Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. I want to remind Canadians that this session, Conservatives will be working to restore Canada's promise of an affordable, safe and independent Canada. We will work to save Canadians money, unlike the Liberals, who are costing Canadians money. We will save Canadian jobs, keep Canadians safe, fix the immigration system and put Canada first. Today, we are talking about Bill C-266, regarding a national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility, something that we should all give serious consideration to. It is not lost on anyone in this House that Canada faces a crossroads in our relationship with our neighbours, as well as old and emerging trade partners. What cannot be forgotten, however, is the strength that lies within our own borders to meet these challenges head-on. My colleagues on both sides of this chamber must ask themselves the following. In the face of external pressures, will we leverage our immense geography, resources and skills to build a Canada that produces what it needs and controls its own destiny? Bill C-266 is central to that conversation. Skilled trade certification and labour mobility in Canada are largely governed by the provinces and territories. It is a fragmented system that creates differences in credential recognition, standards, licensing and regulatory requirements, and it can make it difficult for trade workers to move between provinces. This legislation would require the federal government to develop a national framework to identify these barriers and explore ways to harmonize and streamline credential recognition, improve labour mobility and promote careers in the skilled trades. The framework would be developed through consultation and reported to Parliament, while respecting provincial and territorial responsibility for certification. Importantly, Bill C-266 would not itself replace provincial certification systems or impose a single national licensing regime. Instead, the act would be designed to require the federal government to bring the provinces, regulatory bodies, industry, employers, unions, apprenticeship organizations, indigenous organizations and educational institutions to the table for months of consultation. The resulting framework would then have to include a complete list of skilled trades across Canada; compare and map equivalencies between provincial standards and credentials; and then identify measures to harmonize standards, reduce duplication and streamline the process of having credentials recognized from one province to another. It would also have to address emerging trades and new technologies and promote greater awareness of the importance of skilled trades. This is about making sure that a Canadian who has earned the skills to do a job can have those skills recognized when opportunity takes them somewhere else in their own country. It is appropriate that this bill is the first order of business after our return to Ottawa. The events of this summer have put an even greater onus on the Prime Minister to make good on his vow to build at speeds not seen in generations, for the housing construction sector and the major infrastructure projects and the economic investments we need to put Canada first. Regrettably, however, the Liberal government has not yet made good on that vow. There has been a lot of talk and not a whole lot of action, and it is completely out of touch. Let us examine housing, for instance. It is the central issue facing an entire generation that has effectively been locked out of the market. Housing is a skilled labour issue. We cannot build the homes Canadians need without the electricians, plumbers, carpenters, equipment operators and other skilled tradespersons needed to build them. Despite 62,000 vacant trades jobs in late 2025, over 127,000 certified tradespeople in Canada were unemployed, according to StatsCan. At the same time, the Canadian Home Builders' Association reports that 47% of builders say they or their subcontractors have had to lay off workers, rising to 65% in Ontario. That tells us something important. The challenge is not simply a shortage of skilled workers. It is also a failure to connect workers with opportunities where they are needed and where these opportunities exist. The same problem exists when it comes to major projects. The Prime Minister promised to build at speeds not seen in generations, but we need projects to actually get built if skilled workers are going to put their skills to work. There are 500 shovel-ready projects still awaiting approval at the Major Projects Office. Canada cannot afford to train more tradespeople while qualified workers face barriers in moving between provinces and major projects are struggling to get off the ground. Bill C-266 may help address one part of that equation, that is, making it easier for qualified workers to move to where the work is. While the Liberals deserve much of the blame for siphoning the full potential of our workforce, successive governments at both the federal and provincial levels have erected barriers to prevent Canadians from working and doing business freely across their own country. In the words of the Business Council of Canada, “13 different provincial credential recognition regimes” complicate our labour mobility. Not only do these roadblocks increase costs and ultimately leave Canadians paying more for essentials, but they also hold back growth when we should be firing on all cylinders. Shockingly, the International Monetary Fund estimates that impediments to internal trade in Canada are equivalent to a 9% tariff on ourselves and that removing them could increase the size of our economy by a further 7%. There should be no further hesitation by the government in finally and fully realizing the promise of one Canadian economy. Conservatives have always believed in the free trade of goods and labour, and there is no better time than now to trade with ourselves. We need to and would embrace the broad mutual recognition of goods, services and labour across Canada, making restrictions the exception rather than the rule. Bill C-266 is not, by itself, the end of that work, but it could provide a mechanism to identify exactly where the barriers exist and bring every jurisdiction to the table to address them. By mapping provincial credentials and identifying equivalencies, the framework could give provincial regulators the information they need to recognize qualifications more consistently, reduce duplication and make it easier for workers to move. On this side of the House, we are optimistic but have every reason to reserve doubt. While the bill's sponsor has promoted it as one that would focus on tangible outcomes, it is fair to ask why these problems remain unresolved by the Liberal Party after more than a decade in government. That is why Conservatives will continue to examine the bill carefully. We need to determine whether its framework actually produces the results that Canadian workers and employers need. The stakes are high. These restrictions impact businesses and the people they employ and serve. It is no wonder that Canada's business community has been sounding the alarm for years. Both the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada have called for unified recognition of skilled trade credentials across Canada, warning that barriers between provinces prevent skilled workers from moving to where they are needed. The numbers are sobering. The chamber has warned that roughly 700,000 skilled trade workers are projected to retire in the next two years, while Canada faces enormous housing and infrastructure demands. Therefore, the chamber has called for a unified framework developed with provincial and territorial governments, industry and regulatory bodies to recognize skilled trade training and credentials across Canada. This is remarkably close to what Bill C-266 asks the federal government to begin doing, which is to bring those same stakeholders together, map out the differences between jurisdictions, identify equivalencies, reduce duplication and report publicly on the progress. The Business Council of Canada has also pointed to Canada's patchwork of provincial credential recognition regimes as a barrier to labour mobility, while its research has found that shortages of skilled workers can have a significant impact on major projects and investments. Bill C-266 could not only address these challenges; it could create a national process for identifying and addressing some of the barriers the business community has repeatedly identified. It is for these reasons that the Conservatives will continue to carefully examine Bill C-266, not as the solution but as an important stepping stone to a more mobile and productive Canadian workforce. We have Canadians with skills, we have employers with available jobs, and we have communities that desperately need these workers. Bill C-266 may be a good step in identifying the barriers, bringing the people responsible for removing them to the table and requiring Parliament to measure whether progress is actually being made. Canada's skilled workers should never be held back by borders within their own country.

Mr. Speaker, from August 11 to August 15, the city of Medicine Hat is thrilled to host the 2026 Special Olympics Canada summer games, welcoming 1,700 participants from across the country. These games will showcase the incredible talents and inspiring stories of athletes with intellectual and developmental disabilities through competition, camaraderie, personal bests and unforgettable memories. Athletes will compete in 10 sports, each with their respective disciplines, celebrating inclusive sport excellence and highlighting achievement across this country. I thank the approximately 1,500 volunteers, strong community partnerships and everyone who has worked tirelessly to ensure these games are a success. I encourage the residents of Medicine Hat and area and all Canadians to come and experience this extraordinary event and cheer on these amazing athletes. Unforgettable moments of competition and connection will be created as Canada comes together in celebration of these Special Olympics Games. I wish good luck to all participants.

Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that the judicial safety valve is necessary to ensure flexibility. However, the criminal justice system already has safety valves in it. Police officers exercise discretion and lay charges, and the prosecutor has discretion on how they are going to handle a case and what that will look like for them. To me, the judicial safety valve would create an additional layer of discretion that would allow courts to effectively override Parliament's decision. However, Parliament is supposed to be the one that makes these decisions. We know that clause 63 in the bill would go much further by allowing judges to completely disregard mandatory minimums, except for treason and murder. Why is that?

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and heard for weeks now, since the decision was made, about how the Conservatives are spreading misinformation, yet we know government lawyers do not act on their own. They get direction, and that direction came directly from the cabinet to the government lawyers on principle 14 in this particular decision. Could the minister please clarify for Canadians the misinformation the Liberal Party is now propagating that suggests the misinformation is actually the failure to admit that the direction given to their own lawyers failed Canadians in this particular case?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' costly credit card budget is more of the same: more debt, more spending, more taxes and higher inflation. The Prime Minister has doubled previous annual deficits. He had still added $54 billion in new spending, costing Canadians now $59 billion in debt interest charges to cover it. His $25-billion sovereign debt fund is just another deception. When will the Prime Minister set aside his illusions and bring his deficit under control so Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, I am always honoured to rise in this place to represent the amazing people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. Today's debate on Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, is important and timely, as Parliament again aims to modernize Canada's lawful access framework. I am hopeful this time that our efforts on the issue will have some measure of success. In Canada, “lawful access” refers to the ability of law enforcement and national security agencies to legally obtain information from electronic service providers or to intercept communications with judicial authorization. This authorized interception and the search and seizure of documents, computer data and other information is a tool frequently used by law enforcement agencies to investigate serious crimes like the illegal trafficking of weapons, drugs and people; money laundering; child pornography; Internet fraud; cybercrime; homicide and organized crime. National security agencies also use lawful access to investigate terrorist groups that threaten Canada's national security. Unfortunately, Canada's current lawful access framework is outdated and ineffective in the face of the rapid changes in technology being exploited by criminals. Gaps in legislation render Canadians increasingly vulnerable as wireless communication technology continues to advance, making it difficult for our law enforcement and national security apparatus to get the information needed to investigate serious crimes or security threats in a timely manner and to be able to prosecute them effectively. Technologies like the Internet, email, cellphones, wireless data networks and encryption all add additional layers of complexity and present serious technological challenges and delays for obtaining critical evidence. The growing global nature of crime increases this vulnerability, as terrorist networks, organized criminal groups and human traffickers all use modern technology to perpetrate crimes and avoid detection.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on with the lawful access speech I was providing. Basically, the growing global nature of crime increases vulnerability as terrorist networks, organized criminal groups and human traffickers all use modern technology to perpetrate crimes and avoid detection. Many criminal organizations are using communication technologies that cannot be easily or lawfully accessed by Canadian law enforcement and national security agencies. Communication networks themselves have become more complex through the rise of mobile and Internet communications, encrypted messaging services, international roaming, service resellers and ever faster network technologies. Generally, these new types of communication services are developed with consumer protection and security in mind, not lawful access, which has created tremendous challenges for investigators. As new technologies shape the way criminals operate, we must ensure that our law enforcement and national security apparatus have the tools and resources necessary to keep up with this changed and changing technical landscape. In 2009, 2011 and 2012, successive attempts by Conservative governments to modernize Canada's lawful access legislation did not succeed. Over the last 10 years, Liberal governments ignored the issue, which allowed the problem to fester and organized criminals to take over our streets. Canada is currently the only Five Eyes nation without a clear lawful access framework for modern communication. Decades of successive governments have not only let down but actively hindered our law enforcement and national security agencies by failing to provide them with the required legislation to allow for adequate investigative tools and resources needed to keep Canadians safe. The country's police chiefs have been calling for modernization of Canada's lawful access framework for many years, since as early as 2001. Canada's security and intelligence organizations continue to face significant challenges in successfully obtaining lawful access to communications due to the growing gap between the lawful authority to collect information and the technical capability to do so. In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has urged elected officials to “recognise the critical need for amendments to Canada's laws, to address the widening gap between ever-evolving technology and the outdated legislative framework that Canada's policing services must work within.” Our judicial system is constrained by investigative hurdles, outdated statutes, protracted pretrial and trial litigation and a lack of clarity. In 2018, the director of CSIS described lawful access problems as one of the most significant challenges he had identified to the government. Three core factors contribute to the challenges faced by law enforcement: the effects of advances in technology, the absence of legislation for intercept capability and the jurisdictional issues arising due to the cross-border nature of digital data. Our current legislation means police face barriers around seizure authorities, causing investigative delays, sometimes with no way to get access to the information they need. Modernizing Canada's lawful access framework is necessary to remove ambiguity and provide predictability and consistency for police and prosecutors while strengthening transparency and public trust. For these reasons, I personally am very pleased to see this legislation being brought forward as a stand-alone bill, and I support Bill C-22 being sent to committee, where it can be carefully studied, scrutinized and reviewed. Part 1 of Bill C-22 aims to facilitate quicker evidence gathering by allowing police officers to demand a yes-or-no answer from telecommunications providers as to whether they provide service to a specific account. It would also create a specific judicial order to compel electronic service providers to give basic identifying information, such as a names, addresses and emails, and would introduce a new mechanism for Canadian judges to authorize requests for subscriber information held by foreign entities. This addition would be an important tool for law enforcement, as cyberspace is not constrained by Canada's domestic border. In fact, a recent report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians found that many, if not most, Canadians use digital services from third party companies based outside of Canada. This report also noted that most online child sexual abuse cases involve offshore tech companies. Under current legislation, if digital information is required from a company based outside of Canada, the RCMP may request that information through a mutual legal assistance treaty, commonly known as an MLAT, where one is in place. For example, if the RCMP requires information from, say, Facebook or Apple, it sends a request to Canada's Department of Justice, which sends the request on to the U.S. Department of Justice. After that request is accepted by the U.S. Department of Justice, an assistant U.S. attorney makes an application before a U.S. judge to obtain a warrant for the information. The FBI can only execute that warrant after it is issued by a U.S. judge. Once the company provides the FBI with the information, it eventually makes its way back to the RCMP via the two justice departments. Now, even if the legal process is successful, if a company does not have a data retention policy, the content sought by an investigator may be deleted before the investigation request even arrives. According to the RCMP, the MLAT process can take three to six months, delaying investigations while Canadians remain at risk. For example, if someone reports to police a case of extortion occurring, say, on Instagram, it is currently a very lengthy and complicated process for police to obtain the alleged perpetrator's name or IP address because Instagram is a U.S.