Bardish Chagger

Mr. Speaker, petition e-7341 was initiated by a constituent in the riding of Waterloo. With almost 45 online signatures, the petitioners are raising concerns regarding the prolonged security screen delays of applicants residing in Canada with valid immigration status. I have spoken with many of these constituents and have heard a range of perspectives. Constituents agree that we cannot compromise the security and safety of Canadians, which is why the petitioners are asking the House of Commons to request the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study immigration security screening delays to review whether existing resources are sufficient, examine the accountability mechanisms for timely security screenings, evaluate the use of a risk-based triage system and consider independent oversight or audits from officers who report Parliament. The petitioners have shared with numerous MPs their personal experiences, and they are reiterating those through my presenting this petition on their behalf.

Madam Speaker, I listen to the debates in the House, and I know that the Bloc Québécois likes to say that there is always one Liberal member who asks questions. There will be several of us today, because I really appreciated that speech. I think that here in the House, we have the opportunity to work together. It is easy to say that we have support or that we do not, but I think that what makes a difference is providing constructive feedback. I would like the member to tell me how we can work better together and how we can ensure that we represent our constituents better in the House, because that is what my constituents in Waterloo want. I want to find ways to work together, and I think that is also the Prime Minister's approach.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing the comments the member was able to share. Today I have been listening to the debate in this place, and it has been interesting to hear the different perspectives on what this legislation does. I would just like to hear, in simple terms for Canadians who are watching, what the value of this legislation is. What does it do? How will it benefit Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back representing the good constituents of the riding of Waterloo and to be having this really important debate. Similar legislation was introduced in a previous Parliament but unfortunately did not come to fruition. We know there are many communities looking to advance legislation such as this. It is good to hear the goodwill on the opposition side in wanting to see this legislation advance, and I hope to see that done quickly, because if we want to see implementation and action, passing this legislation is definitely an important step. I would ask if the minister could please tell us who was part of the co-development of this act. Were others engaged in this process? That is something that constituents in the riding of Waterloo are asking. They are also asking how the commissioner would be chosen. Any insight from the minister would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister reminding us what this bill is about. It is about working with provinces and territories and providing them with the levers to help Canadians. Even on a bill so simple, we hear the opposition talking about the importance of having debate and conversation. Anybody who has been observing committees has seen, whenever the opposition has an expert, a witness or a minister present, its members are busy talking about their pets, including all the way up to elephants. It is interesting, because when the Conservatives have the opportunity to ask questions, to scrutinize and to actually be an effective opposition, they choose to spend time talking about anything but the legislation or what is in front of them. We see it here in the House as well. When people want us to work, when Canadians are hurting and want us to serve, the Conservatives cannot fathom the government succeeding in doing well for Canadians. They would rather keep advancing their narrative than help their own constituents, neighbours and fellow Canadians. I would like to hear this from the minister: Why is it important that we get this legislation done, and what do we see as the potential outcomes? Why is it important that the government be able to deliver for Canadians?

Madam Speaker, I find some of the comments from the official opposition interesting, especially when comments are made that 30 hours of debate is not enough. I agree that we want to raise different perspectives. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo have a diversity of perspectives. They want to hear us having meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Commons, as well as in committee, but they also remind me that we are not just here to talk things out and to debate. We need to make decisions. Canadians made a decision to send the Liberal government to Ottawa to govern the country and respond to the challenges we are facing. Can the secretary of state just reaffirm the importance of making decisions and calling the question on votes so we can be productive? The opposition has the ability to ensure that members can be heard, but they refuse to share how many members want to speak because they are derailing the conversation rather than staying focused. Why is it that these tools constantly need to be used?

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech, and I really appreciated the insights being provided. I think this is important legislation, and I personally believe the federal government has an important role to play when it comes to housing. In Waterloo, constituents have really appreciated the federal government stepping up and returning to the housing scene and having different levels of government working together. We have received some substantial investments from the federal government when it comes to increasing the affordable housing supply, a supply that will remain in our community for generations to come, with some of the most historic kinds of projects that we have not been able to dabble in before. I would like to hear the member's thoughts as to why the Conservatives are taking the approach that the federal government does not have a role to play. Why are they so concerned that the federal government will help Canadians and give them a hand? In the region of Waterloo, I have been asked by constituents about Conservative members voting against the bill, our legislation and our budget, yet when it comes to housing projects, the Conservatives offer these hollow letters of support for those projects. We know that in the past Conservative members were reprimanded for asking the minister of housing for support for their communities. Clearly, there are Conservative members who want to see the federal government support housing initiatives in their communities. I would like the member to build upon some of those comments. It is unfortunate that this is not the chorus that the whole Conservative Party is singing, but I am confident there are some Conservative members who are confident that the federal government has a role to play. What are the member's thoughts?

