Ziad Aboultaif

Mr. Speaker, the minister is promising 500,000 homes every year. According to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 homes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even though houses will be built, the new Liberal agency Build Canada Homes will add only 5,000 homes per year. That is 1% of the half a million homes promised. How can the minister explain to Canadians that his plan is the right plan and the one that is going to deliver homes to Canadians?

Madam Speaker, our wonderful colleague has been speaking for three hours, and he is putting a lot of good ideas and points out there for the government. Unfortunately, we have students out there, watching—

Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize from the outset. This is not a speech that will soar to oratorical heights, castigating the government for its many failures and its apparent inability to understand the needs of the country. There is a time for that, but it is not now because this is not a partisan issue. It is not a matter of left or right, but we could say it is a matter of right and wrong, or at least to ensure that a historical wrong is never repeated. Four years ago, the Senate human rights committee issued its report on forced or coerced sterilization of persons in Canada. For many people, it was eye‑opening. Canadians are vaguely aware of the history of forced sterilization in this country. Our history at times is nothing to be proud of. In the early part of the 20th century, a movement arose that had a flawed concept of human dignity and what it meant to be authentically human. The idea was that we should strive to create perfect people, which meant those who were considered to be imperfect should not be allowed to have children. The state would force those deemed unfit to be sterilized so they could not reproduce. This was, and is, a reprehensible view. Sadly, it was my home province of Alberta that led the way in this sad chapter of our history. The provincial Sexual Sterilization Act was passed in 1928, and more than 2,800 women were sterilized before the act was repealed in 1972. These women were denied the privilege of having children because society felt there was something wrong with them. What is more, they had no say in the matter. Many were sterilized at a young age. They were not even aware of what was being done to them, hardly the actions of a society and a government that was supposed to protect its citizens. While Alberta may have led the way, it was not the only province to carry out these shameful acts. What is even more reprehensible is who the state deemed to be unworthy of having children. Young people and minorities from indigenous backgrounds were targeted. Furthermore, many of those were declared to be mentally deficient. Because of that classification, their rights were denied, and they were sterilized without their consent. Canadians understand now that these actions were wrong; the product of another time and a warped view of the humanity of some individuals. We know that such things should not be allowed to happen again, but there is nothing in our laws to ensure that. Bill S-228 would fix that. It proposes to clarify one section of the Criminal Code to bring an end to a legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism that disproportionately, but not exclusively, affects indigenous and racialized persons. It will end the sterilization of persons without their consent. Section 268 of the Criminal Code deals with the crime of aggravated assault. I think we can all agree that sterilizing someone without their consent is indeed a form of assault. Bill S-228 would add a subsection, 268.1, to the Criminal Code of Canada, clarifying what a sterilization procedure is and ensuring it is understood that a sterilization procedure is an act that falls under this section. It is a simple change, but an important one if we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings. I should point out that, at the Senate committee, concerns were raised by witnesses and senators that the original drafting of Bill S‑228 was over-complicated and that it might have unintended consequences, especially in cases of emergency surgeries or medical procedures resulting in sterilization. That has been rectified. After consultation with the Minister of Justice and legal advisers, the bill was simplified while maintaining its core goal of making it explicitly clear in the Criminal Code that forced sterilization meets the requirements of an aggravated assault. It would be against the law and would be prosecuted. Some hon. members might be wondering about the issue of consent. What about those situations where an individual, for medical or other reasons, desires to be sterilized? Would this still constitute an assault? After all, in the Criminal Code, consent is not a defence against a charge of aggravated assault. The case law on that is very clear. However, there is jurisprudence concerning when the patient or substitute decision-maker is unable to consent and there is demonstrable severe suffering or an imminent threat to the life or health of the patient. In that case, a doctor has the duty to do what is immediately necessary, without consent. Additionally, section 45 of the Criminal Code of Canada protects individuals from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation if it “is performed with reasonable care and skill” and is reasonable based on the person's state of health and other circumstances. If this is a situation from the past, why do we need to address it today? Why is the bill necessary? As the Senate report noted after hearing from witnesses, this is not just a historical issue. The conclusion was that involuntary sterilization continues in Canada, under-reported and underestimated, and it needs to stop. As in the past, the targets are marginalized people, including racialized women, women with disabilities, institutionalized persons and indigenous women. Justice demands that we in the House deal with this situation. Forced sterilization is a clear human rights issue. Non-consenting sterilization is aggravated assault and should be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. It is as simple as that. Legislation, of course, is not enough. The bill cannot fix the past trauma and harms suffered by victims, but it would go a long way to preventing future violations and to providing survivors some measure of justice. It is a cliché to say that people who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, but those words have become a cliché because there is a lot of truth in them. With Bill S-228, we in the House have an opportunity to show that we have indeed learned from our past and that we are concerned about our present and, of course, our future. We want to put an end to the practice of forced sterilization in this