Ellis Ross
Skeena—Bulkley Valley, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is basically democracy that translates from the House to committee. The Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP all agree with part 1 of this bill. There is no question about that. It is 9:30 at night, and after this, the committee will sit again.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very passionate speech. As opposition members, we propose to improve these types of bills with amendments. The Liberals characterize these amendments at committee stage as obstructions, yet all we are trying to do is make the bills better.”
“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.”
“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 complete record
Every one of 288 lines we hold for Ellis Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, that is basically how a responsible government is supposed to look at the economy. Basically, capital is going to leave and jobs are going to leave. The brain drain is going to happen. In the case of agriculture, we are going to have to import more food, and the government is actually considering supporting the International Maritime Organization's shipping carbon tax. It is another hidden carbon tax that would not even go to Ottawa. It would go to some agency in New York or Geneva. By the way, one of the things that I find ridiculous is the Liberals' questioning the hidden taxes when there are farmers on this side of the House who are saying that they can see the cost and it is going to have to be passed on to consumers. As such, these are not imaginary taxes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree. We should be looking at the capacity of vulnerable Canadians. In fact, that is what we have been doing in Skeena—Bulkley Valley for a number of years, and it does pay dividends in terms of independence. Those people are making good paycheques that actually contribute to the economy in Canada, which has been shrinking in the last 10 years in terms of oil, gas, forestry and mining. I do not think we have actually begun to see the real level of hurt that Canadians are going to see in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was not a question. That was a bit of a ramble, but the member is always getting up and asking about what we are doing here, talking about things. It is because we were elected to come here to debate these issues. I made a commitment long ago to make sure that, if I was in opposition, I would hold the government to account. The member just got through saying that the bill will address grocery prices, but no, it will not. It is a tax rebate. The people who actually take advantage of that tax rebate, if they qualify, are going to have to decide how they use it: to pay the rent, the phone bill, the mortgage or the grocery bill. That is a tough decision.”
“We cannot afford to keep going like this. The government should take a page from first nations leaders who say we should look ahead seven generations when making decisions.”
“We should get rid of the industrial carbon tax, which adds cost to shipping, farming and groceries. The food packaging tax is adding costs at the grocer's level that are going to get passed on to consumers. By the way, Canada in its wisdom has said it is going to lift the plastics ban for plastic straws and other goods to be shipped to the United States, which will make life affordable for people in the United States but not do the same for Canadians. Everything is going to the United States. Our government gave Stellantis auto manufacturing $220 million, and what did Stellantis do? It went to the United States and invested in its auto manufacturing sector. This is all talk and stopgap measures, while real people are suffering and trying to make decisions that affect not only their daily life but also their future.”
“The idea that the Liberals took as their own from the Conservatives was to build our national defences, build pipelines, axe the carbon tax and negotiate with the U.S.A. It is all going to hurt Canadians today and tomorrow, especially when we consider the massive deficit that the Liberal government has incurred is going to be paid for by our children and our children's children. I, like many other members, get asked what Conservatives would do. The Liberals got elected, but they could not implement the promises that they took from the Conservatives. What more could we do? We could get rid of the hidden taxes. The clean fuel regulations are going to add 7¢ a litre to fuel this year, which will rise to 17¢ per litre in 2030, and not just at the pumps but also for shipping goods and services.”
“I came to the House of Commons and found out that all of Canada is in the same boat that we, as first nations, were in 20 years ago: just trying to pay the bills, find a job or be independent so we could chart our own future. In fact, Canada is going in the opposite direction. Now people are starting to get a good understanding of what it feels like to be a first nations person living in Canada, where there are no economic opportunities, where people cannot afford their bills and are dependent on government money. Canada is losing auto manufacturing and lumber jobs to the United States. Now we do not even have a plan to defend Canada's borders. If there were a plan, there would be no money for it because there is no economy.”
