Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, since our government took office, keeping Canadians safe has been one of our top priorities. Since we were elected, we have passed three major pieces of legislation in collaboration with provincial governments and law enforcement agencies across Canada, all of which support these laws. They are the Combatting Hate Act, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, and the Protecting Victims Act. It seems to me that the federal Conservatives are the only ones opposed to these laws.

Mr. Speaker, every one of us in this House has a loved one who has fought cancer, and all of us know how important it is that we continue to honour Terry Fox's legacy with bold ambition. Our investment in precision oncology is an investment in a more personalized approach to cancer care, one that reduces harmful side effects and makes the treatment more likely to work. No one wants to lose a loved one to cancer, and this investment should give hope to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my sympathies go out to all the people who were affected. I absolutely agree that we want to work with British Columbia every step of the way to deal with climate change and with the wildfires that are happening. That is why we have invested so much money this year, for example, in water bombers. When provinces called upon us for assistance, we were able to provide extra aircraft. We have the Canadian humanitarian workforce program, where we were able to provide supplemental volunteers to assist British Columbians when British Columbia asked us for assistance. We have made it very clear to the B.C. government that we will work with British Columbia every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, our government has taken action. Since taking office, we have passed three very important laws to fight crime. We have passed laws despite Conservative obstruction. In fact, the latest statistics show that crime is down across Canada, which is a testament to the efforts of law enforcement officers from coast to coast to coast who work hard every day to keep our communities safe. We will continue to work with police services to keep Canadians across the country safe.

Mr. Speaker, just days after the House rose for the summer, an evil man crossed the country seeking to kill people in Montreal. While brave police officers limited casualties, two wonderful men were killed. Constable Mohamed Lamine Benredouane worked at one of our neighbourhood police stations. He was only 34 years old and was a devoted husband and father of a young son. He and his wife were expecting their second child. I remember him as a man who was always smiling and committed to serving the community he grew up in. Michel Moshe Mizrahi was my neighbour in Côte Saint-Luc. He was generous to a fault. A father and grandfather, Michel was deeply loved. In the midst of the shooting, he warned others of the danger and helped them find safety. Today, we remember two men, one Muslim and one Jewish, who, when faced with danger, thought of others. People are alive today because of them. May their courage never be forgotten and may their memories be a blessing.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. The combatting hate act has been before this House for nine months. During those nine months, we have had extensive debate in this place, in the other place and at committee. This bill is important. I want to take members back to what started the process of amending our hate laws in a way that is broader than the way they have been amended in the last 30 years. In the spring of 2024, in my own riding of Mount Royal, the Jewish community centre, the Montreal Holocaust Museum and The Jewish Public Library were surrounded by demonstrators. They were surrounded by demonstrators yelling hateful things. They were surrounded by demonstrators carrying signs, some of which supported terrorist organizations. However, the police failed to arrest people. They failed to stop what was a demonstration that descended into illegality. They said at the time that they did not have clear enough instructions or clear enough rules related to when a demonstration outside of a community centre, a school, a temple, a church or a synagogue has crossed the line. The combatting hate act makes clear that these buildings deserve special protection. It creates new intimidation and obstruction offences related to protests outside of community centres, places of worship and schools that make it clear that these buildings deserve special protection. It makes it clear that a person cannot intimidate someone from entering that building to hear a speaker they want to hear, to worship as they want to worship or to attend their classes. It makes it clear that a person cannot obstruct people from entering or leaving the building, which is what happened that night in March 2024. At the time, I called for this change to the criminal law. I said that, because the police told me that they were unable to take action, the Parliament of Canada has a duty to act, to rewrite existing criminal laws so that they are clearer and so they provide more tools to police officers. The same thing happened with respect to Mr. Charkaoui. He said things that were absolutely hateful in the streets of Montreal, but the prosecutors did not take action. We ended up in a situation where the House set up a committee. I asked for the justice and human rights committee to study anti-Semitism. We did, and in December 2024, we put out a unanimous report, on most issues. Yes, there was dissent, but the dissent was not on the vast majority of issues, including the intimidation and obstruction offence. However, that has not stopped what the Prime Minister called the “crisis of anti-Semitism” that has overwhelmed the western world, including Canada, where over 70% of religious-based hate offences are against the Jewish community, which makes up 1.2% of the population, and where a Jewish Canadian has a 19 times greater chance of having a hate crime committed against them than the average Canadian. I want to point out that two weeks ago there was an attempted arson attack on a temple in Westmount, Temple Emanu‑El, where I joined the Minister of Canadian Identity, former senator Marc Gold, and the Secretary of State for Youth to support the community at services. This law has a stand-alone hate provision, which can be used alongside the arson charges that gentleman will face, to make sure the person who is charged will face more jail time than previously. We also have provisions in this bill to say that when people fly terrorist symbols, the Nazi hakenkreuz or the SS bolt, or now the noose, which was added by the Senate in its recent amendment, in a way that inspires hate against a community, they would now easily be charged by the police. The bill offers greater protection for minority communities across this country, and for majority communities, by the way. It offers greater protections to Christians as well, who are a majority. It delivers protections to all religious faiths. It delivers protections to the LGBTQ+ community, the indigenous communities and other communities that face hate. Why would anyone be against it? Why would anyone be against this bill? The only argument I have heard to date against this bill, the number one reason I have heard, is that the law is not being enforced and we should just enforce the existing law, as if the federal government was responsible for the enforcement of the Criminal Code. This is something that is in the hands of the provinces. The decisions on whether to charge people are made by local municipal police, in most cases, and provincial prosecutors, not the federal government. The argument that we should not give police the tools they say they need to prosecute these crimes, because we should just tell them to do what they are supposed to do, does not wash, because it is essentially saying that the federal government should do nothing. We have the ability to write the Criminal Code, and we are doing so. With this bill, when it is enacted, and with the new bail and sentencing reform bill, which just received royal assent, we can now, as the Minister of Public Safety confirmed, go to the provinces and territories, have a PT meeting with the provinces and territories, and say that we need to act together to train police and prosecutors. We need specialized hate crime prosecutors across this country, to be named by the provinces. We need, most importantly, to have prosecutorial