Ellis Ross · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

2026-06-17

“I don't like that the Liberal majority government might ignore amendments from other parties. Democracy should matter more.”

“I want more debate and amendments on part 2. The government should compromise with us like it did in minority.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member gave a knowledgeable speech in terms of democracy and the way this place is supposed to work. In fact, when I came here, the Liberal government had a minority government, and things were working. It was getting comments from all the MPs in this place, and there was compromise and amendments in committee. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they stacked their majority and now they do not allow debate on any amendments from any party. By my numbers, there are 174 Liberal members who want to force this bill through, but there are 169 MPs from every party who want to fix part 2. Does the member see the fault in this? Can she see how this is wrong and how it is working against the democratic system?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You're blocking our amendments. We want to rewrite your bill without breaking things. Is that possible?”

Statements by Members

Natural Resource Development

2026-06-17

“I want the government to help my riding make more money from natural resources. My riding has lots of valuable stuff. I want to dig it up and sell it. I don't want the government to get in the way. Let my riding make money!”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians think of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, they think of LNG and the port of Prince Rupert. These projects are important, but they are only part of the story. Our region is home to tremendous economic potential, from the port of Stewart to the industrial lands being developed around Kitselas and Terrace and emerging opportunities in mineral processing and refining in communities like Houston. Resource development is also creating new opportunities across the northwest, with projects such as the reopening of coal operations near Telkwa, helping to support jobs and local economies. The people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley are ready to build, invest and grow. What we need is recognition and support from the government, not more barriers or delays. Our region has the resources, the workforce and the determination to help drive Canada's economic future. If we unleash the full potential of communities across the northwest, we can get Canada building again, growing again and back on track.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-06-11

“I'm shocked that the House isn't considering the charter. We need to protect religious freedom. The Liberals should support our motion. What do we do if they don't?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member was knowledgeable in his comments and his speech on Bill C-9. I spoke to this bill. As an indigenous person, coming from the Indian Act and knowing that natives did not have rights until the last 50 years, I was shocked at this. The issue is the potential attack not only against faith leaders but also against the fundamental principle of freedom of all manners. I cannot understand why the House has not taken the charter seriously. We are actually playing politics with it. With respect to the motion that my colleague has put on the floor, is there any chance the Liberal government will come to its senses and support it? If not, what are the options for us as Conservatives on behalf of Canadians?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Food and Drugs Act

2026-06-10

“I want to make it easier for sick people to get life-saving drugs without a lot of paperwork and waiting. The special access program was supposed to help, but it makes doctors and patients reapply over and over for the same drug. That's too slow and stressful. My own brother had to self-medicate while waiting for his pain medicine. But this bill might make it too easy to get dangerous drugs too, like meth. Conservatives put restrictions on before, but Trudeau lifted them. We need to fix this bill so it doesn't let bad drugs through.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there are important life-saving drugs that Canadians might not be able to access in a timely manner. Some Canadians are suffering from serious conditions and cannot access proven life-saving drugs. We know the risks, and we know the science behind these drugs is sound. Those are not the problems. The problems facing Canadians trying to access life-saving drugs are too much paperwork and too much bureaucracy. That is why we are debating Bill C-265 today, so we can get life-saving drugs to Canadians who need them in a timely and efficient manner. This is an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. To be more clear, it is meant to provide a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. “Pre-approved” is the key word. Pre-approved drugs cut down on time and bureaucracy. Canada already has a program designed for Canadians with serious or rare conditions when no other treatments exist. It is called the special access program. The problem is that there are no provisions for pre-approved drugs that are based on precedent. The special access program was meant to open a door to therapies already proven to be effective elsewhere. The intent was there, the intent was good, but the implementation failed. In 2025 alone, over 11,000 requests were processed, but each request was treated as a new request. Repeated requests were treated as new requests, instead of a consistent and efficient system that recognized the suffering and complications that some Canadians were experiencing. These are drugs requested before by Canadian doctors, drugs approved by jurisdictions that we consider to be our peers and drugs with real-world data behind them, yet each application started from scratch. Not only do doctors have to go through this process time and time again, but the patients also have to apply time and time again. My own brother, who suffers from a rare spinal disease, had to go through this for years. When his medications ran out, he would have to wait for his application to be approved so he could resume pain management. This left a gap. This left him to self-medicate with non-prescription drugs, which he hated to do, but he could not bear the pain, and I do not blame him. How many other people have considered this option? If the special access program was streamlined for well-established use cases, people like my brother would have less pain and definitely less stress, especially when the drug is referred to as “life-saving”. The paperwork and bureaucracy do not produce or generate new data. They do not generate new knowledge, but they take up time. For patients with serious conditions, time is a valuable commodity. There is no doubt that the Conservatives support this bill, but there are problems with it. My time is limited, so I will not go through them, but many of my colleagues have pointed out the problems with the bill. It is our wish that this bill go to committee. One of the problems is that the bill, as presented, would open the door for dangerous drugs to make it onto the pre-approved list and would effectively create a loophole that would make it easy for people suffering from drug use to be prescribed methamphetamine as liquid caffeine. This is far from being hypothetical. Through the special access program, requests for drugs like LSD and MDMA have in fact been made. Members may also recall that restrictions on the special access program existed to limit opioid diversion under the Harper government. In 2013, then health minister Rona Ambrose amended the program after learning that Health Canada had approved a request granting 21 patients with chronic addictions access to prescription heroin. However, the Trudeau Liberal government later lifted the restrictions that Conservatives had imposed on illegal and harmful substances, such as LSD, heroin and cocaine. Conservatives had put those restrictions in there for a reason. We look forward to seeing this go to committee for more amendments.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-06-04