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the last exchange was interesting. We just received an example of a Conservative member's wanting more investment in housing and more affordable housing built, recognizing that his constituents need the federal government to play a role, yet rather than working with the government to ensure that we can have more successes for Canadians, the Conservatives would rather slow things down and have Canadians hurting. I find it fascinating, and we experienced this at committee yesterday as well, that the Conservative Party is going out of its way to almost amplify the hurt of Canadians rather than being part of the solution. That is probably why the Conservative Party remains the professional opposition: It actually does not want to be part of the solution. Could the parliamentary secretary please expand on the importance of the legislation, the federal government's role and how it would actually help the people like the ones the member for London—Fanshawe has just referred to? I have to say that I am starting to miss the previous member for London—Fanshawe, because I do believe she would have at least fought hard to ensure that the constituents were fought for, rather than standing in the way and hoping that they hurt. I want Canadians to succeed. I will fight for the people of Waterloo. I would like to hear the member's comments.

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments about really being there to meet Canadians with what they need and finding out ways to do it are not lost on me. Just last month, the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta stated in a press release that they are going to invest $323 million in affordable housing. There will be 41 projects in the province of Alberta. They will also build more than 70 new shelter spaces for Albertans in need. This press release, which was signed off on by both the Government of Alberta and the Canadian government, talks about Build Canada Homes. I would like to know if the member supports the 41 projects in here, including the projects in Red Deer, Lacombe, Calgary and Edmonton. The list goes on. Does he believe the federal government has a role to play—

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments the member shared. I know we do not have a lot of time before the next member speaks, so I would just ask the member to perhaps use this time to share with Canadians what the bill would do, so we can minimize the misinformation or disinformation out there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his work on this file and on the importance of bringing this issue forward. What we know is that the individuals were not always believed. Luckily, society is advancing, but there has just been a case in Ontario where 48 women came forward, and the judge had no problem suggesting that there was no credibility to any of their testimony. I would like to hear the member's comments on the work we need to do on how we ensure that survivors are believed, and that when they come forward, they receive the dignity and respect they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petition e-6898, a petition on social affairs and equality, initiated by Tanner Bergsma, a constituent of the riding of Waterloo. Petitioners recognize that there are benefits within the country, but they feel that these benefits do not go far enough for the challenges they are facing. Petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to establish a national living benefit to ensure that all Canadians with disabilities and seniors receive a guaranteed income above the official poverty line. They would like it to be indexed to inflation, and they want to also ensure that it is protected from provincial clawbacks.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments and the level of discourse and debate taking place on this legislation. We saw a Canadian from southwestern Ontario be part of the mission of people going the farthest that we have seen in our lifetime. It has been pretty impressive. It is really encouraging, and initiates the desire for the private sector to grow and for opportunities to grow, where academia meets the private sector and so forth. Is there anything else the member would like to expand on? I know that constituents in the riding of Waterloo are really looking forward to seeing this debate advance.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the semantics of whether it is a couple of pages long or a lot of pages long, but I am hearing that there is a need for Canada to be in this space. Is the member suggesting that not doing anything is the answer, or is he suggesting that perhaps we could find a way to move forward and make sure that Canada is part of this game?

Mr. Speaker, in Waterloo, UWaterloo grads are turning Canadian research into real-world solutions. KA Imaging's advanced X-ray technology is improving diagnostic accuracy, creating skilled jobs locally and helping clinicians make better decisions for patients. Its portable X-ray technology is being used in Canadian hospitals and globally in remote rural clinics in Kenya, Nigeria and 12 other export markets. Will the government share how we are supporting innovators like this in Waterloo, across Canada and around the world that are improving global health outcomes and saving lives of women and children?

