Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a true honour for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Davenport to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. Let me start by talking a little about the moment we are living in. I think it is really important for us to understand the context in which the bill is introduced. As we often say these days, the world has changed. The Prime Minister has called it a “rupture”. Our relationship with the United States, our largest trading partner, is not what it was. We face unjustified tariffs on Canadian workers and industries, and we face talk about our sovereignty that no Canadian ever expected to hear from an American president. Last week, before the European Parliament, the Prime Minister described what we were up against: trade being weaponized, tariffs used as pressure, and supply chains turned into vulnerabilities. His answer was not to retreat; it was to build our strength at home and to work with trusted, like-minded partners who share our belief in democracy and the rule of law. We are seeking alliances that are strong enough so that no one can dictate our choices here in Canada. That is exactly what Canadians have asked of us. They have given the government a clear mandate to protect our economy, our prosperity and our sovereignty. We are doing that by diversifying our trade with reliable partners and by building right here at home. The world is responding. Just over a week ago, at Canada's first-ever investment summit, investors from nearly 30 countries, managing more than $100 trillion in assets, came to Toronto to look at more than 160 Canadian projects. The summit closed with nearly half a trillion dollars in new investment commitments. However, interest is not the same as shovels in the ground. Investors told us what communities have told us for years: Our approvals have taken too long. Projects have often waited more than five years for federal decisions, with separate reviews and separate consultations for each permit. That is why our government has introduced Bill C-39, which is before the House today. It would create the conditions for investment in projects that support good jobs and growth and for the safe and efficient movement of goods across our country, while protecting the environment and upholding the rights of indigenous peoples. I know we have heard this multiple times, but it is important for me to state as well that the bill has three key parts. The first part, “Build Canada Now”, would modernize our regulatory and permitting system to eliminate duplication with lengthy timelines. Our standard is simple: one project, one review and one year. Canada will always be a country of high standards, but high standards do not mean that the decisions have to be slow. The second part is “Keep Canada Moving”. We would be modernizing our transportation systems. This would reduce bottlenecks and better connect our trade corridors and ports so goods move faster and costs come down. The third part, “Canada Strong For All”, would modernize the Canada Labour Code and strengthen protections for workers. I have heard some questions from my constituents. They have been asking me why the bill is so large. The answer is that getting a project built never depends on just one thing. It depends on assessments, on energy regulation and on fisheries, waterways, ports, rails and the workers who build them. It depends on many things. If we fix only one of those aspects, the project is still stuck. To actually get things built, we have to fix a number of laws together, ideally all at once. Why do we have to move quickly? It is because investment decisions being made now will shape our economy for decades. The capital that does not come here will go elsewhere. However, urgency cannot mean skipping scrutiny. The bill deserves the debate we are having now in the House. It deserves careful study at committee. I know that we are open to making it even better. I want to spend a little bit more time on the labour aspects of the bill, which are in part 3, because there is a lot of misinformation out there and because I know that my constituents care about labour deeply. My riding of Davenport was built by working people, many of them newcomers to Canada. Let me be very clear: There is no provision in the bill that would take away the right to strike. That right is protected by the charter, and the current government will always protect it. What the bill would do is give workers and employers more tools, more time and more assets to reach a deal at the table, where the best agreements are made. About 95% of federally regulated disputes are already resolved without a work stoppage. This bill focuses on the few relationships that break down again and again. Let me highlight just a few of those measures. First, where the last round ended in a strike, a lockout or imposed arbitration, bargaining must start six months early with federal mediators at the table. Second, the bill would extend the conciliation period from 60 days to 90 days, giving both parties time to reach a deal before any strike or a lockout. Third, a new special mediator would work intensively with both sides, and if there were no deal, the mediator's report would become public. That report would set out where each side stands and why talks broke down so members, employers and Canadians could see it all. Fourth, newly unionized workers, new unions, would get support from our government to reach a first contract. Fifth, the bill would enable penalties for bargaining in bad faith. Those measures are only part of it. Alongside these changes come stronger protections for workers on the job, from safer workplaces to a real crackdown on wage theft. Let me turn to section 107 because I know there has been a lot of discussion about it in the media and in this House. This is not a new provision. It has been in the Canada Labour Code since 1984. Unions have told us that it has been used without enough transparency, so we listened and have proposed some changes. Bill C-39 would put guardrails around it. Before a minister can even consider using it, a special mediator would need to have completed their work and a public report would need to have been considered. Then the minister would need to conclude that a work stoppage would have a significant adverse national impact in an assessment that must weigh the right to strike. There must be a balance of items that are weighed in that decision. As the Minister of Jobs and Families has said, the minister would have to show their work, clearly laying out the reasons why intervention was necessary in the national interest. I know that many labour leaders see this differently. I very much respect that and we will be listening very closely to them at the committee. However, it is important to remember that, at its heart, this bill would help parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes, while fully protecting the right to strike. Extraordinary intervention should always be a last resort. When negotiations go well, everyone wins. Davenport constituents have also written to me, worried that we are dismantling environmental protections. This bill would not remove impact assessments that examine environmental, health and social effects, nor would it remove permitting or consultation. It would change who leads the review and how departments work together, not the standards that apply. One year does not mean cutting corners. The clock only starts once a complete application and all studies are in. There have been extensive consultations on this bill because consultations matter. Over the summer, Canadians sent in more than 26,000 submissions. The government had proposed letting cabinet exempt some projects from the jeopardy test in the Species at Risk Act. We heard directly from Canadians that they did not like this. They pushed back very strongly and the proposal is not in this bill. Finally, I want to spend a minute on the impact on indigenous communities. This bill would not change the duty to consult, our modern treaty obligations or commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It would change the burden. Instead of a separate consultation for every department and every permit, there would be one coordinated process per community, per project, through a new Crown consultation hub that would identify concerns early with the aim of securing free, prior and informed consent. Timelines, though, could be extended or suspended to complete consultation. The Prime Minister often says we can give ourselves far more than anyone can take away. This bill is how we are doing that. We are building faster. We are protecting workers. We are protecting nature and building in partnership with indigenous peoples. I urge all members to support Bill C-39 and work with us to make it even stronger at committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is directly because of those experiences over the last 10 years that I think we learned a lot as a government. I also want to say that both our Minister of Labour and our Minister of Employment and Jobs spent the summer talking to labour leaders right across our country about section 107, building Canada strong, and how is it we can actually support them better with respect to reaching a deal at the table, because we know that the best deals are when both sides agree. They are the ones that are sustained and strong. A lot of the things we heard were put into our bill so we can strengthen it and make sure we do not have those strikes ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, there are two key questions there. On the first one, with respect to any type of weakening or dismantling of environmental protections, that is completely not the case. We are not removing in any way any of the impact assessments that examine the environmental effects. What it does do is change who leads the review and how the departments work together, not the standards that apply. Therefore, we are expediting it, but not in any way eliminating any of those standards. If there are suggestions about how we can make that clear or improve that, I am happy to hear about them at committee. With respect to why we have removed the five-year clause around building Canada strong, a lot of these projects take more than five years to build. Our investors need certainty, which is the reason that clause was taken away.

Mr. Speaker, I think for us five years was too long for a decision to be made by our government. The world has so completely changed that we needed to put a completely new process into place. We needed to create a process that would eliminate any type of overlap or duplication. We wanted to create certainty and an easy way for businesses and projects to be able to go ahead. Therefore, while I would say we wanted to have one decision, one project, and one year, I believe we will be able to do the proper amount of assessment and study within that year to be able to make good decisions that are long-standing and good for this country.

