Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the jury system balances out our justice system. Regardless of what a juror's socio-economic background is, everyone serves equally and in the best interests of our legal system. Without safeguards such as the jury system, our democracy would not have the strong foundation it needs to be successful. These are peers of an accused who balance the rights and obligations of all members of a functioning society. It is ordinary people from all walks of life who are the guardians of our system in that moment. They give a voice to us all. The importance of jurors has often been overlooked. It is only in the recent past that the true nature of this duty has been emphasized. The jury system is an integral part of criminal justice. Without these members having to make sacrifices, everything would come to a standstill. Most jurors come into this role unsure of what they are to experience and what will unfold during a criminal trial. What they do experience right at the onset is trepidation, uncertainty and the knowledge that they will be missing out on their personal lives. After hearing all the evidence, a jury deliberates. These deliberations also carry a heavy weight because while deciding on the guilt or innocence of an accused, a juror must grapple with their own conscience and their sense of what is right and what is wrong. They must grapple with everything that makes us human: our thoughts, compassion and understanding of one another. There are questions a juror might ask of themselves. Am I making the right decision about this defendant? Am I condemning an innocent person to jail? Am I declaring the innocence of someone who might truly be guilty and deserves to not be set free? It is not just in that moment that a juror thinks about what they must do. They live with these decisions for years to come. Maybe it is not every day, but once in a while they will have the thought cross their minds: Did I make the right decision? Did I do the right thing? These are very meaningful moments in a juror's life, in the life of an accused and overall in the criminal justice system. Once this service is rendered, everyone comes away with the opinion that their counsel mattered. Serving on a jury is an extraordinary opportunity to have a profound impact on someone's life. It is a chance to stand up for the most vulnerable, to bring justice to a voiceless victim and to ensure that justice is truly served—for both the victim and the defendant. In our legal system, protecting the most vulnerable is impossible without the help of jurors. That is why we strongly encourage every citizen to respond to their jury summons. Admittedly, this can involve its share of challenges, but the only way to preserve our justice system and protect every member of our society is to be able to count on informed, compassionate and dedicated individuals who are willing to give their own time. The transformative power of jurors is invaluable, as is their contribution to our democratic institutions. Where else in the world are ordinary citizens given that trust? Where are they entrusted with such a weighty responsibility as deciding the fate of a person who appears before them? It is a truly remarkable role. Whether someone is a business owner or a retail worker, they have the same power in the courtroom. That is precisely how we keep equality and democracy alive every day. In a way, each juror embodies the law itself. Once a guilty verdict or acquittal has been rendered, it can only be overturned in exceptional circumstances. Where else in our society do people have the ability to change lives and uphold the integrity of our justice system? The fundamental right to trial by jury could not be respected without jurors. Jury duty appreciation week would be an opportunity for Canadians to understand our own role in society and raise awareness of the importance of jury service while expressing appreciation to those who are called to serve. I thank all who serve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her hard work. She has been working on implementing these changes for a long time. As she explained in her speech, many changes have been made. Almost all of Justice Arbour's recommendations have been implemented. I believe this is an important step for justice and for people who want to work in the armed forces. I would like to ask my colleague the following question. For racialized people, for women who have been victims of abuse of power, can she explain to us what we can expect regarding these changes aimed at encouraging more women and people of colour to apply to join the armed forces?

moved that Bill S-226, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep respect that I rise today to speak to Bill S-226, the jury duty appreciation week act. The bill was introduced by Senator Lucie Moncion in the Senate. It seeks to designate the second week of May every year as a dedication to jurors and jury duty. It is thanks to Senator Moncion's tireless efforts that I stand here today in the chamber speaking to this bill. She has dedicated decades of her life to raising awareness of these crucial aspects of our criminal justice system. Having been a juror in 1989, Senator Moncion has bravely shared her harrowing journey in the service of justice. Her summons to serve as a juror, as juror number one no less, was for a case of a first-degree murder charge. The experience had consequences on her personally and on her family, and it left her feeling isolated. However, through outreach, Senator Moncion ascertained that she was not alone in feeling the distress of serving on a jury, and that other jurors had similar impacts on their lives for one reason or another. Over years of commitment to support past jurors and prepare future ones with the tools necessary to sustain them, Senator Moncion has collaborated with various organizations and stakeholders, and through lengthy studies, testimonies by witnesses and by experts—

