Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table three petitions today. The first petition is signed by electors of Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby and Vancouver Quadra, who brought their petitions to their local MPs but had to ask for my assistance to table this in the House. The petitioners have raised many concerns about fracked methane gas and liquefied methane gas, or LNG, including the severe emissions and health impacts to people and the disruption of LNG to clean salmon rivers. They know there is no business case for LNG, and these fossil fuel projects will become stranded assets. They note that Ksi Lisims is 100% American-owned, LNG Canada's phase two is 60% foreign-owned, not Canadian-sovereign, and the Ksi Lisims and Prince Rupert gas transmission pipelines early investors are U.S. private equity firms linked to Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The petitioners are concerned that hydro subsidies for these American-owned projects have been promised and will increase household utility costs. They also note that these projects violate indigenous sovereignty, as the Gitanyow and Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, as well as the Lax’yip firekeepers of the Gitxsan have clearly said no to consent. Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons, the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to rescind the referral of Ksi Lisims' and LNG Canada's phase two to the Major Projects Office as projects of national interest; to not fund, subsidize or in any way support it, but instead refer indigenous-owned, shovel-ready solar, electric and other renewable energy projects to the Major Projects Office for funding as green projects of national interest; and to fund affordable housing through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and other monies.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by Canadians who are concerned about Canada's safe third country agreement with the United States. They note that Canadian law offers safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution. They also note that a continual review of all countries designated as safe third countries should be required to ensure that the conditions that led to that designation continue to be met. The petitioners say refugee claimants in the U.S., including those who enter the country regularly, are being arrested, detained and deported without due process. In his recent speech to the World Economic Forum, the Prime Minister called for the creation of agreements that function as described, yet Canada is a signatory to the 1951 UN refugee convention and its 1967 protocol, which violates the refugee convention and its own laws by implementing the safe third country agreement. Therefore, they call on the House of Commons to instruct the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to immediately report to the governor in council that the U.S. no longer meets the requirements for designation as a safe third country, notify the U.S. in writing that Canada intends to terminate the safe third country—

