Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the family-run Tyson Downs Association for donating a new AED SaveStation at Harrison Park in Owen Sound. Tyson Downs was an exceptional 18-year-old athlete and lacrosse player who passed away suddenly in 2023 as the result of cardiac arrest. Yesterday, this new SaveStation was officially unveiled just outside the Harrison Park Inn in Owen Sound. It houses an automated external defibrillator that is now available to the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Harrison Park is one of the busiest public spaces in our community. Families, athletes, visitors and community groups use it throughout the year. In an emergency, having an AED close by can make the difference between life and death. I want to thank the Tyson Downs Association, SaveStation, the Owen Sound Attack, the City of Owen Sound and everyone who helped make this possible. I congratulate them and thank them for helping to improve cardiac safety in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for getting to the crux of the challenges with bail reform and the fact that, when this bill went through the House, it was supported completely. The issue around sureties was discussed and an amendment was unanimously agreed to by all parties in this chamber before it went to the Senate. I do find it somewhat hypocritical of the government to not reject this amendment, like the other amendments that have come back from the Senate on this bill. As the member indicated, it creates vagueness. I know the member referred to rural crime. I have the same challenge in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, where the same repeat offenders, who are robbing our farmers and our rural people, are getting back out on bail. That is why we need bail reform so badly after 11 years of the Liberal government. I am now concerned that, with this loophole in the bill, these people, who do have to convince the judge, will have the ability to get back out when they should be spending time in jail if they cannot find somebody to cover for them or to be their surety.

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. They are calling upon the Liberal government to stop its cuts to Canada Post rural delivery. In particular, they cite their concerns about the impacts that this is going to have on rural communities, indigenous communities, seniors and disabled communities, and the fact that this decision has not been released publicly and with very limited public input. Therefore, petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to stop the cuts and immediately launch a fully transparent public mandate review that allows all stakeholders to provide meaningful input.

Mr. Speaker, I want to build on the two questions my hon. colleague was already asked, because in my opinion, when people are breaking the law or they are avoiding taxes, it is all about transparency and accountability. In particular, I want to ask him what he thinks the end result will be. Will this help and potentially enable additional changes to our tax laws and our Criminal Code? As he talked about in his speech, unfortunately, Canada has a bad track record of not collecting any of the money that has not been properly paid to the government coffers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague just to elaborate a bit more on where the improvements have happened. In fact, ever since that direction to try to move many of the Criminal Code sex offences over to the civilian courts, unfortunately, there have been obstacles that the military police have run into, and lots of these police jurisdictions refuse to accept it because of that higher threshold, so there are victims not getting the justice they need. However, because this law, Bill C-11, has not passed, the military police are able to do that. Not only have they learned. Not only is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights there, which has come in within the military. Not only has all of this changed, but we actually have landed on the solution and we do not need to change things. Right now, we have a military police system that will try to move things over to the civilian courts when a case is severe enough, but at the same time, they can ensure that justice is served. Would the member agree?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a plea to the government that we need to do better. This week, Veterans Affairs hosted the long-delayed national Afghanistan war memorial groundbreaking. This monument will recognize the commitment and sacrifice of the over 40,000 sailors, soldiers, aviators and special forces operators, along with hundreds of Canadian civilians, who served in Canada's longest combat mission, which was from 2011 to 2014. It will serve as an enduring testament to the 158 Canadian Armed Forces personnel and seven Canadian civilians who made the supreme sacrifice. It is on all of us to ensure that they and their families are never forgotten. Where we, and the government, need to improve is in having the Afghan veterans be front and centre with this project. Unfortunately, on Monday, this symbolic groundbreaking spent more time focused on the monument itself instead of the veterans and their families. I am committed to doing what I can to ensure, when this monument is built and officially unveiled in 2028, that Afghan veterans are the focus. I plea with the Liberal government to do the same. Lest we forget.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was tabled by my colleague, and even the comments that just came from the member for Winnipeg North, because I agree with my Bloc colleague that this is about choice for the victims. The member for Winnipeg North keeps bringing up this issue of what Justice Arbour recommended. A lot has changed, and I gave a full speech on this earlier this week at the report stage, highlighting that we have actually gotten this right. The system now provides that the military police try to transfer any of these Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian courts or to the civilian jurisdiction. However, police in these jurisdictions are coming back saying they cannot do it. Their threshold is too high, they do not have the resources, and now, basically, justice is not getting served. With the choice that has existed now over the last five years, we are giving victims the opportunity to make sure justice is served and for the military to take administrative action even when criminal court proceedings go through on the civilian side. What does the member think about those comments?

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was moved by my Conservative colleague earlier today, which is to put this bill back to the committee to, specifically, look at some of the clauses and amendments that were passed by the committee, including Liberal members of that committee, which the government, unfortunately, has removed during report stage. This is important because the minister signalled publicly in this chamber, just a day or two ago, that he is open to having the sunset clause be put back in. That was passed by the committee when it was studying the bill. Does the member think it is somewhat hypocritical of the government to say, “We have screwed this up. We made a mess of it. We are going to let the Senate fix it. It can amend it and then send it back to us”? What does the member think?

