Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Bilateral Mission in Warsaw, Poland; Riga, Latvia; and Tallinn, Estonia, from November 9 to 15, 2024; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, on September 2 and 3, 2024; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Oulu, North Ostrobothnia, Finland, from September 22 to 24, 2025; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region and Arctic Frontiers 2025: Beyond Borders Conference in Tromsø, Norway, from January 25 to 28, 2025; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the First Part of the 2025 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from January 27 to 31, 2025; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the Third Part of the 2025 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from June 23 to 27, 2025; and the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the Fourth Part of the 2025 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from September 29 to October 3, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The first is the sixth report, in relation to Bill C‑223, an act to amend the Divorce Act, in which the committee requests an extension to hear from witnesses and complete its study of the bill. The second is the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C‑235, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to increasing parole ineligibility. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters regarding child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians made a big decision in University—Rosedale, Scarborough Southwest and Terrebonne by putting their trust in this new government's plan and our Prime Minister. To everyone who put their name on the ballot, I want to say thanks. Our democracy is better off for their participation. I would like to congratulate our new colleagues Danielle Martin and Doly Begum, and of course welcome back our colleague Tatiana Auguste. This government has a clear mandate to continue taking action on the important issues that matter most to Canadians, and with these three newly elected colleagues and under the leadership of our Prime Minister, we will do just that.

Mr. Speaker, five years ago yesterday, the House adopted a motion declaring March as Irish Heritage Month. In 1847, Irish immigrants arrived on our shores. They were sick; they were hungry; they were dying. What did Canada do? We welcomed them. The Irish have helped build this country. Our first Governor General was from Ireland, our second Governor General was from Ireland, and our current Prime Minister is from Ireland. When Lester Pearson commissioned our new flag, he tapped a man by the name of Patrick Reid, who had fought alongside Canadian soldiers in World War II. The red maple leaf ensign was on their shoulder, and that is what inspired the flag design that we fly so proudly today. When we walk out the doors of this building onto Wellington Street, it is a street named after a man who was born on Grafton Street in downtown Dublin. Canada and Ireland are two great friends. They are two great allies, and they share values. There is so much more to do. I want to celebrate this month because Canadian Irish history is Canadian history. Sláinte.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. First let me say that, as always, it is a privilege to stand in the House and represent the great people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, whom I have the honour of representing. I rise today to speak in support of the motion before the House. This debate is about more than procedure. It is about how Parliament chooses to do its work. It is about whether we allow legislation to move forward after thorough study, or whether we allow it to be stalled indefinitely through procedural obstruction. Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, has now been before Parliament for months. It was introduced in the House of Commons on September 19, 2025. It is now March. It received second reading debate. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where witnesses appeared, experts testified, communities shared their experiences, amendments were proposed and clauses were debated. In total, Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours debating and studying this legislation. That is not rushed consideration but serious parliamentary scrutiny. This is exactly how our legislative process is supposed to work, but there comes a moment when scrutiny must lead to decision. Parliament cannot function if debate never leads to a vote. Opposition parties play a critical role in our democracy. Their responsibility is to challenge legislation, question its provisions and propose improvements. That is healthy, and it is necessary. That is how good legislation becomes better legislation, but there is a difference between debate and obstruction. Debate is when members raise arguments, propose amendments and explain their position to Canadians. Obstruction is something very different. Obstruction is when procedural tactics are used to prevent Parliament from doing its job. Obstruction is when hours are consumed not discussing the bill itself but discussing procedural manoeuvres. Obstruction is when legislation cannot move forward, even after extensive study. This is what we have seen repeatedly during the study of Bill C-9. The opposition parties have prolonged debate in ways to prevent clause-by-clause review from progressing. Every hour spent on procedural delay is an hour in which Parliament is prevented from completing its work. This is the simple reality. Members of the House are free to disagree with legislation. They are free to oppose it and to vote against it. That is their right. That is democracy. If a member believes a clause should not be adopted, they can vote against that clause. If a member believes an amendment should be rejected, they can vote against the amendment. If a member believes the entire bill should fail, they can vote against the bill. This is how the legislature functions. Members make their arguments and cast their vote, and Parliament reaches a decision. What is not responsible is attempting to delay the legislative process indefinitely through procedural tactics. That does not strengthen legislation, it does not improve legislation and it does not serve Canadians. The legislation before us addresses an issue that communities across Canada have been raising for years. Hate-motivated intimidation and harassment have become increasingly visible in our communities. We have seen individuals threatened as they approach their places of worship. We have seen hateful symbols displayed outside schools and community centres. We have seen people intimidated simply for being part of a particular religious, cultural or identity group. These are not theoretical concerns. These are real experiences reported by Canadians across the country. Jewish communities have spoken about threats directed at their synagogues. We have only to look at this past weekend in my city of Toronto. Muslim communities have reported intimidation outside mosques, Black Canadians have spoken about racist harassment, Asian Canadians have faced hostility fuelled by misinformation and prejudice, and LGBTQ Canadians have experienced intimidation in spaces meant to provide safety and support. These incidents undermine the sense of safety that Canadians expect in their daily lives, and Bill C-9 responds to those concerns. It strengthens the Criminal Code to address intimidation and obstruction directed at spaces primarily used by identifiable groups. It creates clearer tools for law enforcement when crimes are motivated by hatred toward a person's identity. It addresses the public display of symbols used to promote hatred and intimidate communities. These measures respond directly to what community organizations, law enforcement agencies and human rights groups have been asking Parliament to address. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examined these issues in depth. In December 2024, the committee released its report on heightened anti-Semitism in Canada and how to confront it. The report contained recommendations aimed at strengthening Canada's response to hate-motivated crimes and intimidation. Many of those recommendations are reflected in Bill C-9. In other words, the legislation before us today is not the product of a sudden idea. It reflects a parliamentary study, expert testimony and the voices of communities who have asked Parliament to act. Some of the debate surrounding this bill has focused on the removal of the religious exemption provision in the Criminal Code. Let us address that clearly. Freedom of religion in Canada is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection is fundamental and is not changing. Courts in Canada have consistently confirmed that hate propaganda offences require a very high legal threshold. That threshold requires proof that someone wilfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group. Reading scripture does not meet that threshold. Teaching religious doctrine does not meet that threshold. Practising one's faith does not meet that threshold. Those freedoms remain fully protected under the charter. Nevertheless, concerns were raised by some faith communities about how the legislation might be interpreted. When these concerns were raised, Parliament responded responsibly. A “for greater certainty” clause was introduced to explicitly confirm that peaceful religious expression is not captured by the legislation. That is how legislative collaboration should work. Concerns were raised, members worked together, clarifications were introduced and legislation was strengthened. Collaboration requires participation from all sides. It requires members to bring forward amendments, to debate provisions and to vote, but collaboration does not mean using procedural tactics to prevent Parliament from completing its work. There is another important point that must be understood. When legislation is stalled, the consequences extend beyond a single bill. Parliament has a significant legislative agenda. There are bills that address public policy, justice reform, economic policy and issues that Canadians expect Parliament to address. When one bill is repeatedly delayed through obstruction, it consumes time that could otherwise be used to advance other legislation. It slows the entire legislative process, which affects Parliament's ability to respond to the needs of Canadians. The motion before us today is not extraordinary but simply ensures that the committee can complete its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 and that the House can proceed to a vote. Debate has taken place. Studies have taken place. Witnesses have been heard. Amendments have been proposed. The next step in the legislative process is decision. That is what this motion allows Parliament to do. Members of the House will have the opportunity to vote. They will have the opportunity to support the legislation or oppose it, but Canadians deserve to see Parliament reach a decision. The issue before us ultimately comes down to responsibility. As legislators, we have a responsibility to debate legislation thoroughly, to listen to witnesses and to examine the amendments, but we also have a responsibility to complete our work. Communities across the country are asking for stronger protections against hate and intimidation. They are asking Parliament to respond. They are asking Parliament to act. After months of study and debate, it is time for Parliament to fulfill that responsibility. It is time to move forward. It is time to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I work with him on the committee, and at times I enjoy it. The simple fact remains that when this bill is passed in its current form, I will be allowed to go to church and my colleagues will be allowed to go to their synagogues or their mosques. Nothing changes. Any notion that this bill would somehow restrict people from practising their religion or reading from scripture is absurd. It is misinformation, full stop.

