:
Mr. Speaker, as I rise in debate for the first time in this 45th Parliament, I would like to present colleagues with some statistics about what a rare and unique privilege it is to serve in this place, if they will give me the floor.
Of the millions upon millions of people who have lived in Canada throughout its entire history, fewer than 5,000 individual Canadians have served as members of Parliament. Of that number, fewer than 450 have been women, and of that number, by my count anyway, fewer than 40 Canadian women in the history of our country have been chosen to serve as a member of Parliament for five or more terms.
On April 28, 2025, I was honoured to be re-elected by my constituents and joined the ranks of some of those giants, women like Agnes Mcphail, Flora MacDonald, Ellen Fairclough, Rona Ambrose, Sheila Copps and Alexa McDonough. The gravity and honour of standing here, once again, is hitting a little harder this time around.
I am here on behalf of, and thanks to, another special and unique group of people, the people of Calgary Nose Hill, who are unique and special in this particular area of Canadian history too. The people I represent, in a riding that has existed for decades, have only ever elected a woman into federal office. Prior to me, my predecessor, Diane Ablonczy, served as a member of Parliament in an even more select group: women who have served as members of Parliament for seven or more terms.
Getting here has meant that I have had to learn a lot of lessons: how to win primaries, the value of having my dogma challenged, how to earn the trust of my community and my colleagues, how to survive being in a government after an election loss and how to thrive in opposition, how to navigate leadership changes, which battles to pick and which ones to walk away from, but most importantly, how to be humble while refusing to let my voice be silenced.
With that, I would like to acknowledge the six other women in the 45th Parliament who are now part of the “been around for a hot minute and have seen some things” five terms or more club: the member for , the member for , the member for , the member for , the member for and the member for .
I thank my husband Jeff, my family, my staff, my volunteers and the good people of Calgary Nose Hill, with a special and deeply profound thanks to Sean Schnell, his wife Leeta and their children Charlize and Easton for bringing me to this place today.
Colleagues, I pledge the true pledge of being a member of Parliament: to do my job, which is to hold the government to account to the best of my ability. Let us begin.
I rise today in debate on Bill , a 160-page omnibus bill from the Liberal government that raises serious concerns about the capacity of the government to address several crises of its own making. These were not problems prior to the Liberal government taking office in 2015: a rapid influx of migrants that Canada's social and economic infrastructure could not sustain; an open and porous border; and an illegal drug production, trafficking and addiction crisis.
I would like to start with the issue of Canada's fentanyl crisis, because it is important context for new colleagues to understand how we got here. A decade of ultra-progressive policies juiced a deadly problem that really came into prevalence in late 2015. At that time, precisely the same time that the Canadian political landscape changed, Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau had a farther left platform, to put it mildly, than his predecessor government. In 2017, an ultra-left version of the NDP, led by the late premier John Horgan, formed government at the subnational level in the province of British Columbia, the region hardest hit by the drug.
Prior to 2015, right-of-centre governments favoured a crackdown on criminal activity related to the emerging problem of fentanyl, coupled with enhanced recovery programs for addicts. However, Trudeau's incoming government, as well as Horgan's in British Columbia, all had long-held beliefs that so-called harm reduction, taxpayer-funded hard drugs and the effective legalization of hard drug possession were superior public policy alternatives on hard drug crime to those of their predecessors on the political right. Between 2015 and 2023, these governments went on to usher in a dramatic shift away from government policy that focused on criminalizing hard drug production and trafficking.
At the federal level, the Liberal government expanded access to hard drug injection sites, ended mandatory minimum penalties for major hard drug offences and softened bail criteria for all crimes, including those related to the production and trafficking of hard drugs. A currently sitting Liberal member of Parliament even went as far as to table a bill that aimed to fully legalize all hard street drugs across the country.
Then, in 2021, British Columbia's NDP government formally applied for a subsection 56(1) exemption under Canada's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, requesting permission to effectively legalize possession of hard drugs, including fentanyl. In early 2022, Trudeau's federal Liberal government approved the request and allowed for a three-year pilot program. The program was expansive. The government even went as far as to set guidelines that would have allowed recreational fentanyl to be legally provided to children. The results were deadly.
There are people across the aisle who will get their backs up on this situation, but it is the reason we have zombie-like people walking across the streets of urban Canada and rural Canada. Our mothers, our daughters, our husbands, everybody from every demographic has been touched by the crisis that was caused by these extremely failed, ill-sighted policies that literally everybody was telling the Liberals were wrong, but they persisted.