-based company. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would allow police to obtain a warrant to request the IP address from Instagram; then identify which Canadian provider services that IP address, through a yes-or-no response; and finally compel that specific provider to disclose the name, phone number and address linked to the IP address with judicial authorization: a warrant. By creating a mechanism to authorize these information requests from foreign entities, Bill C-22 would provide police with an important tool to seek judicial approval to obtain IP addresses and subscriber names linked to criminal communications routed through international platforms. It would also create a new tool of international co-operation in criminal matters to facilitate obtaining the court-ordered production of specific electronic data at the request of Canada's foreign partners, allowing for better co-operation with our allies. Even with these new production orders and judicial authorizations, these investigative processes often entail extensive work and time. In some cases, the time required to produce information exceeds the length of time that the service provider retains the information, meaning evidence is being purged before police can get the legal authorization to obtain it. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would expedite the response to production orders by changing the review period to 10 days, because having prompt access to these telecommunication records is a necessity for investigations. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would also provide clarifications on the ability of police officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them or publicly available. For example, if a parent discovers that their child is being sexually exploited online and finds explicit messages, the perpetrator's username and IP address may be visible directly within the chat logs. Under current law, police may hesitate to act immediately on this voluntarily provided information due to uncertainty around privacy laws and liability, potentially delaying intervention and allowing harm to continue. This clarification is important to ensure that police can lawfully and promptly use such voluntarily provided information, enabling faster identification of the service provider and quicker protection of the child. However, this new lawful access framework is only useful if telecommunications providers have the ability to respond to these demands. Currently, Canada is the only Western democracy that does not have a legal framework requiring electronic service providers to develop and maintain certain technical capabilities. This means that even if law enforcement obtains a warrant for information to, for example, track the movements of a terrorist group through one of its members' cellphones, the electronic provider may not be able to give that information as it is not required to retain it. Some telecommunications companies' and social media platforms' policies simply do not involve tracking or saving the kind of data that police might require as evidence unless they are legislated to do so. In addition to data storage, Canada currently has no comprehensive legislative or regulatory mechanism that obligates communications service providers to develop or deploy systems that provide intercept capabilities. When a new technology or communications service is introduced, law enforcement and national security agencies often have to research and develop new methods to gain lawful access to those networks. The lack of a technical solution, or a delay in the ability to use it, hampers investigations and prevents law enforcement and national security agencies from effectively acting on serious crimes or threats to national security in a timely manner. Part 2 of Bill C-22 would require electronic service providers to develop and maintain the technological capacity necessary to respond to lawful access requests and would establish a monetary penalty for non-compliance. It would also empower the Minister of Public Safety to issue flexible and targeted ministerial orders compelling an electronic service provider to develop and maintain specific capabilities. These ministerial orders would be subject to approval by the Intelligence Commissioner, as privacy and cybersecurity are explicit factors that need to be considered. With the establishment of legal obligations for service providers, when law enforcement agencies obtain a search warrant, they could be assured that the information they need to combat terrorism, organized crime or human trafficking, for example, would be provided quickly and accurately. Finally, part 3 of the bill would mandate a comprehensive review of the entire act by Parliament three years after all provisions came into force to assess its effectiveness and impact. I personally believe it would be of significant assistance to law enforcement, national security agencies and prosecutors if the public safety committee, when it does this study, also undertook to discuss and recommend amendments to sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, which deal with what information must be disclosed in court and what can remain protected. Currently, when police officers develop and use certain investigative techniques, they may be required to disclose how those tactics work in court, which can expose sensitive methods and undermine future investigations. Previous committee testimony by the commander of the Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau of the Ontario Provincial Police discussed how amendments to the Canada Evidence Act are necessary to maintain confidentiality regarding the way in which investigative tools are developed and how they operate, function or are deployed to protect ongoing and future investigations. I hope that at committee, serious consideration will be given to these issues to ensure that police and our national security apparatus have the tools needed to prevent, investigate and prosecute serious and organized crimes, terrorism and other such offences. Coming from a law enforcement background, I have witnessed first-hand the growing gap between what Canada's law allows and what technologies make possible for criminals. Conservatives believe in law and order and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. With that said, I am also aware of concerns raised by Canadians about the implications of this bill on their individual freedoms and privacy. I want to clarify that lawful access does not mean expanded access to private information. Rather, it means more timely and consistent lawful access to information related to specific individuals suspected of being engaged in criminal activity. Law enforcement authorities are not interested in the millions of devices used by everyday Canadians. The framework in Bill C-22 is intended to target those devices or communications that are being used to plan or execute criminal or terrorist activities. We must remember that without judicial authorization, law enforcement cannot intercept communications or request information and data. Lawful access does not allow access to private communications without a warrant, and interception can be carried out only with lawful authority, for targeted communications, for a specific period of time. Lawful access legislation does not allow law enforcement and intelligence investigators to simply monitor anyone's Internet use, email content or social media activity. Conservatives have been and will continue to be unequivocal in our commitment to protecting the freedom, privacy and safety of Canadians. At committee, we will scrutinize, debate and propose amendments to improve this legislation and stand firm against unnecessary infringements on the rights of Canadians. I remain optimistic that the government is open to non-partisan co-operation in assuring that Bill C-22 achieves its stated goal of strengthening Canada's public safety and national security, as well as safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I left policing in 2015, and I can say that in the decade and a half or more before that, there were serious restrictions and limitations on the ability of law enforcement, and certainly our national security apparatus, to lawfully gather information and then be able to use it in court. I can say that the chiefs of police, as I indicated in my remarks, said as early as 2001 that one of the biggest gaps that they have in bringing criminals to justice is the change in legislation for lawful access. Criminals are using the latest technology available, and law enforcement cannot keep up because our legislation has not kept up. I think it is critical, if we want to, regardless of some of the laws that I think could be changed—

