Ernie Klassen · TranslatePolitics.ca

Statements by Members

Pride

2026-06-08

“I'm celebrating Pride in Canada. That makes me happy. In other countries, being gay can get you killed. I believe Canada should promote gay rights in those countries. Let's raise a flag on Parliament Hill. I want everyone to join us. I want Canada to be inclusive.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Pride season across Canada, we are reminded that the rights and freedoms many enjoy today should never be taken for granted. Around the world, identifying as 2SLGBTQIA+ remains illegal in 65 countries, and in 12 jurisdictions, individuals still face the death penalty simply for being who they are. I would like to recognize the work of the Canadian Pride Caucus, which is well known for its work here at home, but it is also playing an increasingly important international role. Through engagement with foreign parliamentarians, human rights defenders, diplomatic missions and civil society organizations, the caucus helps advance Canada's commitment to dignity, inclusion and protection of human rights on the global scale. I invite all colleagues from all parties to join us tomorrow at noon on Parliament Hill for the Pride flag raising. Let us come together to celebrate Pride season and reaffirm Canada's commitment to equality, inclusion and protecting human rights for all. I wish everyone a happy Pride.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

National AccessAbility Week

2026-06-03

“I want to talk about a special week. It celebrates Canadians with disabilities. We need to make everything more accessible. Let's spend more money on this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate National AccessAbility Week, which began in 1988. Inspired by Rick Hansen's Man in Motion World Tour, this week honours the contributions of Canadians with disabilities and reminds us that we can always build a more inclusive and accessible society. This year's Canadian theme is “Building a Strong, Accessible Canada.” More than eight million Canadians face barriers in everyday life. Many of these obstacles are built into our homes and workplaces. As the father of a son with a disability, and a friend of Rick Hansen and of Canada's first chief accessibility officer, Stephanie Cadieux, I have seen first-hand the importance of designing our communities equitably. This week, we celebrate the progress we have made so far and acknowledge the work of advocates whose leadership continues to break down barriers and inspire positive change. Together, we can continue building communities where everyone can participate and thrive. Let us create a fair and welcoming society for everyone.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-05-27

“We're studying how to modernize fishing rules. I want you to feel involved and consulted because we work closely with all stakeholders. That makes us sound caring without committing to any particular rule change yet.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to supporting and strengthening the economies of our coastal communities. Fishing is an important part of many coastal communities on the west coast. This government is taking steps to actively work with first nations, harvesters, licence holders and processors to explore potential solutions that reflect the unique realities of the west coast. The Minister of Fisheries recently announced two new objectives guiding work to modernize west coast fisheries. The first is supporting harvesters to have more control over their fishing activities, to keep a greater share of the benefits from fishing. The second is modernizing licensing to support harvesters in pursuing their business objectives. This government will work closely with west coast fishery participants on options for how to achieve these objectives and address the concerns of fish harvesters. Fisheries on the east and west coasts have evolved very differently. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. This is why this government is working with those involved to develop solutions—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to look like I'm doing something about fish harvesters' economic challenges. We will talk to people, gather data, and make some changes. But I don't want to actually commit to any specific changes yet. It's complicated and a cookie-cutter approach won't work.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the issues raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is aware that many fish harvesters on the west coast are facing economic challenges. That is why, in February, the Minister of Fisheries announced two new objectives to guide the licensing reform work happening under the west coast commercial fisheries modernization initiative. These objectives are to support working harvesters so they have more control over their fishing activities and keep a greater share of the benefits from their fishing effort, and to modernize the licensing regime to support harvesters in pursuing their business objectives and adapting to change. Work is already under way. The government is engaging on fishery-specific policy options to achieve these objectives, starting with the crab and prawn fisheries. As part of this effort, DFO is gathering perspectives on the feasibility and implications of various policy options, such as made-in-B.C. versions of owner-operator and fleet separation requirements, and other ideas raised by participants and harvesters. DFO will also launch a survey of licence and quota holdings and leasing agreements to ensure that policies are informed by robust and current data. The government understands the challenges that harvesters are facing, but those who rely on the fishery have told us that a cookie-cutter approach will not suffice. Careful consideration will be given to different ways that fisheries have evolved in British Columbia compared to on the east coast, when contemplating owner-operator type requirements or other policy ideas that can support active harvesters and the flow of benefits to local communities. The government knows how important it is for Canada's fisheries resources to stay in the hands of Canadians. That is why we completed a beneficial ownership survey in 2022 to learn more about foreign participation in Canadian fisheries. While the results told us that 98% of respondents reported being Canadian-owned, we are conducting further research and analysis to deepen our understanding about who actually is benefiting from Canada's west coast fisheries. DFO believes in transparency of fisheries data and is actively working to improve data transparency for the benefit of active harvesters, new fishery participants and all Canadians. We have published interactive socio-economic data dashboards for fishery participants to learn more about the economics of their fisheries, and we are collecting more socio-economic data. We have also taken steps to make public data sets more accessible by publishing a web-based portal to facilitate access to publicly available licences and quota information. The Government of Canada remains committed to supporting the economic health and prosperity of coastal communities that rely on fishery resources. We know that fishing activities are an important cultural and economic feature of many coastal communities in B.C. The government will not take a one-size-fits-all approach. The west coast commercial fisheries modernization initiative will provide important opportunities for first nations and fishery participants to shape the future of licensing policy, ensuring that any policy changes are practical, effective, and suited and tailored to the west coast context, not a replica of the east coast.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Alex House

