Cathay Wagantall
Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I will move on to this. I move: Amendment That the motion be amended: (a) by adding after the words “be disposed of as follows:” the following: “(a) the bill shall be divided into two bills: (i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting timely access to data and information, which shall be composed of clauses 2 to 40 of Bill C-22, (ii) B…”
“(1705) Nobody recognized me. They had phones outside the door here, over there and downstairs. They were trying to find me. They could not find me, because in every campaign, I look a little different. I said, “You have to do a better job of this.”
“I wonder if she will get it done. I then had one on protecting pregnant women. A lot of women came and talked to me and said they wanted access to abortion. I said, “Fine.” The truth is that 84% of Canadians want access to abortion. I said that there was a DART & Maru/BLUE poll that was done.”
“I could not do my job without my staff who are in my riding and, certainly, those here on the Hill as well. I am so grateful for every one of them who has been a part of my team. I want to thank the pages and all the folks who help us out in the lobby and put up with us on a daily basis. They are remarkable.”
“I will stop there, but his heart is what drives him, as does his love for being a servant leader and caring about people. When my mom passed away, he phoned me. When this happens to anyone in our caucus, he makes that call, and no one ever feels rushed when he is talking with them.”
“Many members get their name pulled out of that hat, but never get the opportunity because they are too far down the list. My predecessor was here for 22 years, and I do not believe ever had that opportunity. My passion is caring about violence against women.”
The complete record
Every one of 262 lines we hold for Cathay Wagantall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“That is because of the laws it has allowed, such as bail and not jail and lowering the sentencing requirements for those committing very serious violent crimes. Each component should be studied on its merits. Let us study the bill separately from the desire that the Liberals have to basically remove mandatory minimums from our judicial system. We would be able to support the victim protection and procedural component of Bill C‑16 , but the mandatory minimum sentencing safety valve is definitely something that should not be part of the bill. Why does it even matter? Parliament sets mandatory minimum sentences for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore them, there would be nothing mandatory about it.”
“Why instead are victims seeing the insertion of this poison pill in the form of a safety valve in Bill C‑16 , which is dangerously weakening Liberal criminal justice policies and giving more leniency to criminals, in sentencing reforms? That is what is happening here. This poison pill is antithetical to preventing violent crimes. It would be giving more leniency. There should be one track in Bill C‑16 for victim protection, coercive control, deepfake offences and trial efficiency measures. It is typical of the federal government members to bring forward such a bill. Quite honestly, they know that much of it was put forward by our members, yet they put something in there that is antithetical to the goodness that could be done on behalf of victims while lessening the amount of violent crime that continues to grow in this country.”
“The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights gives victims the right to information and whatnot. However, there is still no broad mechanism allowing them to go to court and obtain a remedy when those rights are violated. National minimal service standards are also outstanding. The committee and ombudsperson called for more consistent national standards, but the government has not provided those national standards, leaving victims to try to navigate services that vary significantly between provinces and territories. Why has the Liberal government treated the Victims Bill of Rights as largely symbolic and failed to strengthen victims' rights in a meaningful way?”
“Let us comment on the fact that this is what is happening to the victims, but look at what is happening with respect to the sentencing of those who perform violent crimes against those victims. In 2024, it was stated that many of the recommendations could significantly improve victims' experiences if they were implemented. (1635) Many of the more significant recommendations remain outstanding, such as the automated notification of rights. One of the biggest complaints is that victims are still generally required to seek out information themselves. Victims are still not automatically informed of their rights and services, or of offender status, parole processes and restitution options, yet the accused are informed of theirs. What is wrong with this scenario? Also outstanding is stronger enforcement of victims' rights.”
“In 2021, instead of fulfilling the responsibility to review the Victims Bill of Rights, as was outlined, the Liberals began a study through the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. According to the ombud for victims of crime, the committee eventually produced a December 2022 report titled, “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. Critics, including the ombud, argued that the review was not as comprehensive as the legislation warranted. Although 13 recommendations were made, many of the most significant remain outstanding to this day. The federal ombud continues to argue that victims rights remain largely symbolic rights that are not enforced.”
“This provision would apply to nearly all mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code and other federal statutes, effectively converting mandatory minimums from binding sentence floors into discretionary benchmarks. While custodial sentences would still be required, Parliament's ability to set firm baseline consequences for serious violent crimes would be significantly weakened, encouraging lighter sentences for violent and repeat offenders, as well as the long-term erosion of mandatory minimum sentencing as a policy tool. This would result in more, not less, violent criminal activity on our streets. Victims, advocacy groups and the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime are in disbelief.”