Mr. Speaker, I was getting wound up on my last question. I will answer my colleague from the Bloc first. I do not think the threshold, to be honest, would be any lower. Law enforcement would still require reasonable, probable grounds to believe an offence has been or is about to be committed in order for the threshold to be met to obtain a warrant. The only thing that would be adjusted is that a service provider would be answering a basic yes or no question, with no details. “Does person X have an account? Are you the service provider for person X or for this account?” Once law enforcement knows that, the idea is that they would go to a judge to present this additional information. “Yes, Bell has this account, and this account is part of our investigation.” Then they could ask the judge for a warrant for that specific account. Right now, law enforcement is on a fishing trip, trying to find out what service provider that IP address is attached to.

Mr. Speaker, the difference here for the House and my colleagues to understand is that the courts found that during the “freedom convoy”, the government and the Governor in Council acted illegally. They circumvented the law. They basically broke the law, in my opinion and the opinion of the courts. The difference here is that there is legislation that allows for this to occur. This gives me pause to believe that the government is not able to circumvent the authorities here because of the law. It acted under the Emergencies Act during the “freedom convoy”. It made the decision as cabinet, with no law to protect Canadians. It just did it on its own, trying to quell what it did not like to have happen. This is why I have confidence to believe that with this legislation, being it is legislation and a statute, the law enforcement and the national security apparatus would operate within that statute.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that Bill C-2 had a number of things that distracted Canadians and gave us pause as legislators. It tried to lump everything together. It was suggested to the government that if we are going to deal with a subject as critical as this to law enforcement and the protection of our national security, and to CSIS and other national security investigators, we need to have a stand-alone bill. It needs to be clearly laid out and allow the government to be able to accept amendments and recommendations from opposition parties to strengthen the bill. This would allow law enforcement and our national security apparatus to both do the job we as Canadians have asked them to do for us and protect the privacy rights and concerns of Canadians. Having a stand-alone bill that can clearly articulate the authorities with which law enforcement can act would clear up a lot of ambiguity and get support across—

Mr. Speaker, if the government is going to have a robust lawful access regime in this country, it needs to have the necessary resources, not only in law enforcement and the national security apparatus, but also in prosecutions, to make sure we can follow through and hold accountable those who would do us harm as a country, like those who prey on the vulnerable, and organized crime individuals. Law enforcement needs not only the resources to do its job well, but also laws that ensure that those who commit crimes are held responsible and that we take seriously the issue of national security and the public safety of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, rising oil prices should be an enormous opportunity for Canada's economy, but Liberal anti-energy ideology blocks this sector. Despite grand speeches and meaningless MOUs, the Liberals have failed to approve any pipeline to tidewater, and their Major Projects Office has done nothing and approved nothing. Canadian energy should stabilize global markets, support our allies and strengthen our own economy. When will the Prime Minister get out of the way and unblock our resources so we can fuel our friends abroad and power paycheques here at home?

Mr. Speaker, today, words travel farther and faster than ever, allowing them to outlive the moment. What comes out of a person's mouth has immediate impact, and those words are not harmless, but we all have said something we regret. Our words create momentum for good or destruction. We think strength is proven by being blunt, direct or unfiltered. Proverbs 18 tells us, “The tongue has the power of life and death,” to build up or tear down. Angry words are sharp, prideful words are dismissive, and fearful words are defensive. Wisdom produces measured, purposeful, helpful words, and understands that restraint or silence is not weakness. Deliberate words carry authority because they are chosen, not impulsive. Leadership is not volume; it is direction. A wise person uses their tongue to bring clarity, courage, correction and hope. They understand that speaking truth requires both conviction and care. In this place and always, may our words express life.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are moving forward with their gun confiscation scheme, while at the same time the Public Safety Minister admits that he cannot explain the logic of his own policy. More than $700 million will be wasted, and he acknowledges that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem; criminals using illegal guns are. The Trudeau Liberals promised fair compensation, but now the program is capped. Valuations are half what they were before, and only about 15% of the more than two million guns are actually expected to be compensated for. This government continues to target the wrong people, despite the majority of Canada's provinces and territories and most law enforcement agencies officially rejecting any role in enforcing this misguided policy, meaning there is no one to even collect these guns. Gun crime is up 130% while the Liberals fail to secure the border, reduce penalties for gun crimes and allow repeat offenders back on the streets. It is time for the government to scrap its wasteful, politically motivated, ideological program and invest in real public safety.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of Canadians who are expressing great concern with the recent amendments from the Bloc and the Liberal government in regard to Bill C-9. The petitioners are concerned about criminalization of the reading of passages from the Bible and other sacred texts. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in this country, and the petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent overreach by the government.

Madam Speaker, part 1 of the bill would: [amend] the Customs Act to provide [CBSA] with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act and other Acts of Parliament and to provide officers of that Agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export. It also includes transitional provisions. This would force operators to provide facilities for both import and export inspections. As CBSA can already compel operators to provide this, would CBSA, or the government really, actually compel operators to provide these facilities, or is that just words in the bill? Along with the fact that the agency needs to have qualified, trained people to carry out these inspections, I am just curious to know whether the government is serious about providing the inspections, the facilities and the training to complete the requirements under the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Brookfield conflicts of interest continue to grow with his keeping his shares, options and performance pay, which are worth millions of dollars. Every major decision the PM says he is making for Canada, such as nuclear deals, AI, EU space agencies and many more, has the potential to make him wealthier. While Canadians suffer, business for Brookfield has never been better. When will the Prime Minister admit his conflicts, divest his shares and prioritize Canadians' best interests rather than his own portfolio investments?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. Today it is to discuss budget 2025. This fall, before the budget was tabled, my office sent out a survey across my riding to hear directly from constituents about their priorities and expectations for the 2025 budget. An overwhelming 76% of respondents listed the cost of living as their top concern, and nearly 80% of business owners said rising costs are hurting their operations. Of the respondents, 85% said that they are concerned about their financial future, and 88% said they do not believe that Canada's economic situation will improve in the near future. Conservatives have heard these concerns echoed by families, individuals and businesses across the country, which is why, before the budget was tabled, we presented the Prime Minister with a common-sense plan that laid out our expectations for an affordable budget. In our pre-budget meetings, Conservatives demanded the Liberals include measures in their budget to address the cost of living crisis by scrapping hidden taxes on groceries and gas, cutting taxes on work and homebuilding, and ending the reckless deficits that fuel inflation. Sadly, the November 4 budget missed that mark. It would fail to provide any meaningful relief for Canadians struggling to make ends meet. Budget 2025 would add nearly $80 billion to our national debt this year alone, the highest amount in Canadian history outside of COVID, all the while keeping Liberal taxes on groceries, work, energy and homebuilding. This budget would add $10 million to our debt every hour, and the Liberals intend to add another $321 billion to Canada's debt over the next five years. What many Canadians may not know is that, as a direct result of the Liberal reckless spending, our national debt is now at $1.35 trillion. This means that every Canadian, infant to senior, owes $33,000 as their share of Canada's federal debt, and as our debt rises, so too does the interest burden on that debt. Budget 2025 revealed that $55.6 billion will be required to debt service or interest charges this fiscal year alone. What this unbelievable amount really means is that the federal government is spending more on annual debt interest costs than it is on federal health transfers to the provinces or than is collected in GST revenues. This level of spending is not just reckless; it is dangerous and puts the future of our nation at risk. It is not just Conservatives who are concerned about this reckless spending. Experts from across the country have spoken out against this record-breaking Liberal deficit. Fitch Ratings, one of Canada's top credit rating agencies, warned that rising fiscal spending and debt burden have weakened the country's credit profile, putting Canada's AAA credit rating at risk. Even more shocking was the report released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Parliament's neutral, non-partisan official responsible for providing economic and fiscal analysis to parliamentarians and Canadians. The report found that Canada's traditional fiscal anchor, the debt-to-GDP ratio, “is no longer projected to be on a declining path”. This long-standing fiscal anchor is important not only for fiscal sustainability but also for preserving Canada's AAA credit rating. This fall, to avoid accountability, the Liberals quietly replaced Canada's long-standing debt-to-GDP fiscal anchor with a new one, maintaining not a declining debt-to-GDP, but rather a deficit-to-GDP, ratio. This one-word change effectively dismantled the fiscal anchor that has existed for more than 30 years in a process that was certainly far from transparent. Despite changing the goalposts, the PBO's report found that “it is unlikely that the Government’s declining deficit-to-GDP fiscal anchor will be respected.” It is disappointing, though not surprising, that the Liberals have resorted to accounting tricks to create confusion instead of working to get their deficit under control and stop their reckless spending. On top of these shifting targets, the Liberals are trying to distract from their record-breaking deficit by differentiating between operating and capital spending, despite the bottom line of Canada's debt remaining unchanged. Their fiscal anchor of balancing the operating budget by 2028 gives the illusion of fiscal stability while allowing the government to rack up huge deficit spending on the capital side of the books. In his report, the PBO found the Liberals' definition of capital investment to be “overly expansive”, going way beyond the internationally accepted definition adopted in other countries. Using a more accepted definition, the PBO found $94 billion in spending misclassified as capital and said, “based on our definition, the operating balance in Budget 2025 would remain in a deficit position”. This report by the impartial budget watchdog lays out a clear fiscal outlook for Canadians. Not a single fiscal anchor is likely to be met, and these dangerous deficits will continue to drive up the cost of essentials and make life even more unaffordable. In light of this analysis, the Liberals are now trying to get rid of this PBO, looking for a new officer who has “tact and discretion”. The Liberals have only themselves to blame for Canada's fiscal outlook, their poor fiscal outlook, yet instead of bringing down the deficit, they are attempting to silence those who hold them accountable. While typical of the government's record of avoiding accountability and transparency, it is nonetheless completely unacceptable. Despite these accounting tricks, the Liberals cannot hide from the fact that every dollar they spend comes out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians, causing higher prices, lower paycheques and bigger bills. In addition to massively increasing Canada's debt, budget 2025 fails to address the housing crisis so many Canadians are facing. Since the Liberals took office, housing prices have risen 32% faster than incomes in this country, turning Canada into the most unaffordable housing market in the G7. Despite the Prime Minister's promise to build 500,000 homes annually at speeds not seen for generations, his own agency confirmed that new home construction dropped 17% this past October alone, falling to less than half of his target. The president of the Building Industry and Land Development Association revealed the Liberals' misleading claims in the budget. He reported: This budget relies on backward-looking data that provides false reassurances that Canada’s housing sector is prospering and that affordability is improving. But these are stale statistics. The latest figures show that new home sales have evaporated across all housing types in every major city across Canada – and a hundred thousand jobs are at risk. It is not just industry leaders who are concerned about the Liberal housing plan; the Liberal member for Beaches—East York, the Prime Minister's former minister of housing, said that the housing measures in budget 2025 are, unfortunately, very “unlikely to move the needle on development”. To use his own phrasing, budget 2025 “falls well short” of addressing the Liberal housing promises and “does not live up to its promise of generational investments.” If the Liberals want to get serious about restoring housing affordability, they should get out of the way and scrap the red tape and taxes that make it impossible to build. The promise of Canada has always been that every person, no matter where they are from, can work hard and build a life with a stable job, an affordable home and a strong future in the freest country on earth. Unfortunately, after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, that promise has become increasingly out of reach. When the Liberals took office in 2015, Canada ranked number nine on the global quality of life index. After 10 years of reckless Liberal spending and mismanagement, Canada has fallen to 27th place, the largest drop of any of the top 30 countries. Therefore, on behalf of the Canadians who can no longer afford to eat, heat or house themselves because of Liberal inflation, Conservatives do not support any aspect of this costly budget. We will continue to put forward amendments to improve Canada's quality of life by cutting taxes on groceries, work, energy and homebuilding. We will fight to restore the promise of Canada. My hope is that all parties in the House will work with us to deliver a positive, hopeful and affordable future.

