Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the pre-removal risk assessment process as though somehow that is a fair, due process for asylum seekers. Does the member realize that it actually lacks procedural protections, such as the right to oral hearings, the right to appeal and the right to have a decision made by an independent body? Does he not view those important measures as central for an asylum seeker and to ensure that Canada's asylum process is, indeed, independent, as opposed to one where decisions are made by the government's department?

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member should read the bill, Bill C-12. In fact, Bill C-12 takes away those procedural protections. It only relies on the pre-removal risk assessments because a host of people would be stripped of their right to go before the Immigration and Refugee Board to make their application. That is exactly the concern that I have. If the government were to ensure that people's rights are protected and procedural rights are intact, then what the government has to do is withdraw this bill and ensure that the current system of the IRB review process for asylum seekers' applications is kept in place.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today in strong opposition to Bill C-12, the so-called border security and immigration act. Let us be clear: The bill is not a new approach. It is a repackaging, a political sleight of hand. Bill C-12 is simply Bill C-2 with a fresh coat of paint. It would not fix the fundamental problems of its predecessor. It doubles down on the same anti-migrant, anti-refugee agenda that civil society, legal experts and human rights advocates have already rejected in overwhelming numbers. More than 300 civil society organizations, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the United Church of Canada, have called for the full withdrawal of both bills. The organizations are right, because Bill C-12 would maintain the sweeping new powers in Bill C-2 related to refugee asylum seekers, whereby the minister and cabinet, at the expense of transparency, fairness and human rights, could engage in a host of actions and would be given a host of authorities. Let us talk about some of the most egregious elements of the bill and what it would actually do. Bill C-12 would give cabinet the authority to suspend or terminate immigration applications and cancel visas, work permits or permanent resident documents whenever it is deemed to be “in the public interest”. However, there is no definition of “public interest”, none; there are no guidelines, no guardrails, no requirements for evidence and no judicial oversight. The government could use this clause to shut down entire classes of immigration overnight. As reported by the CBC, for people who apply under the humanitarian compassionate stream, the processing time right now is up to 600 months. That is 50 years. For caregivers, it is nine years; for the agri-food stream, it is 19 years. For entrepreneurs, it is 35 years. This is unheard of. By the way, all this came out of the minister's transition binder. The fear is that the government will just cancel applications en masse. That is what Bill C-12 would allow the government to do. It is stoking fear. If the government wants to say that Canada wants to shut its door to asylum seekers, then it should just say that instead of doing this under the pretense that somehow this is just and fair and respects procedural fairness. This is not good governance. It is not just the actions that the government might take with this kind of power that we should be concerned about. It would be giving that power to future governments as well. The bill also allows the government to block refugee hearings, to impose retroactive one-year bars on asylum claims and to strip people of their status en masse. These are powers that echo some of the most extreme anti-migrant policies we have seen south of the border. The Prime Minister likes to claim that this is about modernization and efficiency. It is not. It is peddling a racist, discriminatory narrative with Trump leading the charge. The bill would directly harm refugees and vulnerable migrants, people fleeing war, persecution and violence. Frankly, it is un-Canadian. Let us remember that Canada once prided itself on being a refuge for those in need. Bill C-12 sends the opposite message. It says, “If you didn’t file your paperwork within a year, we don’t want to hear your case.” We can imagine a woman fleeing gender-based violence, arriving in Canada with nothing, struggling with trauma, with no access to legal support, just trying to survive, and then being told she is too late to seek safety. As Women’s Shelters Canada and LEAF have pointed out, arbitrary timelines such as these deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they need it most. We should be upholding the rule of law, not concentrating power in cabinet. Bill C-12 represents a dangerous step backward. It undermines our international obligations, our charter values and our reputation as a country that welcomes those in need. The NDP stands with the hundreds of organizations across this country, civil liberties advocates, refugee lawyers, women’s groups and faith communities who are united in saying that we should withdraw Bill C-12 and Bill C-2. How can the government put forward legislation that will knowingly endanger survivors of violence or those being persecuted for who they love? Sixty-four countries criminalize homosexuality. That is not all. Under the U.S. administration, Trump's executive orders threaten the rights, the health care and the existence of transgender people. More and more, actually, my office has heard from people who are living in fear in the United States. Bill C-12 is also a blow to civil liberties. It authorizes unprecedented information sharing across departments without proper safeguards. It empowers border agents to access private facilities and detain goods for export. It expands the Coast Guard’s role into intelligence collection and surveillance. Even though the government removed some of the most intrusive measures from Bill C-2, such as the warrantless access to Canadians' private data, the spirit of the bill remains the same: centralization of power and erosion of rights. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has warned that the bill “fast tracks...the most egregious aspects” of its predecessor. It would not fix the problems; it would accelerate them. Let us not kid ourselves: Bill C-12 exists because Bill C-2 became too toxic to pass. Rather than listening to the hundreds of organizations demanding its withdrawal, the government chose to split the bill into two, hoping Canadians would not notice. However, we do notice. We notice that these measures come at a time when asylum claims have dropped by 34% and when the average number of daily refugee claims has plummeted from 165 to 12. What is the crisis, exactly, that the government is responding to? This is not about border security; it is about politics. It is about appeasing a Trump-style, anti-immigrant, anti-migrant narrative that is creeping into our political discourse. There is a dangerous pattern emerging under the current government, an obsession with centralizing authority and sidestepping accountability. It is carrying out the Conservatives' agenda but with a new Liberal leader dressed in red. Bill C-12 would expand cabinet's ability to rule by order. It would give ministers unilateral power to cancel applications, suspend rights and make regulations without parliamentary oversight. This is not the Canadian way. Our immigration and refugee system should be based on clear laws, fair processes and independent decision-making, not on who happens to sit in cabinet. Let us recognize who would bear the brunt of these policies: women fleeing violence, LGBTQ2+ refugees seeking safety, migrant workers exploited in precarious jobs and indigenous people in border communities, who already face racial profiling. Bill C-12 would deepen these inequalities instead of addressing them. Let us make sure we do this right. When we talk about immigration, we are talking about people: families, workers and children who come here seeking safety and a better life. We should be strengthening our refugee system and not weakening it. The Liberals put women and girls at risk of being deported back into danger. The one-year bar is a copycat of the U.S. refugee determination system. Get this: In the U.S., the one-year timeline starts at their most recent entry into the United States. Canada's proposal is actually worse; it starts at the beginning, the first time they visit Canada. This means that if someone visited Canada some years ago as a child and they are now being persecuted, they will not be able to apply for asylum here in Canada, and that is wrong.

