Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it was good to see my colleague up on his feet today, although he certainly did not talk positively about Toronto. Given the fact that this member and I both share areas of the city of Toronto, we respect and acknowledge some of the challenges that have happened, but I would suggest that Bill C-39 is exactly the kind of bill that needs to come forward to help cities like Toronto, Vancouver and so on, so that we will be able to move things along faster. Many of the complaints and comments my colleague made were about that very issue of having to move things forward, whether energy, infrastructure or housing. All of those things are going to be happening much faster now, especially once, with the member's help, we pass Bill C-39. I would like to have some additional comments on that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition calling on the government to assist Canadians who are detained abroad and who rely on the government not only for documentation, but for meaningful, timely protection when their life, health and dignity are at risk. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to establish an independent public inquiry or commissioner-style investigation, with findings formally reported to Parliament, looking into how Canada responds when detained Canadians face sustained medical or humanitarian emergencies abroad. They also call on the government to strengthen parliamentary oversight and reporting mechanisms to ensure transparency, accountability and public confidence in consular decision-making.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's hearts are broken at the loss of two of our frontline police officers, two brave individuals who gave their lives protecting our communities. Our frontline officers put themselves in harm's way every single day to keep us all safe, and this tragedy is being deeply felt across the entire policing community and by all Canadians. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety speak to the courage and sacrifice of these two officers?

Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians live with vision and eye health problems. During the last Parliament, I was pleased that my private member's bill, the National Strategy for Eye Care Act, passed both the House and the Senate unanimously. Thanks to this bill, we are putting a real focus on preventing and treating eye disease and ensuring better outcomes for all Canadians. Can the Minister of Health please tell the House how our government is leading a coordinated response to vision loss care?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite all parliamentarians to join us this evening for a special screening of Nekai Walks, hosted with our trusted partners at YAAACE, an organization doing extraordinary work with young people in Toronto. Taking place later today in Wellington 310, this powerful documentary tells the story of resilience, recovery and community in the face of gun violence. As we approach the National Day Against Gun Violence, on June 5, the film offers a timely and deeply meaningful opportunity to reflect and to learn. I am especially pleased to welcome to the Hill, Devon Jones, founding director of YAAACE; Nekai Foster, the young man at the heart of this film; and the film's director, Rico King. I encourage all of my colleagues to attend this important and inspiring event.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is great to see you in the chair. I am pleased today to rise in support of Bill C-16 the protecting victims act. At its core, this legislation reflects something very fundamental: that our justice system must do much more to protect those who are the most vulnerable, especially children and survivors of violence; and that it must adapt to reflect the realities that they face today. Before I speak to the details of the bill, I do want to begin by acknowledging the strength and the courage of survivors. The member for Niagara South, last week or the week before, hosted a meeting that many of us were invited to and we listened to half a dozen women who were victims. They were there to speak of their position as being victims of sexual violence and so on, but also of their concerns that the perpetrators were not getting strong enough sentences. The victims have a life sentence because they will carry that abuse for their entire life, whereas the abusers seem to get very minimal sentences of 18 months or two years, which seem so very minimal. I very much agree with those individuals who were speaking. They were still very distraught about what had happened to them many years before and frustrated by the lack of penalties for the abusers. Whether the issue for those who came forward to tell stories is intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation or abuse of children, they want change and that is what Bill C-16 would bring. Their experiences were deeply moving and their points were well received. They are a powerful reminder that our justice system must continue to evolve, not in theory but in practice, so that it truly meets the needs of those it is meant to protect. Bill C-16 represents one of the most significant updates to our criminal justice system in generations. It would do so through four clear objectives: tackling gender-based violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. Each of these pillars speaks directly to issues that the survivors I heard from two weeks ago, advocates and experts have been raising for years. First, with respect to gender-based violence, this bill would recognize something that has too often been overlooked: that violence does not begin with physical harm. It often begins, as my other colleagues have mentioned, with patterns of control, including coercion, intimidation and manipulation, that escalate over time. By introducing a new offence for coercive and controlling conduct, this legislation would allow earlier intervention before violence becomes lethal. This is critical. It reflects again what survivors and frontline organizations have told