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The people who have not had the benefit of watching the committee go through this process should go back and review it, because the Conservative members on the committee do not even agree. They come to committee, meeting after meeting, with different approaches and conflicting opinions. This is simply designed to be political, in my opinion. With respect to the emails that are going out to raise money, to my colleague's point, a number of people have approached me about what they perceive to be in the bill but is just completely false. This is because they have been told things that are not true, and we have a responsibility as parliamentarians, whether we agree with legislation or not, to act responsibly and to reveal information that is accurate, all the time.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should review my speech and reflect upon my comments about the “for greater certainty” provision. This amendment is designed to dispel all this misinformation. There is nothing in the bill, and I will say it again, that would prohibit anybody from practising their religion in any way, shape or form. These amendments were designed to obfuscate, to misdirect and to lead people down a road in the wrong direction. I encourage people who believe what the member just said to go read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-219 and Canada's ongoing work to promote human rights and address corruption. Canada recognizes the work and influence of Sergei Magnitsky in helping create international tools designed to respond to acts of significant corruption and human rights violations. These tools remain essential as we confront modern threats to international peace and security. I want to acknowledge the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his role in enacting Canada's Sergei Magnitsky Law and thank him for introducing Bill C-219. The bill seeks to amend four pieces of federal legislation related to foreign policy, sanctions, international human rights obligations and broadcasting licences. Under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, Canada has imposed sanctions against 80 foreign nationals. Canada has also imposed dozens of sanctions against individuals and entities responsible for human rights violations and corruption under the Special Economic Measures Act. Let us also recognize that today marks the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On this solemn anniversary, we remember those who have lost their lives fighting against Putin's tyranny, and we recommit to ending this war and holding Russia to account. Since the invasion began four years ago, Canada has imposed sanctions on thousands of individuals and entities linked to the Kremlin, including senior officials, oligarchs and those enabling the war effort. The promotion, respect and advancement of human rights continues to be at the heart of Canada's foreign policy. Protecting and defending human rights is essential to building stable, prosperous and inclusive societies. We see this clearly in Ukraine, where civilians continue to face indiscriminate attacks, including strikes on energy infrastructure, schools and hospitals. We have delivered over $23.5 billion in military, humanitarian and financial assistance since the war began, making us one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction. Canada has provided armoured combat support vehicles, artillery systems and ammunition, drones, winter gear and advanced air defence systems to help Ukraine protect civilians and critical infrastructure. We have also funded demining initiatives and battlefield medical support to help save lives. In addition to military support, Canada has provided billions of dollars in financial assistance to stabilize Ukraine's economy. This includes sovereign loan support and direct budgetary funding to help the Ukrainian government continue delivering essential services like pensions, health care and education, even as the war continues. Humanitarian support remains a cornerstone of Canada's response. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars in life-saving assistance, including food aid, emergency shelter, clean water, medical supplies and winterization support. Canada has also provided generators, transformers and grid repair equipment to help restore a lot of the electricity and heat following Russian strikes on energy infrastructure. Human rights defenders are often on the front lines, shining a spotlight on violations and advocating meaningful change. Canada has supported Ukrainian civil society organizations, accountability initiatives and documentation of war crimes to ensure that perpetrators are held to account. We have also welcomed tens of thousands of displaced Ukrainians through special immigration measures, and provided support to help them rebuild their lives in safety, including work permits, settlement services and access to education and health care. Support for human rights defenders is non-negotiable for these courageous individuals who hold governments and companies to account, often while risking their safety in the face of reprisals and repression. When and where necessary, Canada will respond decisively to states' use of repression and violence beyond their borders, as well as against their own people. Considering this, as mentioned in the first hour of the second reading of this bill, the government supports the objectives of Bill C-219 but remains concerned about significant flaws in the legislation. We look forward to working with the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and our opposition colleagues at the foreign affairs committee to address these concerns. Under the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, human rights defenders, activists, journalists, lawyers, community leaders and ordinary citizens are essential for accountability and progress. Canadians care deeply about human rights and expect their government to help protect and advance human rights at home and around the world. Canada recognizes the vital role that human rights defenders play, often at great personal risk, in upholding universal rights and strengthening the rule of law. We have demonstrated this through concrete action. Canada has trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Unifier and its continuation in Europe, contributing instructors and expertise in multinational training missions, which I saw first-hand last year. We have provided advanced military equipment and worked with partners to strengthen Ukraine's resilience on the battlefield and beyond. Canada has also supported Ukraine's long-term recovery and reconstruction. We have contributed funding to international financial institutions and reconstruction initiatives aimed at rebuilding critical infrastructure, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and strengthening democratic institutions and anti-corruption reforms. We have also supported international investigations into atrocities, including efforts to pursue justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Canada has funded documentation efforts, legal assistance and accountability mechanisms, including support for international courts and Ukrainian prosecutors working to hold perpetrators accountable. I will emphasize again that supporting human rights defenders is not optional. It is imperative. Bill C-219 aims to amend Canada's sanctions regime and the Special Economic Measures Act to address certain perceived gaps and shortcomings. However, it would have negative impacts by adding unnecessary paperwork and administrative burdens. The Prime Minister has been clear that he wants to improve government efficiencies. That said, our government supports some of the legislative amendments proposed in this bill such as new sanction triggers, and we look forward to further discussions on this at committee. Canada's use of sanctions has been a critical tool in responding to Russia's war against Ukraine. We have worked in lockstep with allies to impose one of the largest sanctions responses in history, including coordinated measures to freeze assets and restrict access to global financial systems. We have sanctioned thousands of individuals and entities linked to the Kremlin and those enabling the war effort. We have also moved forward with innovative tools to seize and repurpose sanctioned assets in support of Ukraine's reconstruction. Canada was the first G7 country to introduce legislation allowing for the seizure and repurposing of sanctioned Russian assets, and we continue working with partners to ensure those resources are directed toward rebuilding Ukraine. Lastly, I will touch on the bill's proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act. Acknowledging the crucial role media plays in supporting and advancing human rights, I think we can all agree this is a shared objective. We have seen how disinformation has been weaponized in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, reinforcing the importance of credible, independent media and responsible regulatory frameworks. That said, these provisions fail to account for important factors such as the CRTC's lack of expertise to determine whether a genocide has occurred. The bill could also benefit from amendments allowing the CRTC to address content distributed by foreign broadcasters of concern and to rely on the expertise of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, both domestically and internationally, when making determinations related to political influence and international criminal law. In conclusion, the government looks forward to continuing the in-depth study of this bill in committee. We firmly believe Parliament can address the concerns raised and strengthen the legislation by adopting meaningful amendments. Let me be clear: We cannot and will not support amendments that compromise the safety of individuals. Similarly, provisions that are duplicative and costly will not be supported. We stand ready to collaborate with the member opposite and with all colleagues in the House to develop practical and sustainable solutions consistent with the spirit of Bill C-219.