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear my colleague from across the way. I am concerned about his health, as excited as he gets all the time with his questions. The part that troubles me is that we can have all this rhetoric from the other side, from the government, about what is happening with the economy and how well we are doing in comparison to other countries. However, I listen to the people in my riding; I hear stories from across the country, and they are all the same. I talked to a guy by the name of Bob, a senior from my riding, who called me on Friday afternoon. He has to sell his home because he cannot afford to live any longer. He cannot afford his groceries, cannot afford utilities on his house, insurance on his house. He cannot afford any of that stuff, and he cannot afford to rent once he sells his house. This is the reality people face in this country. We can have all the rhetoric we want about how well we think we are doing as a country, but the reality is that people in this country cannot afford to live. When is that going to change?

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say in French that my colleague is absolutely correct. I thank him for the information. I thank him for the realization that the government fails to recognize, which is that it can use all the accounting tricks it wants, but the reality is that we have a debt problem in this country. We have a debt problem for consumers, for governments and for businesses, which are struggling to make ends meet. We can have all the tricks in the world with the operating and the capital budget, and all that accounting, saying, “It is not here; it is over here. We can have the public lose track of it”, but I say no. There is one debt payer, and there is one debt. It is costing us a fortune. This $55.6 billion will continue to go up every year because of the government's reckless spending and mismanagement of our taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. It is interesting when the government rolls out these socialist programs to people who want to have a job, keep their job and be able to afford to feed their own children. They want to be able to afford to keep their house and have a job and a future for their children. This is not what has been happening over these last 10 years with the government. Yes, people want to look after themselves and not depend on government handouts.