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation. I want to get back to the answer to my previous question. The member stated that if one of the members of the CAF commits a heinous crime, a Criminal Code sexual offence, overseas, he has complete faith in our military police to be able to collect the data, but then it needs to be transferred to the civilian courts. Unfortunately, that is not what is going to happen when Bill C-11 passes. The same thing that occurs right now will happen when that bill passes. If the military police can find a police of jurisdiction, if there is some way to make that connection and they are willing to take that charge on, then, yes, but in the end it is going to be the military justice system that is going to do justice for these victims. Does the member have faith that our military justice system can do the job and provide justice for the victims?

Mr. Speaker, because of the programming motion and the time allocation on this, I am going to be the last individual to speak in this chamber, unless the bill comes back, and there is a very high probability that it may come back, based on the Minister of National Defence's indication earlier in this chamber. When I spoke to the bill earlier this week, I highlighted the importance that we get it right. This is about the victims. This is about our military justice system. This is about retaining the credibility of our military police and our military prosecutors, but in the end, it is all about a victim-centred, trauma-informed decision within our Canadian Armed Forces. I have highlighted before that ultimately the decision was made in late 2021 by the director of military prosecutions, in light of the report that came out by Justice Arbour, to try to transfer all Criminal Code sexual offences to the civilian authorities. In the last five years, we have learned that the civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the resources or the capacity to deal with all these Criminal Code sexual offences. Part of the reason is that sometimes the cases are historical in nature and the courts do not view that they are in the best interest of public safety here in Canada. However, they are definitely in the best interest of justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, discipline and the necessary requirements that we need of our Canadian Armed Forces members. If all the amendments that were done, in some cases with all-party consensus, get removed and Bill C-11 passes in its current form, the challenge we are going to have is that the victims are not going to get justice. There are two things that I think we are going to see happen at the Senate. Based on the minister's own commentary here in the chamber, he is open to the sunset clause amendment that did pass at committee, which the government has since removed, to be put back into the bill. The other thing I think needs to be included in the bill is some sort of data collection provision. The biggest challenges we hear all the time, especially as these cases get transferred to civilian authorities, are how many they actually take, how many result in a charge being laid and how many end up with something occurring. These are all very important things that I think we need to do, and I encourage those members in the other place to take this into consideration as the bill goes forward. However, the ultimate disappointment I have with the government's decision not to respect the victims and the decisions made at committee is that we are not going to get this right. As I said before, I predict that those of us who will have the privilege of still being in this chamber in a few years will be dealing with the next iteration of this bill and, unfortunately, apologizing to the victims who are not going to get the justice they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the Bruce County and Grey County beef farmers have publicly expressed concerns about the ongoing negotiations with Mercosur. They said, “This won't just hurt farmers—it will weaken rural communities and reduce Canada's ability to produce its own food.... In Ontario...where most imported beef enters the market, the impact on local farmers would be severe.” Canadian beef producers are waiting to get more access in markets across the world. Should the Liberal government not be prioritizing export market access abroad instead of displacing the Canadian cattle industry at home?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here again. The last time I rose at second reading on this bill, I talked a bit about my military background, but I focused on why it is so important that we get this bill right, especially for the victims and the accused. This bill would do a number of things, and in fact parts of Bill C-11 are actually very good, a step in the right direction and needed. I do not want to debate those, which are in reference to the independence around the director of military prosecutions, the provost marshal, etc. Nor do I want to focus on any amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. I want to focus around the transfer of jurisdiction of offences of a sexual nature to civilian authorities when the offences take place in Canada and what this would mean for our Canadian Armed Forces, where I had the privilege to serve for 25 years. Today I am wearing my Royal Military College tie. The college's motto is “Truth, Duty, Valour”, something that I think is essential with this bill. I am also wearing the tie clip of my regiment, the motto of which is pro patria, or “for country”, but the slogan is what I want to focus on, which is “Never Pass a Fault”. I feel that we are in a position right now where the government is making a mistake. I am going to try to lay this out. There are a few things for all listeners here because I am going to use some abbreviations. Criminal Code sex offences is CCSO. When I say MPs, I mean military police, not members of Parliament. I will likely say “police of jurisdiction”, or POJ. Let us back up a little bit. In November 2021, the director of military prosecutions and the Canadian Armed Forces provost marshal decided to transfer all Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian jurisdiction. This was a result of Justice Fish and Justice Arbour's recommendations, and they were sort of an interim directive to go forward. Prior to that, there were concurrent investigations by both civilian authorities and the military police that resulted in some cases prior to 2021 ending up tried as civilian cases. However, when this interim direction came into place in 2021, it was the intent that ideally all CCSO would be transferred. That direction was clear; however, the military found out that local police of jurisdiction were not accepting the files. Military police then were able to do a victim-centred trauma analysis. They could conduct the investigations for a number of reasons. The civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the capacity or the resources to deal with it. Their threshold is much higher than the standard that the Canadian Armed Forces expects and there is a much larger gamut of tools available within the Canadian Armed Forces for both disciplinary and administrative action that allowed all of this to take place. Part of the reason that the civilian police of jurisdiction pushed back was that they believed that the military police were more than capable and competent to do this. We have seen this with public statements of affirmation from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police of the incredible professional competency of our military police. For some of the cases that were brought forward, the civilian police looked at them and said that there was no public interest in moving forward because some of them might have been historical or that public safety was not being dealt with. Further, in this interim time frame, the declaration of victims' rights had been implemented. This means that not on purpose, but because of an interim direction in 2021, we now have a choice for victims. Victims are getting the best of both worlds. There is the military police, which has fixed and addressed many of the shortfalls that had existed historically in our system, that is now able to do this in collaboration with the victim and the police of jurisdiction