Mr. Speaker, feliz día de la independencia de México. For 216 years, Mexico has charted its own path with courage and pride, and for 82 years, Canada has stood beside it as a friend and partner. Today, as global trade shifts beneath our feet, that partnership has never mattered more. Canada is diversifying and strengthening trade with reliable partners, and Mexico is among the most important. This year, one of the largest team Canada trade missions ever travelled to Mexico, and more than 250 Mexican businesses came to Canada to invest and grow. Together, we are building North America into the most competitive, dynamic and resilient economic region in the world. As a proud Mexican Canadian, I say to our community gracias. Their hard work, talent and spirit make Canada stronger every day. The best chapters of our shared story are still ahead. Viva México y viva Canada.

Mr. Speaker, conflicts around the world are intensifying, and Canadians are feeling their impact here at home. Meeting this moment means delivering on our security commitments and reinforcing the alliances that keep us safe. The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently came back from the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Sweden. Can the minister please share with the House how Canada is working with our allies to turn our commitments into real capabilities?

Mr. Speaker, 52 years ago this month, on April 25, 1974, the Portuguese people ended nearly 40 years of dictatorship, and they did it almost without firing a shot. Soldiers placed carnations in the muzzle of their rifle. People then walked into the streets, and they chose democracy. In my constituency of Davenport, which is home to the largest Portuguese community in Canada, we remember 25 de abril every year, but this year we remember it differently. Democracy is being tested again by authoritarianism, by disinformation and by leaders who treat freedom as inconvenient. The Portuguese diaspora knows this story. It members left a country that gave them too little future, and they came to places like Toronto, where they built new lives and strengthened ours. From their new home country, they also helped keep a freer Portugal alive. Canada stood with them then, and we must continue to stand for democracy now, at home and everywhere it is threatened.

[Member spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:] Mr. Speaker, as the proud daughter of a Mexican immigrant, I rise on April 23 to celebrate Spanish Language Day, recognized by the United Nations and 21 countries around the world. Spanish is now the most widely spoken non-official language in Canada, connecting more than 1.7 million Canadians to their heritage, identity and traditions. Three provinces and 14 cities have now proclaimed April 23 as Spanish Language Day. Our Prime Minister has called this day “a wonderful opportunity for Canadians of all backgrounds” to learn from our Spanish-speaking communities. Communities across our country have spoken. Let us proclaim April 23 as Spanish Language Day at the federal level. [Member spoke in Spanish] [English]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak in support of Bill C-22, the lawful access act, 2026. When I talk to Davenport residents, the issues they raise with me most often are affordability, housing and jobs. Those remain the top concerns, and I want to be honest about that, but when the conversation turns to safety, what I hear has me worried. Davenport residents tell me they feel uneasy when they see drugs on our streets. They worry about encampments down the block. They are worried about watching another storefront on our main streets board up its windows after a break-in. They have heard of a neighbour's car stolen off the street in the middle of the night. They are unsettled by a number of stories about safety in our community. They are also telling me that they are worried about online scams, which keep getting more sophisticated, the ones that are aimed at their parents, at newcomers, at anyone who answers the phone. They may not always call it public safety, but they feel it and they expect their government to respond. This is exactly what Bill C-22 is about. Under the Mark Carney Liberal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars.

Mr. Speaker, under our federal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars: stronger laws; stronger support for the front line, including 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders; and stronger upstream investments in housing, mental health and programs for at-risk youth. Bill C-22 sits inside the first two pillars. It would modernize our laws and give our police the tools they have been asking Parliament for, not for years but for decades. Let me speak plainly about why we need this legislation. Today, the most serious crime does not happen only on our streets. It also happens on our phones and on our apps. It is planned in chat groups. It is carried out across borders, and it is all done in seconds. With child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, extortion, money laundering, auto theft rings, hate-motivated violence and foreign interference, criminals have moved online, and our laws have not yet kept up. Canada is currently the only country in the Five Eyes and the only country in the G7 without a modern lawful access framework. Every one of our closest allies has legal tools that let their police, with judicial oversight, obtain basic digital information during a criminal investigation. Canadian police do not. That gap is not theoretical. It means that Canadian investigations stall. It means that tips from foreign agencies sit unused. It means, in the worst cases, that investigations are simply abandoned before they begin. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has reported that police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents rose 374% between 2014 and 2024. In 2024 alone, 94% of online child sexual abuse material did not result in charges, often because police simply could not identify the person behind the screen name, and that is unacceptable. Bill C-22 would help to change that. Let me walk through, in plain language, what Bill C-22 actually does and, just as importantly, what it does not do. I think that when people understand the mechanics, a lot of the worry might fall away. First, the bill would create a simple yes-or-no tool called a confirmation of service demand. Here is how it works. Say police are investigating an extortion case and they have a phone number. They need to know which telephone company, whether it is Rogers, Bell, Telus or anyone else, actually services that number so they know where to send a court order. Under Bill C-22, they can ask that single question: “Do you or do you not service this number?” That is it. There is no name, no address, no content, just yes or no. Today, without this tool, police can spend weeks or months in court, company by company, just to figure out whom to serve. Bill C-22 would let them skip that guessing game and get on with the real investigative work. Second, and this is the critical privacy safeguard, once police know which provider to go to, they still have to go to a judge. A judge has to independently authorize what is called a subscriber information production order before police can get the name and address behind that account. That is judicial oversight. That is the charter at work. This is not police walking away with someone's name on their own say-so. It is police going before a court, making their case, and a judge deciding whether the threshold has been met. Frankly, this is the same kind of information that used to sit in the phone books on our kitchen counters, but because digital identifiers now reveal so much more about us, the Supreme Court has said, rightly, that accessing them requires a warrant, and Bill C-22 respects that. Third, the bill would require our major electronic service providers to actually be capable of responding to a valid court order. This sounds almost unbelievable, but under current Canadian law, there is no such requirement. A judge can issue an order, and a company can simply reply that it is not technically able to provide the information. Bill C-22 would fix that with requirements tailored to each class of provider and with oversight from the independent intelligence commissioner. Fourth, the bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canadian police to work with our allies when crime crosses borders. In 2026, organized crime does not stop at the 49th parallel, and our law enforcement has to be able to move just as quickly. I am very blessed to represent one of the most engaged and most thoughtful communities in this country. Davenport residents care deeply about privacy and the charter. I want them to know their federal government has listened. This is not the first version of the bill. An earlier version was part of Bill C-2 last year. We heard the concerns raised by privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took those concerns seriously, we consulted broadly, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill. Here is what changed. Warrantless access to subscriber information is gone, and judicial authorization would be the rule. The definition of “subscriber information” has been narrowed to the basics. The bill would also explicitly protect solicitor-client privilege and medical information. Ministerial orders would require approval by the independent intelligence commissioner. Data retention would be strictly limited to metadata, for a maximum of one year, and not content, not web browsing history and not social media activity. As well, the whole act would come back before Parliament for mandatory review three years after it comes into force. To be absolutely clear, there are no back doors in this bill. Police would not get direct access to anyone's communications. Service providers themselves would retrieve the information, and only after a court has authorized it. This is lawful access, with the emphasis on “lawful”. Last month I had the privilege, as chair of the Toronto Liberal caucus, of joining the federal Minister of Public Safety and Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw at Toronto police headquarters, where the minister spoke about the legislation. Standing with the chief, hearing directly from him about what Toronto police officers face every single day, such as the extortion cases hitting families across the city, the auto theft rings and the online exploitation of our children, one understands very quickly why the bill matters and why the delay has real costs, and it is not just Toronto. There is also support for this bill from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Police Federation and the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police. In closing, to my constituents in Davenport and to the families that have been scammed, the parents worried about their children online and the small business owners who have been threatened with extortion, the bill is for them. To those across Davenport who care fiercely about privacy in the charter, I want them to know that the bill has been built carefully, with judicial oversight at its core and independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, together, the way Canadians expect. Crime has modernized. It is long past time our laws did too. I urge all members of the House, from every party, to send Bill C-22 to committee, to study it, to strengthen it where they can and to get it passed. Canadians have waited many years. They should not have to wait any longer.

