Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Chris Bittle

Liberal St. Catharines 18 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Bittle pushes defence procurement reform and Niagara manufacturing, backing the Defence Investment Agency and arguing that meeting NATO spending targets will bring work to factories in St. Catharines; lately he also presses for a children’s online safety bill. His arguments drift into warm asides — “I do not envy them.” — before he returns to the point with procedural citations and local detail.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B–
73 / 100 over 14 statements
Signal 75 / 100
Relevance 68 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 86 / 100
Averaged over the 14 of 18 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

A remark off to the side of the point.2.4 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.4

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.8

A story that illustrates instead of making a point.1.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.6

Loses points less than most for Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 18

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

In response to a question from Doly Begum

“We need a strong regulator to enforce this bill. Big tech companies will try to weaken the rules. Free speech and parents' rights are important to talk about, but we need a regulator to hold these companies accountable and actually protect children.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is important to have a regulator with some teeth. Again, we can talk about letting parents parent and about the concerns about free speech, which are genuine and need to be discussed in this place, but in the absence of a regulator to enforce the bill and to hold companies to account, it is going to be a challenge. These are powerful companies that are going to do whatever they can to water down this bill. I have seen it before, but we have to do our best to provide actual concrete protections for our children, and I believe the commission would do that.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“We need to send this bill to committee quickly. Free speech is important, but social media algorithms control what our kids see. These companies will not protect children on their own, because child deaths have been part of their business model. A committee can improve the bill, but we must act fast.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I am envious of the hon. member, and I hope I can find a way to jump my kids to that point through these difficult times. The member keeps talking about free speech, which is fundamentally important and protected by the charter. To paraphrase, I think it was Jon Stewart who said that social media is to free speech like twinkies are to food. It is highly processed garbage. The algorithm is controlling what we see and what our kids see. We cannot just wave this away as free speech and hope the social media companies will do the right thing, because we have seen, for too many years, that dead kids are okay to them and part of their business model. The committee will meet and do important things. Amendments will be made, and we will get to the best possible legislation we can, but we need to get the bill there as quickly as possible.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“We need to send this bill to committee so members can study it, change it, and pass it quickly. We all want to protect children, and Parliament must act now to keep them safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the bill needs to get to committee. I have been here a couple of years, and I have not seen a bill this size go through unamended. I imagine the committee will hear a lot of the same heart-wrenching stories that I heard, and I hope this compels committee members to act as quickly as possible. I do not envy them. I would not want to go through it again, but it is important work that Parliament will do. I know that every member of the House wants to protect our kids, but Parliament needs to act, government needs to step up and we need to do better for our children.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I support this bill and want it sent to committee. Social media algorithms push children toward dangerous content like eating disorders and hate speech just to keep their attention. Tech companies do not care about safety and ignore Parliament, and parents cannot protect their kids from these platforms on their own.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I start my speech, as many members have, with thoughts of my children. I have a 10-year-old son and an eight-year-old daughter, who are hopefully asleep by this point in the debate. I am living in this wonderful spot where they still like hanging out with their dad and do not have the device that many of us have in our pockets, with constant unfiltered access to the Internet. Having seen this debate before and having many colleagues and friends who have children who are older, I am afraid, like many Canadians. I am afraid of what will happen in a few years with the conversation when they ask, “Can I have a phone?” That conversation is coming. It is coming for all of us as parents. It is worrisome. We have ready access to the world in our pockets. I am old enough to remember the promise that this would be an enormous blessing, that it would be incredible for our society. In many ways it is, but in so many ways it is a curse. Like all of us in this place, I have talked to so many parents who