Mr. Speaker, the experience had consequences for Senator Moncion personally and her family, and it left her feeling isolated. However, through outreach, Senator Moncion ascertained that she was not alone in feeling the distress of serving on a jury and that other jurors had similar impacts on their lives for one reason or another. Over years of commitment to support past jurors and prepare future ones with the tools necessary to sustain them, Senator Lucie Moncion has collaborated with various organizations and stakeholders. Through lengthy studies with witness and expert testimonies at committee, she brought this well-thought-out bill to fruition. It raises awareness of the sacrifices jurors have to make in serving the Canadian justice system and highlights the nature of the challenges they face, which include but are not limited to financial, social and mental health aspects. We see every single year that thousands of Canadians across all of Canada are called upon to serve on a jury. What we do not often see is the aftermath of serving on that jury. Vicarious trauma, lack of workplace support and barriers to jury diversity are just some of the issues they must eventually face once the hearing is terminated and everyone has gone home. Often, employers do not comprehend that jury duty is obligatory. They believe that their employee can get out of it and often compel them to do so to the point of harassment. They do not understand and often do not care that, unless there is justification, their employee cannot back out of jury duty. Often, employees are threatened with termination of employment and falsely accused of shirking their duties. Employers need to be aware that jury duty is a fundamental part of our justice system and that, once a summons has been served on a potential juror, their employee is legally obligated to serve on a jury. Of course, an employer does not have to pay them, which means that a juror loses income and is unable to contribute to their financial situation at home. During deliberations, jurors are sometimes sequestered for days and even weeks, depending on the substance of the trial. They are obliged to stay away from their family and friends, their loved ones, their children and their elderly parents. They are isolated at a hotel, as this is seen as a way to ensure that there is freedom from outside influence on the verdict and that the trial is based on evidence and the verdict is rendered as such. Mandatory sequestration begins once a judge instructs the jury to go into deliberations. At that time, jurors cannot watch television, access the Internet or have contact with the outside world. They are heavily supervised by court personnel, and this sequestration, although rare, can also take place earlier, during the trial stage, if the judge sees that the high-profile nature of a case could affect the verdict. We do not often dwell on what it is like for a juror to hear difficult testimonies and be exposed to evidence that can be so filled with raw violence, which speaks to the inhumanity and cruelty a fellow citizen can be capable of. Oftentimes for jurors, facing such a situation, PTSD can be the result of their service. Jurors sometimes suffer from PTSD following a trial. I had the opportunity to speak with Mark Farrant, the founder and CEO of the Canadian Juries Commission, a national non-profit organization that supports and represents Canadians who serve as jurors. After serving as a juror in Ontario during a murder trial, Mr. Farrant found himself grappling with emotions he could not manage, without knowing where to turn. He explained that he was repeatedly exposed to gruesome details and the sight of burn scars on the victim. The accused was later found guilty of starting the fire that killed his partner. This experience caused Mr. Farrant significant distress, both during and long after the trial. He tried to take refuge in his work and keep himself busy, in the hope that the situation would eventually right itself. At the time, it was not widely known that indirect witnesses of trauma could experience PTSD. Even today, people are not always aware of that. PTSD can manifest itself through all sorts of symptoms, such as intrusive thoughts related to the trauma, avoidance of traumatic memories, negative mood swings and sudden outbursts similar to those experienced by soldiers, survivors of accidents or abuse, and first responders. Mr. Farrant started to do research. He talked to veterans and even first responders, and he eventually realized that he himself could have PTSD, even though he had only seen evidence in court and had not been present when the incidents occurred. Thanks to dedicated people like Mr. Farrant, we now understand that jurors can also suffer from PTSD. British Columbia is leading the way by providing mental health support to jurors and former jurors. Even though the administration of justice falls under the purview of the provinces, the federal government also acknowledges the essential role of jurors in the Canadian justice system and the need for federal support in recognizing the necessity for mental health services and financial support of jurors. As was wisely stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Find, “Trial by jury is a cornerstone of Canadian law. It offers the citizen the right to be tried by an impartial panel of peers and imposes on those peers the task of judging fairly and impartially.” The 1984 Ontario decision in R. v. Bryant provides an overview of the history and significance of the right to a jury trial in Canada. The right of trial by jury existed in the four original provinces of Canada before Confederation. It was received as part of the common law of England by the colonies of Nova Scotia in 1758 and New Brunswick in 1784. Its history in Quebec and Ontario is more complicated and demonstrates the importance attached to the jury from the earliest times in these provinces, around 1763. Since justice is a shared jurisdiction, it is crucial for all levels of government to fulfill their responsibilities concerning jury duty. Bill S-226 would provide the proper means to do so while respecting the administration of justice by provinces and territories. In a 2017 House of Commons justice committee study on improving support for jurors in Canada, gaps in juror supports were highlighted. At the forefront was mental health. Witnesses who appeared spoke of various trauma and the PTSD they had suffered, especially when it came to criminal cases and especially those that involved violence. This week of appreciation is necessary not only to raise awareness but also to recognize and celebrate those who have served on a jury. Often, vicarious trauma among jurors has been neglected. Concerns about insufficient mental health supports provided before, during and even after jury duty necessitates the awareness that Bill S-226 brings to Parliament. The development of comprehensive trauma-informed programs to support and safeguard the well-being of jurors during this time is absolutely essential. Another notable element of jury duty is the significant lack of diversity among jurors in Canada. It has also been recognized by experts, particularly in regard to the representation of racialized, Black and indigenous individuals. Measures aimed at improving the diversity of jurors must be examined to answer to this gap and provide a true representation of peers during trials. Financial barriers, such as lost wages and not being adequately compensated for travel, child care, meals, parking expenses and so forth, cause an undue burden on Canadians called to serve. This financial impediment can lead to juries that may not be reflective of our diverse communities or of Canadians as a whole. Unfortunately, in several provinces, the compensation paid to jurors has remained unchanged for decades, supplying further evidence of the unfair burden placed on them. For example, there was a time when jurors were paid just $40 a day, following an initial period during which they were not paid at all. Given all of these factors, serious consideration must be given to the obstacles that have been identified, including low pay, job insecurity, lack of employer support and limited access to mental health services. These important points that I have briefly outlined paint a revealing picture of why, at the least, recognizing and supporting jurors is imperative. They are the ones who uphold this cornerstone of our justice system and our democracy. Jurors make personal sacrifices, yet their service is often neglected. They are all deserving of our acknowledgement and our gratitude. That is why our government supports the jury duty appreciation week act. I hope we can count on all colleagues in this chamber to support this incredible bill and to uphold our justice system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the bottom of my heart for his very thoughtful question. He is one of the solution makers. We want to show Canadians, or express to them, what jurors go through. I am sure a lot of my colleagues, those sitting here or who are listening on their televisions or computers, will have heard certain things that they were not aware of, such as the financial burden, the lack of mental health support and the undue burdens that a juror must face, including being sequestered for weeks without contact, without loved ones and without having access to the outside world. This is very difficult on a human being. People cannot get out of jury duty, unless there is a justification that would allow them to do so. This kind of bill would raise awareness of what jurors go through, the sacrifices they make and the supports we can give them as a government.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. I could not agree with him more. The administration of justice falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. It is important for us today to also symbolically show what people are doing to advance the justice system. It is important for us to recognize those two things. It will allow us to better support people serving on a jury, so that they can continue to contribute to the administration of justice, while respecting jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my beloved colleague for his kind words and for being a source of inspiration to all of us. I really appreciate him from the bottom of my heart. I thank all members for their good wishes. I practised law and going to criminal court was part of the practice I had. In criminal court, we see the stress jury members themselves are under. They walk in and it is a tense, sombre atmosphere. They sometimes have no idea why they are there; they are just summoned. Once they are summoned, they cannot refuse.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to live in communities that are safe, secure and free from gun violence. Our government made a clear commitment to remove assault-style firearms from our communities. Firearms like the AR-15, that are designed to kill people, have no place in Canada. With the March 31 deadline for submitting claims approaching, can the government provide an update on the assault-style firearms compensation program?