“The gun buyback is punishing people who followed the rules. We should punish criminals instead.”

“The bill could be stronger. The government rejected amendments to make it stronger. I think the government should have made the bill stronger.”

“That's not my point. I want mandatory sentencing. I think the bill is weak because it doesn't have stronger punishments like my party suggested.”

“I want harsher punishments for criminals. The government's bill is not strong enough. Conservatives tried to make the bill stronger with amendments, but the government voted them down. I think we should fight for victims and challenge the Supreme Court if needed. The government is not doing enough to protect women and children.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get up on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to talk about Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. Before I get into the substance of the bill itself, I want to explain the term “safety valve”, because just about every speaker has spoken to this term. It is a mechanism that allows judges to give lesser sentences, as opposed to a strict mandatory minimum sentence. If we are going to give weaker sentences instead of imposing a strict mandatory minimum sentence for some of these crimes, then what is the point of using the term “mandatory minimum sentence”, especially when we are talking about protecting women and vulnerable victims? Even when the government members themselves get up and debate, they admit that the bill is long overdue. In fact, when I was an MLA, we were talking about crimes and how there should be punishment. At the time, the NDP government actually blamed Ottawa for not amending or introducing more legislation. I agree. This is a long time coming. It just so happens that a “southern Alberta man faces criminal charges after police say they found more than half a million child sexual exploitation photos and videos in his possession.... More than 500,000 child sexual exploitation photos and videos were discovered, [making it] one of the largest collections the unit has ever encountered”. Like every other case that has been in the media in the last year or so, this just makes me sick. A lot of other leaders have said the same thing. It makes them sick. I know some premiers who have made some pretty inflammatory comments about what should be done with these kinds of people. It is good that the legislation is up. Is it groundbreaking? Does it go to the full extent of protecting victims? We have to give credit to the Conservatives, who have been asking for the legislation for years. Finally, it is being recognized in Bill C-16, not just in terms of debate but also in terms of some of the content that we are talking about that is in Bill C-16. Making the murder of an intimate partner first-degree actually came from the Conservative MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Expanding the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of sexual deepfakes, digitally manipulated pictures or video using artificial intelligence, came from the Conservative MP for Calgary Nose Hill. Updating mandatory requirements for child exploitation material came from previous Conservative governments. We are pleased to see that the government took its lead from Conservative MPs. To try to frame it now, politically, that Conservatives do not support this or that, somehow, we do not agree with protecting victims is misleading Canadians. That is not the truth. If anything, Conservatives have been leading the charge to actually punish offenders for years. It is now here, but one of the best tools of this institution is committee work. I did not realize that until I got to Ottawa, because committees in the B.C. legislature are different. The Liberal government stacked the committees to, basically, get its own way in terms of votes. Not only is it now a slim margin of votes so that the Liberal government can get everything it wants in a committee, but it actually stacked it even further so that there is no chance of any amendments proposed by any opposition parties. I am talking about the Bloc. I am talking about the Conservatives. The committee is there for a purpose. It is to collaborate. It is to represent the interests and needs of Canadians, the interests and needs of the constituents we represent. The Liberal government is framing this as one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation that has come down the pike in a long time. That is not true. It could have been better. In terms of amendments regarding safety valves, there were six put forward by Conservatives that were all voted down by the Liberal committee members. There was one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have narrowed the mandatory minimum safety valves to only apply to