2026-05-26

“I want to say nice things about a program in my riding. It has been around for a long time. They do many things. The event is also a big anniversary. I will name some people to thank them.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for over 100 years, Alex House in my riding of South Surrey—White Rock has been dedicated to empowering people to build and nurture a strong, connected community by offering programs and services that support individuals and families at every stage of life, from early childhood education and youth programs to seniors' services, wellness initiatives and community outreach. This year also marks the 50th anniversary of Alex Fest, a celebration held on Semiahmoo First Nation land bringing together families, local artists and neighbours from across the Semiahmoo peninsula to share in creativity, learning and community spirit. I would like to thank the board, staff and volunteers for their continued commitment and recognize Penny Bradley for her outstanding leadership. At the heart of Alex House is a simple truth. Its mission would not be possible without the hard work and dedication of volunteers. I congratulate Alex House on these important milestones.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Diversity and Inclusion

2026-05-08

“I want schools to use programs that teach students to be kind and accepting of all identities.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, educators are working to ensure that our schools are places where all students feel safe, respected and able to learn. Organizations, such as the ARC Foundation, support this effort through initiatives like SOGI 123, which provides educators with age-appropriate tools and resources to foster inclusive and respectful school environments. This helps schools strengthen policies, promote kindness and ensure that students, regardless of background, identity or experience, can thrive. Research has shown that inclusive school environments can reduce social exclusion, bullying and discrimination, which benefits not only 2SLGBTQIA+ youth but also all other students in feeling safe and supported. It is important to ensure that our schools reflect both inclusion and trust, which allows society to learn and accept the diverse world around them. Every young person in Canada deserves dignity, respect and the opportunity to reach their full potential.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“I don't want to answer that directly. Instead I'll just repeat what the agreements do and say they respect indigenous rights.”

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later.”

“We want to protect private property. The court said we didn't. So we're appealing. But let's not argue about it here.”

“The other party's motion is wrong and will scare people. Our government is doing the right thing. We will protect homes through the courts. But we will not help that other partisan motion spread fear about indigenous agreements. We support reconciliation.”

