MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Gord Johns

NDP Courtenay—Alberni 42 statements translated

Johns consistently argues for more federal spending and support for his riding and region, whether on ferries, fisheries, health care, or other issues. He is critical of the government for not moving faster on files like pharmacare and seems to value action over studies or talk. The only pattern of him favoring a more hands-off approach is on vaping.

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-06-18

“I don't like that the government is removing pesticide regulations and cutting agricultural research. I want the government to stop these changes and work with farmers to protect our public agricultural research system.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“This bill isn't giving any money to protect migrant workers' rights. Employers are abusing the program. But our government isn't doing anything about it. The workers need help and support. We need changes now.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“A company was mean to workers. The government should spend money to fix it.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“British Columbia gets less ferry funding than Atlantic Canada. That's not fair. It's because of old constitutional deals. But the Liberals say ferries are essential transport for us too. We just want fair funding like the east coast.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want more subsidies for BC Ferries. Atlantic Canada gets more money. That's not fair! Government should spend more money on my riding.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Brain Injury

2026-06-15

“I want the government to make a national brain injury strategy. Then the government should put money for it in the budget this fall.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

2026-06-12

“I want more debate time for this bill. I want the government to consider Senate amendments. I don't want the government to use procedural tools to pass the bill faster. I want to say a lot about working together and getting the bill right.”

Oral Questions

Marine Transportation

2026-06-11

“I want the Prime Minister to spend more money on dry docks, ship recycling, and rules for ship recycling.”

Adjournment Proceedings

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-06-09

“I'm just going to argue my region deserves more money. I'll toss out numbers to make it sound like we don't get enough compared to other places. But I'm not going to mention the real trade-offs or whether the spending is worth it. I just want more for my area.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the federal government to give more money to British Columbia for ferries. The government gives a lot more money to ferries in Atlantic Canada. I want the same for my province. I think it's unfair that British Columbia gets less money. The cost of ferry fares might go up a lot if the government doesn't spend more. I want the government to review and change the funding agreement. BC Ferries are important to the economy of Vancouver Island.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-09

“I want you to spend more money. I say programs are essential. I hope saying 'critical' and 'essential' will make you spend more.”

“You aren't focusing on the real problem. Conservatives keep voting against our amendments to help people. We should spend more money on prevention, housing, and income security. That would help women and children more than this bill. Why won't you support our spending ideas?”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-09

“I want Build Canada Homes to fund a project in my riding. I don't care if it doesn't meet the criteria. They should get the money anyways. And the minister should tell Build Canada Homes what to do.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Orders

2026-06-09

“I want my friend to stay and push progressive politics. He fights animal cruelty. I hope the government spends more on progressive things. He helped me spend money in my riding. Good job being persistent. Come visit. Thanks.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-06-08

“I want the government to promise to listen to Nisga'a first nation before making decisions. I want them to get consent from all affected first nations. I want them to keep oil tankers away from the north coast.”

Oral Questions

Health

2026-06-05

“I want to ban flavoured vaping products. They attract kids to nicotine. The government promised this, but hasn't done it. I want them to finally act.”

Government Orders

Government Orders

2026-06-04

“I work with my friend on green things. That's nice. But I want more spending too! I made a bill so the government has to pay for mental health like it pays for other doctors. Does my friend agree we should pass my bill to make taxpayers cover mental health too?”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-04

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. We must pass this bill now instead of waiting a few months. I want to blame the Conservatives for the delay and say they don't really care about victims.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Adjournment Proceedings

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-06-02

“The government should spend more money to make sure people don't lose their dental coverage. People are confused and afraid. The government must fix this for them. An extension is needed. I want to talk about how anxious this makes people so the government will spend more money.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the government to keep giving away free dental care. It's not fair to take it away from people now.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