Madam Speaker, the numbers actually come from the minister's transitional binder. I would advise the member to read the bill. The bill is egregious in its violation of rights. There has been plenty wrong, with the Liberals at the helm for the last 10 years, in Canada's immigration system. I can go on for days about that. However, stripping people of their rights or putting women who face gender violence in danger is not the right way to go. Putting the lives of LGBTQ2 members in danger is not the way to go. Stripping refugees of their right to due process is not the way to go. In fact, I tabled a private member's bill calling for an immigration ombudsperson. That is what we should do to ensure that we do this fairly and properly and not just give carte blanche power to a government. By the way, the Liberals, although dressed in red, are acting just like the Conservatives.

Madam Speaker, let me put this on the record for all members to hear very clearly. My mother passed away on October 4. She left China, a Communist regime that attacked her and her family. They fled to Hong Kong and eventually moved to Canada, where we established ourselves. I am not a Communist. Let us be clear about that. I am actually being persecuted right now by the Chinese government under the foreign interference act. They are targeting me as an evergreen target. Let us be clear. I am not Communist, but I stand for equality, justice and what Canada has always been in my eyes, which is standing up for people and protecting them. That is what the refugee system has been, and bit by bit, the Liberal government, under Bill C-2 and now under Bill C-12, is eroding that. I want refugee and asylum claimants to have access to due process under the IRB. Yes, there needs to be reform, but not this way.

Madam Speaker, let me say this: Over 300 civil organizations are against the bill and are calling for the government to withdraw it. My question is this: Why should a person's claim be ineligible simply because they visited Canada sometime in the past? This is more of an attempt of the government to try to hollow out Canada's refugee determination system, the IRB, by pre-emptively stopping people from even applying or making an application. Perhaps that is the goal of the government, after all, to move Canada's system to where almost no one will be heard by the IRB. Canada can do better, and we must do better. The NDP do not support the approach the government has adopted. We have lots of suggestions of how the government can do better. Let us engage in proper consultation and scrap this bill. I will be at the table with the government to work with it to bring better legislation forward to enhance and support our immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime posted on X, “On behalf of the Government of Canada I am announcing that on the advice of our officials, we have deemed the group Kneecap ineligible to enter our country.” Can the minister advise whether the parliamentary secretary was authorized to make this announcement? If yes, who authorized it? Was it the minister, department officials or the Prime Minister's Office? If no one authorized it, can the minister advise what follow-up action will be taken to address this serious misrepresentation of authority? Canadians deserve to know.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by close to 1,500 Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The petition is to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The petitioners note that Canada has a moral and legal obligation to uphold international humanitarian law and refugee protections and that the International Court of Justice and United Nations bodies have raised grave concerns about the ongoing genocide and humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. They further note that Canada has demonstrated its capacity for rapid humanitarian response by processing Ukrainian visas in a matter of days, while Palestinian applications are often delayed for over a year. The petitioners are asking the government to immediately reduce processing times for family reunification applications from Gaza and the West Bank to reflect the urgency of the humanitarian crisis; to simplify application procedures to ensure accessibility for applicants facing extreme conditions, including displacement, famine and destruction of infrastructure; to provide alternative options for applicants to complete biometrics or other documentation outside of Gaza and the West Bank; and to prioritize the evacuation and reunification of Palestinians in life-threatening circumstances. Finally, the petitioners urge the government to take real action so that the speed in processing applications meets the guidelines that have been set for Ukrainians.

Madam Speaker, the Liberals abruptly announced that they will end door-to-door mail delivery. The elderly and rural, remote and indigenous communities will have a hard time accessing their mail. Those who work nine to five will have to take time off work to get their mail. There is a better way forward. Instead of tearing down Canada Post, will the minister build it up by reintroducing postal banking, building an electric vehicle charging network and expanding its infrastructure by creating a community hub of services such as high-speed Internet, computer access, video conferencing and e-commerce support? Will the minister do the right thing?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Bourassa, for splitting his time with me. Cybersecurity is no longer a distant concern of experts in back rooms; it is a kitchen table issue. Canadians expect their lights to come on, their paycheque to be deposited, their medical records to be private and their phone to connect them to loved ones without interruption. They expect those things to be safe from hackers, hostile states, nefarious actors and, yes, overreach by their very own government. Cybersecurity is not an abstract concern; it is about whether families can trust their power grid to stay on, whether a rural clinic can keep its patient records safe and whether small businesses can keep their doors open without fear of being taken down by hackers. Canadians deserve real protections against cyber-threats. They are a reality in today’s world, and we all recognize that. In that respect, I acknowledge that Bill C-8 reflects a pressing reality: Canada must strengthen the resilience of our critical infrastructure. However, in our rush to act, we must also ensure that we get the right balance. If we protect our systems but undermine our rights, if we secure our networks but destabilize our economy, then we will have built a fortress with the doors left open. Bill C-8 as it stands raises several concerns. The Liberals tell us the bill is proof of their so-called innovation agenda, but when we look closely at the fine print, the reality is far more complicated. Bill C-8 is a near carbon copy of Bill C-26, a bill that died when Parliament was prorogued earlier this year, and while some minor improvements have been made, some fundamental flaws remain. This is where I would like to focus my remarks as I and my colleagues in the NDP consider the ramifications of the bill. Allow me to bring those questions forward with the hope of bringing some clarity and changes to the bill. First is the scope of ministerial powers. Under the bill, the Minister of Industry could compel telecommunications providers to rip out equipment, ban entire suppliers or suspend agreements. Imagine that a company might have to pass the costs of that on to its customers or close its doors entirely. While the minister explained that safeguards exist to prevent disproportionate orders from crippling providers and leaving rural Canadians disconnected, Bill C-8 would grant sweeping powers to cabinet and the Minister of Industry: powers to ban telecom companies from using certain equipment, to force its removal, to suspend services and to terminate contracts. These orders could be issued without prior judicial approval, without parliamentary review and without independent oversight. When we concentrate this much power in the hands of a single minister, we need checks and balances. Where are they in the bill? Second are the risks to privacy and civil liberties. The bill would allow for mandatory information sharing between telecoms, regulators and federal agencies, and possibly onward to foreign governments. The standard for this disclosure is simply the minister’s own judgment of what is “necessary”. This is vague, subjective and wide open to abuse. Why are there no requirements in the bill for privacy impact assessments? Why are there no guarantees that collected data would not be repurposed for unrelated purposes? Third is the absence of compensation or worker protection. If a company is ordered to rip out equipment or shut down services, there would be no compensation. For small Internet providers, that could mean bankruptcy. For their workers, it could mean layoffs. For rural and remote communities, it could mean disruptions in already fragile service. Where is the government’s plan to support the workers, providers and communities that would bear the costs of compliance? Fourth are the penalties. Bill C-8 envisions fines of up to $15 million a day for corporations and up to $1 million a day for individual employees. Think about that: A frontline worker following orders from management could face personal ruin under the regime. Where are the safeguards to ensure fairness, due process and appeal rights? Fifth is the one-size-fits-all approach. The bill would lump together banks, telecoms, nuclear facilities and energy co-operatives under a single compliance framework. All of them would face the same 90-day timeline to stand up cybersecurity programs, no matter their size or capacity. For large corporations, perhaps this is feasible, but for small operators or co-ops, it could be impossible. Should compliance obligations not be tailored to the realities of different sectors? Sixth are international consequences. Canada’s adequacy status under the European Union’s GDPR is the foundation of much of our digital economy. It is what allows European data to flow into Canadian systems, supporting banks, airlines and cloud providers, but the European Commission reviews adequacy every four years. If it sees that Canada is granting unchecked surveillance powers, or if it sees data repurposed without necessity and proportionality, we risk losing that adequacy decision. We have already seen what happened to the United States under Schrems II. Does the government truly want to put Canada in the same position? New Democrats agree that cybersecurity is essential, but cybersecurity must not come at the expense of democracy, accountability, privacy or fairness for workers and communities. Here are the questions we are putting on the record for the Minister of Public Safety and the government to answer. Why has the government chosen to concentrate so much power in cabinet without requiring independent judicial and parliamentary review? Why would there be no independent oversight body to ensure that orders are proportionate and justified? Why would the bill not guarantee privacy impact assessments or limit onward disclosure of Canadians’ personal data to foreign governments? Why has the government not proposed compensation or transition supports for workers and small providers who would bear the financial burden? Why would penalties be so extreme that individual employees could be personally liable for millions of dollars, even when following management orders? Why would the same compliance framework be applied to banks, nuclear facilities and small ISPs alike? Has the government conducted and published a risk assessment of how Bill C-8 could affect Canada’s adequacy standing with the European Union? The Liberals say the bill would modernize our telecom laws and defend Canada, but democracy must not be sacrificed in the process. Strong cybersecurity should also mean strong democracy. It should protect Canadians from foreign threats without opening the door to unchecked government overreach. New Democrats will continue to push for changes, independent oversight, stronger privacy protections, fair treatment for workers and communities, proportional penalties and sector-specific flexibility. We can protect Canadians from cyber-threats without trampling on rights, without ignoring workers and without undermining our economy. Bill C-8 is an opportunity to strike the right balance, but right now it does not seem well equipped to do that. Canadians want more answers, transparency and oversight from overreach, as we have seen the tendency of the new Prime Minister to move headlong toward centralization without considering the consequences for public policy and its effects on everyday Canadians.