Mr. Speaker, the last petition that I am tabling has been signed by 25 people, including several constituents of my Vancouver East riding, who share with me their support and calls to the House regarding Bill C-218. The petitioners say Canadians with mental illness should be provided with treatment and support, mental illness is complex and can include suicidal ideation as a symptom, and they are concerned that the lives of Canadians with mental illness will be at risk when they are eligible for medical assistance in dying on the basis of mental illness alone, especially when treatment and support are not readily available.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. As parliamentarians, our responsibility is to examine not only what the government has chosen to include in an economic update, but also what it has chosen to leave out. Bill C-30 would implement selected measures announced in the spring economic update, but budgets and economic updates are not technical exercises conducted by the Prime Minister on his own or by his narrow circle of advisers. They are statements of priorities for all Canadians. This is the hope and vision of what our constituents expect of us: to take off our blind spots and look at the bigger picture. What we ask of the Prime Minister today is to review what the government values, where it is prepared to invest and whose needs it is prepared to postpone. The question before us is not simply whether the measures contained in Bill C-30 should proceed. The question is whether this bill would respond to the realities Canadians are living every day. This is where my concerns lie, which is that this legislation does not not meet the moment of the challenges everyday Canadians face. It does not live up to the hype of the projected progressive Prime Minister that was portrayed during the election or what we have come to read about him. There is a dissonance between words and action, and therein lies the problem. In my constituency of Vancouver East and in communities across this country, the gap between policy and lived experience is widening, and the concerns around the centralizing tendency of the government are being noticed across the country. In Vancouver East, constituents are facing housing insecurity, food insecurity, gaps in health care coverage. uncertainty in indigenous housing initiatives, delays in compensation programs and rising affordability pressures across every essential service. They are also increasingly concerned about federal priorities shifting toward expanded military spending while social programs remain underfunded or delayed. Across all these areas, a pattern is becoming unmistakable: announcements without delivery, commitments without timelines, programs without certainty sunsetting out of existence, and decisions increasingly centralized in Ottawa, far removed from the communities they affect. Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules. This is not administrative complexity. This is a failure of delivery, and Canadians are living the consequences of this unfortunate reality. I will begin with first nations education. In B.C., first nations education is supported through the BC Tripartite Education Agreement between first nations leadership, the province and Canada. At the centre of that agreement is the First Nations Education Steering Committee. This is not a symbolic structure. It is the core funding architecture for first nations education in B.C. It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province. Despite early assurances that a renewed long-term agreement would be included in the 2026 spring economic update, first nations partners were instead informed that only a one-year extension would be provided. A one-year extension does not provide for stability. It produces uncertainty, and uncertainty in education is not abstract. It affects staffing, planning and children's outcomes. The First Nations Education Steering Committee and first nations leadership have been clear: What is required is a 10-year renewal agreement that provides predictability, continuity and proper fiscal planning. Reconciliation is not achieved through short-term extensions, but is achieved through durable commitments that governments keep. Right now, that certainty is missing. The same pattern is evident with support for survivors of residential schools. Many indigenous leaders, survivors and advocates have repeatedly raised stable funding for the Indian Residential School Survivors Society. For decades, survivors have carried the trauma inflicted by Canada's residential school system. They have carried grief, loss and intergenerational harm resulting from policies designed to erase indigenous identities, cultures and communities. Today, many continue to rely on the Indian Residential School Survivors Society for culturally appropriate counselling, crisis support and healing services. In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indigenous Services Canada that the organization would receive confirmation for its two-year funding by mid-May, to date, there is still no action. The funding will end on July 1. This delay is going to have serious operational impacts for the people it serves. The organization continues to seek certainty regarding its long-term core funding. Reconciliation cannot depend on year-to-year uncertainty. Reconciliation is not a slogan. It is not a press release. It is not a commemorative statement. Reconciliation requires action. It requires resources. It requires government to ensure that organizations serving survivors have the certainty necessary to continue their work. If the government can find fiscal room for subsidies for big oil, it can find the resources necessary to provide stable support to those serving residential school survivors. Turning to housing, the “for indigenous, by indigenous” urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy was something that the Liberals committed to in the last Parliament. It was something that the NDP prioritized in the confidence and supply agreement. I fought for that. We fought for that and won interim funding of $300 million and long-term funding of $4 billion over seven years for FIBI URN, and an equivalent amount of $4 billion over seven years for distinction-based funding, yet the funding of the long-term component has yet to flow. Indigenous housing providers continue to face uncertainty about governance, timelines and implementation. Even as funding is referenced in the federal announcements, there remains no clear guarantee that delivery will remain indigenous-led in practice, nor a firm timeline for rollout. While policy frameworks evolve in Ottawa, indigenous communities continue to experience the highest rate of homelessness in Canada. In Vancouver alone, indigenous people represent a disproportionate share of those experiencing homelessness, despite being a far smaller share of the population. They are the predictable result of decades of underinvestment and policy delay. Housing providers are ready to build. Friendship centres are ready to build. Indigenous-led organizations are ready to build. The problem is not capacity. The problem is execution. People cannot live in promises of affordability. They cannot sleep in frameworks. They cannot raise children in consultations. Constituents are also increasingly concerned about rental assistance for co-operative housing members. Co-ops work. They provide stability. They provide affordability. They provide community-based housing that has proven effective for decades. Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes. Rising Star and China Creek, for example, in my riding, will be hit hard if the rental assistance subsidy is not renewed. The expiry of the FCHI phase 2 funding without a successor program or extension risks undoing decades of investment in this model and displacing established community members, including families with young children and seniors who depend on it. Access to rental assistance is necessary to enable co-ops to be a deeply affordable housing solution. FCHI cannot, and must not, sunset. Aside from housing, Van East constituents continue to raise serious concerns about the Canadian dental care plan. I have written to the minister regarding applications for medically necessary procedures, including crowns, that are being rejected using template language that provides no meaningful explanation of what criteria were not met. Patients are left without clarity, providers are left without guidance, and appeals are effectively blocked. Even more troubling are cases where some of my constituents were previously approved for the Canadian dental care plan, received care in good faith and are now being told that they are not eligible after all. In some cases, they are even being asked to repay benefits that they already received. These are often seniors who opted out of private dental care insurance years ago because premiums were unaffordable on fixed incomes. At the time of approval, they met eligibility criteria and were approved. They acted in good faith. They made irreversible financial decisions based on the government's approval. Retroactive reassessment after reliance undermines trust in public programs. A system cannot function if eligibility is uncertain at the outset and reversible after the fact. This is not fairness. This is instability. Health care affordability is another glaring omission from this bill. Many Canadians welcomed the promise to establish an expanded universal pharmacare, yet constituents increasingly tell me that they worry that those promises are being quietly abandoned. They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries. They care about whether universal pharmacare will actually become universal. The Prime Minister sent a clear message that universal pharmacare is not a priority for him when the spring economic update did not provide additional resources to this key initiative. On affordability, Canadians are increasingly concerned about surveillance pricing. This is the use of personal data, behavioural tracking and algorithmic systems to charge different prices to different individuals for identical goods and services. It means two Canadians can stand in the same digital marketplace and see different prices based on what a corporation believes they can pay. Even when legislation such as Bill C-36 references algorithmic pricing risks, it does not actually prohibit surveillance pricing. It does not even name it. It does not stop it. Instead, it leaves Canadians exposed to opaque pricing systems that they cannot see and cannot challenge. Premier Wab Kinew has taken decisive action in Manitoba to stop it. The Prime Minister and this government have refused to take a stand. What side is the Prime Minister on? Unlike the Liberals, who will always be on the side of big corporations, the NDP will stand on the side of the people. That is why I will be introducing a private member's bill this fall to ban surveillance pricing outright. Food safety is also at stake. Proposed changes to pesticide regulation have raised concerns from environmental and public health organizations, including Ecojustice, which warns that reforms risk weakening scientific oversight and transparency. Canadians expect food safety to be grounded in independent science. They expect precaution where health is at stake. They expect transparency in regulatory decision-making. Anything less undermines public trust. My constituents have also raised concerns regarding the Prime Minister's intention to privatize ports and airports. Even Stephen Harper would not dare to touch these critical assets. They are strategic national infrastructure essential to supply chains, trade and economic resilience. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission repeatedly flagged concerns over monopoly pricing, noting that user costs, passenger charges and parking fees surged dramatically. Airlines passed escalating landing fees directly to passengers via higher ticket prices when they privatized. The Shipping Australia industry association noted that private port operators prioritized maximizing shareholder returns, implementing heavy rent increases on terminal tenants that trickled down into standard freight and consumer goods. If Canada goes down this track, this is what Canada can expect. This neo-liberal playbook seems to be from another era. A broad pattern is emerging. We are seeing the increasing centralization of decision-making in Ottawa from the Prime Minister. We are seeing delays in social program delivery and increased military spending, alongside constrained social investments. Budgets are about choices, and choices are about priorities. Canadians are asking, what does increased military spending mean for housing, for pharmacare, for dental care, for indigenous housing, for transit and for disability supports? These are not abstract fiscal questions. They are real-world opportunity costs, and Canadians deserve transparency about them. In Vancouver East, the consequences are very real and very visible. Seniors are relying on food banks. Families are skipping meals. People are delaying medical care. Housing is increasingly out of reach. Affordability is being eroded not just by prices but by systems that are less transparent and less responsive. One constituent described losing weight because they cannot afford enough food. Another, a 77-year-old senior, said they are relying on a food bank for the first time in their life. These are not isolated cases. They are becoming systemic. As one constituent put it, on the issue of transit, we need our transit to green commutes more than we need another pipeline. Every budget decision involves trade-offs. Canadians deserve transparency about those trade-offs. We are faced with deep drought conditions across Vancouver Island, the Okanagan, the Chilcotin and the South Thompson regions. Climate change is real. Instead of investing in transit, the spring economic update cuts it by $5 billion, while the Prime Minister signs an agreement with Alberta to build yet another pipeline. Canadians deserve to know why the Prime Minister would prioritize pipelines over funding for transit expansion, especially when B.C. faces the highest and most sustained fire risk in the country. Similarly, Canadians deserve to know why billions of dollars can be found for military expansion when communities continue to be told to wait for desperately needed social investments. If the government believes military spending must increase, it should explain why the same urgency is absent when it comes to homelessness, poverty, housing and health care. Increased military spending is happening when there has not been a robust public debate on it, during the last election or thereafter. It was just announced by the Prime Minister as a fait accompli. Many constituents have raised concerns regarding military goods and components exported to the U.S. that may subsequently be transferred elsewhere without the same level of scrutiny that applies to direct Canadian exports. Those concerns were reflected in proposals such as my private member's bill, Bill C-233, the no more loopholes act, which was defeated by the government. Canadians want robust risk assessments. They want transparency. They want accountability. They want assurances that Canadian-made military goods are not contributing to human rights violations or breaches of international humanitarian law. Economic policy and trade policy cannot be separated from human rights obligations. Many constituents have also written regarding the humanitarian crisis facing the Cuban community. They have called on Canada to increase humanitarian assistance; support access to food, medicine and fuel; and pursue constructive diplomacy. They have urged Canada to work with international partners to ensure that relief reaches those in need and to maintain an independent foreign policy grounded in dialogue, co-operation and respect for self-determination. Canadians understand our international role and Canada's proud history of our commitment to peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance and international solidarity. It is not time to turn our backs on what has historically made Canadians proud. Let me close with this, Mr. Speaker. This bill reveals clear patterns. Housing is delayed. Indigenous housing remains uncertain. Health care programs lack transparency. Dental eligibility is unstable. Survivors are waiting. Disabled Canadians are waiting. Families are waiting. Waiting has become the default policy, but Canadians cannot wait indefinitely. The crisis is before Canadians. It is time to act for the people, not for corporations.

Mr. Speaker, the people sleeping outside tonight cannot wait. The seniors choosing between food and medication cannot wait, and the constituents facing administrative collapse in a federal compensation program cannot wait. Budgets reveal values, and this bill reveals them clearly. Canadians deserve an economy built on fairness, transparency and delivery, not on delay and indifference. They deserve a government that is willing to govern for all Canadians, not just for the hedge fund managers, the private equity CEOs and the finance bros who hang out at the Empire Club of Canada in downtown Toronto, such as the Prime Minister and his narrow circle of insiders. Everyday working Canadians deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting, actually. In this sitting, in these last two weeks, the government has brought down the guillotine for significant major legislation, including Bill C-22, and we are poised to rise, probably by the end of today, I suspect. What is left on the agenda, which was not actually a priority for the government to push through, is the bill on apprenticeship to support union workers, so there we go. The Liberals are pretending they support unions, yet at the same time, they are ramming down back-to-work legislation. They are invoking section 107 to take away the rights of unions to strike. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, has a private member's bill on that. Will the government members support it? If they support unions, they will support my colleague's bill on actually banning the use of section 107.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy for his community. It is absolutely essential that all parliamentarians stand up for all workers. Migrant workers have been abused in this country. Frankly, both the Liberals and Conservatives, when it was convenient for them, brought in temporary foreign workers so they could bring down wages, suppress wages. In fact, the UN rapporteur actually said that Canada's temporary foreign worker program, with the approaches the Canadian government has taken, is equivalent to modern-day slavery. Many migrant workers are subject to abuse and exploitation, and the member cited an example from his own community. Even when abuses are found, the penalty is so small, so minimal, that it is absolutely outrageous. What the government is doing is allowing those kinds of abusive practices, and sending a message that they can actually continue. What the government can do, and what the NDP has advocated for, is to have people get landed immigrant status upon arrival. They should get status so they can be protected and not be subject to exploitation.