us, which is that warning signs are often present but we have not always had the legal tools to respond to them. The bill would also ensure that murders committed in contexts such as coercive control, sexual violence or exploitation are recognized with the seriousness that they warrant. These are not isolated acts. They are part of a continuum of violence. This legislation would begin to reflect that reality in law. Second, with respect to protecting children, the need for action is urgent. We know that the nature of exploitation has changed. Predators are increasingly using digital platforms to groom, manipulate and extort children. Bill C-16 responds directly to those threats. It would strengthen offences related to child luring and sextortion; criminalize emerging forms of abuse, including the use of threats and digital content; and reinforce accountability through stronger penalties. It would also ensure that law enforcement and the justice system would be equipped to respond to the new technologies, including the use of AI-generated sexual deepfakes, which can be used to exploit and harm victims. For children and families navigating these deeply traumatic experiences, these measures are not abstract. They are essential protections. Third, this legislation would strengthen victims' rights. We know that, for many victims, the justice system can be overwhelming. Victims often struggle to access information, to understand processes and to have their voices heard. Bill C-16 would build on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by improving access to information, expanding participation and ensuring that victims are treated with dignity and respect. It would also expand access to supports such as testimonial aids, helping reduce the risk of retraumatization when individuals come forward. These are practical changes, but they are also deeply meaningful. They would help ensure that victims are not simply observers in the justice process, but participants whose experiences matter. Fourth, and critically, the bill addresses court delays. Delays are not just procedural issues. They have real consequences. We have seen serious cases, including those involving sexual violence, collapse entirely because of delays. For victims, this can be devastating. It can mean that after coming forward, after reliving their trauma, there is no resolution and no accountability. Bill C-16 introduces measures to reduce these outcomes, requiring courts to consider alternatives before stays of proceedings, streamlining procedures and clarifying just how these delays are assessed. These changes in Bill C-16 are about ensuring that cases are heard and that justice is not lost to process. What is important about this legislation, as well, is not just any single measure, but its collective impact. The bill recognizes that violence today is complex and evolving. It reflects the rise of digital exploitation affecting our children, the realities of coercive control, the vulnerabilities of children online and the ongoing challenges victims face within the system. It also responds to what we have heard from commissions, experts and communities across the country that earlier intervention, stronger protections and a more responsive justice system are needed. At the same time, it is important to ground this work in principle. We must ensure that victims are treated with care, dignity and compassion. We must ensure that those who come forward are supported, informed and respected throughout the process. We must continue building a system where survivors can have confidence not only that they will be heard, but that the system will respond in an appropriate manner. No single piece of legislation will resolve all the challenges. We know there are gaps that will remain. We also know that continued investment in prevention, in services and in supports will always be essential, but legislation like Bill C-16 is a critical part of that work. It provides the tools. It sets the standards and it signals clearly that protecting victims, especially children, is not optional. It is a fundamental responsibility of us all. I am proud to be part of a government that is taking meaningful steps, both in law and in practice. I appreciate the fact that the opposition is supporting this bill and has helped move it along. In closing, this bill is more than legal reform. It is about ensuring that survivors are heard, victims are protected, and those women who I met from Niagara South two weeks ago can look at Bill C-16 and know that we were thinking of them when we put this forward. It is about ensuring that those who are the most vulnerable are not overlooked, but supported with care, dignity and action. For all of these reasons, I am proud to support Bill C-16 and appreciate the support of all of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is very serious about the concerns he has, as well as the rest of us, but when members are on the government side of the House and crafting legislation, we have to make sure that it is going to withstand charter challenges. We have seen too many times that we have reacted with our hearts, not necessarily with our heads, and brought in things that ended up being challenged, with court cases thrown out completely because the legislation we introduced reflected our emotions, not necessarily our responsibility, which is to make sure that the laws of the land are charter-proof.

Mr. Speaker, a ton of changes have happened, but they have all been too slow. It seems that it takes a long time to start to really understand some of the difficulties different people, women in particular, are facing. I am very proud of what has happened in the last 10 or 12 years as, really, women's rights have been getting the attention they need as we all move forward collectively to ensure that women's rights are protected. We will make sure that women such as those I met a couple of weeks ago know that their government is concerned about them and will continue to move forward legislation that will better protect them and better protect our children.