Mr. Speaker, this fall, my office surveyed southern Alberta residents about their priorities and expectations for the federal budget. An overwhelming 76% of respondents indicated the cost of living is their top concern, and 80% of business owners said the rising costs were hurting their operations. Interestingly, 88% did not believe Canada's economic situation would improve in the next year. Sadly, they are correct. The Prime Minister's “spend less” promise has been shattered, with an $80-billion budget deficit this year alone, the highest ever in Canadian history outside of COVID. This year's interest on the national debt will be a staggering $55.6 billion, even more than our health transfers. The budget is adding $10 million to our debt every hour, which equals approximately $33,000 for every Canadian and is climbing rapidly. The Liberals need to realize that every dollar they spend comes out the pockets of hard-working Canadians. My voters are demanding that the Liberals stop the reckless spending that is driving up the cost of everything.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. Today, I am going to be discussing Bill C-12. This is the Liberals' second attempt at addressing our broken border and immigration system. It was introduced in the House recently, thanks to my Conservative colleagues' work and my work in forcing the Liberals to back down on their first border bill, Bill C-2, because of its serious violations regarding the freedom and privacy of Canadians. As the official opposition, it is our job to scrutinize the government and oppose legislation when it is against the best interest of Canadians. The safety and security of Canadians is non-negotiable, and Conservatives have been clear: Canadians should not have to choose between having a secure border and having their civil liberties protected. Given the scope and complexity of the bill, Conservatives proposed that Bill C-2 be split into two separate pieces of legislation, with one that is narrowly confined to border and immigration measures, to ensure that all aspects of the legislation receive proper scrutiny. I am pleased that, along with our other opposition members, we were able to successfully force the Liberals to table the new bill, which we will continue to examine thoroughly to ensure that the bill does not include any measures that would breach law-abiding Canadians' privacy rights. Bill C-12 may be a starting point, but I believe it requires significant amendments and vigorous study at committee. There is no doubt that tougher and smarter measures regarding borders and immigration are desperately needed to keep Canadians safe. While I am happy that the Liberals are willing to work with the opposition parties to address Canada's border security and immigration issues, it is important to note that much of the urgency surrounding the legislation is a direct result of 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. The Liberals have failed to take our borders seriously, resulting in increased gun smuggling, driving up violent crime; an immigration system that is completely out of control; a fentanyl crisis; and an increase in human trafficking. These are all destroying the lives of Canadians. While Bill C-12 contains positive provisions to streamline investigations and improve information sharing, it falls short in addressing some of the pressing public safety concerns facing Canadians. The Liberals' failure to secure our border and crack down on organized crime has fuelled a fentanyl crisis and put countless lives at risk. The Liberals' reckless drug legalization experiment, combined with their soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5, has fuelled Canada's deadly drug crisis. Bill C-5 scrapped mandatory jail for fentanyl production and trafficking, for example. Last fall, police dismantled the largest and most sophisticated drug lab in Canadian history, capable of producing multiple kilograms of fentanyl each week, along with caches of loaded firearms, explosives and half a million dollars in cash. Fentanyl is not just a drug problem; it is a public safety and national security risk and a crisis fuelled by organized crime and enabled by weak borders. Part 2 of Bill C-12, as in Bill C-2, would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to fill a loophole in the act by banning precursor chemicals for fentanyl. This is an important first step, but the Liberals are addressing only a small part of the issue and doing too little, too late. Bill C-2 is silent on the tools police and prosecutors actually need to address this crisis. The Liberals' catch-and-release policies are alive and well for those who traffic in fentanyl and firearms. The principle of restraint in Bill C-75 directs the courts to release violent offenders on bail at the earliest opportunity, under the least onerous restrictions. The Liberals' persistence in allowing house arrest for serious offences, which include offences involving firearms, if members can believe it, continues to endanger lives. It is not just the fentanyl crisis the Liberals are playing catch-up on. Their failure to get serious on our border has allowed for an increase in illegal gun smuggling, driving organized crime in Canada. Gun crime has risen 130% since the Liberals took office. In July, the Prime Minister himself even said, “The vast majority of firearms, illegal firearms, firearms used in crime, come across our border.” According to the Toronto Police Service, 88% of guns used in crimes seized by the Toronto Police Service in 2024 were traced back to the United States, including 94% of the firearms that were seized. That does not sound like a very secure border to me and, unfortunately, Bill C-12 does little to address the issue. Instead of investing in border security, the public safety minister has doubled down on the Liberals' failed gun confiscation program, which he himself admitted is a waste of money that will do nothing to keep Canadians safe. The $742 million the Liberals say they intend to spend on gun confiscation could have gone to hiring 5,000 more police officers or CBSA officers or purchasing 300 port scanners. Instead of including measures in Bill C-12 to ensure border officials have the proper resources needed to secure the border, the Liberals remain committed to targeting law-abiding hunters and firearms owners. Having a secure border also means having a strong, robust immigration system that serves the needs of Canadians and aligns with our national interests. Parts of Bill C-12 attempt to address some of the challenges our immigration system faces after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. Unfortunately, I am not confident that these measures by themselves will fix our broken system, which is clearly collapsing under the weight of Liberal mismanagement. This week, the CBC reported that processing times for Canadian immigration applications have reached unprecedented lengths. Wait times, for example, for permanent resident applications are up to nine years for the caregiver pathway, up to 19 years for the agri-food stream and up to 35 years for entrepreneurs under the start-up visa stream. Even worse than that, if anyone can imagine, the Liberals have lost track of hundreds and hundreds of foreigners in this country who have criminal records and are due to be deported. Guess what, they have gone missing. This backlog of applications, lack of accountability and inconsistent enforcement all stem from a government that has failed to plan, failed to listen and failed to act. Now, with Bill C-12, the Liberals are scrambling to fix the very system they dismantled, but instead of thoughtful reform, they are reaching out for sweeping powers and vague regulations that permit activities rather than legislating requirements for change. Conservatives believe in responsible immigration in appropriate numbers to keep up with our health care, housing and job markets. We support measures that streamline processing, reduce backlogs and help newcomers integrate successfully, but we oppose policies that put power in the hands of ministers without proper oversight. Canada's immigration system needs complete, wholesale changes to ensure a secure border and prosperous nation, but those changes are nowhere to be found in C-12. Like many Canadians, Conservatives want safe communities, secure borders and an immigration system that works for our country, not one that is collapsing under the weight of the Liberal government. The safety and security of Canadians is non-negotiable and, as the official opposition, Conservatives remain committed to implementing the tougher, smarter measures that are needed to keep Canadians safe. We are ready to support provisions in the bill that protect our national security and secure our borders while proposing amendments that would improve the bill and opposing measures that go against the best interest of Canadians. Bill C-12 introduces significant changes that require in-depth study to ensure the problems are addressed appropriately. At committee, Conservatives will scrutinize, debate and propose amendments to Bill C-12 and work together to ensure it achieves its stated goal of improving Canada's public safety and national security. Conservatives remain committed to securing our borders, strengthening our immigration system and cracking down on crime and chaos in our streets.

Mr. Speaker, I have many good friends and former colleagues who were or are members of the RCMP. Even now, I ask people from the force whom I meet in different communities about how things are going. They tell me very clearly that there is a disconnect between upper management and them. There are operational issues that are not being addressed by the RCMP leadership. That disappoints me. The RCMP no longer has the stellar reputation it once had. That concerns me as well. It is our national police service and has great responsibilities on national security, defence and those types of investigations. It is important that it be given the opportunity—

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I have similar questions. I am puzzled by the government's bringing the bill forward and not putting up any speakers to defend it nor to speak about how they want to improve the bill or how they want to work with the opposition to improve the bill. My Bloc colleague asked a question that I cannot answer. The government would have to answer why it is not putting up people to speak to its own bill. I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened in this country over the last 10 years is that the public trust in our entire justice system has waned. Examples like this, where judges make decisions that might be considered inappropriate, or where the laws of the government have undermined the great work of law enforcement across this country, certainly cause people to ask, “What is the use?” and to say that we need a change in government to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, let us get back on track to the topic at hand. In Bill C-2, there was a failure to group the different topics that were in it. Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction; however, serious amendments are required to the bill. Can you just highlight, in your opinion, some of the more poignant issues that Bill C-12 needs amendments for? We are hopeful that the government will listen to the amendments that Conservatives intend to bring forward.

Mr. Speaker, the world desperately needs more people who do not fold under pressure, but who are guided by grace and use their influence not for personal gain, but for justice, those who are willing to stand in the gap for others, to boldly speak the truth, to protect the vulnerable, to fight against injustice and to take risks to do what is right. I believe these are the kinds of people we are all called on to be, people who are willing to step up and speak out even when it is uncomfortable or perhaps even risky. Too often we shrink back from those moments. We choose silence. We fear conflict. We act impulsively or we accuse. There is a better way. We can choose our moments carefully, deliver our words with wisdom and clarity, act with courage and always be respectful. Courageous people do not wait for safer circumstances; they step forward in faith and trust God with the outcome. We must remember that our influence matters. Our voices can be used to bring justice, freedom, hope and life, but only if we are willing to use them.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' oil and gas emissions cap will continue to devastate jobs in the energy sector and make life more expensive for Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the emissions cap will cut our GDP by about $20.5 billion annually and eliminate 54,000 more jobs by 2032. The Prime Minister promised he would be different, but those promises have been broken. Will the Prime Minister support the Conservative motion to repeal the oil and gas emissions cap, or will he and the Liberals continue to be obstructive?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and to represent the great people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. This summer, like many members of the House, I had the privilege of meeting with constituents from all across my riding, hearing directly from them on issues that matter most to them. I want to thank everyone who took the time to connect with me, because their voice matters. Today I would like to discuss Bill C-2, known as the strong borders act. Despite its simple name, Bill C-2 is an omnibus piece of legislation that includes 16 separate parts and would make amendments to 19 different acts of Parliament. The broad nature of the bill and the substantial changes proposed require vigorous study and debate at committee, with numerous expert witnesses from all perspectives to get the important legislation right, because as tabled by the government, I believe it is flawed and requires amendments to fix and strengthen it. As the official opposition, Conservatives remain committed to implementing tougher and smarter measures that are needed to keep Canadians safe. We are ready to support provisions in the bill that are in our national interest and secure our borders while proposing—