“The Liberals want to empower judges to ignore mandatory sentences for such things as aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearm offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm. These are some of the things that the government is prepared to declare are not violent crimes worthy of further mandatory sentences. By creating a general safety valve, Bill C‑16 introduces a sweeping sentencing change, allowing courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimum capabilities when applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. I have nowhere to put this. If mandatory is not mandatory, then we have an issue with our judicial system's being given the opportunity to play around with this.”
“Sadly, the Liberals opposed the member of Parliament for Edmonton Gateway 's bill to introduce a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for all forms of extortion. However, at the very least, Bill C‑16 introduces an aggravating factor for sextortion. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not anywhere near enough. There are some good things in Bill C‑16 , but of course, as we are hearing today, there are some very serious concerns with it specifically. Despite the positive additions, it continues with the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda. It would empower judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code other than for murder and treason.”
“The bill also criminalizes coercive or controlling conduct within intimate relationships. This is something that I have been very concerned about. I believe the behaviours that are the precursors to serious injury and death of women in those relationships often happen when women are most vulnerable. The government has basically failed to mention that when women are especially vulnerable is when they are pregnant and expecting a child. Provisions from the same bill to bring in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse materials have also been taken up, helping our kids feel safe from the most despicable crimes, and I hope it will keep them safer from those crimes. I applaud the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , whose calls have been heard to make the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree murder.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑16 , an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters, is what I am going to be discussing tonight, including child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures that are part of the bill. It is a broad justice omnibus bill that combines victim protection and criminal law modernization measures, but it also has a fundamental restructuring of mandatory minimum sentences. Also, there are some good parts to this. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners will keep Canadians, especially women, safe from having non-consensual intimate images created and shared. I am thankful the government has adopted the proposal from the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill in her bill, Bill C‑216 , to do exactly that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the school food program. We have school food programs in Saskatchewan for kids who come to school hungry. I think it is really important. However, the government committed $216.6 million annually to the food program and is making it permanent. An additional 400,000 children will benefit from this commitment every year. There are 5.5 million students in school right now and 3.5 million are in elementary. With the money the government is giving, it works out to $2.70 per day per child. How is that caring for children? Why does the government not give the money back to the parents through a proper economy and let them feed their own kids?”
“Mr. Speaker, here is the part that I would like him to respond to because they are blaming us on this side of the House for causing the angst. Justice Young made a number of findings and issued a series of declarations that, according to aboriginal legal experts and academics, create significant uncertainty for fee simple title holders in the province of British Columbia—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really curious about the member's brother who served in the air force. I would love to have a conversation with him around the Snowbirds and encourage the Liberals' support. They are such a wonderful representation to young people who would also like to join the air force. I want to note one thing from the British Columbia Supreme Court when it released its decision. It concluded that the Cowichan Tribes hold aboriginal title to a portion of their lands, including private lands held in fee simple. Justice Young made a number of findings and issued a series of declarations that, according to— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Cathay Wagantall: Sir. I am speaking to the member. He is not even listening. An hon. member: Yes, he is. An hon. member: No, you're talking to him. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, our Canadian Forces' morale has been attacked, traditions have been erased and attrition has become highly damaging to our capability to defend Canada. The Canadian Forces' Snowbirds must continue to be the souls of our Canadian military. They exude Canadian pride and international reputation for expertise, precision and high standards that have given our allies confidence in us in the past. Will the Liberals do the right thing and save our souls, save our Snowbirds?”