to make a case and go forward. I think that the way the system is functioning today when it comes to dealing with Criminal Code sex offences is right. Now let us talk about what happens if this bill passes with the amendments the Liberal government has made to change what was passed in committee. First off, for the first time ever in Canada, a police force, the military police, would lose jurisdiction to investigate criminal offences within its own jurisdiction. The military police are the police of jurisdiction for the Canadian Armed Forces. As soon as the military police, during an investigation, find any suspicion of a Criminal Code sex offence, they would have to contact, transfer or refer this to the local police of jurisdiction. A CAF victim would go to them and they would have to give them a phone number for the OPP or for the Ottawa Police Service, for example. It is not ideal. The police of jurisdiction would not be compelled to do anything about it. If the Canadian Armed Forces chooses to go ahead with administrative actions, the problem is that they would not be allowed to investigate. Section 70 of the National Defence Act lists all of the sexual offences that are tied to Criminal Code offences. Their hands would be tied and they would not be able to investigate. Right now, the way that local police of jurisdiction are dealing with this is very slowly; they are not keen on sharing that information with the military police. We would basically be taking this choice away from the victims. It would not be clean. It could be something as simple as a lower-level harassment issue that maybe should not be criminal in nature as it would not necessarily meet that threshold, but because it would fall under the changes being forecast to pass in Bill C-11, if the government got its way, they would not be able to do anything. The removal of this would fundamentally undermine the reputation of our military police. As I mentioned earlier, military police are experts. Since 2022, all the former cases that used to be done by summary trial and are now dealt with at courts martial must be investigated by the military police. The civilian police acknowledge their incredible capability. In fact, if I had enough time, I could share stories where victims were so happy to have their situations investigated by military police instead of local police. Let us talk about outside of Canada. I am not talking about a host nation perpetrator or victim, but specifically about where military police can investigate a CAF member, whether a victim or perpetrator, and a Canadian victim. Latvia is a good example. In this case, military police would investigate, weigh the charges and decide whether they should end up in the military or civilian justice system, as they can still do. They would maintain that skill set. I would argue that in the types of operations we are doing now in places like Latvia, where there are DND members and their families, we would see the potential for a higher level of these types of cases because, again, those in the CAF doing that are not perfect. My point is that someone could do something in Latvia and be charged for it, but if a person were to do the same thing in the CAF in Canada, they may not be charged for it. To wrap this up, this is what concerns me. A victim-centred, trauma-informed approach would not happen as the military police would lose this concurrent jurisdiction. More charges would be dropped. There would be less accountability within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current civilian system is already overloaded and, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, has a much higher threshold. We are seeing this in jurisdictions like Ireland right now, which went through this sort of step. It is now trying to figure out how to undo what it did. It is trying to fix the situation it is in. This would break trust with our military police and within the CAF and is basically an abdication of responsibility and leadership, from my viewpoint. This bill, no matter what, needs a sunset clause. What concerns me is that we will be back in Parliament in three years, five years or six years from now saying we messed up. We will be apologizing to the victims for not getting it right. We are not going to be able to fix that harm we caused. I say “we” meaning the Parliament of Canada, this chamber and the other place. It would not do the victims justice. It is important that we get this right. My plea to the government is that we need to do this right. If we cannot fix it in this place, I am praying the other place will be able to fix it, because I have legitimate concerns that we would be making a mistake if this bill passed as the government wants to amend it.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the parliamentary secretary with respect to Justice Arbour, things have changed. In previous speeches we have outlined this. The victims' bill of rights is no longer there. We have a sexual misconduct resource centre available. The independence has gone forward. The military police have actually fixed and addressed the key things that allowed for the situations upon which Justice Arbour made her recommendations. It was brought up previously in the debate that unfortunately Justice Arbour chose not to show up at committee to testify. Things have changed. In the military, the last thing we do when we do a mission analysis is ask whether the situation has changed. Since 2021, the situation has changed, as I highlighted during my speech, based on the recommendations that came from Fish and Arbour. The system is pretty much there. Let us use the rest of Bill C-11. With this transfer, I think we are getting it wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I could use a really derogatory term, but I will not. My point is that it is the government that is making a mistake. Ultimately, I think we need to get this right. This is about the victims. The committee did so much hard work. The witnesses testified. I am not taking anything away from what Justice Arbour brought forward. This is a tough position for the CAF and the senior leadership of the CAF. However, I dare say that if we go back and review the testimony put forward at committee by the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the Canadian director of military prosecutions, they weighed their concerns on this. Again, this is ultimately about taking care of the victims. I do not think the government is going to get it right if it removes the hard work of the committee and what it put forward as recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I do not know if anybody is going to be held to account. That is going to be the problem with this, because ultimately it is an abdication of responsibility and accountability within the CAF, which is what I highlighted in my speech. It is about handing this off and saying that police officers are able to deal with this. As the member noted, they are already overloaded. Their threshold is much higher than the military's and I think we are not going to do the victims justice. They are going to be the ones who will suffer from this and we will be back at this trying to fix this mistake a few years from now.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition is about the fact that this fund is, basically, being funded on the taxpayers' credit cards. We are already paying to service our national debt, and this will just add to it. Going forward, it is going to have an impact on the hon. leader's children, my daughter and the youth in this country being able to live a prosperous life in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my hon. colleague a follow-up on the question asked by the member for Winnipeg North, who is sort of making the allegation that somehow Conservatives are holding up this important legislation. In fact, the reason we are in this position in the first place is that the Liberals introduced Bill C-2, which had so many poison pills in it. It was an omnibus bill that did not address lawful access. It was just one minor part of that omnibus that had, as he addressed, some of the poison pills in it. The fact that this has taken so long is due to the Liberals' failure to communicate on this important issue properly. Does my hon. colleague agree with my assessment?