directives or other measures, where police are told by the provincial attorneys general how they should prosecute these crimes. It should be consistent across this country. The passing of this flurry of justice bills is an opportunity for us. I also want to address some of the misinformation I heard earlier today in the debate. First, one member talked about parents being worried about what they can say at the dinner table. Private discussions are not covered under the wilful promotion of hatred provisions under section 319 of the Criminal Code. To have members tell people that they have to worry about what they say at their dinner table is knowingly false. It is not true. Second, there were claims that the government would go out there and charge people, that somehow one minister's comments would lead to a government that could go out and say that people should be charged. However, we live in a system where independent prosecutors, working with police, make these decisions. They are not influenced by what a government person tells them to do or not to do in any individual case. The only way for the government to have its view is prosecutorial directives that apply to an entire class of people, which would come from the provincial attorneys general, not the federal one usually. I am kind of shocked to hear these claims that are so far out of reality that it diminishes what we are trying to do in the law. Finally, let me be absolutely clear. We also inserted a provision for greater clarity, to make clear that this is not the case, but we should not have had to do that, because it is obvious that this is not the case. People will not be charged because they read, quote or preach the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or any other holy book. This is entirely made up. It is negated by the Charter of Rights. It is negated by the “for greater certainty” provision in the bill. This is a really important bill. As a member of the Jewish community who has felt this hate, I know that every major organization in my community supports this bill. It is a really important bill to get hate off our streets, to make sure criminals get off our streets and to make sure there is deterrence. I would call upon everyone to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the organizations that speak for the organized Jewish communities, all of them, support the bill, whether it is CIJA, B'nai Brith, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the numerous groups that Mark Sandler has assembled in Toronto or the Canadian Women Against Antisemitism. I do not know of any major Jewish organization in the country that does not support this bill, so I do not believe that to be true. Most of the Orthodox Jewish rabbis I know support this bill, so I do not believe that is true. There may be some who do not, just like there are some in every religion who do not, but the vast majority of Canadian Jews have been asking for this bill and want this bill. As to the question of religious freedom, there is nothing in this bill that would thwart religious freedom. We removed a defence that has never successfully been used in Canadian history.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this will foster a sense of security for all communities, because no one wants to be the target of hatred. It is true that CJA-Québec said that it supports the Bloc Québécois and the proposal that it put forward a few years ago. We saw what was happening on the streets of Montreal and the fact that no prosecutor was taking action due to the potential use of this religious defence. If individuals promote hatred on the street, they should not be able to use their beliefs to justify hatred against groups. It is also very important to say that this defence has never been successful in a Canadian court since the law has been on the books.

Mr. Speaker, my very first conversation with the Prime Minister was about this issue. The very first time I talked to the Prime Minister was during the Liberal leadership race in 2025. Our very first conversation centred around intimidation, obstruction and the need to change the law to protect community buildings, and the Prime Minister, to his great credit, immediately said that, yes, he supported that. It was a part of the Liberal platform, and we are acting on our platform.

Mr. Speaker, crime evolves. Technology evolves. The experiences of victims evolve. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that our criminal laws evolve as well. The protecting victims act responds to the realities of modern victimization. It strengthens protections for victims and survivors. It addresses emerging forms of abuse and exploitation. It increases accountability for serious offenders. It provides law enforcement and the courts with additional tools to help keep Canadians safe. Throughout the debate, we have discussed public safety, violence against women, child protection, online exploitation and victims' rights. These are not abstract issues. This is about real people. This affects families in every part of the country. They deserve a meaningful response from Parliament. The protecting victims act directly addresses the concerns of victims, survivors, community organizations and justice system experts across the country. It aims to better protect vulnerable people and ensure that our laws reflect today's realities. One of the most significant measures in the legislation would be the creation of a new offence of coercive control. For many years, survivors and advocates have told us that abuse begins long before physical violence occurs. Very often it begins with intimidation, isolation, manipulation or threats. It begins with a pattern of behaviour designed to dominate another person's life. Victims may be cut off from family and friends. Their finances may be controlled, their communications may be monitored, and their independence may gradually be taken away. Taken together, these actions can create an environment of fear and control that has devastating consequences, yet too often, intervention occurs only after violence has escalated. Too often, warning signs are recognized only after a tragedy has occurred. The protecting victims act would represent an important step forward. By creating a new offence of coercive control, Parliament would recognize that abuse is not defined only by physical violence, but that psychological abuse, emotional abuse and patterns of domination and control matter, and that victims deserve protection before violence escalates. All too often, victims wonder why no one intervened sooner. Creating a new offence related to coercive control finally recognizes a reality that survivors have been describing for years. This measure gives authorities an additional tool to intervene earlier and better protect those at risk. Another major focus of the protecting victims act is the protection of children. I believe that every member of the House can agree that children deserve to be safe, protected, and free from exploitation. Unfortunately, criminals increasingly use digital platforms to groom victims, distribute exploitative materials, engage in sextortion and facilitate abuse. The Internet has created tremendous opportunities, but it has also created new risks. The law must keep pace with those risks. The protecting victims act would strengthen the legal framework related to child sexual exploitation and online abuse. It would make reporting requirements mandatory for social media companies when child sexual abuse material and exploitative content are identified. Canadians rightly expect digital platforms to act responsibly and to co-operate in protecting children from exploitation. Parents expect Parliament to respond when criminals use modern technology to target young people. The legislation would be exactly that response. Protecting children should never be a partisan issue. The fight against the sexual exploitation of children should never be a partisan issue. We all have a responsibility to act when the safety of young people is at risk. The protecting victims act would also respond to the growing threat of sexually explicit deepfakes and image-based abuse. Technology continues to evolve at an extraordinary pace. Artificial intelligence has created remarkable opportunities, but it can also be misused. We have seen disturbing images of sexually explicit images being created and distributed without consent. Women and girls have been disproportionately targeted by these harmful practices. No one should have to fear that