country once and for all. We have the opportunity to do something meaningful. I encourage hon. members to do the right thing and support the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I agree that this bill is not going to do anything. What is scary in this whole process is this: Is the government losing direction? Is it losing focus? The focus has to be on building more homes for Canadians to fix the problem. Is the government only interested in building bureaucracies? I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to consider whether April should be designated as Arab heritage month in Canada. Given the contributions of Arab Canadians to the growth of this country, since the first one arrived in 1882, I am sure this is an idea that we can all agree on. This community, which started with just a few families, has grown to more than one million Canadians who have Arab heritage. The Arab community in Canada is not, as the media sometimes thinks, a group of people who come from one place and have one way of thinking. We are, in many ways, an example of the diversity that is Canada. Canada's Arabs trace their roots to many countries: Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Kuwait, Tunisia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Jordan, Mauritania, Libya, Yemen, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain. United by a common linguistic root, they have different religions and cultural traditions. The popular perception may be that to be Arab is to be Muslim, but we Arabs know differently. Canada's Arabs identify as Christian, Catholic, Orthodox and various types of Protestants. The majority are of Muslim background. There are many who are a vital component of the societies of the Middle East. These diverse communities are tied together by a common language, the Arabic language. Even if one does not understand a word, it has a melody that makes it pleasing to listen to. Arabic is spoken by more than 400 million people worldwide. After English and French, Canada's official languages, it is the third most widespread official language on our planet. It is one of the six official languages of the United Nations. When we celebrate Arab heritage month, we are celebrating the people and we are also celebrating this language. It is the language of poetry and mysticism, and of law and humour. It is a language that unites people across the Middle East and North Africa. The rich literature that can be found in Arabic tells the story of many cultures united under a common banner. To me, that sounds like Canada. For centuries, Arabic was the language of culture and learning, especially when looking for information on science, mathematics and philosophy. Our mathematics system is based on Arabic numerals. We all know that and rarely, if ever, stop to think about why they are called that. Arabic heritage month would be an opportunity for those of us with Arab roots to share the richness of our culture in perhaps a more deliberate way than is the case now. I must admit, I have never had a conversation about the origins of Arabic numerals and their liberating effect on mathematics that has led to so many scientific advances. Perhaps I should start doing that. Or, maybe I could initiate discussions about the scientific advances of what is referred to as the Islamic golden age, a period of rapid scientific advancement that took place between the eighth and 13th centuries. Despite its name, the advances of this period were not brought about exclusively by Muslims. Wikipedia tells us: Christians...contributed to Islamic civilization during the reign of the Umayyads and the Abbasids by translating works of Greek philosophers and ancient science to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic. They also excelled in many fields, in particular philosophy, science...[and theology]. Some of the notable Christian scholars of the time were Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Yusuf Al-Khuri, al Himsi, Qusta ibn Luqa, Masawaiyh, Patriarch Eutychius, and Jabril ibn Bukhtishu. If not for Arab scholars at that time working to translate works from antiquity, from the original Syriac, Greek, Persian and Latin, into Arabic, much of the knowledge of the ancient world could have been lost forever. We owe a cultural debt to those Arabic scholars of more than 1,000 years ago for preserving so much of the world's heritage. I could go on and talk about how Arabs have influenced architecture and medicine in ways that continue to impact us today, but members get the idea. There is so much more to Arabic culture and history than most people are aware of. Setting aside April as Arab heritage month would encourage Canadians to discover more about these people and their history. The Arabs have always exported their culture. We can visit Spain’s Andalusian region and see the Arab influence in the architecture of the region. Does this matter in Canada? There are probably those who say that what happens elsewhere is not as important as what happens inside our borders. The truth is that Arab Canadians have made a huge impact on this country in all the areas one can imagine. Who was the first international Canadian pop star? It was Paul Anka, a Lebanese Canadian from Ottawa. Who is perhaps our most beloved children’s entertainer? It is Raffi, whose roots are also in Lebanon. What NBA all-star is of Syrian background? It is Jamal Murray, who also represents Canada internationally. Championship wrestler Sami Zayn is a first-generation Canadian born to Syrian immigrant parents. We Arabs are a social people, which may be why many of us are drawn to political life. We want to serve, though we do not always see things the same way. That may be why Arabs who have served in this House have done so for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats. We are united in our desire to serve, even as we disagree on policies. That, of course, is the very Canadian way. We have not had an Arab Canadian prime minister yet, but Prince Edward Island has had a Lebanese Canadian premier, Joe Ghiz. It goes without saying that one of the Arabs’ biggest contributions to this country has been in the area of business. We have an entrepreneurial spirit. Wherever commerce happens in this country, whether it is big or small, we are almost certain to find a businessman or woman of Arab descent. All of this is to point out that it is long overdue for us to acknowledge the contribution of those of Arab heritage to the Canadian mosaic. Setting aside April as Arab heritage month would allow all Canadians an opportunity to pay tribute to a special people. As I have said before, Canada is an example of what a society can be when the people celebrate their heritage without forgetting what unites them in common purpose. Let us celebrate Arab heritage month, whoever we are and wherever we are from.

