Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that we have not consulted with the Privacy Commissioner. I want to mention that this is the wrong information, and I believe that my colleague was misinformed before her speech. The Privacy Commissioner said at the committee, “I would not say that we were not consulted in this instance. We made a number of recommendations. A number of them were taken and I've highlighted those improvements”. He said that during his witness testimony. I would also like to highlight that the government did its due diligence by getting the Privacy Commissioner's input for that bill. I also want to mention that, as a Liberal member on the committee, we would like to work with the opposition party members to improve the bill and work on the amendments. However, we heard 10 hours of witness testimonies, plus three hours with the officials. We had over 40 briefs and lots of witnesses on that study. Filibustering, unfortunately, is not allowing us to move on the amendments. The amendments are on the table. We would like to continue with the amendments and working on them, but the Conservatives are not allowing us to.

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague at committee, as well as with my colleague from Oshawa, who also expressed concern about not having enough time to ask questions at committee. With respect, every member of the committee has the same time allocated. I have difficulty understanding why, while most of the other members of the committee could ask questions, the member was not able to. It is all about using our time wisely, I think. It is like someone's complaining about the distance they cannot go, when they have waited at the station too long. That was my concern. I am trying to understand how they could not use the time wisely and why they filibustered their own witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, with a background in public safety projects, I recognize that cyber-threats pose a growing risk to Canadians, and our government is confronting this challenge head-on. Last week, Bill C-8, the act respecting cybersecurity, passed third reading in the Senate and is now awaiting royal assent. This legislation will ensure critical infrastructure operators can prepare for, prevent and respond to cyber-incidents. Could the Minister of Public Safety explain what this means for the safety and security of Canadians and critical infrastructure in key sectors such as finance, telecommunications, energy and transportation?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code. At the outset, I would like to thank the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate, the Hon. Senator Yvonne Boyer, for her leadership, dedication and tireless advocacy on this issue. Senator Boyer has been a powerful voice for survivors and for indigenous women across this country, and her work has helped bring national attention to a practice that should never have occurred in Canada. I also would like to thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for sponsoring the legislation in the House of Commons and helping move it through the parliamentary process. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the survivors, whose courage, persistence and willingness to share deeply personal experiences have brought us to this point. Their voices have been at the centre of this discussion from the very beginning. The bill exists because survivors refused to allow these experiences to remain hidden and because they demanded accountability, recognition and action. Today, members from all sides of the House have an opportunity to take an important step forward. Bill S‑228 is straightforward in its purpose. It would clarify that sterilization procedures carried out without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault under the Criminal Code. The legislation would not create a new criminal offence. It would not change the law of consent. It would not alter legitimate medical practice. Rather, it would make explicit what many Canadians would reasonably expect the law to already recognize: A sterilization procedure performed without free and informed consent is among the most serious violations of a person's bodily autonomy and should be treated accordingly. At its core, the bill is about consent. Consent is one of the foundational principles of both our criminal law and our health care system. Consent must be given freely, consent must be informed, and consent must be voluntary. Consent cannot be obtained through coercion, manipulation, pressure, threats, deception or abuse of authority. These principles are not new. They are already deeply embedded in Canadian law, yet the experiences that have been brought forward by survivors demonstrate why clarity matters. For many survivors, particularly indigenous women, the issue was never simply what the law said on paper. The issue was whether the system recognized the seriousness of what had happened to them. The issue was whether there was sufficient clarity and accountability. That is why Bill S-228 is important. It would send a clear message that sterilization without free and informed consent is not merely a breach of medical ethics but is also a profound violation of bodily autonomy that engages the criminal law. Discussions surrounding the bill have also provided an opportunity to reflect on a difficult chapter in our country's history. We know that forced and coerced sterilization occurred in Canada. We know that indigenous women were disproportionately affected. We know that many survivors experienced lasting physical, emotional, psychological, cultural and intergenerational harms. We know that these harms have contributed to deep mistrust of institutions and systems that should have protected these women. The experiences shared by survivors have been powerful and heartbreaking, and they have reminded all of us that legislation is ultimately about people. Behind every discussion of criminal law, every amendment and every committee study, there are individuals whose lives have been affected. The bill recognizes that reality. One of the themes that emerged repeatedly during committee study was the importance of ensuring that the bill provides clarity while avoiding unintended consequences. I believe that the legislation successfully achieves that balance. Some questions were raised about whether the bill could affect lawful and consensual medical procedures. The answer is no. The bill would preserve lawful medical care. Some questions were raised about whether physicians acting appropriately in emergency circumstances could somehow face new criminal liability. Again, the answer is no. The legislation would clarify the existing state of the law. It would not change the legal framework governing emergency medical treatment. It would not remove existing protections available to health professionals acting with reasonable care and skill. It would not alter the long-standing principles that apply when urgent medical intervention is necessary to preserve life or health. These safeguards already exist within Canadian law and would continue to exist. That point was reinforced through testimony received during committee study. In other words, Bill S-228 would strengthen accountability for non-consensual sterilization, while preserving appropriate medical care. Those two objectives are not in conflict; indeed, they are complementary. A strong health care system depends upon trust, and trust depends upon consent. One aspect of the bill that deserves particular attention is its use of a “for greater certainty” provision. The legislation would not attempt to reinvent the criminal law. Instead, it would clarify how existing principles would apply in a specific context. Parliament uses this type of provision when it wishes to remove doubt and to provide greater certainty regarding the application of the law. That is precisely what the bill would do. It would provide greater clarity to courts, prosecutors, law enforcement and, most important, to survivors and Canadians. It would reinforce that sterilization without free and informed consent is conduct of the utmost seriousness. Another important feature of the bill is that it reflects a collaborative approach. This is not a partisan issue. The bill originated in the Senate, was advanced by Senator Boyer, was sponsored in the House of Commons by a Conservative member and has received support from members across party lines. That is how Parliament should function when addressing issues of fundamental human dignity. There are times when we will disagree vigorously, but there should also be moments when we can come together around shared principles. Respect for bodily autonomy is one of those principles. Respect for free and informed consent is another of those principles, as is the dignity of every person. Bill S-228 reflects those values. I also want to acknowledge the many organizations, advocates, academics, medical professionals and community leaders who have contributed to this conversation. We heard from individuals with expertise in reproductive justice, indigenous health, medical ethics, women's rights and criminal law. While witnesses approached the issue from different perspectives, there was broad recognition of the importance of affirming bodily autonomy and reinforcing the principle of free and informed consent. That broad support speaks to the strength of the bill. It also speaks to the seriousness of the issue before us. The legislation is also consistent with broader efforts to advance reconciliation. Reconciliation requires more than words; it requires action, listening, responding to the experiences of indigenous people and taking concrete steps when harms have occurred. No single bill can undo the harms experienced by survivors. No single legislative amendment can rebuild trust overnight. No single measure can address every aspect of this issue. That does not mean Parliament should do nothing. Meaningful progress often occurs through concrete and targeted steps. Bill S-228 is one such step. It would recognize the harms that occurred, reinforce accountability, strengthen clarity and affirm principles that are fundamental to a free and democratic society. Throughout this debate, we have heard discussions about bodily autonomy. That concept is sometimes discussed in legal, medical or policy language, but at its heart, bodily autonomy means something simple: Every person has the right to make decisions about their own body, those decisions must belong to the individual, and procedures with permanent consequences cannot be imposed through coercion, pressure, manipulation or abuse of authority. These principles should not be controversial; they should unite us, and I believe they do. The passage of Bill S-228 would not mark the end of this conversation. There would continue to be important discussions about patient safety, about reconciliation and about accountability. Those conversations should continue, but today Parliament is being asked to decide a specific question: Should the Criminal Code clearly state that sterilization procedures performed without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault? I believe the answer is yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding young leaders of the Oakville West Youth Council, who are joining us here on Parliament Hill today. This has been a remarkable year for this group. Together we visited the Halton Regional Police Service headquarters to see the work that our law enforcement does, Sheridan College to learn about future career paths to pursue and Oakville Museum to learn about why Black History Month is important and Oakville's contribution to it. They also participated in a mock committee study on artificial intelligence, among many other meaningful experiences, including today's meet-and-greet with the Prime Minister. At every step, they have demonstrated curiosity, leadership and genuine commitment to learning and serving their communities. Spending time with these young people gives me tremendous hope for the future. They are thoughtful, driven and deeply engaged. They are not simply preparing to become leaders someday; they are already leading today. I thank the Oakville West Youth Council.

