Parliamentary Speeches

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, 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provincial Sexual Sterilization Act was passed in 1928, and more than 2,800 women were sterilized before the act was repealed in 1972.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.

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, 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.

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 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 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.

Mr. Speaker, the role of opposition is to really stand up for Canadians, fight for Canadians and make sure the government does not overreach on the rights of Canadians at any level, regardless of whether it is at the economic level, the human rights level or the privacy rights level. That is where the opposition stands in this House strongly to make sure that, when we oppose, we oppose for the benefit of Canadians. When we co-operate, it is also for the benefit of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I received petition e-7071 with 1,634 signatures. It is a petition regarding suspicious deaths abroad and autopsies, lack of advocacy and information for families, and jurisdiction when Canadians harm Canadians abroad. The citizens and residents of Canada who signed the petition call upon the House of Commons to introduce legislation, commonly referred to as “Kiara's law”, to require mandatory Canadian forensic autopsies in cases of suspicious death abroad; establish enhanced consular advocacy standards for victims and families; and amend the Criminal Code of Canada to affirm Canadian jurisdiction in cases that involve the harm or death of a Canadian by another Canadian outside Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this important bill to the House. I believe that the problem is going to grow even bigger in the next decades. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians may be faced with something like this. I have a technical question. Canada already has a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases. Bill S-201, which we are discussing today, focuses only on a single rare disease. Does the hon. member believe that this framework would contradict the existing law we have in place?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill S-201, a national framework on sickle cell disease act. This is a disease that many have heard of, but few are aware of the details. Sickle cell disease, also known as sickle cell anemia or drepanocytosis, is a group of red blood cell disorders. Those with the disease have abnormal hemoglobin. As members probably know, hemoglobin is the part of the red blood cells that carries vital oxygen throughout the human body. We know how important it is that tissues in the body receive a steady and life-sustaining supply of oxygen to work well. Hemoglobin takes the oxygen from the lungs to the parts of the body that need it. Normal cells are a disc shape, sort of like a doughnut. This shape allows the cells to be flexible. This flexibility and shape allow the cells to travel easily through blood vessels throughout the body. Today, an estimated 6,000 Canadians have sickle cell disease. They are among the millions of sufferers worldwide. There are 300,000 babies born annually with sickle cell disease, and that number is expected to be 400,000 by 2050. Five per cent of the world's population carries the gene. In 2006 and in 2010, the World Health Organization adopted two resolutions calling on countries to strengthen their responses to the disease. Canada made a start with the creation of the National Sickle Cell Awareness Day, on June 19. Now it is time to take it a step further. This bill calls on the Minister of Health to develop a national framework on sickle cell disease. First, it would include measures to address the training, education, and diagnostic and treatment tool needs of health care professionals relating to sickle cell disease. Second, it would provide for the creation of a national research network to advance research, improve data collection and establish a national registry on sickle cell disease. Third, it would set evidence-based national standards for the diagnosis and treatment of sickle cell disease. Fourth, it would include measures to institute universal neonatal screening and postnatal diagnosis when necessary and the