Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from constituents of the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, because the constituents tell me their MP would not table it. The petitioners note that Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019, committing to prevent the transfer of arms where there is a substantial risk that they could be used in human rights abuses, war crimes or crimes against humanity. They also note that a significant loophole in Canada's export laws currently allows Canadian-made weapons, parts and components to be exported to the United States, from where they may be transferred to third countries. They note that international bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council, and independent UN experts have called on all states to halt arms transfers where there is a substantial risk of their use in violations of international humanitarian law. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to enact legislation to close existing loopholes in Canada's arms export laws, including removing exemptions for the U.S., strengthening oversight and ensuring that Canadian arms are never used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses.

Mr. Speaker, the fossil fuel lobby had at least 17 direct meetings with the Prime Minister and environmental groups had zero. The Prime Minister axed the carbon tax, abandoned the emissions cap, killed the EV mandate, signed a deal to build a new pipeline, stepped up on greenwashing, took a sledgehammer to regulatory reviews, created a $25-billion wealth fund that will no doubt benefit the oil and gas industry and refused to impose an excess profit tax when companies are poised to make over $90 billion in profit this year alone. Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians what else the oil and gas industry wants?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians, “we don’t want to hear what people are against; we want to hear what they’re for”. He has abandoned the environment. He is gaslighting environmental groups that have been calling for renewable energy for decades. No wonder the former environment minister resigned and Liberal MPs feel they can raise their concerns only anonymously. This is an authoritarian approach, not democracy. Will the Prime Minister stop his bullying tactics, the sidelining of indigenous leaders who dare to disagree with him, or do they need to do what Danielle Smith is doing: threaten to hold a referendum to separate from Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by over 13,000 people about prolonged security screening delays for PR applicants. Internal IRCC projections reveal that PR applications referred for comprehensive security screening are projected to take nearly 65 months, which is over five years, to complete. I have so many constituents who are faced with this problem. The petitioners point out that the applicants from certain countries of origin face indefinite, non-transparent delays, that these delays cause severe harm, including prolonged family separation, mental health crises and significant financial burdens, and that the applicants lack meaningful recourse or transparent case information. The petitioners call on the House for a number of measures to ensure accountability and transparency, so that people will know what is going on with their file. They want the reporting of data and for an independent immigration ombudsperson to investigate chronic delays and provide a formal escalation channel.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières. Let me start with a quote that says, for all my life, I have been a Liberal who believed in rights, equity and an independent foreign policy. Since 1982, the charter gave us something that transcended party...courts that could check governments, refugee protection as obligation, reconciliation as shared responsibility. “The story is being re-written. The language hasn't changed. Ministers still invoke the Charter, the 'rules-based order'.... But...what's actually happening....” Asylum seekers are cut off before they reach a hearing, immigration detention is relocated into a federal prison, climate architecture is quietly dismantled, indigenous funding is eroded by inflation and international law is treated as optional when inconvenient. “The Liberal convention in Montreal confirmed the direction...security, defence, and major project....” Election reform was rejected. “Small-l liberals...are running out of political space. Their values haven't disappeared. The party that used to carry them is just moving on.” Those are the comments of the Hon. Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign affairs minister. I think he is reflecting the views of many progressives in Canada. After the tabling of the spring economic update, the headline of Althia Raj's opinion piece in the Toronto Star, which names the Prime Minister, reads, “[He] has forgotten who helped get him elected”. Her article opens with this, “If one thing is clear from [the Prime Minister’s] economic update this week, it’s that he’s taking progressive voters for granted.” Indeed the months since the fall 2025 budget have confirmed a hard truth. The Prime Minister is governing like a centralizing conservative. The warning signs were already in the budget itself: public service cuts, reduced immigration targets and a growing emphasis on sovereignty spending including defence. The NDP flagged it as an austerity-leaning framework at a time when Canadians were struggling with unaffordability, unemployment and rising costs. Since then, the direction has only hardened. This government has overridden labour action, forcing striking workers back on the job, drawing fierce backlash from unions. It has pursued international trade and so-called nation-building legislation with Conservative support while sidelining indigenous rights and environmental standards. It has cut or constrained programs in areas like science, foreign aid, community support and public services, all while expanding military commitments and giving big corporations significant tax incentives and benefits as they continue to make record excessive profits. Day by day, it is becoming clearer that this is not progressive governance, but the consolidation of power, decision-making and priorities that tilt toward the market, megaprojects and militarization over people. It is a government that asks its working people to tighten their belts while opening the fiscal floodgates for defence and corporate-led growth. That is not balance; it is a political choice, and one that looks increasingly conservative by the day. The spring economic update saw health care spending cut as Canadians continue to struggle to find a doctor. The provinces and territories that did not sign on to the pharmacare deal that the NDP forced the Liberals to move forward on before the last election will likely not get an agreement. Meanwhile, mental health funding will not be renewed. The chronic underfunding for mental health and addictions continues. The highly touted dedicated funding for transit has been axed. Support for many critical services, including the Right Fit program for people with disabilities, will sunset. Canadians are worried about their future and are facing an everyday emergency to keep costs down. Instead of taking bold action that would actually make a difference in people's lives, the Prime Minister is relying on the private sector to save us. In fact, the spring economic update ensures the private sector is the biggest beneficiary in this affordability crisis. With the creation of a $25‑billion sovereign wealth fund, Canadians will see public funds shuffled into privately owned projects that will make a few wealthy investors and CEOs richer than they already are, including big oil and gas companies that are poised to reap over $90 billion in profits this year alone. The Prime Minister's approach is to take public tax dollars to subsidize private projects all while income inequality is at a record high. Canada's wealth inequality report by Oxfam Canada cited that in 2025, there were approximately 89 billionaires in Canada. The report further noted that the richest 1% have a net worth of $7 million and above, and they hold nearly $3.9 trillion in wealth, almost as much as the bottom 80% combined. This is just plain wrong. The Prime Minister invoked the example of Norway's sovereign wealth fund, and the banker PM is doing the mirror image of what Norway did. In contrast, Norway's success is built on state-led development. It directed its resource revenues into a sovereign wealth fund that is now worth over $2 trillion U.S., investing in green energy and initiatives and securing Norway's social safety net. Canada once had a similar opportunity with the state-owned Petro-Canada, but the Conservatives began the privatization process and the Liberals finished it off, costing Canadians a vital source of national wealth. Instead of filling the pockets of big oil and gas companies, the NDP wants to see a windfall tax on oil and gas companies that are projected to make over $90 billion in profits this year alone because of Trump's illegal war in Iran, and use that money to grow the sovereign wealth fund to benefit Canadians. This past week the Prime Minister told Canadians at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, “We don’t want to hear what people are against. We want to hear what they're for. And if you're for something, we will get behind [it].” He is delegitimizing the work of environmental groups and climate defenders who have been calling for green energy