Vince Gasparro

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have passed significant legislation that has the support of every single major police organization in this country. That is the same legislation the Conservatives have obstructed and delayed every step of the way. The question I have for the Conservatives is, how much money did you fundraise off the very delays that you created?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, the bail and sentencing reform act, the combatting hate act, the protecting victims act and the act respecting lawful access, every single one of these pieces of legislation strengthens our public safety and enhances our national security. They have been supported by our national security apparatus and by every major police organization in the country. The only group of people who have not supported these pieces of legislation are members of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of Eglinton—Lawrence. Canada is going through a period of significant change. We are in a tariff war with our largest trading partner, the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues to put pressure on global food markets and commodity markets, a conflict in the Middle East has disrupted global energy markets and pushed up the cost of oil and gas, and rising global bond yields have raised costs for everyday Canadians through debt instruments such as mortgages and auto loans. For some Canadians, these events may feel distant, but they have real consequences here at home. I hear it from families that are dealing with higher grocery bills and higher costs at the pump. I hear it from manufacturers dealing with American tariffs and global uncertainty that impacts whether they can afford to invest, hire and expand here in Canada. These are the issues that matter to people in Eglinton—Lawrence and to all Canadians, and they point to a broader question: What can Canada control? We cannot control decisions made in Washington, and we cannot control conflicts overseas, but we can control how we respond. We can decide whether Canada is a country that waits for the world to change, or whether we build the capacity to succeed in a changing world. Our government has a plan to do that in the short term, the medium term and the long term. In the short term, we are acting decisively. We are standing up to unjustified American tariffs and are diversifying our trade relationships, 20 in total with more to come. We are putting money directly into Canadians' pockets through the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which provides up to $1,890 for a family of four, and we are cutting the federal excise tax on gas and diesel by 10¢ per litre. These measures are important because, in the face of global instability, Canadians need help today. However, short-term support is exactly that: short-term. We have to address the underlying problem. We need to be more competitive. We need greater private investment, specifically foreign direct investment working in our economy, and we need businesses that can expand, adopt new technology, hire more workers and compete in global markets. That is why our medium-term agenda matters. We have eliminated the consumer carbon tax and cut taxes for the middle class, and we are introducing productivity-enhancing tax measures that make it more attractive for businesses to invest in Canada. Under these measures, businesses can immediately expense up to 15% of eligible capital investments. The principle is straightforward: When a Canadian business wants to invest in a new machine, modernize a facility, expand production or adopt new technology, we should make that investment easier, because investment drives productivity, productivity drives wages and economic growth, and economic growth gives Canadians more opportunity. This plan is working. Just last week, the Canadian investment summit unleashed nearly $500 billion of new capital. Our fiscal policy is only part of the answer, We also need to build and execute. In the long term, we are building the foundation for a more productive, resilient and competitive Canadian economy. That is why I am supporting Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. For years, one of the challenges facing major projects in Canada has been uncertainty. I saw this first-hand as a banker who financed infrastructure. A business develops a proposal and works to raise capital. If it cannot predict when decisions will be made or if labour will even be available to it, it becomes much harder to make an investment in the first place. As costs rise, the project economics become more uncertain. The building Canada strong act is intended to change that fundamental dynamic. First, we would provide greater certainty by bringing federal mediation into the labour process earlier. Instead of waiting for a strike to occur, Bill C-39 would expand mediation and dispute resolution tools by establishing a time-limited special mediator to encourage good-faith bargaining before a dispute escalates. This would give workers and employers an additional opportunity to reach a negotiated agreement and avoid a strike or lockout. Second, the building Canada strong act would enhance the One Canadian Economy Act passed last year by the current government, by creating one coordinated federal process, one lead authority and a one-year timeline for federal decisions once a complete application has been submitted. Let me be clear. The bill would protect the environment and respect indigenous rights. What it would change is that it would improve the timeline for decisions to be made. The building Canada strong act would create a system that is more predictable, coordinated and efficient, because businesses need certainly, and our workers deserve certainty. The objective is simple: Move from an idea to financing, to construction and ultimately to a completed project. The fact is that process is not an outcome; results and execution are. Our country has done this before. In the 1950s, we built the St. Lawrence Seaway in less than five years, the TransCanada pipeline in two years and the Trans-Canada Highway. These were enormous undertakings that all helped Canada move east-west rather than north-south. The St. Lawrence Seaway gets raw materials from the interior out to market, the TransCanada pipeline connected the oil sands to refineries in eastern Canada, and the Trans-Canada Highway connected Canadians together. To continue to build a strong, independent country, we need to be more resilient east-west rather than north-south, which is exactly what the building Canada strong act would do. It would allow us to formally designate strategic trade corridors and advance priority projects within one year. The point is simple: Canada cannot control what happens in Washington or what happens in conflicts around the world, but we can create a more productive and resilient economy, one that provides greater certainty to investors, certainty to workers and certainty for businesses to grow, succeed and invest here in Canada. That is what Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would help achieve. We need to build faster, we need to build with certainty and we need to build for the long term. That is how we create good-paying, long-term jobs, attract private investment, strengthen our economy and make Canada more resilient. That is how we build Canada strong.