“In today's day and age, when people skip a bill, there are consequences for them: a mortgage going into default or a car being taken away. It is happening because people have to make a decision on whether or not they should eat. What the Liberal government has not said is that out of the 40 million people living in Canada, there are 10 million people living with food insecurity, meaning that they are not sure where their next meal is going to come from. I cannot help but be surprised by that as a first nations leader, coming from an area where we actually resolved unemployment and resolved the economy by supporting LNG, mining and forestry.”
“I do not know why it could not fulfill those promises. Maybe it could not fulfill them, or maybe, by choice, it would not fulfill them. Here is another broken promise: They were saying they were going to address affordability at the grocery store. The question arises in the same context: Do the Liberals want to address grocery prices? Will they or, by choice, will they not? (1815) I have heard it said many times that two million people a month visit food banks in Canada and 700,000 of the people served are children. That is heartbreaking, especially when we consider that a portion of that population is middle-class income earners, people with jobs and mortgages, who 10 years ago did not have to worry about a tax rebate or skipping a bill.”
“What these Liberals are celebrating today is $10 a month. They want Canadians to be grateful, yet they are not even fulfilling their election promise. The Prime Minister himself said he should be judged by prices at the grocery store. This is not going to affect prices at the grocery store. It is a stopgap measure for one year. Those middle-income families, if they qualify, will maybe get a cheque, maybe. However, like everything else, there are qualifications. I have heard some of my colleagues here saying that we do not mind when Liberals steal Conservative ideas. In fact, the Liberals got elected on a Conservative platform: axe the tax, build pipelines and negotiate with Trump down in the United States. However, on all accounts, four or five of those promises could not be fulfilled by the Liberal government.”
“However, in this case here, Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-19 mainly to try to stop some of the pain Canadians are going through. An example of some of the pain Canadians are going through is that one in five Canadians have skipped paying bills to buy food in Canada. Some Canadians are skipping meals because they cannot afford them. They are making decisions on whether or not to keep the lights on or to feed their children or themselves. This is in Canada. When they are not celebrating food banks, the Liberals are actually celebrating this tax rebate. I am trying to get the logic of this down. They are celebrating the fact that they are imposing hidden taxes on Canadians, and they want Canadians to be grateful that they are going to give some of that money back. In my riding, $1,800 will not cover rent for one month.”
“Inflation did rise to 2.4% from 2.2%, but groceries rose to 5%. In that respect, Canada, in terms of inflation, especially groceries, is the best performing country because Canadians cannot afford groceries. This is crazy. I understand what it means not to be able to afford groceries. I was a councillor and a chief councillor for a small first nations band on the west coast of B.C, and it was one of my goals to make sure that people could afford groceries and pay their bills and build their own lives without government help. For members who do not know anything about the Indian Act, the Indian Act is basically built on government funding, and a lot of first nations leaders try to get away from that dependence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan . We are debating Bill C-19 , the Canada groceries and essentials benefit act. Listening to the speeches all day today, the debates, I cannot help but ask, why this bill? It is mainly for two reasons: first, Canadians cannot afford to pay their bills and they cannot afford to buy groceries; and second, this was a promise made by the Liberal government to reduce grocery prices. The name of this bill is a bit misleading because it does not affect grocery prices; this is actually a tax rebate. In fact, if we look at what is happening in Canada, the opposite is happening in terms of what the Liberal government promised around getting control of grocery inflation. In fact, the opposite is happening. Grocery costs have gone up and are still going up.”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition I rise to present on behalf of the residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley is asking the House never to expand MAID to people suffering from mental illness. It is clear that the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley believe that Canadians with mental illness should be met with supports, treatment and hope. Mental illness is treatable, and recovery is possible. People who are suffering should be offered suicide prevention treatment, not assisted dying.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today. First, I rise again to present another petition on behalf of the residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, specifically law-abiding citizens who do not agree with the Liberals' failing confiscation plan of firearms. Provinces and police associations do not agree with it. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that the program will cost over $750 million of taxpayer money. The petitioners of Skeena—Bulkley Valley want the government to stop going after law-abiding citizens and to go after criminals instead.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was correct. As we know, the Conservatives are not putting up many speakers here, but we would like to get this issue resolved. As a new MP, I have heard all of the stories here about the victims, the testimony and what our citizens are going through, but the Liberals seem to want to debate the rights of offenders or how we should not debate the bill. All of us want to debate it to be fair to all Canadians. Can the member expand on exactly what the protecting victims act would do, and how we would get there?”