moved that Bill S-226, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week, be read the first time. Mr. Speaker, good morning. I cannot express how meaningful this moment is for me. Having practised as a lawyer, and now speaking to one of the fundamental aspects of the criminal justice system, I am deeply moved to stand here today for Bill S-226, an act respecting jury duty appreciation week. This incredible bill was first sponsored in the Senate by the hon. Senator Lucie Moncion. Thanks to her tireless efforts over the last few years, it passed third reading on February 10 of this year. Thus, I am able to sponsor Bill S-226 today in the House of Commons. The bill would designate the second week of May each year as jury duty appreciation week across Canada. This week of appreciation is necessary not only to raise awareness but also to recognize and celebrate the people who serve on juries. Often vicarious trauma among them has been neglected. There are concerns about insufficient mental health supports being provided to them. There are also financial barriers, such as lost wages, not being adequately compensated for travel, child care and so forth. These financial impediments are also sacrifices they make. This time of jury appreciation week is absolutely necessary across Canada. I have briefly outlined these important points that will bring a clearer understanding of what the bill means. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the motion before the House, but also about something larger than procedure. I rise to speak about responsibility, the responsibility we hold as legislators when Canadians are facing real threats in their communities. Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, has now been before Parliament for months. It was introduced on September 19, 2025. It has been debated in the House. It has been studied at committee. More than 20 witnesses have appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours debating and studying this legislation. That is what we call serious scrutiny. That is responsible legislative review, yet despite all of that work, the bill remains stalled, not because Canadians are uncertain about confronting hate and not because the legislation has not been studied, but because procedural tactics have been used to delay the moment when Parliament must make a decision. I want to speak plainly today. Members of the House are free to oppose legislation. They are free to disagree with provisions. They are free to vote against a clause. They are free to vote against the amendment, and they are free to vote against the entire bill. That is democracy, but democracy also requires that Parliament eventually vote. It cannot function if legislation can be delayed indefinitely through procedural manoeuvres. Members of the opposition have had months to present their arguments. They have had hours and hours and hours to debate. They have had the opportunity to propose amendments throughout many, many months. What they do not have is the right to stall Parliament indefinitely, because while this chamber debates procedure, something else is happening outside these walls. Communities across Canada are facing rising hate and intimidation. We see it in the data. We see it in police reports, and we see it on the news. Just recently, shots were fired at a synagogue in the greater Toronto area. Shots were fired at a place of worship, a place where people gather and pray, a place where families bring children, a place where Canadians should feel free and protected. That incident is not isolated. Jewish communities have reported rising threats. Mosques have reported rising threats and facing intimidation, and many other religious institutions have been subjected to hate crimes. Community centres from all backgrounds have been targeted, and hateful symbols have appeared outside schools and cultural institutions. These are not theoretical concerns. They are real events affecting real people. When Canadians see incidents like this, they expect Parliament to respond with seriousness and efficiency. They expect Parliament to strengthen protections, and they expect Parliament to act. Bill C-9 is part of that response. The legislation does three simple things. First, it creates an offence to prevent people from blocking or intimidating others who are trying to enter places like synagogues, mosques, churches, schools, community centres and any other places of worship. Second, it creates a stand-alone, hate-motivated offence, so that when crimes are committed because of hatred toward a person's identity, the law recognizes that harm clearly. Third, it addresses the public display of symbols used to promote hatred and intimidate communities. These are practical measures. They are targeted measures, and they respond directly to what communities have been asking Parliament to address. The legislation before us is only eight pages long, eight pages, yet Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours studying it. Witnesses have testified. Experts have spoken. Communities have shared their experiences. Amendments have been debated. That is thorough scrutiny by any reasonable standard, yet the delays continue. Much of the opposition's argument has focused on the removal of the religious exemption provision in the Criminal Code. Let us examine that argument carefully. Freedom of religion in Canada is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection is fundamental. It is one of the cornerstones of our constitutional system, and it is not changing. Courts in Canada have repeatedly confirmed that hate propaganda offences require an extremely high legal threshold. That threshold requires proof that someone wilfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group. Reading scripture does not meet that threshold. Teaching religious doctrine does not meet that threshold. Practising one's faith does not meet that threshold. Those freedoms remain fully protected. In fact, the religious exemption provisions that have become the focus of this debate have never been relied upon in a prosecution, not once. The protection for religious expression in Canada comes from the charter and from the high legal threshold built into the Criminal Code of Canada. Nevertheless, concerns were raised, and when those concerns were raised, Parliament responded responsibly. A “for greater certainty” clause was introduced to explicitly confirm that peaceful religious expression, including sermons, teachings and discussion of scripture, would never be criminalized under this legislation. That clarification was introduced in good faith. It addressed the concern directly, and it reaffirmed what the charter already guarantees, but even after the clarification, the delay continued. Canadians watching this debate might reasonably ask a simple question. If the Charter protects religious freedom, if the courts already set a very high threshold, and if the bill now contains an explicit clarification protecting religious expression, then why does the delay continue? That is a question members of the opposition should answer, because Canadians expect Parliament to deal honestly with the facts, and the facts are clear: Freedom of religion is protected, and peaceful religious expression is protected. This legislation targets something entirely different. It targets intimidation. It targets harassment. It targets the deliberate promotion of hatred. When people block the entrance to a synagogue, to a mosque or to any other place of worship to frighten worshippers, that is intimidation. When people surround a mosque, shouting threats, that is intimidation. When hateful symbols are displayed outside synagogues, schools or community centres to frighten families, that is intimidation. Canadians are asking Parliament to respond to that intimidation. There is another consequence to this ongoing delay that we must acknowledge. Parliament's time is not unlimited. Every hour spent delaying one bill is an hour that cannot be spent advancing other legislation, including legislation addressing public safety, legislation addressing justice reform and legislation addressing economic issues that Canadians expect Parliament to address. When procedural tactics are used to stall legislation indefinitely, they slow the entire work of Parliament. That is not responsible opposition. Responsible opposition means debating legislation seriously. Responsible opposition means proposing amendments. Responsible opposition means voting according to one's principles. What it does not mean is preventing Parliament from reaching a decision. The motion before us today is straightforward. It would not eliminate debate. Debate has already happened for hours and hours and months and months, with more than 30 hours of it just in committee. What this motion would do is ensure that the committee could complete its work and that the House could finally vote on Bill C-9. Every member of the House would then have the opportunity to make their position clear. Those who support confronting hatred would vote for the legislation. Those who oppose would vote against it. That is how democracy functions. Canadians are watching this debate.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should believe us because there has been an increase in hate crimes that we cannot imagine. There have been 67% more religious incidents than in 2022. Those based on sexual orientation have increased by 69%. How could we not pass this legislation? How could we not try to protect Canadians? How could we not attend to the safety of our citizens? There is an increase in hate crime. Everybody knows that there are statistics supporting this, so yes, it is crucial that we pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, who explained the situation in a sensitive and intelligent way. I appreciate everything he just explained. It is really important to address this type of issue, otherwise hatred will continue. People can say anything, whatever they want. They can incite discrimination, defamation or hatred based on beliefs or what others wear as symbols. This type of bill will help us introduce stricter sentences for this type of crime.