“Mr. Speaker, this costly credit card budget means more debt, more costs, more spending, more taxes, more of the same. Out-of-control deficits have taken the breath away from working Canadians with $407 billion in interest over the next six years. Nothing has changed, and nothing will change for the future of today's 18-year-old first-time voters if the government is not stopped dead in its tracks. By 2031, they will be the workforce, facing an additional $462 billion in national debt. What have Canadians gained from the Liberals doubling Trudeau's deficit and charging the next generation with their credit card budgeting? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has expressed our concerns on this side of the floor. I think of 18-year-olds right now facing their futures. Over the next six years, they will be going to school, getting a trade, occupation or profession, and they will be in the seat of dealing with $406.6 billion in interest over those six years added on to increasing debt. How does the member feel about the reality of what the government is doing to the next generation of Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are hearing an awful lot about Justice Arbour's report. It was made in 2022. Since then, a lot of time has passed and a lot of improvements have been made. When a report like that is made, I would think Justice Arbour would want to come to committee, share the rationales and say whether they are still effective or if there needs to be change. For some reason, she did not show up at all. Can the member articulate why someone in that position would not show up at committee to give their input?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated what my colleague spoke to in regard to how things have already progressed and moved along, which has given to a lot of those survivors something that that party does not like to appreciate: hope. I just had an interaction with one of those survivors, who was in absolute tears because she sees and knows how many of her colleagues she is going to have to help. She said that they will say “life is over”, and they will be added to those numbers who have lost their lives because of this and not survived. What does the member have to say to that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I actually wrote down “cherry-picking” on my paper. The Liberals are not choosing to look at the broad picture of what has been presented to them on behalf of veterans who have suffered military sexual trauma, and who will continue to suffer under the CAF until things improve and the changes are made that truly need to be made.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that nothing around here moves the way I would make it move, if I were the one in charge. “Cathay for prime minister.” No. I am quite happy to not be in charge. That being said, the reality is that politics interfere often. I think the member knows that as well, even from where he sits. The member asked why in the world this has happened. That is a really good question, and it does not get asked often enough. I firmly believe the reason all of this excellent opportunity to give our veterans the best chance to change the culture of the armed forces has been denied is that it is more politically expedient for the government to make it go away.”
“Mr. Speaker, the tone in which the member presented his question is appreciated. I voted for the report. When we voted for that report, we were saying to all those suffering individuals that we were there for them, we heard them and we wanted to see change. I voted for that recommendation at that time. Over time, those same individuals who gave testimony have had time to process it. What is interesting is that what ended up being the recommendation in that report is also a recommendation that was put forward by that one individual. There are others who did excellent work too. It needs to be changed.”
“Bill C-11 risks creating a system where survivors feel processed through the justice system rather than empowered within it.” This is wrong, and it is going to cause more problems than it fixes.”
“The military justice system...failed me [too, but] replacing one system that's broken with another system that completely and consistently fails victims of sexual offences does not create justice. It simply relocates the problem, and...removes the responsibility of the CAF for fixing it. Transferring all Criminal Code sexual offences will, in my view, increase the number of high-harm incidents. This is important. Low-level sexual misconduct must be both reported and pursued, because these are the early warning[s]...of a toxic, sexualized culture. Requiring a young, newly enrolled CAF member to walk into an RCMP detachment to report a low-level incident is unrealistic, and it will suppress reporting. Heather Vanderveer said, “Survivor autonomy is one of the strongest predictors of recovery after institutional betrayal and sexual trauma.”
“I am going to quote Christine Wood, who is the one who bravely said at that meeting of the committee and veterans that they were not happy with Bill C-11 , and she explained why. She said: I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military. We have different views, do we not? However, it is not an either-or. It is a both-and. She went on to say: I support it because the CAF must uphold [its] own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices. To be clear, I'm not defending the status quo.”
“Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed— That creates trauma. That is sanctuary trauma. —and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did. She was involved in actually putting together a program that they could have function within the Canadian Armed Forces. They were even doing tests, and it was working. There are a lot of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have seen what has gone on and did not want to be part of that, do not want to be part of that, and looked forward to having this as an option. It was shut down.”
“I love their tenacity, their grit, their truthfulness and the fact that they do not see themselves as victims. They are survivors, and they love the armed forces. Their biggest desire is to see this gone, but they do not believe that can happen if suddenly there is no accountability. We know that the chain of command is culpable here. It is part of the problem. I get the rationale, but it is not right, and it is punitive to the very people the government should be supporting. I am going to quote Donna Van Leusden. She said: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.”
“(1215) In response to Bill C-11 in its original form, concerns actually came to light at an appreciation event for women who served in the Canadian Armed Forces, including those who had contributed to the study, that was sponsored and put on by the Liberal women MPs on the veterans affairs standing committee. I was not formally invited, but I showed up. It was there that these contributors expressed openly that they were not happy with Bill C-11 and that it would not do what they need it to do. I had the opportunity to represent them and talk to my colleagues in national defence. They listened. The government is not listening. As a matter of fact, it is being punitive to the very people it should be supporting. I am just going to quote a couple of the individuals I have come to know and be good friends with.”