their likeness will be manipulated and weaponized against them. No one should have to endure the trauma of discovering that sexually explicit images have been created or shared without their consent. The protecting victims act would modernize the Criminal Code to address these realities and ensure that victims are protected, regardless of whether abuse occurs online or off-line. Accountability is another important principle underlying the legislation. Canadians expect serious consequences for serious crimes. That expectation is reasonable and is reflected in the protecting victims act. The legislation would restore more than a dozen mandatory minimum penalties related to serious child sexual offences, would increase penalties for child predators and would strengthen the criminal justice response to some of the most serious crimes in our society. Children who experience sexual exploitation often carry that trauma throughout their life. Families are devastated. Communities are shaken. The consequences extend far beyond the immediate offence. Our justice system must respond accordingly. The legislation would also recognize that victims need support throughout the justice process. For many victims, the crime itself is only the beginning of a difficult journey. Participating in criminal proceedings can be intimidating, stressful and retraumatizing. The protecting victims act would expand access to testimonial aids and support measures to help victims and witnesses participate more fully in the justice process. The act would also expand access to support services for victims and witnesses. It would help make the justice system more accessible, more compassionate and more attuned to the needs of people who have already been through traumatic experiences. These reforms would help improve the experience of victims, while supporting the broader goal of ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done. Yesterday, some members of the House voted against the protecting victims act at report stage. That was their decision, but they will have to explain to Canadians why they opposed legislation that would create a new offence of coercive control, strengthen protections for children and victims and restore minimum mandatory penalties for serious child sexual offences. For our part, we are proud to support the legislation. We are proud to support victims, we are proud to support survivors, and we are proud to support safer communities. At the end of the day, the questions before us are straightforward: Do we believe victims deserve stronger protections? Do we believe children deserve greater safeguards against exploitation? Do we believe survivors deserve to be heard? Do we believe our laws should evolve to meet emerging threats? Do we believe Parliament should act when change is needed? I believe that the answer to all these questions is yes, and that is why I encourage everyone in this place to support the bill at third reading.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the parliamentary secretary's questions. The goal of the current government is for people to both be safe and feel safe, and for communities to be safer. That is why the government brought forward an ambitious agenda of criminal reforms that would make it tougher for bad people and repeat offenders to get bail, would make sure victims of hate crimes have better access to police tools to prosecute those hate crimes, and, in this case, would make sure victims are protected, particularly women and children, who, in many different instances, disproportionately bear the threat of coercive control or exploitation. The bill is an important piece of the tool kit, a tool in the tool kit for police and prosecutors. It is important for victims and other Canadians, and I encourage everyone to get on board and vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reasonable way that the bill can be interpreted as making mandatory minimums optional. What the bill would do is prevent courts from striking down minimum mandatory sentences based on hypotheticals. This should be exactly the type of bill Conservatives would support. Conservatives have railed against what the courts have done to strike down minimum mandatory sentences based on hypotheticals. I refer to the Senneville decision last year. This bill would restore minimum mandatory sentences and prevent courts from doing what was done in Senneville, by allowing courts to assess only the individual before them and not to strike down the entire category based on one hypothetical situation. The hon. member should read the bill again.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, this legislation is a step forward. Everyone needs to be pragmatic. We will never get everything we want, but this bill is very good news for everyone who wants safer communities in Canada. It was unfortunate to have to sit in committee hour after hour as our colleagues tried to derail this bill. Like the other justice bills that we introduced, this is something very important to Canadians.

Madam Speaker, June is Filipino Heritage Month. It is a chance to celebrate the amazing Filipino Canadian community that has enriched our country in so many ways. It is a chance to celebrate the culture and traditions of the Philippines. It is a chance to celebrate Dr. José Rizal, the founder of the modern Philippines, who championed patriotism, education, justice and civic duty, which are values shared by the Filipino community today. In my riding of Mount Royal, which is the heart of the Filipino community in Montreal, we will have a large number of events. I want to thank the Filipino Heritage Society of Montreal and its president, Al Abdon; the Council of Canadian Filipino Associations of Quebec and its leaders, Dario Boco and James de la Paz; the Filipino Association of Montreal and Suburbs and its president, Jojo Laud; and the Knights of Rizal and its regional commander Gerry Danzil for hosting these events. Let us all join together and say Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. Long live the Philippines.

Madam Speaker, I would refer the member to this morning's non-partisan C.D. Howe Institute's Business Cycle Council bulletin to note that his comments are premature. The Canadian economy is actually in a very good position today, with 88,000 new jobs having been created. We can see that the government's plan is working. There is lower youth unemployment, lower unemployment for women and more and more jobs in construction and manufacturing. The government is building Canadians' economy, and I do not understand why the Conservatives do not want to build it with us.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. There is a crisis of anti-Semitism in Canada. That is why the government denounced, through the Minister of Public Safety, what happened in Montreal last weekend. That is why we put forward the combatting hate act to listen to the demands that the Jewish community has been making for the last three years. That is why we augmented funding for Jewish community security across the country. The Prime Minister and every single member of this caucus is committed to the safety of Jewish communities across the country.

Mr. Speaker, in December 2024, the justice committee, of which I was a part, put out a report. It recommended to governments across the country, the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments, and police and universities what we thought they should do in this circumstance. We need to show leadership. The Prime Minister will show leadership and has shown leadership on this issue. It is unacceptable that the Jewish community of Canada does not feel as safe as it used to feel. Jewish schools should not have to have guards in front of them. We will work incessantly to make sure every level of government in the country works with us to solve the crisis of anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke very clearly in this House, making it very clear that the government was going to defend private property rights and that the government immediately appealed the decision. My question is for the hon. member whose speech I just listened to. I felt there were multiple times when it sank into disinformation. Does the hon. member believe a parliamentary committee would develop arguments for the court that are better than those of the expert constitutional lawyers who are currently arguing on behalf of the Government of Canada and being instructed to use every type of argument available to defend property rights?