Madam Speaker, yes, the bill, in the form of Bill C-26, has gone before Parliament. Some amendments were adopted, but having said that, I think more work needs to be done. I raised a series of questions in my speech. I would like answers from the government. I would like to hear experts respond to those concerns, and then we can move forward with amendments to address, truly, a bill that would balance the need to enhance cybersecurity infrastructure for Canadians with protecting our rights.

Madam Speaker, I cannot really answer why the government is doing what it is doing. It is doing many things I do not agree with, such as what it is doing with Canada Post right now. I cannot answer for the government. What I can do, though, is to raise these concerns again and to put them forward. I expect we will hear from expert witnesses at committee. I expect amendments will be put forward, and I hope they will be taken seriously. I hope we can work collaboratively, because cybersecurity for Canadians is really important, but so too are our rights and our democracy. We can strike the right balance. I really urge the government to stop centralizing all the power and making decisions behind closed doors and giving ministers, in this instance the Minister of Industry, this expansive power without transparency.

Madam Speaker, it is important to respect jurisdictional authority, and I am not sure if the government actually struck the right balance in this bill. I am not sure it has struck the right balance in ensuring that respect is in place, but more importantly, to respect the privacy rights and those measures the government put forward that meet the standard of transparency and accountability. There is a lot of stuff in this bill that comes without independent oversight, as an example. That is not good for Canadians; that is not good for anyone. We will see what happens at committee. I expect amendments will be put forward. The NDP does not have a seat at the committee table, but we will be watching to see how things progress and we will make a determination of how we can enhance Bill C-8 for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP fought tooth and nail for the $4-billion investment in the for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy, yet two years later, the money still has not flowed. Shovel-ready projects are stalled while the housing crisis for indigenous, Inuit and Métis peoples continues to escalate. In creating “build Canada homes”, the Prime Minister is admitting that CMHC is ill-equipped to deliver the much-needed affordable homes that Canadians need. Will the Prime Minister let Indigenous Services take over so it can do what is necessary for indigenous-led housing providers to access the funds to build the homes the community desperately needs?