Mr. Speaker, I will give an example of the challenges that, in British Columbia, and in Vancouver more specifically, we are faced with. With the francophone community, particularly in the education sector, the federal government actually can ensure that provinces receive significant increases in funding to backstop this. Do members know what we are reduced to in our education system for children who want to have access to language training in French, in French immersion classes? We have to go in for a lottery draw. If someone is lucky enough, their name will be drawn, and then they can actually enrol in that particular school. Many students did not get that chance, including my own children, by the way. When they were little, I submitted their names into the draw, but sadly, none of my children's names were drawn, and they could not get into French immersion. That is the reality Canadians are faced with. That is the reality British Columbians are faced with. That is the reality Vancouverites are faced with. I would call on the government members, instead of patting themselves on the back to say how swell they are doing, to look at where the problems are and to take action.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is actually on top of so many of the issues, and he is absolutely spot-on. The Liberal government and the Prime Minister snuck into an omnibus bill, Bill C-30, a tiny sliver of reference that they would be taking away critical regulation and regulatory practices that ensure that our food system is safe with respect to pesticides. This is what the government is doing. Supposedly it is looking after Canadians and our health, but, my goodness, what it is doing is just trying to hide this information, and there would be absolutely serious consequences for Canadians. The government claims that it supports science, but it would be gutting science. It is actually not relying on science, and it is putting in jeopardy our health and the scientific knowledge that is there. I would say that the government absolutely needs to pause this insidious action, do the consultation and reinstate scientific experts in every part of the department.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition, initiated by Ms. Sharon McIvor, calling on the House of Commons to adopt Bill S-2 as amended by the Senate without further delay and to end sex- and race-based discrimination in the Indian Act, as well as the second-generation cut-off, now. A similar petition with the same language, e-petition 7200, was sponsored by the member for Nunavut and filed with the Clerk on May 7, though the member did not rise to present the petition in the House. That petition was signed by 14,298 people. The petitioners note that the second-generation cut-off and the 1985 cut-off rules in the Indian Act, which determine eligibility for status, will result in the legal extinction of status Indians, according to Statistics Canada, and cause harm and divisions in families and communities. In the 40 years since, consultations resulted in repeated calls from first nations for its removal. They know the Senate amendments to Bill S-2 would effectively remove the second-generation and 1985 cut-offs and return to a one-parent rule for transmission of status, which were overwhelmingly supported by the majority of witnesses at the Senate committee, including first nations' leadership and organizations, women's organizations and affected individuals, many of whom took part in the government's collaborative process on the second-generation cut-off. The petitioners know that Parliament has a responsibility to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by eliminating sex and race discrimination, and the legal extinction scheme in the Indian Act. They, therefore, call for the adoption of Bill S-2 as amended by the Senate without delay.

Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge and thank my colleague as well. I am not a regular attendee of the SECU committee. However, on Bill C-22 I listened to all the exchanges and debates. I have to say my colleague from the Bloc was superb in many of her interventions. With respect to the amendments that were made, the NDP also moved an amendment related to the issue of “reasonable grounds to suspect” versus “reasonable grounds to believe”. However, the NDP amendment was defeated. The Bloc similarly moved an amendment in that regard, in accordance with the Quebec bar association. This was also an important issue that did not get support. Could the member elaborate on the rationale behind the Liberals' objection to that important amendment?