and infrastructure for decades. He is also threatening provinces and sidelining indigenous rights at the same time. Is it a wonder that the former minister of environment, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, resigned from cabinet? Now 14 Liberal MPs have written a letter anonymously, raising their concerns. If the Prime Minister can make such a comment to the Canadian public, one can only imagine how his cabinet is treated behind closed doors if any of them dare to voice their opposition. The Prime Minister was the UN special envoy on climate action and finance, which championed integrating climate risks into mainstream financial decision-making. He called for faster decarbonization. In 2015, Canada played an important role in the signing of the 2015 Paris Agreement. We agreed to lower emissions by 45% by 2030, a key deadline and organizing principle for the climate strategy. To achieve this, the main pillars of Canada's pan-Canadian framework for climate change included carbon pricing, an EV mandate, an emissions cap on the oil sands and clean energy growth. The consumer industrial carbon pricing was to reach $170 per tonne by 2030. The EV mandate was to see that 60% of vehicle sales were EVs by 2030 and 100% by 2025. The emissions cap on the oil sands was to be 45%. Those targets have all been cancelled or delayed by a decade. Clean energy growth was watered down. Deadlines were pushed back. Instead of faster decarbonization, the Prime Minister signed a new agreement with Danielle Smith to build a new pipeline that would emit 160 megatonnes of carbon dioxide, 10 times more emissions than with its carbon capture project. Canada will not meet its climate goals by 2030. The Canadian Climate Institute is saying Canada will not get to net zero by 2050. The Prime Minister has abandoned climate, plain and simple, and what did we get for that? It was not unity but a referendum for Alberta to separate from Canada. Moreover, Canada is on a path to significantly increase defence spending to 5% of GDP. We have barely had public debate about this, nor was this talked about during the election. National security matters, but so does economic security. At the very same time as we are considering major increases in defence spending, we are also hearing about fiscal restraint, about the need to limit spending in other areas. Let us be clear. When the government makes these choices, it falls hardest on people who rely on affordable housing, on the health care system, on income supports, on child care, on mental health and on accessible public services. It falls on middle-income and low-income Canadians. It falls on renters and on young people trying to get ahead. In other words, without careful and deliberate policy design, those trade-offs can deepen inequality. We know policy choices can make a difference in people's lives. This is what the Prime Minister is doing. He is trading off the needs of Canadians for the oil and gas companies, which are already making billions and billions in profits.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what the NDP stands for. The NDP stands for calling on the government to actually impose an excessive profit tax on the oil and gas companies, which are poised to make over $90 billion just this year alone in profits. That money should go into the sovereign wealth fund. That money should go into green energy initiatives. That money should be going into supporting Canadians who are struggling with the affordability crisis.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the affordability crisis is hitting everybody. In my riding of Vancouver East as well, people are struggling to get by. What the NDP cannot accept is an economy where wealth continues to concentrate at the top, where opportunity narrows for too many and where public policy moves in ways that risk reinforcing that divide. This is not inevitable. It is the result of the political decisions of the Prime Minister, and it is within our power to choose a different path. The NDP chooses a different path. We say, let us levy an excessive profit tax for those who are making billions of dollars at the expense of Canadians who are struggling to get by.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that I am deeply disappointed and deeply concerned that the Prime Minister has abandoned the indigenous community. He is riding roughshod over and sidelining their indigenous rights, as have been enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. On the housing side, the government, in the economic update, actually ensured that the private sector would be the biggest beneficiary of the spring economic update. Of the $140 billion for measures toward housing, two-thirds is actually targeted toward the private sector in the way of benefits, tax incentives and so on. Only a small fraction of the money would actually be invested in building housing. So much for building faster and more for the Canadians who need housing the most.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the spring economic update on surveillance pricing. There is nothing on excessive tax profits, as oil companies are set to make some $90 billion in excess profits. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the $140 billion for housing is actually for developers in lost revenues. The government does not, in the economic budget, have the wherewithal to ensure that the Right Fit program for people with disabilities will be funded. Only $500,000 is needed to keep the program going for people with disabilities to find a home. Why did the government not support people with disabilities?

Mr. Speaker, at a time when gas prices are skyrocketing, the Liberals are quietly slashing $5 billion from promised transit funding to local governments, all part of the Prime Minister's cuts, funding that cities rely on to keep people moving and to fight climate change. That means fewer buses, delayed projects and higher costs for commuters. Why is the government abandoning working people and municipalities when they need support the most? Will the Prime Minister reverse these reckless cuts in the spring economic update and reinstate the promised stable long-term transit funding, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the high cost of living is fuelled by greedflation, and the Liberals know it. The top 1% now holds nearly a quarter of all wealth, while the bottom 40% scrape by with just over 3%. Oil companies are on track to make $90 billion in windfall profits from Trump's illegal war. Half measures, like a temporary federal gas tax suspension, will not stop this growth inequality. Will the Prime Minister bring in a windfall profit tax and price caps on gas to stop oil companies from price gouging Canadians, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is happening in this country right now. Canadian families are making impossible choices at grocery stores. Parents are skipping meals so their children can eat. Seniors on fixed income are choosing between food and medication. Food banks usage has reached historic highs, and people using them are not just unemployed Canadians. They are working people, people with jobs who still cannot afford to feed their family. Meanwhile, Canada's grocery giants have posted record profits. Billions of dollars are flowing to shareholders and executives, while ordinary Canadians struggle to put food on the table. This is not a supply chain problem anymore. This is a greed problem. Increasingly, it is also about a transparency problem, because new technologies are making pricing even more opaque and harder for Canadians to trust. Bill C-226, the national framework for food price transparency act, is one step, a modest but necessary step, toward restoring fairness and transparency in our grocery sector. I want to acknowledge and thank the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for bringing the bill forward in the current Parliament. I also want to thank my former colleague Alistair MacGregor, the former member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, as Bill C-226 is a carbon copy of Bill C-406, which was introduced by Alistair because the NDP wanted legislation to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency through standardized unit pricing and public awareness for consumers about shrinkflation practices. Right now, grocery pricing in Canada operates like a black box. Prices go up, and Canadians are told it is because of inflation, supply costs or global pressures, but when those input costs come down, do prices follow? They rarely do, and consumers have no way to verify what they are being told. Anyone who has tried to compare products at the grocery store knows the shell game that is being played. Is a 750-gram box a better deal than the 1.2‑kilogram bag? Is the sale price actually a saving, or has the package quietly shrunk? Shrinkflation is real. Canadians are paying the same or more for less product, and without clear unit pricing, it is nearly impossible to catch. The bill would establish national standards for unit pricing displays, making them accurate, usable and accessible. That means clear, consistent labelling that lets a working parent on a tight budget quickly identify the best value. It means accessibility for seniors, for people with disabilities and for anyone who deserves to shop with dignity and clarity. This is consumer protection 101, and frankly it is long overdue in Canada. Many European countries and Australian states have had mandatory unit pricing for years. We are playing catch-up. Food affordability is a national crisis