offenders with no prior criminal record. There was one from the member for York Centre, another Conservative, that would have required courts to consider only offenders' actual circumstances, not hypothetical scenarios such as what the court is saying, when assessing the constitutionality of mandatory minimums. It was voted down by the Liberals. There was another one from the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that would have excluded serious offences, including child sexual offences and major drug trafficking offences, from accessing the mandatory minimum safety valve. This means that we wanted the full extent of the law applied to these offenders, especially drug traffickers, sex traffickers and those having anything to do with violent crime. We should give them not a lesser penalty but the full mandatory sentence. We should keep the full mandatory sentence in play. If we really want to protect women, vulnerable victims and children, we should keep that mandatory sentence. If anyone wants to challenge it, they can challenge it in the courts. The Liberal government is so afraid of being challenged through the charter. If victims or Canadians cannot depend on us as lawmakers to stand up and fight for them, and they cannot depend on the courts, who are they going to depend on? There is nobody left. The Liberals should take on the challenge. The Supreme Court can use a challenge, especially when we are talking about a lesser, weaker sentence for some of the worst offenders in our society. It is getting worse. There were six amendments put together for that safety valve, and each one was voted down. There were two amendments for victims' rights put together by my Conservative colleagues, and they were voted down by the Liberal committee members. One was put together by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South that would have ensured victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control are notified without delay of release orders or recognizance. It was voted down. There was another one from the same member that would have required the Parole Board chairperson to disclose offender information without delay to the victims of intimate partner violence or coercive control offences. It was voted down. The bill could have been stronger. We could have sent a strong message to the women and vulnerable victims in Canada, saying that we are going to fight for them. We are going to take on the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court rules against us, we will think of another fight. Each and every MP could have taken that pledge together, but we did not. The Liberal government backed down at committee through majority votes on each one of these amendments. There were six other defeated amendments. The one put together by the member for York Centre would have protected against charter challenges to child pornography, possession and access offences under sections 7 and 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve. It was voted down. Four pages of amendments were voted down by the Liberal committee members. There were also amendments ruled out of scope, and each one of these amendments was just trying to further strengthen the bill so offenders could not get away. I know there are going to be lawyers arguing this and fighting for lesser sentences or no sentence at all. I know that. However, as legislators, we are the last stop. We are the last hope. Given that the Liberal government actually took recommendations from Conservatives and implemented them in this bill is commendable. To be truly ambitious, the Liberals should not have voted out the rest of the amendments.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't want the government calling us unsupportive. One of our members suggested a change to this bill. We wanted to protect some mandatory minimums using the notwithstanding clause. The government said no. Why didn't they protect victims like we suggested?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was passionate, and I agree. Coming from where I do, the north coast of British Columbia, I have experienced that most of my life. The government wants to portray this side of the House as not being supportive of this type of bill or protecting vulnerable people. The Conservative member for York Centre moved an amendment, CPC-13, that was defeated by the Liberal government. It would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under section 7 and section 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause, while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve. Why did the government not protect victims in this equation?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-06-03

“I agree. But what will happen to the Gladue principle under this bill? Will it stay or will it go?”