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this important moment regarding Bill C-22. Of course, the government has brought down the sledgehammer, the guillotine, to shut down debate. Bill C-22 is a version of its predecessor, Bill C-2, the so-called strong borders act, which was an offensive, omnibus bill that was dead on arrival. It immediately generated widespread opposition from the public, with tens of thousands of people advocating against it. More than 300 civil society organizations, communities and legal experts soundly rejected the bill, and the government was forced to shelve it. Now, the government has decided to recklessly ram Bill C-22 through. Rather than take the time to listen carefully and hear concerns thoughtfully, the government is plowing ahead because it thinks it knows best. Its reputation for centralization, frankly, is well deserved. Did the government take the time to listen to the Privacy Commissioner's perspective, or those of legal experts, civil liberty advocates or privacy rights experts on this legislation? I should note that the government did not even consult the Privacy Commissioner prior to tabling this legislation, so the short answer is that no, it did not. This is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that is being rushed through in a haphazard and, frankly, unsettling fashion. Members of Parliament across all party lines have put forward amendments to Bill C-22, and there were a significant number of amendments tabled at committee. The NDP put forward a large volume of amendments at committee to address legitimate concerns raised by experts and businesses alike. I will provide some examples. The NDP amendments aimed to ensure that Bill C-22 could withstand scrutiny under section 8 of the charter; to strengthen and clearly define “systemic vulnerability” to explicitly rule out any requirement that would weaken or break encryption, mandate client-side scanning, or otherwise introduce any security weaknesses; to anchor the definition of “electronic service provider” to a primary function test, ensuring obligations would apply only to entities whose core business is the conveyance of communications between persons; to address the concerns of threshold from the legal experts who have pointed out that Bill C-22's “reasonable grounds to suspect” threshold is unreasonably low, particularly given the Supreme Court of Canada's findings regarding high potential sensitivity of subscriber information. They wanted to see that language amended to “reasonable grounds to believe”. The idea behind the amendment is to require a probability of crime rather than a mere suspicion before a citizen's movement can be mapped out or identifying logs can be demanded. The NDP amendments also sought to replace ministerial secret orders with judicial warrants; to ensure warrants would remain targeted and would avoid broad or general searches to remote data, and mitigate charter and cross-border legal risks; to remove the requirement for broad long-term metadata retention mandates and to, instead, use targeted time-limited preservation orders for specific metadata when needed to reduce costs, security risks and section 8 charter violations. For context, the EU Court of Justice has repeatedly found general and indiscriminate retention of metadata to be incompatible with fundamental rights. I should note that the United States imposes no general mandatory data retention requirement. Sadly, today, the NDP amendment that was debated and moved before the committee failed. The sheer volume of the amendments tabled by all parties at committee, I think, tells us something about the bill and how flawed the bill is. Instead of giving us a chance to fully debate the amendments, the government rejected many that were put forward by opposition parties, and it is now choosing to use the closure guillotine with its new-found majority, from floor crossers, to ram the bill through without proper debate or scrutiny. Canadians will be appalled at the government's approach to pushing through the legislation. If the government wants to have public policy that is durable, and that will meet the test of time, then it should take the time to do it properly in the first place. Instead, the government has moved full-throttle over its critics. This is a completely unsustainable way to run a government. Will the Liberal caucus just support this approach like a bunch of sheep, or will they call it out for what it is? Bill C-22 would add sweeping new powers that would allow for any digital service provider to retain data on every single person in Canada, without cost. It would compel the redesign of digital systems in ways that would make Canadians more exposed, not more secure. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association rightfully pointed out in an open letter to the government, Bill C-22: ...could force the creation and installation of privacy-compromising surveillance tools and backdoors in an enormous and ill-defined set of “electronic service providers”, including telecom providers, social media and cloud service providers, AI tools, and any “smart” device. The law could even be used to force Canadian companies to build backdoors into their products before they export them abroad. The result creates an untenable threat to privacy and cybersecurity.... According to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Bill C-22 represents one of the most significant expansion of state surveillance authority in Canada in years. In the words of Tim McSorley from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group: This legislation presents one of the greatest threats to privacy in Canada of the past two decades. Its provisions will weaken the rules governing police access to personal information, all while facilitating a vast expansion of government surveillance. This is another clear case of the decades-long trend of governments using national security as an excuse to erode civil liberties and human rights.... We are encouraging all members of parliament to oppose these new powers.... Matt Hatfield from Open Media states, “Bill C-22 is even more dangerous than the bill it replaces.” The Centre for Free Expression says that it is “an unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous surveillance architecture”. The Citizen Lab said that the legislation could “weaken the rules governing police access to personal information, all while facilitating a vast expansion of government surveillance”. It goes on to say that the legislation is “enormous and poorly defined”. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, representing nearly 200,000 businesses across the country, a network of over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade, said that it fundamentally opposes breaking encryption and other essential zero-knowledge security tools to provide the government and law enforcement with unfettered access to digital systems. At a time when trust in digital governance, data security and state surveillance is already fragile, the government is bringing in legislation that would significantly change the relationship between individuals, private companies and the state. Basic due diligence when considering such sweeping changes to the privacy rights of Canadians is required, yet the government is in such a hurry to violate the civil liberties of Canadians that it did not even take the time to consult with the Privacy Commissioner. Why? Is it because the government is afraid that the Privacy Commissioner's analysis of the bill would have given the House the necessary non-partisan perspective on the implications on privacy? Bill C-22 would expand police and intelligence access to personal information, reduce judicial oversight and introduce mechanisms that could require private companies to retain and expose sensitive user data on a systematic basis. This is not speculation. It is built into the structure of the bill. The legislation contains two main components: timely access to data information and the supporting authorized access to information regime. Together, they would establish a framework that would allow government authorities to compel access to data from a wide range of electronic service providers far beyond traditional telecom companies. Under Bill C‑22, the Minister of Public Safety would be granted authority to issue secret orders requiring these providers to modify their systems to facilitate access to user information. These orders would not require judicial authorization. They would not be subject to public scrutiny and, in many cases, they might never be disclosed. Instead, they would be approved through an administrative process involving the intelligence commissioner. While that office plays an important role in oversight, it is not equivalent to independent judicial authorization in open court. It would not provide the same constitutional safeguard against unreasonable search and seizure. It would move us away from a warrant-based system rooted in charter protections and toward a model of executive-initiated access to private data. That is not all. Bill C‑22 would also introduce a second deeply concerning feature: compelled data retention. The bill would allow the government to require companies to retain metadata for up to one year on every single person in Canada or abroad. Metadata may not include the content of communications, but it reviews patterns of behaviour, who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we talk to them, how often we interact and for how long. Why is the government looking over the shoulders of Canadians? In this digital era, metadata is often more revealing than content. It is a skeleton of a person's private life, damaging the privacy of millions, not because they are suspected of committing any crime or posing any security threat but because it might become useful in the future. This is a profound invasion of privacy. This is precisely what overreach is. The legislation would create democratic deficits by design and has features that are far more characteristic of a neo-authoritarian regime. This is not an exaggeration. The government is continuing a backward slide into centralization. A government run by a former central banker is moving toward centralization, and it is the wrong direction. We also need to address the risks created when governments require systemic access points or infrastructure modifications. When companies are forced to build mechanisms that enable easier state access to encrypted or private communications, those mechanisms do not remain confined to lawful use. They become vulnerabilities. We have seen this repeatedly. Systems designed for access become systems exploited by hackers, foreign intelligence services and malicious actors. As pointed out by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce: [Encrypted zero-knowledge digital systems] would require technical measures that alter the security architecture of these systems, including changes to how encryption is implemented and managed. As a result, any requirement to facilitate this form of access would introduce systemic vulnerabilities by design, exposing both private and public sector systems to unacceptable cybersecurity risks and potential liability in the event of a breach. We need look no further back than the FINTRAC breach of 2024 or the Salt Typhoon attacks that same year which led the Canadian government to join a dozen governments in advising greater adoption of encryption, to truly appreciate the risk that our secured systems face on a daily basis. Compounding these concerns is the increased potential for cross-border data exposure. Bill C‑22 would open pathways for information sharing with foreign governments, including jurisdictions where civil liberty protections are weakening and surveillance powers are expanding, some with a history of abusing cross-border police authorities to persecute diaspora communities. Concerns do not stop there. Canada may also be implicated in transnational repression. At a time when digital rights and due process protections are under strain internationally, expanding these channels raises serious concerns about accountability and misuse of Canadian-held data. We must also be honest about the historical context of surveillance in the country. It is not theoretical to say that expanded surveillance powers have, in the past, been used disproportionately against activists, organizers, journalists and communities advocating for social and political change. Oversight bodies have repeatedly documented concerns about intelligence gathering that extends beyond legitimate criminal investigation. We need to look no further than the RCMP surveilling and actively undermining indigenous activists and movements, as the recent news from a few months ago revealed with the release of documents. When surveillance powers expand, they rarely remain confined to their original intent. They expand in scope, in use and in impact. This brings us to an important point about precedent. What we are seeing is an expansion of surveillance powers that were previously rejected due to legitimate concerns about privacy, proportionality and charter compliance. At a time when global political conditions are unstable and civil liberty protections in some jurisdictions are eroding, Canada should be strengthening privacy protections, not weakening them. The government may argue that these powers are necessary for public safety and effective law enforcement, but necessity must be demonstrated, not assumed, and proportionality must be proven, not implied. We do not need to choose between security and privacy. This is a false choice. Effective policing and intelligence work can and should operate within robust legal frameworks that preserve judicial oversight and limit data collection to what is strictly necessary. Bill C-22 fails that task. It lowers thresholds for access to personal information. It expands executive authority over digital infrastructure. It mandates or enables large-scale data retention and increases systemic exposure of private communications to risk. Businesses are considering withdrawing services from Canada should Bill C-22 be implemented. For these reasons, this legislation should not proceed in its current form. If not withdrawn and sent back to the drawing board, at minimum, it requires substantial amendments, such as restoration of judicial authorization for access orders, strict limitation of data retention powers, removal of secret system modification orders and clear prohibition of infrastructure changes that compromise encryption or system integrity. A clear understanding of the implications of system vulnerabilities needs to be incorporated with amendments to the bill to ensure those vulnerabilities do not put Canadians at further risk. Absent those kinds of changes and more, Bill C-22 represents a significant step backward for privacy rights and constitutional protections in Canada. This is not what Canadians want, I do not believe, from a Liberal government. The question before us is whether we are willing to accept a shift towards generalized surveillance infrastructure as the default condition of digital life in Canada. I am not, nor are my constituents in Vancouver East, so I urge the House to reject this path. We still have a chance. I want to be surprised. I want to be shocked. I want to see the government members not just roll over and do what they are told. We heard from other members in the House earlier who say there were not even robust, meaningful and fulsome discussions at committee with witnesses. Witnesses were not able to attend committee. Briefs were not transcribed or provided. This cannot be a path forward, because the structural changes are so significant and impactful for Canadians that we cannot afford to get it wrong. Let us take the time to do it right. I urge all members of the House to do what is important and what is right for Canadians. I urge them to not just follow the orders of what the government whip tells them to do but to do what civil society organizations, advocates and experts tell them must be done. They must examine these issues with their own mind and make that determination. I urge members to do that.

Madam Speaker, the NDP submitted dozens of amendments. I believe that those amendments, along with some from other parties, would achieve that goal to develop proportionality and bring some balance to this legislation. The amendments would not fix everything, but they would be a good start for the government to adopt opposition member amendments, and not just go forward with government or Liberal member amendments. That is the track record so far with what has happened at committee, and I think it is the wrong track.