“That is why, today, we introduced a motion to pass a Canadian sovereignty act that would repeal federal measures that block and punish project development, would reward hard-working Canadians who build and invest, and would protect Canadian innovation and our economic sovereignty.”
“Mr. Speaker, Skeena—Bulkley Valley is ready to build. Conservatives worked with the government to pass Bill C-5 so that the Prime Minister could approve projects quickly while cutting red tape. However, after a year of speeches, no single project has been approved and no barriers have been removed. Skeena—Bulkley Valley is already contributing and is asking for a chance to invest, build and work. The Stewart World Port expansion, the Telkwa coal project, the Endako mine and Terrace industrial lands are real projects that mean real jobs, stronger businesses and stable futures for families in our regions. When we build and export, incomes rise and life becomes more affordable.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise for the third time to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, specifically law-abiding citizens who do not agree with the Liberals' confiscation plan. Provinces, police associations and now the Charlottetown council do not agree with the confiscation plan. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that this program will cost over $750 million. The petitioners want the government to stop this confiscation plan in Skeena—Bulkley Valley and go after criminals.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned his community's involvement in the jurisprudence. My band was involved in the Haida court case in 2004; we intervened. Eight months of negotiations on the MOU, and there was no involvement with first nations. The table the Liberals have set up is a tripartite table between Alberta, B.C. and the federal government. Again, first nations were excluded. When will the respect for aboriginal rights and title start with the Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member emphasized a lot of clean energy initiatives, but countries like Germany and Britain are now experiencing the highest energy costs around the world. How does the member plan to incorporate clean energy in Canada while keeping life affordable for Canadians in terms of their energy bills?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that well-documented speech on aboriginal rights and title and aboriginal issues. I was part of a team that helped put together protocols on how to breathe life into section 35 almost 20 years ago. However, we already have an example of first nation issues with the Trans Mountain pipeline that the Liberal government just got through purchasing. It did not get consent from 100% of the first nations involved with the pipeline in consultations. Does the member believe the pipeline that is being proposed right now needs 100% consent from all the first nations involved in this project?”
“Madam Speaker, I have sat in the House now for less than a year, and all I have listened to is Liberals lecturing us on aboriginal issues. They are trying to teach us about what reconciliation is and what aboriginal rights and title are, yet our ancestors helped create section 35 and the case law. Central to that was the environment. Do we need a lecture from the Liberals on what aboriginal rights and title are all about?”
“Madam Speaker, the whole origin of the MOU came because of the pipeline, but the Liberals are now trying to paint this as Conservative opposition to climate action. We are watching the Liberals argue their own climate action plan. In fact, a minister resigned saying the Liberals flip-flopped on their climate action plan. Does my hon. colleague agree with the minister who resigned saying the Liberals are backtracking on their climate action plan?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is basically the whole problem. We do not know what the government's position is, whether we are talking about indigenous consent or provincial consent. We do not know. Today will be a huge day for—”
“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we want to talk about this today. What we are talking about today is not definitive. This is just the Liberals' wording in the MOU, but it will be definitive once the application is made. At that point, the Liberal government will have to make a decision. Will it allow a pipeline to be built? Will it allow it to be fast-tracked? Will it go to the Major Projects Office? Today is all about yes or no to different provinces, depending on which audience is sitting in front of the Prime Minister .”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a Liberal MOU. This is a Liberal decision. This MOU never came to the House. By the way, on the idea of a private investor, there is no way a private investor would invest in Canada when we have the tanker moratorium and Bill C-69 , the environmental laws. It is just too much. Today, it can be a signal. There has got to be 10 to 20, maybe 30, signals that have to be sent, on top of legislative amendments to be made to all the policies. They have restricted investment in the first place.”