Private Members' Business

An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping

2026-05-26

“I speak from my personal experience. We tried many things to get out of poverty. Environmental rules didn't work for us. We tried other industries but they failed. Then we started looking at oil. We followed a process. I don't like how this government is ignoring first nations. They didn't consult us. That's been in place since 2004. I think the Liberals have doublespeak. I think the Prime Minister made promises he didn't keep. I don't like their plan. I list some things they did. I think they fight against their own agreements. They want to diversify but keep making us depend on the US. I explain the tanker ban. I list some details. Tanker traffic won't change. I think this ban doesn't really reduce risk. I list some examples. There are still tankers from Alaska to Washington. I think we depend too much on the US for gas. Floods in BC showed this. I think the government should address our vulnerability. I think the penalty for not following this moratorium is high. It doesn't address the real issues.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and more of an honour to go back over the 20 years of experience I have in project development. In 2003, we really did not know what environmental assessment, permitting or aboriginal rights and title were. The Haida court case of 2004 still had not come out yet. By 2004-05, we had to piece it all together and try to understand it. We were living in a condemned residential school building that only had one computer and faxes, but we did it. To understand the process to achieve our objectives was the goal, because nothing else worked for us to get our people out of poverty and to get us out from the paternalistic Indian Act. We tried tourism, forestry and programs, but nothing worked, so we changed our strategy after a while and started engaging the economy. That is how Peace in the Forest, LNG and our deliberations on oil came about. It was all based on process, not on ideology or politics. What is the process in place here? How is the government going to ensure that it is going to engage first nations, as per section 35 of the Constitution? I see that the Prime Minister made an announcement in Vancouver a few days ago saying that it was non-negotiable to deal with aboriginal rights and title. Somehow, people clapped like he invented sliced bread. That has been in place since 2004. The processes that we developed, first nations along with the Crown, the communication processes to breathe life into the Haida court case of 2004, are well established. That ship has sailed. Now the question is whether the Liberal government is going to override all those processes and all that case law to fast-track a project, meaning a pipeline to the west coast of B.C. We have to remember where this came from. The Prime Minister sold himself as the person who could get control of Trump. That was it. Then, from then on, we started to hear all the doublespeak. Back then, the quote was, from the Prime Minister, “We will win this trade war and build the strongest economy in the G7.” He gave up on that. Then, he changed the narrative to “Many of our former strengths, based on our close ties to America, have become weaknesses—weaknesses that we must correct.” That has not gone over so well. There was the slogan of “elbows up”, but I guess Trump did not get the idea of what elbows up meant. Then the Prime Minister said, “Canada...has the best trade deal with the United States. While it's different from what we had before, it is still better than that of any other country.” I think that by now, Canadians understand that tariffs are here to stay. It does not matter if someone is a Republican or Democrat down in the United States, tariffs are here to stay. It got so bad for the Liberals that they hired a former Conservative leader to be part of the negotiation team to see if they could salvage something, but it is not looking so great. The promise during the campaign was to invoke the Emergencies Act to get projects built, but that was scratched. Then, it was the Building Canada Act. When people come to me and ask what it is all about, I have to tell them that I do not know; I have no idea. I get process, but this is now such a scattered plan. We just heard the Liberals debating against tanker traffic. It is their MOU with Alberta, not ours. They have the gall to mention that there was no consultation on this bill. There was no consultation on the MOU or the co-operation agreement. Even with Pathways, they made the announcement of carbon sequestration and then they went over to the first nation and said, "Okay, now we are going to consult with you," even though they had made the decision. It was an afterthought. There was no respect for section 35 of the Constitution. Then the government brought in the doublespeak again. To save face, it was going to talk about consent. It had already made a deal to fast-track a project within one year, with shovels in the ground and all that stuff. Then the Prime Minister said that he would not do anything without consent, not only the consent of the first nations, which would have to be an elaborate plan, but also the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. The government was fighting against its own MOU. It was fighting against its own co-operation agreement. It was fighting against its own Building Canada Act. All this mixed messaging is failing Canadians. The biggest announcement in the last year to diversify our oil exports was to revive Keystone to bring more oil to the United States. That is not even ironic. The idea was to get away from or at least diversify the markets away from America, not build up more dependence. When we are talking about the tanker ban itself, we have to know what it is. The ban prohibits oil tankers from stopping, unloading or loading in any port in a designated area. That is it because currently people are allowed to import or export, or even load or unload, 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil products. The Liberals talked about diesel spills on the west coast, which have been happening for the last 100 years. Tugboats go down. Seine boats go down. Gillnetters go down. It does not matter what one's background or ethnicity is. Everybody who owns a boat that sank has contributed to that diesel or gasoline spill. That is not new. In fact, the first nations that still depend on diesel for electricity have had spills at their docks. Now we are trying to eradicate that, of course, but it is going to take time. We are talking about a voluntary exclusion zone, a buffer zone between tankers and much of B.C.'s coast extending further offshore. We saw the story of an oil tanker going up Hecate Strait between the mainland of B.C. and Haida Gwaii, but we did not get an explanation as to why. I thought it was because of the International Maritime Organization's laws, which Canada is a signatory to. We are talking about safety. There was a rumour saying that it is a shorter distance for an oil tanker to come up from Burnaby, B.C., to go up the strait and then head over to China. That is not much of a tanker ban. The risk is still there. The Liberal government likes to talk about risk, but fails to mention all the tankers coming from Alaska to Washington state. What does Washington state do with that crude oil? It turns it into aviation jet fuel, gas and diesel, and we buy it from Washington state. We do not have a domestic energy policy. We are vulnerable. We saw the flooding that happened on the Coquihalla Highway in B.C. It got to a point where the Americans came to B.C.'s rescue. B.C. residents were rationed to 30 litres at a time for a fill-up at a gas station. What did Washington state do? It supplemented B.C.'s supply of gasoline and diesel by barging up more gas and diesel. At that time, the NDP premier mused about expanding the refinery capacity at Burnaby, trying to get away from this vulnerability that Canadians face. There is also a penalty for violating this voluntary tanker moratorium. It can include fines of up to $5 million for each instance of non-compliance. It does not mention anything about Americans. It does not mention anything about the tankers coming from Burnaby.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-26

