Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want Canada to build. They want more housing and energy infrastructure, stronger ports, better transportation corridors, and major projects that create jobs and expand our trade. Therefore, the question before Parliament is not whether Canada should build, but whether Bill C-39 fixes the problems that are preventing Canada from building. That brings me to this basic question: What happened to Bill C-5? Just over a year ago, Parliament passed the One Canadian Economy Act. Bill C-5 created the Building Canada Act to accelerate projects of national interest and provide a more coordinated and predictable federal approval process. The Liberals also created the Major Projects Office as a central point of contact. At the time, the Liberals told Canadians that this framework would streamline approvals, reduce duplications and move major projects forward faster, yet only a year later they are back with Bill C-39, another major bill, another new framework and another promise that this time they will get it right. That raises a fundamental question. If Canada is not building fast enough, is the problem a lack of legislation or the Liberals' failure to implement the legislation Parliament already passed? If the problem is bureaucratic coordination, then improve coordination. If the problem is insufficient resources, then provide the resources. If the problem is duplication, then remove it. If the existing legislation is outdated, repeal or consolidate it, rather than continually adding another layer. A new law does not magically solve an implementation problem; it simply papers over it. This is why timing matters. Parliament created a new framework only a year ago, with clear objectives, clear authorities and a dedicated Major Projects Office, yet after 12 months, only a few projects have been listed, and none have been approved. If the existing framework has not delivered results, Parliament deserves to know why. What coordination challenges remain? What duplications persist? Why would adding another major piece of legislation suddenly resolve delays that clearly stem from execution, not from the absence of statutory authority? Before creating a new framework, Parliament should insist on a clear explanation of why the existing one has not delivered the results Canadians were promised. That brings us to the one-year timeline, the centrepiece of the Liberals' argument for Bill C-39. At first glance, it sounds compelling. The Liberals say federal reviews and decisions would be completed within one year once all required information has been received. What happens when that year is not met? Is the project automatically approved? Does the government lose jurisdiction? Is there any consequence at all? The Liberals' own explanation make it clear that the clock begins only after the proponents submit comprehensive applications and finalize the required studies and information. Proponents may opt out of the timeline. Extensions and expansions may apply, including to complete indigenous consultations. There may be legitimate reasons for flexibility. Indigenous consultations cannot be rushed. Technical information cannot be ignored. Proponents may need additional time. That brings us to the core issue, which is accountability. If the timeline can be extended, suspended or opted out of, what makes one year a binding commitment rather than another Liberal talking point? If the goalpost can be removed and there is no consequence for missing the targets, who is accountable? Who explains the delay: the department, the regulator, the minister or the lead assessor? Would Canadians be able to see how often timelines are extended or suspended and for how long? A one-year target can be useful, but it must be accompanied by transparency and accountability. Otherwise, it is simply another promise without enforcement. Ports illustrate the border problem. Canada's trade strategy depends on moving goods efficiently from producers to international markets. The Liberals say transportation infrastructure faces overlapping requirements, duplicative process and lengthy timelines. Bill C-39 proposed changes to improve trade corridors and modernize port governance. These are significant proposals. Canada already has the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, Canada port authorities and the national trade corridors fund. Now Canada has the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office. If those tools are not producing timely results, then the problem is not legislative gaps; it is operational bottlenecks that Bill C-39 does not directly address. Consider the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project in B.C. It underwent more than a decade of federal assessments. Its impact assessment was completed in 2023. It has been referred to the Major Projects Office, and yet it is still sitting there. Parliament should ask precisely what Bill C-39 will change for a project like this. Will it eliminate duplication? Will it coordinate the remaining permits? Will it establish clear responsibility? Will it produce a measurable timeline? Or, is it simply creating another layer of bureaucracy? A trade corridor is not just a port. It is the entire chain: the producer, the truck or rail connections, the terminal, the port, the vessel and, ultimately, the customer. If one part is slow, the entire corridor is slow. Parliament should support efforts to build faster, but building faster requires implementation, coordination and accountability, not simply more legislation. Two questions should guide our examination of Bill C-39. First, if the problem is implementation, why is another law the answer? Bill C-5 already created the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office to accelerate and coordinate major projects. Second, if the Liberals promise one-year decisions, what makes that a genuine commitment, if the timeline can be extended or suspended, and there is no consequence for missing it? Those are the questions Parliament should keep at the centre of the examination of Bill C-39. Canada needs major projects, efficient ports, reliable trade corridors, and a regulatory system that provides certainty to investors, communities and indigenous partners. Another law is not the solution if the problem is implementation. Canada does not need more layers of legislation; it needs results.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already explained, we need the right tools to address the right problems. If the problem was not moving faster enough, the problem may not be the lack of legislation; it could be a problem of implementation or inefficiency. Before we introduce more legislation, we have to answer the question to find out where the problem is. Is it implementation or is it a lack of another layer of bureaucracy?