Today, we have this omnibus bill in front of us. As the Liberals did in the former Parliament with Bill , the so-called online harms bill, this bill is trying to suggest to Canadians a false dichotomy: that Canadians have to choose between their civil liberties and fixing epic messes with deadly consequences that the Liberal government set up. That is a false dichotomy and something that this place should reject.
I am going to briefly talk about two components of the bill. I am going to talk about some of the border issues and immigration, and then I want to talk about the civil liberties component very briefly.
This bill is a missed opportunity, on the fentanyl and addiction crisis, to address the real problems of how we got here: the Liberals' catch-and-release bail policies. They could have tabled a bill on that, but they did not, so we are now forced to review this omnibus legislation without understanding whether or not the Liberals are going to address the true cause of this problem: the fact that they do not penalize people who produce these drugs.
The Liberals could have increased penalties for people who produce these drugs. As the leader of the Conservative Party said during the election, these are mass murderers, and they should be treated as such. The Liberals also failed to put in place compassionate measures that would allow for life-saving intervention for people who have lost agency due to addiction.
These are the measures that we need to actually stop the drug production crisis in Canada. Are there other things? Sure there are. Are there things in this bill that Parliament could look at? Sure, but again, the Liberals have purposely structured a bill where Canadians have to choose between their civil liberties and trying to fix a deadly mess that the Liberals made.
On immigration, here is a little history for colleagues who are new to this place. The Canadian consensus on immigration can be boiled down to this: Do not bring more people into the country than our social and economic infrastructure can handle. By that I mean our health care system, our education system, and our capacity to provide language acquisition and provide jobs and housing as well. That is the basic consensus that our pluralism is based on, because if people are housed, if they have access to work, if they have access to health care and if they can speak one of Canada's official languages, then pluralism can be maintained, but the Liberals broke that promise.
I remember that in 2016, first of all, the Liberal government essentially implied that I was racist for suggesting that the Liberals should not lift the visa requirement on Mexico, because there would be false asylum claims made. Guess what: It was like I was Cassandra, doomed to know the future and have the Liberals call me racist. Honestly, what did the Liberals have to do last year? They had to reverse the visa imposition on Mexico. Then there was the next Cassandra moment. I said that maybe we should not let people who have reached the safety of upstate New York illegally cross the border into Canada and then claim benefits here while their asylum claims, which will likely be rejected, linger for years in Canada's broken asylum system, which the Liberals broke.
I said that maybe we should close the loophole in the safe third country agreement. Once again, the implication was that Canada was anti-immigrant if we were to suggest that we restore order, balance and fairness. There are people who apply legally to come into Canada, who do everything right, are waiting for years and never get the chance to come here, or they want their children to come here. The government essentially rolled out the red carpet at Roxham. There was literally a red carpet with the RCMP pulling the luggage across the border and “#WelcomeToCanada”.
What do members think happened when the Liberals sent the message “#WelcomeToCanada” to people who were already in upstate New York? They enabled an industry of people. There were human traffickers telling people how to make their way into Canada. What happened was that our asylum system was broken. It was abused.
Now, the Liberals have this bill, which has a few minor provisions that would do a couple of things that I am concerned about. It would delegate more authority to the minister in vague ways, and it would delegate more responsibility into regulation. If there are problems with the system, why are they not just laying it out in this legislation to make it clear so that we will not have endless judicial appeals, which is also part of the problem here? People could appeal and appeal because too much authority would be put onto the minister, and there is vagueness and an endlessly changing regulatory structure. That is part of the problem here too. I need to look at this bill in more detail on those provisions to understand what is happening here.
There was the 's performance in question period. She should get someone to practise with her. This is not going to get easier for her. Seriously, this is too big of an issue. She needs to be able to understand and explain why Canadians should vest more power in a minister who does not even know the numbers that are on her own website.
The bigger problem that I have with the immigration provisions in the bill is that they do not address the bigger problem that is facing Canada's immigration system right now, which is that the government does not track exits. Did members know that the government does not coordinate information to track when people leave the country? It does not publicly disclose when people who are on expired visas, or who have deportation orders, actually leave. There is no way for parliamentarians to look into the data to see whether the government has enabled people to leave the country when they have no legal right to be here.