are worried and who are afraid. When I was thinking about what I was going to say today, I was taken back to the last Parliament when I was on the justice committee, and we were doing a prestudy of Bill C-63, which was a previous iteration of online harms legislation. The topic was so important that despite a filibuster going on in the House, it was important for everyone at the justice committee to discuss it. I have been through a lot of difficult bills and studies in this place at committee, and I have to say that that one was the hardest by far. We had witness after witness and parent after parent who tried, who did everything they could, but whose son or daughter is no longer with us. They were children who felt trapped and cornered in these online spaces. We can talk about or suggest there was bad parenting, but these were parents who were paying attention. It should not matter, because our kids should be safe. We want our kids to be safe in all the spaces they occupy. I do not know that any member can stand up here today and say, and I am not suggesting that anyone has, that they are safe, because they are not. As the previous member said, these algorithms are dangerous. They take our kids to dangerous places. It was shocking to me that the algorithm knows. If someone is inclined to an eating disorder, it will show them people who are inclined to that particular affliction. If someone is inclined to hate speech, it will show them that as well, because the goal is to keep us focused on our phones as much as possible. It is the goal of the algorithm, and it is powerful. Having dealt with these social media companies, these big tech companies, through various bills, whether it was the Canada Elections Act, the Online Streaming Act or the various digital bills we have passed and debated over the years that I have been here, one thing has been certain to me: These companies do not care. These American tech giants do not care and have contempt for this place. I have watched them too many times come to parliamentary committees, be evasive, not answer members’ questions and have a complete disregard for what we are doing. These companies are so powerful that they can ignore a parliamentary summons. We are still waiting for Mark Zuckerberg to appear from a previous parliamentary summons. I do not think those carry over, but he was summonsed. He did not care; he did not have to. It does not matter. That was Meta. Google was slightly better before the heritage committee. Its representatives would come and be evasive. They would do their few minutes and move on. They did not care about the safety of Canadians. They even set up an astroturf campaign over one of our bills, with a fake individual who was arguing on behalf of artists. He had no members. He was just receiving money from Google and Meta, I believe. Basically, he was an unregistered lobbyist whom we caught lying to the heritage committee. Google did not care. It denied ever being behind it, even though this person testified he was receiving money from the company. To them, a bunch of kids dying is the cost of doing business. I hope that shocks all of us. I think it does. Having listened to many of the speeches here today, I hear there is a willingness to do something. It is important for Parliament to debate what that is, but it is shocking to see across the border the lack of willingness of our American friends and neighbours to regulate these companies, to rein them in. I do not know about everyone here, but I am tired of the harm. I am tired of the stories. Recently, a colleague of mine asked me to stop by a reception at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which does incredible work, against all odds, and is based in Winnipeg. We talked to parents who feel that their backs are against the wall and who have lost kids or had kids kidnapped. One of the parents had their child kidnapped through readily available software that was accessible in the child’s school. When I look to these parents, they look to us and ask what Parliament is doing. We need to act. I hear from members of this place that we should let parents parent, that it is not for the government to step in. I can appreciate that this is coming from a good place, but these companies are so powerful. Parents are busy. It is easy to let kids have some screen time. They cannot be over their shoulder 24 hours a day. The rabbit holes they can go down are incredibly dangerous and can lead to their deaths. Whether it is extortion leading to suicide, kidnapping, or all the horrific stories we have heard, we need to step up. We have a willingness to act, but it is shocking to me, and I hope it is shocking to everyone, having watched these companies do nothing, that we need to impose duties upon them: the duty to protect, the duty to act responsibly and the duty to make content inaccessible. They make so much money off of this. It should be shocking to all of us, to all Canadians, that Parliament needs to step up and say to these social media companies that they need to do the right thing, because they have been absent for so long. A member from Scarborough at our committee asked a Google executive, when Google came up, about a sign on the wall at its headquarters. It said “Do no evil”, which was probably mocking Microsoft. Google took down that sign. It was too embarrassing. I hope that we have a good debate, that we move forward with this legislation and that the committee has an excellent discussion about what moves forward next, because we owe it to our kids.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS ·