“I want everyone to know that this agreement with the Musqueam nation is a good thing. It doesn't give them any new rights. It just says they have rights, and we will keep talking about those rights later. Don't worry, private property is safe. This agreement won't change who owns what. It's just a nice way to say we will work together without fighting in court.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my time today to speak about the recent agreements that Canada signed with the Musqueam nation. These agreements build on the Constitution Act, 1982, the direction provided by the courts over the last several decades and efforts of indigenous groups over many years to have their rights recognized and upheld by the Crown. To understand these agreements, it is helpful to begin with the Constitution. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” It reflects Parliament's recognition that indigenous nations will become partners in Confederation based on fair and just reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Crown. Existing aboriginal and treaty rights include rights defined under historical or modern treaties and the asserted aboriginal rights and title of indigenous nations with claims to land that remain unresolved. Indigenous nations have rights and title within their territory that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35 recognizes what first nations have always known, that they have aboriginal rights. However, acknowledging aboriginal rights is not the same as defining those rights. General recognition that a first nation has aboriginal title acknowledges a legal and historical fact. That recognition also creates an important and respectful starting point for the negotiation of agreements to address their claims. General recognition of aboriginal rights, including title, is often included in agreements negotiated between governments and indigenous nations, including both treaties and incremental non-treaty agreements. Agreements such as the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement contain general recognition and do not create a legal interest in any specific lands. Specific recognition of aboriginal title means that an indigenous group has aboriginal title to specific lands, including a legal ownership interest based on their historical use and occupation of those lands. This type of recognition can happen either as part of an agreement negotiated between governments and indigenous nations or as a result of a court decision in an aboriginal title case such as in the Cowichan and Tsilhqot’in cases. Quite simply, this agreement does not create aboriginal rights for Musqueam. It does not define the nature or scope of their aboriginal rights. It simply acknowledges that Musqueam have aboriginal rights including aboriginal title somewhere, not throughout, within their entire traditional territory. Most important, it sets out a process for discussion about how and where those rights might be implemented in the future. To use the analogy of a tool box, general recognition of aboriginal rights through the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement is like agreeing that a tool box exists. What it does not do is decide how the tools will be used or which tools will be needed. Those are questions that will be worked through later, together, through discussion and negotiation. Moreover, the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement does not impact third party interests, including private property. It does not impact the rights of other first nations. It does not impact or alter the jurisdiction of federal, provincial or local governments. No decision-making powers about lands, waters or resources are transferred through these agreements. The Musqueam agreement does not mention private property because private property was never on the negotiating table in the first place. There has been a lot of commentary regarding these agreements. Canadians place great value on private property and also recognize the importance of advancing reconciliation with indigenous people. Given the importance of advancing reconciliation with first nations and the need for clarity as Canada strengthens its economy, it is critical that we are clear about what these agreements are and what they are not. To that end, I would emphasize that private property is firmly under the jurisdiction of provincial governments. It cannot be negotiated away from provinces or Canadians without their consent and it is not something the federal government can alter through this type of agreement. The Government of Canada respects both existing private property interests and constitutionally protected indigenous rights within the federal government's areas of responsibility. The Musqueam people have clearly stated that they have no intention of pursuing private property through this agreement. If I may quote Musqueam chief Wayne Sparrow, he said, ”Our approach to traditional unceded territory is one of partnership and relationship with our neighbours, not trying to take away our neighbours' private property.” Treaties and other agreements, such as the one with Musqueam, allow government to advance reconciliation and address indigenous rights and title through dialogue and co-operation while protecting private property and providing certainty for all Canadians. The Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement provides a path forward to address Musqueam's rights and title collaboratively and avoid the uncertainty and high costs of pursuing litigation in the courts. Canada has consistently stated that the best way to resolve outstanding claims is to work together in partnership through co-operative negotiations and respectful dialogue, not through litigation. The litigation of land claims often involves unpredictable outcomes and significant costs for provincial, territorial and federal governments, and Canadians. Negotiated agreements provide an alternative that supports clarity and stability around the exercise of aboriginal rights. Agreements like the Musqueam agreement are about creating certainty and predictability, predictability for investors, for major projects, for private landowners, for indigenous groups and for all Canadians. By negotiating agreements such as this one, Canada is taking a responsible approach to resolving outstanding claims, including through its work with Musqueam. In so doing, we are able to advance the resolution of long-standing disputes about land and rights in ways that respect the rights of indigenous peoples, uphold existing private property rights and reflect the best interests of all Canadians. This approach supports a stronger and more unified Canada, where private property and indigenous rights are respected together.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Moose Hide Campaign

2026-05-04

“I'm promoting a campaign I support. I want you all to take a symbolic action. I want you to wear this pin. I think it will reduce violence.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, along British Columbia's Highway of Tears, a remote stretch of Highway 16 where far too many indigenous women and girls have gone missing or been murdered, Paul and Raven Lacerte were moved to action. They are the father and daughter co-founders of the Moose Hide Campaign. It is an indigenous-led movement grounded in love, ceremony and accountability, calling on people of all backgrounds to take a stand against gender-based and domestic violence. Wearing a moose hide pin is more than a symbol. It represents a personal commitment to honour, respect and protect women and children in our homes, workplaces and communities. It is about building safer communities where everyone is responsible to speak up and support one another. On Thursday, May 14, Moose Hide Campaign Day, I am asking all Canadians to renew that pledge and, most important, to take meaningful action because ending violence is a responsibility we all share every single day.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-05-01

“I want to change the topic to talk up a report instead of saying whether the government will get spending under control.”