provision of results for affected individuals and organizations. Fifth, it would include measures to support public awareness campaigns on sickle cell disease and blood donation. Sixth, it would provide measures to promote and support blood donation by every segment of the population and the creation of a diverse blood supply that allows for safe transfusions. Seventh, it would include an analysis respecting the implementation of a tax credit for individuals with sickle cell disease and their caregivers. Eighth, it would ensure the inclusion of sickle cell disease in the eligibility criteria for existing disability benefits. Finally, it would contain an analysis of the potential inclusion of treatments essential to sickle cell disease care in the public drug insurance plan. I think it is fair to say that the ambitions are big and that this is a very ambitious project. This inherited blood disorder affects a person's hemoglobin. It causes chronic pain, organ damage, serious infections and a shortened life expectancy. Early detection is important for successful treatment. Sickle hemoglobin forms stiff rods within the red cell, which changes the cell's shape to something more like a crescent or sickle shape. This creates enormous problems. The sickle-shaped cells result in blockages because the cells are stiff and unable to pass through the vessels easily. These resulting blockages mean that the vital oxygen stops reaching the parts of the body that need it. What impact does this have on the person with the disease? A lack of oxygen results in attacks of sudden and severe pain throughout the body. It is a horrible condition. This pain occurs without warning and often results in hospitalization. The pain usually lasts five to seven days. While not always the cause, it has been noted that pain crisis can be triggered by temperature changes, stress, dehydration and even living at high altitudes. Of course, any infection that normally causes a rise in the number of red blood cells triggers the disease as well. For most children with the disease, pain usually subsides between pain episodes. Nonetheless, many children with sickle cell anemia take penicillin every day to help the immune system, and they face a lifetime regimen of daily folic acid. For teens and adults, the pain is usually chronic, which can have a huge impact on the education, employment and mental health of sufferers. Due to the lack of oxygen to vital organs on a regular basis, sickle cell disease often begins to cause long-term damage to vital organs. It is common for those with the disease to develop serious issues with their skin, brain, bones, spleen, heart, kidneys, liver, lungs and even their eyes. The spleen is particularly susceptible, because of its narrow blood vessels and its basic job of clearing old red blood cells. If we can, through legislation, help alleviate suffering, then we should do so. There are some questions that will need to be dealt with as this bill moves forward. For example, the bill does not define the scope of universal neonatal screening, plus instituting and administering it would require provincial buy-in. A national framework that sets evidence-based national standards for diagnosis and treatment may create friction with provinces unless implemented collaboratively. I should point out that comparable health-related framework bills, such as the Federal Framework on Lyme Disease Act, call for the creation of guidelines or best practices instead of standards. Clinical standards are evidence-based recommendations produced by medical professional bodies that describe optimal care for specific conditions. They are advisory only and binding on no one. It is also unclear in the legislation who would establish these guidelines. I should also point out that Canada already has a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases bill. Bill S-201 focuses on one rare disease, so this framework may duplicate or contradict the existing bill. However, almost every piece of legislation we consider has flaws when it is first brought to the House. This is why we discuss it here in the chamber and in even greater detail at the committee stage. Hopefully we can make improvements. The goal is to serve the people of Canada and in this case, those who are suffering from sickle cell disease. I look forward to working together to improve Bill S-201, and the day when sickle cell disease is something consigned to history.