Madam Speaker, I have a long-held view that opposition day motions are actually obstruction day motions, and today seems to be no exception. These motions clearly are designed to create and perpetuate a false narrative. In this case, the Conservatives are perpetuating a false narrative that this auto strategy is designed to help American auto manufacturers. I would like the member to address that false narrative, and at the same time explain how this is going to help enhance the Canadian electric vehicle manufacturing sector.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. First, I want to say that I am always incredibly proud to speak in this chamber and to stand here as a representative of the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, whom I have the great fortune and honour of representing. I thank them at every opportunity I get. I am really happy to be standing here today, talking about a very important topic. I emphasize that, because I am distinguishing it from a very important motion. The last time I spoke in the House on crime-related issues, I said something along the lines that I do not think there is anybody in this chamber or any elected official who does not believe that defending our citizens, standing up for our communities and having safe streets is critically important. I followed that by saying that I defy anybody to say that to my face. It was misinterpreted as a challenge to go outside or something ridiculous like that. The next thing I knew, it was on social media. I will reiterate what I said then. I do not think anybody in this chamber will tell me that I do not believe in the values that I just pronounced, and I know they do not either. That is my starting point. Having said that, I am sort of sad that I missed the debate last Friday on the Standing Orders because, had I been here, I might have suggested something like changing the name of “opposition day” to “obstruction day”. The leader of the official opposition spoke in this chamber earlier today and said to “put aside partisan obstructionism”. The problem with that statement is that he should be giving that speech tomorrow morning at his national caucus meeting, not here in the House of Commons, because his comments should be directed at his own caucus members. I thoroughly enjoy working with opposition members, particularly on the justice committee. I look across the way and say that with sincerity.