Criminal Code

“I will vote against this bill. It is already a serious crime to damage religious property, and judges can already make offenders pay for what they broke. We do not need a new law that repeats rules we already have.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Respect 98 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He knows that all they can do is spread disinformation and raise money”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-255. The bill proposes to create a new a new criminal offence, mischief to religious property, which would join the existing criminal mischief offences at section 430 of the Criminal Code. The bill further proposes corresponding mandatory minimum jail sentences and a penalty structure whereby the offender would pay money directly to the property owner as part of their punishment. The existing offence of mischief to property is a broad offence that generally prohibits intentionally damaging, destroying or interfering with someone’s lawful use or enjoyment of the property. For example, it could capture throwing a rock through the window of someone’s home or vandalizing a building, including a place of worship. We all have an interest in protecting both public and private property from these criminal acts. The bill’s objectives are laudable. This is something we have talked about often in this place in terms of protection of not only places of worship but broader religious spaces. I agree with the sponsor that religious property deserves protection and that property owners, in appropriate circumstances, deserve compensation when damage is suffered. However, after careful consideration, I intend to vote against the bill, and my reasons are these. First, the bill would duplicate mischief offences in the Criminal Code. Though members who have spoken today suggest there is a hole in the Criminal Code, there is not. This is illegal. Second, the proposed financial penalties are not necessary given the authority of sentencing judges to order restitution to victims and inappropriately risk overcompensating certain victims when damage to their property is less than the $1,000 minimum penalty. Also, the proposals are redundant as a result of the recent changes advanced by the government through the Combatting Hate Act, including a new hate crime offence and new offences that address obstruction of or interference with access to buildings for religious worship. It has been bizarre to sit here for the last 50 minutes and hear from Conservative members who pretend that Bill C-9 does not exist. Also, we did not hear how they voted, which was against. We also did not hear how they spent months and months delaying the bill, months and months spreading misinformation and disinformation, sowing fear in communities where enough fear exists and suggesting that people will be arrested at the pulpit, which is preposterous given the protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They stoked so much fear and division. Many of them sanctimoniously got up with bibles at their hearts to vote against this piece of legislation. However, a few months later, they are here to say we need to be protecting religious places. The previous speaker said the government has an obligation to the sponsor of the bill to work with her. Where was she when Bill C-9 was going through and there was an unwillingness to work through Bill C-9? There was filibuster after filibuster as religious groups were calling for the Conservatives to pass the legislation. What did they do? They spent months fundraising. As religious groups were asking for it, that is what they did. It is interesting to hear now that we should have an obligation to work with this member. I agree that the member’s objectives are laudable, but so too were the objectives of the government in Bill C-9. Those were campaign commitments that we needed to step up, as there was so much debate in this place, in not only this Parliament but the previous Parliament, as we have seen a rise in hate crimes and attacks on religious institutions. The government stepped up, and the Conservatives were nowhere to be found, so it is a little surprising to be here in this place. As I mentioned, I support the intent behind the bill, but I do not believe its specific proposals will enhance criminal law responses to conduct targeting religious property beyond what the existing criminal law already does. Returning to my concern that the bill would result in duplication, the Criminal Code already contains a mischief offence that applies when any property, including religious property, is damaged. This offence is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of two years or, if the value of the property exceeds $5,000, a maximum of 10 years. In addition to this general offence, there is a specific offence that prohibits mischief to religious property, which is punishable by a higher maximum penalty if the conduct of the offender was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. This specific offence is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years when prosecuted by indictment, regardless of the value. Now, the previous speaker said we should not look at motive, and that would be a great thing to say if that was not required by the criminal law in all cases. It has probably been 20 years since I took a criminal law class, but we need to look at motive. That motive needs to be proven. Even in the member’s legislation, that motive will need to be proven. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Chris Bittle: Why? Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of the bill asks why. That is wonderful. There are two things in a criminal offence that need to be proved: the actus reus, the criminal act, which is very easy to prove; and the mens rea, or the mental component. One needs to prove that the offender was going to do it, the motive behind it, for every crime in the Criminal Code. It is surprising to hear the Conservatives ask, “Why do we need to prove motive?” If we are legislating around the Criminal Code, we should know what elements are required to convict someone of that offence. The requirement to prove specific motivation, which the existing mischief to religious property offence includes, would not remove the requirement to prove it as an aggravating factor in sentencing. After a conviction, the law already allows for what we are calling for in this place, that the penalty should be higher if someone is attacking places of religious worship or religious gathering. That is already in the Criminal Code, and members on the other side are pretending it does not exist. The power is already in the hands of judges. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Chris Bittle: The member on the other side is heckling, Mr. Speaker. He is saying I am out of touch, but he has spent months spreading misinformation and disinformation, and he believes it. It is amazing when they believe their own supply. He is doing nothing but yelling one line. It is somewhat amusing that he has nothing of substance to say except to shoot me down. He knows that all they can do is spread disinformation and raise money, which is shameful. These communities already have enough fear, and now a political party stands up to spread misinformation and disinformation when every member of this House seeks to protect them. The bill’s goals are laudable, as I have said, but they will not do what the members are saying. The member is laughing. He thinks this is funny. He is going to go back to his constituents, raise money and continue that spread of disinformation. That is all he has. The Conservatives are sitting on the other side because Canadians can see through the act. They see through what the Conservative leader does, and that is all they have. There is nothing of substance, though I think the hon. member has brought this forward in a laudable, honourable way and wants to do better and to protect her constituents. It is reasonable to stand up here and say the law does not necessarily do that, while the member laughs. The member thinks it is funny, and he will just go back to his riding and raise money off that as he tries to shout me down. This is shameful conduct by the Conservatives.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Government Orders ·