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the chamber's indulgence, before I get into the crux of my speech, to just acknowledge the passing of a long-time family friend back in my riding, Marie Christie, who passed away on the 13th of this month in her 97th year. Her family settled in my neck of the woods, just a few kilometres from my home farm, back in 1856. She was part of the Arran Tara Fall Fair board as a director for over 55 years. She was a 40-plus-year member of the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary and a life member of the Legion Branch 144 (Chesley). Marie's legacy of kindness, love and spark will live on in our memories for generations. A celebration of life is ongoing this afternoon, and I want to pass on my deepest condolences to the whole extended Christie family. Marie made a difference and she will be missed by each and every person that ever had the privilege to meet her. We are here today to talk about Bill C-22. I am going to primarily focus my speech on why this piece of legislation around lawful access is so important. I am going to then spend a lot of time talking about key concerns around the terminology, especially around the concept of back doors. I am going to do this primarily by leveraging the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' report on lawful access that was submitted to the Prime Minister back on March 4 last year. Unfortunately, it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15. Finally, I am going to talk about why I believe the Liberal government is failing on communicating on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-22 has three parts: Part 1 provides new tools for law enforcement to access digital information; part 2 provides a framework that ensures electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement is authorized to access; and part 3 mandates a review of the act three years after the provisions come into force. For those wanting a good explanation of the breakdown of all three parts, I encourage everyone to review the speeches by my Conservative colleagues for Parkland, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, and even the Minister of Justice's intervention on Bill C-22. Why do we need lawful access in Canada? The NSICOP report, paragraph 198, states: Lawful access represents one of the most intrusive powers of the state in the protection of national security. Accordingly, Canadians expect strong safeguards for its use, including that it be prescribed by law, serve a legitimate purpose, and be necessary and proportionate. Canadians rightfully want to understand any proposals for new tools and authorities to security and intelligence organizations that have implications for their privacy. However, Canadians also expect security and intelligence organizations to have the tools, policies, and lawful authorities in place to conduct lawful access techniques. The Committee thinks Canadians would be surprised to learn how difficult it actually is for security and intelligence agencies to do so. Paragraph 200 states: The Committee is equally concerned that, if left unaddressed, these challenges will undermine Canada’s national security in the long term by increasingly hampering the ability of CSIS and the RCMP to fulfil their respective mandates. The failure to respond to these challenges may also impede Canada’s continued ability to benefit from Five Eyes efforts to detect and respond to security threats if it cannot meaningfully contribute to this partnership. Paragraph 202 of the report states: It is critical, however, that the government approach these issues proactively. There are examples internationally of like minded democracies having hurriedly passed controversial lawful access legislation in response to serious national security events. Parliamentarians should have the opportunity to debate new legislation about lawful access with clear eyes and careful consideration, not in a rushed, emotional debate in reaction to a national tragedy. The longer these issues are kept on the backburner, the more the government opens itself up to the risk of following a similar path. Now I want to get to the idea of intercept capability and the issue of back doors. Paragraph 104 states: Policy debates about how to respond to the challenge of encryption have included proposals that the government could require companies to create exceptional access to encryption programs, or backdoors, for security and intelligence organizations. CCCS defines a backdoor as an “undocumented, private, or less detectable-way of gaining remote access to a computer, bypassing authentication measures, and obtaining access to plaintext.” The Citizen Lab states, “[o]nce a backdoor is created, there is no practical guarantee that only state agencies will walk through it. This fundamental flaw makes exceptional access systems an inherent threat to persons who rely on encrypted communications products.” This view is echoed by many cybersecurity experts. Continuing on in the report: CSE told the Committee that it also has a concern with backdoors. While it noted that “there are means of creating technical solutions which are currently considered secure,” it stated that it would have a concern with legislation compelling CSPs or software providers to implement backdoors, which could compromise the cybersecurity more generally. According to the RCMP, backdoors “create vulnerabilities and can weaken the overall security of a network; they create valid security concerns given the potential for these vulnerabilities to be exploited by criminals or other hostile actors. Recognizing the need to protect sensitive information and maintain individuals’ right to privacy, the RCMP does not advocate for the creation of ‘backdoors’ into CSPs’ networks. Instead, it would be safer and more beneficial for law enforcement and national security agencies to be able to leverage the information already accessible by CSPs.” Some cybersecurity experts and privacy advocates, however, consider lawful intercept capability a backdoor, citing that there is “no such thing as a security backdoor that is only for the ‘good guys.’” Others similarly contend that while it might be argued that “surveillance technology can be built securely and without risk of penetration by hostile forces,” the “track record is not encouraging.” Neither CSIS or RCMP view intercept capability as a backdoor, because it does not compromise encryption platforms or software. They instead regard the judicially authorized practice of using tools built into a CSP’s system, which are encryption neutral, as using the “front door.” From paragraph 172, “Importantly, the committee did not hear any government official call for legislation to compel the creation of exceptional access or 'backdoors' to get around encryption.” Long-winded, but that is all from the report. This is where I want to get to the issues that I am hearing from constituents and even during debate here in the House, and where the Liberal government is failing. First off, I talked about this a bit earlier, the Liberals tabled omnibus Bill C-2, which included a few clauses on lawful access. However, the bill was focused on everything from border security and immigration to banning cash transactions, and was doomed to fail from the start. Both Bill C-12 and Bill C-22 are the appropriate compromises as a result. Again, I mentioned this earlier. Unfortunately, the government's delay of the NSICOP report on lawful access hindered the ability to fully leverage the extensive work done by this bicameral, all-recognized-party committee that only includes findings and recommendations that have unanimous support of all its members. Again, I mentioned this was given to the Prime Minister on March 4, but not tabled here in Parliament until September 15, despite my encouraging a number of the Liberal government ministers to table it back in June. Here is a key paragraph from the report that will highlight the ongoing challenges around debate. Paragraph 175: The Committee also observed that privacy and cybersecurity advocates and national security practitioners appear to be talking past one another in debates about encryption and exceptional access for law enforcement and intelligence organizations. As stakeholders debate policy initiatives or legislation, it will be critical for both sides to ensure a common understanding of key concepts. For the government, the Committee suggests that a robust, transparent communication strategy, which explains technical concepts in detail, is fundamental. Unfortunately, this is where the Liberals' current communications strategy is failing to address this need and needs to be rectified. In conclusion, Canada absolutely needs updated legislation around lawful access. There have been been calls for this for decades and former governments have tried to, unfortunately, no success. In my opinion, Bill C-22 is the initial step to get us there. However, I fully believe that Bill C-22 needs full scrutiny at committee and that we, parliamentarians, need to be sure we are talking the same language and addressing the same concerns. In my opinion, the Liberal government is absolutely failing at addressing “a common understanding of key concepts” with respect to Bill C-22. It still has time to fix this.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Actually, the member can just read the report that I quoted extensively. This is something we absolutely need to address. The point, though, is that everybody ultimately, as I mentioned during my speech, thinks this should not be rushed. It needs to be done properly. As I have said countless times in response to this member, everybody in this chamber should have the exact same amount of time to speak to every bill as the member for Winnipeg North.