Madam Speaker, the current government has been focused on the economy since day one, and we see that with our legislative agenda, with the pieces of legislation that have been passed and with the projects that we have approved. Churchill Falls, for example, in eastern Canada, is going to produce enough clean power to power Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver combined. That is the type of action the government is taking. That is the type of employment we are looking to create in this great country. We are going to continue to make these decisions, whether the opposition wants to support us or not.

Madam Speaker, in my previous answer I spoke about Churchill Falls, the largest clean energy development in North American history, which is being financed by the government. I can tell members that renewable energy, along with the jobs it creates, is incredibly important to the government. It will produce enough power to heat, cool and electrify all of the homes in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. That is something the member and his party should get behind.

Madam Speaker, I think this is probably one of the first times I have been accused of being a Harper Conservative. Indigenous rights and making sure we engage with our partners at the AFN and other organizations are things we have taken incredibly seriously. They really are at the heart of this legislation. What I will say is this: The crisis we are in, and I said this in my remarks, requires us to act decisively, and we are going to do that with our partners.

Madam Speaker, there was an article today in Bloomberg saying that capital is leaving the United States and coming to Canada, which is an indication of the confidence investors have in the Prime Minister and our new government.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's remarks quite intently. At one point he mentioned that tariffs upon tariffs are not helpful. The fact of the matter is that countertariffs that we are placing on American goods are about protecting Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. If the hon. member does not believe in our government's defending Canadian workers and businesses, what does he agree with?

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's remarks very closely. I was hoping she could touch on some of the experts who have helped advise the government on our law and order agenda, from police to members of our national security apparatus and transit workers, and everyone in between. Maybe the member could talk about some of the experts advising us.

Madam Speaker, I find it really amazing that the member gets up and is more concerned about debating the price of paper clips than actually trying to help Canadians. She has voted against every affordability measure that has been brought forward. In my riding of Eglinton—Lawrence, 37,000 people are going to benefit from this groceries benefit, so are you telling them they do not deserve it? Shame on you.

Mr. Speaker, as a recovering banker, you will forgive me if I relapse for a moment. I want to recognize the Canadian ETF Association and the profound impact exchange-traded funds have had on investors globally. Canada gave the world one of its most important financial innovations: the exchange-traded fund. Born on the Toronto Stock Exchange, ETFs have fundamentally transformed how investors access capital markets by making investing more transparent, efficient and affordable. Today, ETFs employ 15,500 Canadians and manage more than $802 billion in assets. ETFs direct capital into Canadian businesses and infrastructure. They strengthen our capital markets and ensure that Canadians can build wealth with confidence. If we want to remain a global leader in financial innovation, we must continue to stay ahead of the Americans and others. I want to thank Prerna Matthews, Alex Perel, Eli Yufest and the Canadian ETF Association for their great work.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I listened to the hon. member's remarks very closely. He knows I have a great deal of respect for him. However, to be quite frank, is this just a cheap political trick to try to score some points? Our new government made an announcement. We are removing the excise tax from fuel, which is providing a great deal of relief for Canadians. We took the carbon tax off gasoline as well, reducing fuel prices by over 24¢ a litre. Is this not just a cheap political trick to try to save a failing Conservative Party?