Committees of the House

“All parties have agreed to swap out four members on the procedure and House affairs committee. I ask the House to approve this change right now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Ms. Mingarelli (Prescott—Russell—Cumberland) for Ms. Fancy (South Shore—St. Margarets), Mr. Caley (North Vancouver—Capilano, British Columbia) for Mr. Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga), Mr. Moore (Fundy Royal) for Mr. Jackson (Brandon—Souris), Mrs. Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek) for Mr. Van Popta (Langley Township—Fraser Heights).

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I support this budget bill. It invests billions of dollars in Cold Lake, Alberta, and it will help projects across the country.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is amazing. Everyone woke up when the hon. member asked a question. We even heard from the minister today, talking about the significant investments that are happening in Cold Lake, Alberta: billions of dollars’ worth. We are going to see that across the country. It will not just be with one project, one item of procurement. The bill would help, as I said, raise all boats.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Terry Dowdall

“Car manufacturing in my region is still strong, including a new battery plant opening soon. Chinese cars make up only a tiny part of the market, and our government is not buying them. We are focused on supporting Canadian auto workers and companies like General Motors.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, St. Catharines has had a General Motors factory in our city for, I believe, about the last century. It is something I do hear about from constituents. It is something they are concerned about. Down the road in Niagara, construction is continuing on a battery separator plant. It will open in 2027 and will be transformative. The number of Chinese automobiles the member is talking about is such a small segment of the market. There has been an increase in production at Honda and Toyota. I know they have suspended plans for further expansion, but their production is strong. We look for more of that in the future. I talked about many of the buy Canada projects. Buy Canada is the Government of Canada’s buying. The Government of Canada is not buying the vehicles that the member is talking about. I would be excited to be working with companies like General Motors to build Canada strong.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