Mr. Speaker, every day that this bill is delayed, lives are lost and safety is compromised. Threats and hatred, however, are not abating. As the days go by, we see them increasing. We must respond to this. It is our responsibility as legislators. It is our responsibility as elected officials. It is our responsibility in Parliament to pass this kind of legislation to protect citizens and ensure that hatred does not continue to spread in this way.

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day is a moment to recognize the leadership, resilience and contributions of women across Canada. Women strengthen our communities, drive innovation and shape a more inclusive future. When women succeed, everyone benefits. The women's program supports projects that break down systemic barriers to economic equality and leadership. That is why our government is investing in women's economic participation, improving affordable child care, supporting women entrepreneurs and removing barriers to opportunities. The women entrepreneurship strategy has helped over 490,000 women start, scale and grow businesses. Supports include access to capital, mentorship, skills training and business networks. As we celebrate International Women's Day, we celebrate the progress that has been made, recognize the work that still needs to be done and reaffirm our commitment to advancing equality so that every woman and girl—

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition regarding animals. Canadian families are dealing with trauma and heartache as they are forced to abandon their pets due to the high cost of basic veterinary care. Elderly Canadians suffer undue stress concerning health costs and care of their beloved pets, sometimes their only companions. Thousands of domesticated animals, including pregnant cats and dogs, find themselves without shelter, food or warmth. They are completely unprepared for survival and are subjected to the cruelty of starvation, extreme weather, other animals and people. Animal shelters and welfare centres across Canada suffer a tremendous financial burden in the face of the high number of abandoned pets. This forces the centres to turn away many animals in need, all the while making them less able to focus on major issues, such as intervention. Canada has historically taken strong action toward animal welfare. The citizens who have signed this petition would like to have a refundable tax credit implemented for neutering and spaying and other veterinary care in an amount based on an average of regional costs.