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak in support of our new government's latest piece of legislation designed to keep Canadians safe and to ensure that our law enforcement and national security apparatus have modern lawful tools they need to carry out their vital responsibilities. Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, is our new government's seventh piece of legislation dedicated to enhancing our country's public safety and protecting Canadians. It builds on the broader suite of measures that include legislative action to combat hate and extremism, meaningful reforms to the bail system, stronger protections to address intimate partner violence, and steps to strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of Canada's immigration system. Together, these initiatives respond to evolving public safety threats while reinforcing the rule of law. It is clear that public safety is a priority for our government, and we will continue to do everything we can at the federal level to keep Canadians safe. Bill C-22 was developed through extensive round tables and consultations with law enforcement, telecommunications providers and privacy experts. Importantly, the scope of the bill has been carefully narrowed to strategically target telecommunication service providers while retaining the long-standing and well-understood legal threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect. This ensures that investigators could act swiftly when necessary while maintaining appropriate limits. To be abundantly clear, there is nothing in this bill that would grant the capability or authority to conduct mass tracking or generalized surveillance of Canadians. As part of their normal operations, telecommunications providers already maintain technical information that shows which cellphones connect to which network or tower. Bill C-22 would not expand that technical capability. It would simply establish a clear and lawful process to ensure that in the context of an imminent threat and/or legally authorized investigation, service providers could share specific information with law enforcement promptly and responsibly. During time-sensitive investigations that involve child exploitation, organized crime, terrorism or imminent threats to life, delays in accessing basic technical information can mean the difference between prevention and tragedy. Bill C-22 would not give police new investigative powers. It would update how powers that already exist under Canadian law are used so they work in today's digital world. The same legal standards would apply and the same court oversight would remain firmly in place. This means there would be no additional access to the content of Canadians' communications without proper judicial authorization. Law enforcement could not read emails or text messages, listen to phone calls, view photos or access personal files without a warrant issued by a court. Through lawful access, there would be no access to an individual's browsing history or search history and no authority to monitor people indiscriminately or in real time. The legislation is deliberately narrow. It would be limited to confirming whether a service exists, identifying the type of service being provided and obtaining the technical identifiers necessary to link activity to a specific service provider in the context of lawful investigation. This is about modernizing a process to make it timely in the 21st century. Before this legislation, whenever police needed information to stop a serious threat like a child abduction, police had to go telecom provider by telecom provider and ask each one individually, with a warrant, in order to obtain basic information. That process takes way too long in a globalized world. When a threat to life is unfolding, time is the difference between life and death. Here is the reality we are dealing with. When there is a serious threat to national security like a terrorist attack, our police and security agencies need to move fast. Every minute counts, but right now, even when the law says police can get information, there is a big problem. Online service providers do not always have the basic technical tools to actually deliver the information. Sometimes the company does not have a secure way to send it. Sometimes they cannot retrieve it quickly enough, and sometimes they cannot guarantee it is accurate or complete. Because of that, police work is delayed or never even started. That is not acceptable when Canadian safety is on the line. This legislation would allow for a ministerial order during a serious national security event at the request of CSIS and other law enforcement agencies. It would require providers to have the basic technical capabilities to co-operate with law enforcement on demand. Let me give another real-world example of why this matters. CSIS was investigating a suspected terrorist network and had received a court-approved warrant to track the cellphone of a person of interest. Even when the legal authorization was in place, the service provider did not have the technical ability to support the request because it was not required to maintain that capability. As a result, CSIS could not track the device digitally and had to rely on human intelligence and surveillance instead. That approach was slower, more expensive and carried a greater risk to the investigator and the public. Valuable time was lost, not because the law was missing, but because the system was not built to respond when it needed to. Bill C-22 has robust guardrails to protect Canadians' rights and privacy. These safeguards include independent approval by the intelligence commissioner, enhanced oversight mechanisms and mandatory annual public reporting. In addition, Bill C-22 contains a statutory parliamentary review clause that would require the act to be reviewed during the third year after all of its provisions were put in force. As technology continues to advance, so too do the methods used by organized crime, hostile state actors and individuals who wish to do our country harm. Our law enforcement and national security agencies must be equipped to keep pace with these 21st-century developments. This legislation has the support of law enforcement and stakeholders from across the country, such as the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police president Mark Campbell, who said, “Technology has changed the way criminals operate. We need 21st-century tools to investigate 21st century crimes—always with strong judicial oversight and respect for Canadians’ privacy rights.” Similarly, CSIS indicated publicly in October that the absence of modern lawful access legislation is placing national security investigations at risk. Canada remains the only western democracy without a comprehensive legal framework governing lawful access. Outside of an outdated licensing regime dating back to the 1990s, co-operation between police services, CSIS and electronic service providers has relied largely on voluntary arrangements. These are slow and no longer relevant in a dangerous and fractious world. Bill C-22 would change that and finally align Canada with our Five Eyes allies and closest partners, including New Zealand, the U.K., Australia and France, by establishing a clear, lawful and accountable framework for access to essential digital information. Without these tools, Canadian investigators have at times been excluded from international investigations simply because it takes too long for us to obtain critical information. If we are serious about strengthening our sovereignty, we must also strengthen our national security. Sovereignty requires that law enforcement and our national security apparatus be able to do their jobs effectively and operate on a level playing field with our allies on the world stage. Bill C-22 is a necessary and measured step toward ensuring that Canada remains secure, resilient and fully engaged in protecting its citizens in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we were unable to get the support from the necessary opposition parties in order to pass Bill C-2. After further consultation with law enforcement and our national security apparatus, we chose specific pieces of the bill that they said were absolutely critical and needed to combat crime in the 21st century, so we took the advice of the professionals. That is why we chose specific pieces from Bill C-2 and placed them into Bill C-22.