Madam Speaker, we are debating the time allocation the government has given, which is basically shortening the debate on 332 pages of law. It gave us only three hours before, so for each 100 pages, we have only one hour of debate. Members can imagine the shortcoming of Canadians not being able to understand what is going on with these bills and not being able to understand the consequences of what the government is providing.

Mr. Speaker, the member is a neighbour in Edmonton. He mentioned in his previous answer how this can affect the negotiations with CUSMA or the USMCA. We are hearing from the United States about this specific topic. If he can talk about this, I think it will be important for this conversation.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are cutting down on groceries, gas and necessities while the Prime Minister is piling up the national credit card. Life is becoming unaffordable. Inflation caused by deficit spending is eating away at their ability to afford day-to-day life. With a trillion-dollar debt, the government's approach is just an illusion while Canadians are paying the price. Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians that his credit card budgeting is the cause of all their suffering?

Mr. Speaker, 12,000 Canadians will be diagnosed this year with type 1 diabetes, joining the 300,000 already dealing with it in the system. T1D can occur in people of any age. Its causes are not fully known. Most of those diagnosed have no family history of diabetes. It is not caused by diet or lifestyle. It is not contagious or something someone can outgrow. It has no cure. For more than 50 years, Breakthrough T1D has been working to improve the lives of Canadians suffering from diabetes. Their five-year plan, including $62 million proposed for budget 2026, is part of a $100-million private-public project to translate Canadian medical research into therapies that can benefit Canadians. I thank them for their tireless efforts.

Mr. Speaker, going into debt makes things cost more. After 10 years of increasing Liberal borrowing, Canadians are worse off, and 60% of Albertans said it is difficult to meet monthly expenses. The Liberals spend and spend, and the taxes go up and up. Canadians cannot afford to buy groceries. Can the Liberal Prime Minister not see that his policies are making things worse for Canadians?

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today for the final time in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-234. When passed, this bill will pave the way for the creation of the living donor recognition medal within the Canadian honours system. This bill has been supported by all parties, and I am extremely grateful for the unanimous and strong support. I know there is significant interest in getting this initiative under way. The sooner we can get this bill to the Senate, the better. The good news is what we have heard tonight. I thank members for all the support on all the sides, especially the government side. I am extremely grateful to the following members of Parliament who graciously traded their coveted spots in the lineup so that I could move this debate up six weeks to this day. I thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George, the member for Lanark—Frontenac and the member for Newmarket—Aurora for making these critical trades with me. We now have the opportunity to get this bill to the Senate before the summer. Like donors, they received nothing in return for their gift except the knowledge that they did the right thing. They took action that will save a life and send a strong signal to those around them that organ and tissue donation is a significant and altruistic gift. I cannot thank them enough. This bill is jointly seconded by members from all provinces across Canada and demonstrates the need for life-saving transplants in all corners of this great nation. I have spoken about the importance of living donors many times, and I know others have too, but I want to make some remarks about how these life-saving transplants impact those around the recipients. When we waited for nine years for my son Tyler to get his transplant, it transformed our lives and his, and I know it was especially difficult for his brother. I know it is the same for thousands of other families awaiting that special phone call to say they have an organ to transplant. To ensure patients are available for a transplant, they must remain within an hour of the hospital at all times. This is much harder than it sounds. It is almost like house arrest. Families cannot take vacations together. Families cannot travel to other cities over the holidays to see relatives. Kids cannot join sports teams that play outside the city. In our case, Tyler could not visit his grandparents overseas for a decade, and we had to forget about overnight camps, out-of-town school trips or even sleepovers. There was constant fear that the call would come and we could not get there in time. In this situation, every night, parents go to bed making sure the phone is ready. Every morning, they wake up making sure that they did not miss a call. The accumulative stress is unimaginable. It determines where one works or if one accepts a job because travel may be involved. Parents must forget about a few glasses of wine at dinner because they may have to drive to the hospital. It has an impact on every part of the life of the parents and their families. All parents strive to treat their kids equally and give them all the same opportunities, but when someone in the family needs a transplant, it makes it so difficult. The days and weeks parents spend at the hospital with one child means they are not always there for the others. It is tough on everyone, but it has to be done. When the transplant comes, it is a new lease on life for the recipient and the family as a whole. Everyone gets to start living again. We need to bring that relief and joy to more families more often. This is why the living donor recognition medal is so important. It is to raise awareness and education, in the hopes that more people get those transplants sooner. The bill has returned from committee stage when it received a number of friendly amendments. The amendments proposed by the government enhance the bill, strengthen its objective and make the intentions of Parliament clear. I thank the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada for his efforts to make this bill a reality. I also want to thank Terence Scheltema for his professional approach and hard work with great communication skills in working across party lines to get this bill to this stage. Terence showed unique skills in handling this private member's bill from the beginning, when this was an idea, to become a reality now. This is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week across Canada. This designation made by Parliament was the result of the efforts of Liberal member of Parliament Dan McTeague in 1997, 29 years ago. Can members imagine if we could get this medal ready for presentation on the 30th anniversary next year? Next week, the deadline for taxes comes for Canadians across Canada. For that first time, in Alberta and British Columbia, tax filers will be able to indicate that they want to become an organ and tissue donor through their tax forms. This was made possible because of my former Conservative colleague Len Webber's efforts in 2021. When Ontario added the question to its tax forms in 2022, it resulted in 2.45 million people saying they wanted to be a donor. I expect a couple of million more Canadians will add their names in Alberta and British Columbia this year. We can all make a difference in the lives of others. We can all leave this place better than we found it, and we can all help our fellow Canadians. It is in this spirit that I put this bill forward, and I am grateful for the opportunity. As this is the last time I get to rise on my bill, I want to thank everyone again for their incredible support and encouragement. It truly means a lot to me and those awaiting a life-saving transplant. I know there have been discussions about this bill in the past. I am thankful for the support. I welcome continuing working on these efforts in the Senate to make this a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the hon. member for his help and co-operation. The minister and the minister's team were so helpful in getting this common-sense bill through. It is about Canadians. It is about helping every Canadian. My family had to live through this for 20 years, and we know how much of a difference that makes. The bottom line here is that when we work together, we can make the impossible possible. This why we are here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her speech at the second reading stage, as well as for reminding me about Quebec. As a family, we benefited in 2003 when we got a last-minute organ transplant from Quebec. I say that with a lot of pride, and I say that because I am very thankful for that opportunity. Quebec showed us the right example at the right time and will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague. He is the shadow minister for health on the Conservative side. His guidance, his help, his wisdom and his direction helped me a lot to navigate this bill through. I am thankful for both his effort and his team's effort.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member. We travelled together on an international development mission to Nicaragua. Yes, she is right. Awareness is the whole spirit of this bill. If we keep this in front of Canadians every day, that opportunity is going to encourage Canadians and educate them more on it. Not every family has to live through this to be able to learn how important it is to have a transplant and to have the organ at the right time. We are doing everything in our capacity to make this a reality, to bring that in front of Canadians, not just once every year or two, but sometimes on a daily basis. This bill will probably bring those opportunities in front of every Canadian to make sure we learn and we know about organ donation every day.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for all the speeches. They have added so much value to the conversation on an important bill. Beyond how much this bill means to me personally, I think it is going to mean a lot to many Canadians now and in the future. This is what we are trying to do here tonight. I am thankful for all the co-operation from all sides, from all provinces and from all MPs. This effort belongs to everyone who helped facilitate this bill getting to this stage. Hopefully, we will pass it tonight and let it go to the Senate. That would be the greatest gift and the greatest achievement of my almost 11 years here. I thank everyone.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe in law and order, and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Instead, the Liberals have let the situation get out of control. Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, which fell well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other cases. Conservatives forced the government to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking the Liberals' infringement on individual freedoms and privacy. Now, they have introduced new legislation, Bill C-22, the lawful access act, which reintroduces some parts of Bill C-2. Canada is the only Five Eyes country that does not have a lawful access regime in place. Our investigative laws have failed to keep pace with the rapid growth of the digital ecosystem. The Liberals, and some in law enforcement, argue that this gap has created an investigative stall where critical leads in cases of child sexual exploitation, human trafficking and organized crime are abandoned because authorities cannot quickly identify suspects behind IP addresses or burner phones. Even when police have legal authority to obtain data, service providers may lack the technical infrastructure to retrieve it or transfer it into a usable format, resulting in failed investigations. That is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. This proposed legislation is a definite improvement over its predecessor. It creates a new legal framework, enabling faster and lower-threshold access to basic