What happens in that situation? First of all, it sends a message to the world that they can have all of the processing on the front end, but there is no consequence on the back end if they do not have a legal right to be in the country. It incentivizes people to come here because they know the system can be abused.
The second thing that happens is that it pushes people underground. It creates an underground economy. We have to have empathy for people who come to Canada because there is a promise of Canada. We cannot blame the housing crisis, the health care crisis and the jobs crisis on people who are drawn to our country and our pluralism by every promise that makes it good. We have to blame the Liberal government for failing the system so badly that people feel their only option is to go underground, into an underground economy where they live in slave-like working conditions.
That happens here in Canada. It happens because the Liberal government has failed so profoundly on this file with minister after minister for a decade. The fact that in this bill the Liberals did not have any sort of plan to departure-track, to coordinate information across departments that already gather this information, and to express to Canadians and people who are here on expired visas how they will enable them to leave the country is only going to exacerbate the problem, particularly with the vagueness in some of these provisions. That is a huge problem. Again, I do not understand why the Liberals would have put in this border component, and all of these missed opportunities and the immigration component with the following.
There are some pretty big poison pills when it comes to civil liberties that every Canadian should be concerned about. If passed, Bill would allow CSIS, police and peace officers to demand personal information from online service providers without a warrant, based only on vague suspicions of potential crimes or legal breaches based on any act of Parliament.
The Liberals today said that it is not personal information and we should not worry about it, but guess what. Whether or not I use an online service, or where I use an online service, if I depart from an online service, start an online service or use an online service for an amount of time, everything that Bill says it would do involves my personal information. That is none of the government's business, certainly not without a warrant. There has to be a line drawn here.
The government has severely under resourced our information-gathering departments. Sure, it takes time to get a warrant, but most police departments, after the “defund the police” movement, are so underfunded that they do not have cybercrime units. Now the government is trying to shortcut this by taking away the civil liberties of law-abiding Canadians, and that is not right. At the end of the day, like anything else the government does when it comes to removing civil liberties, it is law-abiding Canadians who get punished, not the criminals.
When I read this bill, I see a road map of ways for criminals to avoid being tracked on where they could legally do this snooping stuff. What is going to happen? Hardened criminals who understand how to get around the system are going to get around the system, and then a government, which unlawfully used the Emergencies Act, froze Canadians' bank accounts, introduced censorship bills and Bill , and introduced Bill , wants to insert itself. Can members imagine if the Liberals were to retable Bill C-63, with all of their suspicion of hate crime stuff? That bill would couple with this bill to form a mega Voltron of censorship and oppression. I am not being hyperbolic. The government has, over and over again, at every opportunity, taken away Canadians' freedom of speech. Every bill that it has passed has been designed to control speech. My constituents should not have to make that choice.
I am going to bet I know what happened with this bill. Some of these departments have had this policy sitting on the shelf for literally years and more savvy ministers have said, “Not today.” More savvy PMOs have said no, but there is a green , a green and a perfect cover, which is the fentanyl crisis. Some bureaucrats said that this is harmonizing with other things and that it is not going to have a big implication on Canadian civil liberties, and these guys fell for it. They did not politically question this. They did not think about what was in the best interests of their constituents.
How do I know that? The Liberals did not put a charter statement in for this. I cannot wait to see that charter statement. It is going to be dance, dance, kitty, dance, I am sure of it. I am positive, because the information that I talked about is personal information. Even if this bill passes, I guarantee it will be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court.
It is not just that. My colleagues have talked about Canada Post opening mail. Was Canada Post consulted on this provision? I heard it was not. My colleagues heard that Canada Post found out about this after the bill was tabled. How are Canada Post employees going to deal with opening up fentanyl envelopes? That is new. What about the telco companies that this provision would affect? There are things in the bill that give the government unfettered access into telecommunications companies. I am no fan of Canada's telcos' oligopoly, but where we can agree to agree is that I do not want the Liberal government further inserting itself into the management of Canada's telecommunications companies.
There is another concerning component as well, which I saw this morning. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group is sounding the alarm about provisions in Bill with respect to powers to allow the government to request information from foreign entities. This raises an important question: Will the government allow for reciprocal requests from foreign governments? Let us say Bill were to pass, too. Even if it does not, Bill C-2 can have these snooping provisions and would let foreign governments reciprocate on snooping provisions with all the foreign influence stuff that we have had without a foreign agent registry under this geopolitical situation. The fact that there is nothing in the bill that says what this means is crazy.