“I want the government to protect private property rights. The Liberals are appealing a decision that affects property rights. The government should make sure Canadians have secure property rights. We should respect first nations too.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-06

“You're not defending private property in court. You told your lawyers not to. The court ruled against it. That's going in the wrong direction. People need to know they really own their homes. Why won't you fight for that?”

Statements by Members

Affordability

2026-05-06

“Liberal policies are hurting people in my riding. The Prime Minister should use our common-sense plan to remove all taxes on gas and unblock oil and gas production. That would make Canada affordable and strong.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions and speeches, it is more cost, more carbon taxes and more of the same. In Skeena—Bulkley Valley, gas prices are up to two dollars a litre. The Liberals claim that gas prices are due to world oil prices being $100 a barrel, but in 2014, under the Conservative government, gas prices were around 45¢ cheaper, and the price of oil at the time was $100 a barrel. It is Liberal policies that are hurting the hard-working people of northwest B.C. It is high Liberal taxes and our weak dollar, because of our weak economy. The loonie is down 20% compared to 2014. When we have a weak dollar, every internationally priced commodity, like energy and food, costs more. Why is our dollar weak? It is because Liberal policies blocking resource development are scaring away investment. The Prime Minister should take our common-sense plan to remove all taxes on all gas all year, unblock our oil and gas production, and make Canada affordable and strong.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-04-30

“I'm frustrated that the government has stacked committees in their favor and is blocking real debate. I don't like being told to just agree with their sovereign wealth fund idea without being able to discuss and scrutinize it properly first. How are we supposed to collaborate when they've rigged the process?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that speech covered a lot of area, I must admit. A number of the member's colleagues have gotten up and talked about how the Conservatives should get on board, work with them and just agree with the sovereign wealth fund, because it is good for the country. Actually, that is not how this model is set up. The Westminster model is set up with the official opposition, and normally we would go to committee, but committee has been stacked to the point now where we really cannot get debate without the government's votes stacked in its favour. On top of that, most of our committees are now going in camera, so we cannot even discuss what is being discussed in committees. Does the member have any opinions on how we can actually collaborate, outside of the committees, which have been hamstrung by the new appointments?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