Mr. Speaker, 52 students and three teachers from Collège Sainte-Anne, in Lachine, are visiting Parliament today. Founded in 1861 by the Sisters of Sainte-Anne, this institution is one of the oldest schools in Quebec. For nearly 165 years, Collège Sainte-Anne has trained students who have contributed to—among many other things—innovation, entrepreneurship and remarkable scientific achievements that have had an impact not only in Quebec and Canada but also around the world. The teachers at Sainte-Anne teach with dedication and energy, arming their students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the career of their choice. I am delighted to welcome them so they can take a closer look at how democracy works. Maybe some of those students are future members of Parliament. Whatever paths they take, I wish them every success and much happiness in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave the government a clear mandate to build an economy that stands up for our workers and industries and to make life more affordable. We reduced taxes for 22 million Canadians, eliminated GST for first-time homebuyers, removed the consumer carbon tax, fought for our steel and aluminum sectors, and created one strong economy instead of 13. Could the Minister of Finance please update the House on the next steps to building the strongest economy in the G7?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by Canadians who want to draw the House's attention to the following issue. The petition states: Whereas our economic and financial systems depend on a stable climate and the Bank of Canada recognizes that climate change poses significant risks to the financial system and the economy and whereas continued financial support for emissions-intensive activities increases future climate-related risks to the stability of financial systems and the long-term interests of Canadians, we, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to enact the principal concepts of the climate-aligned finance act, which would establish a duty for directors and officers of federal financial institutions to align with climate commitments; align purposes of Crown corporations and departments, including market oversight by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, with climate commitments; and require the development of action plans, targets and progress reports on meeting climate commitments through annual reporting requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this 45th Parliament to speak about Bill C-3 and the transformative power of Canadian citizenship. At its heart, this bill is about people, real families, their histories, their sacrifices and their deep and abiding connection to Canada, no matter where their careers or lives may take them. Many Canadians live and work abroad, in international development, arts and sciences, education, the humanitarian sector or global business, just to name a few. These citizens maintain deep links to Canada, often returning to raise their children, care for loved ones and build new communities. Ensuring that their children, whether born or adopted abroad, can share in that identity is not just about fairness; it strengthens our country's cohesion and global outreach. I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3. I would also like to sincerely thank all those who spoke before me to defend the rights of Canadians affected by the previous amendments to the Citizenship Act. This bill represents a new and important step toward more inclusive citizenship. All members of the House recognize what a privilege it is to have Canadian citizenship and how proud we can be of that. From our majestic landscapes and the richness of our diversity to the shared values that bring us together, being Canadian means being part of something profoundly meaningful. Values such as inclusion, respect for human rights, environmental stewardship and peacekeeping are an integral part of our society and influence our policies, our culture, and the daily lives of every Canadian. Canada is recognized around the world for its open-mindedness and its commitment to multiculturalism. Since the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed in 1988, we have strengthened those principles at the core of our institutions. Canada's approach to multiculturalism emphasizes the active integration and celebration of Canadians' diverse cultural identities. This approach has created a society in which people of different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds can maintain their identity, be proud of their roots and feel at home. It can be seen across the country; communities from coast to coast to coast reflect this diversity and are proud of it. Our commitment to human rights is at the heart of who we are as Canadians. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the fundamental rights we share as a society: freedom of expression, association and religion; equality before the law; protection against discrimination, and the list goes on. This commitment is also evident in international efforts. Whether standing up for the rights of women, LGBTQ people or people in a vulnerable situation, Canada plays an active role. Our immigration policies and measures to protect refugees also reflect these values. Canadians also care deeply about protecting our environment. Our natural landscapes remind us of this responsibility, from the Atlantic coast in the east to the mountains in the west to the Arctic in the north. We know that this desire to preserve nature is essential for future generations. These values are reflected in our environmental policies and initiatives aimed at fighting climate change, preserving biodiversity and promoting sustainable development. Our country has made significant progress in promoting renewable energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting conservation efforts. Canada is also known as a peaceful country thanks to its history of peacekeeping and international co-operation. Since the Second World War, Canada has played an active role in peacekeeping missions. Our forces have participated in a number of UN-led international missions, thereby strengthening our reputation as a committed and trustworthy country. Our commitment to peacekeeping reflects our core values of diplomacy, conflict resolution and humanism. Canadian soldiers have served and continue to serve in peacekeeping missions around the world to help protect conflict-affected populations. Canada's foreign policy also emphasizes international co-operation, development assistance and support for institutions such as the United Nations and NATO. Social justice and equity also define Canadian society. Our commitment is clear. We are working to narrow social gaps and ensure that everyone has access to essential services such as health care, education and a reliable social safety net. Canada's universal health care system, public education system and social assistance programs are designed to promote the well-being of Canadians and give everyone a fair chance. Building stronger relationships also means recognizing our shared history, including its most painful chapters. The government is continuing to work on reconciliation by responding to the calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's final report. In partnership with indigenous communities, we are building an inclusive country founded on dignity, truth and shared pride. These are the principles that define who we are as Canadians today. By guiding our policies and influencing the way we live together, these values allow us to build an inclusive and equitable society committed to both its citizens and the world around us. Citizenship provides access to security, rights and obligations, and opportunities. It helps people feel fully included in Canadian society and actively participate in it. It has many benefits that make life better for individuals and for communities. One of those advantages is the fundamental right to actively participate in the country's democratic process. This includes the right to vote in federal, provincial, territorial and municipal elections, which empowers citizens to have a direct impact on government policy. It is also important to note that only citizens can run for office, giving them the opportunity to represent their communities and contribute to the governance of Canada. All Canadian citizens also enjoy all the legal protections and rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This ensures that their civil liberties and rights as individuals are protected at the highest level, in addition to providing a solid framework for justice and equality. Another important advantage of Canadian citizenship is access to the Canadian passport. This passport is recognized worldwide as one of the most valuable and offers visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to many countries. Canadian citizens also benefit from consular assistance abroad, particularly in emergencies or situations of political unrest, ensuring they are supported wherever they travel since the Canadian passport is respected worldwide. Canadian citizenship also offers security and peace of mind. Unlike permanent residency, which can be lost if residency requirements are not met, citizenship cannot be revoked unless it was obtained fraudulently. Canadian citizens can access employment opportunities across the country. They can apply for any job, including those that require a high security clearance or those that are reserved exclusively for citizens, such as in the public service. They are also free to work in any province or territory without restrictions. Citizenship also opens the door to many educational benefits. Citizens can receive certain scholarships, grants or other forms of financial assistance that are not available to permanent residents. Many institutions also charge lower tuition to citizens, which makes post‑secondary education more affordable and more accessible. Canadian citizenship is recognized worldwide for its many advantages, including the ability to travel, work or live abroad. Canada also allows dual citizenship, meaning that citizens can keep their Canadian citizenship when they are a citizen of another country, which gives them more options abroad. Citizenship helps people continue to support loved ones and bring family members to Canada. For example, people can apply to sponsor their parents and grandparents. Citizenship plays an important role in family reunification and strengthens communities across the country. It fosters a deeper sense of belonging and national identity. Canadian citizens are fully integrated into our society and culture, making it easier for them to get involved in their local community and civic activities, and contribute to societal development. Their sense of belonging strengthens the country's social fabric. Canadian citizenship is not just a symbol. It has a real impact on a person's life, rights and opportunities. Our goal is to have a fair, transparent and accessible citizenship system for everyone who is entitled to it. That is why we must pass the Citizenship Act and restore citizenship to those who lost it or never obtained it. In 2009, amendments to the Citizenship Act limited citizenship by descent to the first generation, meaning that a parent who is a Canadian citizen can pass citizenship to a child born abroad if the parent was born in Canada or naturalized before the child was born. Because passing on citizenship by descent is limited to the first generation, a Canadian citizen born abroad to a parent who was also born abroad cannot pass citizenship to their child born outside Canada. They also cannot apply for citizenship for a child they adopted abroad beyond the first generation. Bill C-3 will allow access to citizenship by descent beyond the first generation, in a spirit of inclusiveness and respect for citizenship. Bill C‑3 will restore citizenship to those we call lost Canadians, individuals who either were never able to become citizens or who lost their citizenship due to outdated provisions of former citizenship legislation. Although the government has already implemented measures to remedy the situation for most lost Canadians, some individuals are still affected. These changes seek to resolve the issues of lost Canadians and their descendants. Among other things, the amendments address the situation of Canadian descendants affected by the first-generation limit. The bill also provides clear guidelines for obtaining Canadian citizenship by descent. Once the bill is passed, Canadian citizens born abroad will be able to pass on their citizenship to their children born abroad beyond the first generation if they can prove that they have a substantial connection to Canada. If a Canadian parent born abroad has spent at least three cumulative years in Canada before the birth of their child, they will be able to pass on their citizenship to that child. We also want to continue to reduce disparities between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadian parents. Any child adopted abroad by a Canadian parent before the bill comes into force will be eligible for direct citizenship for adoptees, even if they were previously excluded due to the first-generation limit. For children born abroad and adopted by Canadian citizens, when the bill comes into force, if the adoptive parent, who was born abroad, can prove substantial ties to Canada prior to the adoption, direct citizenship may be requested for the adopted child. In short, Bill C‑3 will restore citizenship to those who have been denied it and provide a fair and consistent framework for citizenship by descent. Building on the progress made by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Senate through former Bill S-245, these amendments further refine the proposed changes and comprehensively address the concerns raised by the courts. Filibustering slowed the progress of Bill S-245 and Bill C-71, making it even more clear that Bill C-3 is essential and must move forward without unnecessary delay. As a pillar of our identity, Canadian citizenship unites us around fundamental values of democracy, inclusion and equality. This bill strengthens our legislation to ensure fair rights and equal opportunities for all. As a government, we must remain vigilant in ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a beacon of and a commitment to inclusivity, fairness and security. That is why we have introduced Bill C-3: to ensure that access to citizenship remains fair and transparent. At a time when misinformation and division can threaten confidence in public institutions, Canada must show that its commitment to fairness extends across borders. Providing thoughtful, inclusive pathways to citizenship beyond the first generation affirms that Canadian identity is shaped not only by place of birth, but also by connection, contribution and values. The government's role is not only to protect the rights of Canadian citizens, but also to provide clarity on the citizenship process and to enact legislation that reflects the values of equality, inclusivity and justice. I urge all parties in the House to support this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's deep question, and this is what I was talking about in my speech: the pride we have as Canadians in serving other nations, in our humanity toward others, and in expressing that humanity and bringing, or trying to bring, justice and peace to those regions afflicted by conflicts. There are people who work on an international level, and it could be multi-generational. This kind of proposed legislation helps those people who are out there serving the world, representing Canada, to not be fearful for their security and the security of their future generations.