Mr. Speaker, I remember that when I first heard about mandatory minimums, under former prime minister Harper, I thought they were a great idea. However, what is the use of bringing forward laws that are just going to get thrown out because there is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the government has to respect? We have to use more than our heart on our sleeve when we are crafting legislation. When someone is on this side of the House, they have to take that responsibility much more seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Spadina—Harbourfront. This is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, and I welcome the opportunity to talk about the way we are going to guide our great country forward. I am very proud to rise today in support of the government's spring economic update, which is an update grounded in realism, responsibility and, above all, the lived experiences of many Canadians. This document recognizes that while global forces remain uncertain, Canada is choosing to lead with focus and purpose. It shows that we are investing where it matters most: in people, communities and long-term economic resilience. This funding supports frontline responses that prioritize safety, dignity and coordination with municipal and community partners. It recognizes that addressing homelessness requires sustained federal leadership, not temporary fixes, and it ensures that communities are not left on their own. The people of Humber River—Black Creek are proud of the diversity that defines our neighbourhoods, but they know that rising hate-motivated incidents are real and very terrible. They undermine people's sense of safety and belonging. That is why continued investments in the Canada community security program matter. Supporting places of worship, community centres and cultural institutions with enhanced security is not about fear, but ensuring that every Canadian feels safe participating fully in public life. Economic strength and social cohesion go hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other. My community is powered by workers, many of whom are in small and medium-sized enterprises, family businesses and co-operatives. The spring economic update's decision to make the employee ownership trust tax exemption permanent is a practical, forward-looking measure. It would help workers buy into the businesses they helped build, support succession planning for local entrepreneurs and keep jobs rooted in communities like Humber River—Black Creek, instead of being sold off or hollowed out. This is an economic policy that rewards work, loyalty and shared prosperity. Affordability measures are felt especially sharply right now by students and young people. Many families in my riding rely on federal student support to make education possible. That is why extending enhanced Canada student grants and interest-free Canada student loans for the 2026-27 academic year is so very significant. In Ontario, approximately 400,000 students would benefit from these programs. This is about keeping the doors open so that post-secondary education remains a pathway to opportunity, not a barrier or a debt. Economic growth is meaningful only if it improves daily life. Investments through programs like the build communities strong fund recognize that community infrastructure, recreation centres, parks and public spaces are essential to healthy neighbourhoods for everyone. These investments support youth, families, seniors and newcomers. They create safe places to gather, stay active and build connections. In communities like mine, this is how opportunities become tangible. Let me also highlight the renewed support for the community volunteer income tax program. In Ontario alone, over 330,000 returns were filed last year through local clinics that help people with modest incomes, free of charge, access the benefits they are entitled to. For four Saturdays in a row, my constituency office, together with volunteers and community officers, filled out well over 800 income tax forms for many of my constituents. Renewing and expanding this program mean that seniors, newcomers, students and low-income families in Humber River—Black Creek can continue to access vital supports without barriers. The spring economic update also looks to the future. The upcoming Canada investment summit, which will be held in Toronto, will reinforce Ontario's and Canada's position as a global destination for investment in advanced manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy and artificial intelligence. This builds on our strengths, creates jobs and helps diversify trade at a time when resilience matters more than ever. At the same time, Canada continues to maintain fiscal discipline. The deficit outlook has improved and investments are clearly targeted, not scattershot. Borrowing is focused on building capacity, not papering over problems. This spring economic update reflects the simple but powerful idea that economic policy should be measured by how it shows up in people's lives. In communities like Humber River—Black Creek, it shows up as safer communities, as support for students and workers, as help for families struggling with affordability, and as investments that strengthen neighbourhoods and create opportunity. That is why I am so proud to support this update, and why I believe it deserves the support of everyone in the House. This will help to move Canada forward, to move our businesses forward and to move many communities like Humber River forward to provide more opportunity for the many people who are struggling today and will clearly move forward in a much better way. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this issue today. I look forward to it getting through the House and off to committee, and eventually through Parliament and through the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, the member was also a member of the international trade committee for many years. We have had the opportunity to work together and very much care about similar issues. We are looking at the infrastructure dollars and the improvements that have to happen at the ports. I read this morning about two bridges that lead to the port of Vancouver and how those bridges have to be replaced. Otherwise, we are not going to be able to get anything to the port of Vancouver from that direction. I believe the investment we are making will improve those access points. The member is 100% right: If we do not have access to the ports, how are we going to get our different goods there? I think that is all part of the plan for the future to make that difference.