Madam Speaker, I rise to table a petition with over 7,500 signatures from people across the country. At the time of the signing of the petition, the petitioners noted that the Israeli government's blockade of food and medicines to Gaza had continued for more than 90 days since its commencement on March 2, 2025; that, 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 are currently at emergency or catastrophic food deprivation; that Canada has ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which prohibit the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare; and that 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 petitioners are noting that Canada as a country needs to uphold international human rights laws to ensure our reputation as a country is not diminished by Canada's inaction in the face of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute by other nations. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to suspend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement until the Government of Canada is certain 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.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government abused its power one too many times by invoking section 107 of the Canada Labour Code as a back door to order striking workers back to work. It did it with rail, port and postal workers and tried to do it with Air Canada flight attendants. CUPE national fought back and defied the back-to-work order. Trade unions across the country stood firmly on the side of flight attendants to say that unpaid work does not fly. Will the minister respect the constitutional right of workers to free collective bargaining and repeal section 107 of the labour code, yes or no?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, otherwise known as the no more loopholes act. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for seconding this bill. Canada signed on to the Arms Trade Treaty with the promise that we would not allow our arms exports to contribute to war crimes or the violations of human rights. However, promises are not enough. Words are not enough. We need to close loopholes. We need accountability and we need transparency. Canada and arms exporters based here should never be complicit in fuelling war crimes, human rights abuses or the suffering of innocent people, yet right now, loopholes in our laws allow weapons, parts and technologies made here in Canada to end up in the hands of regimes that violate international law, commit atrocities and devastate communities. When Canada signed on to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019, the government exempted all exports to the United States from scrutiny. This loophole has become a back door for Canadian weapons, components and technologies to fuel some of the bloodiest conflicts on earth. This week on Parliament Hill, installations of children's shoes are on display as the names of children are read out to commemorate the deaths of 20,000 Palestinian children in Gaza. This bill is about closing those loopholes. It would make sure no country is exempt and that weapons, in part or in whole, cannot be exported under blanket permits. It would strengthen the criteria the minister must apply before approving any exports, would require clear end-use certificates and would bring in transparency by enhancing public reporting to Parliament. This legislation is about standing up for peace, human rights and justice. It is about making sure that Canadian weapons are never used to harm the very values we claim to defend, and it is about showing the world that Canada will live up to its commitments. Civil society organizations and legal experts have been calling for this legislation. I urge all members of the House to support this bill, because when it comes to protecting human rights and preventing war crimes, there can be no exceptions, no excuses. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP, I too rise to pay tribute to the late Hon. John McCallum. It has already been said in this place that he had many accomplishments. He was a recognized and respected economist; he was a recognized academic; he was a recognized parliamentarian; and of course he was a recognized diplomat. In the face of all that work and all that effort, though, before all of it, he was a son, a brother, a husband, a father, and a friend and colleague, and that is how I knew John: as a colleague in this place, as many, like me, have cited as their experience with John. Like them, in 2015, when I was first elected, John was also in this House. He was the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. I was the critic for the NDP, and as a newly elected member of Parliament, I was so often lost in this place. Shortly after the election, a constituent phoned me to ask for help on an immigration matter. It was actually a family who needed to come and see their dying father before they departed. In my eagerness to support them, I did not know what to do. I picked up the phone, I searched the directory and I called John's office. I left a message and I was not sure if anybody was even going to pick it up, because it was early days after the election. Lo and behold, John McCallum called me back, and he put his office and his staff onto it, even though he did not have very much staff, as he said to me. However, he put people onto it and ensured that they would do their best to support the family, and that he did. I will never forget that moment in time when a minister picked up a call and responded to a call from an opposition MP in helping their constituent. That kindness was something that I will never forget about John McCallum, that level of responsiveness that he took to the job and that respect he has shown not only to me as a colleague but more importantly to his role as the minister of immigration in respecting the needs of Canadians. That was the John McCallum I was reminded of when I heard about his passing. I then thought about his work. As he cited at the time, being the minister of immigration was a significant job, because the government was working through the Syrian refugee initiative. It was an ambitious initiative and it was a tough one to accomplish, and that he did. There were some missteps here and there and everywhere, as in all things that we try to do. John McCallum, though, took to the job with a sense of humility, I would say. He was not bragging about that work and he was also open to what he could learn and what I, as the opposition critic, could offer to help him do that job better. I offered many different suggestions, and in the Syrian refugee initiative, there were many lessons learned. One important lesson was for us to take in and utilize the knowledge of the communities of people who are new arrivals and have established themselves and have the language and cultural experience to welcome newcomers but do not really have a place in the established structure of resettlement services. I went to John and said, “Look, we should be leveraging the strength of all Canadians in this effort.” He said to me, “What do you think we should do?” I offered some suggestions, including helping these younger, newer organizations to build capacity, and for us to utilize their strength and harness their strength in the resettlement effort. That is exactly what he did. I appreciate a parliamentarian, a minister, who brings that kind of view to this place. After all, that is why we run for office. I am absolutely sure that was the reason John ran for office as well. It was to help Canadians so that we can support each other. The responsiveness of John as minister is something to be noted, but I also want to acknowledge something else. I remember when he left this place back on January 31, 2017, and he gave his final speech in Parliament. He looked back on what he felt was good, the things he accomplished, and he singled out two things in particular: “the nomination of Nelson Mandela to be an honorary citizen back in 2001 and, in particular, the Syrian refugees.” We should always remember that. Why it stood out is that it showed Canada's compassion and kindness, and it showed that Canada is different. In nominating Nelson Mandela, who is an icon of social justice, that is also what it stood for. Let me close with a quote. John McCallum said the following: what makes me really proud is not that we got the job done, although that is good, but that at a time when so many countries around the world are closing their doors to refugees, ordinary Canadians across this land have come out and have welcomed our newcomers with open hearts. That is what makes me very proud to be a Canadian. Those were the words of John McCallum in this place on his way out as a parliamentarian. For that, I honour you. I honour your work. I thank his family for his service to our community and for sharing him. Last but not least, I say let those words be a reminder of what we need to continue to do, especially during these very difficult times in the global community.

Madam Speaker, Bill C-2, the strong borders act, was introduced in June by the public safety minister. Framed as legislation to strengthen border security, fight fentanyl trafficking and address U.S. irritants, the 140-page omnibus bill would make sweeping changes across more than 11 existing acts, and it proposes a new framework for digital surveillance of Canadians. Many aspects of the bill have little or nothing to do with border security. The government is seeking unrelated powers it has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain in the past that present significant threats to human rights and civil liberties. Bill C-2 is not about safety; it is about normalizing surveillance, criminalizing migration, bypassing Parliament and public debate, and attacking Canadians' privacy and charter rights. It would undermine due process, and it is a power grab. The Liberal government's new strong borders act is one of the most serious threats to Canadians' civil liberties we have seen in years. It makes Stephen Harper's infamous Bill C-51 look tame by comparison. Framed as a national security measure, the legislation would give sweeping new powers to police and intelligence agencies, powers that would override long-standing privacy protections and skirt judicial oversight. At the heart of Bill C-2 is a deeply troubling expansion of warrantless surveillance. Under the proposed law, the RCMP, CSIS and even undefined “public officers” would be able to demand personal information from a wide range of service providers without ever going before a judge. This includes doctors, banks, landlords, schools and even psychiatrists, and the list can go on. Let that sink in for one minute. Government agencies could make information demands for when and how long someone has accessed service from a provider or an associate provider related to that service. This of course means that government agencies would know where the provider is located and the timeline, how often and for how long someone has sought service from the provider. Under the bill, the government would be able to access online activity that someone is engaged in, without having to justify it to a court. These kinds of unchecked powers are ripe for abuse, and historically, we know who pays the highest price. When governments start cutting corners on civil liberties, it is often racialized, low-income, marginalized communities that bear the brunt, but they will not be the only ones. We all would be under this kind of scrutiny. Even more alarming, Bill C-2 would open the door to increased information sharing with foreign governments, including the United States. Ottawa is currently in talks to join the U.S.' CLOUD Act, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, which would allow U.S. law enforcement to access Canadian data stored on servers abroad. That could include deeply personal records, such as whether someone accessed abortion services. In a post-Roe America, where abortion is criminalized in several states and reproductive health is under surveillance, this is profoundly dangerous. In the Trump era, where the LGBTQ2IA+ community is under attack, this is extremely dangerous. Canadians should never have to worry that their personal medical decisions might be exposed to another country's government, yet the bill makes that possibility very real. Matt Hatfield of OpenMedia critiqued Bill C-2 for having an “astonishing scope of who can receive data demands without a warrant that is unprecedented in Canada.” He is right; we have never seen anything quite like this in Canada being pushed through. It is alarming. It is American-style surveillance creeping north of the border. Canadians were warned about this during the last election. Did the Prime Minister, during the election, tell any Canadians that this is what he was going to do? No, and all of this is to appease Trump. Groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group are sounding the alarm. They are rightly pointing out that Bill C-2 threatens charter-protected rights to privacy and to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. These are not abstract concerns; these are rights that go to the heart of a free and democratic society. If the Prime Minister and the public safety minister are serious about protecting those rights, they must scrap the bill and send it back to the drawing board. It should not be brought forward as an omnibus bill. If they want to address border safety, they should bring forward a bill that addresses border safety. If they want to address fentanyl trafficking, they should bring forward a bill that addresses fentanyl trafficking. They should not lump them in with a 140-page bill and sneak in provisions that would turn Canada into a surveillance state. Of course we all want safety. Communities want safety, and we want secure borders. However, we already have existing legal tools, like warrants and court orders, that respect civil liberties and let law enforcement do its job while still protecting civil liberties. Stripping away judicial oversight is not the answer, and that is not how we do things in a democracy. The public safety minister, in an op-ed about refugee asylum seekers, in 2016, wrote the following: Our country will never be the same again, and collectively our doors should always be open, not just to those who come to our shores, but those taking extraordinary risks to cross other shores in search of refuge. We must understand that people in normal circumstances do not risk their lives—and the lives of their families—to [flee] for reasons such as economic stability. They do so out of desperation and as a last resort. Now, as minister, he is putting up walls and barriers through the legislation. Yes, refugees and those who need safety are under attack under the bill. Bill C-2 would deny hearings entirely to refugees from the United States, block applications from those who have been in Canada over a year, and ignore risks of persecution, torture or even death. It echoes Trump's asylum policies, and if I might add, there are over 150 Canadians in ICE detention right now. What is the government doing? Nothing. We have heard nothing about what the government is doing with Canadians who are held in ICE detention in the United States. Bill C-2 is not about border security; it is about expanding government surveillance. It threatens to chill freedom of expression, erode trust in doctors and service providers, and normalize the sharing of personal information with foreign powers. Canadians deserve better. We cannot allow democratic norms in Canada to become roadkill under pressure from an increasingly authoritarian and unhinged American president. This is not the Canada I know. This is not the Canada I think Canadians voted for. I call on every member of the House to vote against the bill and send the government back to the drawing board.

Madam Speaker, not all people with a visa who are here in Canada want to claim refugee status. Some of them are actually seeking permanent resident status. Some of them are having their permits extended. What has happened with our immigration system is the mismanagement of the system by the Liberal government. In fact, I remember that both the Liberals and Conservatives called for an expansion of temporary foreign workers. The NDP members were the only ones who said, “No, wait a minute; we should not be doing that.” The NDP members were the only ones who actually said that if we need more workers here in Canada, we should make sure we go through the proper process, which includes allowing them to get permanent resident status on arrival. Let us meet our labour demands for the full range of workers, the low-skilled, medium-skilled and high-skilled, and not just what the government has right now, targeting the high-skilled workers and then pushing the rest of them through the temporary foreign workers process. This needs to be looked at in a serious way, and it should be dealt with in a fair way so that all workers are valued here in Canada and are not subject to exploitation.

Madam Speaker, the NDP's view of the bill is that it should actually be scrapped entirely. The government is trying to shove through a whole variety of different things in an omnibus bill, a 140-page bill, stripping Canadians of their basic charter rights and stripping due process, all in the name of border security. If the government wants to tackle safer borders, it should bring forward a bill that specifically talks about that. We could examine it, study it and then debate it and determine whether it should be amended and passed. If the government wants to address criminality, it should bring forward a bill on trafficking, on criminality specifically, not shove it all under a bill that is 140 pages long, with provisions that have nothing to do with border security, that have nothing to do with criminality and that have everything to do with tackling and violating Canadians' basic civil liberties and expanding the government's surveillance capabilities on Canadians. That is wrong.

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's Special Immigration Measure to facilitate temporary resident visas for certain extended family of citizens and permanent residents in Gaza, which began on January 9, 2024: (a) how many applications have been received under the Special Immigration Measure and how many individuals are accounted for in total among these applications; (b) how many of these applications have been accepted into processing and how many individuals are accounted for, in total, among these applications; (c) how many applications have been refused, broken down by reasoning for their refusal; (d) how many temporary resident visas have been issued to individuals under the Special Immigration Measure since its inception; (e) how many temporary resident visa applications have been made by Palestinian passport holders in Gaza outside of the Special Immigration Measure, since October 7, 2023, broken down by (i) how many have been accepted into processing, (ii) how many temporary resident visas have been issued outside the Special Immigration Measure and how many of these individuals have landed in Canada, (iii) how many temporary resident visa applications outside the Special Immigration Measure have been refused, broken down by reason for refusal; (f) for how many individuals covered by the Special Immigration Measure has the government successfully facilitated exit from Gaza; (g) what diplomatic efforts, if any, have been undertaken by the government to negotiate safe passage for individuals covered under the Special Immigration Measure with the governments of Israel and Egypt; (h) has the department conducted any evaluations or received reports on how the Special Immigration Measure for Gazans compares to other temporary public policies, such as the 2022 special immigration measures for Ukrainians, in terms of accessibility and outcomes, and, if so, what are the key findings; (i) what measures have been implemented to ensure that anti-Palestinian racism is not influencing the design or administration of the Special Immigration Measure for Gazans, and how does this align with the government’s broader anti-racism strategy; (j) what policy considerations led to the specific dimensions of the temporary public policy that opened on January 9, 2024, including the 1,000-visa quota, the gradual and slow issuance of access codes, selection of applicants that were prioritized to receive access codes, and information requested on screening forms; and (k) has the government engaged with Canadian or international human rights organizations to address criticisms of the Special Immigration Measure for Gazans and identify opportunities for improvement, and, if so, (i) which organizations have been consulted, (ii) to what extent were these organizations consulted, (iii) what has been the outcome of these engagements?

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's pathway for Colombian, Haitian and Venezuelan nationals: (a) how many individuals have been admitted to Canada under this special immigration measure to date, broken down by nationality; (b) what are the initial settlement locations of individuals admitted under the special immigration measure, broken down by province and territory; (c) what specific eligibility criteria were applied to assess applicants under this policy, specifically regarding evidence of displacement or vulnerability to displacement; (d) was there any mechanism implemented to verify whether applicants had been displaced or forcibly displaced or otherwise affected by conditions cited as justification for this policy; (e) why did the government reduce its initial commitment for this humanitarian measure from 15,000 persons to 11,000 persons, and what were the factors that influenced this decision; and (f) did the government consult with international organizations, humanitarian organizations, or Canadian civil society in the development of this policy, and, if so, (i) which organizations were consulted, (ii) what was the extent of those consultations, (iii) what feedback or recommendations from those consultations were incorporated?

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's settlement and resettlement services: (a) what is the national budget for settlement services for each fiscal year starting from 2024-25 and the subsequent three years to 2027-28, aligned with the three-year Immigration Levels Plan, broken down by (i) category or type of service (i.e. language training, information and referrals, integration support services, employment related support services, etc., including Francophone, rural and remote targets), (ii) municipality, (iii) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (iv) province or territory; (b) what are the projected national budgets for settlement services for the following five fiscal years, broken down by (i) category or type of service, (ii) municipality, (iii) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (iv) province or territory; (c) what is the current Settlement Allocation Model and permanent residency data used for the last five years and next three years to allocate funding to each region; (d) have there been any modifications to the Settlement Allocation Model since 2022, and, if so, what are the changes and how did they impact funding levels, broken down by (i) category or type of service, (ii) municipality, (iii) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (iv) province or territory; (e) if there haven't been any modifications to the Settlement Allocation Model since 2022, does the department intend that this model remain in use to determine the funding allocations in 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28; (f) how many new service providers received funding in the most recent Call for Proposals in comparison to Call for Proposals 2019, broken down by (i) category or type of service, (ii) municipality, (iii) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (iv) province or territory; (g) was funding for new service providers added to the existing national settlement budget, or was the budget increased to include new providers; (h) regarding the most recent Call for Proposals, how many existing service providers experienced funding reductions, broken down by (i) category or type of service, (ii) reduction by percentage, (iii) municipality, (iv) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (v) province or territory; (i) regarding the most recent Call for Proposals, how many service providers did not receive funding as a result of not having their contracts renewed, broken down by (i) category or type of service, (ii) municipality, (iii) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada region, (iv) province or territory; (j) what strategies has the department implemented to transition clients from one service provider to another, in instances where contracts have not been renewed or funding has been reallocated, including settlement supports to displaced Ukrainians on Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel visas that must transition out of support by March 31, 2025, broken down by (i) service delivery model (i.e. in-person, remote, online), (ii) when it will be operationalized; (k) what policy changes is the department undertaking to the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada in the 2025-28 funding period; and (l) will the government continue to offer Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada first and second stage classes to permanent residents wishing to enter the labour market?

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the discussion and the debate about Bill C-3. This morning the bill was debated, and I listened intently to the debate back and forth, which was primarily from Conservative members. I actually did not even hear, from the members who stood, about the purpose of the bill, why we are here and the remedy that Bill C-3 is proposing. Let me start with that. Why are we here, and what is Bill C-3 all about? First, Bill C-3 is a piece of legislation attempting to correct a wrong. It is attempting to make Canada's citizenship laws charter-compliant. In fact, Canada's citizenship laws have not been charter-compliant for decades. Why is that? It is because we have a set of archaic immigration citizenship rules. Somewhere along the way through the history, and more specifically pertaining to the piece of legislation before us, in 2006, the Conservatives, under the Harper administration, saw fit to take away citizenship rights for those who are the second generation born abroad. The Harper government took away the rights of Canadian citizens who are the first generation born abroad to pass on their citizenship to their children who were also born abroad. If an immigrant who became a Canadian were to have a child outside of Canada, they could not pass on their citizenship to their child. That citizenship right was stripped away for Canadians by the Conservatives. As a result, many people had to separate themselves from their families, and some children were even born stateless. Canada is a global country. We go abroad to work, to study and to travel, and, guess what, as life would have it, sometimes we fall in love. Sometimes we marry people abroad. Sometimes we have children abroad. If this happened to a second-generation born-abroad child, they would not have Canadian citizenship rights. The matter was actually challenged in the courts. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that it was in violation of charter rights, and the government had to remedy that. In the last Parliament, there were several attempts to try to fix this. In fact, Senator Yonah Martin brought in a Senate bill to try to fix it. Through much debate, much effort and much collaboration, I, as the immigration critic for the NDP, raised the matter and worked with the government to bring forward amendments to fix the bill and fix the charter violation, and we did. We went through a whole series of discussions, lengthy debates and committee work, and we came through with a number of amendments, which passed, but then the bill never had third reading in the House. Why is that? It is because the Conservatives filibustered the debate and used a whole bunch of rules and tactics that delayed that debate, and it never came back. In the midst of all of that, I said to the government that if it wanted to make sure Canada's citizenship rules were charter-compliant, it needed to bring forward a government bill. It agreed. Conservatives, by the way, at the time actually said that if the government brought forward a bill, they would support it. The government brought forward a bill, and what happened? There were more games played. The Conservatives again filibustered the House, and Bill C-71 was never actually passed. Here we are again, with Bill C-3, for the third round, still trying to fix the situation where the judge ruled that Canada's citizenship law is unconstitutional. It is not charter-compliant. The court had to give the government multiple extensions to fix the situation. This is why we are here today. If the first-generation born-abroad Canadians decide to go abroad and have a child, they cannot pass on their Canadian citizenship to their child at all, and, of course, they run the risk of rendering their child stateless. The Bjorkquist decision held that the second-generation cut-off violates section 15 by discriminating against first-generation born-abroad women more particularly, stating: [The cut-off] disadvantages pregnant first-generation born abroad women who are living abroad when they get pregnant by placing them in the position where they have to make choices between their careers, financial stability and independence, and health care on the one hand, and the ability to ensure their child receives Canadian citizenship on the other. Women's reproductive autonomy and family planning are extremely time-sensitive, and the Conservatives' legal impediment to exercising this freedom comes at a human cost to women, parents and children. This is the reality. An estimated 170,000 women born abroad in the age range when people often start a family are being affected by the current law. As reported, the justice said in her June decision that “these are not ‘theoretical or minor constitutional violations’ but ones that could lead to ‘children being stateless.’” She went on to say: They can lead to women having to make choices between their financial health and independence on one hand, and their physical health on the other. They can separate families.... They can force children to stay in places that are unsafe for them. They can interfere with some of the deepest and most profound connections that human beings both enjoy and need. That is why we are here today. This is what we are trying to fix. What I heard the Conservatives talk about was the connections test, that somehow these Canadian citizenship rights are deemed not to be rights. They somehow treat it that one has to earn one's citizenship back. However, if people are Canadian, they have Canadian birthrights that are being passed on. These are not immigrants per se, trying to get their citizenship through an immigration process. These are their birthrights. The connections test in this remedy is that they have to establish and show they have a connection to Canada. The substantial connections test in the legislation requires they have some connection in Canada, having been here for 1,095 days nonconsecutively, because people travel. They move and work abroad. Therefore, they have to show a connections test of 1,095 days nonconsecutively. I have heard the Conservatives say that there should be a criminality test. Would they apply a criminality test to Canadians who were born in Canada to say that if they commit an offence, they will lose their birthright of being Canadian? No. We have the judicial system that we can go through to deal with that. If there are criminality issues, a person would then go before a judge and the process would follow as it should. It is time for us to fix this problem once and for all. Canada's immigration citizenship laws should be charter-compliant to respect the rights of women and women who have children abroad and to respect the rights of all Canadians who travel abroad. We are global citizens; we work and travel abroad. It is time that we honour all of our rights as equal in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have been championing the work of the government and want to say to the government that we need to make sure Canada's immigration and citizenship laws are charter-compliant. I have carried this file for more than a decade. The Conservatives first brought it forward in 2006, so it has been 16 years that our charter rights have been violated. I am asking the government and urging the government to fix this, working through a Senate bill and working with the government on a government-introduced bill. We are here again doing that. It is incumbent on all members of Parliament to work collaboratively to honour the rights of all Canadians and to treat each other respectfully and equally. All Canadians are Canadians, period.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is exactly the kind of politics and approach that Canadians rejected. That is why the Conservatives are sitting on that side of the House, and that is why their leader lost his own seat. There had to be a by-election for him to win his seat back. However, I am not here for any of that. It does not matter that the NDP has only seven seats in the House. I am going to do what is right for Canadians. I will continue to champion the rights of all Canadians. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We should all be treated equally and not in the way the Conservatives want, which is to strip away the rights of women. That is what they did in 2006, and it has been ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional. That is why I am here to champion this and to make sure that this gets fixed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question; he is absolutely right. The NDP work collaboratively with the Bloc, and they are absolutely onside to respect the constitutional rights of all Canadians, particularly women. We have debated this matter. In fact, this very issue went before committee for 30 hours. We debated the matter at committee at length. We already debated it in the House for not one round, but two rounds. This should be made law. There is no—