“Mr. Speaker, to the government House leader, we are not arguing. We are watching the Liberals argue over this MOU. We are watching them argue over the climate action plan. We are trying to be supportive.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is 10 years too late to believe in Canada. Why did you not believe that 10 years ago, when you started all these policies? There was Bill C-69 , the tanker moratorium. Why did you not believe it then?”
“In Canada, we are 10 years behind the times because of failed Liberal policies. The vassal state is a reality. If it continues on the road it is going down, our grandchildren and children are going to have to not only deal with failed economics but also deal with the politics that are playing out, right now, here in Canada. We have not even begun to talk about the Arctic and Arctic sovereignty. How are we going to fund that when we have no economy? Right now, the Liberal answer to this is to go back to taxes or hide it through rates.”
“In this new world of geo-economics, Canada is now in a weakened position, with no leverage to negotiate with the United States, much less anybody else. Liberals are now starting to beg Europe for some type of alliance. There are the fighter jets that they are talking about buying. Instead of buying jets from the Americans, as promised, they want to buy from Sweden, but the licensing technology belongs to the United States. With all of the insults that the Prime Minister has given across the board, saying that pipelines are “boring” and responding, “Who cares?” when asked if he had talked to the President of the United States, do we really think that the United States is going to allow licensing to leave any of the manufacturers all around the world? This is a different world we are living in.”
“Stellantis then packed up the auto manufacturing facility and moved to the United States. Stellantis then offered $13 billion to President Trump as tribute. The government says that it is going to get that money back, even though it did not read the contract that it signed with Stellantis. I hope it has been read by now. On top of this, there is CUSMA, the trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. President Trump is threatening to withdraw from that agreement. The argument is that the default will be the previous agreement that existed before CUSMA. That is a weak premise, given who we are dealing with south of the border. Do we really think that Trump is going to agree to that?”
“Canada was interfering with the politics of a foreign country, which just happens to be a global superpower. What did Trump do? He imposed more tariffs and increased tariffs. What is happening now? After the latest meeting with Trump, what did our Prime Minister learn? He learned that Trump is going to threaten tariffs on Canadian fertilizer. That is more exports. By the way, is potash being shipped out of B.C. ports a reality? No. The company decided to ship out of United States ports instead. That is more tribute to the United States and more private Canadian investment money going to the United States. Stellantis is an example of more private Canadian money going to the United States. In this case, we could argue that this is public money because the Liberal government gave Stellantis $15 billion.”
“While our brilliant Prime Minister banker says that we have to get off our dependence on the United States, he offers to the United States another pipeline going to the United States. (1035) The Prime Minister offered to build Keystone XL. What is the point of that? President Trump was so happy that our Prime Minister offered to export more oil to the United States, do members know what he did? He imposed more tariffs on Canada. What is next? As a tribute to the United States, our Prime Minister offered to invest $1 trillion of private Canadian money in the United States. How did Trump respond? He imposed more tariffs. What is the point of negotiating when the situation just keeps getting worse? The Prime Minister then condoned an ad that was run in the United States, which United States lawmakers refer to as foreign interference.”
“Canada, under the Liberals for the last 10 years, intentionally weakened its own economy by saying no to extracting and exporting its own resources. This would have been okay if the Liberals had replaced the economy with something else, but they did not, and now they are scrambling to fix a problem that they created. Canada should not have been in this weakened state to begin with. With or without Trump, this would have happened. When we take away the strength of a country, we leave ourselves vulnerable to other powerful countries. There are two powerful countries in the world right now: China and the United States. Let us get back to the pipeline. Canada exports oil to the United States, with 93% of Canadian oil going to the United States.”