In response to a question from Grant Jackson

“We are spending more money on defence now. This will help manufacturing businesses across the whole country, not just in one province.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I think we are falling into an old debate in a system where we were not spending enough on defence. We were all concerned about not everyone getting a piece of the pie. We are in a situation now where if we are at 2%, which we are, going to 3.5%, there is an opportunity for the manufacturing sector, not just in Ontario but also in Manitoba. We have heard announcements across the country. The old saying “A rising tide lifts all boats” applies. This is something we can see right now. Though I cannot speak about and have no insider information on what will happen next with our next fighter purchase, I know that it will benefit not only just one area of the country but from coast to coast to coast.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis
“I support this bill because it creates a single agency to buy military equipment faster. It takes too long to get equipment to our armed forces, and this new system will cut delays. Buying more defence equipment in Canada will also create good manufacturing jobs in places like St. Catharines.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak to Bill C-31 and the heart of our national security, our economic resilience and our sovereignty as a nation. Canada has long stood as a proud and reliable partner among the world’s leading democracies. Our work within the G7 and our enduring commitment to NATO reflect not only our values but our understanding that collective security and co-operation are essential in an increasingly uncertain world. If Canada is to remain a credible and capable partner abroad, we must ensure that we are equally strong and prepared at home. For too long, Canada’s defence procurement system has been fragmented across multiple departments, slow to engage with industry and overly complex in its execution. The result has been delays that stretch not months but years, sometimes even decades, before critical equipment reaches the Canadian Armed Forces. This is not simply an administrative issue. It is a matter of sovereignty. A nation that cannot equip its armed forces in a timely and effective manner risks undermining its own ability to defend its territory, protect its interests and respond to emerging threats. That is why Bill C-31 is significant. The creation of the Defence Investment Agency represents a decisive step forward in modernizing Canada’s approach to defence procurement. This agency will consolidate procurement processes that are currently spread across government. By removing duplicate approvals and cutting unnecessary red tape, it will accelerate timelines and provide much-needed clarity and predictability to our industry partners. With a centralized process for review and approval, procurements will move forward more efficiently. With specialized expertise housed within a single agency, we will ensure that defence acquisitions are managed with the focus and precision they require. I would like to take a moment to talk about how this is important in St. Catharines and within southern Ontario. We have seen through the threat of tariffs, the trade war with the United States, the impact on the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario. St. Catharines, and Niagara, relies on the automotive industry. It is something we have relied on for about a century. That threat is there. We have heard it from our American partners. The Prime Minister is right in ensuring that we step up and meet our NATO commitments and using that commitment to build and ensure strength within our manufacturing sector. I had the opportunity to tour a company in St. Catharines called FBT. FBT is a multi-generational company that has been in business for quite some time. It saw the writing on the wall a few years back, as it primarily did business with the automotive sector, and has switched its processes in-house to focus on defence and nuclear. It still does some automotive. In touring that facility a couple of times, I saw that it is using advanced manufacturing with high precision and is ready to take it to the next level. It is expanding and will be able to meet the needs that Canada is putting forward in our defence sector. It provides a great number of high-paying jobs in St. Catharines and has a lot of long-term employees there, which speaks to the good work it does. A lot of tool and die shops, and other companies within the Niagara region, can learn a lot from this company. With this type of agency in place, which can see procurement move quickly, a lot of companies can retool. They can be dual-use and work within what we have laid out in the defence industrial strategy. We do not have to go far from FBT in St. Catharines. Across the street from FBT is Ontario Shipyards. At the moment, it is undergoing a $130-million refit of a Canadian Coast Guard vessel, the Terry Fox. I am sure others in this place may look to a place in southern Ontario and question what I am about to say, but St. Catharines has a strong tradition of shipbuilding. It is one of the industries that it was founded upon. The Welland Canal is older than the railway itself in this country, and St. Catharines was the heart of that. We need to get back to that. With these changes, with speeding things up, I would like to see more development, more opportunities for a shipyard that has been vacant for far too long. We have seen the benefits in Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, with ships being built there and government contracts. With us getting to our NATO commitments, I would like to see that next step happen in St. Catharines. Let me come back to the agency, which will align defence procurement more strategically with Canada’s economic and industrial objectives. Every dollar invested in defence is an opportunity to create careers, grow Canadian business and drive innovation in sectors such as aerospace, shipbuilding and advanced manufacturing. By leveraging procurement as a tool for economic development, we will strengthen our domestic industrial base, reduce reliance on external supply chains and position Canadian firms to compete on a global stage. We saw that even in southern Ontario, in Kitchener, with the Canadian military ordering a new service rifle to be in line with our European allies. I believe it was the Danes who ordered tens of thousands of these rifles as well. The opportunity is there. The Prime Minister has worked very hard to build relationships with like-minded allies. To see, even in just one announcement, the benefit to southern Ontario and the supply chains throughout southern Ontario from this defence industrial strategy is a good thing. It is something that I know concerns my colleagues across southern Ontario, with the loss of jobs, especially in the automotive industry. Our approach includes continued investment in dual-purpose infrastructure, projects that serve both our military and the broader Canadian public, ensuring that our defence spending delivers tangible benefits across society. The Defence Investment Agency will ensure earlier and more meaningful engagement between the Canadian Armed Forces and our defence industry. By bringing industry into the conversation at the outset, we will enable a clearer understanding of operational needs, realistic timelines and available technological solutions. This proactive approach will allow Canada to anticipate future requirements and build capacity at the speeds and scale that modern security demands. Finally, the agency will strengthen Canada’s alignment with key allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia and France, countries that have already established dedicated procurement bodies to streamline their defence investments. This alignment will make our joint procurement initiatives more efficient and enhance our ability to collaborate within NATO. Our commitments to NATO are clear: We must meet the benchmark of 2% of GDP in defence spending, and we must contribute meaningfully to the alliance’s long-term objectives, including the 5% investment pledge by 2035. By reforming the procurement system, we are not only meeting these commitments but also reinforcing Canada’s role as a dependable and capable ally. At the same time, this initiative positions Canada to play a leading role in broader multilateral efforts, including Europe’s readiness 2030 plan, which seeks to strengthen defence supply chains and industrial co-operation among allied nations. There is no contradiction between sovereignty and co-operation. On the contrary, in an interconnected world, they are mutually reinforcing. By strengthening our domestic capabilities, we enhance our independence, and by aligning with our allies, we amplify our strength. Canada must be ready not only to meet the challenges of today but also to anticipate those of tomorrow. This reform is an important step in that direction. I know that many of my colleagues went to the CANSEC conference in Ottawa to see the business that is happening. I know that the Prime Minister announced a significant investment with Saab that will have some substantial economic benefits, not only within our aerospace industry but beyond, to strengthen those supply chains that have been shocked. Companies concerned that they have no orders on the books will have an opportunity to grow and to meet that new demand, and they will feel safe in the understanding that Canada’s government has their back and is willing to move forward and to ensure that industries under attack are protected under the defence industrial strategy.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Committees of the House

“All parties agree to swap two members on a committee. Matt Jeneroux will replace Jonathan Wilkinson.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) for the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver—Capilano).