data, clear emergency powers, structured international requests and mandatory provider compliance, including built-in surveillance capabilities, metadata retention and a required parliamentary review after three years. While police agencies have expressed their support for this bill and for lawful access, civil liberties organizations still have issues with parts of this bill. It is up to us to carefully review this legislation to ensure the Liberals do not repeat past failures. I am hearing regularly from constituents concerned about this legislation. They want me to call on the government to withdraw Bill C-22. One of their biggest concerns is privacy and protection of their information. Bill C-22 would require Internet providers and other online services to facilitate access to basic information that would assist in the investigation of federal offences. That sounds reasonable. The problem, though, is that would require those platforms to build and maintain surveillance capabilities inside their own systems. How secure would those systems be? How safe would those systems be? This new method of doing things would impose a financial burden on suppliers. They would be expected to develop and maintain technical surveillance capabilities at their own expense. I wonder how many would be willing to spend extra for robust data protection of something that does not add to their bottom line. Conservatives believe police should have the tools necessary to stop criminals. Our concern with Bill C-2 was that the powers given to law enforcement and ministers were too broad. Bill C-22 is far narrower in the powers it gives to law enforcement and to the minister. Bill C-22 focuses on telecommunications and Internet service providers, not any service providers. It would create oversight for ministerial orders and has explicit provisions in it that would prohibit the government from requiring the retention of web browsing history, social media activities or the actual content of communications. One could argue that this is a reasonable compromise as we attempt to balance the needs of society along with the rights of individuals. We live in a world where it seems the only constant is change. All of us in this House, from the oldest to the youngest, have witnessed huge technological changes in our lifetime. In an increasingly digital world, our old-fashioned policing is not always suited to dealing with crimes committed online. We all understand the need to provide new tools for law enforcement officers to access digital information. We can see the desire for the framework that ensures that electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement officers are authorized to access, and that is key. Law enforcement officers must have a lawful reason to be given access to citizens' online information. One of the things I appreciate about this bill before us is that it would mandate an automatic review three years after its provisions come into force. In these days of rapid change, that provision would ensure that not only would we get this legislation right today, but that we would have built in a way to ensure that it would not quickly become out of date. The purpose of Bill C-22 is to ensure that investigators can skip preliminary investigative requirements regarding information that is easily obtainable. Thus far, Canadian courts have stated that warrants or court orders are required for even the most basic of information even if only remotely private, such as whether someone is a subscriber of a telecom company. I am a strong proponent of individual rights, including the right to privacy. I also believe in our Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I understand as well that there are times when we need to balance individual and collective rights, and sometimes the collective rights are seen as being more important. That may be the case with this legislation, though I understand there have been some issues raised as to whether it would survive a constitutional test. My hope is those problems can be fixed at the committee stage. For example, civil liberties groups have suggested that the blanket retention of metadata is too broad. They point out that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in the U.S., for example, allows preservation on demand but does not allow blanket retention. In the European Union, the Court of Justice declared that blanket retention is incompatible with EU fundamental rights. As well, ministerial orders only require approval by intelligence commissioners. Not giving any oversight role to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada suggests that privacy is at best a secondary consideration. I am sure this was not the government's intention, and I expect this would be strengthened in committee. Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking the government's attempt to infringe on individual freedoms and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash; opening mail without oversight; and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Bill C-22 would be an improvement, but still needs work. We support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' individual freedom, privacy and safety.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have a system in place to begin with. I also mentioned that this bill must go to committee to be examined, to be strengthened and to give Canadians and the authorities all the tools so Canadians can be protected while their privacy laws or privacy rights cannot be infringed upon.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for telling us about these bills and what he does to handle such cases and such bills in the House of Commons, representing our party. Bill C-2 would have been a huge infringement on the privacy rights of Canadians. I am still receiving emails from constituents asking me to block Bill C-2; they think Bill C-2 is still in place. That infringement of Canadian laws and Canadians' rights is the greatest concern. We have to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. In the meantime, we have to find ways to protect them in the age of a digital world.