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. My colleague who gave the last speech said this, and I think he was right. We introduced Bill C-2. It had much more comprehensive legislation in it, but we came across a lot of concerns, so we pulled back this section of Bill C-2. Then we decided we were going to consult and listen further. We then went to privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took all the concerns seriously, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill. I think we know it is always much better, if we get bills to committee and if we all work with the right intention, that we are open to listening. We want to make sure the bill is as strong as possible.

Mr. Speaker, on privacy, the first thing I would say is that we really spent the time over the last year to get this right. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we met with constitutional experts, privacy groups and members from all parties in the House to try to make sure that we got this legislation right, that we were honouring our charter rights. However, we were also moving forward and making sure that we provided law enforcement, the police and CSIS with the tools they need to be able to counter today's crime. That is the first thing I would say. On the priority of our resources, the attention we are giving to law enforcement, and funding, I would say we are spending a lot of time and money on ensuring public safety in this country. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation for that cause. We have also put a substantial amount of money into hiring more CBSA agents and more law enforcement agents across the country. The resources are there, and the priority is there as well.

Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is exactly what was raised by Davenport residents. The bill has been built carefully with judicial oversight at its core and with independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, and it is the way Canadians expect us to work, by respecting their rights while allowing us to make the laws, enforce the laws and keep our communities right across the country safe.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport, to speak in strong support of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Before I speak to the details of the bill, I want to step back and talk about the moment we are living in. Around the world, democracy is under pressure, authoritarian regimes are growing bolder, independent journalism is being squeezed, trust in public institutions is being deliberately undermined and the information environment that citizens rely on to make free and informed choices is being polluted by foreign states, domestic bad actors and the rapid, unregulated power of artificial intelligence. This is not a distant or theoretical concern. In January of this year, our own Prime Minister stood at the World Economic Forum in Davos and told the world that we are in the midst of “a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction, and the beginning of a harsh reality”. He reminded us that the multilateral institutions that middle powers like Canada have relied on for decades are under strain, and he called on countries like ours to build our strength at home and to act together. Democracy does not sustain itself. It depends on strong institutions, an independent justice system, the rule of law, a political system that citizens trust enough to peacefully choose who leads them, and access to independent, fact-based journalism. Every single one of those pillars is under pressure today, and Bill C-25 is part of how Canada is responding. Let me be clear. The bill was not written in a vacuum. It responds directly to the recommendations of the public inquiry into foreign interference, led by the hon. Marie-Josée Hogue; recommendations from Canada's Chief Electoral Officer; and recommendations from the commissioner of Canada Elections. It also builds on the work that was introduced in the last Parliament through Bill C-65. I want to commend our federal government, in particular our minister responsible for democratic institutions, for bringing the legislation forward and for working across party lines to build as much consensus as possible. Our democracy belongs to every Canadian. The laws that protect it should rise above partisanship whenever possible. Now let me turn to what Justice Hogue actually told us. After a 16-month inquiry, more than 150 witnesses and a seven-volume final report, Justice Hogue confirmed that foreign interference in Canadian democracy is real. She documented attempts by hostile foreign states, most prominently the People's Republic of China and India, to interfere at the riding level in our 2019 and 2021 elections. Justice Hogue went further. She pointed to something she considered even more dangerous than the traditional tools of foreign interference. In her own words, not mine, “information manipulation (whether foreign or not) poses the single biggest risk to our democracy. It is an existential threat.” This is not a line from social media; it is the considered conclusion of a then sitting justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, after a year and a half of evidence. She warned us that if we do not address misinformation and disinformation, they have the power to distort our discourse, to change our views and to reshape our society. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, known as NSICOP, which includes members of every recognized party in this place, has reached similar conclusions. NSICOP has documented disinformation as a central tactic used by hostile foreign actors against Canada, and NSICOP has been clear that foreign interference in even one riding is one riding too many. I want to share one more piece of context with the House. I have the enormously great pleasure of serving as the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. In that role, I meet regularly with parliamentarians from across the alliance, and I can tell the House that disinformation and hybrid threats come up in virtually every single conversation we have. Last year at the 71st annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Ljubljana, I had the opportunity to ask the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, directly about the application of article 5 in the context of hybrid warfare and cyberwarfare, because these are not abstract questions for our allies. Russia, the People's Republic of China, Iran and North Korea are running sophisticated hybrid campaigns against democracies right now, with disinformation, cyber-attacks and political interference. NATO itself calls these campaigns attempts to “sow doubt in the minds of target populations [and] to destabilise and undermine societies.” Our NATO allies are asking us to do more, and the bill would be Canada's doing more. What would Bill C-25 actually do? First, it would protect the ballot itself. It would create a new offence for intentionally spreading false information about the voting process to disrupt an election. It would criminalize tampering with the computer systems that run our elections. For the first time, it would criminalize digital impersonation and the use of AI-generated deepfakes to impersonate candidates, the Chief Electoral Officer or other election officials. In an era when a convincing fake video can be produced in minutes and shared with millions of people in hours, this protection is long overdue. Second, it would close the doors on foreign and dark money. It would prohibit anonymous and untraceable contributions, including cryptocurrency, prepaid gift cards and money orders. It would strengthen the rules on third parties. It would prevent foreign entities from funnelling money into our politics through Canadian intermediaries. Critically, it would extend these protections to nomination and leadership contests, which Justice Hogue identified as real points of vulnerability. Third, it would give the commissioner of Elections Canada enforcement tools she has asked for: higher penalties, the power to summon witnesses and compel evidence without clogging up our courts, the ability to co-operate with international partners, and a specific requirement that the commissioner consider foreign interference when determining penalties. These are tools our election watchdog needs, and experts have been calling for them for years. Fourth, the bill would protect candidates and election workers themselves, because threats to our democracy are not abstract. They are directed at real people, including candidates, returning officers and their families, who increasingly face harassment and intimidation. Fifth, it would finally establish a comprehensive privacy regime for federal political parties. This has been recommended for years by the Privacy Commissioner and by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it is time we got it done. I want to be clear with the House. The bill is a necessary step but not the final step. Justice Hogue has called for a dedicated body to monitor disinformation. The Chief Electoral Officer has called for transparency labels on AI-generated election content. Our NATO allies are asking us to build whole-of-society resilience that includes media literacy, support for independent journalism, accountability for platforms, and deeper international co-operation. We will need to keep going. We will need to keep updating our laws as the threats evolve. We will need to keep doing this together, across party lines, because the adversaries trying to weaken Canadian democracy do not care which party any of us belongs to. They want to weaken us all. I commend our government for bringing forward Bill C-25. I urge every member of the House, from every party, to support it. I urge every one of us to recognize that defending Canadian democracy is not a one-time vote. It is an ongoing responsibility, one that this generation of parliamentarians has been asked to carry. Our democracy is strong, but it is not invulnerable. Canada is worth protecting. Our democracy is worth protecting. The residents of Davenport and of every riding in the country are counting on us to do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his participation in providing some input into Bill C-25. I think it is enormously important that we work across party lines. I am going to focus on the bill. The government is taking action to ensure that Canadians continue to have confidence in the integrity of our elections, and to further strengthen our democratic institutions in response to the rising threats being faced by countries around the world. This is just one of the many steps we need to be taking. There are about 29 changes being proposed in Bill C-25. We have more to do.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about the Canada Elections Act is that we have done a fairly good job over time of making sure that we are constantly updating it to meet the threats of the moment. Deepfakes are definitely one of the threats of the moment. I am very pleased that our minister responsible for democratic institutions has acted fast and has worked in coordination across party lines to actually put some protections in the new bill in order for us to address this new threat. We need to continue to be vigilant and to be aware of the new threats coming our way, so we can continue to make sure we are protecting our elections and democracy here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as that has nothing to do with Bill C-25, which is before us right now, I will give a very general comment. Floor crossing has happened on both sides of the bench, and I think it has been part of our parliamentary tradition. However, today I am very pleased that our minister has introduced formally into the House Bill C-25. It is the strong and free elections act. It proposes targeted priority amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would further protect and secure Canada's elections.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed right. The per-vote subsidy, as the main political party funding reform, is not in the bill. In the bill, we focus on political financing. We are trying to prevent foreign and dark money from getting into our political system. As I mentioned in my speech, we have many opportunities to continue to improve our democracy, to continue to improve the Canada Elections Act, to continue to fight and to put in tools and measures that would counter disinformation and misinformation. I mentioned a number of them in my speech, and I look forward to the work ahead.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we have started to incorporate a number of the recommendations that Justice Hogue made in the foreign interference report. It may not all be in the bill, but this is first reading. This bill will go to committee, and there will be an opportunity to propose and suggest additional amendments or additions. There is also an opportunity, in the near future, to introduce another bill and make more reforms moving forward, but it is the intention of our government to implement all the recommendations from Justice Hogue.