It is refreshing; that is right. Mr. Speaker, it is genuine. I really mean that, and the opposition members know that. Let us deal with the obstructionism, and I will try to put it in its best frame possible. There are a number of pieces of legislation before the House that Canadians want and desperately need, and that are designed in response to widespread consultations with the legal community, the community at large and other political parties. The problem is that it is tough getting these bills through committee. I will give two examples of this. I will not call it obstruction necessarily, but I will give one example from the justice committee. About a week and a half ago, a member I will call Conservative member B made a very carefully crafted and thoughtful argument and then put a question to one of the officials who was in the room. His point was that we have good laws in place, but that they just needed to be enforced; therefore, we did not need this new law. It was a valid point, perhaps. The problem is that at the very next meeting, we were debating a different piece of legislation. One of his colleagues on that committee, whom we will call Conservative member L, made what he thought was a very compelling, well-thought-out argument and said that we had laws on the books that were not being enforced, so we needed new laws. I literally looked at him and said that they needed to get together and coordinate their submissions a little better. How in the face of that can someone say it is a principled approach to dealing with legislation? It is not. It is political, and this is my concern. I like putting policy before politics, but with those types of arguments, it is hard to say that they do because they just do not. I will give another example. Last year at the justice committee, we were about to deal with a private member's bill that had come through the House. It was the private member's bill of the member for Peace River—Westlock. Shortly before the bill was scheduled to come to the committee, that member went on a podcast of one of my colleagues and made some comments about his own religious beliefs, which he is entitled to do and I respect him for, even if I do not necessarily agree with him. The result was that his caucus colleagues put him into the Conservative witness protection program and filibustered the committee for two straight weeks. We sat for extended hours, and they were filibustering saying that the sponsor of a private member's bill did not have to come to speak to his own bill. I do not know a member in the House who does not await the opportunity to come to committee to speak about something they are so passionate about. Lo and behold, the Conservatives blocked him from coming because he was speaking about his own religious views. We now fast-forward to just before Christmas. One of the opposition members was just talking about the filibuster in December at the justice committee. The same member who was prevented from coming to committee because of his religious views came to committee to filibuster, saying that we needed to be free to express our religious opinions. How can that be called a principled approach to developing policy? It is obstruction, period, and I do not know any other way to put it. We can work together in committees. Just last week, we passed Bill C-14. It took us until 1:15 in the morning, but we did it, and we did it as a result of collaboration between all the parties around the table. I think everybody is quite proud of that accomplishment, as they should be. However, we are not seeing that on other pieces of legislation. This motion today, like so many opposition day motions, is intended and designed to create an impression in the public. Sometimes, and I believe many times, and others share this view, opposition parties are far more interested in having an issue than finding a solution. It is better to have the issue alive and out there, because then they can take their “clip, snip and post” political approach. They can get sound bites and go out there and use phrases like “soft on crime” and “catch and release,” all of which is total utter nonsense, because as I said at the beginning, everybody in the House believes that criminals should be in prison, that people should be entitled to a fair trial and that society should be able to exist with a feeling of safety. However, that type of rhetoric, that type of an approach to politics, does not do that. What it does is create a mindset in society that strikes fear into people. They believe something is not really what it is, and we were talking about this earlier. I really hope, going forward, that I can work with opposition members in the House and out in the corridors and get all of these bills that we have before the House passed, because Canadians want them and Canadians need them. In order to do that, we have to work together and do what we did with Bill C-14. Sometimes I think it would be far better, and we would get way better outcomes, if we were to conduct committee meetings and proceedings in this chamber without cameras. This is because the conversations I have privately with opposition members, and the conversations I have with opposition members out in the corridors of this place, often are not an accurate reflection of what we see and hear inside committee rooms, which is really unfortunate. To conclude, Bill C-75 is subject to great criticism, but every time the Conservatives mention Bill C-75, they conveniently leave out the part of the bill dealing with intimate partner violence. If we are going to talk about a bill, then talk about it in its entirety and talk about the constructive steps that were taken as a result of that bill. I am afraid that people get the impression, and I hold this view myself sometimes, that on the bills we are talking about that are before the House right now, everybody supports them, including mayors, premiers and police associations, except for the Conservative opposition. I am asking the Conservatives to please work with us, to work with the government. Let us get these bills through the House.

Mr. Speaker, I assume the member is talking about the opposition motion because what we are debating here is a motion, not a bill. Since he was careful to correct people on their use of language, I thought I would return the favour. I have expressed my views very clearly. I think the motion before the House is a form of obstruction in itself, because if we go through all of these pieces of legislation, Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, they are addressing the very issues that Canadians are clamouring for and that the member and his colleagues are clamouring for. I will repeat: Please help us get the legislation passed like we did with Bill C-14.

Mr. Speaker, I will say again that I enjoy working with colleagues on the justice committee and elsewhere. I mean that, but it is more enjoyable if we actually work constructively to try to get these bills passed. Bill C-2 is a perfect example. With the passage of these laws, the issues that the Conservatives continue to raise time and time again would be addressed. However, as I also said earlier, I sometimes cannot help but think that they are more concerned about having a live issue than a real result.