Mr. Speaker, I actually cannot share my party's perspective writ large. That is a great question for the shadow minister for public safety or the shadow minister for justice on my side. I can share my own personal take on it, which is that we do have to balance it correctly. We talked about it. I quoted about it extensively in my speech. This is something I think absolutely needs to get fleshed out at committee. We need to have the same access to experts on this topic that the other members of the NSICOP committee and I had the privilege of having, in order to look at how we balance this. Again, I will reiterate what the report states. If the member read it, he would see it states clearly that privacy and public safety and public security are complementary even when it comes around lawful access. They can both work together, not be opposed to each other.

Mr. Speaker, it is so important we do this right. I mentioned this earlier, and countless other members have highlighted it, but this has been attempted at least three times or four times over the last 25 or 30 years. Unfortunately, because balancing public safety and privacy rights is such a controversial issue, we need to get this right. This can only be done through deliberate, careful and very wide consultation with every stakeholder who has any sort of foot in this game when it comes to lawful access.

Mr. Speaker, on January 29, I asked the government House leader to let the House and Canadians know when we could expect the long-overdue, three and a half years overdue, review of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarian Act to be initiated. He stated at that time that he would “consider the matter and report to the House at the appropriate time.” Unfortunately, over two months have passed since I asked this question, and the House and Canadians have heard diddly-squat from the Liberal government with respect to the review that is already three and a half years overdue. Since asking the question, I even decided to help the government out by introducing Motion No. 29, which would initiate this review by forming a special joint committee of MPs and senators from all the recognized parties and Senate groups. Ultimately, I am here tonight to ask once again when the Liberal government is going to initiate this long-overdue and mandated review. I will use the remainder of my time on why I believe this long-overdue review is necessary, with a focus specifically on the NSICOP Act. I have had the privilege of being a member of NSICOP for the last four years. Number one is that it is the law. It is written into statute. Number two is that I would note that when I reviewed the debate around Bill C-22, which created NSICOP in the 42nd Parliament, there were many questions put to the Liberal minister of public safety at the time and to PCO officials, especially with respect to the perceived lack of independence of the committee. Ian McCowan, the deputy secretary to the cabinet for governance at PCO at the time, provided the following response to my predecessor, the former MP for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the great Larry Miller: “Obviously something you'll have noted is that a five-year review is built in. I imagine there will be a regular review of the statute.” My point is that the reassurance of the Liberal government at the time when addressing these concerns brought up by MPs during the standing up of this committee was that there would be a mandated review. Again, that is a review that is long overdue. Number three is that NSICOP was built very much on the model of the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the ISC, but not fully. There are a few key differences. One is that the chair of that committee is elected, not appointed by the Prime Minister. The second is that the ISC has a vice-chair but we do not have one in Canada. Third, the ISC tables its reports directly to Parliament following a redaction process, whereas NSICOP conducts a very similar redaction process but then our reports are submitted to the Prime Minister, who then has 30 sitting days to table them in Parliament. In my opinion, a good example of this tabling that had an unnecessary delay was NSICOP's latest report on lawful access. This report was given to the Prime Minister on March 4 of last year, but it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15, something that is really relevant to the current debate on Bill C-22 this week. Finally, on resourcing, there is a lack of interpreters with the appropriate security clearance, and the size of the secretariat is a concern. There is a small and mighty team at NSICOP, composed of only 12 people. These all need to be looked at. This is just a short list of the high-level reasons why I think this long-overdue mandated review is needed now. All the government needs to do is move Motion No. 29, or something similar, to form the necessary committee now to get this necessary review under way. I am hoping the government will make that commitment tonight and let Parliament know when we can expect the review to start.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I do take the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice at her word. She is somebody I really enjoyed working with while we were on NSICOP. I know she firmly believes in the importance of the committee. I am not trying to take away from the incredible work that NSICOP has done over the last seven or eight years of its existence. My point is that we need that review now because the act can be improved upon. I think the committee's continued work and its ability to do even more things, not only to help the government but also to help Parliament and all Canadians, is extremely important. To her point on Bill C-22, she has my personal commitment that I will do everything in my power to get it to committee and make sure that it gets the necessary scrutiny and review, something I believe in. I just want to end with saying that the review of the NSICOP Act needs to happen now.