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest priorities we have as parliamentarians is safeguarding our democracy. Without free and fair elections with voters able to choose for themselves whom to support, what we do here and say is meaningless. Ensuring that the way we conduct elections is free from malicious control is one of the most important things we can do. Protecting democratic principles is not a partisan issue. Those on the left, those on the right and those in between are in agreement. We trust people to make the right choice as long as they have the opportunity to do so in a setting where the influence of those with bad intent has been lessened. I say lessened because, even with our best efforts, there are always going to be those, especially in foreign governments, who are going to attempt to interfere with our political electoral process. Governments elsewhere may have a different agenda from Canada's. They will naturally want, if possible, to shape our way of thinking. Dealing with those attempts is one of the reasons for Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Before I forget, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Put simply, this bill would, among other things, establish new prohibitions and modify existing prohibitions, including, in relation to foreign influence in the electoral process, accepting or offering a bribe, unauthorized use of a computer and making or publishing false or misleading information respecting elections and the candidate nomination process. The bill would establish new prohibitions in relation to voting in a nomination contest or leadership contest; prohibit the acceptance or use of certain contributions by political entities and third parties, including from anonymous sources; and it would provide for new requirements relating to political parties' policies for the protection of personal information. Combatting foreign interference has become a bigger challenge in recent years as so many of us get our information online. Disinformation and misinformation run rampant. Truth is hard to find. We can be subtly shaped without even realizing it. Of course, we have always been subject to foreign influence. Fifty years ago, it was the prevalence of American television programming that was a major concern. Influencing the culture and shifting it to our direction is something we need to be aware of, but it is the effort of foreign governments, not cultural influencers, that is what we are looking at with this legislation; though sometimes, admittedly, governments can be behind the cultural influencers. We have had inquiries. The results have been, in a way, frustrating. We know that there have been attempts at foreign interference in our elections and our nomination contests, perhaps even in the leadership races. However, we do not know with any certainty whether the interference has changed the outcome of the results of any particular riding. We can say, though, that it was the intent to do so. Conservatives have long called for the strengthening of protections against foreign interference, including during leadership and nomination contests. It is good to see that Bill C-25 would address this issue. It is good to see that this legislation would change the Canada Elections Act respecting nomination contests and leadership contests. It makes sense to prohibit foreigners and foreign entities from unduly influencing an elector to vote or to refrain from voting in a nomination or leadership contest. We want Canadians to make their choices without interference from foreign capitals. It also makes sense to prohibit persons and entities from selling advertising space to a foreign entity to transmit a message to influence another person to vote or to refrain from voting for a particular nomination contestant or leadership contestant. The only real question is why we have not done this sooner. Given all that we have heard about foreign interference in the past few years, I am surprised that the government has not acted with more speed on this matter. I am also surprised that we had not previously thought about the necessity of prohibiting people from offering a bribe to influence how a person votes in a nomination or leadership contest. We already make it an offence to offer or accept a bribe during an election, so it makes sense that we extend this to the nomination and leadership contests that are such an important part of our democracy. Like all members in the House, I receive a lot of correspondence from constituents on issues of the day. A lot of those letters and emails are complaints about Liberal policies. I understand that. I have a few complaints about Liberal policies myself. Too often, though, the complaints are based on wild theories circulating on the Internet that have no basis in truth. Misinformation and disinformation is running rampant. I am not sure that we will ever be able to eliminate it, but we can try. The bill would create a new offence for making or publishing, with the intention of affecting the results or disrupting the conduct of an election, a statement that they know is false or misleading. That makes sense to me. Truth is important. Those who are lying for political gain need to be exposed and punished. The bill would also bring in the “unauthorized use of a computer” offence to include “disrupting the conduct of an election” as opposed to solely affecting the results of an election. That, to me, is a better reflection of reality and perhaps easier to prove. Expanding the scope to what is captured as a false or misleading publication and impersonation to include AI and deepfakes also makes sense. One can find both the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition online, along with Hollywood celebrities, pushing various get-rich-quick schemes. We know those are fake, but they can be convincing. As artificial intelligence software improves, it will get even harder to spot the difference between real and fake. During an election campaign, these deepfake images could be used for political advantage. It is important for the integrity of the election process to clamp down on them. As politicians, we need to make sure that our own houses are in order. We need to adhere to the highest standards, not just for public confidence in the process, but because it is the right thing to do. Requiring political parties to establish a more comprehensive policy for the protection of personal information than is currently provided for under the act is important. The public needs to see that we are holding ourselves to the highest standards. That means working harder to safeguard electors' personal information under the party's control and making sure that we protect the privacy of those whose information we hold. We need to lead by example. As parliamentarians, it is vital that we address these issues. We want free and fair elections and a democracy that is the envy the world, not one riddled with foreign interference.