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Criminal Code

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes it clear in the Criminal Code that sterilizing someone without their consent is aggravated assault. Indigenous women and other vulnerable people are still being forced into this procedure, and this bill makes sure the law treats it as a serious crime.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill S-228, following its careful study by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. At the outset, I want to recognize the important work of the committee. Members heard from 19 witnesses, including advocacy groups, indigenous leaders and legal experts. Their testimony was powerful, grounded in lived experience and essential in ensuring that this legislation reflects the realities of those most affected and the seriousness of the harm we are addressing. Their work has reinforced the urgency of the bill’s adoption. Bill S-228 addresses a reality that is both deeply troubling and unfortunately ongoing: the forced and coerced sterilization of indigenous and racialized women, girls and 2SLGBTQI persons in Canada. Survivors have come forward with accounts of being subjected to sterilization procedures without their free and informed consent, sometimes through coercion, sometimes through misinformation, and often at moments of profound vulnerability, including during childbirth or institutional care. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader legacy of systemic discrimination rooted in colonialism, racism and deeply gendered assumptions about who is deemed fit to have children. While some may be tempted to view this as a historical injustice, confined to another era, the evidence heard at committee makes it clear that this harm has not been relegated to the past. It persists. That is why this bill matters. At its core, Bill S-228 is a clarifying measure, but it is no less significant for that reason. It makes explicit what is already implicit in our criminal law: that sterilization procedures carried out without valid consent constitute aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is the most serious form of assault under the Criminal Code. It applies when a person is wounded, maimed or disfigured, or when their life is endangered. Because sterilization procedures inherently involve the alteration of the human body in a permanent and profound way, they fall squarely within this framework when performed without consent. This bill would remove any ambiguity. It would send a clear and unequivocal message: Non-consensual sterilization is not merely inappropriate; it is not merely unethical; it is criminal, and it is among the most serious forms of violence recognized by our law. This bill would not create a new offence. It would not alter the law of consent, and it would not interfere with legitimate medical practice. That distinction is critical. Canada’s legal framework already requires that consent be free, informed and given by a person with the capacity to understand the nature and consequence of the medical procedure. Consent obtained through coercion, manipulation or abuse of authority is not valid consent. Bill S-228 would simply clarify how these well-established principles apply in the context of sterilization procedures. It would preserve the right of individuals to make their own reproductive choices, including the choice to undergo sterilization. What it protects is the integrity of that choice. The committee’s study also underscored an important reality: Despite existing legal protections, no criminal charges have been laid in Canada in cases involving alleged coerced sterilization. That fact alone raises serious concerns about clarity, accountability and, perhaps more importantly, trust. For many survivors, particularly indigenous women, the absence of legal consequences has contributed to a profound erosion of trust in institutions, such as the health care system, law enforcement and the justice system itself. Bill S-228 is not a complete solution to that broader challenge, but it is an important step. It would provide clarity to police, prosecutors and courts. It would reinforce the seriousness of the offence, and it would signal to survivors that Parliament has heard them. We must recognize that the harm caused by non-consensual sterilization extends far beyond the physical. It is a violation of bodily autonomy. It is an infringement on reproductive rights, and for indigenous communities, it carries deep cultural and intergenerational consequences. The ability to have children is not only a personal matter. It is tied to identity, family and the continuity of community. To deprive someone of that ability without their consent is to inflict harm that reverberates across generations. That is why this bill is also consistent with Canada’s broader commitments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the national action plan to end gender-based violence. Bill S-228 reflects a commitment to address systemic discrimination and to take concrete steps to prevent this harm from occurring in the future. I want to highlight the collaborative nature of this legislation. This bill was introduced in the Senate. I also want to highlight the important work done by members of this place. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Statements by Members ·