Mr. Speaker, when women and gender-diverse Canadians face barriers to entering the workforce, accessing leadership opportunities or living free from violence, it does not just impact individuals; it holds back the entire economy and our communities. Organizations across Canada are working every day to support survivors, expand opportunities and build safer, more inclusive communities, but they need stable and timely support. After obstruction from the Conservatives, our budget is now delivering support for these organizations. Can the Minister of Women and Gender Equality update the House on how these investments will strengthen support across Canada?

Mr. Speaker, it was great to spend this weekend with Oakville firefighters. With winter ending, we are reminded of the risk of wildfires, such as the one at Bronte Creek Provincial Park in 2021. With warmer weather, we are also already sadly seeing many communities impacted by flooding. As emergencies have become more frequent, more severe and more costly, could the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience let us know what is ongoing to prepare for the upcoming wildfire and flooding seasons to keep Canadians safe?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 8,089 residents from my riding of Oakville West and from across Canada. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to individuals currently in Canada under the TS2023 temporary public policy who were welcomed on humanitarian grounds and have built their lives in Canada following the devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. The petitioners highlight that despite ongoing reconstruction efforts abroad, the impending expiry of work permits is creating uncertainty for these individuals. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to extend work permits and to consider a pathway to permanent residency for those who are contributing to Canadian society and the economy. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House referred Bill C-22 to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As a proud member of the committee, I am committed to strengthening public safety and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to protect Canadians. I carry with me the voices of the residents of Oakville West, who trust us to act decisively in the face of evolving threats, and that is exactly what we are delivering as a government. Bill C-22 is an important piece of legislation that would give law enforcement legal access to certain information or to intercept communications in support of investigations into crimes and threats. Tonight, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is hosting a reception to discuss the vital importance of this legislation. I want to encourage all my fellow parliamentarians who want to learn more about lawful access to attend, get informed and support Bill C-22. Let us give law enforcement the modern tools it needs to keep our communities and Canadians safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong and unequivocal support for Bill C-22, the lawful access act of 2026. The legislation represents a vital and long-overdue step in modernizing Canada's legal, technical and investigative frameworks to protect our citizens in an increasingly dangerous digital world. The bill is a cornerstone of our commitment to modernizing Canada's safety framework for the digital age and beyond, ensuring that our investigators have the tools necessary to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. As Chief Nishan Duraiappah of Peel Regional Police so powerfully stated during the government's announcement in Peel Region, our current rules and investigative frameworks were written before cell phones were even created. This is a staggering reality. While criminals, human traffickers and organized crime networks have rapidly adapted to new digital platforms and communication tools, the legal and technical framework available to our investigators has fundamentally failed to keep pace and is falling behind. The Canadian Police Association, an organization representing 60,000 frontline personnel, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have been clear. Our current legal framework to access digital evidence is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised. Unfortunately, the reality is clear that, while technology has advanced at lighting speed, the laws governing how we investigate the most sophisticated criminals have remained frozen in time. Transnational organized crime groups are currently exploiting this gap to traffic drugs, such as fentanyl; coordinate human trafficking; distribute child sex abuse material; and smuggle firearms across the border. Canada is the only country among the Five Eyes and the G7 that does not have a modernized lawful access regime. We are falling behind our peers. For too long, our law enforcement agencies have had to rely on the co-operation of international partners to fill in the gaps in our own national security and intelligence investigations. As our public safety minister has emphasized, a strong government delivers for its citizens. It is time for a Canadian solution to go after criminals who threaten our communities. Bill C-22 would provide the targeted, judicially authorized tools needed to combat 21st-century threats. One of the most important updates is the confirmation of service demand, which would allow investigators and CSIS to quickly confirm, with a simple yes-or-no question, whether a service provider holds information tied to any identifier. This would not grant access to private content. It would simply identify where the evidence may exist so that proper judicial authorization could follow. The subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial authorization to obtain basic identifying information, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of using a phone book and is essential for identifying suspects operating behind anonymity. To be clear, this is the same approach that existed in the predigital age, simply modernized to keep pace with today's changing technological landscape. This modernization is essential for combatting crimes, such as human trafficking, sextortion and child exploitation, as well as auto theft networks and violent organized crime. For example, with regard to human trafficking and sextortion, these crimes often begin with an anonymous IP address. The new subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial approval to obtain basic identifying info, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of a phone book, and it is essential for identifying the predators who are hiding behind pseudonyms. Organized car theft rings use digital tools to coordinate border-crossing operations. The bill would modernize tracking and transmission data warrants, allowing investigators to follow the digital bread crumbs of these networks, even when the specific devices they use change during the investigation. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has fully endorsed these changes, noting that they would reduce the barriers police face when investigating online crimes against children. Without modern tools, criminals, especially predators, can remain hidden for far too long. Perhaps most importantly, part 1 of the bill would codify the power of police to act in exigent circumstances. In the digital world, every second counts. Members can imagine an active kidnapping, where a predator is communicating via an encrypted app or a terrorist threat, and an attack is imminent. Currently, waiting hours for a formal warrant in the middle of the night could mean the difference between life and death. Bill C-22 would specify circumstances in which officers can obtain evidence, including subscriber information, immediately, to prevent serious injury or the destruction of vital evidence. This would not grant permanent powers. It would ensure that, in a life-or-death emergency, the law would stand on the side of the victims. Legal authority is meaningless without technical capacity. Part 2 of the bill, which would enact the supporting authorized access to information act, would ensure that major electronic service providers maintain the technical ability to comply with court orders they are already legally required to follow. Currently, Canada has no regulatory framework requiring service providers to maintain systems capable of responding to lawful court orders in a timely and consistent manner. This bill would address the gap by ensuring core providers can retrieve and produce information when ordered to do so by a court. Importantly, this would not create any back doors. Providers themselves would retrieve the information and disclose it only under judicial authorization, avoiding any systemic vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors. I want to be very clear. This legislation would not create unchecked new powers. Strong judicial oversight and privacy would ensure that all powers are exercised under strict court authorization and with robust safeguards to protect Canadians' privacy rights. Judicial authorization ensures that almost every tool in this bill would require prior approval from a judge or justice based on reasonable grounds. No back doors would ensure there would be no covert access mechanism, with systems remaining secure and data only being disclosed under lawful authority. Independent review would ensure that ministerial orders under part 2 must be reviewed and approved by the intelligence commissioner, which would ensure independent oversight and accountability. To understand why this bill is so vital, we must look at the technical hurdles our officers face every day. I am particularly proud of the collaborative approach we have taken. I recently sponsored a parliamentary breakfast panel on the Hill in collaboration with the National Police Federation. I invited senators and members of Parliament from all parties to engage directly with the experts who work with these systems every day. We heard from Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, on frontline policing matters; Leah West, a national security law expert from Carleton University; Nick Milinovich, deputy chief of Peel Regional Police and co-chair of the lawful access advisory committee; and Gordon Scott Campbell, a constitutional and criminal lawyer with Supreme Court experience. Deputy Chief Milinovich and other experts described the trial and error burden that currently cripples investigations. When police have a digital identifier, such as an IP address, tied to a crime, they must send a production order to a service provider to identify the suspect. However, if they send that order to a provider that does not actually service that identifier, the provider can simply not comply. This creates a technical stalemate where police must guess which provider holds the data. Bill C-22 would solve this through the confirmation of service demand. This tool would allow the investigator to quickly confirm with a simple yes or no if a provider holds information tied to an identifier. It would not grant access to private content, but simply identify where evidence exists so that proper judicial authorization can follow, ending the era of investigative guesswork. We also heard important questions from our Conservative colleagues about privacy and scope. Those concerns were addressed clearly. This bill would not expand surveillance. It would ensure that, when a judge authorizes access, the information can be obtained effectively and lawfully. The Ontario Association Chiefs of Police has stated that this is about ensuring police can “obtain vital evidence in complex cases”, not “expanding surveillance”. In conclusion, we can no longer afford to leave our investigators with tools from a predigital era. We cannot remain the only G7 nation without a modern lawful access regime. Bill C-22 is a balanced, necessary and collaborative 21st-century solution to 21st-century crimes. As the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and multiple national law enforcement bodies have emphasized, this is about ensuring police can obtain vital evidence in complex cases while maintaining strong judicial oversight and charter protections. I urge all members of the House to support the swift and constructive passage of this legislation so that we can fulfill our primary duty, the safety and security of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear on the ministerial powers. The ministerial orders in part 2 would be subject to approval by the intelligence commissioner. Privacy and cybersecurity are the considerations when issuing orders. Judges have discretion to include conditions to protect any person's privacy interests when issuing a warrant. This strikes the right balance. I am looking forward to working with my colleague across the aisle on this bill at committee.