Mr. Speaker, there had to be reasonable time provided to the service providers to provide our police and national security apparatus with the necessary information. The member is absolutely right. The current system is incredibly cumbersome, where warrants are needed to get a yes-or-no answer on whether an ISP is providing services to a specific national security threat or potential national security threat. We had to give the companies the necessary time to get back to us, and it was through some consultation with police and our national security apparatus, which were saying that this was an appropriate amount of time. Again, we took instruction from our police and public safety officials on the timing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the work she does on committee. That question is a testament to all the great work she has done. The fact of the matter is that we would not be expanding any police rules here. This is about modernizing a process to ensure that police and our national security apparatus can move at the speed of the 21st century. We cannot be held up by cumbersome rules that have been in place since the 1990s.

Mr. Chair, there is a great deal of complexity around deporting people from this country, and it spans across governments. What I am referring to specifically in this case is a former central banker of Iran, Mahmmoud Reza Khavari, who came to this country when Stephen Harper and the Conservative government were in power. Can you speak to how difficult it is to deport people and how it spans across political parties?

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear the hon. member talk about pieces of legislation that are required to catch criminals and put them away. The fact of the matter is that we have had significant pieces of legislation in front of this House for almost a year. The strong borders act, the combatting hate act, bail reform and intimate partner violence are significant pieces of legislation that the Conservatives have obstructed and prevented from getting passed. Why do you not come over here and join us in catching the criminals?

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member's service, but is the hon. member trying to save his failing leadership by attacking the most vulnerable in our society and by appealing to the radical right in his party?

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the students from Lawrence Heights Middle School who are joining us in Ottawa from my riding of Eglinton—Lawrence. At a time when our country needs engaged young people more than ever, it is inspiring to see students who are civically engaged and eager to learn about our democratic institutions. I thank Principal Stewart for her leadership and for fostering a strong culture of civic education. For the students visiting from Lawrence Heights, I hope this experience inspires many of them to one day serve our community. The students will be celebrating Black History Month with the Children's Breakfast Club. Members are welcome to attend at 4 p.m. in room 330 of the Wellington Building.