150th Anniversary of St. Catharines

“St. Catharines is celebrating its 150th anniversary. I invite everyone to come celebrate at Montebello Park this Saturday.”
Official Hansard

M r. Speaker, on May 1, 1876, the City of St. Catharines was incorporated. That means 150 years ago, the garden city was born. Over the years, St. Catharines has grown to a vibrant community of nearly 150,000 people. Along the way, we have welcomed communities like Merritton, Louth, Grantham and Port Dalhousie, and yes, we say that right. Every city has its stories. Generations pass, landmarks change and memories fade, but one thing remains constant: the land beneath our feet. That is why the celebration’s theme is Our Common Ground. Our land has supported us and carried us forward. It bore the footsteps of first nations people, offered refuge to freedom seekers on the Underground Railroad and gave rise to waterways, vineyards, orchards, industry and gardens that define us today. I invite everyone to join us on Saturday at Montebello Park from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. as we celebrate this remarkable milestone. While the unusual spelling of our city name may remain a mystery, one thing is certain: Happy birthday, St. Catharines.

View on ourcommons.ca

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I want this motion to pass. House rules say that a majority government should have the majority of members on committees.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I have read from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, I will point to that again. Governments that have a majority have the majority on committees. This is what the motion is seeking to do.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“We are having hard times with the United States, especially on trade. Canadians voted for our plan to keep Canada strong, and they showed they trust this government in recent elections. We need to keep going with this work.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is fundamentally important, as the Prime Minister pointed out. With respect to Isaac Brock, with indigenous support, defending Canada, what was then British North America, against a hostile American threat, we are facing difficult times with our American neighbours. We got voted in, as I said in my speech, on a plan to build Canada strong. Canadians have spoken. They have spoken in the last three by-elections, overwhelmingly, and have confidence in the Prime Minister, confidence in this government and confidence with us moving forward, especially on issues with respect to trade with the United States. This is fundamentally important and something we need to keep going on.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“The rule book says the party in power gets a majority on every committee when it has a majority in the House. This is our normal tradition.”

  • 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, it is shocking that members speak to parliamentary tradition, but they do not look to the actual history of this place, where this always happens. Again, I point the member to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, page 819: “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.”

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

In response to a question from Scott Anderson

“The member made a comment instead of asking a question. Conservatives complain about committee majorities now, but they had no problem with them when they were in power.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 27 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that there was a question there. It is time for questions and comments, and it was more of a comment. These members are clutching at their pearls, but there have been Conservative majorities in this country, not only provincially but federally, and they had no problem with the majority on committees being Conservative. They can shout and scream and pound their fists, but they know I am right at the end of the day. We will see what happens at the end of this vote.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C– View analysis
“I support this motion to add government members to committees. The government now has a majority in the House. Parliament's rules say a majority government should also have a majority on committees. Opposition members will still keep their seats on these committees.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Relevance 1 of 100