Mr. Speaker, my friend is right. We need to have an evidence-based approach that is solution-focused. Rhetoric does not help anybody, except for people on social media, perhaps. I would love to talk to the member at greater length. I do not have a lot of time right now, but Bill C-16, for example, addresses some of the very concerns he just raised. That is evidence-based legislation. This legislation, like Bill C-14, was done after thorough and extensive consultation with the parties who are most affected by the challenges we face, and that is why we are seeing widespread support for all of these bills. Again, I will emphasize and ask members to please work with us to get these bills passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the close and growing relationship between Ireland and Canada. Today, the Irish Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport, Patrick O'Donovan, and our Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture launched Canada-Ireland 180. This initiative, planned for 2027, will commemorate the 180th anniversary of the Great Famine migration in 1847, when over 100,000 Irish people landed on our shores. Irish Canadians have become a core part of Canada's history, national identity and culture. This initiative will celebrate that shared heritage through events, art, screen and sport. Nothing grabs the heart more than creative storytelling, so the collaboration between screen industries in both countries will be moving. I make a special mention of the Canadian industry, which has a strong presence in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. We will celebrate Gaelic sports, but the gloves might come off if we meet in the World Cup. However, we will hug and toast each other after the competition, as family does. Slàinte.

Mr. Speaker, I became chair of the justice committee just two short days ago. I am honoured to take on that responsibility, and I take it very seriously. It quickly became very apparent to me that the committee was having a great deal of trouble, emotions were running high and the members did not have a path forward to deal with some very important legislation that was before the committee. Acting in the best interest of the committee members, the members of the House and the members of the public who want this bill to pass, I decided to cancel the meeting so the members could regroup to find a path forward.

Mr. Speaker, on September 27, the Ottawa Valley lost a giant in Terry McHale. Devoted to his community, he served as a municipal councillor and spent 40 years with the Douglas Fire Department, rising to become fire chief. An entrepreneur, he and his brother Jim owned and operated Bromley Farm Supply, a cornerstone of the local agricultural community. In addition, together with his love, Evelyn, he owned and operated the famous Douglas Tavern for 49 years. It was not just a community gathering place where everyone was welcomed but also where the McHales hosted celebrations of their Irish heritage and culture, of which Terry was fiercely proud. Generosity ran through his veins. He and Evelyn raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the community. He was also a driving force of the Lions Club. Terry will be forever missed by countless people, most of all by Evelyn, their children, their grandchildren and his extended family. Rest in peace, Terry, and thanks.

Mr. Speaker, this year we celebrate the 90th birthday of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Following a request from His Holiness to then prime minister, Lester Pearson, the first two Tibetan refugees landed in Canada on October 15, 1970, just over 55 years ago. Since then, Tibetan Canadians have been contributing to the Canadian economy and to the community and social fabric of our country. Personally, it is a privilege to have the Tibetan Canadian Cultural Centre, established just over 27 years ago, in my constituency of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. The impact of His Holiness is far-reaching, and his message of peace, non-violence and the pursuit of harmony and happiness is making the world a better place. I call on the House to declare 2025 the year of compassion. I welcome everyone from across Canada visiting for Tibet day on the Hill, and I give a special welcome to Richard Gere, who is a true champion for the campaign for Tibet. Tashi delek.

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I am pleased to stand on behalf of my constituents in the great riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, as I always am, but in particular I am pleased to speak to a bill of such importance to not only my community but also communities across the country. Bill C-14 is the result of an overwhelming effort from our Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, the Department of Justice and the government. They spent the last six months travelling across the country to meet with stakeholders in the court system, the law enforcement community, lawyers and the Crown attorney. This is the product of that hard work. We have seen the response from members of the law enforcement community and from the justice system at large who have come out supporting this bill overwhelmingly. I am going to keep asking the opposition whether its members will do the same. I find it very ironic, frankly, that the Conservatives opposite spend so much time asking for something and then complain about it when they get it, which is what we are dealing with on Bill C-14. I will talk about two or three major issues. One issue is an unfortunate piece in all of this, which is the rhetoric. This matter is non-partisan, as a number of my colleagues said earlier today. Unfortunately, it is wrought with members of Parliament trying to score political points on an issue and in an area for which they should be doing the exact opposite. Just this week, at the justice committee, we had a number of witnesses, who were called by the Conservatives, I might add, and this is a point that must be remembered. One of those witnesses asked that there, please, be no politics and no sound bites. There is the rhetoric, the rhyming, the “bail not jail” and the “catch and release”. All of these catchy phrases serve no purpose other than to undermine the integrity of our justice system and strike fear in the hearts of the public, when it should not be doing that. I am asking the Conservatives to stop, and this is an opportunity for them to make that change. The speaker before me referred to my city of Toronto as “Gotham City”. I do not know. Maybe he still watches Batman, but it is just embarrassing when these guys get up to say ridiculous things like that. It does not get to the heart of what we are talking about. It creates an impression that is entirely false. The other thing I want to address is that, every single time these discussions take place in that manner, it suggests that some members in the chamber are less concerned about keeping our communities safe than others, which is absolute, utter nonsense. To any member who wants to look me in the face, either here or out in the hallway, to tell me that I do not care about the safety of my community and the residents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, let us go outside and do it right now, because that is absolutely false. They know it is false, yet they continue to do it over and over again. It is completely unacceptable. Let us talk about an example. Bill C-75, the bill that the Conservatives constantly talk about as the piece of legislation that somehow undermined the integrity of the justice system, did the exact opposite. It strengthened the laws for intimate partner violence. When they talk about Bill C-75, they fail to mention that. I have talked to frontline officers in the city of Toronto in 22 Division, and I am very proud of its membership. I work with them on a regular basis. I support them every way I can, and they know that. Bill C-75 codified a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada called the principle of restraint. If members go to section 493 of the Criminal Code, they can read the provisions. Nowhere in that section does it say that courts are to do what the Conservatives suggests they do, which is to release multiple-offending criminals out on the street. It is an absolute falsehood, and they need to stop. The witness the previous speaker spoke to appeared before committee last night. He is a renowned criminal lawyer in the city of Toronto, who has been practising for decades. His evidence was that the principle of restraint is nothing new. All they did was codify it. I have been making the same arguments on behalf of my clients in courtrooms for decades. Nothing has changed. It is a red herring. Those are my words, not his, but he agreed with me. They need to stop. I would encourage them to actually go read the bill, to go read that section.