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoy working with the hon. member on several committees. We are talking about international interference in Canadian politics, and here we are trying to interfere with how Canadians want to donate and which party they choose to support. I disagree with the hon. member on that point. The bill is going to committee, and at committee there will be room for more suggestions and recommendations that could get through. In my opinion, we are trying to prevent interference in our electoral system from outside and here we are interfering with the way Canadians support political parties on the inside. I think there is a contradiction there.

Mr. Speaker, not even a week goes by that I do not hear from my constituents about this issue. Canadians are very concerned about international interference in our elections. There were studies and there were efforts to get this through, but it has not been implemented. The government has not moved on it. We hope that with this bill, it will get more serious and act in a responsible way to get this through, because we cannot afford any more interference in our electoral system.

Mr. Speaker, he makes promises, but the Prime Minister fails to make life more affordable. Canadians are experiencing financial whiplash under the Liberal government. Nearly three-quarters say rising prices for essentials like food and gas are straining their finances. Unpredictable conditions mean cutting back on spending and delaying major financial decisions. Canada is less affordable under the current Prime Minister. Will he help Canadians by adopting our Conservative plan to cut all federal taxes on gas and food?

Mr. Speaker, in April, Canadians will mark National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week. April 7 is Green Shirt Day, reminding us of the importance of organ donation. These annual initiatives highlight the critical need for donors, encourage donor registration and celebrate the many lives saved through transplantation. More than 4,700 Canadians are waiting for a life-saving transplant. It is important to let our loved ones know that we want to be organ donors. Whether as living donors or with donation at the time of our passing, we have the power to save lives. We can give the gift of life, the greatest gift of all. I ask everyone to please become a registered organ and tissue donor.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East. To put it bluntly, I am not convinced that this legislation, Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places, is necessary. I find it strange therefore that after months of making other legislation a priority, the government now wants to make this a priority. Given the track record of the Liberal administration, I am also not convinced that this bill will change anything. The reason I say this is that we already have laws on hate crimes in Canada designed to protect vulnerable communities and people. The laws are clear. The crime is well defined. What is lacking is the political will to ensure that the laws are properly enforced. New legislation is just meaningless words without enforcement. According to the Criminal Code, “Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.” The code defines “genocide” as: acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. An identifiable group means “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.” That seems pretty clear to me. It also says: Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. That is also clear. Additionally, it says: Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. The laws are already there. What we have not seen recently is a willingness by police to lay charges, perhaps because there is no political will to enforce Canadian law against certain vocal groups. This selective enforcement has made things worse, not better, as some groups feel the law does not apply to their statements or their actions. The Criminal Code also goes beyond the condemnation of general expressions of hateful speech to take aim at one of the biggest problems facing Canadian society, which is anti-Semitism. The Criminal Code reads: Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. It is already there, but the government has chosen not to enforce the law of the land. Why does the Liberal Party believe things will change by adding another law that it probably has no intention of enforcing? Do we not have more important things to do than waste our time with virtue signalling? Our current laws include a number of exemptions to the hate crime provisions. According to the Criminal Code, “No person shall be convicted of an offence”: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. These have long been seen as reasonable exemptions. The Supreme Court recognized this defence as necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional, understanding how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are. When it was introduced, Bill C-9 had a similar provision for the display of hate symbols. It allowed that “No person shall be convicted of an offence": (a) if the display of the symbol was for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, religion, education or art, that is not contrary to the public interest; or (b) if, in good faith, the display of the symbol was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. In an unnecessary piece of legislation that duplicated what can already be found in the Criminal Code, at least there was the understanding that sometimes there can be legitimate disagreement as to just what is hateful, but now the government, in a shameful attempt at gaining the votes it needs to pass this deeply flawed bill, is willing to throw out the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom in public discussion in order to pass bad legislation. If the government has no intention of actually enforcing this anti-hate bill any more than it does the existing Criminal Code provisions, it may not matter, except that any assault on freedom of religion matters. We should not be casually doing away with constitutionally protected freedoms, especially not for political expediency. The constituents of Edmonton Manning are opposed to this legislation and opposed to removing the religious defence from the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. When I spoke on this bill previously, I noted that the question we need to ask ourselves in the House is, how can we best respond to hatred? Legislation such as Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, may provide a Criminal Code framework for punishment, but is punishing people for their ideas and beliefs going to change those beliefs? We have a responsibility to protect Canadians, especially vulnerable Canadians, from being harassed by those whose motivation is hate. It is our responsibility to find a balance between free speech and individual rights. Members should ask themselves if this bill does that. This legislation will not make Canadians safer. It will certainly not protect anyone from hate, least among them people of faith. Rather than wasting time on this flawed bill, the government should enforce the anti-hate legislation already on the books. That is something the people of Canada would support.