Mr. Speaker, actually I am not in favour of doing away with all of that legislation. As I have pointed out in my speech, the legislation already exists. The Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the port authorities national trade corridors fund are already in place. I am not arguing that we should get rid of that legislation. I am just saying that, if that legislation is not put into good implementation, we should reveal the implementation first, instead of just rushing through another new build that promises a one-year timeline, which is not going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, it is just like the example of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project that I used in my speech. It has undergone more than a decade of federal assessment. The assessments were actually completed in 2023, and it is still sitting there. Again, the problem is not with legislation. We have the legislation to support the project. It takes the federal government more than a decade to complete the assessment, and even when it is completed, it is still there, so it is an efficiency problem. It is an implementation problem. It is not a legislative problem.

Mr Speaker, in Richmond, the RCMP says shoplifting has increased dramatically over the last five years. Some offenders were arrested twice in one day. This is Liberal catch-and-release in action, and Richmond small businesses and store clerks are paying the price. Liberals talk but deliver no results. Conservatives will lock up repeat offenders. When will the Liberals stand with law-abiding Canadians and repeal their reckless soft-on-crime policies?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑289, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make a related amendment to the Criminal Code. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my first private member's bill, the stopping supply to save lives act. I hope Canadians will come to know this as Emmy's legacy, in memory of Emmy Liu, a 14-year-old girl who lost her life to a fentanyl overdose in January 2025. Since her death, her mother has shown remarkable courage in advocating for stronger action against this deadly poison. Emmy had her whole life ahead of her. Instead, it was cut short because criminals sold her poison that had already killed tens of thousands of Canadians. In principle, those who profit from trafficking and producing large quantities of synthetic opioids should face serious consequences. Emmy's legacy can be more than a tragedy. It can be a call to strengthen penalties for the most serious drug offences and to protect Canadian families from experiencing the same loss. In honour of all of the lives lost, I ask all members of this House to support this legislation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express serious concerns with part 2 of Bill C‑22 and to oppose the motion in Government Business No. 13. Let me be clear from the outset: Conservatives believe that law enforcement must have modern tools to combat organized crime, fentanyl trafficking, child exploitation, terrorism and foreign interference in a digital age. These types of rampant criminality cannot go unattended. That is why Conservatives have taken a constructive approach to Bill C‑22 and have indicated that we are prepared to support part 1 of the bill, subject to several changes, clarifications and amendments, even though we recognize that part 1 is not perfect. In fact, Conservatives have repeatedly proposed at committee that the bill should be split, allowing part 1 to proceed, while part 2 undergoes more thorough study and scrutiny. Part 2 would create an entirely new framework governing electronic service providers and compelled assistance. It is this portion of the legislation that has attracted substantial criticism from privacy experts, constitutional experts, technology companies and civil liberties organizations. If the government believes those concerns are unfounded, then it should welcome scrutiny, not shut it down. When legislation grants new surveillance powers, expands access to personal information and creates new obligations for communication providers, Parliament has a duty to scrutinize those powers carefully, deliberately and transparently. That duty becomes even more important when respected legal, privacy, constitutional and technology experts continue to warn that significant concerns remain unresolved. However, instead of allowing Parliament to complete that scrutiny, the Liberal government has brought forward the motion to force this legislation through before Parliament has properly completed its work. That is precisely backwards. When respected experts continue to identify unresolved concerns, Parliament's responsibility is to examine those concerns, not to declare that the discussion is over. Throughout committee consideration of Bill C‑22, witness after witness identified concerns regarding privacy protections, judicial oversight, transparency and the impact on personal and business communications. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has stated that amendments remain necessary to strengthen privacy protections within the legislation. That alone should give Parliament pause before debate is cut short. The Privacy Commissioner was denied the opportunity to appear during clause-by-clause consideration, by Liberal members at the public safety and national security committee, despite being Canada's foremost independent authority on privacy rights. The Canadian Bar Association has also raised concerns regarding the legislation. In its submission on Bill C‑22, it warned that certain provisions expand state powers while reducing traditional safeguards and questioned whether the government had adequately demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of some of the measures being proposed. Those concerns deserve answers before debate is terminated. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has seemingly warned that aspects of Bill C‑22 raise significant constitutional and civil liberties concerns. It has argued that broad surveillance powers require proportionally strong safeguards, oversight and accountability measures. That principle should not be controversial. Throughout Canadian history, Parliament has recognized that extraordinary powers must be accompanied by extraordinary safeguards. Canadians expect no less. Researchers from The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto have also raised concerns regarding the scope and operation of certain powers contained in Bill C‑22. The Citizen Lab is internationally recognized as one of the world's leading research institutes on digital surveillance, cybersecurity and human rights. Its work has been cited by governments, courts, journalists and academics around the world. When researchers of that calibre identify concerns with surveillance legislation, Parliament should carefully examine those concerns rather than rush the bill through the legislative process. Even major technology companies and communications providers have expressed important concerns about the legislation. Their concerns are not about avoiding the law; they relate to whether legislation intended to improve public safety could inadvertently weaken cybersecurity, undermine encryption or create new vulnerabilities for law-abiding Canadians. Canadians deserve confidence that legislation intended to improve public safety would not inadvertently compromise digital security. This is where Government Business No. 13 becomes especially troubling. The government is effectively asking Parliament to conclude that the debate is finished, but the debate is not finished. In fact, it has barely begun. The Minister of Public Safety has changed his position on part 2. He began by resisting amendments, but after hearing the extensive evidence provided by the opposition and expert witnesses on why part 2 required amendments, he agreed that changes were necessary. However, by shutting down further clause-by-clause debate before we have even begun considering part 2, the government would be using the motion to effectively prevent the very amendments that the minister himself has acknowledged are necessary. With the proposed shutting down of further clause-by-clause debate, experts, industry and parliamentarians continue to raise concerns. The Liberal government is free to disagree with those concerns, but disagreement is not justification for shutting down parliamentary scrutiny. The purpose of Parliament is not to rubber-stamp legislation but to democratically challenge assumptions, test arguments, identify flaws and improve laws before they affect millions of Canadians. Government Business No. 13 would disregard democratic process and parliamentary responsibility. The Liberal government argues that the legislation is urgently needed because Canada has fallen behind in modernizing lawful-access authorities. The Liberal government has a long history of asking for extraordinary powers in the name of urgency. Parliament's responsibility is to determine whether those powers are truly necessary, proportionate and accountable, before they are granted, not after they have already been exercised. This is where scrutiny matters the most. Conservatives believe that Canadians deserve both security and freedom. Canadians can have effective law enforcement while safeguarding the constitutional rights that define our democracy. Public trust is essential, and it is strengthened when security measures are carefully designed, properly supervised and transparently justified. Public trust is weakened when governments appear eager to curtail debate before legitimate and constitutional concerns have been addressed.