that requires a national response, and the framework would create a structure for that collaboration. In addition to addressing pricing transparency, there is also a new and deeply troubling layer being added to this lack of transparency: surveillance pricing. Retailers are increasingly able to use personal data, such as person's postal code, their purchase history and even their online behaviour, to estimate what they might be willing to pay, and to adjust prices accordingly. This means that two people could buy exactly the same product at exactly the same store and pay different prices, not because of a sale and not because of cost differences but because an algorithm has decided that one of them can be charged more. This undermines a basic assumption Canadians have always relied on: that the price on the shelf is the price everyone pays. It also makes comparison shopping nearly impossible. If prices are being personalized behind the scenes, how can Canadians make informed choices? How can markets function fairly when the rules are hidden? The United Food and Commercial Workers Union has already raised concerns, noting that these systems are beginning to roll out in real time with little transparency and no accountability. We know who will be most affected: seniors on fixed income, working families, people in rural and underserved communities, and anyone an algorithm determines has fewer options. That is not a fair market. That is digital age price gouging. Surveillance pricing needs to be banned in Canada. Our leader, Avi Lewis, has called for clear guardrails to ensure that personal data is not used to squeeze more money out of the pockets of people who are already stretched thin. In Canada we are already seeing leadership in Manitoba on this under Premier Wab Kinew, who has taken steps to ban surveillance pricing practices outright, recognizing the risks they pose to consumers. Innovation should serve people, not exploit them. It is about setting boundaries. The Liberals should bring in a national initiative to ban surveillance pricing from coast to coast to coast. Meanwhile, Bill C-226 would address part of the broader problem by requiring transparency on price increases, adjustments and fluctuations. This is not about the government's setting prices. It is about ensuring that Canadians have the information they need to make informed decisions and to hold corporations accountable. When grocery chains know their pricing practices will be scrutinized, when they know Canadians can see when and why prices change, they will think twice before padding their margins on the backs of struggling families. Would the bill single-handedly solve the affordability crisis? No, it would not. New Democrats have called for much bolder action: excess profit taxes on grocery giants, stronger competition enforcement, measures to break up corporate concentration in the food supply chain and a public option for groceries such as what Avi Lewis has long argued for. However, the bill is a beginning. It would give Canadians tools and information. It would establish the principle that transparency is non-negotiable in our grocery sector, especially as pricing practices become more complex and less visible. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can pass the legislation while continuing to fight for deeper structural reforms. This comes down to a simple question: Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of grocery executives and shareholders, who have enriched themselves during a cost of living crisis, or are we on the side of the single mother comparing prices at 10 p.m. after her shift, the pensioner stretched thin on a fixed income and the family choosing between groceries and rent? Canadians deserve to know that the price on the tag is the price that everyone pays, not a number quietly adjusted based on their personal data. Bill C-226 is a vote for transparency, a vote for fairness and a vote for Canadian families. New Democrats will be supporting the bill, and we urge all members of the House to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member that the government screwed up the tabling of Bill C-2 in trying to force through an omnibus bill that was resoundingly, as a result, rejected by the Canadian public. Here we are now with Bill C-22. The government says it has consulted widely and has learned from its lesson, yet it has deliberately excluded the privacy commissioner in that consultation. Does the member think the government should have included the privacy commissioner on the development of Bill C-22?

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access act, is being presented as a necessary modernization of investigative powers in the digital age. To be clear, there is some truth in that framing. We do need to modernize. Law enforcement and national security agencies are operating in a rapidly evolving technology-driven environment. Serious crimes, from human trafficking to foreign interference, are increasingly digitally distributed and difficult to detect. Human trafficking networks now rely on encrypted messaging, anonymous accounts and constantly shifting online identities. Foreign interference operations depend on coordinated digital campaigns, pseudonymous actors and infrastructure that crosses borders in seconds. In both cases, the central challenge is attribution, identifying who is behind an account or activity, quickly enough to act. Parliamentary findings have confirmed that agencies like the RCMP and CSIS face real difficulties accessing communications data and that, without some form of data retention, information sought under warrant may no longer exist, so the problem is real and the need for tools is real. New Democrats recognize that law enforcement officers must have the ability to investigate serious crimes and protect public safety, whether that is child exploitation, human trafficking, terrorist threats or foreign interference. However, those powers must always be balanced with strong protections for privacy, civil liberties, cybersecurity and meaningful consultation. That is the test before us. We have seen what happens when the balance is lost. The government's previous attempt under Bill C-2, the so-called safe borders act, an omnibus bill, was widely rejected by over 300 organizations and tens of thousands of Canadians because it would have been an attack on civil liberties, on privacy rights, on due process and on the rights of asylum seekers. Bill C-2 has now come back in different parts. The attack for asylum seekers lives on under Bill C-12, which the NDP vehemently opposed. The part about lawful access continues in Bill C-22, and I would say it does include some improvements. The removal of blanket warrantless “information demand” powers matters. Replacing that with a more limited “confirmation of service” tool based on reasonable grounds and restricted to a yes or no response would be a step in the right direction. The requirement of judicial authorization for further access would remain, which is essential. Therefore, yes, there has been some movement. However, we should also be clear about what this legislation would do. This is not simply a modest update. It is a significant restructuring of how the state, private companies and individuals would interact in the digital space. There are serious concerns, particularly in part 2 of this bill. Part 2 would require electronic service providers to build and maintain interception capacities within their systems, and would introduce the possibility of mandatory metadata retention, potentially requiring the storage of location data, device identifiers and communication metadata on all users for extended periods. It would allow the government to require companies to retain metadata for up to one year. Metadata may not include the content of communications, but it reveals patterns of behaviour, who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we are and how often we interact and for how long. In the digital era, metadata is often more revealing than content. It is the skeleton of a person's private life. Under this bill, that data could be retained, not because it is needed for a specific investigation but because it might become useful in the future. This would be a profound invasion of privacy law. It would replace targeted suspicion with generalized collection. In addition, the Minister of Public Safety would be granted authority to issue secret orders requiring 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 may never be disclosed. Instead, they would be approved through an administrative process involving the intelligence commissioner. Now, while that office plays an important role in oversight, it is not equivalent to independent judicial authorization in open court. We are told this is necessary to ensure that data exists when investigators need it to reconstruct networks, identify victims or attribute foreign interference. Those are legitimate objectives. The question is not whether those objectives matter, but whether the approach is proportionate. Bulk indiscriminate data retention risks treating every Canadian as a potential suspect rather than focusing on targeted investigations. Metadata is not benign. It can review deeply personal information, patterns of movement, associations and behaviours. Mandating its large-scale retention also creates cybersecurity risks. Concentrating secret, sensitive data makes systems more vulnerable to breaches, misuse and exploitation by malicious actors. We should be cautious about requiring companies to build surveillance capabilities into their