Mr. Speaker, I am really thankful to the hon. member for basically repeating what I said. We do have laws in place that protect the freedoms of Canadians, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and all that, but the government is refusing to enforce those laws while trying to communicate a political piece of legislation with the intent of gaining some votes in some areas regarding a certain segment of society. The government members are experts in retail politics. That is what the government does best. This legislation is no different from other bills it has introduced in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I feel for the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals will be sharing the vote gaining in certain places with them. As for the question, the laws are in place. We need the enforcement. There is no political will out there in the current government to enforce the laws. If the political will were there, we would not see attacks on synagogues or mosques or churches. If the government had any intention of protecting those religious institutions, we would see it emphasizing the political will to make sure that we enforce the laws that we have in place.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. I think there is no will in the government to do any of that. The by-election is coming soon in Quebec, and that is why the Liberals are rushing this through, to make sure there are no further amendments. If the bill is of value to the government, it would have allowed more consultation and more amendments to take place, so that we could have a better piece of legislation, rather than a useless one like the one we have right now.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things to speak to. First of all, the government is politicizing this issue and causing a lot of division among Canadian society. Secondly, the government has lost the trust of the faith communities in Canada. As far as what we are hearing from Canadians is concerned, I have religious institutions in the double digits in my riding of Edmonton Manning. It is a diverse riding in Canada. There are a lot of concerns. I have been hearing about this for months. The government has flip-flopped for political reasons to work with the Bloc Québécois on this issue. It had better tell Canadians the true story and should better explain its position.

Mr. Speaker, the first question that comes to mind regarding the need to build homes is this: Who builds homes? It is builders. People build homes, but they need a way to be able to build them. They need the government to get out of the way and municipalities to facilitate it. All these conditions have to be provided by the authorities to make sure that homes are built on time, with productivity levels in place and with the numbers and efficiency needed. We do not need another bureaucracy to stand in the way. Another layer of bureaucracy is definitely going to slow down production and productivity, and that is the wrong path. I would like the hon. member to understand that and comment on it.