Madam Speaker, with a bill that is so complex and complicated, we need time to understand it thoroughly and assess each portion of the bill so that we can address the concerns being raised and the questions being asked by the public and by professionals. I want to ask whether the member on the other side agrees that it is not democratic that we had not even had the chance to start debating clause-by-clause on part 2, and the government chose to shut down the discussion.

Madam Chair, I have to point out that we cannot replace necessity with convenience. It may be convenient for the government to shut down debate in the name of urgency or in the name of saving time. As I mentioned, with a bill that is so complex and sometimes difficult to understand thoroughly, we need the time to do thorough work. It is necessary. It is not just for the sake of convenience that we shut it down. I also want to point out that someone made a very interesting observation, which was that the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, all parties that are very different on the political spectrum, are united in opposing Bill C‑22. That is rare. With that kind of a situation, it is obvious that something is wrong. In this case, the Liberal government is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, CTV reported that seniors in Richmond Centre—Marpole are sleeping in Tim Hortons because they cannot afford a place to live, while the Prime Minister spends nearly $1 million on luxury catering in his taxpayer-funded aircraft. Canada is the only G20 country in recession. Canadians cannot afford food, rent or housing. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept the fact that his policies are failing Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is seeing a growing homeless senior population. Emergency shelters are overflowing, and seniors are saying that they do not feel safe staying in them. After working their entire lives, seniors surviving on a pension should not be sleeping in restaurants or searching for a safe place to spend the night. Canadians deserve better than this Liberal-made affordability crisis. Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies that created this crisis, so Canadians can afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by nearly 1,000 Canadians, mainly from my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole, who are concerned about mental health and about suicide prevention in Canada. The petitioners note that one in five Canadians experiences a mental health challenge each year, that many youth are affected and that suicide remains the second-leading cause of death among Canadians aged 15 to 34. They believe that people struggling with mental illness deserve treatment, support and a message of hope, not an option of death. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-218 to exclude mental illness from MAID, and to invest in critical resources in mental health services for Canadians. I thank the petitioners for bringing this important matter before Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, former prime minister Stephen Harper delivered in this House a historic apology and redress for the Chinese head tax. That was a defining moment in our country's reconciliation. It recognized a historic wrong and affirmed the great contributions of Chinese Canadians to Canada. From the railways that united our nation to the businesses, professions and communities that strengthen it today, Chinese Canadians have shaped our country's success for generations. Today, Chinese Canadians continue to excel in public service, entrepreneurship, academics and culture. That is why I have introduced Motion No. 32, which would designate June 22 as national Chinese Canadian contributions day and recognize June as Chinese Canadian contributions month. As we mark this important anniversary, let us honour the resilience, achievements and legacy of Chinese Canadians and ensure that their contributions continue to be recognized for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Airport Workers Day and to pay tribute to the thousands of dedicated workers who keep Canada's airports operating safely, efficiently and reliably every day. As the member of Parliament for Richmond Centre—Marpole, home to the Vancouver International Airport, I see first-hand the vital roles played by these workers in connecting our communities, supporting our economy and strengthening Canada's links to the world. They are the engineers, ground crews, security personnel, cargo handlers, maintenance staff, emergency responders and logistics professionals whose hard work often takes place behind the scenes. Last year, YVR welcomed a record 26.9 million passengers and handled over 365,000 tonnes of goods. These achievements are a testimony to the professionalism, dedication and excellence of airport workers. On June 25, national Airport Workers Day, let us thank them and recognize their outstanding service and contributions across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we learned that Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession. Our economy contracted both in the last quarter of 2025 and in the first quarter of 2026, which is two straight quarters of negative growth. This happened because the Liberal Prime Minister raised industrial carbon taxes, kept antidevelopment laws in place and doubled Justin Trudeau's deficits. Every other G7 country faces the same tariffs and global challenges, yet none are in a recession. It is only Canada. The Prime Minister is now the only G7 leader to push his country into recession. The Conservatives would cut taxes, repeal antidevelopment laws, control spending and restore growth and investment to Canada's economy. It is time for the Liberals to realize their policies have failed and to change course.

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government must reject the CRTC's massive increase imposed on our online streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV, an increase sometimes referred to as the “Netflix tax.” The government may try to frame this as a technical broadcasting adjustment, but Canadians know what it really means. It means higher costs and another blow to affordability at a time when families are already struggling. The government could not even contain itself from taxing at-home leisure. The CRTC has now increased the required contribution from major streaming services from 5% to 15% of Canadian revenues, tripling the burden imposed on these companies. The 15% levy now places Canada among the most expensive countries in the world for streaming services to operate in. Let us be honest, business and Canadians do not operate alone or in a vacuum. When the Liberal government increases costs, those costs do not simply disappear. They erode the quality of leisure for hard-working Canadians. The Liberal government will, of course, avoid answering a very simple economic question: Who ultimately pays for this massive increase in costs? There are only two possible outcomes. Either streaming platforms decide Canada is becoming too expensive and not worth investing in, or they pass the high costs directly on to Canadian consumers. In both cases, Canadians lose. If productions move elsewhere, Canada loses jobs, investment and economic activity. This industry is highly mobile. Streaming companies can produce content almost anywhere in the world. Governments everywhere are competing aggressively to attract these productions, because they generate high-quality jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity. Why is the government increasing costs at a time when Canada is already struggling to attract investment? Canada already has a growing reputation internationally for being expensive, over-regulated and increasingly difficult to do business in. We have already seen capital leaving sectors such as energy, manufacturing and resource development. This policy discourages investment in Canada and is particularly damaging for major film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto. If the government believes companies will simply pass the costs on to consumers, then let us call the policy what it really is, which is an indirect tax on Canadians. The Liberals may insist this is not technically a tax because the money does not flow directly into government revenue, but if government policy deliberately increases costs for companies and companies then raise prices for consumers, the effect on Canadians is exactly the same: Families pay more. Whether it appears on a tax form or on a monthly streaming bill, it is still more money coming out of the pockets of Canadians during a cost of living crisis. The Liberals may argue that the increase per household is small, but Canadians are tired of being told every increase is small. A few dollars more for streaming, a few dollars more for groceries, a few dollars more for fuel and a few dollars more for utilities, and eventually, those small increases become a major burden for families already living paycheque to paycheque. The total amount involved is not small. Reports indicate the new framework could extract hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually from the Canadian market, potentially approaching $600 million overall in contribution obligations. That is money Canadians could otherwise spend in the broader economy. That money could go toward groceries, restaurants, children's clothing, mortgage payments or supporting small businesses. Instead, the Liberals are squeezing more money out of consumers during a cost of living crisis. While the government talks about supporting industry, these platforms are already major contributors to the Canadian economy. Netflix alone has stated that, between 2021 and 2024, its activities generated approximately $6.5 billion in economic impact in Canada. These productions support thousands of jobs: camera operators, editors, visual effects artists, drivers, construction workers, caterers and countless small businesses connected to film production. This is especially important for major urban centres, such as Vancouver and Toronto, where the screen production industry has become a major economic engine. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver, creating more than 450 jobs in the city and bringing significant investment into British Columbia. This issue matters deeply to my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond and the broader Metro Vancouver region are directly connected to British Columbia's growing film and streaming industry. Many residents in my community work directly or indirectly in these sectors. In Richmond alone, filming activities take place almost every day of the year. When productions expand, jobs are created. When investments slow, local workers and businesses feel the consequences. Conservatives believe Canada should be a country that attracts investment, rewards innovation and creates jobs. However, once again, the Liberals are moving in the opposite direction. Every time a sector becomes successful, this government seeks another opportunity to impose higher costs and heavier regulations. At a time when Canada desperately needs economic growth, productivity and investor confidence, this government is making Canada less competitive. Canadians are the ones who will pay the price, through fewer jobs, less investment or higher monthly bills. This increase is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Canadians deserve affordability. Canadians deserve economic opportunity. Canadians deserve a government that understands growth cannot come from squeezing more money out of consumers and businesses. Conservatives will continue standing up for affordability, investment, jobs and common sense.

Mr. Speaker, let us see who is sidestepping here. From 2021 up to now, we have seen numerous occasions where the government intervened with decisions made by the CRTC. Now the Liberals are trying to hide behind the argument that the CRTC is an arm's-length organization. Let us be clear. We are not talking about the CRTC's mandate here today. We are talking about affordability and the burden on the people with this increase in levy. Let me ask a simple question: Does the government agree that this increase would impose an additional burden on the people? Also, will the government support this additional burden on the people?

Mr. Speaker, I think my city and his riding are in a similar situation. We have a growing film industry, and we are creating jobs and economic activities in our community, which is very beneficial to people. I think we have to keep this economic growth going. If this kind of levy is imposed on companies creating jobs for our communities, I think it will hurt people. We have to safeguard and encourage the film industry, and not have it destroyed by this kind of additional cost for businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments that my Bloc colleague made earlier that the Liberals are a major threat to the cultural sector in Canada. Imposing that kind of levy with an increase is not going to make the cultural sector stronger. Also, I believe we are focusing too much on Trump. We are talking about our own production and our own film industry in our country. Very often, Trump is being used as an excuse or as a defence, which again sidesteps the issue. We have to encourage investments coming into our country for the cultural sector, so that those investments and their efficiency through competition will make Canada's culture be more widely broadcast, not by government intervention, but by the market economy.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal housing minister accused Conservatives of fearmongering over the Cowichan ruling, but the impact is already real and immediate. According to expert reports in March, Richmond property value could fall by 40% because of uncertainty created by the government. Families, homeowners and businesses are worried, yet the Liberals remain in denial, denying the impact and denying that their litigation directive was a mistake. When will the government wake up and restore certainty for homeowners?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are in denial. Canadians are demanding certainty, yet the Liberal government continues to leave homeowners, businesses, farmers and municipalities in limbo after the Cowichan decision. Conservatives have put forth a motion that would compel the government to replace litigation guideline 14, put private property first in the Cowichan case, secure fee simple property protection in future agreements and publish a plan to protect Canadians' land titles. Will the Liberal government finally stand with homeowners and vote for our Conservative motion to protect private property rights in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, shoplifting is no longer a petty crime. It is becoming a growing crisis, affecting public safety, affordability and confidence in our justice system. Across Canada, police have reported that shoplifting has increased by 66% over the past decade, with annual losses at nearly $10 billion. In Richmond, police recorded more than 1,700 shoplifting cases last year. In the first two months of this year, reports surged another 70%. Businesses are spending more on insurance and security instead of spending on growth. Retail workers face intimidation and unsafe conditions. Consumers are paying the price through higher costs. Canadians feel abandoned by a system where repeat offenders are arrested, released and soon back in the very same stores again. People are left asking how much worse this crisis must become before meaningful action is finally taken by the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says it disagrees with the Cowichan ruling, but Canadians still do not know what exactly the Liberals disagree with. Which part of the ruling are they appealing? On what legal basis does the government believe that private property ownership can coexist with aboriginal title? Homeowners, municipalities and business owners deserve clarity. Why are the Liberals refusing to give Canadians certainty?

Mr. Speaker, for eight months, British Columbians have been left with silence: silence after a court ruling that raised serious questions about the certainty of private property rights in Canada; silence after repeated concerns from homeowners, businesses, municipalities and investors; silence after Richmond city council sent letters asking the government for clarity; and silence after Canadians asked the very simple question of whether the Liberal government still believes in defending the legal foundations of private property rights in Canada. After all that silence, when the Prime Minister finally addressed the issue in the House, Canadians did not get answers. They got talking points, attacks and accusations of fearmongering, but they still did not get clarity, so let us put some facts on the record. First, despite what the Prime Minister claimed in the House, the Liberal government did not immediately appeal the Cowichan ruling. It waited until the very last possible moment before filing its appeal, long after the Province of British Columbia and the City of Richmond did, which is a clear distinction in willingness to stand up for Canadians. If the Liberals truly believed the ruling created no uncertainty, why did it wait until the deadline had nearly expired? Second, throughout this entire controversy, the government has offered no meaningful public explanation of the ruling and no substantive public statement on the implications for homeowners, businesses, municipalities, lenders or investors. Eight months passed before Canadians even heard a serious acknowledgement from the Prime Minister. Third, Richmond city council repeatedly attempted to engage with the Liberal government. It wrote letters seeking clarity on the implications of the Cowichan and Musqueam agreements and the border concerns surrounding land title certainty and federal litigation policy. These are not just fringe concerns. Homeowners cannot renew their mortgage. The concerns came from elected municipal leaders representing one of the most economically significant communities in British Columbia. What did they receive? It was silence. There was no meaningful engagement, no public reassurance and no detailed explanation. Fourth, when Conservatives ask questions in committees and in the House, the government consistently provides vague and ambiguous answers. They hide behind legal technicalities. They avoid direct responses. They narrow every answer to procedural language instead of addressing the border issues Canadians were actually worried about: whether the government was weakening the legal foundations that underpin private ownership in Canada. That is not the level of clarity that business owners and investors must depend on. Finally, when the Prime Minister did speak, after months of pressure, he still refused to provide the one assurance Canadians were looking for. He would not clearly commit to withdrawing the 2019 directive's litigation guideline 14, which effectively sent its own lawyers into court with one hand tied behind their back. Let us be absolutely clear: The central issue in this litigation is that the federal government, through litigation guideline 14, instructed its lawyers to restrict their arguments regarding the supremacy and extinguishment effect of fee simple rights. This directive was issued in the middle of ongoing litigation and represented a clear change of course in the government's line of argument. Rather than fully defending the certainty and finality of private property rights, the government deliberately narrowed the arguments available to its own counsel, creating uncertainty with potentially far-reaching consequences for property owners across Canada. That directive remains publicly available on the Liberal government's own website today, so Canadians are still left asking what exactly the government's position is. Conservatives have been accused of fearmongering for raising these concerns, but let us look at the real-world consequences of uncertainty. Markets react immediately. Investors react immediately. Lenders react immediately. Businesses react immediately. The consequences are already being felt on the ground in British Columbia. Montrose Properties has publicly raised concerns about the uncertainty surrounding land title and investment confidence. The local golf course now sits in limbo, uncertain if it should continue to invest in growth or prepare to sell. Farmers who have worked their land for decades are now questioning how to manage long-term operations while watching property values decline and financing uncertainty increase. A local senior couple has reportedly been unable to sell their property in order to pursue a more secure retirement. Even a deal involving the sale of a local hotel that is not even located within the distributed area has collapsed because of the growing uncertainty surrounding land title and future risk. These are not theoretical consequences. There are real people, real businesses and real livelihoods being impacted right now. Canadians are not asking for abstract legal debates. These are foundational questions about confidence in Canada's economy and its legal systems. These issues matter deeply in my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond is not just another municipality. It is one of Canada's economic gateways to the Indo-Pacific. It is home to major transportation, infrastructure and international trade networks; logistics hubs; exporters; and entrepreneurs and families that have invested their life savings into homes and businesses. It is a place where immigrants have chosen to build a livelihood. That is why Richmond's city council raised concerns. That is why residents are paying attention. That is why businesses are watching carefully. The Cowichan ruling has far-reaching consequences, yet the Liberal government is trying to water down its significance and mislead Canadians about its impact. The Liberals know they made a grave mistake when they gave their lawyers the restrictive instructions, and now they are trying to distance themselves from the consequences. They know that the impact of this ruling is real, yet instead of taking responsibility, they are attempting to whitewash the issue and accuse others of fearmongering. This decision will have profound and lasting consequences not only for Richmond, not only for the Lower Mainland and not only for British Columbia but for all of Canada. The government’s actions will be remembered as a shameful chapter in our country’s history. Canadians deserve transparency. We deserve confidence. We deserve real answers.

Mr. Speaker, would my colleague on the other side not admit that the Liberal government did not appeal the ruling until the very last moment, long after the City of Richmond and the Province of British Columbia had done so? Would he not admit that the Liberals gave their lawyers the restrictive directive to tie their hands in court? Does he not admit that they have been silent for eight months and that, still, to this day, they have not given us any clarity?

Mr. Speaker, first, this is an urgent matter in the sense that we have already felt the consequences on the ground. People in my riding and in the province of British Columbia are worried, and they are already being impacted by the consequences and uncertainty. In addition, we have asked for an emergency debate before, which was not granted. This is not a matter on which we can keep waiting, and we have been asking the government to work with us on a solution.

Mr. Speaker, this is the question the Liberal government has to answer. The Liberals either have to admit they made a mistake in giving the directive, or they have to stand up and say they are still honouring that directive. Either way, Canadians are the losers. With respect to the appeal, it is because the City of Richmond insisted right from the beginning on the fee simple argument that we are able to proceed in the appeal for that argument. I thank the City of Richmond for insisting on that argument. Shame on the government.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watched a poorly staged performance last week when the Prime Minister responded to a simple question on private property rights from another Liberal MP. They could not even pretend to care. The fact remains that the Liberal government issued a litigation directive instructing federal lawyers to avoid protecting arguments for private property rights. That directive remains posted on the Liberal government's website today. Is this directive still government policy and if so, will the Prime Minister withdraw it, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the City of Richmond has written to the federal government repeatedly, most recently just two weeks ago, asking for a clear commitment to defend private property rights in the Cowichan land claim. Homeowners are worried. Investors are pulling out. People are asking if their homes are still secure, yet the Liberals have offered no clear answer. Why is the Liberal government ignoring Richmond city council and abandoning the people of Richmond?

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, a tragedy in Vancouver turned a joyful Lapu-Lapu festival into sorrow. As we approach this anniversary, the grief and trauma remain. For many families, the path to healing continues. Even in the midst of that pain, we saw the strength of a community coming together, a community with compassion, resilience and strength. Neighbours lifted up one another, strangers became family and Canadians across the country stood in solidarity. Last Sunday, I attended a community fundraiser supporting those still on the road to recovery. It was a reminder that as time passes, our support must not. As we honour those we lost, we stand with those still healing, together.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government avoids the question, hiding behind appeals and technical definitions instead of stating a clear and substantive position. This is pattern. In court and in backroom agreements, the Liberals refuse to say whether they will stand up for Canadian homeowners. Canadians deserve certainty. Will the Prime Minister direct lawyers to argue that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must come first, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, in the Cowichan land claim case, the Liberal government instructed its lawyers to abandon the fee simple argument, the very cornerstone of private property rights in Canada. That decision has created real uncertainty for homeowners, businesses and everyone who depends on secure land ownership in this country. By stepping back in court, the government is effectively walking away from defending Canadians' property rights. Will the Prime Minister reverse this decision and direct its lawyers to fully defend fee simple ownership, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the government says it supports private property rights, yet it negotiated the Musqueam agreements behind closed doors without protections and consultation with affected communities. That approach is creating uncertainty for homeowners, businesses and investors who rely on transparency and stability. Canadians still feel their property rights are not safeguarded by this Liberal government. Will the Liberals match their words with action and commit to a full, legally binding transparency agreement and to protecting private property rights in all future agreements?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22, the lawful access act. Let me be clear from the start. Canada needs lawful access, but Canada must get it right. Conservatives believe in law and order. We believe that police must be given the tools to stop criminals, dismantle organized crime and protect the most vulnerable, especially in a digital world. Today, this is a real problem. Our laws have not kept up with technology. The investigations are stalling. Evidence exists but cannot be accessed in time, and criminals take advantage of the gap. Bill C-22 is trying to fix this and that goal is necessary, but we must be prudent and use good judgment. In fixing one problem, we must not create another. We must not weaken the rights that we have and that we are trying to protect. My office has heard from many people in my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. They understand the need for safety. They understand the threat of organized crime. They are asking for something simple: balance, accountability and restraint. One concern raised by my community is the requirement for companies to build surveillance capabilities into their systems. That concern is straightforward. If we create access points into secure systems, we must be absolutely sure they cannot be abused. If they are, we do not just create tools for law enforcement; we create targets for bad actors. We have already seen what can happen. In 2024, a major cyber-attack known as Salt Typhoon targeted telecommunications infrastructure and compromised sensitive communications systems. That operation has been widely reported as having involved highly sophisticated state-backed actors. This is the environment we are operating in today. The question is not whether we need lawful access; the question is how we implement it safely and without introducing new risks. Another concern raised by people in my riding is data retention. Bill C-22 would require certain providers to keep metadata for up to one year. The intent is clear. When police have legal authority, the data is there to help investigations. That makes sense. People in my community are asking what the limits are. What are the safeguards? Even metadata can reveal a good deal about a person's life, where they go, who they contact and when those interactions happen. To be fair, this data is not freely available to the government. Law enforcement still requires proper authorization, including warrants in most cases. The bill does not allow the collection of content such as messages, browsing history or social media activity under these provisions. That distinction matters, but concerns remain. How do we ensure this stays targeted? How do we prevent this from expanding beyond its original intent? Conservatives will be ready to hold the government accountable for any overreach. There are also serious questions about oversight. The bill allows for ministerial orders that can require companies to develop specific technical capabilities. These orders require approval from the intelligence commissioner but there is a clear gap. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has no formal role in this oversight process. That raises a fundamental concern. If these powers affect the data and the digital lives of Canadians, why is privacy not formally embedded in the oversight structure? Oversight must be balanced. Security considerations cannot come at the expense of privacy protections. Both must be present, and both must be strong. Another concern is the scope of the bill. Part 2 would apply broadly to electronic service providers. This does not just mean large telecommunications companies. It could include messaging platforms, cloud service providers and email services. In other words, it could apply across the entire digital ecosystem that Canadians rely on every day. This is a very wide scope, and with a wide scope, the safeguards must be stronger. People I represent are asking for clarity. Who is covered? What exactly is required of them? Where are the limits? Without that clarity, there is a real risk of overreach, intended or otherwise. A third concern is transparency. Under this bill, ministerial orders could be issued confidentially. There would be no public registry, no direct parliamentary approval and no guarantee that Canadians would ever know when those powers were used. That is a serious issue because lawful access in a democracy must not only be lawful but also be transparent and accountable. When significant powers operate behind closed doors, public trust begins to erode, and once that trust is lost, it is very difficult to rebuild. We should be careful not to move from a system grounded in reasonable grounds and judicial oversight to one where information is collected first and justified later. This would not be a small shift. There would be a fundamental change in the relationship between citizens and the state. Many Canadians are concerned that this bill could enable further surveillance architecture if not properly constrained. We must also consider the burden placed on companies. They would be required to build and maintain systems, comply with strict technical requirements and face penalties for non-compliance. This would affect not only large telecommunications providers but also smaller and emerging companies. We must ensure that this would not discourage innovation or create barriers to entry in Canada's digital economy. Now, there are strong parts in the bill. It would give law enforcement agencies faster access to basic information, clearer legal tools for digital evidence, emergency powers when time is critical and improved co-operation with international partners. These are tools that police have been asking for, for many years, and we recognize that. However, supporting these objectives does not mean we ignore legitimate concerns. It does not mean we stop asking questions. One resident wrote to me about Bill C-22, saying, “Privacy is the shield of free people.” Another resident wrote, “A free society should not treat everyone like a suspect.” These are not extreme views. They are common sense. Our approach is clear. Conservatives will focus on ensuring that data retention is limited, justified and proportionate; strengthening safeguards around technical requirements; clarifying the scope and application of the bill; and ensuring strong, transparent and balanced oversight, including the role of privacy protection. If this bill is to move forward, it must earn the trust of Canadians. Canadians want safety. They want police to succeed. They want criminals held accountable. However, they also want their rights respected, their data protected and their government to act with restraint. This bill would include a review after three years. That is a step in the right direction, but we should not wait three years to fix what we can improve today. The choice is not—

Mr Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague that this is a very sensitive subject, certainly to Canadians who care about their safety and at the same time care about the protection of their privacy. As I mentioned in my speech, there are some parts of the bill that are very useful and would move us forward in protecting our safety. However, at the same time, it is the duty of the House to very carefully scrutinize the other parts of the proposed bill so that we can make sure that Canadians' privacy is being protected. Canadians want clear rules, they want strong limits, and they want real oversight and meaningful accountability.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing a problem, which is a lack of confidence in the government to protect their privacy and their constitutional rights. Time and again we have seen the Liberal government abuse its power. I hope that in committee, we can have meaningful debate and careful scrutiny of the proposed bill and, again, just like when we talked about Bill C-8, be able to work with our Bloc colleagues and also come to some kind of agreement or consensus that we could improve this bill, so that we can rebuild the trust of the Canadian people in our government.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from many members of Parliament today that they have received a lot of responses from a wide range of religious groups and leaders. On the other hand, we keep hearing from the other side that people and religious leaders are being misled or are being fed misinformation, as if this is an insult or a put-down to these groups. Does my colleague want to comment on that? Is this a put-down or an insult?

Mr Speaker, what happens abroad may be beyond our control, but the Liberal policies making life more expensive are not. Our seniors are paying the price. Seniors are being forced to work, with retirement slipping further out of reach. The National Institute on Aging reports that one in five Canadiens over 50 is now living on the poverty line, yet the Liberals are making it worse by sneaking in carbon taxes that drive up the price of essentials. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for what he can control and scrap the Liberal policies that are making life unaffordable for Canadians, including seniors?

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the federal government has a role to play in providing affordable housing to Canadians. However, I have the experience of being a city councillor for the last 12 years, and my experience has been that first, the federal government always downloads everything to the local government and second, the federal government does not consult. There is a lack of consultation, and at the end, the federal government does what it wants to do, and it does not provide the means that the local community could provide in a better way. It is better for the federal government to get out of the way and let local governments and other partners work to make things better for our communities.

Mr Speaker, what we hear, day in and day out, in our communities is how unaffordable things are, including housing. It is because all kinds of bureaucracy, taxation and added costs in building new homes have created this problem, the crisis that people are facing right now. Again, the lack of consultation by the federal government has resulted in inappropriate solutions for the problems that people are facing. I was told that before the launching of this new agency, the Richmond City Council was not consulted. They have no role to play in giving feedback and inputs to the new agency. This is one example where the lack of consultation is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, my response to that question would be that we do not need the federal government to direct us on what to do. Each community would have its own priorities, needs and the best way to resolve them. Again, using Richmond as an example, in the past 15 years, because Richmond has a good housing strategy, we were able to build thousands of homes in partnership with the building community, not with any government funding from the Liberal government.