systems. Even where the intention is lawful access, these kinds of systemic access points can introduce vulnerabilities. Experts have repeatedly warned that there is no such thing as a perfectly secure back door that only works for one purpose. It exists for everyone. The committee report on lawful access is instructive here. It acknowledges the operational challenges, gaps in data availability, coordination issues and the need for lawful intercept capability. It also makes clear that any framework must be grounded in necessity, proportionality and legitimacy. It found no support for requiring back doors to encryption. It highlighted a lack of clarity in the government's overall approach. It raised concerns about the absence of a coherent, transparent strategy. That raises another important question. Why was there no more meaningful consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the independent officer tasked with safeguarding the rights of Canadians? At a time when trust in digital governance is already fragile, that omission matters. We should also look internationally. Broad data retention regimes have faced legal challenges in other jurisdictions. More targeted alternatives, such as quick-freeze models, have been explored, preserving data tied to specific investigations rather than requiring ongoing generalized collection. Again, the issue is not whether tools are needed. In fast-moving cases, whether it is locating a trafficking victim or identifying a coordinated foreign interference network, timely access to data can make a real difference. The issue is whether this bill strikes the right balance between effectiveness and rights. Does it provide law enforcement with the tools it needs without overreaching? Does it maintain robust judicial oversight? Does it avoid creating systemic cybersecurity risks? Does it respect the charter principles of necessity and proportionality? More importantly, will it withstand constitutional scrutiny? If that balance is not right, the consequences are not just legal, but democratic. Privacy is not an abstract concept. It is what allows people to speak freely, organize and participate in public life without fear of constant monitoring. When surveillance becomes more expansive and less constrained, it has a chilling effect. That is well documented. Therefore, the question before us is not whether we act, but how we act. Bill C-22 reflects an attempt to respond to real and evolving threats. It includes improvements over what came before, but it also raises serious, unresolved questions, particularly around the scope of data retention, the role of executive authority, the risks of cybersecurity and the adequacy of oversight. Those are questions this House must examine carefully because effective policing intelligence work can and should operate within robust legal frameworks that preserve judicial oversight and limit data collection to what is strictly necessary. Getting this wrong would not just impact investigations, but it would reshape the relationship between Canadians and the state in the digital age. Advocates for civil liberties and privacy have very real civil liberties concerns that the bill represents one of the most serious proposed threats to privacy rights in Canada in the past two decades. That is not something we should take lightly because our civil liberties are the cornerstone of our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, as I have noted before, the government keeps saying that it got the balance right. If it is so certain about that, why did the government not ensure that the Privacy Commissioner is incorporated in the consultation process with the development of Bill C-22? Why did the government deliberately exclude an independent officer who would give Canadians the assurance that it has got the balance right? Perhaps the government could actually bring in an amendment to ensure that this takes place and that this bill does not become law until that happens.

Mr. Speaker, to that point, if the government was so sure that it got the balance right, why did it not ensure the Privacy Commissioner could provide their views and recommendations on Bill C-22? The government was sent packing on Bill C-2 because of overreach, because of the omnibus bill and because Canadian public civil society organizations, civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates all said that the bill was wrong and it was an overreach. The government went back to the drawing board and came back with Bill C-22 on lawful access, but it missed a huge step, making sure the independent officer is incorporated into that consultation process. Why did the government exclude that step?

Mr. Speaker, of course I am very concerned that there could be overreach. That is an alarm bell that civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates have actually rung, saying that this is an overreach. They are very worried that instead of targeting a specific act or a specific investigation, this applies to all Canadians across the board as a generalized collection of metadata, of retention and of it being kept in place for a year, with no specific ties to a potential criminal activity. Those are real concerns. The government needs to make sure the balance is right, and hence the requirement, in my view, to ensure the Privacy Commissioner's views and recommendations are incorporated into Bill C-22.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue around surveillance, indigenous people bear the brunt of it. We just recently learned that there was secret surveillance of indigenous leaders and indigenous community members. This is happening right now, and we are just learning about it. As we talk about expanding surveillance activities and capabilities, we absolutely need to make sure all the checks and balances are in place and that our basic rights enshrined in the charter are protected.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-274, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an act that would amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for seconding the bill. In the previous Parliament, now retired senator Mobina Jaffer brought a bill on this issue, Bill S-235, through the Senate at all its stages. I would like to thank Senator Jaffer and the Our System, Our Children, Our Responsibility coalition for putting a light on this urgent gap in child protection. Every day an estimated 61,000 children are in and out of care homes in Canada. Like all children, they deserve to have the rights of the child fully respected. They deserve the best of care. When the system fails in its responsibilities to these children, they are exposed to harm. It is the responsibility of the government to apply for citizenship for children in care who came to Canada as minors, but the government routinely fails to do so. It leaves these young children vulnerable to the cruelty of deportation to a country that they left long ago as minors or that they have no connection to at all. Refugees and protected people face even more severe harms. There is a temporary policy in place to address the citizenship of children who are the legal responsibility of the child protection system, but it will expire January 7, 2027. This bill would enshrine a clear path to citizenship for children in care who came to Canada as minors. Children aging out of care already face too many extraordinary barriers. Parliamentarians should use their powers to protect the rights of some of the most vulnerable children. I urge the government to adopt this bill and see to its swift passage. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the NDP moved a unanimous consent motion in this House to ban surveillance pricing, and every party agreed except the Liberals, who blocked it. Meanwhile, Canadians are struggling with the cost of living and corporations are using algorithms to figure out how much more they can squeeze out of family budgets and seniors living on fixed incomes. Why did the government block this common-sense measure, and will the Prime Minister commit today to banning surveillance pricing in Canada, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being squeezed at the checkout counter like never before. Families are cutting back on essentials, skipping meals and struggling to afford groceries, while a handful of grocery giants continue to post massive profits. This is not a free market working for people. It is a system tilted in favour of corporate power, where Canadians pay more and get less. The cost of groceries is not just a household issue; it is a national affordability crisis, and it demands bold action. Under the leadership of Avi Lewis, New Democrats are ready to take on grocery price gouging head-on. That means tackling surveillance pricing, building real public options in food distribution, strengthening local and regional supply chains and supporting Canadian producers. We have done this before. From protecting farmland in B.C. to building public systems that put people first, the NDP knows that when we act in the public interest, we can lower costs and improve lives. It is time to take back control from grocery giants and put—

Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the House for their grace in allowing me to speak to this important bill today. I rise today with ongoing and deep concerns about Bill C-12. Behind the language of “efficiency”, “integrity” and “streamlining”, the bill would do something very real and very harmful. It would take rights away from people who are seeking protection, handing more unchecked power to the government and scapegoating newcomers. The intention in the logic behind this legislation is not just flawed, it is dangerous. That is why New Democrats cannot support Bill C-12. Let us begin with the refugee system. Canada has long prided itself on offering people a fair hearing and an opportunity to present their case before an independent decision-maker. However, Bill C-12 would weaken that foundation. Under this legislation, people would be found ineligible for a full hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board, not because their case lacked merit but because of some arbitrary timeline. Instead, they would be pushed into a pre-removal risk assessment process. The government says that it is fine, but the process would deprive individuals of the opportunity for their case to be heard by an independent tribunal. Under the pre-removal risk assessment process, decisions are made by an immigration officer. There is no meaningful right to appeal. Due process is not a luxury. It is a fundamental principle of justice, and the bill would erode that. This is not a concern just raised by me in the House. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has already sounded the alarm bell. It has warned that Bill C-12's new ineligibility provisions would deny refugee claimants adequate procedural safeguards, and it has called on Canada to ensure access to fair and efficient procedures in line with our international obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement. Civil society organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have said the same. There is no evidence that the legitimacy of a refugee claim is linked to how quickly someone files it. The introduction of a one-year bar is particularly troubling. Refugee claimants are expected to navigate a complex legal system, often without legal advice, often in situations of trauma. Under this legislation, they would be told that if they do not act within an arbitrary timeline, they will lose access to a full hearing. This is not fairness. This is exclusion, and this is procedural duress. Frankly, this is a system stacked against the claimant. Who would this actually affect? It could affect a child who once visited Canada with their family, a human rights advocate who came to Canada to speak about conditions in their home country or a survivor of gender-based violence who needed time to process trauma before coming forward. All could be captured by these sweeping exclusions, and it gets worse. These provisions are retroactive. They would apply to people who entered Canada years ago, going back to 2020, who had no way of knowing these rules would one day be used against them. It undermines the very principle of legal certainty. However, that is not all. Bill C-12 would also grant sweeping powers to the government to cancel immigration documents, potentially affecting an entire group of people. Under the broad and undefined concept of public interest, legislation needs to be precise. It must include clear limits and safeguards, but the bill does not do so. Instead, it would open the door to decisions being made without transparency, without independent oversight and without adequate recourse. This should concern all of us, because when power is concentrated without accountability, mistakes are not just possible, they are inevitable. We do not have to look far to understand the risks. Canada has a history, one we must acknowledge, of making decisions in moments of fear that disproportionately harm marginalized communities. We have seen exclusion justified; we have seen rights denied, and in hindsight, we have recognized those decisions as wrong. The question before us is simple: Have we learned from that history or are we just repeating it, but this time under different language? Another serious concern is the expansion of information sharing. The government argues that this is to improve coordination, but coordination must not come at the expense of rights. Under this framework, personal information, status, identity and immigration history can be shared more broadly across government systems. While the government says that safeguards will exist, many of these arrangements would depend on agreements that are not transparent. This creates real risks, because migrants rely on public services, health care, housing and legal supports. If there is even the perception that accessing these services could expose their immigration status, people will hesitate. They will delay seeking care. They will avoid reporting exploitation. They will withdraw. That has consequences, not just for those individuals but for our communities. Public systems work best when people can access them safely and without fear. This bill risks undermining that. The Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, after studying the bill, called for the draconian measures in part 5 to part 8 of the bill to be deleted. The Senate wanted amendments to restore some balance so that measures to block refugee hearings; the arbitrary, retroactive one-year bar; the breach of privacy to share information about applicants; and cabinet's ability to cancel or suspend documents en masse under vaguely defined public interest terms are done away with. Unfortunately, these amendments were voted down by the Senate committee on public safety. In the end, the Senate passed amendments to limit the sharing of personal information from citizens and permanent residents and to make mandatory annual reports on asylum claim processing times, ineligibility data and statistics on post-one-year asylum claims. Even though the amendments from the Senate are significantly pared down from their original form, the Liberals want to reject the Senate amendments to respect the privacy rights of citizens and permanent residents. The Liberals have introduced this at a time when migrants are increasingly being blamed for broader social challenges. We hear claims that migrants are responsible for housing shortages, for pressures on health care and for affordability challenges. I will be very clear: Migrants do not create these crises. These are the result of policy decisions about housing supply, public investment and economic priorities. Blaming migrants does not solve these problems. It distracts from them, and legislation like Bill C-12 risks reinforcing that narrative. The bill is an attack on people who are already vulnerable, such as refugees fleeing violence, migrant workers facing exploitation and families trying to build a life in Canada. These individuals are not statistics. They are members of our communities; they contribute, they work, and they care for others. They deserve a system that treats them with dignity and fairness. The consequences extend beyond individuals. Denying refugee claimants due process puts people at risk of persecution, torture or worse. It also damages Canada's credibility on the world stage. The same UN Human Rights Committee has raised broader concerns about the state of civil liberties in this country, from surveillance to systemic discrimination and barriers faced by marginalized communities. New Democrats believe there is a better way. We can build an immigration and refugee system that is both fair and efficient, that processes claims in a timely manner, that ensures access to legal supports, that upholds due process and that recognizes the humanity of those seeking protection. These are not competing goals. They are complementary. We must uphold the principles of fairness, accountability, human rights and due process. The legislation does not meet this standard. For those reasons, my colleagues in the NDP and I will oppose the Liberal motion and will also be opposing Bill C-12.

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the member cited the United States because, believe it or not, the United States actually has a slightly better system, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Its one-year bar actually applies to the last date of entry. Canada has chosen to apply it retroactively. This is what the government is doing. It is racing to the bottom instead of respecting international law and basic human rights. On the issue around the pre-removal risk assessment, in my speech, I amply outlined the flaws within that system. The government is now depriving individuals who are not able to meet the arbitrary timeline. People who face trauma, who escape persecution, may not have the wherewithal to file the claim within one year for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a lack of access to legal supports. The member seems to think this is okay. The New Democrats take a different point of view. We do not think it is okay. We think that this is a draconian piece of legislation and it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure which clause the member is talking about. If he is referring to the one-year bar issue, I have already cited the issues related to it. There are many other components within the bill that I and the New Democrats cannot stand behind, and we are not alone. The UN Committee has made comments about the bill and its measures that should be changed. Civil societies have raised these issues. Those who work with refugees and migrants have continually raised these issues. I wish that the members of Parliament would listen to them and to the stories of real people. Canada once upon a time had a great system, but it is being eroded bit by bit by the Liberal government and the Conservatives on an ongoing basis. Now it is a shadow of what it was. The immigration system has problems and needs to be fixed, but not this way.

Mr. Speaker, yes, the Auditor General has come out with a report that highlights the government's inability to ensure that the immigration system is operating efficiently and fairly. There is no question that there are people who take advantage of international students, who are faced with exploitation and abuse, but the government has turned a blind eye to that. Instead of fixing the problem, it is blaming international students and coming in with a cap, as though somehow the victims are to be blamed. That is the false narrative the government is perpetuating in the broader public. It is, frankly, dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is patting himself on the back about reaching NATO's 2% defence spending target. Budget 2025 saw the Liberals impose a 5% target, $81 billion, and now the government is promoting its defence procurement strategy as a way to turn Canada into a major arms exporter. This exposes Canada to further undermining international arms trade commitments through existing loopholes without scrutiny. Will the Prime Minister admit that this new direction demands accountability and commit to a full parliamentary review of Canada's arms export policy?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to affirm a central New Democrat principle, which is that we must take real, meaningful action to confront hate in Canada without undermining the fundamental freedoms that define our democracy. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and more than 40 civil society organizations raised a red flag with respect to the language in Bill C-9. It said that the bill: ...could be used to criminalize peaceful protest and silence unpopular expression. Instead of meaningfully addressing these concerns, the truncated Committee process did very little to improve the bill and actually made the bill worse by removing the Criminal Code’s good-faith religious defense without putting anything adequate in its place. New Democrats could not agree more. We understand both the urgency of addressing hate and the necessity of protecting civil liberties. Let me be clear. Hate is real. It is rising. It is harming communities across this country: racialized communities, indigenous people and members of the 2SLGBTQ2+IA community. However, the legislation must be precise, effective and just. It must target the actual sources of harm, not cast a wide net that risks criminalizing legitimate expression and dissent. That is why we continue to have serious concerns with the bill before us. In fact, the member for Nunavut, on behalf of the NDP, tabled amendments at committee to try to address some of those concerns, but all of those amendments failed. The NDP position, as articulated by her, remains the same. She stated: The NDP believes the federal government must take comprehensive action to fight the rising tide of hate in Canada. She went on to say: Yes, we need to combat hate, but we do not need to criminalize people speaking up, and we definitely do not need to keep them jailed for longer. I am disappointed that this bill does not address the violent activities of the growing white nationalist movement. The Liberals' failure to include that aspect in this bill leaves racialized communities, indigenous communities and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community without the necessary tools to combat the largest source of hatred in Canada. We are in polarizing times, for many reasons. People are either for or against Palestine. They are either for or against Israel. She continued: Our public discourse must not give us fear that we will be criminalized [but this] bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people. This is a profound critique and one we must take seriously. In fact, at committee, this important question was asked of the minister by the member for Nunavut. She stated: Wet'suwet'en land defenders were criminalized. Nunavut land defenders were on the verge of being criminalized. Why? It was because they were protesting government decisions. She went on to say: In about a week in 2024, between August 29 and September 8, Canadian police killed six first nations people. Racialized people in this country have a similar experience with law enforcement. This bill requires that Canadians trust that the police will know when an action is motivated by hate and when it is not. Could the minister respond by sharing what safeguards protesters will have that ensure that law enforcement does not use these new powers to criminalize protesters? No satisfactory answer was provided by the minister. This is not just theoretical. Just yesterday, the CBC exposed the RCMP's “Native extremism program”, whereby dozens of first nations leaders were put under surveillance by the RCMP and labelled as extremists, based not on credible threats but on a sweeping, intrusive campaign that treated legitimate political advocacy for land rights, self-determination and fair treatment as something to be monitored, controlled and even disrupted, with jaw-dropping intelligence dossiers stuffed with documents, wiretaps, paid informants and covert operatives with code numbers. The operation aimed to divide movements, withdraw funding and interfere with organizing in violation of their right to freedom of association and political expression and privacy. Let us be very clear. In a democracy, disagreement is not a threat; it is a necessity. Protest is not a crime; it is a right. Indigenous leaders fighting for their land rights for self-determination and fair treatment is not extremism. Bill C-9 would open the door wide for Canada's institutions to continue to engage in these nefarious operations. How can we be certain that those who dare to oppose the government's Bill C-5 on major projects, which has already trampled on the rights of indigenous people, would not be criminalized under Bill C-9? As the member for Nunavut further noted: New Democrats are concerned with vague language in this bill, because once broad definitions are on the books, they can easily be weaponized against groups. She also noted: On freedom of assembly...any protest that is loud enough or disruptive enough would be seen as meeting this criterion. Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democratic engagement. If legislation creates a chilling effect and if people begin to fear that speaking out could lead to criminal consequences, then we have fundamentally altered the nature of a public discourse. Canada already recognizes that free speech has limits. We recognize that free speech can go too far and cross a line, like when it incites violence against an identifiable group. That threshold exists for a reason. Lowering it, as this bill proposes, risks capturing conduct that should remain protected. We must be cautious not to conflate offensive speech with criminal conduct. New laws in Canada must protect communities without perpetrating or creating new injustices. Bill C-9 would create new criminal offences based on vague and subjective standards, particularly based on the idea of causing fear. Let us be honest about what that means in practice. It means police officers deciding in the moment what counts as fear. It means broad discretion. It means inconsistent enforcement. In this country, we know exactly how that story goes. It is indigenous land defenders who are arrested and surveilled. We have seen, historically and recently, how activists have been monitored and movements disrupted by law enforcement. It is racialized communities that are overpoliced. It is activists and protesters who are treated as threats, not because the law says so explicitly but because vague laws are applied unevenly. This is not justice. The member for Nunavut is correct to say, “This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.” I should note that Canada is not starting from zero when it comes to addressing hate. As pointed out by the member for Nunavut, “There are existing laws that address hate, [and hate] is already an aggravating factor in sentencing.” In fact, the Criminal Code already contains robust provisions, including offences related to disturbing religious worship, mischief against religious property, criminal harassment, uttering threats and intimidation. What, then, is this bill actually doing? The member for Nunavut rightly pointed out that the bill would increase maximum sentences to five years, 10 years, 14 years and even up to life imprisonment. Let me be very clear: There is no credible evidence, none, that longer sentences deter hate crimes. What reduces crime is prevention, stability and investment in community housing, mental health care, education and opportunity. Evidence-based policy requires us to ask whether these measures would actually reduce harm or simply expand the reach of the criminal justice system in ways that may be counterproductive. I conclude by returning to where I began. New Democrats are committed to fighting hate unequivocally. We believe in protecting communities, confronting extremism and building a more inclusive society, but we also believe in getting this policy right. We believe that legislation must be targeted, evidence-based and consistent with the charter. It must address real threats like organized white nationalist violence and not cast overly broad nets that risk infringing on fundamental freedoms. That is why, as noted by the member for Nunavut when she wore the NDP banner, “With all the alarm bells going off about this bill, the NDP cannot support it in its current form.” That remains our position. The NDP will not support measures that compromise civil liberties, expand punitive approaches without evidence, or fail to address the root causes of hate. Canadians deserve better. The NDP will remain principled and firm on the issue, and we will oppose Bill C-9.