    Only 1% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to add my voice to Government Motion No. 9, which addresses composition of standing committees of the House of Commons and joint committees. Over the course of this debate, it has been undisputable that committees are microcosms of this place in form and in function, both reflecting party standings in the House and performing the necessary duties to scrutinize legislation, propose solutions and represent the diverse views of Canadians. The granularity of this work being undertaken in committees is what makes us more informed, effective and thoughtful legislators, better equipped to support Canadians. The government has taken a balanced approach to additions to standing committee and joint committee compositions that we are discussing today. This routine motion in response to the changing landscape here in the House would add to the voices currently at committee. I would point members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, which makes it clear on page 819: “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.” There is an undeniable, long-standing principle in Parliament: A party that has a majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees. This is at the core of our Westminster system of government. The motion proposed by the government reflects how things are done in the House of Commons. The numbers on committees ensure that the government has a majority and the chair of the committee does not routinely need to vote to break a tie, because the number in the House means that the Speaker does not routinely need to vote to break a tie. The makeup of the House of Commons has changed since committees were formed almost a year ago. The government has gone from a minority government to a majority. Naturally, this means a change must occur to the makeup of committees to reflect this change. The motion would not put opposition parties in a position to lose representation. Current committee members of both the government and the opposition would remain unaffected and would be able to continue the important work they have undertaken over the course of the last year. The government recognizes the time these members have invested in familiarizing themselves with their respective committee subject matter and in building trusting relationships with stakeholders and members of all political stripes. Do my colleagues across the way not agree that having more voices on standing committees would add to the diverse perspectives being shared during a committee’s deliberations? Do they not agree that an additional voice from the Prairies or Atlantic Canada, from rural or urban centres, would better inform our studies, reports and amendments? I have heard my opposition colleagues speak to what they say Canadians voted for in the last election. The message our government was elected on was to build Canada strong. I recall conversations at the door about a year ago being rooted in addressing affordability concerns, managing geopolitical threats and investing in Canada’s future. These are the exact issues that committees are expected to undertake. They are a mechanism to further dive into these issues, propose solutions and improve legislation. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Halifax. Usually I am the one to drop that note on other members’ desks. I apologize. I am sure the opposition would much rather hear from the member for Halifax than the member for St. Catharines. We have seen collaboration take place since the start of this Parliament, as the government has thoughtfully considered ideas and supported amendments brought forward by opposition parties. Members of the finance committee studied, in depth, Bill C-15, the 2025 budget bill, and proposed amendments. The government brought forward amendments to address stakeholder concerns and, without hesitation, supported opposition party amendments to provide more security to consumers and ensure guardrails on ministerial power. Even going back to my days in the 42nd Parliament, I did not see a bill go through without amendments by the opposition accepted. This level of collaboration has also been shown on legislation brought forward by private members, as was the case at the public accounts committee when government members proposed reasonable amendments to ensure the scheme and policy objectives of Bill C-230, the creation of a debt forgiveness registry, would work effectively if established. I have heard claims made against Government Motion No. 9 as changing the checks and balances on government. I find this unreasonable for the simple fact that the mechanisms that hold government to account remain unchanged; ministerial appearances before committees, opposition day motions, the study of estimates and question period are just a few examples. On the valuable studies committees undertake and reports they present, if a member feels that their concerns have not been adequately reflected in a report, they have an opportunity to present the House with a supplemental report to ensure their views are on the parliamentary record. Last spring, colleagues on both sides of the aisle welcomed many new faces to our caucuses who were eager to represent their constituents, share ideas and work hard to improve the lives of Canadians. Allowing more members on committees gives our colleagues the opportunities to be better legislators. As my colleagues have previously stated, this is a time of unity, to bring Canadians together, to represent the needs of our communities and to listen to one another so we can build Canada strong. Demonstrating to Canadians that we, as political parties with differing views on matters of policy, can come together, working collaboratively and constructively, is of utmost importance given the challenges we face. We should define ourselves in this time of crisis by the things that unite us, not by those that divide us. This is a critical time in our nation’s history, when we will, hopefully, define ourselves not by our partisan interests but rather by how we work together to deliver what the country needs in spite of our partisan interests. We can disagree, but we must rise above pettiness to deliver on our promise to put Canadian interests first. In my speech, I have noted times that we worked together, whether on government legislation or in private members’ business. Let these examples be the rule, not the exception. I have listened to the debate for a bit, and I am genuinely surprised. Many of these Conservative members were here in the 41st Parliament, and the things they are proposing right now did not exist then, when the Conservatives held the majority. I believe the previous speaker was a member of Prime Minister Harper’s office, and I doubt he was proposing the things in the PMO that he is coming to the House today to deliver. This is how Parliament has worked in this country. The composition of the House has changed, and as such, the committees— An hon. member: Never before. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, they said that this has never happened before. They are right. It has not happened before, but what has happened many times in this country’s history is a majority government, and when there has been a majority government, there has been a majority in the House. An hon. member: It is not an elected majority. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the member is heckling me: “It’s not an elected majority.” Each member here was elected and is accountable to their constituents. Canadians did not elect a majority or minority government; they had 343 elections of members. Since then, there have been by-elections. What has happened is— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Order. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that in all this criticism, they never stand up in the House of Commons, if they claim that this Parliament is illegitimate, and call for an election at this time. I am curious why this is. I am genuinely curious why, at this point, they question the legitimacy of floor crossings when in the last Parliament they were actively seeking Liberals to cross the floor to them. It was not an issue 18 months ago. Now they are upset that we have formed a majority and that the rules of the House, the traditions of this place and of Westminster Parliament, allow us, and dictate that there should be, a majority on committees. They can heckle. They can shout, scream and pound their fists, but this is the way it has been and the way we hope it is going to be.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis