Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Ping Beaton. She was a devoted wife and mother. I give my deepest condolences to her husband, Lawrence, who taught me in high school, and her daughter, Geralyn. May perpetual light shine upon her. With the greatest of respect to my colleague, I have to say that sounded like a speech that was provided by a bureaucrat. He talked about the Canada investment summit. Can he tell us where that is taking place, please?

Mr. Speaker, “collaboratively” is the word used by the Minister of Public Safety as to how he would work with Conservatives on Bill C-22 amendments, and yet the government is insisting on using its manufactured majority to now ram this bill through Parliament. Make no mistake: Conservatives want to put the bad folks in jail. We would pass part 1 of the bill swiftly, but Canadians have questions and experts have questions, and we think those questions should be answered with respect to part 2. Why is the Liberal government insistent on ramming Bill C-22 and part 2 through when we would gladly pass part 1 swiftly?

Mr. Speaker, “this is not how legislation works.” That is what the minister just said. Allow me to tell him something. Canadians do not take their orders from the Liberal Party. Conservatives do not take their orders from the Liberal Party. We will scrutinize legislation as we see fit. We have heard from Canadians concerned about big brother aspects of this bill. We have heard from civil libertarians, experts, law professors who say we should be passing part 1 and scrutinizing part 2. Why will they not pass part 1 and study part 2?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. First of all, I want to give a shout-out to Stanley Cup champion and Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola product, Logan Stankoven. We are so proud of Logan for winning the Stanley Cup. To my hon colleague, the member for Winnipeg North talked about playing games. Is this not the government that shut off the cameras in four committees the moment it got a majority? I ask my colleague, who is playing games?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Here we have the same Liberal playbook yet again. There has been so much opposition to Bill C-9, and now the Liberals are insisting on using their majority to, again, ram it through. It is a majority they got not at the ballot box but through floor crossers. We have heard from so many groups, including from His Eminence Frank Cardinal Leo from the Archdiocese of Toronto. I am wondering what the hon. secretary of state would say when so many faith groups are opposing Bill C-9. Should the Liberals not be taking a step back on this?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Paul and Elly Major, the parents of Dr. Blair Major, a faculty member of Thompson Rivers University in my riding, on their 50th wedding anniversary. I congratulate Paul and Elly. We heard a member talk about people who cannot go to synagogues. There was actually a synagogue that was shot up, and that has now been tied to a terrorist who was then alleged to have been connected to a police officer who has been killed. We have had an unprecedented number of churches being burned with nary a word from the government. We have had people who cannot access their places of worship, and the government has not sufficiently denounced it. Forgive me if I say that the government's words ring hollow after 12 years of inaction.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Joan Loehr. She was a prominent resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. She and her family have given a lot to the community. She leaves behind her children Geoffrey, Regan, Kent, Joel, Jarett and Mary. May perpetual light shine upon her. The member for Winnipeg North just talked about religious liberty and not being worried about this impacting religious rights and speeches. My colleague talked about legislative intent. Well, the Supreme Court of Canada grappled with this issue of legislative intent, I believe it was this year, in a ruling, where Parliament specifically said it wanted the legislation to say this. It was in debate, and it was in an amendment, and the Supreme Court of Canada still went against that. With that in mind, the uncertainty that this bill would create is part of the issue. What does the member say to that?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Hafiza Zalmay and congratulate her on her Bachelor of Business Administration. She and her husband came from Afghanistan. It is a huge accomplishment, so my best wishes go to Hafiza. My colleague is part of a government that is intent on bringing this bill forward. Everybody wants to protect people with their religious institutions, but as my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith just pointed out, as I was listening to the minister's speech, it is the exact same thing. Right now, nobody can obstruct someone from going into a place of worship and not break the law. Dare I say, I do not know that there is much in this bill that, if one were to do it, they would not already be breaking the law? However, there are so many controversial elements. Why are the Liberals insistent on this when free speech and civil liberties advocates have spoken about the potential dangers—

moved: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access: (a) the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation: (i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting Timely Access to Data and Information, containing Part 1, (ii) Bill C-22B, An Act respecting lawful access, containing the remaining parts of Bill C-22; and (b) that Bill C-22A be reported back to the House no later than five sitting days following the adoption of this motion. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I just learned that if I pause for a brief second before it is time to talk, my colleagues will clap. I feel like a professional wrestler who pauses for people to cheer them on. I thank my colleagues for clapping. I wish I had that power when I was out on the street. I would simply pause, wait and listen, and people would clap. I thank my colleagues for edifying me in that way. It is always a pleasure to rise in this House, but it is a particular pleasure to rise with respect to this motion. I am going to read my motion into the record and expand on it for the next few minutes, because I believe it is an important motion. The motion states: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access: (a) the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation: (i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting Timely Access to Data and Information, containing Part 1, (ii) Bill C-22B, An Act respecting lawful access, containing the remaining parts of Bill C-22; and (b) that Bill C-22A be reported back to the House no later than five sitting days following the adoption of this motion. Before I begin, I want to recognize that my niece was recently engaged. I want to give a shout-out to my niece, Juliana Bradley, and her new fiancé, Dayton Vidovich. I wish them happy nuptials as they set a date. I am very proud to be an uncle to Juliana. We are very proud of the young woman she has become. She is a force in her world as she navigates adulthood, and she is doing so well. We are so proud of her and Dayton, and I wish them all the best in their engagement. I am going to begin my remarks by speaking to law enforcement and Canadians generally. Conservatives believe law enforcement has not had the appropriate tools to fight crime. I look back on Bill C-5, for instance, which was passed here when then Minister Lametti justified people getting house arrest for drive-by shootings. That was just last Parliament. The Liberals will come in here and say they are tough on crime, yet that law still stands. For extortions with a firearm, drive-by shootings and robberies with a firearm, a person can serve their sentence on house arrest. This narrative the Liberals are pushing about how they are tough on crime and the Conservatives are not is simply untrue. It has always given me great pleasure to speak in the House. Speaking for the next few minutes on a bill I have devoted substantial time to is something I have looked forward to. With that, I know there is another colleague of mine who has spent a fair amount of time on this. That is the member for York—Durham, with whom I will be splitting my time. Where does that leave us? It leaves us needing to have an appropriate lawful access regime that gives law enforcement the tools it needs and also, and this is the big also, respects the charter rights and privacy rights of Canadians. I believe that needle can be threaded. It is the government that drafts this legislation. It is the government that has to convince Canadians that the needle has been threaded. Thus far, when it comes to the committee, the government, to be very candid, has failed. For those who do not know a lot about this bill, there are two parts. Part 1 is not all that contentious. Part 1 looks at a confirmation of subscriber information and a streamlined mechanism to get production orders. There is a bit of controversy around whether that should be on the threshold of what is called reasonable grounds to believe or of what is called reasonable grounds to suspect. Reasonable grounds to believe is when a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and there is evidence present in the records or the place. Reasonable grounds to suspect is, I believe, above a hunch but below that belief, which we call a subjective belief in law. Witnesses have said there are charter considerations under section 8, and if we go to the reasonable grounds to suspect, it might be too low of a threshold. The government has attempted to make the case that there is a limited body of information that would be produced, hence the lower threshold. I believe we will get through this at committee. The Conservatives have put forward a number of amendments. My colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc have also put forward a number of amendments. That is not the contentious issue. I believe this would be very helpful to law enforcement. Law enforcement has told us this. Right now, law enforcement often has to go on a fishing expedition, going to provider after provider. I will be very clear. I will be sending a letter to the public safety minister very shortly, saying the Conservatives are prepared to pass part 1 once we get through clause-by-clause. I hope that is sufficiently clear. My exhortation to the government is to take what we have so far and give it to law enforcement, because part 2 is highly contentious. I understand that law enforcement has asked for part 2, but in the committee's clause-by-clause process of part 2, the government has failed to convince Canadians that the lawful access regime it has put forward would balance the tools that are required with the charter and privacy rights of Canadians. That is where we stand. In fact, the government thought it could just ram this through committee. One of my greatest issues with this is how little time there has been. The Liberals may say we have studied this for quite some time, but here is the problem. This is a very contentious and technical bill. We had panels of experts, sometimes with three experts per panel, who gave five-minute opening statements, and then we were all expected to question these experts over a one-hour period. We had literally 45 minutes with three experts. That meant we were not really able to flesh out the details. So far, the government has said we need this bill because it wants to catch people who are committing nefarious acts. No one will ever hear me saying we do not want to catch terrorists or child predators. I have spent much of my life on the latter issue. However, we need to catch them in a way that is constitutional, whereby the government does not ask us to give it this, “just because”. The government failed to come to the committee table, say precisely what we need and why, and tell us how it is going to balance those charter rights. Let us pass part 1 to give law enforcement those powers. At the end of the day, we have spent a great deal of time on this, but we need more time on Bill C-22. I think we should be recalling witnesses. The fact is that we had so little time. We often had three experts on a panel. I would maybe get six minutes, and I am the lead critic on this. That was not enough. I see my time has come to an end. I will now take questions and comments from my colleagues.

Oh, he is smarter than a lawyer. Okay, great. Thanks for that heckle from across the way. Madam Speaker, even the member does not agree. Anybody watching at home cannot hear this, but the member is saying, “I am?” The government members cannot sit here and say that they have been tough on crime. Someone could still get house arrest for a drive-by shooting, I will remind the member. What the member did not talk about is what is in the bill. This is exactly the trap the Liberals have fallen into: Give us this, and to heck with the charter and with concerns of Canadians. This is the arrogance of the Liberal Party, and that is why Bill C‑22 is where it is at.

Madam Speaker, he said that was pre-this government. Who is in power now? It is the current Liberal government. Who is not acting on Bill C‑75? It is the Liberal government. Who is allowing the status quo to be maintained on Bill C‑75 with a majority? It is the Liberal government. Spare us the rhetoric on Bill C‑75's being tough on crime, until the government is prepared to deal with the least onerous measures bail provisions in Bill C‑75. The member should take a seat, because we put forward legislation on this, the jail not bail act. The Liberals voted against it.

Madam Speaker, I am so glad to have received that comment, because, get this, amendments were due on Bill C‑22, but we did not have briefings. There were actually multiple briefings that were not provided to the committee. Witnesses came to committee, for my hon. colleague's edification, saying that they had submitted a brief days ago. We looked around, and I asked my staff, “Did we get that?” They said no. Then I asked the clerk if we had received it, and the answer was no. The member talks about briefings, but we did not even have those briefings. It speaks to how quickly this was rushed. We need to slow it down, pass part 1 and leave part 2.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Those watching at home may not realize this, but MPs have a mechanism by which we can contact one another directly. I sent the minister three emails directly. Candidly, I have sent notes to other ministers and they respond typically within 12 to 24 hours. It shows respect among ministers and members of Parliament to do that. Not once has he responded. What kind of example is the minister setting, as a minister of the Crown, when he cannot even respond to notes from another member of Parliament?

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I served on the veterans affairs committee and was very familiar with the situation of Jess Larochelle. It pains me to know that he will not have seen what should have been bestowed upon him, the Victoria Cross. I know my colleague had some additional words he wanted to say in French. I wonder if he could enlighten the House with those words.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is particularly important to me to rise today on this point. Number one, Bailey's law is languishing in the Senate. It should be passed by the Senate tomorrow or today, and I hope the hon. minister will help with that. Number two, I have been quoted on this bill, Bill C-16, more times than I can count. The funny thing is that it is on the issue of the safety valve, and I do not think I have given a single speech on the issue of a safety valve on this bill. The Liberals, for years, mocked Conservatives when we talked about constitutionality and said that we were out to lunch, so between 2022 and 2024, I spoke about these issues. I did not assert and support government legislation when it came to Bill C-16 and give my imprimatur of approval. I want that to be very, very clear. In my comment here, I want to say very clearly that I believe my words have been misconstrued. If my words are going to be stated, the whole context of it should be stated, particularly when I was stating it with respect to sex offences against children, which the government refused to legislate for years and years. The last thing is that I would remind the hon. minister that it is not called “child pornography”; it is called “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened with great attention to my colleague's speech, as the person who wrote the bill along and ushered the bill through to change the name of “child pornography“ to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” As somebody who prosecuted Internet luring and offences against children, I took a great deal of interest. One of the things the member spoke about was homicide of intimates, which was also addressed in Bill C-225, also known as Bailey's law. Bailey's law is at the Senate right now, and it was studied and amended substantially in the House at the request of the government. I wonder if that member would be prepared to provide an endorsement to state that Bailey's law should be passed forthwith. Bailey McCourt, for whom the bill is named, was tragically killed in a similar situation to the Henderson murder the member spoke about. Her death happened on July 4 last year. Would the member support this bill coming into effect by July 4 this year?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Today I am presenting two petitions. The first is on behalf of the Iranian community in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I had the opportunity to meet with Vahab Nazeri and many other people from the Iranian community. They point out the oppressive Iranian regime and all that it has done, a terroristic regime that has killed so many people and inflicted so much damage. They are very proud people, but they recognize that since the ayatollahs took over, there has been no democracy. Petitioners call on the government to recognize the democratic will of the Iranian people and to engage with Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as the legitimate transitional authority.

Madam Speaker, the second petition, which 51 signatories have signed, notes that Canadians travel worldwide for all sorts of reasons, that viruses such as measles are significantly increasing, that when people return home they are often subject to diseases we do not experience here, and that people do not know about travel health advice being available. Petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to integrate travel vaccine, medicine and health education into the public health system in Canada, to establish a reasonable user fee, to ensure appropriate health data collection and to recognize that public trust can be built in travel medicine and screening.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. What I appreciate about this member is not what he says, but with how much volume he says it. I just do not know. We heard 20 minutes of ranting, raving and nothingness, but one of the things that really caught my ear is when he talked about trade and how they are going to get the best deal. The government has not been to the negotiating table since October. The reason it has not been to the negotiating table since October is that it is scared of losing another MP or two and having to go to an election when times look good. The Liberals do not want to deal with the United States so that they can run against him rather than run on their disastrous record. Shame on that member. Shame on the government for not going to bat for Canadians. We need a deal. They are not trying to get one. He should be ashamed for that rhetoric in the House.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened to a question just a little while ago. Before I begin, I will try a bit of French here. I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc a question. One question that is really central to what we are dealing with is tax and Canadians' being bitten, so to speak, by death by a thousand financial cuts. If we were to listen to the member from Winnipeg, Canadians have never had it so good because the Liberals gave a tax cut to 22 million people. Unfortunately, people are still lining up at food banks in record numbers. They cannot pay their mortgages, cannot pay their rent and cannot afford a seven-dollar head of lettuce. Unfortunately, that does not get into the rhetoric. I wonder whether my hon. colleague agrees that we need to lower the cost of living, whether we are talking about digital streaming taxes or inflationary spending when it comes to the government. Does he not agree that we need to address what has become a cost of living crisis in this country?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister called Beijing Canada's greatest security threat. That was during the election. Despite this, within a year, he signed a memorandum of understanding with Communist China as it relates to security matters. I have been asking for that memorandum of understanding for over five months. The minister and the Prime Minister have refused to disclose it. When will they produce the memorandum of understanding that was signed with Communist China?

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about history, let us talk about history. When in the past did a Prime Minister call Beijing Canada's greatest security threat, and then within a year sign a memorandum of understanding? Never before had we heard stories of foreign interference to the same degree. Never before had a Prime Minister said exactly what he said. Why is he unprepared to shine the light? The Liberals do not want to shine the light and they do not want to inform Canadians. Will they do it today, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I have to say I am quite disappointed in the government's response. In fact, I think it is going to have to resile from this response at some point. When I heard the minister say this was just fearmongering, to me, that was completely unbecoming. Is it fearmongering when somebody goes to renew their mortgage and they have to get a higher interest rate because the market is saying that their house is no longer worth the same amount? Crickets. Is it fearmongering when somebody cannot get insurance at the same rate? That has nothing to do with what is being said on this side of the House. It has to do with, really, what is happening on the ground. The only reason that the government is dealing with this is because it has been hearing about it. The government is hearing about it because of the reasons I just said. Does the hon. member not agree?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We just heard from a B.C. member from Surrey. I have to say that it sounded like a bureaucrat wrote the speech. The reason why I say that is that he read the whole speech. In fact, I asked him a question, and he read from a piece of paper an answer that had nothing to do with the question. My hon. colleague clearly wrote his own speech. I am wondering what message it sends when the Liberals are just reading talking points and accusing us of fearmongering. Why do they not go to the houses in Richmond and the places in Vancouver and ask how people feel about having a higher mortgage rate or not being able to get home insurance? Why do they not do that?

Mr. Speaker, I have a surprising project to tell members about. Imagine this: no fences, beautiful townhouse-style living, tennis courts, and fishing in the Rideau River over the summertime. No, I am not talking about a new housing project. I am talking about a jail, a penitentiary in fact, that houses notorious sex offender and child killer Darren Scott Ray. That is right. This person was considered so dangerous that police had to follow him around everywhere he went when he was released for just 72 hours, yet he lives in a jail without fences and with a little slice of paradise, having comforts like a tennis court, a beautiful kitchen and all the freedom in the world. The Liberals bungled this with Bill C-83 and their “least restrictive” measure. Why is it that somebody who is a child-killing sex offender who needs to be supervised every single minute can live in a place without fences?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Today I am especially honoured to rise in reply to Bill C-225, the private member's bill that I put forward on intimate partner violence. It feels as though it was just yesterday, but it was around November when I was speaking about this bill and attempting to persuade this House to pass the bill. It is against that backdrop that I just had a brief conversation with one of my hon. colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, and learned the Liberals are going to support and vote for this bill. This is tremendous. This is how things are supposed to work. I want to thank some people. The member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake had a profound impact on this bill. He gave up his private member's slot so this bill could move forward. I am profoundly grateful to him, and I think all victims of intimate partner violence and stakeholders are equally grateful. I am similarly grateful to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, who gave up her spot in the private member's bill rotation. As a result, this bill got to a vote on third reading in what I think is probably record time. It is not very often we see private members' bills get to a vote within five or six months, and here we are at third reading. I am profoundly indebted to both members. I also want to recognize their service to Canadians and their recognition of victims of intimate partner violence. They are part of the solution by advancing this legislation. I want to thank all who spoke on this bill, particularly, at third reading. I want to thank Bailey's family, Paige, Karen, Shane, Trish, Debbie, Bailey's children and all others who I may not have mentioned who are part of Bailey's family, her loved ones and those who continue to mourn her death. I want to thank my staff, Rofiat Agboola, Stephanie Rennick, Jesus Bondo, Clare Cyr, Tracy Gilchrist and Christine Savage, for putting up with and navigating through all the ups and downs of this process. There have been a few speed bumps, but, ultimately, we got here. My belief is that we will see unanimous support for this bill when we vote on Wednesday. I am mindful of the fact that the Minister of Justice's office played a key role in meeting with victims. I mentioned my staff, who went above and beyond and liaised with Zoe Romeo and other members of the minister's staff. There were extensive amendments at committee, and I want to recognize the collaborative nature of the status of women committee and all witnesses who appeared, too many to name in this short speech, but they know who they are. I also want to thank all those who emailed me and wrote letters saying they suffered in silence from intimate partner violence and those who stopped me on the street, which happens to members of Parliament more than those watching at home might think, and thanked me. A few stand out in my mind. This bill is for them. With the assurance that the Liberals will be voting for this at third reading, with my belief that all other members will be supporting this bill and against the backdrop of just having welcomed new members who will get to add their signature to this bill, I am incredibly honoured and profoundly grateful to stand as the sponsor of a bill that recognizes the scourge of intimate partner violence, but, more concretely, addresses the issue here where it should be addressed in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, today I am launching a campaign that gives me great pride, and that is to bring back one of the most iconic landmarks in Kamloops, our Red Bridge. The Red Bridge was built in 1936, based on the Howe truss design. It was one of the few remaining functioning bridges of its type in British Columbia. Unfortunately, it was destroyed by arson in 2024, destroying a vital link between downtown Kamloops and the Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc territory. The loss of this crossing continues to impact commuters, industry and emergency access. I would like to encourage all people in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola to sign petitions, write letters and make phone calls to encourage the federal government to support the fast-tracking and rebuilding of the Red Bridge. I am calling on all parties, including Kamloops, Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc and the province, with the federal government's support, to get the Red Bridge rebuilt.

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, those serving two years or more are typically released at two-thirds of their sentence. As a former parole officer, I am aware that Corrections Canada can apply to have people detained for the last third of their sentence. It does not look like Corrections Canada did this, and as a result, an ISIS terrorist, who was a recruiter for ISIS, was released into the community. Before the public safety minister starts talking about independence for Corrections Canada, he should answer this: Did the Liberal government do everything it could to keep a dangerous ISIS terrorist behind bars for as long as possible, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. One of the things my colleague mentioned was Bill C-2. Let us not be naive. We know that the Liberals achieved their majority through a number of deals in the background. What concerns me as a member of Parliament and as a citizen is the fact that we would have been saddled with Bill C-2, a bill that we as Conservatives successfully fought against, and rightly so. There is a time to oppose in this place and a time to support. That was clearly the time to oppose. I would like the member's opinion on why Bill C-2 failed and whether the Liberals appear to have learned any lessons from that, because we may be in a position where they just force these things through in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thomson—Nicola, apparently back-to-back today. One of the things I appreciated about my hon. colleague's speech was the balanced nature of it. I would like to ask him to comment on his role as a legislator here and as somebody who does not blindly accept things. He talked about how we have to recognize things at committee, see things at committee and question things at committee. I am proud to be part of a party that does that. I would ask for his comments on that as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. My colleague has been involved in the justice portfolio, which is really the opposite side of the coin to the public safety portfolio. There is obviously a difference. There is one thing I really would like her to comment on because she has ardently expressed support for this piece of legislation. I am sure my colleague spoke to Bill C-2 as well, so my question is this: Did she speak on Bill C-2, and is she prepared now to acknowledge the colossal failure it was, which is why we are now here with Bill C-22 in a much more reasonable form?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Indeed, it is a pleasure to rise both in my capacity as a parliamentarian for that area and as the shadow minister, or critic, for public safety. My colleague hit on a number of issues that are confronting Parliament in the form of Bill C-22. We have seen a number of pieces of legislation come through that are related to Bill C-22. Bill C-2 came, then we had Bill C-12, and now there is Bill C-22. Does my colleague agree that the fact that the government has put forward Bill C-22 is a tacit acknowledgement of the failure of Bill C-2, which we were told would be a cure-all for all things ailing Canadian law?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I feel there is a refrain being heard frequently in the House today, the welcoming of another member from the government to their seat. That is wonderful. It is always great to speak in the House. I wish we would have more questions from members of the government. For those watching at home, normally the government would have some questions for my hon. colleague on his speech. It is almost like we are shouting into the Grand Canyon. Hello, hello, hello. Is there anybody there, there, there? Why is it that we, as Conservatives, are carrying this debate?

Mr. Speaker, one of my Liberal friends said I should get credit for special effects. I believe that was what he said from across the way. I share some of the concerns of my hon. colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, about the bill. It is certainly better than Bill C-2, which was a far overreach. I wonder if she would be prepared to comment on how much of a failure Bill C-2 was and how the bill before us is better but still requires amendments, and if she would be prepared to share where those amendments would come from.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. There are a lot of issues in this bill that I look forward to addressing at committee. One of the questions I have is about the role of ministerial orders. I am mindful of the fact that ministerial orders require approval from the intelligence commissioner, but then they then go into what I call a “vacuum” because they are kept confidential. I understand why they may need to be confidential. Would the minister be open to discussing amendments that would require or enable some sort of transparency, whether it be that it is reviewed by a committee or somebody else, so it is not put into this vacuum that lacks transparency when these orders are made in confidence?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. When it comes to getting it right, there is no doubt that we need to address loopholes when it comes to access and when it comes to ensuring that information is available. The question is, how do we get it right? I am approaching this debate with that lens. We have ministerial orders that will not necessarily be transparent under this legislation. They will be in secret. Does my hon. colleague have a position on that, namely whether they should all be in secret, or whether some should be in secret in order to protect vulnerabilities?

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I must say, whenever we hear “when shall the bill be read the next time”, I think that this is the first time I have ever heard, in the House, that it be said, “Now.” I hear the member from Winnipeg chuckling. I think that he is probably a bit disappointed that he did not get that extra word in Hansard. If it was recorded, perhaps it could be attributed to him by the verification desk. We all know that he likes to speak in the House, just as I do. In fact, we should all appreciate speaking in this place. I was reflecting not long ago about this, about how much of an honour it is to be here. Let us face it. Whenever we have a job, we will have people who take different degrees of interest in their job. For me, I have the ability to stand here on the green carpet of the House of Commons, as somebody who grew up as the child of immigrants in a very middle-class home. My dad was a sawmill worker. My mom was a stay-at-home mom until I was about 10, the last child, when she went back to school to become a legal assistant. Ultimately, I became a lawyer. We see this going full circle. The ability to stand here in the House of Commons is not something we should ever underestimate, regardless of which side of the aisle we are on. If I could amplify that point even more, it is an even greater honour when we have what we call private members' bills or Private Members' Business. I experienced this first-hand last time, through Bill C-291, which was an amendment to the Criminal Code in the last Parliament, to change the name of child pornography to child sexual abuse exploitation material. I wrote that bill. It was then shepherded by the member for what is now Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. I have my Criminal Code here. I promise that I am not using it as a prop, but one of the things I can say about my 2026 Criminal Code is that this language has now been adopted to reflect the fact that we are no longer using that antiquated language. It is against that backdrop that I rise here today. I thank everybody here for allowing this matter to proceed past the report stage without the necessity for a standing vote, so that we could get to third reading now. I am optimistic and hopeful that debate could perhaps collapse so that we could be voting on the bill as soon as Wednesday or even today. Hope springs eternal, they might say. Colloquially, this is called “Bailey's Law”, Bill C-225. This is the first private member's bill that has been brought forward in the Parliament for debate. It is my honour to stand here before us. Bailey McCourt was in her mid-30s. Her abuser was convicted of assaulting her, of choking her and, I believe, of threatening her. Three hours after he was convicted, free on bail, he killed her. That matter remains before the court, so he is obviously accused at this time. I do not believe that there is any dispute as to who the assailant was. The question of his guilt in a court of law will have to be for another day. For context, I had actually written the bill about two or three years ago. As most people know, I was a lawyer before I came to this place. I guess I will be a lawyer after I leave this place. One of the things that really bothered me was that we treat assault the same way regardless of context, mostly. For instance, assault in the Criminal Code is under section 266. Whether one beats one's intimate partner or beats somebody up at the bar, it is the same charge. There is one exception that we used to look at a lot, which was assault of a peace officer. Assaulting a peace officer was different. The law certainly recognizes that, sometimes, things should be different. I thought it should be different for assaulting an intimate partner. Intimate partners are within a relationship of trust and often of financial dependence. It is not uncommon for one intimate partner to make vastly more money. At times of separation or at times of potential separation, that can really be exploitative. There is spiritual dependence oftentimes, and just general codependence. That was something that really bothered me, and that was why I had written a version of the bill in 2023 or 2024. The bill never got tabled. After Bailey was killed in early July 2025, the NDP Premier of British Columbia called for the killing of an intimate partner to be first-degree murder. I thought, as a Conservative, that if the NDP premier was asking for this, perhaps we could find a common ground. That is why I put the bill forward. I want to recognize a number of people who have been impacted by Bailey's tragic killing. Let us not forget her children. Carrie Wiebe was present in the car when Bailey was killed. I sent her a message today giving her an update. We cannot forget Bailey's family, her mother Karen, her father Shane, her stepmom Trish, her sister Paige and her aunt Debbie. Sometimes we see things in the news and become detached from them. One thing I enjoy about this job that is challenging, and I think every member here feels this way, is that when we deal with somebody, whether with respect to an immigration matter, a taxation matter or, in this case, a matter of crime, they are touched by it personally. I can say that when we look somebody in the eye, it touches us personally. If we look at people like Flo and Paul, who appeared at committee, and we hear them speak about their daughter and her tragic killing at the hands of an intimate partner, it really crystallizes within me the necessity for us to challenge the status quo sometimes. The law evolves, it should evolve and sometimes it has to evolve more drastically. In fact, the last time I think the law evolved on the issue of intimate partner violence was likely in the early 1980s when an exception to the law of sexual assault with respect to one's spouse was taken out, and rightfully so. A person can sexually assault their spouse. It happens far too often. Therefore, I am very proud to be standing before Parliament today with I believe the support of all parties. We received all-party support at second reading. I hope we will have all-party support at third reading to make the most substantial change to the law of intimate partner violence thus far in Canadian history. It is important that we work together. One of the things I often tell people who see us oftentimes as being pugilistic or combative is that there is a time and a place to be oppositional. I am a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, a role I take very seriously. Without a meaningful opposition, I believe that democracy is imperilled. There is a time to protest. There is a time to debate. There is a time to oppose. There is a time to question. Questioning is fine. In fact, questioning is vital to a robust democracy. I hope if I am ever on the government benches that we have a meaningful opposition. This is one reason why I often take such issue with time allocation, closure and things like that when we have barely discussed a bill. I am very proud to stand before Parliament on this issue. I was talking about the opposition and why it is important. One thing people may or may not realize is this. If they were to look at the bill before it goes to committee, at second reading and after it has gone to committee, they would see a substantially different bill, and that is okay. In fact, when we work together and make bills better, it is a good thing. I can say, as the sponsor of this bill, that I believe we have made it better. I believe that, in working with the minister's office and my staff, we have made the bill better. This may be the last time I get to speak on this bill, so I will thank my staff, Stephanie Rennick, Jesus Bondo and Rofiat Agboola, for helping out and working with the minister's staff. I would like to thank the minister's staff, who have been more than accommodating in meeting with us in order to address this bill. What would the bill do? It would make major changes with respect to homicide of an intimate partner. If a homicide of an intimate partner occurs, that homicide would now be first-degree murder if there is a pattern of coercion or control, or if the homicide occurs during coercion or control. Manslaughter of an intimate partner would now have to be considered with respect to whether a life sentence should be imposed. A life sentence in Canada is imposed mandatorily for murder generally, whether first-degree or second-degree murder The question then becomes one of parole ineligibility, and we call that a minimum sentence for life. There is actually a maximum sentence for life. A lot of people do not know this, but a person can go to jail for life for breaking into someone's home. That is the maximum sentence a court can impose. The court does not have to impose that, but it can. A court can also impose a maximum sentence of life for manslaughter. I was a parole officer in my early twenties, and I worked in the justice system for a long time. The last time I saw a life sentence imposed for manslaughter was in 1972. That is a long time ago, yet intimate partner violence continues to be a scourge on our society. Maybe it is high time we address sentencing. One of the things I have taken issue with is the government's sentencing of sexual offences, particularly sexual offences against children. The way we as society and as Parliament reflect our difficulty or our issue with a crime should be based in part on sentencing: the more repugnant the crime, the stricter the sentence. In some cases we call that denunciation. That is what is talked about in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Sometimes we talk about deterrence, making a sentence so bad that people do not want to do the crime or will think twice before they do it. However, in a lot of respects, we just have to say it like it is. It is happening far too often that intimate partners are dying. This is flying under the radar far too often, unreported or under-reported, so we need to make changes. Often in intimate partner violence what we call the cycle of violence continues on and on. In Bailey's case, there was a cycle of violence. As I recall, there were breaches involved. She had been previously victimized by the offender. It is time to stop the cycle of violence. We need a paradigm shift in this country on the issue, and I hope that Bill C-225 would do that. My colleague will be speaking on behalf of the party seconder, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, whom I want to thank for giving up her spot in the order of precedence so we could speak to the bill sooner. Having a team effort like this and having members like the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, who gave up her spot selflessly in order to have Bailey's law advance sooner on third reading, is how we get things done. I am incredibly indebted to the member. I am indebted to every member who has spoken to the bill from our benches, who has supported it and who has met with the family. Let us get the bill passed right now.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his contribution. Obviously, sometimes we do have our disagreements in the House, and that is actually healthy. Therefore, in direct response to the member's question, I will say that the committee process was actually very meaningful. For people who might not know, committee is where we study a bill. When we got to committee, we as Conservatives had agreed to a number of amendments. There were a number of stakeholders who had spoken loudly and clearly on the issue. I know that my Bloc colleagues had thoughts and that my Liberal colleagues and my NDP colleagues had thoughts. However, the fact that we were able to synthesize all those thoughts so quickly into amendments was very meaningful. I believe it was two and a half or three meetings that the committee met for such a lengthy piece of legislation. Normally, private members' bills are a lot shorter. The committee process went as it should: smoothly.

Mr. Speaker, this is actually a very important question. The House voted, I believe unanimously, in the last Parliament on a bill from former NDP member Laurel Collins with respect to coercive control, but I believe it died on the Order Paper when the election was called. Coercive control is part of the cycle of violence that I just referred to. It is something that goes on and on. It is a part of that violence. Intimate partner violence generally does not just come out of nowhere. There are precursors. There are antecedents that happen, and coercive control is central to that. It is part of the dependence, often financial dependence, that we see, as well as psychological manipulation. Therefore, it is very important that the House recognize the role of coercive control in criminality.