Mr. Speaker, I have four points that I am looking for reassurance on from the minister. Number one, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians did a whole report on lawful access. Of its findings, finding one found that the security and intelligence organizations in Canada do not systematically track the challenges they have with lawful access. Is there anything in this bill that would deal with that and the reporting aspects? Number two, can the minister reassure Canadians, because, as per the NSICOP report, nobody wants a back door to this bill, that the bill would in no way enable a back door into encrypted communications here in Canada? Number three, referring to finding seven, I see nothing in this bill that would address the intelligence and evidence dilemma. This is something we still need to fix. I assure the minister that I want the government to do more. Finally, in recommendation six, NSICOP talks about a compensation model, if we are going to force CSPs to comply—

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague to build upon what he mentioned in his speech about his own experience as a public prosecutor, specifically around this data bit. On the NSICOP committee, we found that without a general requirement for these CSPs to retain metadata, i.e., the address book, for a specific time, when a warrant is then sought, there is a possibility that that data is no longer available, which makes it very difficult with some of these very heinous crimes to put the alleged perpetrators away. I do not want to get into the challenges of the bill as much as the requirement that we, as a Parliament, need to address this important piece of public safety here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when NSICOP studied this bill, one of the recommendations the committee discovered was that there should be a national authority established and identified for lawful access and intercept initiatives across Canada because obviously, we have multiple police jurisdictions, CSIS and different organizations. Is the member aware of anywhere in the legislation where that requirement is identified, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. colleague about the frustration, which I know I am feeling, and people in my riding are feeling it too, about this increase in bureaucracy and it not resulting in more houses being built. I would ask my neighbour, because my colleague is my neighbour to the north, if he is seeing the same real-world consequences, especially for our youth. This lack of housing for the next generation sees youth having to move out of our respective ridings, or at least my riding, to go to the major cities to find a place, and even there they cannot find a place to live that they can afford. Is the member seeing the same sort of challenges with youth not having a place to live and that then dwindling the workforce in his riding?

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the best of the best cribbage players from across Ontario descended upon the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 614, Scarborough Centennial, to duel it out for the Ontario championship and a spot at nationals. I am proud, although not surprised, to inform the House that the winning team and provincial cribbage champions are from my home branch, Branch 383, Tara. I give a huge congratulations to my parents Tom and Mabel Ruff, my brother Andy Ruff and long-time family friend Terry Galbraith on their masterful performance, with a record of 15-3, that crowned them Ontario champions. Now heading to Windsor, Nova Scotia, to Hants County Legion Branch 009 for the Dominion Cribbage Championships on April 24 to 26, I trust the member for Kings—Hants will be there to welcome all the participants. On behalf of all the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I wish Tom, Mabel, Andy and Terry the best of luck and may the cards fall in their favour. Go, team Tara!

Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to acknowledge my hon. colleague's concerns and frustrations over the way the bill has gotten here. The fact is that the Liberal government refused to make this a priority last fall. The position Parliament is now facing with the lack of debate is because of the partisan factors in place, which I acknowledge. However, I want to ask the member more about why the bill is so important. Over the last decade, crime has gone through the roof across this country and in my own riding, especially among repeat violent offenders. Bail reform is needed because of past Liberal bills that weakened our justice system and bail regime. Is the member hearing about these challenges with repeat violent offenders in her own riding, from law enforcement and constituents?