Mr. Speaker, yes, Canada is the only country in the G7, as well as the Five Eyes, that does not have lawful access. It has been almost a year that I have been working with law enforcement, which includes my local police organization, Halton Regional Police Service. I learned, through many hours of consultation, that they do agree and they want this legislation. They are thirsty for this legislation and have been for decades. They are in full support of this legislation, just like those on this side of the House are.

Mr. Speaker, last year as part of the tech caucus, I delivered some AI training to my colleagues on this side of the House. As part of that training, to showcase the risks of AI, I made a deepfake of myself speaking for several minutes, fluently in French, to show them that it was me and my voice. Although I am not fluent in French, I was perfectly so in the deepfake. I was able to create such a sophisticated deepfake of myself in my office months ago, and AI and deepfakes are evolving really fast. Could my colleague, the hon. member, explain how the legislation is long overdue for the protection of our elections?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Oakville West's ongoing efforts to prevent bullying, especially among our youth. We are fortunate to have strong educational frameworks in place. The Halton District School Board's RespectED program provides essential learning on personal boundaries, abuse prevention and healthy relationships. Complementing this is the Canadian Red Cross initiative Beyond the Hurt, which takes a peer-led approach to addressing harassment among youth, empowering them to support one another. Beyond the classroom, the Women's Centre of Halton is doing critical work to help individuals break free from the blame cycle, fostering lasting and positive change. I am also proud of my Oakville West youth council, which serves as a direct platform for our future leaders to research, discuss and work on the issues that affect them most, including cyber-bullying and online safety. By bringing their voices directly to the House, we ensure that the fight against bullying is not just something we do for our youth but also something we do together with them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his constructive comments about our committee's hard work, and I thank him for the time he put into the committee's work and for joining us during those studies. He also supported the sponsored event I had on the Hill on this matter, with the National Police Federation as well as other law enforcement and some lawyers. As a former police officer, could my colleague emphasize the importance of this legislation and how it gives our law enforcement the expediency to respond to often complex and heinous digital crimes, which he also mentioned in his speech, such as child sexual exploitation?

Mr. Speaker, our colleague opposite, who is from the riding of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner and is a former police officer, correctly stated that lawful access is not access to private information. Can my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for combatting crime, expand upon the safeguards in this bill that would ensure that Canadians' privacy would be protected while we provide the tools the police need to get the evidence they need to put the bad guys in jail?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is concerned that the legislation is being rushed or not being adequately reviewed, but he also mentioned that the legislation would address the gaps and delays for the information that law enforcement needs in order to catch criminals. Also, law enforcement has publicly supported the legislation, and the member's colleagues have repeatedly mentioned that lawful access does not mean an expansion of or access to private information. I wonder, which is it?