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to litigation directive number 14, which I, again, have heard a lot of misinformation about, claiming that somehow the directive would preclude counsel for the Government of Canada from making every argument necessary to defend property rights. My understanding is that all the directive does is, if I can find the right words, require “a principled basis and evidence to support the defence.” Could my hon. colleague tell me of any instance where the Government of Canada should advance an argument that does not meet that criteria?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding a deeply troubling complaint filed with the Canada Revenue Agency targeting 11 Jewish schools in Montreal and Toronto. These schools are essential pillars of Jewish life in Canada. They exist to teach language, history, culture and identity, just as faith-based schools across this country do. For months, there has been a coordinated effort to mis-characterize Jewish schools, to strip them of funding and to undermine their place in Canadian society. Let me be clear: Attacking Jewish schools or Jewish day camps is a direct attack on Canadian Jewish life. The CRA must be unequivocally clear that it will not allow tax laws to be weaponized against any group. Jewish schools in this country have already faced serious threats, including repeated gunfire attacks. All Canadians have a right to be safe and feel safe; this includes Canadian Jews and this includes Canadian children. I hope all members of the House will join me in denouncing these attacks on Jewish community institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the chance and the opportunity to speak to Bill C-263 today. First, I want to thank my friend, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, for proposing a bill that is not only meaningful to the Moberg family, and I want to salute the courage of the Moberg family who were in Ottawa today, but could make a real difference in the lives of seniors living with dementia. I think all of us in the chamber know at least one person, have grown up with one person or, as adults, have run into one person who has dementia. Sometimes they are in our families. Sometimes they are close friends. To watch their decline over time is one of the scariest and one of the most difficult psychological things one could possibly have happen. First of all, the individual, as they are aware of their decline, which is often the case, is terrified. Their family members are also terrified. As the hon. member said in her speech, one day the person could be watching television, conversing, having dinner with their family, and the next day they could be in a state where if they walk out the front door, they will not know how to find their way back home. I cannot even tell members how many cases, over the course of the last 10 years that I have been a member of this place, I have heard from families with a loved one with dementia who has had a serious incident happen, and the fears that have been expressed. It goes beyond touching my heart. The fact that the hon. member took this opportunity to hear a tragic story and use it to come forward with a piece of legislation that could improve the lives of Canadians is deeply appreciated. As she said, this is not a partisan bill. This is not a bill that is left, right or centre. This is a human bill. The proposal of a national framework to support a coordinated silver alert system, to utilize our existing national public alerting system to issue geo-targeted notifications when a vulnerable senior disappears, would be a collaborative effort. It would be a collaborative effort between federal government, provincial government and territorial government. It would alert the public, through TV, radio and wireless devices, to a life-threatening situation. We do that right now for tornadoes, fires or Amber Alerts. The goal is to include this type of vulnerable senior in that system. The system is very busy. In 2024 alone, 855 emergency alerts were sent out across Canada. They contained vital information during extreme storms and other critical events. I would also note that this file is being actively worked on by the government. In budget 2025, we committed to renewing the NPAS model to better support emergency alerting throughout Canada. Indeed, the federal government is in discussion with provincial and territorial counterparts to promote more consistent use of public alerting systems, including guidance for consistent alerting for missing vulnerable people. As such, it gives me pleasure today to say that we, as a government, intend to support the bill with targeted amendments at the committee stage. We want to ensure that some of the drafting concerns that we hope to address will be considered by the committee. Hopefully, we can find a means so that everybody in the House will be comfortable with the bill. First, any framework must be developed in consultation with our provincial and territorial counterparts across the country, to ensure that it complements, rather than complicates, existing local protocols. As the member mentioned, provincial and territorial governments are referenced in the bill. Perhaps there is another way that we would like to reference them. Measures proposed in the legislation do relate to an area that is in provincial jurisdiction, as the member recognized. We just want to make sure that everyone is onside. Search and rescue operations are led, almost always, by local police services in coordination with provincial agencies and volunteer organizations like Search and Rescue Canada. We were honoured to welcome Search and Rescue Canada on the Hill this week as part of our humanitarian workforce program, for which we just announced $108 million in new funding. When a senior goes missing in a rural township or dense urban core, the response must be immediate and tailored to that specific area or community. In addition, many provinces have already taken steps to adopt silver alert systems for missing seniors. Quebec's non-intrusive alert system, which was announced in February 2026, aims to inform police services. This evidence-based program also uses non-intrusive means like social media, television and radio programs to alert the public. As my colleague said, these alerts are not sent out on cellphones at the moment. We want to make sure that we co-operate. One of the things the member mentioned is the privacy and dignity of the senior. We want to make sure that how we coordinate this under the proposal involves something that will respect the privacy and dignity of seniors and their families. I am sure that, as we understand, a silver alert would broadcast the name, photo and medical condition of an individual to possibly millions of people, depending on the area. We want to streamline this to make sure the right cases are the ones brought forward. In extreme and dangerous cases, that probably is the case. Perhaps there are other cases where it might not be, so we have to discuss that. For example, seniors who live with early-stage dementia often maintain independent lives. In some cases, their families may prefer that their medical privacy be protected as they engage in the search in the early stages. We will discuss this as part of the notification system, and I am sure we will find a collaborative solution that will work for everybody in this House. One of the problems I wanted to mention, which I have heard from our provincial counterparts, some municipal counterparts and police, is the concern over alert fatigue. Through discussions with the provinces and territories, we want to make sure that alert fatigue does not happen. I often get complaints from people in Montreal asking why they get alerts about a child who is missing in Trois-Rivières, given the unlikelihood of the child from Trois-Rivières being in Montreal, with the phone buzzing at three o'clock in the morning. Part of this must be to figure out where the alert target area should be and what the alerts should be. I also want to talk a bit about dementia care, because this bill brings up an important issue about dementia. The Alzheimer Society provided recommendations in its landmark study released in 2022. The Government of Canada's “A Dementia Strategy for Canada”, released in 2019, looks at not only prevention, medical treatment and cures, but also improving the quality of life of dementia patients. Many stakeholders have expressed stronger support for programs such as dementia-friendly communities led by the Alzheimer Society of Canada, with financial support from our government. This initiative supports localized efforts to implement and adapt dementia-friendly practices, including promoting awareness and strategies on how to effectively communicate with people living with dementia. For example, exactly as the member said, when we see a senior who we think might be lost, confused and scared, how do we approach them? Should we approach them? These are all things we need to teach our communities. It has to be more than just alerting family members of people who have dementia as to how to deal with dementia patients. In January 2026, our government announced $4.7 million in funding to fund six projects under the dementia community investment program, bringing the total number of projects we have supported to 36. Our government often talks about our commitment to ensuring the safety and dignity of all Canadians. Seniors built the communities we live and thrive in today. We owe it to them to keep them safe in all of our communities. In conclusion, I look forward to working with the sponsor of this bill to ensure that a national approach to silver alerts is evidence-based and adequately addresses community needs and provincial concerns.

Madam Speaker, do you know who had something positive to say about the spring economic statement? It was Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, the premier of the province of that member. When he was talking about the sovereign wealth fund, he said, “We would say this is a good initiative for our nation. I think it really speaks to what we need to do in this nation, and working together at all levels of government to ensure that we can aspire to achieve what the Prime Minister said... [about Canada] being the strongest economy in the G7 and Canada becoming an energy superpower.” Canadians want to be part of building this country. Why do the Conservatives not?

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have recently been going door to door. I knocked on a lot of doors in Terrebonne. Given the results of the three recent by-elections, where the Conservative vote plummeted in Terrebonne, I think going from 18% to 3%, and lost half their vote in both University—Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest, I am wondering why the member thinks that Canadian voters as a whole are so blind to the brilliance that he brings to the debate.