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding the government's Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act. Standing Order 69.1(1) states: In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. In the case of Bill C-5, the bill would enact two separate laws. Part 1 would establish the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and part 2 would create the building Canada act. As stated in Bill C-5, part 1, “establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada.” I want to pause here for a minute. A member just crossed in front of me twice as I was speaking, which is against the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I take it that you will note that for later on. I will continue on with my point of order. Part 1 states, “It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.” The purpose of part 1 is to remove domestic trade barriers. In other words, it is an act to promote free trade and labour mobility within Canada. This was reinforced in the Minister of Transport's speech in reference to part 1 of the bill, when she succinctly said, “This is why it is so essential for us to press ahead with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen, delivering...free trade in Canada.” She also stated, “Free trade in our own country is a great idea whose time has come.” Part 2, on the other hand, would be established so that projects deemed to be of “national interest are advanced through an accelerated process”. It is about the development of large-scale projects and the following is stated in the bill: The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples. The government House leader, in his speech, stated, “Through the building Canada act, this bill will simplify federal review and approval processes for major infrastructure projects.” Part 2 of Bill C-5 has nothing to do with internal trade. These two parts of the bill should be treated as two separate bills. In a ruling by Speaker Regan on March 1, 2018, he quoted the following: “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.” The former House leader of the Bloc Québécois and former member for La Prairie—Atateken knew of this since it is from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec. Speaker Regan continued as follows: While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House. We find ourselves in a similar situation here. While the measures in Bill C-5 are broadly related to Canada's economy, part 1 is distinct from part 2. Therefore, it would certainly be appropriate to divide part 1 and part 2 of this bill for the vote. The Speaker has that authority, and that would make it possible for members to better represent their constituents by voting separately on these bills, which are quite different from one another. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ever-diligent and vociferous attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and holding the government to account. The government, and particularly the member for Winnipeg North, seems to claim that under this bill, part 2 of the bill, it actually respects indigenous rights through its consultation provisions. The Liberals seem to be oblivious about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the consultation requirements stipulated in that. I wonder if the member can enlighten, particularly, the member for Winnipeg North.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for tabling this bill. A similar bill was before the last Parliament, and the Conservatives filibustered the House, preventing it from getting to third reading, prompting the courts to yet again extend another extension to get the law passed so that Canada's immigration Citizenship Act would be charter-compliant. What are the minister's thoughts about the Conservatives' tactics when they first took away lost Canadians' rights to have citizenship passed on to their children, then filibustered it in the last Parliament and are now speaking against it once again?

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the private member's bill from Senator Yonah Martin. Of course, that bill was amended, which Conservatives opposed and filibustered at committee. The government then tabled Bill C-71, to which the Conservatives said it needed to be a government bill with all those changes. The government did, in fact, belatedly table Bill C-71 in the House. Conservatives then filibustered that. We now have Bill C-3, and Conservatives are now saying they do not support it. My question for the member is this: Why are the Conservatives so persistent in trying to prevent Canada's Citizenship Act from being charter-compliant and having the gender discrimination component within it, as it applies to lost Canadians, rectified?