Mr. Speaker, the public is used to hearing politicians talk about importance of victims' rights, especially when a horrific crime is committed. What we have before us today is not just talk about protecting the victims of crime, but to actually do something. Bill C-243 is designed to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that in the case of an offender who is serving a sentence for first-degree murder or second-degree murder, parole is reviewed in accordance with the statutory time frames instead of an application by the offender. This would be done after the parole board has decided not to grant day or full parole to the offender. It is a simple change, but one that would have a profound effect on the families of crime victims. Most of us will never know the pain that comes with losing a loved one to murder. Thankfully, such crimes are rare in Canada, but they do occur. When they occur, families are thrown into a legal system that can be overwhelming. Frequently, it seems weighted in favour of the accused and the convicted killer with the rights of families forgotten. According to our Criminal Code: Culpable homicide is murder (a) where the person who causes the death of a human being (i) means to cause his death, or (ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not; (b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or (c) if a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that they know is likely to cause death, and by doing so causes the death of a human being, even if they desire to effect their object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being. I am repeating those words from the Criminal Code to remind us of the gravity of the offence. The taking of a human life is the worst crime we can imagine. Every life is precious. For someone to deliberately and unjustifiably end a life is deserving of the most serious punishment we can mete out. That is why we hand out life sentences. That is why we limit eligibility for parole. At the same time, Canadians believe in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption. That is why even those convicted of murder are eligible for parole. We believe there is hope even for those who commit the worst crimes. That is why even those convicted of first degree murder have the right to a parole hearing once a certain amount of time has passed. We acknowledge that people can and do change. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act reminds us: The purpose of conditional release is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by means of decisions on the timing and conditions of release that will best facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens. It also says: The protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Board and the provincial parole boards in the determination of all cases. In order to do that: Parole boards take into consideration all relevant available information, including the stated reasons and recommendations of the sentencing judge, the nature and gravity of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, information from the trial or sentencing process and information obtained from victims, offenders and other components of the criminal justice system, including assessments provided by correctional authorities; As the system is now structured, and what this bill sets out to correct, an offender can apply for parole a year after being refused parole by a parole board. I do not think that is right when it comes to those who are convicted of murder, our most serious crime. A parole board hearing is a serious affair. Prisoners hoping to be released make a case as to why the punishment they have already received is sufficient. They explain why they are no longer a danger to society. However, that is not all that is presented. There is also a case made as to why the parole application should be denied. The prisoner's progress is evaluated, the case is revisited and memories are stirred. For the families of the murder victims, the trauma of the crime is revisited. They are expected to testify and to describe the impact on their lives of the untimely loss of a loved one through the criminal actions of another. They are asked to revisit a nightmare and, as the law now stands, they can be asked to revisit this nightmare every year. The system revictimizes the victims of the crime for no good purpose. One of the great things about being human is that we have the capacity for change. We can repent our actions and be redeemed, but for most of us, that is a process, which is why I support Bill C-243. This legislation would take into account the reality that change can be a slow process. I believe there is hope for even those who have committed the worst crimes. I believe that people can and do change their ways. I believe that those who show true remorse for their actions and have been rehabilitated deserve another chance. That is why we have parole boards to consider whether those who have committed crimes can now be safely returned to society. I do not believe that the parole application process should be used by convicts to revictimize Canadians. To me, it seems highly unlikely that someone deemed inappropriate for release by a parole board this year will change so completely in 12 months that the board will change its mind. There is a provision for mandatory review whether the offender requests it or not. This legislation would not change mandatory review. What it would do is put an end to the annual revictimization of the families of a murder victim in a hearing that is almost predestined to end with the offender remaining incarcerated. Those who care about victims' rights should support this bill. I congratulate my hon. colleague and neighbour from Edmonton Griesbach for putting together this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure in the history of Canadian Parliament there have been bills with longer names, but we have to admit this one is a mouthful: an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is a very long name for a trade agreement. This does not flow easily off the tongue. I should think some bright staffer could have come up with a snappier title, something like the “let the U.K. join the club act”. I guess we will just have to refer to it as Bill C-13. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, is a free trade agreement enforced between Canada and 10 other countries in the Indo-Pacific region: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. In 2023, CPTPP parties signed an accession protocol with the United Kingdom. The CPTPP will enter into force for the U.K. once all the CPTPP members and the U.K. complete their respective ratification processes. Bill C-13 is a part of the ratification process. Once the agreement is fully implemented, Canada will have duty-free access to CPTPP countries for 90% of Canadian agriculture and agri-food product exports, 99% of Canadian industrial product exports, 100% of Canadian fish and seafood product exports, and 100% of Canadian forest product exports. This is indeed good news for Canadian business. It is also good news that the U.K.'s accession would provide broader services access for construction, legal and veterinary services and longer visa durations for business visitors and investors than were set out in the Canada-U.K. Trade Continuity Agreement that was negotiated following Brexit. It is not good news that the Liberal government has failed to address some of the outstanding trade issues with the U.K. The CPTPP would provide limited practical gains for Canadian beef and pork exporters who want to access the U.K. market. Canada secured additional duty-free volumes for pork and beef into the U.K. over the previous agreement, but Canadian export volumes are unlikely to increase, given the U.K.'s non-tariff barriers relating to sanitary measures. It is worth noting that the Canadian Cattle Association and the Canadian Pork Council have both indicated opposition to the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP due to that country's non-tariff barriers to Canadian pork and beef producers. The U.K. is Canada's third-largest trading partner and ally, and with this new relationship I can see the opportunity for increased trade. However, there have been missed opportunities, and not only with pork and beef, but I will finish my speech after question period.