Mr. Speaker. I was in the room for weeks studying Bill C-8 clause by clause. Every amendment that was tabled by the Conservatives was a great threat, technically, to this country and to Canadians. I was defending every technicality on those bills, and I am happy that they could not move most of those amendments. Coming back to Bill C-22, can my colleague tell this House if he knows what the cost of inaction to Canadians would be if we did not pass this crucial legislation that law enforcement is asking for and that relates to a rapidly evolving threat environment? I wonder if he will be comfortable voting against it when his own colleagues are supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, law enforcement, child protection agencies and national security experts have already clearly stated that the current laws are outdated and that Bill C-22 includes strong judicial oversight and no back doors. Can my colleague clarify which specific safeguards in this bill the Conservatives believe are insufficient and why they are prepared to delay tools for law enforcement that would protect Canadians? Will they delay Bill C-22 like they did Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the vital importance of Bill C-8, an act respecting cybersecurity. ln our current digital age and threat landscape, the protection of our mission-critical infrastructure is not just a technical requirement but a matter of national security, public safety and sovereignty. Bill C-8 is built on two essential pillars, part 1, which amends the Telecommunications Act to make security a primary policy objective, and part 2, which enacts the critical cyber systems protection act. This legislation is designed to safeguard the digital systems that underpin our most vital services, from banking and clearing systems to interprovincial pipelines and nuclear energy facilities. As a member of the public safety and national security committee, I can say that this legislation was studied extensively. As someone with a technical background, I already understood many of the challenges cybersecurity experts and companies face, but I paid extra attention, asked the hard questions and made sure that every concern was thoroughly examined. Even after I presented the technical facts opposing the Conservatives' technically zero and very dangerous amendments, they themselves verified the correctness of what I said with experts during the committee study. I am confident that Bill C-8 is robust, practical and fully equipped to protect Canada's most critical digital infrastructure from the sophisticated threats of today and tomorrow. Let me be clear. The bill reflects the government's commitment to public safety and keeping our telecommunications secure. Unfortunately, during our study it became alarmingly clear that the Conservatives are attempting to dismantle and obstruct this critical piece of legislation through a series of loophole amendments that would leave Canada's digital borders wide open to exploitation. lnstead of supporting the regulatory processes outlined in this legislation, Conservatives attempted to introduce additional steps to slow down our ability to react and be in line with our Five Eyes partners. Cyberwarfare does not happen on a schedule that respects the time of security experts or federal courts. If a cybercriminal or threat actor establishes a foothold into our systems and performs a lateral movement through our telecommunications network in real time, judicial authorization could take up to six or even 18 months, as we repeatedly heard from the experts. The government must be able to act and respond swiftly. Requiring a judicial sign-off for every technical directive would cause major delays that would allow cybercriminals to face less resistance and achieve their objectives to further damage our critical systems. We must be incredibly careful not to blind our defences and readiness with technicalities. Perhaps the most technically dangerous proposal from the Conservatives was the attempt to exclude the content of intelligence from our security oversight. While this may sound like a privacy protection to the uninitiated, it is actually a technical trap. ln cybersecurity, the distinction between content and signal intelligence is often blurred. For example, a highly critical signal intelligence, such as an attack indicator that points to a detection of a malware beacon or a computer worm, can be embedded directly within what a lawyer might call content. By excluding this, the Conservatives would legally forbid our experts from regulating the very data streams used to carry out high-level system disruptions. We must also be wary of creating what I call a silent breach loophole in our national defences. During the committee stage, the Conservatives tried to narrow incident reporting so that companies would be required to report only events that have or may have an adverse material impact. This is reactive, not proactive. This is 20th-century thinking that ignores the technical realities of modern warfare. Effective cyber-defence and resilience rely on seeing the near misses, small probes and minor incidents that are often the only early warning signs of a massive, coordinated cyber-scheme, which can lead to a much more evolved and even advanced cyber-attack. If we allow companies to stay silent until the damage is already material and measurable, we lose our ability to provide a collective defence and warn the rest of the country about a spreading threat. We cannot afford to wait until a critical system has already been compromised before our security agencies are allowed to see the smoke. We must be blunt about how certain proposals from the Conservatives during the committee study would cripple enforcement and accountability under this act. At committee, the Conservatives sought to make this bill legally unenforceable by proposing that individuals should be fined only if they knowingly break security rules. This is a massive technical loophole, because, by requiring the government to prove wilful intent, we could no longer hold executives accountable for gross negligence or sloppy security practices that leave Canadian data exposed to hostile actors. Additionally, they proposed prohibiting the government from identifying the individuals who provide information about security risks. While protecting whistle-blowers is important, this creates a procedural fairness trap. If a company is fined based on evidence from a source that the government is legally barred from naming, a judge will almost certainly strike down that fine, because the company cannot verify the credibility of the evidence against them. While we oppose these dangerous loopholes, our government has proposed constructive safeguards to ensure that Bill C-8 respects the rights and privacy of Canadians, unlike the misinformation spread by the Conservatives. We have introduced amendments to explicitly prohibit the decoding of encrypted private communications. This provides legal certainty that the critical cyber systems protection act is about protecting infrastructure, not spying on the private lives of Canadians. We are ensuring that solicitor-client privilege and professional secrecy are never affected, giving companies the peace of mind to be fully transparent with security agencies without fear of losing legal protections. Instead of surrendering our sovereignty to outside standards bodies, as the Conservatives proposed, we are ensuring that the government can seek consistency with international best practices while keeping the final word on Canada's security right here in this House. In conclusion, Bill C-8 is about collective defence. It is about ensuring that when a bank, a power grid or a telecom provider is attacked, our whole country can see it, stop it and learn from it. We cannot afford to have a bill filled with the holes and technical blind spots proposed by the Conservatives. This part is absolutely critical, and I hope the Conservatives are paying very close attention, because the stakes here could not be higher. Canada's critical infrastructure faces a sophisticated threat landscape, not only from individual cybercriminals but with state-sponsored actors moving beyond espionage to pre-position for potential cyber-sabotage according to the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security's “National Cyber Threat Assessment in 2025-2026”. The report emphasizes that alongside these threats, ransomware remains the primary cybercrime threat making proactive readiness and resilience essential to national security. Addressing this urgent threat, Bill C-8 is critical to mandate robust security standards and incident reporting across federally regulated sectors, moving beyond voluntary compliance to safeguard national security. I urge all members to reject these attempts to create an anonymous, delayed and unenforceable security regime. Let us finally pass a bill that is fast, technical and robust enough to protect Canada from the sophisticated threats of today and tomorrow. I would also urge my Conservative colleagues to listen to the technical experts, those who work on the front lines of cybersecurity, who understand these risks, who explained them during the long hours of committee study, and who have expressed clear support for Bill C-8. Canada cannot afford delays, loopholes or half measures when it comes to defending our critical infrastructure and our country. The evidence is clear, and the experts have spoken. It is time to act and support this bill for Canadians and our protection.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague and her comments. I really enjoy talking to her when it comes to technical issues too. In this bill, we are already addressing cyber-attacks and protection against cyber-attacks, and that also includes hardware protection. That has been studied in the committee. I will be happy to share all the details with my colleague later on, but they can be found in the transcripts of the committee studies.

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my time studying Bill C-8 at the committee stage with my colleague from the Bloc. She had tremendous input into this study. We also adopted amendments from the Bloc and the NDP for points where they saw that the bill could be improved. All these amendments have been implemented, and I really appreciate their input in this study. The bill has been studied in depth, and the experts were very useful and helpful in helping us understand it.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we have to pass a bill that protects Canada and Canadians is that we are at a critical point, and we have to work together as legislators. Our first and primary job is to protect Canada. Cybersecurity in this era is a must. It is the number one protection for our borders. Not only do we have borders with our neighbours, but we also have borders in cyberlife as well, so we need to make sure it is protected and that our critical infrastructure is not being attacked by those criminals, so we can protect our country. I can extend this example to nuclear power, traffic lights and our banking system. Imagine waking up one day to a critical mess that is not an American movie scenario.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague also has a technical background, and we enjoy talking about IT infrastructure at different times. I will be very clear that Bill C-8 already has provisions in place that would prohibit the government from overreach when it comes to the privacy of Canadians. This is in the bill already. The bill is about the infrastructure of our country. It is only about the protection of our critical infrastructure and has nothing to do with overreach into people's privacy. There are also provisions and prohibitions that would prevent the government from ordering the decoding of encrypted private communications.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety also works with us at the SECU committee. This bill is about the telecommunications sector. It is about the energy, financial and transportation sectors. It is about our critical infrastructure. As Canadians and as legislators, our primary duty is to protect our country and to protect our people, Canadians. The bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The government would have no reach into people's privacy. We will continue to make sure that the government is working for the protection of its systems and Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, during committee studies and while answering all the questions from the floor, this bill is a critical bill to protect not only Canadians but also Canadians' information and data. Every year, the amount of ransom money that companies have to pay criminals is huge. This bill would help protect those companies. It would not only protect those companies, but also protect Canadians, their privacy and their data.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from the SECU committee, the critic for public safety, mentioned, there was the phrase “any threat”. Yes, “any threat” has to be in the bill because it is technical wording. If a person does not understand the technicality of cybersecurity, they will definitely come up with those ideas. “Any threat” means that we have to act even if the threat is a near miss, before it is a material threat. If it is a material threat, it is already too late. Our systems are gone. Regarding privacy and freedom of speech, which my colleague mentioned in his speech and his previous answer, could he make it clear to us where in the bill it is actually attacking the privacy of individuals and freedom of speech?

Mr. Speaker, the leaders from Unifor, whom I also had the chance to meet yesterday, have clearly stated that they were not consulted, and they have raised serious concerns that the Conservatives' proposal lacks key details and risks undermining jobs across the sector. I am curious. Why did the Conservatives choose to try to develop a national auto strategy without engaging the very workers whose livelihoods are at stake, and why are they ignoring the concerns raised by the biggest auto union in the country?

Mr. Speaker, I have good news: our leader today, the Minister of Public Safety, tabled a bill respecting lawful access, with the underlying objective of giving law enforcement agencies the modern tools they need to combat organized crime, as well as further capacity to act swiftly to prevent criminal activities such as extortion. Could the Minister of Public Safety elaborate on the critical importance of the bill and how the passage of the legislation would contribute to the safety and security of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of International Women's Day, I joined SAVIS and Halton Women's Place to honour the strength, resilience and contribution of women in my riding of Oakville West and across Canada. The role women have played in our Canadian story has always been one of strengthening our communities, driving innovation and shaping a more inclusive future. A key pillar of that is women's economic participation. That is why our government is investing, through the women's program and WAGE, to support projects that break down barriers to women's economic equality. Since 2018, the program has invested over $266 million in more than 700 completed projects across the country. These investments have supported over 400,000 participants, while strengthening and creating over 4,500 partnerships between community organizations, employers and service providers. I am proud to be a part of a government that recognizes and supports women's success, economic opportunities, growth, participation and equality. When women succeed, everyone benefits.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate today. As we all know, times are changing, and in that uncertain world, the government is focused on what we can control. As part of Canada's new industrial strategy, we are transforming our economy with a diversification of trade partnerships as we work to catalyze growth with massive new levels of investment. For over 100 years, Canada's automotive industry has underpinned advanced manufacturing, driven innovation and supported hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs across the country, including in Oakville. It is as important as ever that we take action to maintain and improve Canada's automotive sector. In fact, we have a unique opportunity to do so. That is why, on February 5, I was proud to join the Prime Minister as he launched a new strategy to transform Canada's automotive industry. Recognizing that the future of the automotive industry is electrified and connected, the government is prioritizing the development of the full value chain for next-generation vehicles. Within five years, EV sales are projected to reach nearly 40% of global car sales. It is important that Canada is among those at the forefront of that evolution. While repealing the electric vehicle availability standard will allow manufacturers to use new technologies as they respond to consumer preferences to grow domestic demand for EVs, they must become more affordable for working Canadians. That is why the government will launch a five-year, $2.3-billion EV affordability program that will offer purchase or lease incentives up to $5,000 for battery electric and fuel cell EVs, and up to $2,500 for plug-in hybrids with a final transaction value of up to $50,000 on cars made by countries that Canada has free trade agreements with. To support the Canadian automotive industry, this $50,000 cap will not apply to Canadian-made EVs and plug-in hybrids. The government will also enhance, through the auto strategy, the national EV charging network, through investments of $1.5 billion, including investments in my riding of Oakville West. These will, through the charging and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure initiative, make it convenient for drivers to charge their cars no matter where they are. To accelerate investments in Canada's automotive manufacturing sector, the government will also allocate $3 billion from the strategic response fund and up to $100 million from the regional tariff response initiative to help the auto industry adapt, grow and diversify. We will also take advantage of the productivity superdeduction and reduce corporate tax rates for zero-emission technology manufacturers to encourage investments in clean technologies and EVs as well as strengthen Canada's automotive remission framework to reward companies that build in Canada. The government will also establish a comprehensive trade regime that strengthens the auto sector through new partnerships. For example, Canada recently deepened its strategic partnership with the Republic of Korea by signing a memorandum of understanding to strengthen Canadian-Korean industrial collaboration for future mobility. The recently announced new relationship with China aims to drive new Chinese joint venture investment in Canada and allow for a fixed volume of Chinese EV imports into the Canadian market. Although countertariffs on auto imports from the United States will be maintained, the government will continue to advance its auto strategy within an integrated North American automotive industry. By making strategic investments and solidifying trade partnerships, Canada is positioning itself as a global leader in vehicle electrification, autonomous and self-driving technologies, and the battery supply chains that will power the future of mobility. I would also like to mention the help we will provide to the auto workers who will build the vehicles amid short-term uncertainty. To protect Canadian auto workers and businesses from immediate pressures while helping bridge them to the future, the government will provide support to employees through a new work-sharing grant, preventing layoffs and supporting worker retention so that businesses can plan for the future. In addition, up to 66,000 workers across Canada, including affected auto workers, will receive employment assistance and re-skilling support as part of a $570-million investment. These strategic decisions and generational investments aim to build a strong Canadian auto sector, where Canadian workers build the cars of the future. Backed by a world-class workforce, globally recognized parts suppliers and leading-edge research and development, Canada's automotive sector is building the vehicles for today, and it will help build the vehicles of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the subsidy, the information given by the opposition is always inaccurate. We are subsidizing Canadian consumers and protecting Canadian jobs in an integrated North American supply chain that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Canadian market and the Canadian manufacturing sector. Our strategic strength is in Canadian manufacturing, securing investments in Canada and ensuring we remain competitive and leaders in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, as we are investing $2.3 billion, we are also investing $1.5 billion in charging infrastructure. Those stations also need power, for which we also announced measures in budget 2025, aiming to ensure that Canada has the clean and affordable energy needed to support our industries, including the auto sector. This was also included in the announcement made by the Prime Minister on February 5.

Mr. Speaker, the $1.5-billion investment in infrastructure will allow consumers to charge their vehicles wherever they want. This is a very important investment. Also, as I mentioned in my response to the previous question, investing in that infrastructure will improve our electricity industry as well, because we will need more power. We are investing in those areas to support this infrastructure with clean energy.

Mr. Speaker, it is so obvious that the other side of the aisle does not really understand what the subsidy is for. It subsidizes Canadian consumers in a huge industry in the supply chain, and it supports workers. There are workers in my riding of Oakville West, and they are powering our economy. When these times hit our economy, we have to be fast, fair and reliable. This is only one of the measures we are taking as a government. I also want to mention that Unifor is supporting us, auto dealers are supporting us, auto manufacturers are supporting us, workers are supporting us, and I am curious as to why you are not supporting us.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to honour the life and legacy of Captain Stuart Campbell of the Oakville Fire Department, who passed away at the age of 56 after a courageous battle with occupational cancer. Captain Stu served the Oakville community for more than 30 years, spending most of his career at the Bronte fire station. He served with pride, courage, compassion, unity and honour, showing an unwavering commitment to his brothers and sisters at the Oakville Fire Department. His passing is a reminder of the dangers and occupational risks that our first responders face in the line of duty, and our duty in turn is to ensure the safety of our first responders. On behalf of the people of Oakville West, I thank Captain Stuart Campbell for his service and mentorship to the community. He will be remembered. To Stuart's wife and his two daughters, and to all who loved him, I offer my deepest condolences. I want them to know that his service, sacrifice and legacy will never be forgotten by this community.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives in the House have long claimed that any sort of climate action is unnecessary and that clean technology alone will help lower emissions. What do they do when we introduce investment tax credits to help bolster Canada’s world-class clean-tech sector and the growing clean energy companies creating good, middle-class jobs in communities like my riding of Oakville West? They vote against them. They put petty partisan politics ahead of Canadian industries and Canadian workers. They obstruct and they delay. The BIA will strengthen and grow the Canadian economy while driving our historic transformation toward a lower-carbon future, work that companies in my riding of Oakville West and across Canada are already leading with innovation, manufacturing and clean energy supply-chain jobs that Conservatives refuse to support. If Conservatives cannot get on board, can they at least get out of the way and stop blocking this legislation?