Mr. Speaker, there we go. There is the rhyming. It is very productive. Bill C-14 creates a regime that is going to help our frontline police officers. It is going to help our Crown attorneys, and it is going to make sure they are properly informed on what the principle of restraint actually means so it can be applied properly. When I speak with those frontline officers, unfortunately, the rhetoric of the world permeates their environment as well. What this new legislation would do is explain what the principle of restraint is. It would enhance the provisions of Bill C-75, and it is going to make an existing set of bail laws, which are already very good, better. They are good, because another Conservative witness came before the committee just this week and said that the existing bail laws in Canada right now are very good. The issue is enforcement, which takes me to my next point. We are constantly being accused by the members opposite of trying to blame the provinces. We are not blaming the provinces; we are trying to teach the members of the opposition some civics. There are jurisdictional boundaries that the federal government has to follow, the province has to follow and municipalities have to follow. We are responsible for amending the Criminal Code. The provinces, which in my case is Ontario, are responsible for funding the court system, hiring Crown attorneys, building jails, and making sure there is the capacity to do what it has to do. Right now, it does not, and every witness who has come before the committee has agreed with that. The problem is that, if we do not work in conjunction with the provinces, or they do not work in conjunction with us, the problem could potentially become more problematic, because the weight of the new laws on a system that is already overburdened could create a whole new set of problems it is not prepared to deal with. On Monday afternoon, we had a Crown attorney from British Columbia who agreed with that. We have had members of the law enforcement community who agree with that. We have had defence lawyers who agree with that. Everybody who is in the system agrees with that, because they understand it. This is not a case of pointing fingers and assigning blame. It is a case of people accepting responsibility for their own actions and what they can do. This is what this piece of legislation does. If the Province of Ontario, in my case, is prepared to work with us, it needs to adopt these laws. In the riding of the justice critic for the Conservatives, there was a decision released just yesterday, or just this week, by a local judge who said, and I am sure he has probably appeared before him, that the system is broken because the jails are over capacity. We cannot even put people in there. The system is under such duress. Building jails is the responsibility of the provincial government because it is the justices of the peace and the provincial governments that are responsible for this. In fact, this judge, and I would encourage the members opposite to go read the decision, increased the sentence so he could put them in a federal jail because there is capacity. The province is under-funding the system. We talked about Bill C-48. Bill C-48 was adopted unanimously in the House. It is a positive piece of legislation. It helped the system. It strengthened the system, but we do not have any data on that, because data collection is also the responsibility of the provincial government. We need them to work with the federal government, the municipalities and the police forces so we can get this data, and any changes that need to be made at the provincial level can be done. This is something that has been admitted by all of the witnesses who appear before the committee as well. To see the effectiveness of these laws, we need the co-operation of the provincial governments. They need to do their part and step up so we can make the system better as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say how sorry I am. The heart of every member of the House, as I said earlier, goes out to people like that. I want to live in a world where that is not going to happen, just like the member does, and just like Jonny did. However, using these examples to suggest that the entirety of the system is broken is, with respect, unfair and a mis-characterization. I am not familiar with the details of the case, so I cannot comment on it. The criminal should not have been out on bail. However, I would like to know what the circumstances were in the bail court, how many bail hearings there were that day, what the training of the justice of the peace was and what the Crown attorney's responsibilities were that day, because this is where the system is really under duress and is breaking down. We have to prevent situations like that from occurring ever again.

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoy working with the hon. member on important issues like Tibet. His question was an excellent one. We are prepared to work with all parties at committee to make sure the bill would be adopted in a fashion best suited for Canadians. We are open to amendments; we are always open to amendments. That is what the committee process is for. We respect the process of committees, and we respect the process of the House. The ultimate goal of course is to get the bill passed as quickly as possible, and that includes getting it through committee.