Mr. Speaker, the U.K. is Canada's third-largest trading partner and ally, and with this new relationship, I can see the opportunity for increased trade. However, there have been missed opportunities, and not only with pork and beef. Like many members of the House, I have met with representatives of 127,000 British state pensioners living in Canada, who have raised the issue of their pensions with me. Those state pensions are equivalent to our Canada pension plan. They and their employers made payments for years before retirement. However, unlike the CPP, their pensions are frozen at the rate they were at when first received and do not increase with inflation. This has been British policy for decades. That does not seem fair to me, because British pensioners are fully indexed in other countries, including the United States. The Government of Canada has made multiple representations to the U.K. government over the years with the aim of negotiating a social security agreement to end this discriminatory policy, but there has apparently been no willingness on the part of Britain to have such an agreement. The CPTPP was a perfect opportunity to revisit the issue. After all, the British policy comes with a cost to Canadian taxpayers. It has been estimated that this policy costs Canada about $470 million annually. Canada's social security pensions are indexed, increasing the purchasing power of our citizens wherever they choose to live in retirement and ensuring they have sufficient funds to live. In failing to provide reciprocity, the British government is relying on Canada to provide for its citizens if they should find themselves in need. The Liberals missed the opportunity to address this issue when they negotiated the Canada-U.K. Trade Continuity Agreement. They missed it again when it was not included as a part of the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP. The U.K. is Canada's third-largest single-country trading partner for goods: $39.4 billion in 2024. It is also the third-largest single-country trading partner when it comes to services: $21.6 billion in 2024. In the last decade, bilateral trade in goods and services has increased by 52.9%. Working to increase trade with someone we already have a strong relationship with would seem to be a good thing. The U.K. is also Canada's second-largest investment partner. Inbound direct investment to Canada totalled $97 billion in 2024. We want to see that number increase. Bill C-13, if passed, provides immediate duty-free, quota-free, unlimited access to sweet corn. There is no volume limit, as there was under the previous agreement. It provides more liberal rules of origin for Canadian agriculture export interests, including meat, processed foods, sugar-containing products and pet food. It will provide enhanced protections for investors and their investments in the U.K., with greater predictability and transparency. Canadian investors will also have access to arbitration for resolving disputes related to U.K. measures that breach CPTPP investment provisions. These are positive outcomes. As well, there will be guaranteed access to U.K. procurement opportunities at all levels of government, including regional and local contracting authorities, as well as guaranteed access to U.K. procurement opportunities undertaken by bodies governed by public law, including schools, universities and colleges, national museums and galleries, and national park authorities. This is good news for Canadian business. Yes, the government failed to address some of the issues that should have been a priority when it was negotiating this agreement. Our beef and pork industry will still have complaints about the inequity of treatment compared with how U.K. producers are treated in Canada, and those U.K. pensioners living here will continue to be treated as a second-class citizens, unfairly, by their government because Canada's Liberal government did not do the right thing and stand up for fair treatment. I am sad that our government did not take a more principled stand. However, I think we can all agree that Canada needs more trade and more diversified trade. We have seen the results when we put too many eggs in one basket. Could this bill have been better? I think that is true of any trade agreement. Sometimes compromises are made to allow an agreement to move forward. That may be the situation we find ourselves in here.

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that, in life, that we do not get what we deserve; we get what we negotiate. I believe that the government has failed to negotiate well to finally resolve this issue, which costs the Canadian economy close to $500 million a year and made it unfair for some of the pensioners. They deserve to get a fair shot out of their investment for life, especially as seniors. Negotiations could and should have been done better. This is an opportunity we have missed for the second time, and the government could have done a better job.

Mr. Speaker, if the government does its job, no one has to do anything, but the government is not doing its job. The hon. member knows that. The Liberals have failed to come back to Canada and deliver on their promises. It has been one deadline after the other, and we still have not seen a result. If the government is suggesting that people should sit around, do nothing and not stand for Canada, then that is the member's problem. It is not our problem. I believe that we should never politicize this issue.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Green Party and I were together, more than once, to meet with these pensioners who, we believe, have been treated unfairly. I believe that there is still a chance for Parliament to ask the government to push for that. This could be the second time that we miss such an opportunity, but it would be great if we could do it. It would be historical. We would help a lot of people, and it would be an act of fairness to all these people who deserve it the most.

Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill that would amend the Export and Import Permits Act, which governs Canada's defence exports. If passed, this bill would see the removal of allowing exemptions for specific countries. The bill would change the current legal framework by: (a) clarifying that parts, components and technology necessary for the assembly or use of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are included in the meaning of those terms; (b) preventing exemptions from the Export Control List for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war based on their country of destination; (c) preventing the issuance of general export permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (d) preventing the issuance of general brokering permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (e) enhancing the considerations that the Minister must take into account in issuing a permit to export or broker arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (f) providing that the Minister must require end-use certificates from the government of a country to which arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are being exported if doing so would sufficiently mitigate a substantial risk of war crimes or violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law; and (g) requiring the Minister to prepare and table in Parliament an annual report on the export of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war and Canada’s compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty. I wish we lived in a world where there was no war, where there was no need for military or the weapons to arm them. I grew up in a nation at war. It was a bloody 15-year battle from which the country of my birth has not fully recovered, even with the passage of decades. We now live in a world at war. Bombs are falling in Iran and Ukraine. Conflicts are going on in Yemen, Sudan and Gaza. There are other smaller conflicts around the globe, ones that rarely get noticed. If there were no weapons, maybe those conflicts would not happen, or maybe people would still kill each other with sticks and stones. If those were not available, they could use their bare hands. Since the Suez crisis in 1950, Canadians have thought of ourselves as peacekeepers. We see ourselves as standing between those in conflict, keeping warring armies apart. We hope that our presence will allow time for a cessation of hostilities. Our desire is to create a buffer zone that can lead to talking instead of fighting. With this in mind, with that image of Canada as a peacekeeper, we do not see ourselves as manufacturers or importers of weaponry. The truth, though, is that we have a thriving defence industry. The defence industrial sector in Canada was worth about $14.3 billion in 2022, roughly one half of 1% of the GDP. As members can imagine, a lot of that involves supplying the United States with Canadian technology and expertise. We live in an ever-changing world where, sadly, hostilities seem to be on the increase. It would be foolish to not examine how we can better defend ourselves from outside threats. Defence is a primary responsibility of national government. We need to support our defence industry, which provides the means to keep all Canadians safe. Canada's defence industry is tightly integrated with the U.S. defence industrial sector. That makes sense. Our militaries have been working together for years. Our soldiers have fought and died together in the First World War, the Second World War, Korea and Afghanistan. Our troops have served together in countless UN and NATO missions. We are partners in NORAD and numerous training exercises. With the government's commitment to increase defence spending, significant growth is expected. It is only to be expected that with that growth, our relationship with the United States will continue to be important. That is something important to consider. What would be the ramifications of the passage of this bill on the Canadian industry, Canadian jobs and our country's relationships with our closest ally, the United States? It is popular in some segments of society to maintain that the relationship between the United States and Canada is at some point irreparably broken. Some people are willing to cast aside more than two centuries of friendship and partnership because they do not like what they hear coming from Washington. I would suggest that this is short-sighted. Canada and the United States have far more binding us together as peoples and as nations than things that divide us. Our common, undefended border is a tribute to the closeness we have. At the present time, the United States is the only country subject to exemptions under the Export and Import Permits Act. The bill would bring the U.S. under the provisions of that act by removing the current exemption. This would result in a ban on Canadian defence exports to the U.S. if those exports are re-exported to another country on which Canada has implemented a defence export ban. In essence, the bill is an attempt to impose Canadian foreign policy on our closest ally, with those working for our defence industry paying the price. Certainly, if Bill C-233 becomes law, it would create problems in the Canada-U.S. relationship. How could the U.S. not see this as a significant threat to its defence and security sector? Why would we want to put Canadian jobs in jeopardy? Why would we want to tell the Americans that we are a less than trustworthy defence partner? While the Liberal government may be vacillating on the number of new F-35 fighter jets it will ultimately purchase, we are committed to purchasing some, spending millions of dollars. The decision to select the F-35 comes with benefits for Canadian industry and Canadian workers, as some of the components of the plane are being manufactured here. What do we tell the workers in Winnipeg making horizontal tail assemblies, who could lose their jobs if the bill passes, or workers making weapons bay door inserts in Lunenburg? The F-35’s engine sensors are made in Ottawa, while outboard wing assembly is being done in Delta. Will those jobs remain in those communities if Canada shows itself to be an unreliable partner? It seems to me that the bill is not about arms exports so much as it is about bringing an end to an enduring partnership that has benefited Canada. To do that does not make sense to me. It is important that the House send a clear message that this piece of legislation is not acceptable. I encourage all hon. members to vote no.