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the immigration and citizenship committee, I am presenting two reports today. I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Reconstituting Canada’s International Student Program”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, March 25, regarding Canada's immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, I know that parliamentarians across the alliance and countries on both sides of the Atlantic are looking to Canada for leadership in new cutting-edge defence technologies and innovation. It is critical that we rearm, rebuild and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces while building up Canadian industry. Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the critical investments we are making in Canada's defence industry?

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-220, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. My remarks today will focus on the immigration implications of the bill and what I believe is at stake for all of us as Canadians. Before I turn to the substance of the legislation, I want to say something that I believe deeply and that I know the vast majority of Canadians share. We are a nation of immigrants. From the very earliest days of Confederation, people have come to the country from every corner of the world, bringing with them their talents, their traditions, their determination and their dreams. They have built our cities. They have staffed our hospitals and our schools. They have started businesses that employ our neighbours. They have served in our armed forces. They have enriched our culture, strengthened our economy and made us who we are. Canada is the envy of the world, and that is not by accident. It is because of the extraordinary diversity of the people who call this country home. Our strength has always come from our differences, from our willingness to welcome those who seek a better life and to stand together across lines of language, faith and heritage. This is the Canadian story, and it is one we should tell with pride every single day. In my riding of Davenport, I see the story lived out in real time. I represent one of the most diverse communities in this country. Families from Portugal, from Latin America, from the Caribbean, from Southeast Asia and from across Africa and Europe have built a vibrant, thriving neighbourhood. They volunteer in our schools, care for our elderly and show up for each other. They are the backbone of our community, and I am honoured to stand here on their behalf. When I talk to newcomers in Davenport, I hear the same thing over and over. They chose Canada because of what this country stands for: fairness, opportunity and the rule of law. They came here to contribute, to raise their families in safety and to be part of something bigger than themselves. That is the promise of this country, and it is a promise we must honour. Every generation of newcomers has made Canada stronger, more innovative and more resilient, and the generation arriving today is no different. Let me be unequivocal. Anyone in the process of becoming a Canadian, whether they are an asylum seeker, a temporary worker, an international student or in any other immigration stream, who commits a serious crime should face the full consequences of the law, including deportation, period, with zero tolerance. Committing serious crimes while enjoying the privilege of being in Canada is unacceptable, and it will not be tolerated. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already provides for exactly that. It defines serious criminality. It provides for inadmissible findings, deportation orders and, in many cases, a permanent ban on returning to Canada. The framework is robust, and it is enforced. The question before us is not whether criminals should face consequences. They absolutely should, and they do. The question is whether Bill C-220 actually makes Canadians safer or our system fairer. The answer is no. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, when a permanent resident or foreign national is sentenced to more than six months of imprisonment, that constitutes serious criminality. They lose the right to appeal their deportation order. For lesser offences, the immigration appeal division can examine factors such as length of time in Canada and the best interests of children. The law is clear. Serious offences mean serious consequences. Bill C-220 would prohibit judges from even being aware of these consequences when determining a fit sentence. It would force a one-size-fits-all approach, asking courts to ignore the fact that a sentence of six months and a day carries a life-altering, drastically different penalty from a sentence of six months. Let me correct the misconception. When a judge considers immigration consequences, the offender can still be found inadmissible for serious criminality. They are still subject to a deportation order. There is no free pass in marginal cases. The individual retains the right to argue their case before the Immigration and Refugee Board, an expert, independent tribunal that weighs public safety against individual consequences. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada, under a Conservative government, unanimously recognized in R v. Pham that immigration consequences are a legitimate factor in crafting a fit sentence. The court was explicit: A sentence must always remain proportionate to the crime and the offender's responsibility. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill was a cabinet minister when that decision was issued. The Conservatives had two full years to legislate on this if they believed there was a problem. They did not. A decade later, the Conservatives brought forward a bill that ignores the jurisprudence, the evidence and the realities of both the courts and the immigration system. The opposition members argue that this creates a two-tier justice system. I would argue exactly the opposite. The punishment is already two-tiered. A non-citizen can also face a second and far more severe consequence that a citizen does not: deportation, permanent removal from their family and the only country that many of them may have ever known. Allowing judges to consider that reality is not special treatment. It is what ensures that the total consequence is proportionate. We have heard examples from members opposite. The Crown already has the ability to appeal any sentence it believes is unfit. Appellate courts can and do intervene. There is no evidence of courts systematically reducing sentences inappropriately. Due process is not a loophole. It is what ensures that enforcement decisions are lawful, credible and sustainable. Bill C-220 would create a disconnect between two statutes that Parliament has designed to work together. Let me close where I began. Canada's greatness lies in the people who have come here and chosen to build a life in this country. We owe it to them and to every Canadian to maintain a system that is fair, principled and effective. We enforce the law firmly against those who break it, but we must also reject legislation that is built on rhetoric rather than evidence, that would undermine judicial independence and that would make our system less fair without making anyone safer. On this side of the House, we believe in an immigration system that reflects who we are: a generous, law-abiding, diverse nation that holds people accountable and treats them with fairness. Bill C-220 would not advance that vision. The government cannot support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, last week thousands of investors, workers and innovators gathered in Toronto for the PDAC convention, the world's largest mining conference. Canada has the critical minerals that the world needs for electric vehicles, clean technology and national security. Last week our government announced new investments to accelerate mining projects and strengthen our supply chains with allies. Could the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources update the House on how Canada will help build mines faster, attract investment, create jobs and build a strong, resilient Canadian economy?

Mr. Speaker, there is great news. We have already seen Build Canada Homes move quickly from promise to progress, delivering real results for Canadians. A great example is Dunn House phase two, located in Toronto's Parkdale community, which will provide supportive housing for at-risk seniors. Can the Minister of Jobs and Families, on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, update the House on how this project reflects the government's approach to accelerating affordable housing across the country?