“This is what the letter said: Today, more than ever, we believe in the importance of coming together, speaking collectively, and demanding accountability. Meaningful change will not come from symbolic structures or performative consultations, but from clear institutional commitment, dedicated and transparent funding, and mechanisms that genuinely recognize lived experience as expertise. This is something I have come to realize over my decade plus on that committee. These women are always considered, but they are never recognized as experts in what they present at that committee. We are seeing that again today in the way they are being responded to.”
“It joined a plethora of advisory councils that have had minimum input and minimum impact on the decision-making of the government. Believing that their contribution would be different, the members were excited, and then time went by. I attended a major conference where members of the council were represented, and they were praised for their participation and input in making this conference take place. I later learned from a number of them that no, it was just word salad. They were not consulted. On January 14 came a letter of resignation from six out of the 12, including five of the eight Canadian Armed Forces members, who put in their letter of resignation because they saw none of what they had expected to have happen in that group.”
“It wants our national defence to be able to function without this in the rear-view mirror. That is not what the survivors want. They want the option to take their perpetrator to civilian court or to do it within the military. As a matter of fact, if members read all of Bill C-11 , they will see there were good reasons, and means, to also give them the choice to move between the two. This is not complicated. It could be done, and every member of the military who has been attacked in some way should have the opportunity to have that choice. Out of that same report, “Invisible No More”, a recommendation came forward to have a VAC women veterans council. It was announced on December 2, 2024. I was at the installation ceremony for the members who were chosen and celebrated the creation of the council that spring.”
“Survivors spoke of their experiences, and I have to say there is no other way to hear what the government should be doing than to sit down and not just read the report but watch and listen to every one of those individuals who took the risk, and were brave and courageous, to come and share exactly what has happened to them in the military. I am hearing the concerns that it was so devastating, and it was not treated properly, so we are going to move it all over to civilian court. These women know what is happening here. They are not being heard and are not being respected. They do not want to have everything shifted over to the civilian court. There are reasons for that, which are rational and were shared at the committee, and they are being completely ignored. Why? It is because the government wants it to go away.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have no experience in the military, and I do not serve on the national defence committee, so why am I here? I serve on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have been there since 2015. As a matter of fact, I am the matron of the committee. I am the only one who has been there this entire time, outlasting a decade's worth of 10 ministers and different members every time the government has had an election. I have experienced everything on that committee, in my heart and in my mind, with all of those who have come to share their stories and their concerns. I am standing here today simply on behalf of the survivors of military sexual trauma in whatever form. We did a study of women in the military, and out of that study came the report “Invisible No More”.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, having listened to and read a lot of the testimony, that what the member just mentioned about the concerns of one of those witnesses is absolutely true. At the same time, Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” She goes on to indicate that it should not be an either-or but a both-and. We know that victims come with different perspectives. What the government has done is chosen what is best, most applicable and appreciated by itself and the Canadian Armed Forces. It removes it from the very place where the issues are being done. They—”
“Mr. Speaker, on the right to choose, the member indicated, which I think was somewhat demeaning, that this only applied to women. Obviously, in the armed forces, there are a lot of issues. On this issue, I can attest, from male members of the armed forces having spoken with me, that this is as much an issue to them as it is to women. Would the member like to retract that statement?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of times that the government is very proud of the increase in new recruits signing up to our Canadian Armed Forces. Recruitment has risen by 30%. It obviously was very low up until this point, over the last decade. Can the member clarify what I heard, that those numbers do not even begin to replace the number who have chosen to leave?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we are very concerned about foreign interference, specifically in our Elections Act, so I would like the member to explain why the Liberals have delayed the implementation of the foreign interference registry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague had to say today specifically around something my constituents are concerned about, as are his, which is the delay in the implementation of the foreign interference registry, which is really important, as we have heard today, to make this bill as efficient and good as possible. I would like him to speak a bit more to the fact that the government is delayed in bringing this forward and yet has already moved forward with the law enforcement agreement with China, which causes the kind of concern he mentioned in his speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, I recognize my hon. colleague's comments on Bill C-25 intersecting with the importance of the implementation of the foreign interference registry. My constituents are very concerned about this delay, noting that, at the same time, they know there are foreign police stations in our country and the government is working on a law enforcement agreement. How does he see that working together?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate everything the member has spoken about this morning. I listened very closely. My constituents have been looking forward to this, specifically around the issues of longest ballots and combatting foreign interference. However, there is angst for constituents in the fact that implementing the foreign registry has been so delayed while at the same time the federal government is moving towards a law enforcement agreement with China. I would like the member to speak to that and to the concerns around making sure that what we are saying is also what would be accomplished and accomplished quickly.”