Madam Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner actually appeared as a witness at the committee and offered suggestions. I also contacted the Privacy Commissioner after Bill C‑22 was tabled and asked whether they had any comments about the bill. They provided comments on C‑2, which the government took into consideration. However, I think that there is much work to be done. I wonder why the government rejected the motion that was tabled by committee members to bring the Privacy Commissioner back to committee to ensure questions were answered by the Privacy Commissioner as the committee went through clause-by-clause. That was rejected by the Liberals. To the member's point about the filibustering, I went to committee and watched what was going on. What happened was members were asking legitimate questions and then there was a motion to split the bill, by the Conservatives, into part one and part two. The Liberals rejected it. I then observed that the filibustering started to happen. It is a tool. When members get frustrated with the government's approach, they use that as a tool to send a message to the government that it cannot run roughshod when trying to make laws. That was the message, I believe, the members were trying to send.

Madam Speaker, it is very unusual for me, as a New Democrat, to agree with the Conservatives. On this bill, the Conservatives, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc are all offering the same voice. What message does that send to the government? I think the message is that the government got it wrong. To the member's question about businesses being worried, yes, some of them have indicated to me that they would actually leave Canada should Bill C‑22 proceed because it would put their companies in jeopardy on the privacy protections for their customers. Equally to the point, it would put them in a liability situation should there be a breach. The backdoor mechanism would create a breach that could actually violate people's privacy and put those companies in a liability situation. Once the cat is out of the bag, we cannot put it back in. That is why we cannot ram through this bill.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the Conservatives are trying to do, which is to bring more debate on part 2 of the bill. However, the premise of the amendment is still framed in terms of bringing in closure on debate. That is what I am challenged with. I do not think we should be bringing in closure to any parts of this bill. The two parts go hand in hand and are important, so we should take the time to do the work. This is what I am urging all members to do, take the time to do it right, because it is significant in terms of the changes for Canadians and for us as a country, as a whole.

Madam Speaker, I have been a parliamentarian in this House for 10 years, and prior to that provincially for 19 years. I have never seen a government embark on this kind of process in such an aggressive way, setting aside the basic rights, civil liberties and privacy rights of Canadians, setting aside valid legal experts' concerns, civil liberty advocates' concerns, privacy experts' concerns and a whole host of community concerns. This is from a Liberal government that pretends to listen to people, but what I have witnessed in the last two weeks with the volume of programming motions the government is bringing forward to ram things through on significant bills, such as Bill C‑22, is unprecedented. I have never seen anything like it. It is not a democratic government. It is an authoritarian government wielding its majority, not through legitimacy and democracy but through floor-crossers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-26, at 10:33 p.m. This will be the last time members of Parliament will get to debate the bill because the government has brought down the guillotine to shut down debate. What is this bill? It is an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. That sounds good. At the outset, let me say this clearly. Canada is not just facing a housing crisis; it is facing a housing affordability crisis. It is not a future housing crisis but a housing affordability crisis right now, which has only gotten worse on the government's watch. Across the country, people are working harder than ever and falling further behind. Young people who have done everything society has asked them to do, studied hard, gotten a job and saved money, are wondering if they will ever be able to afford a home. Families are spending larger and larger portions of their income on rent. Seniors are being priced out of the communities they helped build. Students are sleeping on couches and living in overcrowded housing. More Canadians are finding themselves on the brink of homelessness. In cities and towns across this country, homelessness continues to rise. This is the reality. This is the crisis. It demands serious action. New Democrats believe government has an obligation to act. We believe public investment has a role to play. We believe Canada must build more housing. We believe governments must be ambitious, but ambition alone is not enough. Public money must achieve public outcomes, including affordability. That is where this bill, Bill C-26, fails. This legislation would authorize the expenditure of $1.713 billion of public funds, yet despite spending more than $1.7 billion, the bill itself contains almost no meaningful safeguards, no measurable affordability requirements and no clear accountability mechanisms. There are no requirements for affordable housing. There are no requirements for non-market housing. There are no requirements for co-operative housing. There are no requirements for public housing. There are no requirements for indigenous housing. There are no requirements for accessible housing. There are no requirements for rental affordability. There are no requirements that any homes created as a result of this funding remain affordable for future generations. There are none whatsoever. Instead, Parliament would be asked to authorize $1.713 billion dollars and then hand enormous discretion to the Minister of Finance to determine where the money goes and under what conditions. This is not accountability. This is centralization. Parliament would be asked to write a cheque and hope for the best. New Democrats do not believe that is good enough. If Canadians are investing $1.7 billion, Canadians deserve to know what they are getting in return. Would rents become more affordable? Would homelessness decline? Would social housing waiting lists shrink? Would more co-op housing be built? Would more affordable homes be available to workers, seniors and young families? The bill does not answer any of these questions. This is because Bill C-26 reveals something important about how the Prime Minister understands the housing crisis. The government says this bill is about supply, but Canadians are not suffering from a shortage of supply. They are suffering from a shortage of affordable supply. These are not the same thing. A luxury condominium counts as supply. A speculative investment property counts as supply. An empty condominium tower counts as supply. None of those things necessarily creates affordability. The question is not whether units are being built. The question is who those units are being built for. The question is whether ordinary people can afford them. The question is whether housing is being treated as a home or as a financial asset. If members read the government's own background documents, something very revealing emerges. The government is concerned about inventory. The government is concerned about sales. The government is concerned about construction activity. The government is concerned about market conditions. The government is concerned about what might happen if inventories increase and housing markets slow down. Those are all legitimate matters for economists to discuss, but where in the government's framework do we see the issue of affordability or the issue of homelessness? Where do we see social housing wait-lists? Where do we see renter poverty? Where do we see overcrowding? Where do we see indigenous housing needs? Where do we see housing insecurity? Where do we see affordability outcomes? What we see instead is a framework built around market indicators. That tells us something important: that the government is measuring market distress. New Democrats are measuring human distress. Those are very different things. Canadians deserve honesty from this House. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is not simply that people cannot find housing. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that inventories are rising. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that sales are slowing. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that construction activity may decline. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that housing markets are cooling. Those are not the same thing. A family facing eviction is experiencing a housing crisis. A senior who cannot afford rent is experiencing a housing crisis. A young worker paying half their income to a landlord is experiencing a housing crisis. A worker sleeping in their car is experiencing a housing crisis. A student sleeping in their car is experiencing a housing crisis. A student couch surfing is experiencing a housing crisis. A developer sitting on unsold luxury condominiums is experiencing a market problem. Those are not the same thing, yet this legislation increasingly treats them as though they are. This is the central flaw of Bill C-26. The government has confused the health of the housing market with the well-being of the people who depend upon housing. Canadians have seen this movie before. For years, Canadians have been told that if we support the market, affordability will follow. When housing became increasingly financialized and profiteering became the name of the game, we were told affordability would follow. When corporate investors expanded their presence in housing, we were told affordability would follow. When housing prices skyrocketed, we were told affordability would follow. When rents exploded, we were told affordability would follow. When an entire generation found itself locked out of home ownership, we were told affordability would follow. Today, Canadians are hearing the same message once again: Trust the market, support the market, subsidize the market, and somehow affordability will follow. Canadians have waited long enough. The evidence is in: That experiment has failed. It has failed young people. It has failed renters. It has failed workers. It has failed seniors. It has failed communities across Canada. The private market builds housing where profits are highest. The private market does not automatically build housing where the need is the greatest. That is why we can have luxury towers sitting empty while homelessness rises. That is why we can have speculative investment properties while families struggle to find housing. That is why we can have thousands of vacant units and thousands of unhoused people in the same city at the same time. This is not a natural phenomenon. This is a policy choice. It is the predictable outcome of treating housing as an asset class instead of a human right. Let us consider what is happening in metro Vancouver. According to publicly reported figures, approximately 2,500 completed condominiums are currently sitting vacant and unsold. The number has doubled compared with the previous year. Analysts estimate that it could rise significantly further. Think about what that means. Thousands of homes already exist, thousands of homes have already been built, yet people cannot afford them. At the same time, homelessness remains a serious challenge, renters are struggling and working families are being priced out. The problem is not simply a lack of units; it is affordability. The problem is that housing is increasingly being built as an investment product rather than a social necessity, and that housing has become financialized. Unless we address the financialization, we will continue to produce housing outcomes that fail ordinary Canadians. There is another example that deserves attention. A major residential tower development in Vancouver recently entered receivership after significant financial difficulties and a loan default involving more than $100 million. An institutional lender stepped in, receivers were appointed and creditors moved to recover their investment. Now, I want to be clear, I am not criticizing construction workers, pension beneficiaries or workers whose retirement savings are invested through pension funds. However, this is an example that reveals something important. Parts of the housing development sector are experiencing financial distress. Sales are slowing, inventories are rising, financing is becoming more difficult, projects are becoming riskier, and Canadians have every right to ask a simple question: Is Bill C‑26 designed to solve the housing crisis Canadians face, or is it designed to stabilize a development model facing increasing financial pressure? When I read the government's own rationale, I see repeated concerns about inventory, market conditions and construction activity. What I do not see is an equal concern for affordability, and that should concern every member of this House. There is another problem with this bill: the allocation formula itself. Ontario received $875 million, Quebec received $320 million, B.C. received $284 million, meanwhile, Manitoba received $10 million, Saskatchewan received $10 million, New Brunswick received $10 million, and Newfoundland and Labrador received $10 million. The government has chosen to distribute funding based largely on housing market indicators. Imagine if we allocated funding based on need, homelessness or renters' needs. Imagine if we allocated funding based on social housing wait-lists, housing insecurity, indigenous housing needs or renter distress. The results would almost certainly look different. This formula is not built around human need; it is built around market conditions. This is an ideological choice, and New Democrats disagree with it. There is a larger issue at stake. For decades, governments of different political stripes have steadily reduced Canada's commitment to non-market housing. When I say different political stripes, I mean Liberals and Conservatives. The result is that Canada has one of the smallest non-market housing sectors across many developed countries. We sold the idea that private markets would deliver affordability. Instead, we got speculation, financialization, corporate concentration, rising rents, rising home prices and a housing crisis. Surely the lesson is obvious. We cannot solve a housing crisis created by excessive reliance on the market by relying even more heavily on the market. We need a different approach. We need a major expansion of non-market housing and co-op housing. We need public housing construction, acquisition funds to preserve existing affordable housing, indigenous-led housing solutions and stronger tenant protections. We need affordability requirements attached to public funding, and we need to ensure that every public dollar creates a lasting public benefit. At the end of the day, this debate comes down to a simple question: Who is the government supposed to work for? When renters are struggling, government should stand with renters. When young people are locked out of home ownership, government should stand with young people. When seniors are worried about keeping a roof over their heads, government should stand with seniors. When families cannot afford housing, governments should stand with families. That should be the test; not whether inventories are optimized, not whether markets are stabilized and not whether investors are reassured. Whether people can afford a place to live is the key. Government programs should not be designed to bail out big developers. That is the test, and Bill C-26 fails it. This bill tells us how much money would be spent. This bill tells us where some of that money would go. However, it never tells Canadians what they would receive in return. There would be no affordability guarantees, no social housing targets, no public ownership requirements and no measurable affordability outcomes, nothing. It is just $1.7 billion and a promise that the market would somehow work things out. We have heard that promise before, and after decades of hearing it, Canada now faces the worst housing affordability crisis in generations. When a former central banker designs housing policy, it looks like Bill C-26 and it clearly misses the mark. It misses the human impact of housing affordability. New Democrats believe that there is a better path. We believe that housing is a basic human right. We believe that public money should serve public purposes. We believe that housing policy should be judged by outcomes for people, not outcomes for investors. We believe that if taxpayers assume the risk, they deserve affordability in return. We believe that if public money is invested, the public should own part of that outcome. We believe that if government is serious about housing affordability, then affordability cannot be optional. There are two ways to spend $1.7 billion. We can spend it protecting the housing market or we can spend it protecting Canadians from the housing market. Bill C-26 chooses the first path. New Democrats believe parliamentarians should choose the second, always putting people before profits. That is what we are here to talk about with respect to this bill. Somehow, the government misses the mark. Before this bill came to this critical stage where the government is bringing forward a guillotine motion to ram through the bill without proper debate in the House, I had a briefing with officials. I asked the officials, “What is the funding allocation? What is the formula? How did they determine who gets how much money?” At that briefing, they said that they could not provide that information to me. They were actually not going to share that information. What they really wanted was for me, for the New Democrats and for members of the House to agree on a unanimous consent motion to pass through all the stages—