Statements by Members

Retirement Congratulations

2026-04-30

“I'm filling time by saying nice things about a retiring CEO.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Doug Tennant has dedicated more than 35 years to advancing inclusion for people with developmental disabilities as a parent, volunteer and CEO of Uniti. Doug has worked alongside self-advocate leaders to help ensure they have the same rights and opportunities as all Canadians. Doug helped lead innovative housing initiatives, creating communities that provide quality housing for all, including people with disabilities. His leadership has strengthened partnerships in the non-profit, business and public sectors. Doug has served as a board member of Uniti, the Surrey Board of Trade and the BC CEO Network. He was a founder of the Canadian Business Disability Inclusion Network. He uses his influence to challenge bigotry through initiatives such as We Belong Surrey. As he retires, Doug plans to continue volunteering to advance inclusion and affordable housing, hopeful that his work helps shape policy, inspire leaders and build more welcoming communities. I wish Doug a happy retirement.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

International Association of Fire Fighters

2026-04-24

“I want people to like how much I support firefighters. I met with them. We should spend more money on things they want. They get to be heroes in my story.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Ottawa was proud to host the 33rd Canadian Legislative Conference of the International Association of Fire Fighters. This annual gathering brings firefighters from across the country together to engage with parliamentarians and to raise awareness about federal issues that affect both their profession and the communities they serve. Representatives from the White Rock and Surrey fire departments raised issues directly affecting their members, including increasing the memorial grant program and strengthening protections for communities against lithium battery fires. These courageous first responders put their lives on the line every day to protect our residents and respond to emergencies. They are also deeply committed to their communities, raising funds for local charities, supporting families in need and giving back through countless volunteer initiatives. I thank our firefighters for their courage, their compassion and their unwavering service to our communities.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-04-23

“I don't like that bill. It makes people in my province pay more for food. I want to stop that. I want to look like I'm on the side of ordinary people, not the other guy who's making things harder for them. I have a big survey to show I'm listening better than him.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the member is forgetting what his bill actually called for. It is a tax on food for people in his province. It did not say anything about fishing seven days a week, but it did call for new red tape and licence fees on food fishers. That is not what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want. He did not consult or listen to fishers. He put forward a proposal that threatened the entire commercial fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. That is tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. The Minister of Fisheries did a full survey to hear from the people in the province on what they want to see in the food fishery. Over 9,500 people completed the survey. Our government knows how much people in his province care about the food fishery. The member should read the “What We Heard Report” we recently published to see what real consultation looks like. He will find that his proposals for more red tape and licence fees are not popular with food fishers.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to paint my opponent's bill as reckless. I think it would have threatened livelihoods. Some groups agreed with me. I want to make it sound like I really care about consultation. The minister had a survey. That's real consultation. My opponent had a bad idea. It would have made people pay fees. That's bad. I don't like that. It would have made the fishery worse. I want to cheer for the government's plans instead.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can clarify something for my colleague across the floor. The private member's bill referenced by the member was reckless and would have threatened the livelihoods of harvesters, plant workers and their families, and communities right across Atlantic Canada. Do not just take it from me. Both the FFAW and ASP shared their concern with the member's scheme. For those listening at home in the member's own province, the inshore fleet, the offshore fleet, processors and ENGOs were all against his proposal and have all stated it was a bill to change science and not to fish seven days a week. He ignored science, consultation and the thousands of people, including those in his own province, who depend on the fishery. To hear from the people, the Minister of Fisheries launched the food fisheries survey, to which more than 9,500 people responded. It was the highest level of participation ever for a DFO survey. That is real consultation. Tomorrow, the minister will be meeting with recreational fishers, the province, the FFAW and ASP to hear their thoughts on the future of the food fishery. We want to get this right. Our government recently published the food fishery “What We Heard Report”, and I recommend the member read it to see what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to see in the food fishery. The member opposite proposed an entirely new monitoring system just for recreational fishers and would have forced Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to record their catch. How did the member want to offset those new administrative and red-tape costs? It was fees on the fishers themselves. That is not true representation. He proposed to have the government cover “the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act”. That would have meant licence fees and nobody wants those. The member proposed a new system that would have told Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that they cannot catch cod like they have for their entire lives and it would have only made the fishery worse. Our government understands that the food fishery is culturally important. The member opposite talks about affordability, but he would have put a Conservative tax on those who fish to feed themselves and their families, as they have done for generations. This past year, the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador had no licence requirement, no licence fee and no reporting requirement. The idea was was just to follow the rules, be safe and fish for food. Under the member's Conservative tax on food system, food fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador would have been forced to have a mandatory licence, pay a fee to cover additional new red tape and report every fish they caught through a new system that would also cost them money to use. While our new government is providing tax relief to millions of Canadians and working to build a stronger economy, the member has been playing short-sighted political games that threaten the economy for everyone in Atlantic Canada and would have made Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for the food fishery. Our government is working on behalf of all Canadians to truly make life more affordable for everyone.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