Mr. Speaker, I am here to offer my intervention on Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. The bill proposes to strengthen Canada's ability to address abandoned, derelict and hazardous vessels; close the gaps in the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by expanding liability for owners who cause or allow vessels to become hazards; clarifies that it is illegal not only to dispose of pollutants but also to allow someone else to do so; tightens rules on the transfer of ownership, preventing owners from offloading vessels into vehicles or onto individuals who cannot maintain or safely dispose of them; reduces long-term marine environmental risks, oil leaks, contamination and wrecked debris; protects public, environmental and navigational safety; ensures owners can be held liable where they are reckless in transferring a vessel to an unqualified buyer; and encourages proactive prevention, consistent enforcement and polluter pays principles. I do have some concerns, though, with the bill as drafted, specifically about the transfer of ownership amendment, because it uses broad and open-ended language in stating, “if the owner knows that — or is reckless as to whether — the person lacks the ability, resources or intent”. This would create legal uncertainty and potentially unfairly impact individuals accused of reckless vessel ownership transfers. Where my concerns lie is with regard to how a seller could guarantee or truthfully know the purchaser's intent and means. How would DFO and/or the courts deal with the ambiguities, litigation costs and burden of proof issues? I am hoping that the drafter, the member who has put the bill forward, could maybe provide some clarity with regard to this, even during debate today, or that, should the bill get to committee, this could be addressed with an amendment. I would note that the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, enacted in 2019 under the Canada oceans protection plan, is designed to prevent vessel abandonment and hold owners accountable for the environmental and safety risks posed by their vessels. Under that act, it is illegal to abandon a vessel in Canadian waters or on federal property. Owners are responsible for the costs to remove and repair, and for mitigation. The Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada have the authority to order owners to take action. If owners fail to comply, the government can intervene and recover those costs. The act also establishes significant penalties, including fines and potential imprisonment, and supports a national inventory of wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels to monitor and manage the issue. Overall, the act does hold the owner responsible for vessel-related hazards. I know I can speak on behalf of Conservatives. We supported the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act in the 42nd Parliament, and we emphasize the belief that individuals should be responsible for their actions and their property. I want to lay out in my speech why this is so important for my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. In the community of Stokes Bay, I have been dealing with this issue for a couple of years now. We have had a fishing vessel sink at a government dock. Unfortunately, it released diesel and pollutants into the harbour. The Coast Guard deployed containment booms and conducted a helicopter overflight to monitor the spill. The vessel was seen afloat on September 14. The contaminants were contained with provincial assistance. Despite the federal response, the vessel was then refloated but, again, left at the dock. That same vessel sank again in the same location a couple months later. The Coast Guard was again deployed with environmental response equipment. The vessel was refloated, towed to Southampton, just outside my riding, and dry docked, but the recovery had to remove approximately 25,000 litres of pollutants from the water. The Ontario Provincial Police reported no evidence of criminal activity related to the sinking. However, community frustration increased due to the inaction between the first sinking and the second sinking. Even more recently, in March 2025, at another location in Howdenvale, a fishing boat was reported sinking at, again, a federal government dock, releasing diesel fuel into the water. Local residents indicated the vessel had been neglected for many years by its owner. Fortunately, the diesel pollution was contained through a joint effort by the boat owner, the Canadian Coast Guard, and the Nawash, one of the first nations in my riding, fisheries assessment program team. The vessel was then pulled ashore, ending the immediate environmental risk. Again, this incident demonstrates that hazardous or neglected vessels are not isolated to just one area in my community, and that similar issues are unfortunately occurring across multiple federally operated docks in my riding. Here is the challenge for the constituents and what the community is reporting. They stated that they reported the second sinking in real time with photos. They asked why the vessel was allowed to remain after the first sinking and questioned the lack of clear accountability. A local business owner emphasized that the community's sheltered, marked harbour is having trouble now being used by transient boaters seeking refuge during storms, when these vessels are left at the docks. Historically, this harbour, in particular in Stokes Bay, has a shared responsibility between the indigenous commercial fishers and recreational boaters. However, multiple fishing tugs have now been occupying the dock, three unmoved for years, which again limit access for everybody. This dock congestion has been described as an eyesore, which harms tourism, recreation and businesses in the local community. Basically, here is what the residents are saying: “Someone needs to do something. This cannot keep happening.” Many noted that this vessel, which has fortunately been removed, had even sunk five years previous to the incident in 2024, so this has been an ongoing concern. In summary then of the local impacts, cottage bookings ended up being cancelled; tourism declined; boaters and swimmers avoided the federally operated harbours after the contamination; local businesses, guides and operators lost income during peak season; wildlife and nearshore habitat concerns increased; municipal staff were forced to take on responsibilities despite this being a federal jurisdiction; and there was widespread communication frustration over these unclear federal responsibilities. The most common question I get is this: Who is responsible and why was it not removed after the first spill? It is impacting transient boating traffic and marine tourism and creating lost revenue for local small businesses and operators, with long-term risks to property values, insurability and economic reputations. There is heightened anxiety over water safety and environmental contamination, and tension has also increased due to the limited dock access. The residents feel that they have no federal mechanisms available to trigger these vessel removals. There is overlap that creates confusion between the Coast Guard, Transport Canada and DFO, and residents really feel that the federal response is reactive instead of proactive, allowing this environmental harm to repeat. In conclusion, I just want to offer that Bill C-244's goal of reducing barriers must also apply to federal operations. It must shift from a reactive cleanup to proactive prevention. The polluter, not the public, must pay. Communities like Stokes Bay in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound deserve federal systems that work the first time. As our Conservative Party of Canada policy declaration clearly states, the government has an obligation to “establish and enforce safety standards for local and foreign vessels which operate in Canadian Waters for the well-being of workers as well as the environment.” It also states that, “The Conservative Party stand[s] by its commitment to facilitate rehabilitation or demolition of abandoned and derelict vessels.” I believe the intent of the member proposing Bill C-244 is absolutely in the right direction to address derelict and abandoned vessels. I am not sure as drafted it will achieve this, but I look forward to hearing the continued debate. As I said, if this bill does get sent to committee, amendments can be made that will make the bill even stronger in terms of addressing this important issue not only in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound but across Canada in all our waters, whether they be lakes, oceans, etc.