Mr. Speaker, the reality, of course, is that we already have laws in place. The Criminal Code already targets hate and the incitement of hate. What is needed is the government investing in the enforcement of those kinds of activities. What we have seen is the Liberal government cutting budgets for measures that make sure enforcement is in place. We need to make sure that what goes to the courts results in justice for the people. Changing the laws, though, and then further criminalizing people who want to exercise their democratic right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, as a New Democrat, my principles do not change. People change their political colours. We have seen it in the House quite regularly, both Conservatives and an NDP member crossing over to the Liberals. The question that remains for them is this: Do their principles remain intact? Are they true to what they believe in? I believe the comments by the member for Nunavut that I cited in the House. They were valid criticisms of the government. More than ever, we need principled stands, and the New Democrats and I take principled stands on Bill C-9. I hope those who cross the floor will do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, the rules and laws are there, and the judges will make those decisions. The problem with Bill C-9, of course, is that it is so subjective and vague that it allows for law enforcement to interpret it however they want to interpret it. There rests the problem. If we want to bring in precise law, let us do so. Let us not rush this through. Instead of whamming it through and bringing in the guillotine, let us have honest, true debate on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a national housing crisis, the Liberals have quietly pulled funding for the Right Fit program, a program that directly connects wheelchair users with accessible housing. With just days' notice, funding is being cut as of April 1, leaving some of the most vulnerable Canadians, people with disabilities, without support, without housing options and without answers. At a time when accessible housing is already in critically short supply, how can the housing minister justify abandoning wheelchair users in such a cruel manner and cutting the very programs designed to help them find a place to live?

Mr. Speaker, after the last atmospheric river and flooding in the Sumas Prairie, the Liberals promised support, but those were just empty words. Last week, there were two atmospheric rivers, but the Liberal government continues to delay action on flood protection in this nationally significant corridor for food production. Ottawa has yet to deliver the millions needed for flood mitigation plans, leaving people, infrastructure and farmland at risk. When will the Prime Minister deliver the funding needed to protect this vital economic corridor?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told a story about living within a lie in Davos and said, “The power of the less power starts with honesty.” Former Liberal cabinet ministers Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy, who have been honest about Canada's complicity in the killing of civilians, have come out publicly in support of Bill C-233. They said that Parliament now faces a clear choice to maintain an outdated exemption that undermines Canada's credibility or adopt a modern principled statement that reflects our commitments and responsibilities. Will the Prime Minister be honest with reality and vote yes to Bill C-233?

Mr. Speaker, the NDP strongly condemns the U.S. and Israeli bombardment of Iran and the devastating impacts on civilians, including the deaths of children at school. This marks a dangerous and reckless escalation that risks plunging the entire region into catastrophic conflict, which will have global consequences, and there is no end game. Make no mistake, the oppressive regime in Iran, with its human rights abuses and repression of its own people, is appalling. This includes reports of tens of thousands of killings during recent protests. The Iranian people deserve democracy, peace and justice, and the future of Iran must be decided by Iranians themselves, but military strikes are not the answer. International law is clear under article 51 of the UN charter and under the International Court of Justice. New Democrats oppose these attacks and call on the Prime Minister to condemn them, end any complicity through arms exports and make it clear that Canada will not participate in this war.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by addressing the central claim we have heard repeatedly, which is that Bill C-233 would somehow decimate Canada's defence industry and disrupt integrated supply chains. That assertion is simply incorrect. Bill C-233 would not prohibit exports. It would not restrict production. It would not alter the list of controlled goods. It would standardize permit requirements for items already listed under group 2 of Canada's export control list by applying to U.S.-bound exports the same permit review that already applies to exports to every other destination. Canada already administers a global export permitting system. Extending permit review to U.S.-bound exports would not create a new regulatory regime. It would remove a destination-based exemption. Regulatory oversight is not prohibition. Conflating the two is simply misleading. Other state parties to the Arms Trade Treaty manage highly integrated defence supply chains while still applying oversight mechanisms, including open and general licences where appropriate, and the United States is part of that regime. Administrative efficiency and legal compliance are not mutually exclusive. We have also heard that this bill would weaken Canada's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and delay support to Ukraine. Nearly all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are state parties through the Arms Trade Treaty. Aligning Canada's export controls with our treaty obligations would strengthen our credibility within the alliance. Military assistance to Ukraine is transferred through Department of National Defence mechanisms, not through the commercial export permitting processes that Bill C-233 would address. This legislation would concern commercial exports primarily to the United States. It would not impede direct government-to-government military aid. In fact, ensuring that Canadian-origin components are assessed before entering the U.S. supply chain reduces the risk of diversion to high-risk end-users. That objective is entirely consistent with NATO's collective security framework. There is also the claim that Canada already exceeds the ATT requirements. Yes, Canada applies vigorous human rights criteria when issuing permits. That is not in dispute. The structural issue is that most conventional arms exports to the United States require no permit at all. That means no individual risk assessments and no comprehensive reporting. Annual reports tabled since the 1990s do not capture the majority of U.S.-bound transfers because those exports are exempt from permits. A reporting framework cannot be considered complete when most of the exports fall outside of its scope. We are told that the U.S. exemption is not a loophole and that it reflects a long-standing bilateral defence relationship. That may be true, but its practical effect is that most conventional weapons exports to the United States proceed without permit, without assessment and without detailed transparency. This is, by definition, a regulatory gap. Canada and the United States do not apply identical risk thresholds. The United States may authorize transfers to end-users that Canada would deny directly. Without a Canadian permit requirement, Canadian-origin components can enter the U.S. system and be transferred onward without Canada ever conducting its own risk assessment. We have seen this concern in reporting by CBC News, which documented that Canadian-origin military goods moved through the United States and onward to Israel during a period when the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Canada was not exporting arms to Israel. This example underscores the oversight gap that Bill C-233 is designed to address. Former Liberal cabinet ministers Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy recently argued in a Globe and Mail op-ed that Canada's credibility as a champion of the rules-based international order depends on aligning practice with principle. They reminded us that Canada played a leadership role in building global arms control norms, from the Ottawa Treaty to the Arms Trade Treaty. The exemption shields the majority of our transfers from scrutiny and undermines that legacy. They were clear: The issue is not whether we trust the United States but whether Canada exercises its own sovereignty and responsibility to assess the risk that Canadian-origin arms could contribute to serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws. I urge all members to look at the facts and vote in support of Bill C-233.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from the residents of Victoria. They asked me to table this petition because the MP for Victoria would not do so. The petitioners note that Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019 and that the promise was made to Canadians that Canadian arms, components and weaponry would not be used in human rights violations and against humanity. However, they note there is a significant loophole, in that exports to the United States do not require any permitting. In fact, the vast majority of the exports to the U.S. do not require any permitting and therefore do not require risk assessments. There have been credible reports indicating that Canadian arms have been used in various conflicts, including in Gaza, Israel, Sudan, Yemen and so on, killing civilians, which is in violation of international humanitarian law. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to enact legislation to close the existing loopholes in Canada's arms export laws, including removing exemptions for the United States, strengthening oversight and ensuring that Canadian arms are never used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table an e-petition signed by more than 3,300 Canadians who have joined the call to support Bill C-233. The petitioners say that whereas Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019, committing to prevent the transfer of arms where there is a substantial risk they could be used in human rights abuses, war crimes or crimes against humanity, a significant loophole in Canada's export laws currently allows Canadian-made weapons, parts and components to be exported to the United States, from where they may be transferred to third countries engaged in armed conflict or with records of grave human rights violations. Petitioners further note that this loophole undermines Canada's international commitments, risking making Canada complicit in human rights abuses abroad, and allows Canadian arms to be used in conflicts against civilians. They also note that international bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council and independent UN experts, have called on all states to hold arms transfers where there is a substantial risk of their use in violations of international humanitarian law. The petitioners therefore are calling on the House of Commons to enact legislation to close the existing loopholes in Canada's arms export laws, including removing exemptions for the United States, strengthening oversight and ensuring that Canadian arms are never used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses.

Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments the parliamentary secretary made earlier, he is absolutely correct that the Conservative approach is divisive and penalizes the people who are most vulnerable in our community. To the point on interim federal health policy, the Liberal government brought forward a copayment system in the budget. For those who are suffering mental health challenges with trauma, people who have escaped persecution, violence, gender-based violence and so on, access to mental health and access to medication would be critical. A $4 fee could be prohibitive for them. A 30% increase in copayment fees could be prohibitive for them. Would the member agree that the government should not go down that track because it is edging right into the trap that the Conservatives are setting?

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct, in that part of the issue around escalating the cost of the system is the Liberal government's inadequacy in providing the necessary resources to get the applications processed. In the case of the IRB, for example, it needs the actual resources and the capacity to be able to process the applications so applicants are not just jammed up in the system. Equally important would be for Quebec and the other provinces to receive the additional funding that is required in the delivery of health care. That is absolutely paramount. My question to my colleague is this: Would he also join the NDP to collectively demand that the Liberal government do what is right and honour our international obligations to refugees, and also support provinces and territories, including Quebec, in getting the necessary resources to do the work that is required?

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. I rise today to speak in strong opposition to the Conservative motion targeting the interim federal health program, and this is after the Liberals have already rolled it back. Let us be clear about what the motion does. It scapegoats newcomers and refugees. It suggests that denying preventative care, prescription medication, dental treatment and mental health services would somehow produce savings. It would not. It would simply shift costs from preventative care to emergency rooms, from primary care to acute care, and from federal responsibility to provincial systems, where treatment is far more expensive and outcomes are far worse. The Conservatives and the Liberals are approaching this challenge in the wrong way, and they should know better. Their previous changes to the interim health program were struck down by the courts because they were deemed unconstitutional in 2014 under the Harper government. This is the same playbook, same narrative and same fearmongering. The Conservative leader keeps saying that he turned over a new leaf, but he is back to the same old games of politicizing social issues for political gain, whereas deeper nuance and compassion are necessary. It is disappointing watching the Conservatives walk the same path over and over again into a dead end. The evidence is unequivocal: When governments adopt an emergency-only model of care, health outcomes deteriorate and long-term costs increase. Preventative and primary care are the most cost-effective interventions in any health care system. Denying early access to medications, mental health supports, dental treatment and assistive devices does not eliminate the need for care; it delays it until conditions become acute and far more expensive to treat. We have seen this before. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, supplementary coverage under the interim federal health policy was restricted. The result was confusion, suffering and documented harm. Courts found the cuts to be cruel and unusual. After 2015, those restrictions were reversed because they were harmful and counterproductive. Canada learned that lesson once; we should not repeat it. Nonetheless, taking a page from the Conservatives, the Liberals have now introduced copayments under the interim federal health program in budget 2025. They frame it as modest fiscal restraint, but decades of health policy research demonstrates that even small user fees deter access to health care, especially for low-income and medically vulnerable populations. The population covered under the interim federal health program is among the most vulnerable in Canada: refugees and refugee claimants who often arrive after suffering war, persecution, torture and prolonged displacement. Many arrive with trauma, and many arrive with chronic conditions that have gone untreated for years. They have extremely limited financial means. For some living in deep poverty, a prescription charge is not symbolic. A 30% copayment for mental health counselling is not modest. A copayment for mobility aids, dental care or vision care is not a small inconvenience; it is prohibitive. In practice these copayments function as a denial of care. The consequences are not hypothetical; they are predictable. When people cannot afford medications, hypertension goes untreated, leading to stroke, and diabetes goes unmanaged, leading to amputations, kidney failure or intensive care admission. Untreated infections escalate into hospitalization. When people cannot access mental health supports, traumas worsen, crises escalate and emergency interventions become necessary. Each avoidable hospital stay costs thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars. The savings generated by a small copayment are dwarfed by the downstream costs of acute care. Instead of containing costs, this approach escalates them. Instead of relieving pressure on the system, it intensifies pressure on emergency departments and provincial health budgets. It undermines newcomers' ability to acquire language skills, to work, to contribute and to feel like equal members of society. If we are serious about fiscal responsibility, then we must focus on the actual cost drivers within the interim federal health policy. One of the most significant drivers is the prolonged enrolment due to backlogs in the immigration and refugee system. The IRB needs resources. When claims take years to process, individuals remain on the interim federal health program coverage longer than necessary. That is an administrative problem, not a refugee health problem. The solution is clear: Accelerate fair and timely claim processing, invest in adequate staffing and resources for the IRB, ensure early comprehensive primary care upon arrival and maintain full interim federal health program coverage without copayments during this transition period. Let us remember that the interim federal health program is a temporary program. Early care reduces long-term costs, and timely decisions reduce prolonged enrolment. These are structural, evidence-based solutions. Punitive copayments are not. Moral obligations and economic logic align. Protecting access to essential health care for refugees is not only a moral obligation; it is also sound economic policy. Healthy newcomers integrate more quickly, enter the workforce sooner, contribute to taxes and support their families. When we deny care, we delay integration and increase long-term public expenditures. The Conservative motion seeks to frame this as a question of fairness to taxpayers, but fairness requires facts. The facts show that cuts in copayments in refugee health care cause preventable harm, increase long-term expenditures, shift costs to provinces and undermines integration. That is neither fiscally responsible nor socially responsible. This is not evidence-based policy-making. Rejecting division is what we must do. At its core, the motion divides. It suggests that refugees are a burden to be managed rather than human beings entitled to dignity and basic health care. Canada has chosen a different path. We have chosen evidence over ideology. We have chosen compassion aligned with fiscal prudence. New Democrats will not support measures that scapegoat vulnerable people or repeat policy failures we have already corrected. We have to learn from the past. We know that restricting refugee health benefits causes preventable suffering and greater long-term expense. We know that even small user fees deter access for people living in deep poverty. We know that preventative care is more cost-effective than emergency intervention. The Conservative motion is misguided, and the NDP will reject the motion. The Liberal government's decision to impose copayments under the interim federal health policy risks repeating a costly mistake. The responsible course of action is clear: Maintain full coverage under the interim federal health program, eliminate copayments, address administrative backlogs and invest in early comprehensive primary care. For these reasons, the NDP will oppose the motion and any other attempts by the Conservatives or the Liberals to roll back this important health care delivery for all.