I also thank the member for Lakeland for having the best laugh in the House. Mr. Speaker, it is funny that there are so many statistics related to Canada's performance within the G7 that are so favourable to Canada, and yet some in the opposition basically say, “Well, it doesn't matter. We're only comparing ourselves to ourselves, so what does it matter what the debt ratio is in France or in England?” Then with other statistics that they say are negative, they spout the same G7 statistics. Does the member find that to be a contradiction?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It is a pleasure to participate in today's debate on the government's plan to build a stronger, more independent and more resilient Canada for all. It is a plan that builds more affordable homes. It is a plan that builds major infrastructure. It is a plan that will help transform our economy. It is also a plan that will bring down costs to help Canadians get ahead. With the spring economic update announced earlier this week, we are providing a clear and transparent account of how Canada's economy is performing in an increasingly uncertain world. We believe this transparency is critical to help businesses seize new opportunities and give families the confidence to plan for their future. Central to this plan is an announcement made earlier this week by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that we are launching Canada's first sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund. Through an initial federal contribution of $25 billion over three years, the fund will strategically invest, alongside the private sector, in Canadian projects and companies driving our economic transformation. This includes projects in clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, agriculture and infrastructure. The returns will be reinvested to grow the Canada Strong fund, strengthening its capacity over time. As the fund grows, it will direct capital towards investments with the highest potential return for Canada and Canadians. To ensure that Canadians have the option to invest in the growth of our nation and share in returns, the government will launch a retail investment product. This will give Canadians a direct stake in our nation's long-term prosperity and help build long-term national wealth. The federal government will be holding consultations in the coming months on the specifics of this new initiative. Further details about the fund will be provided in the coming months. Canadian companies and investors are coming forward to build Canada's future, and investors from all around the world are choosing to invest in that future. The transformative projects and companies they will help build will create a stronger, more independent and more resilient economy for all Canadians. The Canada Strong fund takes that one step further, making sure that all Canadians are the beneficiaries of the financial results that these projects will generate. That, quite simply, is a vote of confidence in Canadian entrepreneurs, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers, because on this side of the House we know that despite the tremendous economic headwinds we are facing, the Canadian economy is uniquely positioned to grow and thrive in the 21st century. The private sector knows this; the international community knows this, as evidenced by the fact that foreign direct investment just reached a 20-year high; and Canadians know it, which is why they are so excited to invest in our future shared prosperity via this fund. We are doing this because we know that the geopolitical and economic changes we are witnessing are sudden and unprecedented. As the spring economic update outlines: The global economy is more than a year into a profound rupture. Economic security, industrial policy, and geopolitical competition are increasingly shaping investment, trade, and financial decisions. The recent conflict in the Middle East—which has disrupted key shipping routes and damaged energy infrastructure—has pushed energy prices higher, underscoring the fragility of global supply chains, and adding to the already elevated uncertainty. Despite this environment, Canada's economy continued to expand, growing by 1.7 per cent in 2025. The economy avoided a recession and domestic activity remained solid, even as tariff increases [from the United States] and trade tensions weighed on activity. North American supply chains [were more resilient] than expected, with...(CUSMA) protecting approximately 85 per cent of Canadian goods exports from recent U.S. measures. That is not to say that, for the 15% that are not protected, there is not significant uncertainty that we need to work together to deal with. The update continues: Businesses and workers have shown remarkable resilience in the face of [significant] uncertainty. Business sentiment has recovered and firms are diversifying suppliers and markets. Canada also continues to attract significant global capital—leading the G7 in per capita direct investment inflows— and the Statistics Canada survey of planned capital expenditures for 2026 indicates that businesses plan to step up capital spending this year. Reflecting this adaptability, the International Monetary Fund...expects Canada to post the second-fastest growth in the G7 over 2026 and 2027. Labour market conditions have remained resilient. Since the start of 2025, Canada has added nearly three times as many jobs per capita.... The majority of those jobs have been in the private sector.... Wage growth has now outpaced inflation for more than three consecutive years, supporting continued gains in real incomes. From a fiscal perspective, economic resilience, bolstered by government policies to respond to immediate challenges through temporary supports, is delivering an $11.5 billion improvement in the projected 2025-26 budgetary balance.... This strength carries into future years, improving the budgetary balance, relative to budget 2025, by an average of $10.7 billion per year from 2026-27 to 2029-30 before new measures. [This fiscal room allows the government] to improve affordability and raise Canadians' standard of living through targeted and responsible policy measures, particularly in the areas of fuel, food, and housing affordability. The move to invest more in Canadians started with budget 2025. According to the spring economic update: Budget 2025 marked a strategic shift in the government's management of public finances, focused on expanding federal capital spending to mobilise investment, while maintaining fiscal responsibility. With significant investments to support infrastructure, innovation, and the development of domestic industrial capabilities, Budget 2025 set out a clear plan to build the strongest economy in the G7. This fiscal plan remains rooted in fiscal responsibility—not for its own sake, but to create the capacity to invest in long-term economic strength and greater self-reliance. Consistent with this approach, decisions in the Spring Economic Update are guided by the government's two fiscal anchors: balancing operating spending with revenues by 2028-29 and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. This is good news for Canadians, even if it is bad news for my Conservative colleagues. I think we need to talk Canada up. We need to boost our economy. We will continue to move our plan forward. These are serious times, and in a world of geopolitical instability, governments need to rethink how they respond to headwinds and build resilience for the future. Standing still is not an option, as inaction and underinvestment can carry significant costs, including slower growth, diminished competitiveness and weaker security. Thankfully: Canada starts from a position of strength to turn this moment of global uncertainty into one of national opportunity. Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio stands at just 10.2 per cent, compared to the G7 average.... Canada's net debt burden today is lower than that of any other G7 country, and is even below the levels of those countries prior to the pandemic. Canada also has one of the smallest deficits in the G7 as a share of the economy. This fiscal advantage gives the government the capacity—and the responsibility—to act to build a stronger economy to make life more affordable, to create high-paying jobs, to take care of each other and to determine our future. Canada's fiscal position also stands out among 30 other advanced economies, with a below-average deficit-to-GDP ratio and one of the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratios in the group. Canada is also one of the only two G7 economies, alongside Germany, to maintain AAA ratings from major global credit rating agencies. These AAA ratings support investor confidence and help keep borrowing costs as low as possible. As I indicated before: In [an] uncertain world, the government's focus on what [we] can control—delivering lasting economic benefits for Canadians who are reinforcing fiscal discipline—will help ensure Canada maintains this fiscal advantage going forward. With the spring economic update, the government showed that Canada's fiscal strength remains strong while we continue to invest for Canadians where it counts, building Canada's prosperity today and for the next generation. The Canada Strong fund is a key pillar of that plan. We are catalyzing a series of nation-building projects in energy, trade, critical minerals, transport, data and beyond, projects that will make Canada stronger, more resilient and more independent. Through the Canada Strong fund, all Canadians will have the opportunity to share directly in the benefits. This is their country. This is their future. This is our country. This is our future. We need to build it together, and I would encourage all my colleagues to support the Canada Strong fund.