Mr. Speaker, Team Dave is FRC Team 3683, the first robotics team at St. David Catholic Secondary School in Waterloo. Team Dave's participation in the first robotics competition is what gives the team its structure, intensity and connection, but what stands out is how they balance their competitive drive with their culture of helping others. When asked, Team Dave shared that the most meaningful part of their season was supporting fellow teams across the Waterloo Wellington community. I have seen it. Team Dave showcases the best of Waterloo and Canada. Team Dave is not just a team that builds robots. It is a competitive engineering program, a training ground for real-world problem-solving, a node in a global robotics network and an environment that develops both soft and hard skills. In March, Team Dave won the Canadian Pacific Regional in Vancouver, B.C. I congratulate Team Dave. We look forward to seeing what comes next. We thank the sponsors, mentors, parents, teachers and supporters who never cease supporting Team Dave. I wish the team a happy sweet 16.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to conclude the second reading of Bill S-211, an act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising. I would like to begin by thanking the constituents of my riding, Waterloo, as well as all those across Canada who are confirming the importance of this debate from coast to coast to coast. Like many of my colleagues, I have heard and responded to many Canadians regarding the high volume of sports betting advertising, which is frankly destroying the simple joy of watching sports. As a reminder, this bill has been formally joint-seconded by members stretching across three political parties, who represent ridings from seven different provinces and one territory. This demonstrates sports betting advertising not as a partisan issue, but rather as a growing issue of concern that we need to address. At the very least, the health and safety of Canadians is an area of shared jurisdiction. I invite my colleagues to support sending Bill S‑211 to committee so we can determine the appropriate role that the federal government can play while taking jurisdictional concerns into account. While some provinces have been taking appropriate steps to combat the growing harms of sports betting and its advertising, overall their approaches have been fragmented, which has created gaps for abuse and the growth of illegal markets and addiction. We must all be able to agree that we need to rid our society of these issues. We have an opportunity to work together to determine the best approach, and committee is a great avenue for this. It has now been five years since single-game sports betting was legalized in Canada. In this short time, the data is already showing drastic results. I recognize that all levels of government and all jurisdictions have a role to play. This Senate public bill that I have sponsored in the House aims to determine the federal government's role. We all know that the health and safety of Canadian people is a top priority for all governments, which confirms that the Government of Canada needs to take seriously a national framework on sports betting advertising by working with provincial governments, public health agencies, experts, the private sector, people with lived experiences, and so forth. As we come to the end of second reading debate on Bill S-211, it is important to finish by reminding ourselves where the bill came from. Bill S-211 was reinvigorated by Senator Marty Deacon, a Canadian from Waterloo who has coached and led teams from the grassroots to the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games and the Pan American Games. She, like many members of the House, has witnessed first-hand what the power of sport and the opportunity of sport can be. I thank her for her leadership. I also want to thank all my colleagues who worked on Bill S‑211 in the hallways, by email and in the House. I want to thank the member for Peace River—Westlock, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the member for Hamilton Mountain, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Northumberland—Clarke, who all spoke to Bill S‑211 in the first hour of debate on this bill at second reading in February of this year. I also thank the member of Parliament for Drummond, the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, the member for Saskatoon South, the member for Compton—Stanstead and the member for Kitchener Centre, who spoke this evening to conclude Bill S-211's second reading. The calibre of debate has really demonstrated the best of this place. It shows and proves that respectful debate and dialogue is possible. I call on all colleagues to move Bill S-211 forward to committee so proper conversation and scrutiny can take place on the correct path forward and to ensure that there are suitable parameters around sports betting advertising in Canada so we can return to the joy of watching sports with our loved ones. I would be fine with passing the bill on division, but I know there are members who want to stand in this place in support of or in opposition to the bill, so later on I will be asking for a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the reminder of how the Conservatives do tend to bring about their convenience. It is more like the “do as I say, not as I do” Conservative Party. We really do not necessarily know where they stand. Sometimes their own members are confused. I would like to hear from the member, just to bring the constituents of the riding of Waterloo up to speed, what we are debating today and perhaps what took place.

Mr. Speaker, dozens of constituents from the riding of Waterloo have signed the petition I am presenting, and many of these applicants have lived in Canada for several years, maintaining lawful status, contributing to the economy and the research sector, and repeatedly passing previous security verifications. Many of these constituents are actually Iranian nationals holding Canadian masters degrees and Ph.D.s. The petitioners are raising to the Government of Canada that they feel and believe that the security screening process is disproportionately unfair for people who come from certain parts of the world, so they would like to bring this matter to the government's attention. The petitioners make the point that they have been here for an extended period of time, sometimes even 10 to 15 years, before they are invited to apply for the provincial nominee program to have permanent residence. They would like the Government of Canada to look into this process and the scrutiny under the security process. They want Canada to be safe, but they also want to have a fair chance to be able to establish themselves and to continue contributing to the Canadian economy as Canadian citizens.