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. It gets to the nub of the issue, because without data we cannot make further enhancements and the provinces cannot make further enhancements. As I was saying in my previous response, we need to know the circumstances in which offences are subject to criminals' being released: how busy the courts are, what the workloads are for the Crown attorney and what the capacity is in the court system. This is the data we need as a country. The federal government can play a role in aggregating data, but the data comes from the provinces. It is as simple as that because they control the system. Without that data, further steps become more and more challenging, so I want to thank the member for the question. This is an issue we need to keep pushing forward. A witness who actually was the commissioner of the OPP came to committee and talked about getting that data, because he said that Bill C-48 was a good bill but that we do not know how good because we do not have the provinces collecting the data.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of material to cover in the hon. member's words. I just want to remind him that I know he is much younger than I am, but Canada, like other countries, went away from the gold standard in 1971. Canada sold its gold reserves to diversify its portfolio into more interest-bearing types of investments. He knows that. I know that the British pensioners are coming to Ottawa next week, because I am part of a group of people who are hosting. I have met with them on a regular basis for the last several years, as have a number of the member's colleagues. I have raised the issue with British politicians at every opportunity, and so have his colleagues, side by side with me. We have written letters to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It is not a partisan issue, frankly. The member is absolutely right that the British pensioners in Canada are not being treated properly by their own government. Will he acknowledge that the Government of Canada and the MPs of the House have actually been working hard on the issue?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate one of our country's oldest friends and allies, Ireland. The ties that bind our two countries are many; they are economic, historical, cultural and emotional. In 1866, the first transatlantic cable between Europe and North America connected Canada and Ireland. Irish Canadians helped build our country. During challenging economic times, Canada and Ireland have stood together to ensure our nations thrive. The resolution of the troubles in Northern Ireland was a result of a common desire for peace and hard work, and Canada was there. This led to the historic Good Friday agreement, signed almost 30 years ago. A Canadian general, General John de Chastelain, helped steer that process and was responsible for getting the guns out of Northern Ireland. Today, we welcome the Irish Taoiseach, Taoiseach Micheál Martin, to Ottawa to join with Canada in our ongoing efforts to make the world a better place. Today's meeting is not just a meeting between two great countries but also a meeting between two great friends. We thank him for coming to Canada. He is always very welcome here.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice undertook a preliminary search in order to determine the number of litigation files and quantity of information that could fall within the scope of the question, as well as the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. It was concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual review of files, and that relevant information, if any, be extracted on a case-by-case basis, which is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to legal proceedings involving the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, FNCFCS, our electronic system has identified approximately 19 litigation files involving FNCFCS that date back to 2006. This total is composed of various types of legal proceedings before the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal and Tribunals, wherein the Attorney General of Canada is an applicant, appellant or respondent, and the FNCFCS is a complainant, applicant or respondent. Of the 19 files identified, nine files were brought by the Attorney General of Canada and 10 were against the Attorney General of Canada. Our electronic system is not able to identify files in which FNCFCS could potentially be an intervenor or a party in another capacity. It is also important to note that it is not possible to search electronically in a way that identifies all litigation files that may involve FNCFCS. A comprehensive search would require a manual exercise, which is not possible in the time allotted. With respect to the legal costs incurred by the Government of Canada in relation to the identified legal proceedings involving FNCFCS, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs and the approximate number of legal proceedings. The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with the identified legal proceedings involving FNCFCS, amount to approximately $14,545,000.00, over the past 18 years. The total legal costs are with respect to litigation and litigation support services, which were provided, in these cases, by the Department of Justice. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs are composed of file-related legal disbursements paid by the department and then cost-recovered from the client departments or agencies, as well as the costs of legal agents who may be retained by the Minister of Justice to provide litigation services in certain cases. The amount mentioned in this response is based on information currently contained in Department of Justice systems, as of November 18, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to legal expenses incurred by the government for outside legal counsel on work related to the invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, as well as any subsequent legal action, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs. The total legal costs associated with expenses incurred by the government for outside legal counsel on work related to the invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, as well as any subsequent legal action amounts to $3,900,968.93. This amount includes outside legal fees related to the Public Order Emergency Commission, which had a timeline compressed by statute. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of November 4, 2024.

Apparently, I was right, Madam Speaker. The member just brought my point home for me. The member is my friend and I know he cares deeply about rural Canada and agriculture. I have worked with him on some of these issues and I am proud to do so. The member mentioned the Daily Bread Food Bank and talked about a number of affordability measures. He campaigned in the last election on the exact GST break that we voted on last week, and I would like him to explain to me and to the House how he can reconcile supporting it then and not supporting it now, when it is going to help the very people in his constituency he was talking about today.