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague who wants numbers, I am sure the Conservatives will come up with some, but I will give him some numbers. In 2009 and 2015, approximately 20,000 people known as lost Canadians were able to acquire citizenship. That is 2009 and 2015. In seven years, there were 20,000 people who obtained it, not hundreds of thousands as the colleagues across the way keep trying to insinuate. There is just a small group of people, it seems, who are left in this situation. This situation does need to be remedied, because those who are working abroad, who work internationally and who serve, as I have mentioned, Canada and what Canada stands for need that security and peace of mind for their service and their dedication to our country as well.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is entirely accurate in saying that IRCC does treat these cases case by case and not through blanket approval. Everything will be looked at. As to the number, I know the members across the way are trying to insinuate that hundreds of thousands of people are going to come and flood Canada. I have repeated that this is very specific legislation. In the eight-year gap between 2009 until 2015, only 20,000 people asked for such provisions. To try to frighten people or discourage them from working internationally or representing Canada or being part of the armed forces does not serve Canada, Canadians or the world, and our commitments, in any way.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that the top seven priorities for the government include “Attracting the best talent in the world to help build our economy, while returning our overall immigration rates to sustainable levels.” Bill C-2 proposes important changes to address gaps in immigration authorities, provide a more adaptive system to the rapidly changing global migration patterns and empower better decision-making and information sharing. We must get these important steps right. Immigration is an essential part of Canada's past, present and future. As the Prime Minister noted, this is an essential channel for new workers. This bill would also improve security along the Canada-U.S. border and help address current and future potential challenges for individuals crossing the border in either direction. This legislation would make changes to respond to a more complex global movement of people, increasingly sophisticated fraud, the need to update information-sharing mechanisms and authority over immigration documents. First, the bill includes certain long-awaited measures to address current and future challenges. They will resolve issues that undermined the asylum system in the past and ensure the immigration system is better prepared for the future. Streamlining processing to make it more efficient will ensure certain long-standing challenges can be overcome. The bill proposes intelligence and information sharing and ensuring that applications are ready for processing before they are sent to the final decision-making body, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The legislation would do this in part by clearing the way to create a single application system and intake for all asylum claims. This would make it easier for individuals filing a claim, with clear requirements for information and documents at the outset. However, just as important, the legislation means that departments and agencies across the federal government would work from shared information. Instead of multiple departments and agencies asking for the same information, these departments would work more co-operatively with the same shared information. In order to create a more efficient system, the bill proposes amendments so that only applications that are ready to be heard are referred to the IRB for decision. Right now, the IRB is scheduling hearings for some cases before the departments or agencies have completed certain aspects of their review. These may include important measures that take time, such as security screening or confirming the identity of a person from an area affected by conflict. If only applications that are ready to be heard are referred to the IRB, decisions can be made without delay, which may reduce the number of cases. Bill C-2 would empower the IRCC to determine if an application has been abandoned even before the application has been reviewed for decision, and to remove it from processing under certain circumstances. As simple as that sounds, applicants may not always acknowledge or advise the federal government when they are not seeking asylum anymore. For example, the board could determine that applications are abandoned when applicants are unresponsive to required documents or information. Those applications would be removed through the abandonment process, allowing officials to focus efforts on those who need protection and continue to seek asylum. There is also an important change to the claim resolution process. People who file an application from within Canada, including those at ports of entry such as airports, must be physically present in the country for their hearing. One would generally assume that a person who fled to Canada to seek protection would remain here in order to get that protection. However, there have been cases where applicants were outside the country when a decision was being made regarding their case. People who enter Canada irregularly, between border crossings, violate our agreement on shared border responsibilities. This regime, which was put in place in 2012, created different asylum rules for citizens from certain designated countries. Some provisions of the regime were struck down by the Federal Court of Canada. The bill would repeal the provisions relating to this regime and transfer the power to establish lists for refugee hearings to IRB to allow for more strategic case management. To address more recent challenges and issues that might arise again in the future, we are modernizing the asylum system with important reforms to strengthen migration integrity. To protect the system against surges in claims, we are introducing new ineligibility rules for asylum. These changes confirm that asylum is not a shortcut to immigration and would reduce pressures on the system so that we are focused on those who do need protection. We have also seen the tragic consequences of this, including the deaths of families in our freezing cold winters. Irregular crossings are often an act of desperation and may be facilitated by human traffickers and organized crime groups. We know that some people continue to cross the Canada-U.S. border despite our warnings and laws. By waiting 14 days or more before making an asylum claim, they are trying to sidestep the safe third country agreement, which would require them to return to the U.S. to file their claim. This delay appears, at first glance, to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent our existing immigration laws and systems. Claims made by these individuals will not be referred to the board. We are also making changes that make claims inadmissible if they are made more than one year after someone enters Canada, if they arrived after June 24, 2020. The vast majority of asylum claims are made within one year of arrival. A one-year limit will deter people from using the asylum system to extend their stay in Canada if other mechanisms fail. These important reforms would better align our systems and resources to serve their purpose. They would align our efforts to those who need our protection, limit attempts by others to avoid and bypass our system, and streamline the process so that we can do more with existing resources. The many aspects of this bill will not allow me to go into detail today, but let me touch on the impacts of a few measures. These changes would streamline the work of the federal government, reduce the burden on our provincial and territorial partners, and improve communications to keep our communities safe. Sharing information with law enforcement and national security agencies can help us detect and prevent fraud. There is concern that people are using multiple identities to access government benefits or avoid detection. With robust identity verification processes, we can ensure that all levels of government are working with accurate, consistent data. We would also prohibit further sharing by provincial or territorial government partners to foreign entities unless there is written consent and compliance with our obligations related to mistreatment, as defined in the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. These authorities were reviewed by the Department of Justice and reflect input from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. They are fully compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and uphold our commitment to transparency and accountability. To conclude, Bill C-2 would streamline and improve the asylum process against issues we know about now and potential risks in the future.