Mr. Speaker, I too worked well with my hon. colleague on the immigration committee in previous Parliaments. With this particular bill, Bill C-3, which is substantively the same as Bill C-71, Canada will finally be charter-compliant with the gender discrimination components of the Citizenship Act. Is that not something we should actually act on? On the question around substantial connections, there are provisions in the bill that speak to substantial connections. To his point that people actually—

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal and Conservative coalition joined hands to fast-track Bill C-5 to bypass environmental reviews, ignore provincial jurisdiction and trample on the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples. Ontario chiefs are rejecting Bill C-5. UBCIC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip called it a “complete betrayal of Canada’s commitments under the UN Declaration [on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]”. The assembly unanimously condemned the bill and is calling for its immediate withdrawal. Chiefs across the country are saying, “nothing's off the table” if the bill is passed. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-5?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, An Act to establish the Office of the Ombud for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a private member's bill to establish an independent ombud office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, with a mandate to examine the department's practices to ensure that they are fair, equitable, unbiased, non-racist and non-discriminatory. I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for seconding the bill and for defending the values of fairness, justice and equality. New Democrats know that immigration is an exercise in nation building, but shortcomings in addressing biases, unfairness and racism at IRCC undermine this goal. If passed, the bill would create a dedicated oversight body to ensure fairness and accountability within IRCC and an ombud office that could serve as an impartial entity to address individual complaints and concerns, which is a gap in the system that every member in this House will know about. This office would also have a mandate to review concerns about differential treatment and discriminatory practices within IRCC and be empowered to look at trends and patterns to identify systemic issues. Trust in Canada's immigration system depends upon its being just, effective and equitable for all. I hope all members of this House will agree and support the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-213, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (cessation of refugee protection). Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a private member's bill to repeal the unjust and unfair Conservative laws targeting refugees and protected persons in Canada. Again, I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for seconding the bill. In 2012, the Conservatives brought in Bill C-31, an unjust and punitive bill. It amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by giving CBSA and the Department of Justice the power to retroactively bring cessation applications against permanent residents of Canada if refugees and protected persons have to re-avail themselves of protection after temporarily travelling back to their country of origin. That means people are unable to travel back for any reason. No matter how much time has passed, whether the conditions in their country have changed or whether they have resettled permanently in Canada, had children and established their families in the community, they cannot travel back, even to visit a dying loved one for a last time, without risking the loss of their permanent status. These cessation provisions are wrong and unjust. I hope the members in this House will support the bill and bring forward just policies for refugees. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, in light of the humanitarian crisis and genocide taking place in Gaza, the petitioners are calling for the government to publicly and unequivocally reject the militarized aid model currently used in Palestine; demand the full restoration of access for UN agencies and established humanitarian NGOs, including UNRWA and the World Food Programme; insist on safe and immediate entry for Canadian health care workers and other international humanitarian personnel to Palestine; withhold Canadian funding from any entity or model that does not comply with the principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence and humanity; and, lastly, ensure that all Canadian aid to Gaza is delivered through internationally recognized humanitarian channels.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 would give unprecedented powers, without judicial review or a warrant, to the RCMP or CSIS to access information or demand information from any service provider in the country. It does not matter if it is someone's doctor, dentist, landlord, bank or psychiatrist. It does not matter who it is. They can demand information about when someone went to see them and for how long they have seen them. This has nothing to do with border security. How could the member possibly defend this violation of Canadians' privacy?

Mr. Speaker, the bill is purported to be a measure to address border security, fentanyl, car theft and so on, yet the Conservatives, of course, cancelled the port police, which caused part of the problem. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, and they have not restored the port police. In my riding of Vancouver East, we see the drugs coming in and see the crime, which are impacting our country, so my question to the member is this: Would he support the call to bring back the port police for border security?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Pierre Poilievre both want to roll out the red carpet for Prime Minister Modi to attend the G7 summit in Canada, knowing that Modi refused to co-operate with the RCMP in the investigation of the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and other homicides on Canadian soil. The Prime Minister will not say if he knew that Jagmeet Singh's life was in danger or that he was under surveillance by gang members suspected of working for the Indian government. Poilievre's excuse is that he refused to get the security clearance, but the Prime Minister has none. Will the Prime Minister rescind the invitation and demand India's full co-operation in the Nijjar murder and other cases?

Mr. Speaker, the so-called stronger borders act makes Harper's Bill C-51 look like child's play. Bill C-2 is a sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties. It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight. This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple. It is a violation of our privacy, and it will be challenged in court. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, respect the charter, and withdraw this dangerous bill?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-205, An Act to amend the National Housing Strategy Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's bill to amend the National Housing Strategy Act. I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for seconding the bill. She is always a clear voice for making sure that human rights and the inherent rights of indigenous peoples are respected in action. Canadian law states that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right, yet we know that is not happening. In Vancouver, homelessness has grown by at least one-third in the last three years. In Halifax, homelessness doubled in the last year. When people do not have adequate housing or cannot afford rent, they are forced to live in danger on the street, yet the current government's plan to fund developers for more private-market housing would not solve the housing crisis, not when 30 years of market-based solutions have already proven a failure. We need a human rights approach, and the government needs to build homes that people can actually afford. If we do not, encampments for unhoused people across the country will only keep growing. In Vancouver East, we have seen how forced encampment and eviction destabilize people, push them deeper into trauma and threaten the safety of encampment residents and the wider community alike. The bill would amend the National Housing Strategy Act based on the federal housing advocate's advice to prohibit forced encampments on federal land. The bill would require the federal government to consult with other levels of government and to involve indigenous peoples and encampment residents so that they are able to access housing alternatives other than forced encampments. I hope all members of the House will support the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52(2), I am seeking leave to propose an emergency debate regarding the discriminatory U.S. travel ban announced by President Donald Trump, which came into effect at 12.01 a.m. today. The sweeping travel ban bars entry to the United States from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Additional partial travel restrictions have been imposed on Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. This is a deeply troubling and discriminatory policy that disproportionately targets countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and South America, many with large Black and Muslim populations, or those deemed “anti-American” under vague ideological criteria. A former Biden administration official at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services called it “a misguided concept of collective punishment”. It echoes the xenophobic and Islamophobic Muslim ban from Trump's first term and raises serious human rights concerns. Many Canadians have family, work or study ties in countries facing a travel ban in the United States. Dual nationals, cross-border families and individuals from affected communities are already experiencing fear and confusion. Human rights organizations report widespread concern and uncertainty. Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnès Callamard, in response to the travel ban, said: Trump’s new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel. By targeting people based on their race, religion, or nationality, from countries with predominantly Black, Brown and Muslim-majority populations, this blanket ban constitutes racial discrimination under international human rights law. It also spreads hate and disinformation, reinforcing the misleading idea that certain populations are more likely to pose security risks or engage in acts of violence. Canada has a duty to respond. This is especially urgent given that the government has signed the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States. Urgent action is required on Canada's diplomatic and policy response to the new U.S. restrictions to protect the rights of Canadians and for Canada to ensure a human rights approach to protect vulnerable communities. I hope that this request will be granted.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech indicates that the government is going to cap spending, the rate of increase of 9%, at 2%, so that is a 7% reduction. In light of the government's commitment to raising military spending to 2% of NATO, that is a $20-billion gap that needs to be made up, so my question to the member is this: Is he at all concerned that there will be service cuts to Canadians, many of whom are vulnerable, from vulnerable populations, who rely on government services?