Mr. Speaker, to the point where they are making disruptive noises that interfere with the debate in the House, that is inappropriate. Let me just conclude my comments here. The government wants to ram this through. The Liberals want unanimous consent from all the parties to somehow magically just support them in whatever they want to do, but we actually want accountability. We want the government to deliver results for the people, for Canada, for Canadians who are struggling with the housing crisis, not just to hand over cheques without accountability measures. That is the difference. The market will not fix the problem. What will fix the problem is a policy choice of investing in the people and for people ahead of profits.

Mr. Speaker, I was once actually in government at the provincial level, at a time when the federal Liberal government cancelled the national affordable housing program. What did New Democrats do provincially? We continued to deliver housing in spite of that. When I was elected and became a cabinet minister, what did we do? We actually grew the money from the Province of British Columbia alone, with the private sector, with the non-profit sector, with municipalities and with everybody else who would partner with us, except for the federal government, which walked away. Guess what. We grew that money from 600 units to 1,200 units and then to 2,000 units, with the same amount of money. Yes, we believe in the market, but what we also believe in is making sure that we drive the market to deliver for the people, especially when it gets a benefit from taxpayers. That is unlike the current Liberal government. What did it do? It gave money hand over fist to the development sector, to the market, and thought that somehow, magically, affordable housing would appear on its own. Guess what. It did not.

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point. There would be no accountability measures. There would be nothing to which one can say that using $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money would generate a specific return for the people in Canada. There would be zero accountability measures and zero targets. There is none of that information whatsoever in the bill. As I was saying earlier, I was trying to get from the government what exactly the allocation would be and what the formula is that the government used to decide how to divide the money between the provinces and territories. The Liberals could not even give me that. It was after much to-do, when they were desperate to try to get a unanimous consent motion through, that they then came forward with that information. Guess what. A whole bunch of provinces would be getting only $10 million out of this. That would not address the housing crisis, would it? The government just says, “Trust us. We will fix it.” Oh, will it really?

Madam Speaker, my constituent suffered a debilitating vaccine injury. He is in constant pain and permanently disabled. Oxaro approved his $26,000 medical and home support costs back in February. He has yet to be reimbursed. He is now broke and being evicted. The health minister says to contact the Public Health Agency of Canada. PHAC says it is in transition and will not even look at the file until July. This is unacceptable. My constituent will be homeless and may not survive if he does not get help now. Will the minister immediately put in place a system to address urgent cases?