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury. It is a privilege to rise today in the House to speak about Canada's trade and economic relationship with the United States and the implications for a foundational employer in my riding of Oakville West, Canada's automotive industry. I know this because, before my election to this Parliament, I worked in the field of industrial automation for many years. I have visited automotive factories in both Canada and the United States, and I know the value of the Canadian workers. North America encompasses a $42-trillion regional market of around 500 million consumers, and Canada's economic partnership with the United States is one of the most significant. Today, approximately 75% of Canadian exports are destined for the U.S. market. Canadian companies operating south of the border employ more than 800,000 Americans. This is a relationship built on decades of collaboration, integration, predictability and mutual benefit. However, we must acknowledge that the foundation of this relationship is shifting. The United States has moved away from its traditional support for multilateralism and open trade toward a more transactional and managed bilateral approach. This shift has real consequences. Tariffs up to 50% on Canadian steel, aluminum, autos, trucks and other critical exports are not only economically harmful; they are destabilizing. Canada-U.S. trade is, without question, fundamental to Canada's automotive industry, one of the most integrated industries in the world. Our integrated auto sector is the result of generations of co-operation, going back to 1965 with the auto pact and later the Canada-U.S. FTA, followed by NAFTA and then CUSMA. All of these have had numerous benefits for both Canada and the United States, including lower costs, sustained investments and good middle-class jobs on both sides of the border. U.S. tariffs disrupt supply chains, inflate costs and weaken our collective ability to confront global challenges, particularly those posed by non-market economies. It is because of the importance of the automotive industry that our government is focused on redefining our economic relationship with the U.S., diversifying Canada's exports and building one Canadian economy. Redefining our economic relationship with the United States will have significant implications for both nations' automotive industries, given their deeply integrated nature. At every step, the Prime Minister has been clear: We will defend Canadian workers and businesses. Our goal is a strong and reliable automotive industry that benefits Canadian workers. This sector requires more efficient access to supply chains, resources, critical minerals, skilled workers and innovation, all of which Canada possesses. Our government also recognizes that the upcoming scheduled review of CUSMA represents an opportunity to review this trade agreement with our North American partners. We are preparing for the review of CUSMA and will work constructively with our American counterparts to restore stability to our auto sector. The government recently concluded a second round of extensive public consultations on CUSMA to ensure that CUSMA continues to reflect Canada's national interests. We will continue to engage with provinces, territories, indigenous communities, industry groups, labour organizations and Canada at large to gather input to prepare for this review. At the same time, this government understands that the old model can no longer be counted on. We must chart a new path that reflects the realities of today's global economy and the needs of Canadians, one that recognizes the importance of the U.S. market while also seizing trade opportunities with new, reliable partners. We are committed to defending Canadian workers and industries and our sovereignty. We have passed the One Canadian Economy Act, which will make Canada more competitive by eliminating internal barriers and accelerating nation-building projects. We recognize that we must go further. That is why the Prime Minister announced that the government will launch a new trade diversification strategy, which will guide our efforts to deepen Canada's trading relationships globally. We are capitalizing on our existing trade agreements with the EU, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and new partners such as Ecuador and Indonesia. We are also negotiating trade agreements with emerging markets like ASEAN, the Philippines, Thailand, India, the U.A.E. and the Mercosur bloc in South America. As we work tirelessly to modernize and expand trade agreements, remove barriers and deepen co-operation with reliable trading partners, we will also continue to engage constructively with the United States and Mexico to advance common interests while safeguarding Canadian sovereignty and prosperity. In conclusion, our commitment to building a new Canada-U.S. trade and economic relationship is firm. We will continue to advance Canadian interests. We will remain constructive and focused, and we will do what is necessary to support Canadian workers.

Mr. Chair, I share the same concerns for our auto industry as my colleague from the Niagara region. My riding of Oakville West is a place of auto workers. Unlike the member opposite, I have taken the time since I was elected to meet with industrial leaders, visit factories and listen to the workers. They are highly supportive of the EV mandate, which reflects global trends in a field where Canada is a leader. We will continue supporting our industries, not only the EV mandate, but also expansions of factories, such as the Ford factory in my riding of Oakville.

Mr. Chair, auto manufacturing contributes over $16 billion to Canada's GDP and employs over 100,000 Canadians. Through budget 2025, the strategic response fund, which is $5 billion of investment, would support Canadian industries for a stronger and more resilient Canada. This fund would support Canadian businesses exposed to U.S. tariffs, including auto workers across the country and those in my riding of Oakville West. This will also allow our industry to pivot, adapt and diversify as we negotiate a new trade relationship with the U.S.

Mr. Chair, our plan is out there. It is budget 2025, and it is available to the public. Everybody knows our plan, and this is the plan we are behind. I want to remind my colleague from the Conservative Party that, on April 2, 2025, the Conservative leader called for an accelerated renegotiation of the CUSMA agreement and has stated that he would get a deal with the United States. I would like to ask my colleague this: Do Conservatives believe that any deal with the United States is better than no deal, even if it means our strategic sectors would have tariffs maintained?

Mr. Chair, my colleague for Guelph and I worked together for seven months on the auto caucus, which she chairs, and we successfully met with leaders of the industry. I have confidence in our Prime Minister to get our country a good deal. The government wants a good deal. We do not want a rushed deal, which will not work for Canadians. We definitely do not want a bad deal. We currently have the best deal out of all the trading partners of the United States, and we know that the government is working to secure a deal that is suitable for all Canadians and our workers.

Madam Speaker, Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act, puts forward three practical measures that would provide immediate relief for families: lowering taxes for nearly 22 million Canadians, a savings of up to $50,000 in GST relief for first-time homebuyers and permanently removing the carbon tax as of April 1. These steps would work together to help Canadians with income, housing and energy costs at once. We know that the affordability challenges Canadians are facing are serious, and also we know that Canadians are looking for co-operation across party lines. However, we saw many support programs voted down by the Conservatives. Could my hon. colleague explain to us the importance of supporting Bill C-4 so that we can deliver these benefits and beyond to Canadians without delay?

Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 clearly states that Canada possesses the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7, maintaining a strong AAA credit rating. Furthermore, the government's fiscal plan aims to achieve a crucial anchor: balancing day-to-day operating spending with revenues by 2028-29. When the government successfully achieves its stated goal by 2028-29, the deficit will entirely support investments that grow the economy. These investments are designed to grow to $1 trillion in total investments over five years. Why did the Conservatives vote against the budget that supports what I just talked about?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comprehensive speech and particularly for focusing on Canada's essential role in navigating global challenges and securing our economic independence. He highlighted the critical importance of growing and diversifying Canada's trade to build resilience, especially given the rapid reshaping of the global trading system. The core fiscal strategy of the budget is to spend less so we can invest more. Could my hon. colleague please elaborate on how this commitment to fiscal discipline and strategic investment has enabled the government to launch such ambitious nation-building initiatives and strengthen Canada's sovereignty from coast to coast to coast?