Mr. Speaker, I know the member cares, as we all do, about ensuring that we can get much more housing out there, built by working with private developers and utilizing lots of land that are owned by different municipalities and provinces, and by us all coming together. I am very confident that we will have much more than that small amount that he referenced. The need is tremendous and we all know that. We are all doing everything possible to move things along as fast as we can.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my hon. colleague is feeling better and that he is back and standing up and down in his usual role in the House. It is interesting that he mentions the port of Churchill. We did have a former member of the NDP who was constantly talking about the port of Churchill. That is the reason why, when the hon. member mentions it, I am so very well aware of it. It will cost a lot of money, but there are enormous opportunities if we can develop. Through our Major Projects Office, all of those things where there are huge opportunities for us to move forward are making themselves available. I just had an opportunity, with our trade committee, to visit Brazil and Argentina and talk about the free trade agreement with the Mercosur area, which we plan to hopefully get signed by the summer. There are opportunities that are provided, with the investments we are making in major infrastructure products, to be able to move merchandise and agricultural goods through much faster. I look forward to that being successfully completed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today again, and as well, to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. The bill is grounded in a simple but powerful principle: that abuse and harassment are not acceptable, no matter whom they target, and we are not going to normalize that any longer. Bill C-16 puts the safety and dignity of victims first, especially women, children and survivors, by modernizing the Criminal Code to address coercive control and online exploitation. Violence and harassment seldom start with a single act. They emerge through patterns of intimidation. I have experienced personally, as have many of my colleagues, deliberate middle-of-the-night calls meant to intimidate, using a number shared widely by email with incitement to harass. That is not civic engagement. Bill C-16 recognizes those patterns and gives our justice system the tools to intervene earlier and to act. It also strengthens victims' rights and helps ensure that serious cases are not lost to delay. Bill C-16 helps ensure that safety—

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to participate in this particular discussion. I will be sharing my time with the great member for Whitby, and I am pleased to be able to do that. It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about Government Motion No. 9, dealing with the composition of committees. Every member in this place understands the critical role that committees play in our parliamentary system. It is in committees where the hard work of legislating gets accomplished as bills are reviewed, amendments proposed and diverse perspectives are considered. This work ensures that legislation is improved upon before it makes its way back to the House. Committees are also a place where issues of importance to Canadians are studied. It is where the hard work of legislating gets accomplished as bills are reviewed, amendments proposed and diverse perspectives are considered. This work ensures that legislation is improved upon before it makes its way back to the House. Witnesses appear and offer their unique perspective. Ministers appear to defend and explain their actions and to be held to account. It is a system that is of the utmost importance to the functioning of democracy. As chair of the international trade committee, I can say that we have had numerous witnesses who have come before us to give us insightful ideas and thoughts on the challenges they are facing in this new world of tariffs. Nothing in the motion that we are debating today would change any of this. Committees would continue to carry out their important functions. Ministers would continue to appear to answer questions and defend their actions, and estimates would continue to be studied. Committees would retain all of the powers they currently have and be free to study anything that is within their mandate. This motion has one goal, and that is to maintain the long-standing tradition in our Parliament that the party that has a majority of seats in the House of Commons also holds a majority of seats on committee. I am going into my 26th year here, and that has always been the case. Whoever was in government was able to get whatever extra seats they wanted. It is not just members on this side of the House who are saying this. It is a recognized tradition within our system. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, makes it clear on page 819, where it states, “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.” This is not something that the House leader invented over the weekend and decided he was going to do. Page 819 is very clear on what the practice is to be. Additionally, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states on page 790, “Party representation on committees reflects the standings of recognized parties in the House”. Therefore, the motion we are debating today is entirely consistent with upholding the traditions of the House. It is also important to talk about how the government has proposed to make the changes to committees. It could have looked at previous majority government numbers and mirrored that approach. To do that would have required removing members of the official opposition from committees. The government chose not to do this and instead took an inclusive and collaborative approach, which is what we really have been using for this last year with the successes we have had by all working together. The Prime Minister has been clear that the government intends to work collaboratively with all members of Parliament. The Prime Minister has stated, “We are absolutely focused on working with Parliament, getting legislation through Parliament, adjusting legislation where it needs to be, where it's better informed by discussions in Parliament, where we have to make compromise in order to do it. And we've shown that. We've shown that consistently.” Removing official opposition members of Parliament from committees was an option, as I mentioned, but it was an option the government chose not to proceed with, as we are serious about wanting to work constructively with all members. The government took a different approach. The motion we are debating would simply add members from the governing party to committees to ensure that the party with the majority of seats in the House of Commons also has a majority of seats on parliamentary committees. It is that simple. The changes proposed in the motion reflect the operation of the House of Commons. Namely, the numbers in committee would ensure that the government has a majority and that the chair of the committee would not need to vote and break a tie. The motion was drafted this way to mirror the state of play in the House, as always, where the numbers are such that the Speaker also does not need to vote to break a tie. It is an undeniable fact that the makeup of the House of Commons has changed since committees were formed. The government has gone from a minority government to a majority government. The Conservatives continue to argue about how this occurred, but that does not change the fact that it has occurred. As a result, the government has a duty to ensure that the makeup of committees reflects this reality. Because the change occurred partway through the current Parliament, the government took a responsible and constructive approach to this change that would preserve all the members from the official opposition on committees. We recognize the role these members play at committees. We respect the expertise that they have gained and that they bring to the debate. Much like we want to build Canada strong, we have chosen addition rather than subtraction in our approach. I think it is also worth pointing out that if a government were to go from a majority to a minority, the opposition would demand that committees also reflect that reality, so the motion we are debating today is a reasonable and responsible response to a change in the makeup of the House of Commons. The government has gone from a minority to a majority, and the motion would simply ensure that this is also reflected in committees, as has always been the case. One of the things I really value as a member of Parliament is hearing the diversity of perspectives that all members bring to their work. Canada is such a massive, diverse and beautiful country. Policies affect people differently depending on where they live. By all of us coming together to debate the issues of the day, we all benefit from the perspective of others. This is especially true in the work we do on committees. Legislation is made better through the perspective of others. Issues are studied because members from a particular part of the country think they are important. All of this would continue after the passage of the motion. Committees would continue to do the heavy lifting of Parliament and ensure that all perspectives are heard. I look forward to continuing this important work we all do on committees, and I will continue to work collaboratively with members from all political stripes to build Canada strong. We are at a challenging time in our country right now, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary act of generosity that will have a lasting impact on health care in Humber River—Black Creek. Recently, Humber River Health announced a transformational, $50-million donation from Jay and Barbara Hennick through the Hennick Family Foundation, the largest single gift in the hospital's history. In recognition of this landmark contribution, Humber's flagship site has been renamed Hennick Humber Hospital. This historic gift will support advanced technologies, clinical programs and research and education, ensuring that patients continue to receive safe, high-quality and innovative care. I also wish to commend Barb Collins, the president and CEO of Humber River Health, for her visionary leadership in building one of Canada's most innovative hospitals, and of course, I thank the dedicated staff who deliver excellence every day. This is philanthropy and leadership at their very best.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy this morning to be here to add my comments to what I think is a really important piece of legislation for our country. I speak in strong support of Bill C-22. It is a piece of legislation that modernizes Canada's lawful access framework so our police and national security agencies can do their jobs effectively in a digital world, which is what we are clearly all living in, while fully respecting Canadians' charter rights and privacy. It is extremely important to be able to craft legislation that meets the very basics that are important to all of us when it comes to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that we move forward in that direction in a positive way in crafting this piece of legislation. The context of why this bill is necessary is that crime has changed. I think we are all seeing it in our communities, streets, phones and computers. Things have changed immensely on how crime is delivered. It is not just, I say this randomly, shooting someone. It is now accessing someone's private details and so many other things that need new legislation to keep up with the change in criminal activity. We have been hearing about a lot of effort going into dealing with organized crime. Whether we are talking about B.C. or Brampton, Ontario, organized crime has infiltrated a tremendous number of areas in our country and the laws we were able to use previously do not meet the requirements for our police officers and RCMP officers today. Child exploitation is another extremely important issue that is happening. When we ask the police to do their job, it is very difficult for them to do it with their hands handcuffed behind their backs to get the access that they need to be able to make a case and find out who the guilty parties are. Bill C-22 would help with that. Foreign interference, extortion, terrorism and auto theft are also things that Bill C-22 would help. We hear a lot about financial crimes in our day-to-day activity with our constituents and with others, and the different ways that the criminal element is able to access things. They increasingly operate online, using encrypted platforms and move data across borders in seconds, not minutes, yet Canada's lawful access laws were largely written for a pre-smart phone, pre-cloud era. When we talk to some seniors, in particular, they know very little about this, yet it is happening in their own instruments. It is very difficult for police to get access. Investigations can stall because police cannot determine which service provider holds the relevant data. Is it an Apple? Is it Rogers? Who is the service provider? Our agencies are forced to rely on voluntary disclosure, foreign partners or legal workarounds. I think the police already have a difficult enough time getting the information to build a case. When they have to appear before a judge and get judicial permission, it hampers the whole investigation. As proud as we are of Canada, we are now the only Five Eyes or G7 country without a modern lawful access regime. This is not a sustainable position for public safety nor Canadian sovereignty. Bill C-22 would be the beginning of creating the lawful regime needed to be able to give more support to our law enforcement officers. What Bill C-22 would do, in very plain terms, is provide a measured, Canadian solution built on three pillars: clarity, constitutionality and accountability. All three are extremely important for our law enforcement officers to be able to do the job that we ask them to do. Timely, court-authorized access—

Mr. Speaker, point one is that Bill C-22 would give police and CSIS clear, court-authorized tools aligned with Supreme Court decisions such as Spencer and Bykovets. Two key tools worth highlighting in those decisions were, first, confirmation of service, or a simple yes-or-no confirmation of which service provider holds a specific identifier. This does not reveal personal information and does not replace judicial authorization. Second is subscriber information production orders. These allow police, with a judge's approval, to obtain basic identifying information, nothing more, so investigations can actually proceed. The bill would also clarify the ability to accept voluntarily provided information, such as tips or victim reports. It would codify exigent circumstances so police could act quickly in genuine emergencies. It would also create smarter tools for international co-operation, reflecting that data does not stop at borders. Point two is technical capability. It would not be new powers as only technical capabilities would be expanded. Bill C-22 would ensure that electronic service providers have the technical ability to comply with existing warrants and court orders. That is critical. The bill would create no new surveillance powers, which is very important, as this was crafted to ensure that it would not be giving police access to something that would jeopardize people's constitutional rights. It would not allow warrantless access, nor mass surveillance, direct access or back doors. Access to content, browsing history or social media activity would not allowed with Bill C-22. Every disclosure would require lawful authorization. Providers themselves would supply the information. If a cybersecurity concern arises, judicial review for this would be built in to Bill C-22. There would also the strong oversight and accountability I mentioned. Bill C-22 would embed judicial oversight, intelligence commissioner approval for ministerial orders and public annual reporting. A mandatory parliamentary review after three years would be essential to see if the goals of Bill C-22 are being achieved or if changes are needed in one way or the other. This is how responsible legislation is done. The privacy and the charter I mentioned earlier are extremely important. In Bill C-22, privacy and public safety would not be opposing values. They would be mutually reinforcing. Bill C-22 would narrow definitions of subscriber information and explicitly exclude content. It would limit data retention to metadata for a maximum of one year, respond directly to Supreme Court jurisprudence and add more transparency than exists today. This bill would not lower constitutional standards, as I mentioned earlier. It would clarify them so police, providers and courts all operate with certainty and consistency. If we do nothing, we leave investigations in a grey zone, where they are today, and where accountability is weaker and not stronger. Some have suggested that this bill would go too far. Others claim it would not go far enough. This tells me this legislation is carefully balanced. To be clear, Bill C-22 would not authorize access to emails, content or web browsing history. It would not create secret surveillance powers. It would respond to real operational gaps identified by police, child protection experts and national security professionals. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-22. It is an important bill that is endorsed by police chiefs, frontline officers and child protection organizations. We have been very clear: Digital evidence is essential, and today it is far too often out of reach to help accomplish the goals we have today.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Bill C-22 would not authorize access to emails, content or web browsing history. The whole goal of Bill C-22 is to take the handcuffs off our police enforcement, give them the tools they need to find out who has access to a particular phone number that is viewing child pornography or that has other law-breaking schemes going on. I believe the hon. member was at an event a few months ago on the Hill with the RCMP, who talked about how difficult it is for them to get the basic information they need while still protecting Canadians' privacy.

Mr. Speaker, many of the issues in Bill C-22, I expect, will be fully supported by my Conservative colleagues, the Bloc, the NDP and so on. We all have the same intent to protect families, people and our individual rights and freedoms. I expect that they will be front and centre in supporting Bill C-22, helping us to get it through as quickly as possible. If we can make it stronger, if there is an area where we can agree to reinforce something, we all have the same intent, and that is starting to protect people in this new digital world we are living in.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely a debate that we are having today, and we will have debates at committee as well. I am a Canadian parliamentarian who is very concerned with the issue of safety and law and order. I wish this legislation had been enacted two years or five years ago. Things have moved so quickly in this digital economy, and we are always so far behind. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will work extensively with this side of the House to make sure we have done the best we can in strengthening this piece of legislation and getting it through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is really important. One of the things that was concerning me in the last election and prior is this whole issue of foreign interference. All of us, whether we are candidates or taxpayers, need to have confidence that the election system run by Elections Canada is concrete and solid. While people like to point fingers and say somebody cheated, and I always say, “No, that is not possible,” I think Bill C-25 would help make that happen. I would like to hear from my hon. colleague. What are some of the other measures in Bill C-25 that would protect us, as candidates, and also taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to the motion adopted on Tuesday, February 24, regarding Canada's involvement in rules-based international trade and investment systems, as well as the 10th report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, in relation to the motion adopted on Tuesday, April 14, regarding the Ukraine goods remission order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to deeply troubling reports of executions and repression in Iran, including the execution of six political dissidents by the regime in recent weeks. In addition to this political repression is the escalation of the obsessive, systemic and ongoing persecution and scapegoating of the Iranian Baha’i religious community. As an example, Borna and Peyvand Naimi, two Baha’i cousins, targeted for their religious faith, remain detained, and have been reportedly tortured and, like others, coerced into false confessions. Targeting people for their religious beliefs is a grave violation of worldwide human rights. Canada must continue to condemn these abuses, work with allies and press for accountability. Iranians deserve dignity, justice and freedom from fear.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to present this petition today from thousands of Canadians who identify themselves as single seniors. There is a growing number of Canadians who are doing that. Related to the treatment of single seniors under the federal income tax system, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to amend certain tax measures affecting pension income, tax credits and the treatment of registered retirement income on death, as set out in the petition. This is an important issue. I am sure all of my colleagues will support this kind of initiative as we move forward on improving our system of taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary courage of the people of Iran in the face of immense hardship. Across that nation, citizens have shown remarkable bravery. In particular, the women of Iran have stood at the forefront, risking their safety and their lives in their fight for dignity, rights and democracy. We are witnessing devastating destruction and deepening chaos, with innocent lives caught in the turmoil of conflict. This violence must end. We must strive for a peaceful resolution that paves the way for a transitional government, one that reflects the will of the Iranian people and sets the country firmly on a path towards democracy. A free and democratic Iran remains the dream of millions, both within its borders and across its diaspora. We stand in solidarity with them and hope that this aspiration may soon become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, in relation to the motion adopted on Tuesday, February 24, regarding eliminating forced labour from Canadian supply chains. I also have the honour to present, in both official language, the eighth report, in relation to the motion adopted on Thursday, February 12, regarding Canada-Taiwan trade-related co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, at this critical hour, Canada calls on Russia to cease hostilities and withdraw to Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. Canada condemns the deliberate Russian attacks on energy infrastructure that deprive civilians of both heat and electricity. Canada recently announced $2 billion in military assistance for 2026-27, including over 400 armoured vehicles and an additional $20 million for the Ukraine energy support fund. Furthermore, Canada has sanctioned 21 individuals, 53 entities and 100 shadow fleet vessels and lowered the Russian oil price cap. I commend Canada's leadership in the international coalition for the return of Ukrainian children and support accountability before the International Criminal Court. For four years, families have endured profound hardship, yet their courage endures. Canada stands firmly with Ukraine for freedom, justice and a durable peace with legally binding security guarantees.

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with voices around the world in denouncing the unjust and politically driven sentencing of Jimmy Lai, the latest chapter in the erosion of Hong Kong's freedom and independence. This outcome was not inevitable. For years, advocates globally have called for the release of Jimmy Lai, and this pressure from the international community must continue. His sentencing is a clear violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a legally binding treaty lodged with the United Nations. Sentencing a 78-year-old newspaper publisher to 20 years in prison for peaceful expression is not the justified rule of law; it is repression. I urge democratic societies to answer this abuse with coordinated diplomatic measures and accountability. Jimmy Lai's case makes clear that Hong Kong's courts now operate fully under Beijing's control. I extend my deepest sympathies to his family, and I reaffirm my commitment to seeking his release, alongside that of all people in prison for their beliefs in Hong Kong.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize an important development: the decision by the European Union to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. This decision reflects the courage and determination of the Iranian people, who have endured the IRGC's repression for decades, including the tragic loss of life during the January 2026 uprising. For more than 20 years, democratic opposition leaders and thousands of parliamentarians from around the world have called for this designation, noting the regime's destabilizing activities across the Middle East. This listing must be accompanied by further steps: closing the regime's diplomatic facilities, expelling its agents, cutting off its financial networks and recognizing the right of Iran's youth to resist tyranny in the pursuit of a democratic republic grounded in human rights. Canada acted by listing the IRGC in 2024, and today I call on the United Kingdom to follow suit and register the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

Mr. Speaker, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin is home to 98% of Ontarians and more than 90% of Québécois. It is a critical part of a highly integrated economy, valued at over $10 trillion and is extremely important to all of us. Yesterday evening, a coalition of groups dedicated to fostering a prosperous and resilient Great Lakes and St. Lawrence ecosystem welcomed parliamentarians, staff and officials to a reception to learn more about this precious resource shared by both Canadians and Americans. Representatives from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Pollution Probe, AquaAction and many other groups were on hand to answer many questions. It was also an opportunity to celebrate the historic and continued investment made by the Government of Canada to protect and restore the basin and to further encourage this important work.