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe that the member is actually equating an individual's own wealth with the country's obligation to fund massive projects within the country. The idea of countries borrowing to enable to grow their economies is not something new. Obviously, there needs to be fiscal prudence. The government's plan balances that fiscal prudence with a very solid balance sheet of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 economies, with an idea that we need to build strong nation-building projects going forward. This is a way for the country to benefit from those projects long-term, as well as for individual Canadians to put up their own money to join in investing in those projects.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things. First, no one said that these projects were too risky for private investment. This is about attracting other investments. By showing that Canadians and the Government of Canada believe in those projects, we will attract private investment from here and other countries. Second, I would be very excited to invest my money in it, but I am not allowed to as a parliamentary secretary because I do not manage my own finances. My money is in a blind trust that I am not allowed to look at or manage.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question. I completely agree. One of this government's greatest strengths is that we have a Prime Minister who is looking ahead to Canada's future. He does not just think about tomorrow. He does not just make political decisions for the next month or the next year. He makes long-term decisions. If this sovereign wealth fund operates like the ones in Singapore and Norway, it will attract a lot of money, which will help improve the lives of all Canadian taxpayers in the 2030s, 2040s, 2050s and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague. The agricultural sector is an incredibly important sector in Canada. I think the minister had explained in that answer why that decision was made. I am pleased to hear, in terms of the five priorities he outlined, that the consumer carbon tax was eliminated as one of the very first acts of this government. As we know, the global economy is more than a year into a profound rupture, with economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition increasingly shaping economic, financial and supply chain decisions. In addition, heightened geopolitical tensions, including recent events in the Middle East that disrupted global energy markets and shipping routes, have further underscored the fragility of global supply chains and are now contributing to elevated uncertainty. We, as a government, have been relentlessly focused on bringing down costs for Canadians, because when Canadians keep more of the money they earn, they can better support their families, invest in their communities and build the future they want. Of course, that includes Canadians in all industries, including the agricultural one. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax, after the government announced lowering the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. We, as a House and Senate, adopted that as our very first law. The rate reduction applies to taxable incomes of up to $58,523 in 2026. This change ensures that nearly 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 this year. Notably, most of the tax relief will go to Canadians with incomes in the two lowest tax brackets. Canada's new government is also using the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective April 20, until August 31, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief. The temporary suspension of the excise tax for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. To make everyday essentials like groceries more affordable, we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the GST credit and will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians. We are providing a one-time payment equivalent to a 50% increase in the 2025-26 value of the GST credit, which will be delivered on June 5, and we are increasing the benefit by 25% for five years, beginning in July 2026. We are also setting aside $500 million from the strategic response fund to help businesses address the cost of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians at the checkout line. We are creating a $150-million food security fund under the existing regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises and the organizations that support them.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully disagree with my colleague. Not only does this government value agriculture and the incredible role that farmers play and that other people involved in the agricultural sector play across the country, but we have continued to engage with the industry to ensure that we best respond to the needs that it faces, given the very challenging circumstances that we face right now in the world. We will continue to do that, and I will undertake to work with that member and to work with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary, to make sure that the member's views are considered in the larger lens of our agricultural policy.

Mr. Speaker, I do not share the pessimistic outlook of my colleague on this issue or others. I do believe that we want to make sure every young person in this country has the chance to find gainful employment, because young people are the drivers of Canada's future economic growth, and everybody has a right to live in this country with opportunities. I want to talk about some of the opportunities that we are providing right now. For example, a career often starts with a summer job. Since 2019, the Canada summer jobs program has helped more than 600,000 young people find a summer job. Over 75,000 of those jobs were created last year, and up to 100,000 opportunities will be available for young people this summer. All told, we are supporting over 175,000 opportunities for youth and students this year under the student work placement program and the youth employment and skills strategy, which includes Canada summer jobs. We need to make sure we support young people getting into our skilled trades. I was the parliamentary secretary for labour a few years ago, and one of the most important things we all know is that we need to build more homes and build more transmission lines to power AI. We will be building ports, rail and pipelines to move critical minerals. We cannot do that if we do not have electricians, carpenters, plumbers and bricklayers. We also need millwrights and many more tradespeople, and we need them right now. This is where an enormous opportunity lies for many young Canadians. We are investing nearly $1 billion annually in apprenticeship support through loans, tax credits, employment insurance benefits during in-school training, project funding and support for the Red Seal Program. In November, when we presented budget 2025, we updated the government's plan to make a generational investment in young Canadians, prepare them for good jobs and renew Canada's workforce. To train the newest generation of Canadian builders, budget 2025 expanded the union training and innovation program with $75 million over three years. This will boost union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades and make sure there are Canadian workers to help build major infrastructure and millions more homes across the country. Since 2017, the union training and innovation program has invested $278 million to modernize training equipment, strengthen union training centres across the country and support skilled trades training opportunities for more than 173,800 individuals. This is a critical time, but Canadians are meeting this moment with strength and conviction, and the Government of Canada is looking right now to help Canadians unlock Canada's economic potential. Through 2033, over eight million jobs will become available in Canada, and we are taking action to make sure that people get these jobs and that young people are prepared to meet the demand.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the new government has changed many policies, starting with eliminating the consumer carbon tax, which is one of the things the member asked for; building projects across this country; unleashing our potential; and removing economic barriers between provinces. The government is actually constantly listening, looking, and seeking new information and ideas, including ones that come from the other side of the House. Therefore, we are in agreement. We want young people to have opportunity. We think the plan that we started with in budget 2025 is working and is going to continue to work. Let us try to work together to make sure our young people have those opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I get up to speak to a bill that I think we absolutely need to send to committee. We are already very tardy on lawful access. As my fellow parliamentary secretary mentioned just a moment ago, all of our other Five Eyes partners and all of our other G7 partners have modernized laws with respect to lawful access. Our government entered office with a couple of main priorities. One of them was being laser-focused on the economy and one of them was instilling a sense of safety in Canadians. In order to instill a sense of safety, we need to make sure that police, CSIS and all of our security community stakeholders have the effective tools they need in order to confront organized crime, threats