Madam Speaker, this is my third Parliament. I know the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North has been here for many more and has spoken to many of these reforms countless times, but there has been no action taken by Parliament. Does he think we should put something into the Standing Orders beyond just debating this at the start of each Parliament within a certain number of days? Should we create a method whereby it has to come to a vote or there has to be a way to implement these changes that are being recommended during the debates?

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of Canadians who are calling on the Government of Canada to, first, publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of the Falun Gong in China and transnational repression abroad; second, continue to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability for the Communist officials and proxies responsible for these human rights violations; and, finally, take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community targeted by foreign repression.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a little indulgence first. I want to inform the House and all Canadians that Canada's most famous weather prognosticator for 70 years, Wiarton Willie, predicted an early spring this morning. I want to thank my colleague for sharing the personal stories of victims across Canada, but also in his riding, who have been victimized as a result of the Liberal soft-on-bail regime over the last decade. I do want to recognize that this bill would fix certain things and that our party has committed to working with the government. Unfortunately, the government has put in a poison pill. Does the member think that when this bill gets to committee the government will listen to the other parties, including the Conservative side, to split the bill so that we can address those shortfalls in the legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I want to build on a theme that just came out of the last question from the Liberal side. My colleague spoke about it in her speech. The fact is, this was not part of the federal budget. The budget was just tabled a few months ago, and now all of a sudden the Liberals are finding another $12 billion to give this sort of short-term relief, or band-aid solution, to an underlying issue around food inflation. She talked about the two-tier system for seniors the Liberals have created. Does she have any understanding, from dialogue she has had with the Liberal government over the last few years, of why this is the approach it is choosing instead of actually coming up with long-term, sustainable solutions to address food inflation and costs in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and cabinet are responsible for the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, in accordance with the NSICOP act, could the government House leader please provide the date the Prime Minister intends to initiate this long overdue review of the act? I would note that the law states the act and the review were to commence no later than October 6, 2022. Finally, could the minister please inform the House as to which committee he envisions referring this overdue review to?

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for identifying some of the strengths and weaknesses of the bill. In particular, our hon. colleague, the shadow minister on this file, proposed a solution, which was for the government to split the bill in two: take the part where we have consensus across all parties to actually get public safety as a priority for victims here in Canada, and move those aspects where there is no agreement, that are going to take longer to debate, to the side. Funnily enough, the government has sort of a track record of this. We saw it with Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. Could the member comment on this important solution?

Mr. Speaker, that was a phenomenally informative speech. I learned a ton just listening to it, especially on the good parts of the bill about needed reforms within our justice system to ensure that victims have public safety. Our shadow minister has made a recommendation to split the bill into two. Let us take the good parts that we have consensus on across all parties so the bill can get to the justice committee and can be studied properly and passed, and take out the contentious issues that are going to slow down the bill's passage and create issues. Does the hon. member agree that this is a good way to actually get public safety addressed for victims here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the victims of a tragic vehicle accident. On November 11, three high school students, Tyson Varley, Damon Davis and Haley Keffer, from John Diefenbaker Senior School in Hanover, aged 16 to 17, lost their lives in a devastating crash on the rural road between Hanover and Durham. A fourth student, Landon Preiss-Hillier, was critically injured and airlifted to the hospital. Damon loved to be loud and do things his way, but under that tough exterior was a little boy with a huge heart. Haley loved her dog Bella and her mismatched socks. Tyson was well known for his love of cars and tinkering with them. He knew well how to make and fix things. This unimaginable loss has shaken the entire community of Hanover and surrounding areas. On behalf of all the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I send my deepest condolences to the family, friends and communities grieving this heartbreaking loss. May Damon, Haley and Tyson rest in peace, and may their loved ones find strength and comfort in the days ahead.

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the member in his speech talked about support for the Canadian Armed Forces. I support that 100%. I voted against it because I do not have confidence in the government. However, what the member did not talk about was that there are clawbacks in the budget to Veterans Affairs Canada, particularly around the indexing of pensions and the way things are calculated. I know veterans on social media and groups that help reach out to veterans in need. There have been clawbacks. In the last 24 hours, one veteran was told he has to pay back $89,000 to CRA, while another veteran has to pay back $69,000. For six to nine years, VAC did not do any clawbacks. All of a sudden veterans are being told they need to fix this because this is wrong, and VAC is going after veterans right across the country. Why does this member support cutting support to our veterans and the Canadian Armed Forces?

Mr. Speaker, I was talking to a financial adviser, and he pointed out to me two of the best-performing stocks in the last year, especially since the Prime Minister took office. Number one is Dollarama. I think that speaks to the challenges Canadians are having. It had a 55% return. Number two is Brookfield, with a 54% return in the last year alone. Could the member expand on the struggles Canadians are facing, which speaks to why a specific dollar store is doing so well? Secondly, why is Brookfield doing so well?

Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague weigh in on what he is hearing from his constituents with respect to the size of this year's deficit of more than $78 billion? I believe the debt is now at over $1.3 trillion. We are paying $55 billion a year in interest on the national debt alone, more money than we are giving to the provinces and territories for health care transfers. I am hearing this from my constituents on a daily basis. Is the member hearing similar comments from his constituents?