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are ready to support provisions in the bill that are in our national interest and secure our borders while proposing amendments by which the bill can be improved and opposing measures that go against the best interest of Canadians. Before I get into the specifics of the bill, it is very important to note that much of the urgency surrounding the legislation is the direct result of 10 years of Liberal inaction on border and immigration enforcement. Let us not forget it was the new Trump administration that actually forced this issue, causing the Liberals to finally take these concerns seriously. It was about time. Through the introduction of the bill, the Liberals are trying to address problems they not only created but also allowed to reach a crisis level. Conservatives have been calling for a stronger response to public safety, border security and immigration for years. I am pleased to see that some aspects of Bill C-2 take meaningful steps in helping to streamline investigations, fight money laundering and ensure sex offenders are dealt with properly under the Sex Offender Information Registry Act. Having the appropriate tools is critical in keeping our borders secure, disrupting illegal financing and fighting transnational organized crime and fentanyl. Part 2 attempts to begin to address the fentanyl crisis by proposing to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to fill a loophole in the act. It proposes to do this by banning precursor chemicals for fentanyl, which is critically important. However, Bill C-2 fails to address the serious matter of appropriate sentencing for fentanyl dealers, for example, given the Liberals' failure to repeal their soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5, and their catch-and-release legislation in Bill C-75. Part 4 of Bill C-2 would expand the powers of Canada Post, allowing it to open anything during post. While I agree that the Canada Post Act requires some amendments, the searching and opening of mail should be limited to law enforcement agencies with judicial authorization. I remain concerned that some of the sweeping changes embedded in this omnibus bill could undermine privacy protections across Canada. Having a secure border means having a strong, robust immigration system that serves the needs of Canadians and aligns with our national interests. Parts 6 to 9 of Bill C-2 attempt to address some of the challenges our immigration system faces after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. I strongly believe that the role of government is to protect our national security. We must ensure that our national security apparatus and law enforcement agencies have the legislative tools necessary to do their jobs and do them well. Part 6 of the bill introduces amendments to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow information sharing between various government departments and agencies, but only if a written agreement exists. I applaud the opening of communication between federal agencies, but the bill would permit these activities through regulation rather than simply legislating that requirement. The absence of legislating it and having enforcement mechanisms casts doubt on whether meaningful action would follow or whether this would be yet another empty promise. Parts 7, 8 and 9 of Bill C-2 include proposed substantial changes to the in-Canada asylum claim eligibility. It would expand the minister's authority to suspend or cancel immigration documents for reasons determined to be in the national interest and proposes changes to the safe third country agreement so that anyone who crosses the border between official ports of entry would be ineligible to apply for asylum immediately after arrival and could be returned to the United States during that period if they do not qualify for an exception. All of these proposed changes are significant and have potential, but they require in-depth study to ensure they address the problems appropriately. Beyond immigration, Bill C-2, in part 10 and part 11, contains provisions to crack down on money laundering, terrorist financing and organized crime. Part 10 proposes to increase penalties and replace optional FINTRAC compliance agreements with a mandatory regime. It would expand FINTRAC's registration to include more entities and would authorize FINTRAC to share information with Elections Canada. These are all sound proposals. However, in part 11 of the bill, the Liberals are proposing to ban certain entities from accepting third party cash deposits, any cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more. While I appreciate that the government says its intent here is to prevent money laundering by criminals, who predominantly use cash, without further legislative clarity, this has raised concerns from charities, community groups, rural communities and many individuals who rely on cash for their daily business activities. The provision would risk limiting Canadians' freedom to use legal tender, including cash, as they may choose. Conservatives oppose any move to ban cash or require mandatory digital transactions, and believe that these changes must undergo rigorous scrutiny at committee. Parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2 have introduced measures which would curtail individual freedoms and have raised concerns that innocent individuals, not just criminals, may be caught by the provisions of the bill. The bill would introduce provisions to provide greater authority for police, CSIS and authorized persons to access online subscriber information from electronic service providers without the need for a warrant. I understand that this is important in some circumstances, but I believe that digital privacy is a fundamental right of Canadians, and we must ensure that the legislation would not lead to law-abiding citizens' being treated like criminals. While action on our borders and the need for increased national security enforcement is desperately needed, I want to be clear that I do not support granting excessive, unchecked powers to government or law enforcement, in most circumstances, without due process, proper oversight and respect for Canadians' rights. Conservatives are concerned about Bill C-2's potential impact on Canadians' privacy and freedoms, and we will ensure that they are respected. As I have mentioned, Bill C-2 is sweeping in its scope, and I do not believe that Canadians should have to choose between having a secure border and having their civil liberties protected. Given the scope and complexity, Conservatives are proposing that Bill C-2 be split into two separate pieces of legislation: one confined to border security and immigration, and the other to everything else. My hope is that the Liberals will receive that as intended. Like most Canadians, we all want secure communities and borders, and immigration that works, and the safety and security of Canadians is not negotiable. Bill C-2 is a step in the right direction, like cracking down on terrorist financing, but we have concerns, and we oppose other provisions in the bill. The bill needs to be scrutinized. My hope is that the Liberals are open to non-partisan co-operation in ensuring that the bill achieves the stated goal of meaningful improvement to Canada's public safety and national security while safeguarding Canadians' rights and freedoms so that law-abiding Canadians are not treated like criminals.

Mr. Speaker, if that is exactly what the bill said, then there is nothing wrong with it, but it does not say that. This is why it is so important that the work of the committee is done in a non-partisan fashion to clear up any ambiguity and provide clarity so that, exactly as my friend across the way suggested, things are done in a lawful, rights-protected manner by law enforcement, not Canada Post opening letters, and that they do it under the authority of a warrant.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. It would have a far-reaching impact, both positive and negative, if we get it wrong. We need to ensure that the committee is given as much time as it needs. This is not something that should be brushed over because of the urgency being pushed from the United States. Canadian rights and freedoms need to be protected, but we also need to have tools that do not hinder the ability of law enforcement to do its job in a lawful manner and to keep our national security and community safety at the forefront.

Mr. Speaker, I had the same fright when I saw the government's initial proposal to have Canada Post deal with the confiscation of firearms. It is not appropriate. Canada Post has an obligation. I appreciate the fact that we need to adjust the Canada Post act to even allow for law enforcement to be able to obtain a warrant to gather and seize evidence, but it needs to be law enforcement, not Canada Post individuals.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very loaded question that is going to require a lot of time to answer. In its present form, I believe that unless the proper clarity and checks and balances are put in place, the bill would have the potential to reach beyond its initial intent, to reach beyond the ability to keep our nation safe and Canadians safe. It has potential. That is why we need to study it at committee. That is why we need to have vigorous debate. That is why we need to have all parties, the government included, open to constructive amendments that would make the bill strong and actually achieve the measures that we intend it to.