“The Prime Minister promised to reduce the prices at the grocery store, and his words were that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Then, not one item in the budget actually talked about prices at the grocery store. I think the real problem we are dealing with here is something that has to be revisited, and it is how this all came about, which is the United States and, specifically, President Trump. We cannot take what President Trump says about Canada literally. President Trump said that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States. We cannot take that literally, but we should be worried about Canada becoming a vassal state. A vassal state is a country with limited sovereignty that is subservient or submissive to a more powerful state, often paying tribute in the form of taxes or resources.”
“We would not have agreed to using emergency powers like the former prime minister promised. I think that is going too far. Do members remember the emergency powers? They are the ones that allowed convoy truckers to be thrown into jail and have their bank accounts frozen. The courts found it unconstitutional. I could not have agreed to that. The Liberals claimed that they needed superpowers to get pipelines built, so they brought in Bill C-5 , the Building Canada Act, and it got passed by the House of Commons. They knew full well they did not need Bill C-5 , as they had all the powers already, but this is typical of what the government has been doing. The Liberals promise, promise, promise, and then they do not deliver when they become government.”
“This is the first opportunity for the Liberals to tell the truth in their intentions to build Canada strong, to turn us into an energy superpower, to turn us into the best performing country in the G7, but we are watching Liberals argue with Liberals. Liberals are arguing their own climate action plan. In fact, ministers are resigning because they are saying that the Liberals are walking away from their own climate action plan and their commitments to the Paris Accord. It was not too long ago when the Liberals were condemning everybody who did not support a carbon tax or did not support a climate action plan. Now, Liberals are condemning Liberals for not supporting their own climate action plan. The Conservatives have been trying to help the Liberals turn Canada into an energy superpower.”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion on the floor today is: That the House...support the construction of one or more pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen from a strategic deepwater port on the British Columbia coast to reach Asian markets, including through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous peoples. This is the Liberals wording, word for word, from the MOU. Having the Liberals oppose and debate their own wording is confusing. This is why we are trying to put this motion on the floor today. Canadians deserve an answer, yes or no. In B.C., the Liberal Party will tell British Columbians that there will be no pipeline built, but in Alberta, those same Liberals will say that yes, a pipeline will be built. Which is it?”
“The messaging to first nations from the Liberal government changes every day and is confusing to Canadians, who deserve leadership in the face of U.S. tariffs.”
“Mr. Speaker, over the past 20 years, I have helped develop processes to deal with aboriginal rights and title honourably on the part of the Crown and first nations, respectively. It took years of trial and error, but it is what enabled projects like LNG Canada to be approved and bring peace to the forests in B.C. Today, the Liberal government is disregarding and frustrating what was already a good process that met the needs of first nations and non-first nations alike. Offering to do consultations by Zoom is demeaning to first nations. The idea that the Liberal government will start consultations once an application is made is an insult. It ignores all the best practices already laid out in other projects. Consultations should have started eight months ago. The flip-flopping of statements to first nations is not honourable.”
“Kitlope was protected in the same manner as we are talking about here. Who got wealthy and benefited under that? The environmental organizations did. Their offices got bigger. They hired more staff. They had offices in San Francisco and Vancouver. I visited them. One in particular had 150 staff members. What did my band get? For all the work that we did to preserve land, we got nothing. All we got was a $30,000-a-year funding option from the B.C. government. That was all we got. It was not even enough to hire anybody. It was good enough for administrative purposes, but that was it. I think the timing of this motion is not right, considering all the different pressures Canadians are facing, as well as the housing crisis and many other issues, but I am running out of time, so I will sit down.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thought private land was the discussion, and to the best of my recollection, most of the houses being built in Canada are built on private land. If we are going to talk about private land, we also have to talk about the plan to take private land out of the land base. I think it is totally directed. In fact, of all the promises we are talking about here, I think housing should be addressed if we are talking about taking private land out of the land base. I think it is totally related. As a first nation, when we were trying to conserve land, all these promises were made by telling us that if we conserved land, a whole different economy was going to be brought to us. There would be tourism. Everybody would get a job. Everybody was going to have a house of their own. First nations would be well off.”