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be as passionate an intervenor as my dear colleague from Winnipeg North, but nonetheless I have a few very important things to say about the opposition day motion today. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today. As the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and as someone who has heard testimony from legal experts, law enforcement and settlement organizations over recent months, I rise to speak to the motion with a perspective grounded in both evidence and our government's principled approach to public safety. As members may know, I am the daughter of immigrant parents who fled their respective countries due to poverty, war and discrimination. They came to Canada to find a safe place to raise their children, so I very much understand on a personal level what our immigration system means to families, but I also understand that public safety must always be paramount. Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: Claiming asylum cannot and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Conservatives would have Canadians believe that our asylum system provides a safe haven for criminals. This is simply not true. Our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already establishes that a claim is ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board if the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality or by reason of a conviction in Canada for an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years. When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their case goes through the criminal justice system. If they are found guilty, their asylum claim is terminated. Their authorized period of stay in Canada ends, and they will face removal. In cases of serious inadmissibility, removed foreign nationals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. Making a refugee claim does not exempt lawbreakers from the consequences of their actions. I want to address the calls in the motion to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The Conservatives claim Bill C-5 allowed house arrest for serious crimes like extortion. This is simply incorrect. Conditional sentence orders are never available where the sentence is two years or more, which is typically the case in serious extortion offences. They are also unavailable where an offender poses a threat to public safety. Furthermore, we maintained mandatory jail time for extortion involving restricted or illegal firearms or extortion connected to criminal organizations, precisely the types of extortion cases Canadians are most concerned about today. The Conservatives should do their homework before repeating slogans. On Bill C-75, the Conservatives' central criticism is that it codified the principle of restraint and bail, but what they refuse to acknowledge is that Bill C-75 actually strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence. It formally defined “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code to include ex-partners. It created a reverse onus for repeat intimate partner violence offenders, making it harder for them to obtain bail, and it now requires judges to consider prior intimate partner violence convictions and imposes stronger penalties for repeat offenders. The president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Canada has stated clearly that the claim that Bill C-75 weakened public safety is a false narrative. Canadians deserve a debate grounded in facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a law that made it harder for repeat intimate partner violence offenders to get bail, then they should say so directly. Just last week at the immigration committee I chair, we heard from Professor Audrey Macklin, chair of human rights law at the University of Toronto. She confirmed that under Canadian law as it currently exists, individuals convicted of serious crimes are ineligible to seek refugee protection. When asked about individuals who claim asylum after being charged with crimes, she was clear that if they are convicted of that offence, they will be ineligible because the eligibility requirements make them ineligible. She also noted that those who receive custodial sentences tend to be removed, because they are in custody. Also, CBSA has historically prioritized people serving criminal sentences because they are, frankly, easy to find. We further heard from representatives of the Refugee Centre, who told us that, in the first nine months of 2025, the acceptance rates for refugee claims reached 78%, of which less than 1% were fraudulent claims. This tells us that the initial decision-making is generally sound and that our system is working. Yes, it is overloaded, but it is working. Everyone deserves to be and feel safe in their communities, and that is why Canada's government is taking real action to keep Canadians safe, not through slogans and divisive rhetoric but through comprehensive, evidence-based reforms. We have introduced several major bills: Bill C-2, the strong borders act; Bill C-12, the immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which has introduced over 80 targeted criminal code reforms, many directly addressing extortion. Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for individuals charged with violent extortion, making bail significantly harder to obtain. It would require sentences for extortion to be served consecutively to sentences for related offences like arson. It would prohibit weapons at bail for those accused of extortion and organized crime offences. It would strengthen bail conditions for organized crime-related extortion, including geographic restrictions. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has endorsed Bill C-14, stating that it reflects their own recommendations. Police leaders called for broader reverse onus provisions and tougher penalties for organized crime, and Bill C-14 answers all of those calls. We have also made the largest single investment in Canadian border security, $1.3 billion. We are hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel. On top of all that, we have created a financial crimes agency to combat money laundering and organized crime. What deeply concerns me about the motion before us is its intent. The Conservatives are not genuinely seeking to strengthen public safety; they are seeking to create division within Canadian society by suggesting that the federal Liberal government is making it easy for criminals to stay in Canada. This is absolutely false. The member for Calgary Nose Hill proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 that she claims would have prevented non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making asylum claims. However, in reality, our law already does this. Her amendment would have created more operational and administrative procedures and likely resulted in significant litigation, not greater safety. While Conservatives rely on slogans and ideological proposals, many of which are imported from outside of Canada, our government is delivering thoughtful, targeted reforms that strengthen public safety, protect victims and ensure that our justice system responds to the realities Canadians face today. While Conservatives are holding important public safety bills hostage in committee, we are working across party lines to ensure that we are delivering for Canadians. Instead of looking backwards with motions designed to divide Canadians, our government is looking ahead. The criminal justice reform agenda being implemented by the government is principled, responsible and will meaningfully address the public safety challenges that communities across Canada are facing today. The reforms contained in Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 have been informed by significant engagement with stakeholders right across this country. The federal government is doing its part. We need the provinces to do their part and the cities to do their part. In conclusion, I encourage all members to work collaboratively to improve our criminal justice system. Canadians expect no less. They expect us to be serious about public safety, not to play political games with their security. The government opposes the motion before us because it is based on misinformation, would undermine Canada's sentencing principles, remove long-standing judicial discretion and offer no real solutions to the challenges we face. Instead, I urge all parties to support the passage of Bill C-12 and Bill C-14, legislation that is right before us. In doing so, we will make all Canadians safer.

Mr. Speaker, if we asked Canadians today, the vast majority of them would say they are concerned about public safety. I am very proud of our government. In a very short period of time, we have introduced a whole series of measures and legislation taken directly from key stakeholders, victims groups, police associations, municipalities and provincial leaders to address the major safety issues that concern Canadians today. We have Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-16 and Bill C-14. All of this legislation collectively needs to pass through the House of Commons and be made into law so that it can protect Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, when we came back and the House went into session after the holiday season, my Conservative colleagues made a number of statements saying that they wanted to be more collaborative, more positive and wanted to work with us. I would say, in that spirit, that I hope it is true that they want to work with us. We have important business at hand. There is important legislation before us. We are willing to work with the Conservatives and all opposition members on all sides of the House to make sure that we are incorporating any legitimate changes that we need to make. Let us get moving on this legislation. Canadians deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I think I was very articulate in my speech about why I was very supportive of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Canadians are now looking to us to see what the issues are and what actions we need to take now. They are asking the House to work together. They are asking us to work collaboratively. They are asking us to pass the pieces of legislation that are in front of the House right now in order to make Canadians safer.