With regard to Elections Canada and the 2025 general election: (a) what is the full breakdown of the processing of special ballots, including how and when they are counted; (b) does Elections Canada record a distinction between special ballots in person and special ballots used to vote by mail; (c) what is the full breakdown of the processing of advance polling and the counting of those ballots, including the transportation of ballot boxes used in advance polling locations to their storage and counting locations; (d) who processes vote-by-mail ballot requests and what are the criteria to accept or reject requests to vote by mail; (e) where are vote-by-mail ballots counted; (f) is Elections Canada aware of any instances of voters being told at the poll that they had already voted by mail-in ballot when they had not, and, if so, how many instances are they aware of, broken down by riding; (g) what is the process for poll workers to notify Elections Canada when the situation outlined in (f) occurs; (h) how does Elections Canada define (i) voting kit, (ii) special ballot, (iii) vote-by-mail, and have any of these definitions changed in the past 10 years, and, if so, what are the details, including the date of the change and the previous definition; and (i) on what date will the "raw data" of the 2025 Canadian federal election be made available online?

With regard to Elections Canada and special ballot data, for each of the 2019, 2021 and 2025 general elections, in total and broken down by electoral district, for each part of the question: (a) how many special ballots were issued to electors living (i) in their riding and voting by mail from inside their riding, (ii) in their riding and voting at an Elections Canada office inside their riding, (iii) in their riding and voting by mail from outside their riding, (iv) in their riding and voting at an Elections Canada office outside their riding, (v) outside of Canada and voting by mail from outside their riding; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a)(i) to (a)(v) by each of the five types of special voting rules for electors?

With regard to Elections Canada, for each of the 2019, 2021 and 2025 general elections, in total and broken down by electoral district, for each part of the question: (a) how many applications for vote-by-mail ballots were (i) requested, (ii) denied; (b) how many vote-by-mail ballots were (i) sent out, (ii) received, (iii) counted, (iv) rejected; (c) what is the breakdown of each part of (b) by ballots sent to voters within Canada versus those outside of Canada; and (d) for Canadian citizens residing outside of Canada, what is the process for determining what riding they vote in, and how does Election Canada verify the accuracy of the information used to determine the riding?

Mr. Speaker, this bureaucracy that is being set up is just another example of the smoke and mirrors. There is no need for democracy if the corruption was not existing in the Liberal government right from the very beginning. My question is very simple. We can have all the bureaucracies we want. What steps are this parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Public Safety and the government taking, specifically, to get the taxpayers' money back that GC Strategies stole from the taxpayers? Like I said, the bureaucracy does not get money back. You set up all these rules so it does not happen anymore. Well, it should not have been happening in the first place. Canadian taxpayers want to know where their money is, so what steps are you taking?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General just released a scathing audit on arrive scam contractor GC Strategies. Last year, the government awarded 106 contracts to GC Strategies, worth a total of $92 million, with $64 million already paid out. However, 50% of these contracts did not enforce security requirements. Much of the work performed was not monitored. Many contractors did not have the experience or qualifications needed. Procurement policies were not followed, and there was no demonstration of value for money, nor that deliverables were actually received. Yet, unbelievably, the government kept authorizing payment. Every time there is a Liberal corruption scandal, it seems that the ministers responsible get promoted and the taxpayer gets the bill. Conservatives are calling on the government to get taxpayers their money back within 100 days and impose a lifetime contracting ban on GC Strategies. Canadians are watching to see if the government will actually support them in getting their money back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for the introduction of this bill. Much of my time here in Ottawa is spent on the public safety committee, and many of these issues have been brought up for years, as has the need to improve upon the law. In my previous career in law enforcement, we had similar issues that we were bringing forward over and over again. My question is twofold. There has been so much pressure to deal with the smuggling of firearms, the fentanyl issues and the porous borders with immigration. One, what took so long to get at this? Two, we have provisions in the act—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the energy minister say there will be no pipelines without a consensus, but buzzwords do not build pipelines. How is consensus realistic when the NDP Premier of B.C. has already ruled out a new pipeline. There is currently no proponent for an eastern pipeline, and the Prime Minister himself called for Canada to be an energy superpower one day, and the next day, he insisted that half of the other reserves need to stay in the ground. Half of the PM's own cabinet wanted to see Canada's oil industries die, and they spent the past decade trying to kill it. If the Prime Minister cannot find consensus within his own cabinet, how does he plan to approve a pipeline?

With regard to government expenditures related to the Prime Minister's trip to New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly in September 2024: (a) what are the expenditures incurred to date, in total and broken down by type of expense; (b) how many members were part of the Canadian delegation; (c) what are the names and titles of the delegation members; (d) what was the total expenditure on hotels in the New York City area during that visit; and (e) what are the details of the expenses at each hotel, including the (i) total amount spent, (ii) name of the hotel, (iii) number of rooms rented each night, (iv) rate paid and the number of rooms at each rate?

With regard to legal costs incurred by the government in relation to litigation against the Information Commissioner since January 1, 2021: what is the total expenditure on outside legal counsel, broken down by legal costs paid out to date and by legal costs scheduled to be paid out, for (i) Attorney General of Canada v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1623-22), (ii) Export Development Canada v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1793-22 and Federal Court of Appeal file A-345-23), (iii) Minister of Public Services and Procurement v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-125-23), (iv) Clerk of the Privy Council v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1090-23), (v) Clerk of the Privy Council v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1091-23), (vi) Information Commissioner of Canada v. President and Chief Executive Officer of the Trans Mountain Corporation (Federal Court file T-1399-23), (vii) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1606-23), (viii) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1607-23), (ix) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1608-23), (x) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1653-23), (xi) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1680-23), (xii) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1728-23), (xiii) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1764-23), (xiv) Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T- 2022-23), (xv) Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of National Defence (Federal Court file T-2683-23), (xvi) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-272-24), (xvii) Minister of Transport v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-280-24), (xviii) Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of National Defence (Federal Court file T-333-24), (xix) Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of National Defence (Federal Court file T-334-24), (xx) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-342-24), (xxi) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-344-24), (xxii) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-371-24), (xxiii) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-397-24), (xxiv) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-970-24), (xxv) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1054-24), (xxvi) Minister of Canadian Heritage v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1060-24), (xxvii) Information Commissioner of Canada v. Minister of National Defence (Federal Court file T-1226-24), (xxviii) Minister of National Defence v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1433-24), (xxix) Minister of National Defence v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1434- 24), (xxx) Minister of Indigenous Services v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-1556-24), (xxxi) Information Commissioner of Canada v. Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Federal Court file T-1822-24), (xxxii) Minister of National Defence v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-2013-24), (xxxiii) Minister of National Defence v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-2681-24), (xxxiv) Minister of National Defence v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-2709-24), (xxxv) Minister of National Defence v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-2720-24), (xxxvi) Minister of National Defence v. Information Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court file T-2779-24)?