“The other thing, in terms of timing, is that everybody acknowledges that we are in a housing crisis, but this motion is proposing to take even more private land out of the land base and sterilize that land, so we cannot build more houses. It is not the time to talk about private land being taken out of the land base, out of municipalities or regional districts for that matter. We are going to need land if Canada ever decides to live up to its promise of building 500,000 houses per year. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pointed out that the Liberals are not going to reach that target, ever. At best, they will do 5,000 houses. This brings me back to my days in the B.C. legislature, where we thought that the B.C. NDP promise of building 114,000 houses in 10 years was unachievable. It was; it was proven.”
“(1820) It is timely to have this discussion now because we have not really figured out what the Cowichan court case means in terms of private land. I think we are putting the cart ahead of the horse until we figure out exactly what that means. The federal government may intend to argue on behalf of private landowners, and the B.C. government may intend to do likewise, but it is unclear what the argument is going to be. Until we figure that out, we should think carefully about this, because we might have to undo this and we might have even more chaos in terms of what we are seeing right now in Richmond, B.C.”
“I read what Prime Minister Harper did at the time, but he did not commit to 30 by 30; he committed to protecting 70% of the land base. That is a good thing now, given what is happening today. It was timely, because we do want to protect ecologically sensitive areas. In fact, we already do, through a number of different measures. I do not understand why we need this. We protect ecologically sensitive areas within environmental assessments, for example. Not only that, but we actually repair ecologically sensitive areas within the environmental assessment through the environmental offsets initiative. Canada is already doing a good job at protecting ecologically sensitive areas. I do not see why we need a foreign body or an international body to dictate what we should or should not with our land base.”
“Coastal First Nations is an official, non-profit organization. I think people get it confused with the first nations that live on the coast, which is a different term altogether. I did not know at the time that taking funds from American funders to conserve land was an issue. In fact, the funds we received at that time were funnelled through the David Suzuki Foundation. By the time I left and took my band out of that organization, the talk was to eliminate the David Suzuki Foundation as a funnel for the funds coming from American funders. We left because we had a difference of opinion in terms of comments we were told about that had been made toward the LNG industry. I agree with the concept of protecting ecologically sensitive areas.”
“Why does it look to the World Economic Forum or the United Nations for direction? Members are elected for a reason. We should know what the country needs and what direction we should be going towards. Why do we need direction from somebody else? We are all capable people here, and I hope we are all capable leaders. If anything, we should be thinking about initiatives by Canadians for Canadians. It took me a while to figure this out as a councillor and then as chief councillor for Haisla Nation Council, but we had the same objectives in mind: We wanted to conserve sensitive areas in our territory. I was a part of an organization called Turning Points, which changed its name to Coastal First Nations. There is confusion in the media about what the term “coastal first nations” means.”
“After 10 years, I think we can see light at the end of the tunnel for the victims and maybe put some real teeth back into our justice system. Motion M-15 brings me back. It is amazing how much the activities in the House bring me back to my earlier days. I was part of the Haisla Nation Council, which participated in a lot of conservation measures, not knowing that it was somehow attached to a global entity that was proposing an initiative like 30 by 30, which is the idea that we should conserve 30% of the land base by 2030. This is not a made-in-Canada initiative. When I was chief councillor of Haisla Nation, a small little native band, we did not take our direction from external entities. We did it based on what we needed, what we wanted and what we wanted to achieve. We never took anybody's lead. I often wonder why Canada does this.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Motion M-15. It is not a private member's bill. It is not a pathway to anything specific in terms of legislation or regulation or policy. It is basically a suggestion from the colleague across the aisle. Before I start my comments, I would like to acknowledge something that happened in the House not more than an hour ago. Bill C-225 , Bailey's law, was passed, and Bailey's family was here to witness it. It was a lot of hard work from a lot of our colleagues on this side of the aisle in the Conservative caucus, led by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . It drained a lot of emotion out of a lot of members on this side of the House, so I really commend and thank all those people and parties that made it happen. It was historic.”