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I rise today on behalf of the people of Vancouver East, and on behalf of millions of Canadians, who are asking a very simple question. In one of the richest countries in the world, why is it becoming harder, not easier, to afford a place to live? What an opportunity this is to do the right thing and to build truly affordable housing, once and for all. The government has a chance to step up to the plate and finally deal with the crisis of runaway housing costs. Instead, it is just tinkering at the edges. Behind the hype and the Prime Minister's rhetoric of re-establishing the federal government's direct role in building homes at speed and scale to address the housing crisis is just another repackaged intervention that reserves most of its funding for the private sector. As shown in the spring economic update, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would build more housing faster to address the housing crisis, but instead of investing in the development of public community housing, over $93 billion, or two-thirds of the $140 billion in housing measures, would be gifted to real estate developers through special treatment and low-interest loans with minimal affordability requirements to help Canadians. Only one-third, less than $10 billion a year over five years, would be spent directly on building homes. The Liberals are continuing to bank on the private sector to solve the housing crisis. We have seen that show before. It did not work 30 years ago, and it will not work now or in the future. The legislation contains no affordability or supply targets, no performance benchmarks and no regular reporting requirements beyond infrequent statutory reviews. To date, the government has announced just six sites that would meet affordability criteria. Without binding requirements, there is no assurance that future projects would do the same. This lack of ambition is especially concerning given that total federal housing spending is projected to fall by 56% by 2028-29. Funding for existing affordability programs is set to expire, and CMHC is facing cuts of $860 million per year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In addition, there could be the loss of up to 300,000 units of already built social and co-op housing if the government does not renew housing charge subsidies that are set to expire. Miloon Kothari, the former UN special rapporteur on housing, visited Canada on a national fact-finding mission and wrote a report in 2007 with recommendations. The point is that every government, Conservative and Liberal, has ignored his advice since. The report called for a continuum of housing to be built, including non-market affordable housing on scale, so that it could push the market into more affordable terrain. What are we seeing today, more than 30 years later? Why are seniors being renovicted from communities that they helped build? Why are young people working full-time and still unable to afford rent? Why are families forced to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table? Why has this affordability crisis gone on for so long? This did not happen by accident. This is the result of decades of political choices that have allowed housing in Canada to be transformed from a human need into a vehicle for profit. During the election campaign, the Liberals said they were going to have a wartime intervention in building affordable housing. What we see in reality is a program focused primarily on market incentives. History has shown us that true affordable housing, social housing and co-op housing, can be built by government with non-profit partners, and they know how to do this well. The Liberals have a choice: stand with working people crushed by rent and unaffordable housing costs, or protect a system that keeps housing unaccountable and out of reach. Sadly, they choose the latter. Liberals are continuing to approach the affordability crisis through market incentives rather than building affordable housing directly with non-profit partners that guarantee affordability. That is the world view of the Conservatives as well. The NDP takes a very different approach, and that is why the NDP is calling for development of one million public homes over five years. That is the scale of ambition we need, to ensure that everyone has a safe, affordable place to call home. At committee, I proposed something incredibly basic: an amendment to Bill C-20 calling for transparency, measurable targets and a clear definition of affordability rooted in reality, which is that people should not spend more than 30% of their total income just to keep a roof over their head. The amendment demanded data and required outcomes on how many homes are built, where they are, who they serve and whether they are actually affordable. At a time when millions are one paycheque away from losing their homes, Canadians deserve more than announcements and market incentivization. They deserve accountability and clear affordability targets. The Liberals and Conservatives, by voting down the amendment, send a clear message that they are not interested in transparency and accountability. They do not really want Canadians to know the facts. Here is the truth. Building more housing, on its own, will not solve the crisis. If we do not address who the system is built for, we will simply produce more housing that people still cannot afford. When we do not set affordability targets, it is déjà vu all over again. There is a profound lack of urgency and priority by the Prime Minister to build a new supply of truly affordable housing for everyday Canadians. What is worse is that we will leave the most vulnerable even further behind. The Minister of Housing once had the ambition to end homelessness. Now that he is the minister, where has that ambition gone? The Right Fit program did something very simple and very powerful. It matched wheelchair users with accessible housing. Over the years, it helped hundreds of people find stable homes, and yet despite its success, and despite a growing wait-list of people in desperate need, it lost federal funding as of April 1. That means that in the middle of a housing crisis, we are not just failing to build enough homes but failing to ensure that the housing we have is accessible to those who need it most. It is not happening. This is not just a policy failure; it is a moral failure. It exposes a fundamental flaw in the government's approach. The Build Canada Homes act focuses heavily on supply, but it is not asking a critical question: a supply of what, and for whom? Accessible housing is not interchangeable with market housing. This is a bureaucracy being built without adequate affordability targets. We cannot simply build more units and assume they will meet the needs of people with disabilities. This is not simply an outlier situation. It is a warning. It shows us exactly what happens when we rely on a market-driven approach without strong public leadership and targeted investment. We get gaps, we get inequities, and people are left behind. This happens because it leans on the same idea, which is that if we incentivize developers, reduce barriers and speed up approvals, affordability will follow. However, we have tried that for decades, and what has it delivered? It has delivered luxury developments instead of affordable homes, record profits for investors while renters struggle, and housing treated as a commodity, not a human right. The private market builds for profit, not for need. If luxury units generate higher returns, that is what will be built. If speculation drives higher prices, that is where capital flows. This is how the system is designed, but it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the system serves the people, not just the profits. Right now, it does not serve the people. Where in this bill is the bold commitment to non-market housing? Where is the large-scale investment in co-op housing? Where is the expansion of public housing that remains affordable for generations? Where are the protections for renters facing eviction and unaffordable rent increases? Where is the action to stop the financialization of housing? The housing crisis is not separate from inequity. It is a direct result of it. When wealth is concentrated, it flows into assets like housing and drives prices out of reach. If we are serious about solving the crisis, we must be serious about addressing inequality. This is not just about opposing development. We need to build, but we need to build the right kind of housing. We need to build housing that is affordable, accessible and secure. We need to build housing that is protected from speculation. Housing is not just about supply. It is about dignity. It is about stability. It is about a basic human right. That is why the government needs to take action in a serious way. That is why there need to be accountability measures in this bill and we need to address the housing crisis for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been a strong advocate of the federal government's getting back to building social housing and co-op housing like it used to, before the Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program prior to 1993. That is what I want to see in place. The build Canada homes act fails in its blueprint and the details on how it would actually deliver affordability, social housing and co-op housing for Canadians. By the way, my amendment called for accountability, to set baselines, to set targets and to set reported measures of what the government actually achieves. The Liberals voted against it, because they do not want Canadians to know the truth. They want to hide it from Canadians. There would be no accountability measures under the act.

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. There is no accountability in the bill. It does not even name the minister responsible for ensuring the deliverability. It does not actually say what the government is trying to do. How many units will it build and in which provinces? What are the targets the government will set? The bill does not even ensure that the government delivers on letting Canadians know what the outcomes are, and there is no affordability measure. It is just like, “oh well, whatever”. If we have a plan like that, how is the housing crisis going to be solved? History has shown that what the government has done over the last 30 years is rely on just the private sector, and that has failed.

Madam Speaker, there is a great need for a full range of housing, and that includes supportive housing. The truth of the matter is that building housing in and of itself is insufficient. We have to have the supports in place as well for a certain segment of the community, for example, those who are faced with multiple health issues, including addictions issues, mental health issues and so on. Supportive housing is what helps ensure people are successful in that housing, and that is what we need as well. We do not have enough supports from the federal government in that regard. By the way, the spring economic update did not renew mental health support funding, and that is going to create greater problems for communities like Nanaimo and mine, and across the country.

Madam Speaker, in Canada we have CMHC specifically designed to deliver housing. Now the government is coming forward with an act for Build Canada Homes, another Crown corporation, to deliver housing, yet in this bill there are no accountability measures, no targets and no affordability requirements. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that Build Canada Homes would only build around 50 to 100 units per year, a fraction of the annual 500,000 units, at least, that are required to address the housing crisis. My question for my colleague is this: If there are no accountability measures, what is the point of creating yet another Crown corporation?