of terrorism, interference from abroad and all of the other modern threats that exist in today's digital age, which did not exist 20 years ago. That might have been done with the combatting hate act that was just adopted through the House and is now before the Senate. It would give police the tools they asked for to better combat hate. It was done through a bill we adopted with a significant majority to deal with making it harder for dangerous criminals and repeat offenders to get bail. It is being done with respect to a bill we are now debating at the justice committee that talks about intimate partner violence, femicide and images that are being shared. It is also being done through making sure that police have the necessary tools to deal with threats that are coming across our networks. I used to have the privilege, before I was elected, of being the general counsel and chief administrative officer of a tech company. I frequently dealt with Internet service providers and telcos. This bill deals with solving the issues we are now having with respect to getting information from telcos and ISPs. That is the core of the bill. The bill has three parts. I want to talk about the first part of the bill, the core of the bill, which deals with the new measures to help law enforcement deal with obtaining information and combatting crime in the digital age. The first issue we need to confront is how law enforcement find out which telco or ISP has the needed information for them to then ask for a warrant to obtain more detailed information. The law that we now have, after the Supreme Court case of R. v. Spencer in 2014, means that telecommunications providers are generally only providing information once a court order is obtained. However, if law enforcement cannot figure out which telco has the phone number, the ISP address or the email that is tied to the potential violation or the feared violation of the Criminal Code, then they are stuck in limbo because they need to know who to go to, and have the reasonable grounds to go there, before they can get a court order. In this bill, we created an amendment called the confirmation of service demand. It basically says that law enforcement can fill out this form and the service provider will have to answer if they are, for example, the provider of a specific number or email address. All that would be provided is a very rudimentary list of things to identify whether they have this information or not. That could be the address associated with the account, the email address, the telephone number, the amount of time the service has been going on and the type of service they provide. There would be no detailed information given without a court order, but this would resolve the issue from the R. v. Spencer case which made it inordinately complex, in my view, to get basic information from a telco. When I was young, there was something called the White Pages and the Yellow Pages. We could find everyone's telephone numbers, addresses and names there. If the police was looking for a telephone number, they could find it in a phone book. Those no longer exist now, with the advent of cellphones. Perhaps they still exist somewhere, but they are rarely used. I would not even know where to find one. I know that we can find information in the online 411 service. If the information is in the public domain, it is not necessary to go to court to get an order to access it, because it is already available online. We had another judgment of the court that made it confusing as to whether an Internet service provider or a telco could provide information that was available in the public domain without a court order or whether the police could use information that was in the public domain without a court order. There was also confusion as to what would happen if a good Samaritan, a company or anyone voluntarily offered law enforcement information that would touch, for example, what the billing address of a phone number was that was thought to be behind, for example, fraud. We have all of these people who call us all the time in this country who are attempting to defraud us. I do not know how many times I have been called by Windows, not Microsoft, but Windows, with somebody telling me that my computer was broken, and I should give them my password for them to fix it. They are calling from a phone number and are attempting to defraud me. That same phone number has a senior scam where they call seniors and say it is their grandson or their granddaughter. They say they have been in an accident and need the grandparent to give them money, but no, no, no, they should not tell anyone else in the family. I have heard from many people who have experienced this grandparents scam. They should be able, if somebody has that information, to give it to police. If the company, the telco, wilfully gives the information to police without a court order, the police should be allowed to use it. This bill clarifies that they can. It would also allow us to deal with information, such as phone numbers, email addresses and other information, that may be located abroad. I would imagine that many different telephone numbers and email addresses are used to contact Canadians from abroad. We know that a lot of fraud happens in India, including many fraudulent calls directed at Canada. There are also attacks originating from Russia. Until now, it has been very difficult to obtain information from a foreign country under the law. The bill will give us that power and will enable other countries to request information from Canadian courts in a more equitable and fair way. If, for example, France is the victim of fraud committed by a number or person in Canada, then we should also help France obtain information. This is a very good start, in my opinion. This bill would also clarify the issue of the police's right to use information in the event of an emergency. For example, if there is a terrorist attack, we certainly do not want police to have to get a court order to obtain the information they need to attempt to thwart a terrorist attack on Canada or a cybersecurity threat. These matters are all dealt with in the bill. One of the things I think we have pretty much unanimous agreement on, from all the recognized parties in the House, is that this should go to committee to be studied properly by a parliamentary committee. I think everyone agrees that a committee should examine this bill, hear from witnesses and determine whether amendments are needed. It is very important to give our law enforcement and security agencies the tools they need. I will wrap up, and I welcome any questions from colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply reject the premise of literally everything the hon. member said. The Prime Minister was elected with a new government last April, and that was Canadians' choice, whether the hon. member accepts it or does not accept it, likes it or does not like it, likes the fact that we have a majority or does not like the fact that we have a majority. We all should be working together to combat crime. Combatting crime is a really serious issue for Canadians across this country. It is something that I think we generally agree with across parties, and we should be working together, not insulting one another on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we should invite those groups to testify in committee. We should invite the Barreau du Québec, the chambers of commerce and anyone who can tell us about the work that entrepreneurs in Quebec have done to adapt their privacy practices. In my previous job, I noticed that, even though the laws vary from place to place around the world, companies always find a way to adapt. Of course, I do not think that we should make people do redundant work to achieve what is essentially the same outcome, but I think that is something that can be sorted out in committee.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, one of the focuses of the government is crime. It is not only crime, but also making sure all Canadians have a sense of safety. People need not only to feel safe, but also to be safe. That is why we brought forward a robust number of crime bills and worked with the public safety critic of the official opposition on private members' bills, which add to the list of bills. I think this is something that all members of all parties agree on. We all pretty much agree.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I believe there are exceptions in Bill 25. They have to do with the personal information that can be requested by the police if there are threats or if there is a real reason to believe that someone is violating the Criminal Code. I want to be sure I understand my colleague. Do we agree that the best way forward is to pass the bill at second reading, study it in committee and hear Quebec groups talk about what they have done and what they think about it?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, especially for his personal story about what happened to him in 2015. As he said, nomination contests frequently, for certain parties in certain regions, choose the person who is almost certainly going to win the seat. I understand what happened in these contests, and I understand the concern, as a result, about having permanent residents participate in the process, but it sounds like in the 2015 nomination there were people other than citizens and permanent residents falsely participating in the process. Can the member envisage a way where permanent residents can continue to participate and we can better protect the system from people who do not have that status?