Mr. Speaker, last spring, Canadians elected us on the promise to make life more affordable. My constituents in Davenport and Canadians across the country know we have taken action to cut income taxes for 22 million Canadians. We have cut the GST for first-time homebuyers, and we are building homes across the nation at a pace not seen in generations. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced that our government will help working Canadians and their families with the rising cost of food. Can the Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions please explain how this measure will help Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum in Washington, D.C., United States of America, from December 4 to 6, 2023; the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning its participation at the Spring Session in Sofia, Bulgaria, from May 24 to 27, 2024; the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning its participation at the 70th Annual Session in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, from November 22 to 25, 2024; and the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning its participation at the Joint Committee Meetings of Defense Security Committee, Economics and Security Committee and the Political Committee in Brussels, Belgium, from February 17 to 19, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Davenport, I have veterans who served in Afghanistan. When I ask them about their service, the answer is simple. They are proud to have served. They are proud Canadians. Let the record be clear. Canada is a founding member of NATO. We have participated in nearly every mission since 1949. More than 40,000 Canadians served in Afghanistan, and 158 made the ultimate sacrifice. Our soldiers did not stand back. They led allied combat operations in Kandahar, one of the most dangerous provinces in the country. Today, Canada leads NATO's largest forward presence in Latvia, with 2,200 troops standing firm against Russian aggression. Our sailors, soldiers and aviators are second to none. Canada shows up. Canada leads. Canada keeps its word. As the Prime Minister reminded the world last week, Canada thrives because we are Canadian. Our veterans' sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, first I want to say happy new year to everyone. It is a real pleasure to be back in the House with all my colleagues to do the important work for Canadians. I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for South Shore—St. Margarets. I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, one of the most consequential updates to Canada's criminal code in generations. As the member of Parliament for Davenport, a diverse downtown Toronto riding with families from every corner of the world, I hear regularly from constituents who are deeply concerned about safety in their communities: parents who worry about their children's safety online, women who tell me they do not feel safe walking alone at night and survivors of intimate partner violence who share their stories of living in fear even after leaving abusive relationships. These are not abstract policy questions; they are lived experiences of people I represent. The legislation would respond directly to their concerns. Bill C-16 is the third major piece of criminal justice legislation introduced by our Minister of Justice. Last year, in September, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which would protect communities of faith from hate crimes and intimidation. In October we introduced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which would ensure that repeat violent offenders face tougher bail conditions and stronger sentences. Both of these bills have received strong support from the local police in my hometown of Toronto, both from the Toronto Police Service and the Toronto Police Association. They have called for the bills' rapid passage to give law enforcement the tools it needs to keep our communities safe. I hope members of the House will join me in supporting the swift passage of all three of these critical pieces of legislation. I did hear the good news earlier today that the justice committee is already moving very swiftly through Bill C-14. This is great news indeed. Together with Bill C-14, these reforms would send a clear message that our government is keeping Canadians safe, protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that criminals face the full force of the law. The statistics around women and girls and gender-based violence are devastating. In 2024 alone there were 100 victims of intimate partner violence in Canada, an increase from the year before. Behind each of these numbers is a daughter, a mother, a sister or a friend: someone whose life was cut short by violence that was driven by control and fear. We know that intimate partner violence often follows a pattern. It begins with control: Isolating the victim from family and friends, monitoring every move or controlling their finances. Too often this coercive control escalates to physical violence, and too often it ends in tragedy. Bill C-16 would address this reality head-on by creating a new criminal offence for coercive control and recognizing that intimate partner violence does not begin the first time someone is physically harmed; it begins when patterns of controlling behaviour strip away someone's freedom and dignity. The legislation also would treat femicide, the killing of women because they are women, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, as first-degree murder. When someone kills their intimate partner as part of a demonstrated pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour, that crime deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness, and I am so happy that we have elevated this to first-degree murder. I would say that it is about time. Bill C-16 also would strengthen the criminal harassment offence by removing the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety. Instead the test would be whether the harassing conduct would reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe someone's safety is threatened. This change would recognize that victims should not have to prove their fear; the conduct itself should be the focus. Bill C-16 would also address online forms of sexual violence. Technology has created new avenues for sexual violence that our laws must address. Bill C-16 would criminalize the distribution of non-consensual sexual deepfakes, AI-generated images or videos that depict someone in sexually explicit scenarios without their consent. These deepfakes can destroy reputations, cause profound psychological harm and, in some cases, be used to extort victims. Our laws must catch up to this disturbing reality. We would also increase penalties for sexual offences including the distribution of intimate images without consent, sexual assault exposure and voyeurism. These crimes cause lasting trauma, and our penalties must reflect their severity. I have spent years working with families in Davenport, and nothing is more important to me than keeping our children safe. The exploitation of children, whether online or in person, is among the most horrific crimes imaginable. We know that child sexual abuse and exploitation material is proliferating online at alarming rates. We know that predators use the Internet to lure, manipulate and exploit children and that our laws have not kept pace with these threats. Bill C-16 would take strong action to reinforce mandatory minimum penalties for people who create, possess and distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material. This includes restoring 13 mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences that were previously struck down by courts. I know that some people may question mandatory minimums, but let me be clear: When it comes to predators who prey on children, who create and distribute images of their abuse, there must be consequences. In the rare circumstances where applying a mandatory minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate, courts would still have the discretion to impose an alternate term of imprisonment, but jail time would be kept for people convicted of those heinous crimes. We would also toughen laws to crack down on child luring and online sextortion, making it illegal to threaten to distribute child sexual abuse material. This directly responds to the devastating rise in sextortion cases where predators target children online, manipulate them into sending explicit images and then threaten to share those images unless the child complies with further demands. Bill C-16 would also criminalize the distribution of bestiality depictions used by predators to manipulate and exploit children, and we would also create a new offence targeting adults who recruit, pressure or counsel children to commit crimes, protecting our youth from being exploited into criminal activity, something I hear a lot about in my home community of Davenport. Finally, we would strengthen the obligations on Internet service providers under the mandatory reporting act to combat the distribution of child sexual abuse material. Online platforms must be part of the solution. For too long, our justice system has retraumatized victims. Bill C-16 would create new rights for victims, including the right to be treated with respect and to have timely resolution of their cases considered. We would make testimonial aids automatically available, improving access to information and raising the bar for defence attorneys to access the therapeutic records and personal communications of victims. As the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime reported, victims of sexual violence deserve better. With respect to court delays, we are requesting courts to consider alternatives to stays of proceedings, while streamlining procedures. We are encouraging diversion for low-risk cases to free up resources for more serious violent crimes, because justice delayed is justice denied. I want to bring this back to my constituents in Davenport. In my riding, there are women who are afraid to leave abusive relationships because they do not believe the justice system will protect them. There are children who are being targeted by online predators. There are seniors who have been victims of extortion and intimidation. These Canadians deserve a justice system that protects them, treats them with dignity and holds perpetrators accountable. That is what Bill C-16 would deliver, not perfectly, because no single piece of legislation can solve all of the challenges our justice system has, but meaningfully and substantively. I recognize there will be debate about specific provisions. As the bill, I hope, proceeds to committee, I encourage all members to engage constructively and to propose amendments that would strengthen the legislation. We cannot do nothing. We cannot continue to read about women killed by intimate partners. We cannot continue to read about children exploited online and about violent offenders reoffending after release. Bill C-16 is about values. It values victim safety over predator convenience, recognizes intimate partner violence as a serious crime and would ensure that children grow up free from exploitation. Every Canadian deserves to live free from violence and fear. Every child deserves to grow up safe. Every victim deserves to be heard and respected. The legislation would move us closer to that Canada. Let us send a clear message: Violence against women and children will not be tolerated, predators will face consequences and victims will be heard, respected and protected.

Madam Speaker, the protecting victims act, Bill C-16, would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. I heard there are concerns on the other side about there being a court challenge. As the minister said this morning, he has taken into consideration what has happened in the Supreme Court. This has provided some guidance on how we can avoid these types of constitutional challenges in the future.

Madam Speaker, I think this year is going to be a year of action. I want to say to the hon. member that I was very hopeful when I heard some of the speeches this morning. There is a spirit of co-operation, a spirit of positivity and a spirit that shows we will work together to make sure we are passing legislation that will protect Canadians. I am very proud of the legislation being introduced today, and I hope all members will pass it quickly through the House.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for recognizing this extraordinary woman. I am going to repeat something the minister said this morning after he gave his speech. There is work behind Bill C-16, which, as I mentioned before, would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system. It is very aggressive in ensuring that we modernize the Criminal Code to respond to the most contemporary threats, to intervene earlier, to prevent violence and to make sure the justice system works faster and more fairly for victims and survivors. This work was not just done because we talked to a number of legislators. This is because of the work of the status of women committee. This is because of the work of advocate groups. This is because of all the victims of violence in this country. It is perhaps too long in the making, but it is finally here. Let us get going and let us pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, for over three years, Ukrainians have fought valiantly against Russia's illegal and brutal invasion, defending not just their homeland, but also the principles that borders must not be changed by force and that every nation has a right to determine its own future. Canada has stood with Ukraine from day one, and now more than ever, Ukrainians need our support on the battlefield, where it matters most. Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the latest steps Canada is taking to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to win?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou. I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act. For over a decade, I have had the enormous privilege and honour of representing the amazing people of my constituency of Davenport. It is a riding in the heart of downtown west Toronto, and it is home to 120,000 residents. It is a community that I love deeply. It is vibrant, diverse and hard-working. It is home to Canada's largest Portuguese community. It is also home to artists, entrepreneurs, newcomers and families whose roots stretch back generations. It is from their kitchen tables, their small businesses and their community centres that I draw both my purpose and my perspective. We are living through what our Prime Minister has rightly called a rupture. It is not merely a transition, but a sharp change in a short period of time. The global order that has shaped our prosperity for decades is shifting beneath our feet. Trade relationships are being rewritten, alliances are being tested and our citizens are feeling the pressure. As the Prime Minister said in a pre-budget address, “if we don’t act now, the pressures will only grow.” Bill C-4 is one of the many ways our government is acting. It is how we are responding to this moment: not with half measures, but with meaningful relief that puts money back in the pockets of Canadians who need it most. I want to be direct about the reality Canadians are facing. According to Abacus Data polling from just last week, 64% of Canadians now name the cost of living as their number one concern, which is the highest level recorded this year. Some two-thirds of Canadians worry about affording the basics in the next six months. As the Abacus CEO put it, “the cost of living continues to be the dominant lens through which Canadians evaluate politics and policy.” We hear Canadians and we are responding, not just via Bill C-4, but through the plan and the numerous measures found in budget 2025. Let me tell members what these national numbers look like in my riding of Davenport. The median household income is $85,000, which is close to the Toronto average, but 41% of our renter households spend more than 30% of their income on shelter. That is the definition of housing stress. More than 10% of the residents in my riding live in low income housing. Nearly half of my constituents rent their homes, many of which are in buildings constructed more than 60 years ago. Davenport is also profoundly shaped by immigration, as 43% of my constituents were born outside of Canada. Another 30% are second-generation Canadians. They came here, as my family did, believing in the promise that hard work would lead to a better life. That promise must continue to mean something. Bill C-4 would deliver on that promise through three concrete measures. First, we would cut taxes for the middle class. The lowest federal income tax bracket would drop from 15% to 14%. It would drop to 14.5% for 2025 and then to 14% permanently. This would benefit nearly 22 million Canadians. For a two-income family, that would mean up to $840 more in their pockets every single year. In my riding of Davenport, where 77% of our population is of working age, this would be direct relief for the people who power our economy. Second, we would make home ownership possible again. The first-time homebuyers' GST rebate would eliminate GST on new homes priced up to $1 million and provide partial relief on homes priced up to $1.5 million. For a young couple in Davenport dreaming of their first home, this would mean savings of up to $50,000. In a city where housing has become a barrier to building a life, we are opening a door. Third, we are lowering everyday costs. By permanently removing the consumer carbon price, we are reducing what Canadians pay at the pump and to heat their homes. For the seniors in Davenport living on fixed incomes, and for the small business owners watching every dollar, this is real, immediate relief. It started earlier this year, on April 1, and will continue to provide ongoing savings. I want to speak to why these measures matter beyond the immediate dollars and cents and why strengthening our middle class is a matter of national security. Just over a week ago, I had the privilege of attending the Halifax International Security Forum, alongside defence ministers, parliamentarians, security experts and others from around the world. The theme this year was dialogue, decency and democracy, and the message that echoed through every session was clear: Democracy has everything to do with international security. We heard that the foundations of democracy are showing cracks. We heard that democracies cannot meet external threats unless they are working internally, and we heard a truth that has been understood since Aristotle wrote his seminal book, Politics, more than 2,000 years ago: A strong middle class is the bedrock to a stable democracy. This is not abstract political theory. The OECD has documented that thriving middle classes are the backbones of democratic societies and strong economies. Through their consumption, their investment in education and housing, their support for quality public services, their intolerance of corruption and their trust in democratic institutions, the middle class provides the very foundations of inclusive growth. Aristotle himself observed that democracies are safer and more permanent when they have an abundant or numerous middle class with a greater share in government. When there is no middle class, he warned, trouble arises and the state soon comes to an end. Canada has always understood this. We have always invested in our middle class, not as a luxury but as a necessity. We have always ensured that those working hard to get ahead are given more than just hope. They are given opportunity. They are given a fair chance. Bill C-4 would continue that proud tradition. Let me be clear: These three measures alone would not solve every challenge. Budget 2025 contains a comprehensive suite of investments in housing, in skills, in innovation and in defence that together would move us forward. Bill C-4 is a critical piece of that plan, with direct, immediate relief that would reach Canadians where they need it most. It is how we would ensure that Canadians have the resources to participate fully in our democracy and in our economy. I am acutely aware that what we say in this chamber is recorded for history. Students will one day study this period, this moment of rupture and response, and they will ask whether we rose to meet the challenges of our time. I believe Bill C-4 is one of the many parts of how we answer “yes”. In my community, I think of Adelina, someone who lives on my street. She is a senior on a fixed income. She lives in Little Portugal, and she is going to be seeing lower heating costs this winter. I think of Carlos and Ana, second-generation Canadians saving for their first home, who will now be able to afford the down payment they never thought possible. I think of the small business owner in Dundas West who will keep more of what she earns to invest in her shop and her employees. I think of the young family in Junction Triangle, newcomers who chose Canada because they believe in its promise and who deserve a government that delivers on that promise. I will be supporting Bill C-4 and I encourage all members of the House to do the same. In my constituency of Davenport, we have a saying. [Member spoke in Portuguese] [English] It means, together we are stronger. Let us be stronger together.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his great work on the citizenship and immigration committee. He started off by saying that there is minimal savings through our middle-class income tax cut. I completely disagree with this statement. For a two-income family, it is $840 more in their pockets every single year. As someone who grew up in a working-class family, $840 extra a year would be a life change for us. It would mean a lot. It would actually buy us a lot more. If there was ever a family that knew how to use its dollars and put them to use effectively, it would be a working-class family or a middle-class family in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the first-time homebuyers' GST rebate in Bill C-4 would help thousands of people who want to buy their first home, and it would be a very effective tool. I will also say that in budget 2025, we are investing an additional $25 billion. We are determined to increase housing supply in this country, and we are trying to increase housing supply across the whole spectrum of housing. With this period of heavy investment at all levels of government, home ownership or being able to live affordably in this country will soon be a possibility for every single Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak to budget 2025. This is an important budget delivered in extraordinary times. Let us start off by being very honest about where we are. The world is more dangerous and divided, and Canada is very much facing a world that is rapidly changing and is increasingly uncertain. The rules-based international order and the trading system that powered Canada's prosperity for decades are being reshaped, which is hurting companies, displacing workers and causing major disruption and upheaval for Canadians. In Canada, we have to focus on what we can control. Despite the headwinds, Canada has the fiscal capacity to transform our economy. This is our moment to build big, to build bold and to build now. As our Minister of Finance said, “This budget must be generational in its ambition.... There is no place for withdrawal, ambiguity or even standing still, only for bold and swift action.” Let me speak to one of the many items that matter to the people in my riding of Davenport. The number one thing I hear about is jobs. People continue to be worried. Will they continue to have good-paying jobs? Will their kids coming out of school have opportunities? Without a good-paying job, no one will be able to afford a home or live a decent life. I am very proud that this budget invests heavily in training and creating opportunities. We are providing $1.5 billion over three years to address youth unemployment, including with 100,000 Canada summer jobs, which is 30,000 more than what was given this summer, and 55,000 new work-integrated learning opportunities for students, which is 15,000 more than we were able to do this past year. Davenport has many union construction workers, and I want to give a shout-out to LIUNA Local 183, which is the largest union for construction workers. We are so blessed to have them in our city building our city and our country. They contribute so much to our national economy. In budget 2025, we are providing $75 million over three years to expand the union training and innovation program for apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades. For workers who are impacted by tariffs, we have $570 million over three years for training and employment assistance, plus new workforce alliances bringing together employers, unions and industry groups. Finally, we are also launching a youth climate corps, with $40 million over two years to train young Canadians to respond to climate emergencies and strengthen community resilience. Another big priority for Davenport is culture and the arts. Very blessedly, there are many artists in my constituency. While these times are tough and our government has had to make some hard choices, let me be very clear: Culture matters and the arts matter. During uncertain times, we stay united by sharing our stories. The arts help us interpret the world around us. The arts and culture sector contributed $65 billion to our economy in 2024. In budget 2025, we invest $769 million over five years in arts and culture, which includes $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million for Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million for the Canada Media Fund, and support for festivals and performing arts. We have also introduced an artist's resale right, allowing visual artists to receive royalties when their work is resold, something the sector, including many from my constituency of Davenport, have advocated for for years. Public safety is the third top priority for Davenport. Residents are worried about auto theft, home invasions and gun crime. I want my constituents to know that this issue is among the highest priorities of our government. The budget provides $1.7 billion over four years to the RCMP to hire 1,000 new personnel to fight transnational organized crime, financial crimes and money laundering. We are also providing almost $700 million over five years to the Canada Border Services Agency to hire up to 1,000 new officers, building on the $1.3-billion border plan announced in December. These officers will also stop guns and drugs from coming into our country. All this investment is in addition to a number of strong pieces of legislation making their way through the House, which include Bill C-14, Bill C-12 and Bill C-9. Budget 2025 also has an important focus on seniors. For seniors, elderly benefits will reach over $83 billion in 2025-26, supporting 7.5 million Canadians. We are also launching a national anti-fraud strategy. In 2024 alone, Canadians lost $643 million to fraud, nearly a 300% increase since 2020. We continue supporting the new horizons for seniors program, which is a lifeline for many seniors in my riding and seniors across the country. Finally, we are introducing a personal support workers tax credit, providing up to $1,100 per year. This is to support the amazing people who take care of our loved ones, because as our loved ones get older, they need a lot more support. As chair of the Canada NATO Parliamentary Association, I take our commitments to defence very seriously. Budget 2025 confirms we will reach the NATO 2% target this fiscal year and are on a pathway to meet the 5% defence investment pledge by 2035. This budget provides $81.8 billion over five years to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces have the support and the tools they need. We are also providing $2 billion in 2025-26 for additional military assistance to Ukraine. As our Prime Minister has said, there can be no prosperity without security. I would also add that we must continue to do all we can to ensure the war stops in Ukraine and to help bring a just and lasting peace to the country. I know there are concerns about the deficit, but we are acting from a position of fiscal strength. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and the second-lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio. The IMF has validated the approach outlined in our budget, stating that we are using our fiscal space to make generational investments, and that is good. No one likes seeing large deficits, and we are committed to balancing the operating budget by 2028-29. We are dramatically reducing how much we are spending to run government. Through our comprehensive expenditure review, we are achieving $60 billion in savings over five years, eliminating duplication and using made-in-Canada AI tools. We are spending less on day-to-day operations so we can invest far more in capital investments, in building Canada. This budget will catalyze $1 trillion in investment over five years from provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and the private sector. We are investing $51 billion over 10 years through the build communities strong fund for local infrastructure: hospitals, universities, roads, bridges, water systems and transit. The first two phases of nation-building projects are expected to trigger $150 billion in total capital investment. We are also diversifying our trade relationships, working to double our overseas exports within a decade and unlocking $300 billion in new opportunities for Canadian workers and businesses. Canada has to make itself attractive to the world. Luckily, we are an amazing country. We have the critical minerals, the natural resources, the people and the leadership to do so. Let me conclude with this. When times are tough, we stand together as Canadians. We look after one another. We invest in ourselves. We do not retreat; we advance. As our finance minister said, “To weather the storm of uncertainty, we will not lower our sails. Quite the opposite, we will raise them to catch the winds of economic change, because we believe in Canada.” I believe in Canada. I believe in my riding of Davenport. I believe in the resilience, the diversity and the determination that make our community and our country great. This is a moment for bold action, a moment to build the future we want for ourselves and for generations to come. Canada has faced challenges before and we have always emerged stronger. Budget 2025 is our plan to do exactly that: building our economy, protecting our communities, empowering our people and ensuring Canada emerges as the strongest economy in the G7. I am proud of this budget; I am proud to support it, and it is always an honour to represent the people of Davenport.