Mr. Speaker, our government takes very seriously and emphasizes that small businesses are the backbone of our country's economy. It is very important that we keep those businesses in mind. However, when illicit financing occurs, this limit can help crack down on money laundering and terrorist financing. It is essential that we keep track of reporting, present stronger penalties, prohibit crimes and third party cash deposits, and add FINTRAC to financial institutions' supervisory committees.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for mentioning that little Claire Bell was found. We are so glad. We thank the police for working tirelessly for this outcome. Fortunately, all is well. I also thank my colleague for her question. Fighting transnational organized crime and preventing fentanyl imports are extremely important. Inspections must be done. As we mentioned, we are going to hire an additional 1,000 border officers and more RCMP officers to help address those issues.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an incredible moment for me to answer my colleague's questions. He is often in the House. To answer his question, extortion has become a plague in Canada. It is very disconcerting to see the amount of extortion that is occurring and these strong measures would help in combatting that. Right now, we see the increase of such situations and so we are going to fight against this and other transnational crime.

Mr. Speaker, the public inquiry into foreign interference has made clear that every member of the House has a responsibility to fight against foreign interference in Canada. This is especially true of party leaders. It is imperative that all leaders be equipped with the necessary security clearances and information so that they can make responsible decisions to protect our precious democracy. The Conservative leader refuses to do so. Would the Prime Minister shed light on why it is important to get such clearance?

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, June 1984 was seared on the Sikh psyche. The Indian army stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar, as well as countless other gurdwaras. A religious holiday, when thousands of pilgrims would be visiting, this day was chosen to maximize damage to Sikh lives. The result of the carnage was such that the bullet-riddled bodies of pilgrims, men whose hands were still tied behind their backs, were being thrown in trucks by the hundreds to be mass cremated. This included babies and even elderly who were weak but still alive. The sacred pool had turned red with their blood. The surrounding holy buildings damaged, the marble floors cracked under the heavy army tanks. The library that contained centuries of text was burned to ashes. Over days and days, this terror was unleashed upon these innocent lives. No one could come and go. No help came. They were imprisoned and easy, vulnerable targets. There is no justification for this attack.

