Jenny Kwan

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the summer, the government consulted with unions and labour organizations. Federal unions have been calling for section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to be removed, after the government has used it to order workers back to work, undermining the collective bargaining process, at least 10 times. Now the government is proposing new language around section 107 and calling these changes “guardrails”, but unions are telling us that these changes could potentially weaken workers' bargaining power. If organized labour did not ask for these changes, who does the member think did request these changes? Would it be the big corporations?

Mr. Speaker, an environmental organization has warned that Bill C-39 would create sacrifice zones, where communities are expected to bear the pollution and environmental risks of projects deemed to be in the national interest. Will the government actually guarantee that no communities will be subject to making those sacrifices of health and environment as a result of fast-tracking projects under Bill C-39?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are clear that Canada is not for sale. The Liberals claim they are not selling off Canada's assets, but the doublespeak is deafening. The Prime Minister says he is not privatizing airports, yet he is inviting private investors to take over their operations, collect massive profits and make travel more expensive. In other words, it is privatization. The minister says ports will not be privatized, but in reality, they are opening the door to every aspect of port operations to private investors. Will the minister just admit that terms like “financial flexibility” and “modernization” are just code for privatization?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are asking for the government to terminate the safe third country agreement in accordance with article 10 of the agreement and, finally, to instruct the Canada Border Services Agency to change its policy so that it no longer enforces the safe third country agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous peoples harmed by Canada's colonial systems. They were promised by Indigenous Services Canada that they would receive confirmation for their two-year funding by mid-May. Today there has been no action and their funding ends on July 1. Can the parliamentary secretary explain why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back and think they are doing so well, because their focus is all on the big corporations. It is about the CEOs. The government is shovelling support to all of them, but everyday Canadians are all being left behind. The fact is that the divide in wealth is becoming greater and greater between the haves and—

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

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

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

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