Mr. Speaker, where I agree with my hon. colleague in his question is that we do have to build our economy bigger and faster than ever before so we are not reliant on any one country. We have been too reliant for too long on one huge partner. It has been very beneficial for us for almost 100 years, but now we are taking urgent, immediate and big actions to reorientate our economy, not only to strengthen ourselves internally but also to make sure we are diversifying our trade with trusted partners internationally. I do think it will take up to 10 years and that it will be a huge effort for us to do that, but I also think we have the people, the skills, the talent and the resources to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member. Canada's government is presenting a responsible economic plan that leverages our world-class industries, our skills and talented workers, our diverse trade partnerships and a strong domestic market where Canadians can be our own best customers. We also have a very clear mandate, which is to spend less so we can invest more. I hosted a big town hall about the budget last week. My constituents definitely had a question around our $78-billion deficit. I spoke to them about how we are separating our operating expenditures from capital investments and massively decreasing our operating expenditures over the next five years. They understood that, they believe in it and they think we are on the right path.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question, comment and statement were excellent, and I agree with him. In Canada, we are very blessed despite the changes that are happening in the world today. Despite many of the challenges that Canada is facing, we are acting from a strong fiscal position, and budget 2025 is our plan to ensure that we are building our economy, lowering our costs and making smart investments that will grow our economy for the long term. Indeed we do have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio. The IMF has recognized our plan and has said that it is a right approach. This is our chance to build a stronger, more resilient economy with smart generational investments.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House reiterated its confidence in our government and in budget 2025. Indeed, budget 2025 is an expression of confidence in Canada. In the face of uncertainty, Canadians are going to build a future we want for ourselves. That includes our new buy Canadian policy, which is strengthening our economy by prioritizing Canadian-made steel, aluminum and softwood lumber. It is supporting local jobs, protecting industries impacted by international tariffs and reinforcing our commitment to stable supply chains. Can the secretary of state speak to the broad support for this buy Canadian policy?