Mr. Speaker, this week we are celebrating the 100th birthday of my grandfather, a man who is imbued with audacity, unwavering positivity and spirituality. Sardaar Kundan Singh was born in 1924, at a time when equality for women was non-existent; however, this did not deter him. Not only did he educate his sons, but he was also one of the first people in his city to put all four of his daughters through university. He faced immense pressure from friends, family and neighbours wanting to dissuade him. He did not waver, and because of his determination, other families started doing the same. His fight for the rights of women has been continuous all throughout his life. I am where I am today because of him. He set the example for us on how to live with dignity and self-respect, to always have a sense of humour and to stay in high spirits no matter the circumstances. He is my heart and soul. Even though he lost his vision earlier this year, and he cannot see me, he is listening to me give him the most beautiful honour that I can. I love Papaji to the moon and back.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity today to speak to Bill C‑64, an act respecting pharmacare. This bill represents the next phase of our government's commitment to a national universal pharmacare program. It proposes the foundational principles of national universal pharmacare and our intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal single-payer coverage for many contraceptives as well as diabetes medications. This is an important step forward in improving health equity, affordability and outcomes, and it could save the health care system money in the long term. Public health care in Canada was built on the promise that no matter where one lives or what one earns, one will always be able to get the medical care one needs. Despite this promise, Canada is the only country in the world with universal health care that does not provide universal coverage for prescription drugs. When medicare was first introduced, prescription drugs outside of hospitals cost less and played a smaller role in health care. Today, prescription drugs are an essential part of our health, helping to control chronic conditions, treat temporary ones, and aid in overall health and well-being. One area that has seen significant changes is diabetes treatment. Over 100 years ago, thanks to a Canadian team of researchers, Frederick Banting, Charles Herbert Best, John J. R. Macleod and James Bertram Collip, insulin was discovered. Since this monumental scientific discovery, there have been several advancements in diabetes treatment, from the introduction of fully synthetic human insulin to glucose monitors and insulin pumps. These breakthroughs have immensely improved the quality of life for people who have to live with diabetes, enhancing self-esteem, increasing social participation and improving the overall health and well-being of these individuals. They have also come with higher costs, creating affordability challenges for Canadians affected by diabetes. Outside of hospital, prescription drug coverage comes from a mix of private insurance, out-of-pocket cash payments and various provincial programs. While the majority of Canadians have access to some form of public or private insurance, about 2.8%, or 1.1 million Canadians, do not have access to private or public drug coverage. Although most Canadians have some form of drug coverage, this does not mean that those with insurance have equal access to the prescription drugs they need. The existing patchwork system of private and public drug plans leaves millions of Canadians under-insured, and that means their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs create a financial burden that leaves them struggling to afford an essential part of health care. In 2021, Statistics Canada found that more than one in five adults in Canada reported not having the insurance they needed to cover their prescription drug costs. Being under-insured can take many forms, for example, Canadians may have high deductibles, resulting in significant out-of-pocket costs before their insurance coverage even kicks in. They may reach the maximum annual or lifetime coverage limits for their insurance and have to pay out-of-pocket, or they may have to make co-payments, which are often 20% of the drug's cost on private plans and sometimes more on public plans. All provinces have drug coverage to protect Canadians from catastrophic drug costs, but deductibles under these plans can range from 0% to 20% of net family income. In many cases, Canadians will never reach the deductible, leaving them without any support for their drug costs. This variability across the country creates a postal code lottery. Let us consider the advancements in diabetes treatments. For a working-age Canadian with no private insurance, out-of-pocket costs vary widely. In some parts of the country, out-of-pocket costs for people living with type 1 diabetes can be higher than $18,000 per year out-of-pocket; for type 2 diabetes, they can be higher than $10,000 per year in out-of-pocket expenses. Even those with private insurance can face high co-pays or exceed annual plan maximums, resulting in high out-of-pocket costs. Even for cases in which an individual is not accessing devices that cost thousands of dollars, they can face significant out-of-pocket costs. For example, we can consider a woman in her mid-twenties who is working a minimum wage job. An IUD, one of the most effective forms of birth control, can cost up to $500 with no insurance. Even with private insurance, a co-pay of 20% would be $100. While IUDs can last from three to 12 years and save money over the long term, the high upfront cost can make them inaccessible. Under-insurance can be a particular concern for young adults who age out of their parents' private insurance but who do not have their own form of private coverage. Lower-income Canadians also make up a disproportionate share of the under-insured. While most provinces have put in place drug coverage for those accessing social assistance benefits, a gap still exists. Many lower-income households that do not qualify for social assistance continue to struggle with out-of-pocket prescription drug costs. Employment factors contribute to differences in insurance coverage. People with low-paying jobs, such as entry-level, contract and part-time positions, often report less adequate drug insurance coverage. This may even discourage people from accessing social assistance benefits or from applying for jobs, because once hired, they may lose their public drug insurance coverage. However, many entry-level and part-time jobs do not offer drug benefits. One study found that only 27% of part-time employees reported receiving medical benefit coverage. Under-insurance can have serious consequences. Many Canadians with high out-of-pocket costs report foregoing essential needs, such as food and heat, or not adhering to their prescription due to drug costs. Statistics Canada found that, in 2021, close to one in five Canadians spent $500 or more out-of-pocket for their prescription medication, and almost one in 10 reported not adhering to their prescription medication because of costs. This includes delaying filling prescriptions or skipping doses to contain costs. When people do not take their prescription drugs the way they are supposed to, their health can suffer. This results in serious consequences for the individual and their household, and unnecessary costs to the health care system in the long run, as patients are more likely to visit an emergency room or to be admitted to hospital when they do not receive consistent treatment. For example, the full cost of diabetes to the health care system in 2018 was estimated to be around $27 billion and could exceed $39 billion by 2028. I think we can all agree that no Canadian should be put in a position where they must choose between the prescription drugs they need for their health and well-being and putting food on the table. This is unacceptable, and it is why we are continuing our work to improve accessibility, affordability and appropriate use of prescription drugs as we move forward with national universal pharmacare.

Madam Speaker, we have been talking a lot throughout our speeches, as have all our colleagues, about how we are investing in Canadians, and this is an investment. There is a saying that it is better to prevent than to cure. This is one of those times when we could prevent, for example, botched procedures or when women have to go out of their way to do things to protect themselves and to make sure there are not unwanted pregnancies. This national pharmacare program would help women and those who are gender diverse to be able not just to cure but also to prevent. It would make sure that they have optimal health and that their well-being and mental health are being taken care of at the same time.

Madam Speaker, it would be surprising to most Canadians to learn that there is a huge under-insurance problem in this country. Many people, we could say, slip through the cracks. As I mentioned in my speech, for those who are part-time workers, who end up getting phased out of their parents' health insurance plans and for those who are taking social assistance, there is always a gap between the two insurances. We need to make sure that everybody is covered and that every Canadian is treated equally. It is all about equality and equity. This is how those gaps can be prevented. As my hon. colleague from London—Fanshawe mentioned, it is important for women to be able to take care of themselves. It should not matter what one's income bracket is. One should be able to access contraceptives and these services in order to create a more equal society.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I would like to ask the member about how something as simple as monitoring diabetes and testing sugar levels, which can prevent hospitalization and the additional costs that can occur due to hospitalization when people do not have this equipment to be able to take care of themselves at home. I would also like to ask, if he has a few moments, if he could talk about oral contraceptives for women.

Mr. Speaker, Red Dress Day is coming up. It is recognized for being an important way to raise awareness of the alarming rates of violence. There are growing calls for the introduction of a red dress alert system. This system would be crucial in promptly informing the public whenever an indigenous woman, girl or two-spirited person goes missing. Can the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations share with us what measures are being taken to address this critical issue?