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation. Before I begin, I want to congratulate the previous speaker on having referred to himself by his name more than I have ever heard any other member of Parliament do in any speech, ever. I congratulate him on that. I am going to be dealing largely with foreign interference. Before I do, I just want to say that I strongly support the strong and free elections act going to committee. There is nothing more important in our society, in a democratic western nation, than having the ability to vote and choose our representatives. I agree with what the previous speaker said. People vote and choose a person to represent them here in Ottawa, and that person, each and every one of us, is accountable to our electors for the decisions we make during the course of our term. The bill makes it far more sure that people are going to be voting based on real information, not misleading information, not deepfakes and not false information coming from foreign sources. To me, what is most important is that our elections remain free, fair, transparent and impartial. That is the bedrock of our system. When Canadians step up to the ballot box, they quite reasonably expect to cast their vote without interference, manipulation or threats from inside or outside the country. Across the world, however, election threats continue to grow through sophisticated disinformation campaigns, new kinds of foreign interference and digital security attacks, while technology continues to evolve quickly and bad actors switch up their interference tactics. Canada is not immune to these global realities. While we are fortunate to have a strong and resilient electoral process supported by the trust of Canadians, we must not take that trust for granted. To maintain that trust, we have a responsibility to adapt and strengthen our electoral safeguards by ensuring that our system remains prepared to defend itself against new and emerging threats in a constantly changing world. With the introduction of this bill, the Government of Canada is taking decisive action to achieve this. This bill takes a forward-looking, evidence-based approach to address the vulnerabilities identified by the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada Elections. The bill aims to improve existing safeguards for our electoral system and introduce new ones so that Canadians can continue to have confidence in the fairness and transparency of our federal elections. More specifically, this bill recognizes two fundamental truths about modern elections. The first is that democracy must be protected at all times, not just during election periods. The second is that threats to democracy are not confined by geographical borders. The bill tackles these challenges head-on by applying existing and new electoral safeguards at all times, not just during elections, and by ensuring that these safeguards apply wherever in the world such breaches may occur. In order to ensure that Canadian elections are protected year-round, not only during the formal election period, the strong and free elections act would apply at all times. This would include current rules against undue foreign influence, specifically attempts by foreign individuals or organizations to influence someone's vote or prevent them from voting at all. Additionally, the ban against offering or accepting a bribe to influence someone's vote, as well as against misleading publications falsely pretending to be from trusted electoral voices in order to mislead voters, would no longer to limited to the election period. Furthermore, using a broadcasting station outside Canada to influence whether or not an elector votes during an election, and the candidate or registered party they vote for, would also be prohibited at all times. Together, these measures would help Canada assume a proactive posture, protecting electors and the integrity and fairness of our elections throughout the year, not only once an election is called. Importantly, these measures would also come into force immediately upon royal assent so Canadians could benefit from these additional protections as soon as possible. As I said before, threats to our democracy can occur at any time, but they can also occur from anywhere in the world. Indeed, aided in part by increasingly inexpensive, sophisticated and easy-to-use technology, malicious actors are not limited by international borders when seeking to undermine confidence in or affect the outcomes of our elections. The bill would ensure that six new and enhanced rules under the Canada Elections Act would also apply outside Canada. This includes prohibitions against obstruction of the electoral process or an investigation, impersonation, misleading publications, false statements regarding election activities in the voting process, and the unauthorized use of a computer. There would also be new protections for nomination and leadership contests. Beginning with the issue of obstruction, let me explain further. Under the bill, the prohibition against obstructing the electoral process or obstructing an investigation would apply equally inside and outside Canada, instead of just in Canada as is currently the case. Similarly, the current prohibition against impersonating certain electoral actors would apply outside Canada, as would the ban against misleading publications falsely pretending to be from trusted electoral actors. Recognizing the severe harm that may be caused by the intentional spread of false or misleading information, the bill would ensure that knowingly making false statements about election activities and the voting process to disrupt the conduct or results of an election would apply, even if the contravention occurs outside Canada. This includes statements someone might make that they know to be untrue but that they spread anyway in order to affect the conduct or results of an election, such as intentional falsehoods regarding who may vote in the election, for example telling people they cannot vote unless they are aged 35 or over; about the voting registration process, such as falsely telling people they cannot register from outside the country even if they are Canadian citizens; when, where, and how to vote, and we have all seen text messages where people have sent information saying that people are supposed to vote in false locations; who an individual can vote for, for example text messages saying that people are required to vote for a certain candidate; the process to become a candidate; how votes are validated and counted; or, of course, the results of an election. As is currently the case under the Canada Elections Act, good-faith arguments, opinions or honest mistakes would not be captured by the measures. Additionally, the existing prohibition against the unauthorized use of a computer to affect the results of an election by intercepting information or hacking into a system would also apply to efforts to use a computer to disrupt the conduct of an election inside and outside Canada. Finally, the bill would apply key protections that help keep our elections and electoral participants safe and secure in nomination contests and leadership contests, recognizing these contests as important democratic events within our broader electoral process. These key protections would include bans against foreign individuals or organizations improperly influencing how or whether someone votes in a contest, offering or accepting a bribe to influence how or whether someone votes in a contest, publishing misleading information falsely claiming to be from a nomination or leadership contest, using deepfakes, and using a computer system to interfere with the conduct or results of a contest. There is nothing more important than electoral law when we talk about all parties working together. No changes to our process should ever be made if there is not a real consensus in the House of Commons and the Senate. This is where, more than ever, we need to come together at committee, with targeted amendments as needed, to make sure we can all agree on what the best way forward is to keep our system as free and as fair as possible.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains targeted changes based on recommendations made over the past few years by the various commissions and by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. Personally, I believe that tax credits are a good way to encourage contributions and empower political parties. Having said that, I also believe that the study of this bill in committee will be an opportunity to propose amendments and have discussions on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy birthday to the members' friends. It was a very interesting use of the question. I see nothing worse in society than when members of Parliament, members of the Senate, elected officials or people with roles of responsibility attack the norms of our society, as we see happening around the world. We all have to have trust in our institutions. At the very least, we should all agree that we have trust in our institutions and in our elections. All the bill could do is criminalize and create civil penalties for people who engage in this misconduct, but we all need to agree that the behaviour needs to be condemned by each and every one of us and by each and every political party, because if Canadian people do not have faith in our own system, we are lost as a country.