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important issue of drug crime, the opioid crisis and the efforts our government has taken in this respect. I want to speak specifically about the criminal law framework in place to address drug-related crime, including where it is linked to organized crime. Off the top, I want to note the inconsistencies in the motion the leader of the Conservatives moved today. First, it says, “to reinstate longer jail sentences for drug kingpins”. The maximum penalty for drug trafficking is life in prison. The CPC implies that it is not harmful and shameful, but we know that it is the party of disinformation, which we have seen again here this afternoon. Second, the motion calls for “more boots on the ground at our ports”. I ask, “Who cut over a thousand CBSA officers working to intercept drugs, guns and irregular migrants?” It was the Harper government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member. Who regularly voted against our efforts to increase funding to CBSA? The Conservative leader and his caucus did, all on the leader's orders. It is deeply ironic that Leader of the Opposition put the motion forward today. The Conservatives call themselves the party of law and order, but when they are in government they cut, and when they are in opposition they vote against support. It is complete hypocrisy. Canada is not alone; countries around the world are confronted by the challenges in combatting and addressing organized crime. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime puts the value of illegal drug trade in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. According to its “World Drug Report 2024”, cocaine is being produced and trafficked at record levels, and the scourge of fentanyl is causing significant overdoses across North America. Addressing drug crime and the harms caused by illicit drug use requires a multidisciplinary and multisectoral response. No one organization, level of government or solution will address this, despite the claims of the Conservative leader. Our government is committed to the multi-faceted, team Canada approach, unlike the opposition. One part of the solution is, of course, ensuring an effective criminal law response that targets organized crime, drug traffickers and illicit drug manufacturing. In this respect, Canada has a robust legal framework. I also find it amusing when the Conservatives suggest that Canada has decriminalized drugs. This is simply not the case, and they know it. Drug trafficking always has been and continues to be a serious criminal offence, punishable by significant penalties of imprisonment. Those who traffic in schedule 1 or schedule 2 drugs, which include fentanyl, are subject to the most significant penalty in Canadian law: life imprisonment. Courts treat drug trafficking seriously and routinely impose significant periods of imprisonment that recognize the seriousness of the offence, the harm it causes and the profits it generates for criminals. The same is true for illegally importing, exporting or manufacturing schedule 1 or schedule 2 drugs, which are also serious crimes punishable by maximum penalties of life imprisonment. Between 2019 and 2022, 46% of all drug prosecutions for manufacturing resulted in a finding of guilt. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act also requires courts to consider, at sentencing, certain factors as aggravating. These include whether the crime involved violence or a weapon, whether trafficking occurred in or near a school, and whether the commission of the offence used the services of a young person. I would also point out that persons charged with any of these trafficking offences are subject to a reverse onus at bail. This demonstrates our intention that getting bail in these cases should be more difficult. There is a robust criminal law framework already in place to address illegal drug activity. The broad range of tools available to address drug crime and organized crime are being put to good use in Canada. Just two weeks ago, we learned that the RCMP in Burnaby arrested two people and shut down what was described as a “super lab” in Langley that was capable of producing multiple kilograms of fentanyl every week. We applaud the RCMP's efforts. Related is that our government is continuously working to improve Canada's ability to combat financial crime, particularly due to the rapidly evolving and complex nature of financial crime. In every budget since becoming finance minister, the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced a significant number of measures to strengthen Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime. These include responding to the recommendations of the Cullen commission, increasing information sharing and providing significant funding. The Conservatives have voted against every single one of those. Since 2019 we have also invested close to $379 million to fight financial crimes. The Conservatives voted against that too. The Conservatives also voted this spring against our measures to combat auto theft. They voted against measures in the fall economic statement to combat organized crime. They have voted repeatedly against increased funding to the CBSA. There is a deep irony to the Leader of the Opposition's putting forward the motion today, given the record. We know that the Conservatives do not have a plan to keep Canadians safe. When they were in power, they made significant cuts to the CBSA, the RCMP and our intelligence services. They have promised to make assault-style firearms legal again. They are blocking our legislation that would protect children from online sexual exploitation. It is shameful. Here they are today, claiming they can keep Canadians safe. I know that drug crime has profound impacts on our communities and our residents, but I also know that we have the resources, the laws and the justice system to keep people safe and to hold traffickers to account. We are always open to constructive dialogue on how we can improve this, but we are not taking any lessons and we are certainly not hearing constructive dialogue from the other side.

Madam Speaker, probably the best thing we could do is give a civics lesson to the Conservatives. They need to know the responsibilities of the federal government. They need to learn the responsibilities of the provincial government. If the member wants to address some of the issues he is speaking to, I would encourage him to speak to the Government of British Columbia about the enforcement it is taking regarding our bail laws. Our bail laws have been strengthened since 2015. They are stronger than at any time in our life. If we talk to Conservatives off the record, they will tell us that the issue is not the laws; the issue is enforcement. Therefore I would encourage the member to go talk to the people he should be talking to, instead of using cheap political rhetoric when standing up in the House.

Madam Speaker, it is a great question. I am proud to be part of a government that takes the issue incredibly seriously. I am proud to serve with my colleague who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services. Just this past week, the Prime Minister spoke before the AFN here in Ottawa and addressed the very issue of indigenous policing. Indigenous policing is an issue that is being addressed by the government. It is an issue the Prime Minister is committed to making sure of, but it has to be done correctly because past mistakes have to be learned from. We are going to create a new system and work with our indigenous communities. It has to be done in consultation with them and not to them or for them.

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question from an excellent member of the House, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. Mental health is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart for a variety of reasons. It is an issue that the government is committed to, but no, we are not there yet; I will concede that. There is a long way to go. When we were elected in 2015, the first thing we did was put $3 billion in new money into health care, specifically designated for mental health. In the province of Ontario, the challenge we ran into was that the province then turned around and cut mental health services. It is an uphill battle, but we are charging full steam ahead. There is always a long way to go. It is a problem that is not going to be solved overnight, but we are 100% committed to it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member, as he knows. He is from Manitoba and I grew up in northwestern Ontario. We have a kindred relationship. The answer is no, obviously. My reaction when I heard the news was, I am sure, identical to his own. At a time when employees are being laid off or having to take pay cuts, there is no place for bonuses and the type of behaviour that took place. However, let us deal with that in isolation. Let us not use that as just another weapon to attack the CBC. I am happy to talk about that issue in itself and take measures to address it, but the CBC is an institution that is critical to Canada and Canadian culture.

Mr. Speaker, it sends the wrong message. Everybody I have heard speak today agrees with that. It was the wrong thing to do and the CBC agrees. It should not have done it. It apologized, the apology has been accepted and it is being rectified. I can stand here and say I agree with the member, but I think she knows that already. The CBC said many times, in many appearances at committee and elsewhere, that it should not have been done. It was an oversight, a major error, and it is not going to happen again. It sends absolutely the wrong message.

Mr. Speaker, on November 30, 1874, one of the world's greatest statesmen, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, was born. He was an accomplished officer in the British army but caught the political bug, rising to become democracy's greatest defender in the 20th century. His leadership during World War II saved Britain and the world from Nazi tyranny and preserved the very foundations of the freedoms we enjoy today. Prime minister twice, he was a prolific writer and, in 1953, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for his historical writings and speeches. While he faced many physical and mental health challenges, he did so with grace and dignity. Many books have been written about Sir Winston Churchill, including James B. Conroy's 2023 The Devils Will Get No Rest: FDR, Churchill, and the Plan That Won the War. Churchill's quote “The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” has inspired me time and again. I thank Sir Winston and wish him a happy birthday.