Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well, in terms of refugee status, what the requirements and eligibility rules are. Those would apply to the individuals who are applying. That determination should be made independently and not by politicians. It is made at the IRB. The government should be properly funding the IRB so it can process the claims accordingly, instead of creating a huge backlog like the one we are faced with right now that, as a result, is having an impact on the interim federal health policy. That is what the government should do, and the member knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I actually know the motion very well, as well as the intentions behind the Conservatives. Let us be clear: What they are also talking about is denying access to care for people who are under an appeal provision. In Canada, there is a thing called due process. By the way, the federal court and the Harper government already did this. The Harper government took away interim health care provisions for supplementary benefits for refugees, and the courts ruled this to be unconstitutional. Apparently the Conservatives have not learned their lesson, because here we are talking about the same thing with the same old approach again. What the NDP fights for is head-to-toe care for every single person in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. What the government must do to address the situation we are faced with right now, which is a problem caused by the government's inaction, is to ensure that there are adequate resources to process the applications in the system. When the Liberals do not, they create a huge backlog, and that has implications and ramifications. Quebec, for example, is in fact faced with a situation where health services are being impacted because there is a huge backlog. The government must be fair and just. Quebec and all provinces deserve equitable treatment. They deserve support from the federal government in support of immigration and for refugees so people can access health care when they need it, and at the same time, have applications processed in an expeditious manner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition in support of Bill C-233, which would close the arms loophole. It is signed by residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario, and gathered by Palestinian Solidarity Thunder Bay. The group says that they requested to meet with the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, hoping that she would table the petition, but could not get a meeting. Therefore, they have asked that I table their community's call for the House of Commons to enact legislation to close existing loopholes in Canada's arms export laws, including removing exemptions for the United States, strengthening oversight and reassuring that Canadian arms are never used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the need for the reform of the Standing Orders governing the House. What I want to raise today are not partisan concerns but rather structural ones, issues that go directly to fairness, accountability and the equal standing of members in the House. At a time when we see democratic backsliding around the world, Canadians are rightly asking that we demonstrate responsive parliamentary procedures that keep up with the times and stay abreast of the democratic innovations and best practices happening elsewhere. I will briefly touch on several Standing Orders that merit review, but I want to be clear at the outset that the most serious issue before us is the current restriction on who may trigger a recorded vote. First, on private members' bills more broadly, I believe that PROC should examine whether the balance between the House and the Senate remains appropriate. We have seen cases where the Senate's ability to delay or block private members' bills has effectively nullified decisions taken by elected members of Parliament. Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262, an act respecting the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is an example. Despite all odds, Romeo got it through the House of Commons, only to have it stalled by the Senate and to see it die on the Order Paper. Jack Layton's climate change accountability act met the same fate. Rona Ambrose's bill requiring federally appointed judges to receive mandatory training in sexual assault law was stalled for two years. We have also seen extended debate on Senate amendments to private members' bills, which occurred with the Bloc Québécois's supply management bill. Some of these issues, essentially and eventually, were resolved because they were brought back to the House, and some of them were adopted as government bills, but the Senate should never be allowed to stall a private member's bill in such a way that it dies on the Order Paper. That has happened to all parties. PROC should consider whether reasonable limits are required, both on the Senate's capacity to obstruct Private Members' Business and on how long the House debates Senate amendments to those bills. Private members' bills already operate under constrained time and opportunity. They should not face unlimited procedural delay in the red chamber. Second, PROC should revisit the rules governing dissenting reports. At present, only the official opposition may table and present dissenting reports during Routine Proceedings. That limitation no longer reflects the composition of the House or the reality of the committee's work. All parties should have the ability to formally express dissent and table their dissenting report. Relatedly, committees should be empowered to table bills following the completion of substantive studies. Committees frequently identify clear legislative gaps or solutions. Allowing committees to initiate legislation in these circumstances would strengthen Parliament's policy capacity and better connect study to action. Too often, committees do a study and come forward with recommendations that, frankly, just sit on a shelf without much action. We should actually empower the House of Commons and members of the committee to be able to move legislation forward. Third, opposition days should not be scheduled on Wednesdays or Fridays. These are already shortened sitting days. Scheduling opposition business on those days diminishes its effectiveness as an accountability mechanism. PROC should examine whether this practice aligns with the original intent of supply days. I note that the NDP, given where we are, does not actually have opposition motion days, but I raise this because it is important for democracy. Fourth, we should consider increasing the number of late shows or at least extending the period during which they can be scheduled. Late shows are one of the few procedural tools available to members to pursue answers when initial responses are inadequate. In an era of increasingly centralized messaging, this mechanism deserves strengthening, not contraction. This would allow us to probe questions more thoroughly and more deeply, heightening democratic accountability. Fifth, the rules governing committee of the whole require updating. Committee of the whole should always last four hours, and participation should rotate in a manner similar to question period. Too often, these proceedings are dominated by government members, despite the fact that committee of the whole is fundamentally an accountability mechanism. PROC should restore balance to this forum. I want to turn to the most pressing issue, which is the right of members to trigger a recorded vote. Under the current standing order, specifically Standing Order 45(1), only members of recognized parties may request that the yeas and nays be entered into the record. Members without a recognized party status may ask that a motion be carried on division, but they cannot insist on a recorded vote. This is not a long-standing parliamentary practice. It is actually a relatively recent change. The restriction emerged during the House's transition to hybrid sittings in response to COVID-19. Similar language was adopted in 2021, extended in 2022, and made permanent in 2023, following PROC's recommendation that hybrid-related changes be entrenched. However, what is striking and concerning is that this restriction does not appear to have been fully examined as a stand-alone question to members' rights. It was bundled into a broader package of hybrid reforms, many of which were necessary, but their long-term implications deserve more granular scrutiny. The practical effect of the current rule is stark. For example, an MP without recognized party status can introduce a private member's bill. They can win a spot in the Private Members' Business lottery, a process that is already governed by chance and scarcity, but when the House reaches the moment of decision, an MP without recognized party status cannot compel a recorded vote on their own bill. From a procedural perspective, this is indefensible. Private Members' Business is already one of the most constrained elements of House business. The lottery system means that members may wait years for an opportunity to have a bill debated. To deny a member the ability to trigger a vote after clearing all of those hurdles is not merely inefficient; it is inequitable. It creates a hierarchy among members that is not grounded in parliamentary principle. PROC should be particularly concerned about this because the ability to trigger a recorded vote is not a courtesy. It is a core accountability mechanism. Recorded votes are how members place themselves on the record. They are how constituents assess their representation. They are how Parliament signals collective decisions. There is no democratic rationale for restricting that right to members of recognized parties only, nor is there compelling operational justification. The House has now demonstrated over several years that recorded votes can be conducted efficiently in a hybrid environment. Whatever concerns may have existed during the early stages of the pandemic no longer apply. What remains is a rule that centralizes power in party structures and diminishes the voice and role of individual members. That should be a concern for all members of Parliament, particularly at a time when democracy is being undermined in so many places around the world. PROC has a responsibility to ensure that standing orders do not erode the equality of members over time, particularly through incremental or convenience-based changes. In this case, the effect is clear: Some members are being denied the ability to force a vote and force the House to decide. If PROC is serious about protecting Private Members' Business, about fairness and procedure, and about the equal standing of all elected members, then this standing order must be revisited. At a minimum, every member of Parliament should have the right to trigger a recorded vote on their own private member's bill. Anything less undermines the credibility of our procedures and the legitimacy of members to participate in a fair, democratic and transparent manner, no matter what political party they belong to.

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear. What I am raising is the issue of a member of Parliament being able to trigger a recorded vote. That should be afforded to every single member here irrespective of their party standing or what party they belong to. It is our fundamental right to be treated equally, to have that right and to have our voice be counted and recorded. I am not sure how this was advanced, as I did not sit at that table, but I do not think it is right. We have an opportunity to revisit it right now to correct that wrong.

Madam Speaker, those are valid questions to be considered, as are all the issues the members of the different parties have brought up. The purpose of this debate is to raise these issues and to have them examined thoroughly by PROC, so it can come back with a system that is fair and just. I urge the government members to consider the points I have raised, particularly around triggering a vote, but all the other points as well. The way that the Senate is filibustering or stalling on private members' bills is just wrong. It has happened to the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc. It is supposed to provide a sober second thought, but deliberately stalling to obstruct is not sober second thought.

Madam Speaker, I raised the issue of the points the different parties have raised, which are valid points for consideration. I think they should be given the time to be thoughtfully considered at PROC. It should invite the members of Parliament with different points of view to come forward so they can advance those perspectives and we can come back with standing orders that are effective, fair, just and equitable.

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister says he wants to build Canada up, yet he is slashing over 30,000 PSAC workers who deliver core public services like EI, tax credits, food inspection and more. Admin funding for friendship centres across the country will come to an end this fiscal year. The Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre Society is also being forced to fight for the survival of its gender-based violence prevention programs and its urban programming for indigenous people. Will the Prime Minister stop the cuts and protect the well-being of our communities with ongoing, stable, permanent funding for friendship centres and their programs, yes or no?

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the NDP, I rise to pay tribute to the late Hon. Kirsty Duncan, whose life was defined by an extraordinary commitment to science, justice and public service. Regardless of the partisan antics that happen in the House, we all collectively know, admire and are touched by the incredible strength of Kirsty Duncan. Today, I want to recognize a great Canadian who gave so much to public life in this country no matter what sphere she was working in, from sport to science to community to academic research to a life in politics. Kirsty Duncan was exemplary in all these areas. She has been taken from us far too young. Our thoughts and condolences go to her family, her husband, her friends and colleagues. Before entering public life, Kirsty was already a distinguished scholar. As a medical geographer with a deep sense of moral responsibility, she devoted her academic career to understanding the links between environment, health and human well-being. Her pioneering work on trying to understand the origins of the 1918 Spanish flu, culminating in an ambitious and ethically grounded expedition internationally, reflected both intellectual courage and an unwavering belief that science exists to serve humanity. Even when the expedition did not yield the outcomes she had hoped for, she was transparent about the process and generous in sharing its lessons, exemplifying scientific integrity at its best. Kirsty also spoke with rare honesty about the abuse she endured as a young athlete and the lifelong consequences it had on her health. That lived experience profoundly shaped her later work and gave her advocacy a depth that was impossible to ignore. As minister of sport, she brought a depth and embodied understanding to the work that supports Canadian athletes. As a parliamentarian representing Etobicoke North for 17 years, Kirsty brought her scholarly rigour into the House of Commons. As the minister of science, she played a central role in restoring respect for evidence-based decision-making in federal policy and re-establishing the position of chief science officer. She understood that democracy is weakened when science is sidelined, and she worked deliberately to rebuild trust between researchers, government and the public. Her tenure as minister of sport and persons with disabilities was marked by courage and compassion. She made ending abuse and harassment in sport a national priority, convening governments across jurisdictions and pressing institutions to confront systemic misconduct. This was not abstract policy work; it was deeply personal, and it mattered. Her insistence on accountability, safe reporting mechanisms and enforceable standards changed the national conversation on sport safety. Kirsty was also a champion for women and girls in science. Her later work, including The Exclusion Effect, challenged institutions to confront how systemic barriers continue to push women out of scientific fields. She was unafraid to name uncomfortable truths, and she always paired critique with practical solutions. Across party lines, Kirsty was known for her seriousness of purpose, her respect for colleagues and her belief that public office carries an obligation to do better for those who have been excluded, harmed or ignored. Even when we disagreed, she engaged with integrity and care. Kirsty Duncan leaves behind a legacy that spans academia, public policy and advocacy, a legacy rooted in evidence, empathy and courage. Canada is better because of her work. She will be remembered not only for the offices she held but for the principles she lived by. Kirsty truly was one of the good ones, and we, all of us in the House, mourn her loss. I know my colleague Richard Cannings particularly mourns her loss and will send his love to her family and friends, for they were both scientists at heart, and that bonded them in an unbelievable way. Rest in peace.

Madam Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by over 4,600 Canadians who are deeply concerned that Bill C-2, the strong borders act, contains provisions that would threaten fundamental rights and freedoms protected under Canadian and international law; that the bill would grant law enforcement and national security agencies warrantless access to Canadians' historical associations with organizations and businesses; that it would allow authorities to compel the disclosure of sensitive personal information, including geolocation data and contact details, based merely on suspicion of relevance to the investigation of offences under acts of Parliament, regardless of individual involvement; and that the bill is designed to facilitate Canada's alignment with the United States CLOUD Act and the United Nations cybercrime convention, raising serious concerns about foreign access to Canadians' private data, including by regimes with poor human rights records. Petitioners also note that Bill C-2 would undermine Canada's obligations under international human rights instruments, particularly in relation to privacy rights and the fair treatment of migrants and refugees. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House to immediately withdraw Bill C-2 in its entirety; reaffirm Canada's commitment to privacy, civil liberties and international human rights standards; reject any legislative or policy initiatives that would enable foreign states, including the United States, to gain undue access to Canadians' personal information; and, finally, ensure that legislation related to national security and the border upholds the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is subject to meaningful judicial oversight.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have relied on the private sector to attempt to deliver the housing Canadians need. The results are undeniable. Canada's non-market housing stock has dwindled to just 4.5% of total housing, well below the G7 average. To be clear, CMHC has indicated that Canada needs an additional 3.5 million affordable homes by 2030. The PBO's report on the Build Canada Homes plan found that the government will deliver only 26,000 new units of housing over five years. That is 5,200 units per year. At this rate, it would take 673 years to reach the goal CMHC has set out. Based on the life expectancy at birth for a Canadian born in 2023, that is eight and a half lifetimes. Housing costs have soared, homelessness is rising, and deeply affordable homes are disappearing faster than they are being built. Despite the scale of this crisis, federal housing spending is projected to drop by 56% by 2028-29. At the same time, funding for existing affordability programs is set to expire in the coming years, with no clear replacement. This is not a serious plan as it is currently laid out. Build Canada Homes was presented during the election as something akin to a postwar level of federal investment in housing. Instead, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that it lacks the targets, funding and safeguards needed to deliver affordability at scale. Build Canada Homes includes no minimum requirements for affordability across its projects. Of the sites announced so far, only six are expected to achieve affordability targets. Without clear targets written into the program, there is no guarantee that future projects will deliver homes that low- and moderate-income Canadians can afford. Budget 2025 indicates that CMHC, the federal agency formerly responsible for delivering housing programs, is facing cuts of $860 million per year. Canadians do not know which programs will be cut and which will be saved by Build Canada Homes. There is no transparency or accountability. Let me be clear about what this looks like on the ground. At the China Creek Housing Coop in Vancouver, residents are facing the possible loss of housing charge subsidies that keep their homes affordable. Earlier this year, the government announced an extension of the federal community housing initiative, creating the impression that affordability protection will continue, yet the most recent federal budget contains no provision for the continuation of these subsidies into the coming year. When the co-op contacted CMHC for clarification, it was told there is no information beyond what was presented in the budget: no timeline, no transition plan, no assurance that existing subsidy recipients will continue to receive support. CMHC has effectively told residents to contact their member of Parliament because it cannot provide answers. The residents affected include low-income seniors with serious health concerns, single parents with children, and indigenous and Métis families. Without housing charge subsidies, many will be unable to afford their homes not only at China Creek but anywhere in Vancouver's rental market, and for that matter across the country, where rents routinely exceed the total monthly income of those most affected. The fear of imminent homelessness is real, and it is taking a profound emotional toll on people with nowhere else to go.

Mr. Speaker, maintaining existing affordable and co-op housing stock is essential to address the housing crisis. China Creek Housing Coop in my riding was shocked to learn that there is no funding in the coming year in CMHC's budget to cover the housing charge subsidies. That means low-income families, seniors, single parents and people trying to get by will be made homeless. They are not alone; approximately 300,000 more homes across the country will be impacted. Will the Prime Minister tell these families they do not need to fear losing their home, and confirm today that ongoing funding will be in place for their housing charge subsidy?

Mr. Speaker, currently, operating agreements for approximately 300,000 units of existing social and co-op housing are slated to sunset. If the Liberals do not renew those operating agreements, their housing charge subsidies will end. That means there would be, potentially, a loss of 300,000 units of already built affordable homes to add to the acute housing crisis. That means that the Prime Minister is not only failing to build truly affordable homes at the scale that is needed but is also failing to protect existing ones, homes set up to ensure that coordinated affordability is at the centre of its operation so it can deliver deeply affordable housing at scale. My question is, will the Prime Minister correct this fundamental flaw and commit to ensuring that Build Canada Homes is doing its job to ensure that core funding is in place to ensure affordability, and will the Liberals commit to contribute funding for housing charge subsidies, including for the residents at China Creek, so no one is pushed into homelessness because of inaction by the federal government?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in Davos, “there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along”. Well, the moment for Canada to show up is here. Canadian-made parts have been found in weapons killing civilians in Gaza, Sudan and Yemen. A Canadian-made armoured vehicle was seen in Minneapolis the day ICE shot and killed Alex Pretti. Will the Prime Minister live by his words “to stop pretending, to name reality,” and support Bill C-233, the no more loopholes act, so that Canada is not complicit in these horrific acts against humanity?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the strongest possible terms against Bill C-12, a bill that represents not only poor public policy but a profound abandonment of Canada's legal obligations, humanitarian commitments and democratic safeguards. The legislation is not an effort to strengthen our immigration system. It is not an attempt to improve processing, bolster safety or address affordability. Rather, it is the latest chapter in a troubling pattern: Liberals and Conservatives competing to see who can scapegoat migrants more harshly. It deflects blame for successive Liberal and Conservative governments' own long-standing failures in their housing policies and economic planning. It preys on the fears and insecurities of Canadians in the face of an affordability crisis through the politics of division. It codifies in law the stigmatizing narrative that treats refugees as security threats rather than human beings seeking protection. Contained in Bill C-12 is a one-year bar on refugee claims. What does that mean? It means that anyone who entered Canada more than 12 months before filing a refugee claim becomes ineligible for the refugee protection process that has existed for decades. The bar is retroactive to June 24, 2020, based on the individual's first entry into Canada. That means someone's safety is based not on whether they have a valid refugee claim or a claim of persecution, or that their life is in danger, but on some arbitrary date. Experts across the sector, like the Canadian Council for Refugees, women's organizations and more, have warned us of the consequences. The Canadian Bar Association's Immigration Law Section was unequivocal. It said this bill risks “exacerbating rather than alleviating existing problems”, undermines Canada's commitments to refugee protection, and erodes the checks and balances fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. It further noted that the retroactive nature of the one-year bar is “particularly offensive to the rule of law.” Amnesty International's Julia Sande said this bill judges people on how and when they enter the country, factors that have nothing to do with whether they need protection. She warned that under this bill, even someone who first entered as a baby for a single day and who, decades later, faces persecution due to war, political violence, their gender identity or their sexual orientation would be denied the chance to have their claims heard. A date on a piece of paper could determine whether or not they can have safe harbour. We have seen the harm caused by similar rules in the United States, where one-year deadlines have resulted in refugees being deported despite having a genuine fear of persecution. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees advised Canada against this approach as far back as 1999, reminding us that under international law, the passage of time does not alter our obligation of non-refoulement, our duty not to return people to danger. These are not theoretical concerns. They are lived realities. In a Canadian Press story from October 31, we heard from Asya Medea, a trans woman from Turkey. She came to Canada in 2018 on a student visa. As conditions for LGBTQ2S+ people in Turkey rapidly deteriorated, she filed a refugee claim 18 months after her arrival, a claim that was accepted in 2020 because the threat to her life was real. Under Bill C-12, she would never have had that opportunity. She would have been barred from seeking protection simply because her claim came after 12 months. This bill would have sent her back into the hands of a state that was targeting her for who she is. It is also clear that the one-year bar will disproportionately harm women, 2SLGBTQ+ people, survivors of gender-based violence and trafficked persons. The FCJ Refugee Centre explained that many survivors cannot file a claim within a year due to trauma, fear, coercion by abusive partners or complexities of escaping trafficking networks. Some have abusers who have already been deported back to the country of origin and are waiting for them. Under this bill, they would be stripped of the right to seek safety. They would be sent back into the hands of those who have threatened, harmed and exploited them. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association made another critical point. The government's supposed justification for the one-year bar of deterring fraudulent claims is unfounded. Those intent on deception will simply file quickly. The people who will be excluded are those who delay filing because of trauma, confusion, language barriers or evolving circumstances. In practice, this bill punishes vulnerability and not fraud. At committee, the NDP proposed specific amendments to protect survivors of gender-based violence, unaccompanied minors and individuals from moratorium countries. The Liberals, Bloc members and Conservatives all voted against them. Bill C-12 also undermines due process, as it would deny individuals access to a full oral hearing before the refugee protection division. The Minister of Public Safety, a refugee himself, said to not worry and be happy because there are safeguards and guardrails in place. What are they? He cites the pre-removal risk assessment system, a process with one of the worst records in recognizing legitimate need for protection. The NDP proposed amendments to maintain access to hearings. We proposed reducing the severity of the time limit, even though all arbitrary deadlines violate basic principles of refugee protection. Every one of our amendments was defeated. Bill C-12 does not stop here. It also grants the government sweeping unprecedented powers to cancel immigration applications, suspend processing and revoke people's status en masse. These powers can be applied to entire classes of people without individualized assessment, without due process and without clear constraints. Families who have lived and work here for years could wake up one morning to learn that their pathway to permanent residence has simply been erased, not because of anything they did but because the minister granted themselves the authority to do so. The Canadian Bar Association expressed “grave concerns about the vague and undefined language throughout the Bill”, describing the power as “overreaching”, “undemocratic” and specifically insulated from normal regulatory scrutiny. It warned that, once granted, these powers “will be impossible to control.” Amnesty International reinforced this warning, noting that the bill opens the door to politically driven decisions capable of destabilizing lives, separating families and uprooting people who have built their entire future here. It cautions that this legislation risks violating international law, including the right to a fair and effective asylum procedure, the right not to be deported to danger and the prohibition on discrimination. The NDP proposed two amendments to impose parliamentary safeguards so that any such order would require scrutiny, committee review, a tabled framework and statutory oversight. We also proposed defining “public interest” in a way that aligns with public safety, public health and genuine security concerns. These amendments were rejected by the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc. Instead, the Liberals adopted a sweeping and overly broad definition of “public interest”. This bill reflects an immigration system where decisions can shift overnight and where people are denied hearings, appeals and due process, a system disturbingly reminiscent of the worst policies of Trump south of the border. The bill is not about system integrity. It is not about public safety. It is an attempt to appease Donald Trump and import a Trump-style agenda into Canadian law. It trades in fear, division, scapegoating and misinformation. The remaining provisions of Bill C-12 that target refugees only compound the harm. The NDP proposed 13 amendments in total. None of them was accepted. This bill would not strengthen Canada's borders. It would not make our communities safer. It would not build homes. It would not address affordability. It would not shorten immigration processing times. What it would do is push refugees, migrant workers, students, families and survivors deeper into precarity. It would ensure our neighbours live with the constant fear that their lives can collapse overnight. It punishes people who are trying to survive, people who deserve safety and who contribute daily to this country. Let us do the right thing and vote against Bill C-12.

Mr. Speaker, that is just nonsense. Bill C-12 says to refugees that we will not listen to them, we will not hear them and we will not allow them to prove that their fear is real. It is cruelty dressed up as law, and this legislation has been cooked up in a haphazard way. Even at committee, critical experts like the Canadian Council for Refugees and women's organizations were not even invited. They were not witnesses at the committee who could share their concerns. How does the government justify this? It cannot.

Mr. Speaker, that is such nonsense. The NDP is not supporting criminals. We are supporting due process. We are supporting people having the opportunity to submit applications. Canada has a system that sets up the IRB, which is independent from government, as an independent process to assess claims. That is the issue. The member just cherry-picked an example that preys on fear and illustrates the scapegoating approach that the Liberals and Conservatives continue to embark on.

Mr. Speaker, legal experts have actually expressed that opinion, so I encourage the member to read their opinions. In fact, better still, I encourage the member to speak with them directly because they are the people who can tell him exactly what is wrong. I absolutely support their point of view. I do believe that this bill will be challenged in the courts, and I think the government is heading in the wrong direction. This is a Trump-style approach to immigration law, not an approach that Canadians want to see.

Mr. Speaker, that is also just complete nonsense. If the Conservatives want to say Canada is now closing all doors to refugees, then they should have the courage to say so. Canada signed on to the 1951 convention and is supposedly abiding by international law that says we will not send individuals back to their country of origin to face danger. If you want to go down that road, then say so, do so and stop pretending otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table e-petition e-6581, which has 7,531 signatures. The petitioners note that the Israeli government's blockade of food and medicines to Gaza has continued for more than 90 days since its commencement on March 2, 2025. According to the food security analysis released on May 12, 2025, by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification partnership, three-quarters of Gaza's population is currently experiencing “emergency” or “catastrophic” food deprivation. Canada has ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, giving these the force of law through the Geneva Conventions Act of 1964, which prohibits the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The starvation of civilians and other forms of collective punishment are also criminalized by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which Canada ratified on July 7, 2000. The Government of Canada is the custodian of Canada's reputation as a country that upholds international human rights laws, and it has a duty towards Canadians to ensure that this reputation is not diminished by Canada's inaction in the face of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute by other states. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to suspend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement until the Government of Canada has certitude that the Israeli government is no longer acting in violation of international laws with its deliberate blockade, and to impose sanctions on all members of the present Israeli government who have publicly expressed their support for the continued blockade.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her amendment motions today. We in the opposition are here doing our level best to stop this; rightfully, Bill C-12 should be withdrawn. With that being said, I wonder what the member's thoughts are with respect to this. During committee, I tried to move an amendment for the government to at least change the provisions related to the one-year bar: to, instead of deeming someone ineligible to make a refugee application if they have been here in Canada for one year, at least strike that provision, or, at minimum, instead of having the date be that of the first entry into Canada, move it to the latest entry into Canada. I wonder what my colleague's thoughts are, because the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc voted against it.

Madam Speaker, behind closed doors, without B.C. and first nations at the table, the Prime Minister agreed to lift the tanker ban, put at risk the way of life of coastal communities, bring in a new fossil fuel subsidy at the expense of renewable energy and clean technologies, and move Canada further away from its greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Prime Minister said they will not proceed without the consent of B.C. and the free, prior and informed consent of first nations, but nowhere is this spelled out in the MOU. Why?

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on a promise that the Liberals would stand strong against Trump and would fight American tariffs. He even did an elbows-up dance following the election. What has the Liberals' rhetoric, with Canada strong against Trump and elbows up, looked like since the election? The U.S. has imposed a 35% levy on all Canadian goods, even though most are exempt under an existing free trade agreement. Trump has slapped sector-specific levies on Canadian goods, including a 50% levy on metals and a 25% levy on automobiles. Trump has imposed a new 10% tariff to the existing anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian lumber, bringing the levy to over 45% and crippling the industry. In addition, 25% has been imposed on certain finished wood products. In the Prime Minister's definition of elbows up to appease Trump, he has rescinded the digital services tax, which is a 3% tax for massive multinational companies operating in Canada such as Google, Amazon and Netflix. This is a tax the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects would generate over $7 billion in new revenues over five years for Canadians. While the Prime Minister wanted Canadians to believe that every tariff blow Trump threw our way was met with retaliatory countertariffs, in reality, after the initial hurrah, the Liberals removed all tariffs on goods from the U.S. that are covered by CUSMA. They then quietly removed countertariffs on American goods that are not compliant with CUSMA. As if the Prime Minister was put on steroids to further appease Trump, he committed to boosting defence funding from 2% to 5% of GDP, and we saw a commitment of a whopping $81.5 billion over five years made in budget 2025. It does not stop there. To further placate Trump, under the guise of border security to address Trump's imagined fentanyl border crisis, Bill C-12 was the Prime Minister's first piece of legislation in this House, a dangerous omnibus bill that threatens Canadians' civil liberties, infringes on their privacy rights, eliminates due process and takes a page directly from Trump's anti-refugee, anti-rule-of-law agenda. When Trump took offence to an ad that accurately recounted former president Reagan's view on tariffs, the Prime Minister kowtowed to Trump and apologized. This is not exactly elbows up, is it? The Prime Minister's actions are a far cry from his election promises to Canadians, and as it stands, Canada has become the only G7 nation without a trade deal with the U.S. During the campaign, the Prime Minister promised Canadians he would get clean energy projects built. At no point did he say he would end the tanker ban and build a new pipeline. What is the Prime Minister doing? He is signing an MOU with Premier Danielle Smith on advancing a new pipeline to the B.C. coast, an agreement developed behind closed doors with zero consultation with B.C. and first nations. British Colombians do not want another megaproject that increases emissions and threatens coastal ecosystems. The Prime Minister cannot justify negotiating a pipeline deal with Alberta that excludes B.C. entirely, affected first nations and impacted communities. None of them has been at the table. British Colombians will not stand for the lifting of the tanker ban, and B.C. Liberal members know it. Instead of sowing division, why does the Prime Minister not work on truly nation-building projects that are good for the economy and the environment and help Canada meet its Paris accord commitments? Canadians were told that budget 2025 is a bold statement of generational ambition. They were shown the headline figure of $1 trillion in public and private investments over five years and told that this budget would secure the future of Canada, yet despite all the fanfare, few Canadians feel inspired. Why? It is because the budget, at its core, is underwhelming, contradictory and deeply conservative in its priorities. It is back to the future with austerity and the Liberal government. The Prime Minister calls this a “generational investment budget”, but it is not the kind of investment that working Canadians have been asking for. It misses the mark. The budget shifts resources away from everyday people in an affordability crisis. It has very little investment in indigenous communities and indigenous-led projects, and there is no mention of the calls for justice on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It delivers deep cuts, at 15% across most ministries, and downsizes critical public services, all to make room for a record increase in military spending. The government is reining in its day-to-day spending through a so-called comprehensive expenditure review, cutting $13 billion annually by 2028-29, for a total of $60 billion in savings, it says. That means shrinking public services, targeting the very frontline workers who deliver the essential care that everyday Canadians rely on. The Prime Minister hides the impact of the cuts in euphemism. The budget is riddled with terms such as “modernizing”, ”streamlining” and “recalibrating”. What does that really mean? It really means that services will be cut, and it imposes austerity that disproportionately affects women, frontline workers and vulnerable communities. For the workers and families who have lost their jobs, or the 40,000 workers who will lose their jobs because of the 15% cut across all departments, with a few minor exceptions, there is no support for them in budget 2025. There is no EI reform for these workers and their families, retraining or transition; there is no support for them. It is not exactly a worker-friendly budget, is it? Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, a housing crisis and an overstretched health care system, yet the government is asking workers and families to tighten their belts while defence contractors get a windfall. The cuts to the federal public services are short-sighted and unnecessary. These are the people who process benefits, GIS applications for seniors, tax refunds and EI applications, which are services that keep government running. Undermining these things means undermining services that Canadians need. A truly generational budget would invest in people, in affordable homes, green jobs, public health care, climate change mitigation and a post-secondary education system that has been decimated by the Liberals' mismanagement of student visas. On the issue around housing, Build Canada Homes comes with a lot of hype and promises. The government talks about delivering 40% affordable units and deep affordability tied to 30% of the median income. It turns out that this commitment only applies to six sites. For the rest, there are no affordability criteria attached. Not only that, but there is only $6.5 billion of new money in budget 2025; the rest of the $25 billion is carried over from previous budgets. With that, so far, the only target we have heard from the government is that 4,000 new homes are scheduled to start next year. This is a drop in the bucket of the million non-market housing units needed over a decade to address backlogs. The government is also leaning heavily on provinces to subsidize deep affordability. With no firm commitments, and without clear affordability guarantees, Build Canada Homes will fail to deliver the affordable homes Canadians desperately need. Budget 2025 promises a lot, a trillion dollars of investment, but most of it is pre-committed, reclassified or private sector investment that may never materialize. The government talks a lot, and there is a lot of fanfare and hype, but in reality, much of it is just hot air, with recycled announcements and recalibration of existing programs and investments that have already been committed. A $25-billion headline number shrinks to just $0.3 billion in new R and D—

Madam Speaker, well, let me be very clear: I voted against the Liberals. I did not vote with the Conservatives; I voted against the Liberals. Why? The NDP actually tried to make this work and went to the government, saying we would support the budget if, for example, it invested $1.5 billion in co-op housing with affordability criteria attached; if, in fact, it brought forward an EI support program for workers who are going to be losing their jobs; and if it would not impose cuts that would impact indigenous people's services, for example. There was a list of things we brought to the government, and it rejected them. This is what we voted against: the government refusing to support the Canadians who need help the most during this affordability crisis.

Madam Speaker, I will tell the House what I was looking for in the budget that I did not see. I was looking for affordable housing at scale, that is, a million units over a decade to deliver for and address the affordability housing crisis. I was looking for community housing for people in Quebec, in British Columbia and across the country, not a measly $500-million investment that will barely, barely have an impact. We were looking for investment in public transit in Quebec and in British Columbia. We were looking for an east-west energy grid connecting provinces with clean energy. Instead, Canadians are left with incremental changes, tax breaks for corporations and more austerity for the public sector. Not to mention, there was no support for the environment.

Mr. Speaker, at no time during the campaign did the Prime Minister say the tanker ban would be lifted or changed. B.C. coastal first nations are saying loud and clear that the tanker ban is not up for negotiation, and no MOU will change that. The secret deal signed behind closed doors without B.C. and first nations at the table is a betrayal. Enbridge 2.0 will not proceed without first nations' free, prior and informed consent, and B.C. will not stand for it. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this is a pipeline to nowhere but the courts and stop wasting everyone's time with this political posturing?

Mr. Speaker, based on news reports, the Prime Minister appears ready to sign an MOU with Alberta that could green-light a brand new pipeline to B.C.'s north coast, behind closed doors, without B.C. at the table, by carving out an exemption to the tanker ban that protects our communities and our coast. I ask the Prime Minister, will he commit today that he will not proceed with the project without the full consent of first nations and the Province of B.C., and will he honour the tanker ban and put a stop to this pipeline scheme?

Mr. Speaker, after decades of advocacy, caregivers' dream of landed status on arrival finally came with the Canada's home care worker immigration pilot. However, the pilot never opened for intake, and it has been closed without any explanation. This is a betrayal to the people who fought so hard for respect and fairness. Meanwhile, the PR processing backlog for caregivers already in Canada stands at over 34,000 cases. Instead of expediting the processing, the allotted PR quota for all economic pilot programs, including caregivers, under the new levels plan is being reduced. It will take over seven years to process the backlog. This means that tens of thousands of caregivers already in Canada, caring for our children and elders, doing this essential and often undervalued work are left in limbo. Caregivers should not be treated as second class or a footnote in Canada's immigration policy. The Liberals must expand the allocation for caregivers, clear the backlog and give those workers the dignity they deserve.

moved that Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for seconding this important bill. It is with both a heavy heart and a deep sense of purpose that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-233, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, or what many civil society organizations have been calling the no more loopholes act, legislation that seeks to finally bring Canada's arms export regime into full compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty. The bill is about something far larger than policy or procedure. It is about whether we, as a nation, will choose to be builders of peace or merchants of war. It is about whether Canadian-made weapons, the products of our factories, our labour and our infrastructure, will continue to fuel the killing of innocent civilians abroad. We cannot claim to be one thing on the world stage, a supporter of human rights, while turning a wilfully blind eye to what we are doing by maintaining this giant loophole. Canadians expect and deserve better. Let me emphasize first and foremost that the legislation is not partisan. It should never be partisan. Every member of the House, regardless of political stripe, must ask themselves whether we want Canadian-made arms to be used to commit war crimes. Do we want our export laws to continue to contain loopholes so large that bombs and munitions slip through them? Do we want Canada's name to be associated with genocide and human suffering? The bill is our opportunity to say no, clearly, unequivocally and finally. Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019. The government did so with great fanfare, promising to uphold the highest standards of transparency, accountability and peace. Bill C-47 passed to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, establishing a new framework for arms brokering and export controls. At the time, Canadians were told that our government was committed to ensuring that our weapons would never contribute to human rights abuses, that we were joining the world in saying never again to atrocities fuelled by the global arms trade. What we were not told, and what Canadians are now only beginning to understand, is that the 2019 amendments left open a gaping loophole, a loophole that has since become a giant and open back door for weapons, components and explosives to flow freely from Canada to the United States and then onward to some of the most brutal conflicts in the world. The U.S. loophole is indeed the heart of the problem. Canada never adopted article 4, which required Canada to treat weapons, parts and components with the same scrutiny as full weapons systems. Canada also left out article 6, which clearly prohibits arms transfers where there is a serious risk that they will be used in genocide or war crimes. By omitting these articles, it means that, under section 7 of the Export and Import Permits Act, the lion's share of exports to the United States are exempt from the permit reporting and human rights risk assessment requirements that apply to every other country. That means that Canadian-made weapons, explosives and parts can cross into the United States completely unmonitored, with no transparency and no public record. Once they arrive in the U.S., those components are often integrated into larger weapons systems, F-35 fighter jets, Apache helicopters and heavy munitions, and then exported to countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, where they have been used to devastate civilian populations. In fact, in 2009, under the Harper administration, General Dynamics Land Systems, a Canadian company, provided 724 light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. These light armoured vehicles were seen being used in Saudi Arabia's operations in Yemen for years, where hundreds of thousands of Yemenis were killed. In 2014, under another contract, Canada supplied a newer make of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. In 2015, that continued under the Trudeau administration. This is not speculation; this is not hyperbole. This is fact, documented in commercial export data, defence contracts and investigative journalism. A recent report by Arms Embargo Now uncovered that hundreds of shipments of Canadian military goods are directly contributing to atrocities abroad. Between April 2004 and August 2025 alone, 34 shipments of Canadian-made aircraft components went to Lockheed Martin in the United States. Later, those same components were transferred to the Israeli Ministry of Defense and Israeli weapons manufacturers. Another 360 shipments of Canadian aircraft parts went to the F-35 assembly facility in Fort Worth, Texas. These are the same F-35s that have been dropping bombs on Gaza. Meanwhile, 150 shipments of explosives from Quebec went to U.S. ammunition plants, producing 2,000 pounds of bombs and artillery shells exported to Israel. This is not indirect complicity. This is active participation in a deadly supply chain. Let us be clear about what that means. When Canadian-made components end up in weapons that kill civilians in Gaza, when our explosives are part of the bombs that are dropped on hospitals and apartment buildings, Canadians bear responsibility. When weapons bearing the logo of a Canadian arms manufacturer have been documented in the hands of paramilitary groups in Sudan, groups accused of massacring civilians and committing ethnic cleansing, Canada is complicit. The United Nations and human rights observers have warned repeatedly that the flow of arms, including those traced back to Canada, has fuelled one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. We cannot continue to hide behind bureaucratic language or the convenient fiction that what leaves Canada for the United States stays in the U.S. It does not, and we all know it. The government has tried to reassure Canadians. The former foreign affairs minister said that no Canadian “arms or parts of arms” were sent to Gaza. Her successor, the current foreign affairs minister, said that Canada would “not allow Canadian-made weapons to fuel this conflict in any way”. Those words ring hollow when confronted with the evidence. The government has done nothing to close the U.S. loophole, nothing to stop the use of Canadian-made weapons or components in the bombardment of Gaza, nothing to ensure compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty. By exempting U.S.-bound exports from oversight, Canada is violating not just the spirit but the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty. Article 5 of the treaty requires all state parties to regulate arms transfers in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner. Article 6 prohibits transfers that would contribute to genocide, crimes against humanity or serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. Article 7 requires each state to assess the risk of exported weapons being used to commit such acts. When the government issued general export permit no. 47 in 2019, allowing the full export of full-system conventional arms to the U.S. without permits or risk assessments, it undermined the very treaty we acceded to. That was why we need to pass Bill C-233, to end such blanket exemptions, so that Canada can finally live up to the promises we made to the world and to ourselves. Bill C-233, the “no more loopholes act”, will close the U.S. export loophole requiring permits and human rights assessments for all military goods, regardless of destination; end the issuance of general export of brokering permits that bypass case-by-case review; ensure full transparency and public reporting of all military exports, including those to the U.S.; and reinforce Canada's compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty and restore integrity to our export regime. A few weeks ago, I received a leaked document of the Liberals' talking points to counter my private member's bill. The Liberals say that Bill C-233 is misguided. They say this bill would decimate Canada's defence industry, that it would create unnecessary delays and potentially block Canada-made materials and equipment from getting to our allies in Europe like Ukraine, and that it would weaken Canada's role in NATO. Let me address each one of these points head-on. First, living up to Canada's commitments to the Arms Trade Treaty is not misguided. It demonstrates the integrity and trustworthiness of a nation. Second, the bill would not decimate the defence industry. It would simply require that all exports, including those going to the United States, meet the same human rights and risk assessment standards that we already apply to every other destination. If a country is already compliant with the Arms Trade Treaty, it has nothing to worry about. Canada's defence system will not be put in jeopardy, as Canada is reliant on imports of military goods going to Canada, not exports. Third, this bill would not disrupt NATO or delay aid to Ukraine. Not only is there no evidence that it would delay or potentially block Canada's military aid to Ukraine, but the vast majority of the aid to Ukraine is sent either directly to Ukraine or to European allies. This bill seeks to standardize the regulatory process for arms exports going to the U.S. In addition, transfers of military aid, including for Ukraine, are handled by the Department of National Defence, not the export permitting process overseen by Global Affairs. Fourth, harmonizing export controls with our European allies strengthens, not weakens, NATO. Of the 32 NATO members, 30 are state parties to the Arms Trade Treaty. The two states that are signatories to the Arms Trade Treaty but have not acceded to the treaty, are Turkey and the U.S. Passing Bill C-233 would, in fact, bring Canada into alignment with the vast majority of our allies, not out of step with them. Some have bizarrely claimed that more transparency would compromise our sovereignty. Transparency is not a threat to sovereignty; it is its foundation. A sovereign nation should be able to stand before the world and say with confidence that its weapons are not being used to kill innocent civilians. This is not weakness; this is actually strength. While I acknowledge that Canada's defence industry contributes to our economy, that economic benefit cannot come at the expense of human lives. Our message to the defence industry is clear: If exports are compliant with international law, business can continue; if exports risk enabling war crimes, then they must stop. We cannot and must not build prosperity on the backs of human suffering. This is ultimately a test of our integrity, particularly at a time when there will be unprecedented defence spending with a commitment of $81.8 billion in budget 2025, far exceeding the 2% NATO commitment the Prime Minister made during the campaign. We cannot continue to call for peace while profiting from war crimes, and we cannot condemn atrocities abroad while quietly enabling them through our exports. Canada once led the world in peacekeeping. We once stood proudly as a voice of conscience on the global stage. However, today, our moral standing is being eroded, not by what we say but by what we permit. As we debate this bill, the bombs are still falling on Gaza. Families are still being buried beneath rubble. Children are dying in hospitals that are running out of fuel and medicine. Somewhere in the chain of destruction, there are Canadian-made parts, like propellants and circuitry, that help make these weapons possible. That must end. History will judge us not by how we defended industries or alliances, but by whether we defended humanity. Bill C-233 is about closing the loopholes, yes, but it is also about opening our eyes. It is about aligning our laws with our values, our words, our deeds, our actions and our conscience, with no more exceptions, no more excuses and no more Canadian complicity in war crimes. To my colleagues in this House, if we truly believe in human rights, in the rule of law and in peace, then we must support this bill. When the crime is the killing of innocent civilians, there can be no loopholes, no silence, no culture of impunity, no looking away, no wilful ignorance and no moral blindness. Canadians will be watching how each member votes, and it will be recorded in Hansard forever. They want Canada to be a force for peace. It is time for us to live up to that promise.

Mr. Speaker, with Canada's current commitment, the export of arms and weaponry to every other country has to go through a permitting process. That has to be measured against risk assessments and the standards outlined in the Arms Trade Treaty, except for the United States. The vast majority of the weaponry that goes to the United States does not require a permitting process. This is what we are talking about. We need to close the loophole to ensure that weaponry, parts and components that go through to the United States are measured against the Arms Trade Treaty, and that the standard applied to every other country applies to U.S. exports as well. In that way, we can be—

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We want Canadians to feel proud, and we want the Canadian government to take action so we can proudly stand on the international stage and say that Canada is not complicit, because as it stands right now, we are. Our arms, our components and our weaponry are ending up in some of the most brutal conflicts in this world, which are killing civilians using Canadian-made arms. That is wrong and has to stop. I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-233.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government continues to argue that Canada is not violating the Arms Trade Treaty. If that is the case, manufacturers here in Canada have nothing to worry about. All I am saying is that we need to make sure when we export to the United States that exports meet Arms Trade Treaty requirements so that we do not contribute our weaponry, parts and components to atrocities and to committing genocide and crimes against humanity. I do not think Canadians want blood on their hands, and that is what the bill would mean. If companies do not violate the act, there is nothing they need to worry about. It would not impact them at all.

Mr. Speaker, there was much hype about the budget. Much had already been made public in the pre-budget announcements. My question is about what is not in the budget. The impact of the 15% cut across most departments, including the loss of 40,000 workers, is buried in buzzwords like “streamlining”, “modernizing” and “recalibrating”. Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians what programs are being cut, which ones will end when the funding sunsets and how people in our communities will be impacted? Canadians deserve to know.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP secured $4.3 billion in funding to address urgent unmet housing needs for first nations, Inuit and Métis people living away from their home community, and NICHI, a national indigenous-led organization, helped deliver that interim funding without a hitch. Many shovel-ready projects are desperate for the $4 billion in long-term funding to flow, and with winter fast approaching, another construction season will be missed. Will the Prime Minister just let Indigenous Services task NICHI to get the funding out the door, or are the Liberals are going to re-announce the $4 billion in budget 2025 and pretend it is new funding?

Mr. Speaker, deep cuts are being planned for the arts and culture sector in the upcoming budget. Festivals and events could lose $22.5 million, reducing their funding to 2007 levels. The Canada Council for the Arts could face a $50-million cut. Arts and culture not only feed our soul but are a major economic driver, contributing $65 billion to Canada's GDP in 2024 and generating $17 billion in federal and provincial tax revenue. Funding should be increased to support these made-in-Canada jobs. Will the Minister of Finance scrap these cuts?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by over 10,000 Canadians across the country. The petitioners note that the Prime Minister made the “elbows up” promise to defend Canadian sovereignty and democracy and to distinguish Canada from the dangerous politics of the United States. Bill C-2 is a gross concession to the U.S., ushering in Trump-style legislation at the expense of our well-being. It is a dramatic bait and switch on Canadian voters, and the owners of Canada do not approve. It threatens to destroy the lives of nearly one-quarter of Canadians; almost 10 million friends and family members would lose their right to due process under the legislation, allowing their immigration status to be revoked or altered without an individualized review. Canada's asylum policy is a source of national pride and identity, and Bill C-2 proposes arbitrary limits that abandon the most vulnerable while doing nothing to improve safety and disgracing our identity at home and abroad. The petitioners also note that Bill C-2 appears to be a Trojan horse for sweeping surveillance policies, expanding police access to personal data without a warrant, lowering privacy thresholds to “reasonable grounds”, weakening protection on international data sharing and allowing Canada Post to open private mail. They note that the legislation is as offensive as it is undemocratic. Finally, they note that Bill C-2 tramples on our charter rights and freedoms and puts Canada on a dangerous path of xenophobia and racism. They are therefore calling on the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-2 in full, uphold the elbows-up promise to reject Trump-style policies, ensure immigration security and privacy legislation, reflect our nation's commitment to democracy and human rights, honour the responsibility of elected office, and affirm our charter and not trample it.

With regard to the planned budgetary reductions for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency: (a) is Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada moving forward with a Deficit Reduction Action Plan in 2024 and, if so, what it the targeted budget reduction for the Department in percentage and actual dollars broken down by (i) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (ii) province or territory; (b) what specific programs or services within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada are projected to experience reductions in funding as part of the Deficit Reduction Action Plan in 2024–25, 2025–26, and 2026–27, broken down by (i) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (ii) province or territory, (iii) full-time employee reduction; (c) how will the anticipated Deficit Reduction Action Plan affect processing times for applicants, broken down by each immigration stream, including the processing of study permits, work visas and travel visas; (d) what measures will Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada implement to ensure the Deficit Reduction Action Plan does not adversely impact service delivery standards for applicants and stakeholders, including settlement organizations; (e) what workforce adjustments or layoffs, if any, are planned within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to accommodate the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, and what impacts are anticipated on staffing levels or full-time employees and employee workloads, broken down by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region; (f) how does Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada plan to engage with and communicate these changes to key stakeholders, including provinces, territories, settlement agencies and impacted applicants; (g) how much funding has been refocused away from the Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in the federal government’s refocused spending initiative, broken down by year in these program areas, (i) border security and enforcement, (ii) customs and trade facilitation, (iii) traveller screening, (iv) citizenship and passport services, (v) refugee resettlement; and (h) what is funding that has been refocused away from Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in the federal government’s refocused spending initiative being redirected toward, broken down by year?

Mr. Speaker, housing cost is the biggest contributing factor to the affordability crisis. Notwithstanding the promise of Build Canada Homes, new homes will not materialize until years from now, and there would be no federal subsidies to ensure affordability. Renters are in a crisis now. Corporate landlords are hiking rent far beyond inflation, and ordinary Canadians are being forced out of their homes. Housing profiteers are jacking up rent by 30%, 40% or even 50%. National vacancy control legislation would stop this gouging cold. Will the Prime Minister bring back a national vacancy control, like the one we used to have before the war, to protect renters?

moved: Motion No. 8 That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting line 40 on page 7 to line 15 on page 8. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 5.1. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-3, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 23 on page 9 with the following: “6 Paragraph 27(1)‍(j.‍1) of the Act is amended by” Motion No. 11 That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 6.1. Mr. Speaker, my motions to amend Bill C-3 would restore the bill to its original form. They would rectify the Conservatives' punitive and unconstitutional law that stripped the children of Canadian parents the right to pass on Canadian citizenship to second-generation born-abroad children, separating families, rendering some stateless and creating two classes of Canadians more than a decade ago. They respond to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling that Canada's citizenship laws are unconstitutional. They would restore justice for lost Canadian families. Canadians who live, work or study abroad and their second-generation born-abroad children should never be treated as lesser citizens. When Bill C-3 went before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, to say I was disappointed in the amendments from the Conservatives, which were supported by the Bloc, is an understatement. Frankly, I do not understand why the Bloc changed its position. When I was at that committee, I worked closely with the Bloc member. We were in agreement on making these changes. After the election, something happened. I do not know exactly what happened, but the Bloc flipped and supported the Conservative motions. It is with dismay that I stand here today to move these amendments and make these statements. Many lost Canadian family members contacted me right after the committee, expressing frustration, anger and dismay. I share their views. I have had much to say on this topic in the last 10 years. I have carried this file with me for years. Finally bringing it to the stage where we can ensure that Canada's citizenship laws are charter-compliant was extremely important, and seeing it dismantled the way it was at committee was shocking. At this point, I think it would be most appropriate to put on the record the words of a lost Canadian family in reaction to the Conservative and Bloc amendments to Bill C-3 at committee. This letter is from a woman named Majda Dabaghi, who represents the sentiments of many lost Canadian families. I have received so many letters and calls from lost Canadian family members about this. Let me put their words on the public record. Referring to the Conservative and the Bloc members, she said: Overall, their interventions were framed around immigration anxieties rather than citizenship rights.... A few points stand out: First, Members of Parliament continue to conflate immigration and citizenship. When she says “Members of Parliament”, I want to be clear that she is referring to the Conservative and Bloc members of the committee. She continued: Bill C-3 is not about granting citizenship to newcomers with tenuous ties to Canada; it is about restoring equal rights to Canadians who already have a genuine, demonstrable connection to their country. Canadians who live, study, or work abroad contribute meaningfully to Canada’s global presence, economy, and values. They should be celebrated, not excluded. Second, the rhetoric around so-called “Canadians of convenience” has been weaponized to justify exclusionary amendments. That narrative is deeply harmful and, frankly, inaccurate. At one point, [the member for Saskatoon West] referred to people like me as “visitors to Canada.” I found that remark profoundly insulting. It deepens the wounds inflicted by the First Generation Rule—a policy that already fractured the identity and sense of belonging of thousands of Canadians abroad. I am a Canadian. I was raised in Ottawa and Whistler; I have lived and worked in Canada for most of my life. My Canadian identity is not conditional on geography, nor should my children’s right to citizenship depend on political games. The notion that I am somehow less Canadian because I have lived internationally is offensive and contrary to the Charter’s principles of equality and mobility. The shift away from the cumulative 1,095-day connection test to a consecutive-day requirement is unworkable, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. It disregards the modern realities of family, work, and study, and it directly violates Section 6 of the Charter, which guarantees the right of all Canadian citizens to move, leave, and re-enter Canada freely. These amendments do not only harm Canadians abroad—they harm all Canadians. They erode the very principle of equal citizenship by creating a hierarchy of rights based on geography and every Canadian’s mobility rights are weakened. What is most frustrating is the politicking behind these changes. The amendments are being used as a proxy battle over immigration fears rather than a good-faith debate on citizenship equality. The lack of preparation from some MPs and the eagerness to grandstand rather than legislate responsibly are infuriating. I might add that at committee, officials noted that with these amendments, it is possible that a new class of lost Canadians could be created. Those are the sentiments of a lost Canadian family. It is a reflection of many lost Canadian families, including those who have been harmed, those who took the government to court and those who were told when they were pregnant and expecting a child during COVID that they were somehow supposed to leave their families, travel back to Canada, find a place to stay and find a new health care team to deliver their child. That is what they were supposed to do during COVID just so they could ensure that their child would have citizenship. How does that make sense? It does not. Our laws have been discriminatory for more than a decade, ever since the Conservatives, under the Harper regime, stripped lost Canadians of their rights to pass on citizenship to second-generation born-abroad children. I want to be clear that in bringing these motions forward, there is no deal with the Liberal government. There is no quid pro quo. I do not have any lost Canadian family myself, but I am doing this because it is the right thing to do. It is an important thing to do. It is the Canadian thing to do. We should all be treated equally. No one should be treated as a second-class citizen. The citizenship rights of those who are lucky enough to be born with citizenship should be celebrated and honoured. There is no question about that. Of course, we should not abuse it. However, we should not penalize the people who travel, work or fall in love abroad, and God forbid they should have children abroad. That is what these amendments would do. Restoring those rights per the court ruling and bringing the bill back to its original form are the right things to do. I hope we can support these amendments so that we can all stand tall and proud that Canada's citizenship laws will finally be charter-compliant. Let us not conflate immigrants' rights to earn their citizenship with that of Canadians' birthright. Let us not fuel the current atmosphere of anti-immigrant and anti-migrant sentiment that is washing over us from south of the border. We are better than that. Let us not fall prey to that. Conservatives may not believe that, because that is who they are. Maybe that is what it is, but I am not like them and I refuse to let it happen. I hope all members of this House will support these amendments so that we can stand tall and proud, with our Canadian values intact.

Mr. Speaker, I have been carrying this file for more than a decade. As I have said, I do not have lost Canadians within my own family unit. My children were born in Canada. I am an immigrant, so I am a first-generation born-abroad individual, but my children were born here, so they are not impacted in any shape or form. However, that does not matter. What matters is that there are people who are lost Canadians in this context. It is critically important to pass this legislation back to its original form, based on the amendments made to Senate Bill S-245 that I motivated. It is also based on the government bill later introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-71. Here we are. It is morally and legally the right thing to do, and that is why we have to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for seconding my motion and for her ongoing advocacy for basic human rights, not just for Canadians but for everyone across the globe. Her relentless, untiring tackling of and fighting for basic human rights for all people is who we are as Canadians. By the way, the law on lost Canadians' citizenship birthright has been deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court. In fact, the government has been forced to bring this legislation forward. It should have been done years ago, without the court's making the ruling, but the government has not done it, and the court has ruled that the law is unconstitutional. We have to rectify this. Again, I ask all members of the House to support my amendments.