“The petitioners are calling upon the House to pass legislation that would recognize preborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against their mothers, allowing two charges to be laid against the offender instead of one. We need to value choice.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a second petition, which draws the attention of the House to the fact that, in the current federal criminal law, a preborn child is not recognized as a victim in violent crimes. Today, when a pregnant woman in Canada is assaulted or killed, we offer no legal protection for the preborn child. Therefore, no charge can be laid specifically for the death of the child. The death or injury of a preborn child is a violation of a woman's right to protect and give life to her child. The Kaake family of Windsor, Ontario, continues to grieve the loss of Cassandra and her preborn daughter, Molly. Cassandra was 31 weeks pregnant with Molly when they were brutally murdered in December 2014.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I will present briefly. The first petition is one that I continue to receive from constituents and Canadians right across the country with respect to Bill C-9 . We know the bill has passed over to the other side, and hopefully it is being properly vetted. I believe the Senate will do the work that is required, which was perhaps not done properly in the House. It is with respect to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, which are fundamental rights that must be preserved in our country. The goal is to have the bill properly vetted by the Senate so that, when it comes back to the House, it no longer exists.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the world is using more oil now and will be for the next 40 years. We have the most efficient, environmentally appropriate means of getting oil out of the ground. We have that ability and that resource. However, what I am hearing from people in this House is that they would rather get it from other countries that are not as conscientious as we are about our environment. I know that Quebec itself has a great deal of oil under the ground, but it is choosing not to do that right now, not until it becomes its own nation, I understand. Why do the government and these individuals not understand the reality that our government is making incredible money on that oil price right now and it will not—”
“Mr. Speaker, basically, right now oil prices are very high, and that means the government is bringing in tons and tons of money. In light of that, young people are seeing this and asking why the government will not do the full recommendation from the Conservative Party, because it can certainly afford to do that and not make it even more difficult for young people who are facing these challenges as constituents of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am presenting today is in regard to Bill C-9 . I have many petitions on this issue, which has passed from this House to the other place. I have been requested to continue to present them because the bill will come back. The petitioners are hoping that this particular concern around the ability of all scriptures for all religions in our country to be protected as they are supposed to be is addressed and that, in the future when the House on the other side is doing the research, it will truly do its job and have the witnesses and stakeholders that will present what we hope will bring what Canadians want, an end to Bill C-9 .”
“Mr. Speaker, my first petition is being presented on behalf of citizens and residents across Canada who are calling on the government to reverse the planned cuts of 665 AAFC staff and closures of the organic and regenerative research program at the Swift Current office and the Lacombe, Guelph, Quebec City, Indian Head, Scott, Portage la Prairie and Nappan research facilities that serve our agriculture industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am standing today on behalf of petitioners who presented petitions in regard to Bill C-9 when the bill was in the House of Commons and have continued to say that we must keep this in front of our House as it is before the other House, and who want to ensure that it knows as well that Canadians are not happy with the response of the government to date. They look forward to the day when Bill C-9 does not come into law.”
“Called upon by religious leaders, legal experts, civil society organizations and hundreds of thousands of people of all faiths, I will vote against Bill C-9, as it would repeal the good-faith religious speech defence in our Criminal Code. God is here today. He will still be here tomorrow.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark a very important occasion in the history of Canada and Parliament. Sixty years ago, a prairie girl was inspired by her grade 6 teacher's lessons celebrating Canada's 100th birthday, so inspired that a seed was planted in her heart. What she was not taught, and what, I dare say, was not even known at the time, was that a special event was being planned on the Hill by parliamentarians to come together to thank God for Canada's biblical values of faith, family and freedom: the first National Prayer Breakfast of Canada. This morning, over 1,500 followers of Christ from across every province and territory gathered for the 60th annual National Prayer Breakfast, now the longest-running parliamentary event on the Hill. It is no accident that Bill C-9 will be voted on tomorrow.”
“Therefore, these individuals are calling on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, not attack it, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.”