Mr. Speaker, people in Vancouver East want the federal government to stop the “invest now, regulate later” approach of the Prime Minister's AI data factory strategy. People are deeply concerned that the proposed AI data centres in dense residential neighbourhoods would bring constant air pollution from on-site diesel generators, 24-7 noise and impacts on water. It makes no sense to have water-intensive AI data centres on valuable land near their homes while historic drought conditions and water restrictions loom. People in Virginia, home to the largest concentration of data centres in the world, learned that industrial-scale data centres are incompatible in residential neighbourhoods. In Ireland, 22% of the power supply is now reportedly used by data centres, adding hundreds of dollars to home hydro bills. In the middle of an affordability and climate crisis, Van East constituents want people's rights to housing, quality of life, water security and affordable home power supply to come first, ahead of tech giants.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has sidelined Bill S-2 as amended, despite a court-ordered deadline to end sex- and race-based discrimination and the second-generation cut-off in the Indian Act. The UN has called on Canada to fix this by adopting Bill S-2 as amended. The majority of first nations agree and do not want more consultation. Officials and ministers say it is up to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister stop the delay tactics, meet with first nations women leaders, as requested, and pass Bill S-2 as amended, now, to end the discrimination and violations of the charter and international law?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning information provided to Parliament by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on Thursday, May 28, 2026. During those proceedings, I asked the minister about approximately 130 Palestinian graduate students from Gaza who have been waiting for nearly two years for decisions on their study permit applications. I noted that many face requirements that are impossible to satisfy under war conditions, including biometrics collection and prolonged security screening. I further noted that several countries, including France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany, have adopted flexible measures to facilitate the arrival of scholarship recipients from Gaza. I then asked the minister whether Canada would do the same. In response, the minister stated, “we have directed officials to accelerate the student visa processing for people in Gaza, and I can confirm that decisions will be made now, and in fact all...will be completed in the next 10 days.” While part of the minister's answer was delivered off microphone and is not fully reflected in the transcript, it is audible in the video recording of the proceedings. I heard the minister make those comments in the chamber. Given the significance of the statement, I subsequently reviewed the recording and confirmed what I heard. The minister's response was not vague. It was not aspirational. It was not framed as a hope or expectation. The minister informed Parliament that officials had been directed to accelerate processing and that decisions would be completed within 10 days. As members of Parliament, we are entitled to rely upon information provided by the ministers during parliamentary proceedings. Indeed, our ability to hold the government to account depends upon it. Following the minister's statement, I understood that decisions on these applications would be forthcoming within the time frame identified by the minister. I communicated accordingly with stakeholders and advocates who have been working tirelessly on behalf of these students. However, information subsequently received has raised serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the minister's statement to Parliament. Just today, I have learned that officials in the minister's department are saying that the minister's response regarding a completion in the next 10 days is not the case, as I have been contacted by Canadian advocates for the students who wrote me today to say, “We just met with an IRCC representative this morning and it doesn't sound like they will follow through on this.” The students' advocates told me that officials said to them that there is no 10-day timeline. This was further confirmed by advocates and university professors at a meeting that took place from noon to 1 p.m. today. Therefore, this is my earliest opportunity to raise the matter. This information shared at this meeting with four members of Parliament, including myself, from the stakeholders suggests that officials are not proceeding in accordance with the commitment communicated by the minister during committee of the whole and that the applications in question may not, in fact, be completed within the time frame of 10 days that she identified. I fully acknowledge that findings that a member deliberately misled the House may be rare and require a high threshold. The authorities establish three conditions: first, that a statement was misleading; second, that the member knew it was incorrect at the time it was made; and third, that there was an intention to mislead. There are several factors that distinguish this matter. First, the minister made a specific and verifiable representation to Parliament concerning the processing of a defined group of applications with ministry staff at her side. Second, the representation included a precise timeline: completion within 10 days. Third, the statement concerned operational actions that would necessarily have been based on the information provided to the minister by her department officials, who were sitting right in front of her. Fourth, the information that has emerged since the minister's statement calls into question whether the commitment communicated to Parliament reflected the actual status of those files. Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to determine today whether the minister deliberately misled Parliament. Such determinations are not made lightly. Rather, I submit that the circumstances raise sufficient concern to warrant further examination by the House. Members must be able to rely on ministerial statements when carrying out their parliamentary duties. When a minister provides a specific assurance to Parliament and substantial doubt subsequently arises as to its accuracy, the House must have confidence that the matter will be examined. The privileges of members are engaged when our ability to perform our parliamentary functions is undermined by information that may be inaccurate or misleading. In this case, I relied on the minister's response in exercising my responsibilities as a parliamentarian. The House was entitled to rely upon that information. The integrity of our proceedings depends on the accuracy of the information provided by ministers when answering questions from members. Accordingly, I respectfully submit that there is a prima facie case of question of privilege. If you so find, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the following motion: That the matter of the statements made by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on May 28 concerning the processing of study permit applications for Palestinian students from Gaza be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study and report.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the immigration minister if she would do what France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany had done and evacuate 130 Palestinian students with university acceptance and scholarships with deferred biometrics and grant them emergency travel documents. The minister said, “we have directed officials to accelerate the student visa processing for people in Gaza, and I can confirm the decision will be made now, and in fact all...will be completed in the next 10 days.” I am now learning that is not true. Either the minister was deliberately misleading, or she is inept and has no clue what is going on. Will the Prime Minister just fire her already?

Mr. Speaker, Canada signed a police co-operation agreement with China behind closed doors. The RCMP reportedly revealed that Canada cannot publicly disclose details of the MOU without Beijing's approval. The foreign affairs minister said she spoke frankly with the Chinese foreign affairs minister about human rights abuses, foreign interference and transnational repression activities last week. China has a history of weaponizing shared intelligence such as Operation Fox Hunt. Will the minister be frank with Canadians and tell us whether she asked China's permission to release the MOU, yes or no?

Madam Speaker, I rise to table two petitions today. The first is in support of the Indian Residential School Survivors Society. The petition has been signed by more than 2,600 people calling on the Government of Canada to honour the TRC calls to action and the national inquiry for women and girls. Petitioners are calling for the government to respect residential school survivors, their families and their communities. They call on the government to keep its promises to avoid gaps in survivor-centred services. They call for sustained and stable core funding for the Indian Residential School Survivors Society to prevent program lapses, including funding for indigenous-led healing, wellness and crisis support programs related to residential school impacts. They also call on the government to work with the society, the indigenous community and partners for a stable, long-term framework that reflects the actual service needs.

Madam Speaker, the second petition I am tabling is signed by Canadians from communities including Vancouver, Surrey, Toronto, Ottawa and Gatineau. Petitioners are concerned that Trump's military is bombarding small boats and their crews in the Caribbean and in the Pacific Ocean, claiming without evidence that they are narco-terrorists. Such actions are illegal, they have noted, yet Canadian-made equipment has been used to commit these extrajudicial killings, due to the massive loophole in Canada's arms export laws. Whereas Canada respects the rule of law, the petitioners therefore call on the Canadian government to require the same rules of licensing of Canadian military exports to Trump's military that are applied to every other country.

Mr. Chair, there is a requirement for cabinet to ensure an ongoing review of the safe third country agreement. Has cabinet reviewed the safe third country agreement since the U.S. implemented mandatory detention without review by a judge for large categories of the refugee claimants returned to the U.S., third-country pass-through deportations and deportations under the dubious asylum co-operative agreements?

Mr. Chair, 130 highly qualified Palestinian postgrad students have waited for two years for their study visa with no decision or timeline. Many face requirements that are impossible to meet under the war conditions, including biometrics and extended security screening. France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany successfully evacuated students who received university scholarships without pre-departure biometrics. They granted emergency entry travel documents and deferred standard biometric collection. Will the minister do the same?