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to see you in the Chair, keeping control of all of the comments that are made here in the House. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the issue of the recently signed Canada-Alberta memorandum of understanding and the duty to consult with indigenous peoples on its implementation. Let me begin by saying that Canada and Alberta are committed to respecting aboriginal and treaty rights. We have heard it from the minister and we have heard from the Prime Minister continually about engaging in early, consistent and meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples. This will have to be done in a manner that promotes reconciliation and respects the rights and cultures of indigenous peoples while advancing economic opportunities through indigenous ownership and partnership. The Building Canada Act makes sure that first nations, Inuit and Métis people participate in full partnership in building a strong, fairer economy. It is intentional that section 35 rights are embedded in the legislation, with a requirement to engage in consultation with affected section 35 rights holders at key stages: first, before a project is designated as being in the national interest; second, before the issuance of the conditions document; and, third, before any amendment to the conditions document. I am going to repeat those three conditions. They are before a project is designated, before the issuance of the conditions document and before any amendment to the conditions document. All of that will have to happen before any progress will be made. Free, prior and informed consent will also be a central tenet guiding the federal government's approach to implementing the Building Canada Act. Major projects will only proceed following meaningful consultation and, where appropriate, accommodation. This past summer, the government convened three distinctions-based meetings with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders to discuss the Building Canada Act and how best to work together. There were frank exchanges, and first nations, Inuit and Métis representatives from across Canada had the opportunity to comment and to share their views. Further, as promised by the Prime Minister, collaboration has continued with first nations leadership at all levels through regional dialogue tables. These meetings are helping shape the path forward together to advance major projects, including projects of national interest. The Major Projects Office is the single point of contact, as well as the leadership, on major projects, partnering with federal departments, provinces, territories, indigenous peoples and the private sector. Its mandate is to advance nation-building projects that connect Canada's economy, diversify trade and industries, create good jobs, protect the environment and uphold indigenous rights. By streamlining approvals and committing to a two-year timeline for major project decisions, the Government of Canada is creating a more efficient and predictable environment to give investors and project proponents, such as Iqaluit hydro, the certainty they need. What I have heard from all of the members on the other side today are ways to move things along faster when they have the right conditions. Advancing the interests of indigenous peoples is a vital part of advancing major projects and one of the factors considered in the designation of projects to be in the national interest. I wish to underline that meaningful consultation is key to the success of all future major projects. I do not think anyone on this side of the House is prepared or would be prepared to ram something through, which is what I am hearing on the other side of the House. That is why Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada has been engaging with indigenous partners to improve how federal consultation happens, including during major project processes and Crown consultation coordination, and to better understand indigenous priorities for economic prosperity. We will work with the new federal Major Projects Office and other federal departments to share what we have heard about indigenous interests and economic priorities, including community-supported major projects, consultation expertise and how best to strengthen those partnerships. This includes updating the federal guidelines on consultation, using consultation protocol agreements and resource centres to help guide and inform these processes, continuing to include consultation provisions in new modern treaty and self-government arrangements and reviewing consultation provisions in existing modern treaty and self-government arrangements to ensure they reflect the latest legal and policy developments. The Major Projects Office's work also benefits from the leadership and guidance of an indigenous advisory council, which provides expert advice on policy, operational practices and process improvements related to the inclusion of indigenous perspectives and interests in major projects. The council will also support the Major Projects Office by championing indigenous partnerships and economic participation in all major projects in Canada. Consultation continues to be a prerequisite. The focus of the council will be to provide insightful counsel on policies and processes related to major projects. It will provide expert advice on policy, operational practices and process improvements related to the inclusion of indigenous perspectives on, and interest in, major projects and regulatory processes, including the integration of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act principles. Doing so is reconciliation in action. Members of the council were selected based on their expertise and knowledge of major projects, economic development, indigenous rights and of course the regulatory space. Members bring diverse perspectives and demonstrated leadership. Some of the members were also nominated by indigenous governments and organizations. The council will also shape how the Major Projects Office works with first nations, Inuit and Métis, as well as modern treaty and self-government partners. I wish to point out that the duty to consult is a legal requirement that will be carried out by the government and not the council. The establishment of the indigenous advisory council does not replace section 35 obligations for consultations with rights holders under the modern treaties act. To strengthen the indigenous capacity to participate in these processes, the federal government has allocated $40 million over two years in dedicated funding to support consultation and preparation for community readiness activities as they relate to major projects. When we invest in indigenous economies, we grow the entire country's economy. When indigenous partners lead major projects, things move faster and the results last longer. That is how we build trust. That is how we build prosperity. To provide increased opportunities for first nations, Inuit and Métis to gain equity stakes in nation-building projects, we have doubled the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion. This program helps indigenous groups get more affordable loans for major projects by having the federal government guarantee the loan. One example earlier this year is from the Canada Development Investment Corporation. Through its subsidiary, the Canada indigenous loan guarantee program issued its first loan guarantee for $400 million of a $736-million investment in 38 first nations. I am pleased to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague to the House. I think this is the first time we have had an opportunity to exchange a few words together. I thank him for the work that he did on establishing those protocols. I would sincerely hope that everyone on the other side of the House would ensure, as I and I am sure all of my colleagues intend to, that the things we are committing to will happen. If the conditions that are spelled out are not met to their full extent, I would not expect anything to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, this is a time when we all need to be united. Earlier I asked one of my Conservative colleagues if they would support the MOU. I am talking about the MOU that the government is putting forward that I think has a team Canada approach of working together and advancing team Canada, as we do at international trade. Overall, working together to advance the issues that matter to our constituents is the best thing that we can be doing. It is time that we all did that together.

Mr. Speaker, I present, on behalf of the Standing Committee on International Trade, the fourth report, “Addressing Unjustified United States Tariffs on Certain Goods in the Canadian Steel, Aluminum, Automotive and Softwood Lumber Sectors”. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, November 27, the committee has agreed to report the following: that the committee report to the House that it condemns the unjustified American tariffs on the Canadian steel, aluminum, automotive, and softwood lumber industries, and that it calls upon the government to live up to the promise it made in the election