Also, the government has not shown Canadians any specific situation, evidence or circumstance in granular detail about why we should be giving up our civil liberties to a government that unlawfully used the Emergencies Act and imposed draconian censorship bills, which resulted in news bans in this country. I will not do it. I think the one thing that all of my colleagues from all opposition parties can agree on is this: There are elements in this bill that are worthy of further study that might help fix the mess that the Liberals have made, but we should not have to choose between civil liberties and keeping our country safe.
:
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for .
I am pleased to rise today to talk about the strong borders act. The legislation before the House would strengthen border protection and border security and ensure integrity in the immigration system, with new authorities to improve how client information is shared with provincial and territorial partners; enforce our laws more effectively; and support a sustainable system that restores balance and trust in immigration for Canadians and those seeking to come to our country.
Overall, Bill would improve the flexibility and responsiveness of the asylum system by creating new ineligibility rules, removing incomplete or abandoned claims in the system and focusing resources on those who need protection the most.
Let me talk about information sharing.
[Translation]
As a former provincial minister of immigration, I know how important it is for the federal government to work with the provinces and territories to develop policies and programs.
When I was minister of immigration in Nova Scotia, I understood how critical partnerships and co-operation between governments were to meeting the needs of employers and communities and supporting diverse groups of people. The information provided by the federal government helps provinces and territories effectively manage their programs and services.
[English]
Let me be clear. This information sharing would, of course, continue to protect the personal information of applicants with strong safeguards. This would include a clear prohibition against provincial or territorial government partners further sharing any information with foreign entities except with the written consent of IRCC, where this would happen in a way that complies with Canada's international obligations.
With respect to the new asylum ineligibilities, to protect our system against surges in claims, we are introducing new ineligibility rules for asylum. Let me be clear once again. Claiming asylum is not a shortcut to immigration. The ineligibilities would reduce pressures on the system so that we can provide protection for those in need efficiently. Under the proposed legislation, the federal government would no longer refer claims to the Immigration and Refugee Board for a decision if claims are made more than one year after someone's first arrival after June 24, 2020, or if claims are made 14 or more days after someone enters Canada irregularly between border crossings.
The one-year limit discourages those wanting to use the asylum system as a way to extend their stay in Canada if other pathways fail. We are a generous country that values fairness, but Canadians expect us not to tolerate those who attempt to use the asylum system to bypass our laws and systems. With respect to the date that was selected, June 24, 2020, let me be clear that it was selected because that was the date the regulations were created to track the exit data.
We are applying the same principle to those who cross the border irregularly. We know that some continue to cross the Canada-U.S. border irregularly despite our warnings and laws. By waiting 14 or more days before filing an asylum claim, they effectively avoid return to the U.S. under the safe third country agreement.
[Translation]
Entering Canada between our points of entry is neither authorized nor safe. We have all seen the tragic loss of life or serious injuries to people who insisted on entering Canada through snow-covered fields, waterways or forests in the middle of winter. Not only are these crossings dangerous, but they are often linked to migrant trafficking and organized crime. They put people, including children, at even greater risk.
I recommend that everyone who wants to come to Canada use our migration channels and programs.
For these reasons, claims filed more than a year after a person first arrives, beginning on June 24, 2020, and those filed 14 days or more after they cross the border illegally will not be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for a decision.
[English]
These measures would allow our decision-making body, the Immigration and Refugee Board, to focus on making final decisions on genuine claims. These ineligibility rules would protect against potential surges in claims, relieve the pressure on the asylum system and help the IRB work through its existing inventory of pending claims, including from those who genuinely need our protection and support.
We recognize that our system needs to adapt to changing patterns and global migration. We need the system to be adaptable, flexible and responsive to changes so that we can safely manage the flow of people entering our country. In support of Canada's plan to strengthen border security in our immigration system, this legislation would introduce new authorities for Canada to respond to global events quickly and effectively.
When the global pandemic hit in 2020, the federal government was forced to make the difficult decision to close our borders to protect the health and safety of Canadians. While our vetting and review processes are thorough, documented and empowered under the law, we do not have the power to suspend or cancel documents.
[Translation]
Currently, officers have the authority to cancel a visa or electronic travel authorization on a case-by-case basis following a change in the status of the holder or because the holder is no longer entitled to hold the document.
[English]
For example, if it is discovered that an application contains false statements or the applicant has a criminal record or is deceased, the agent would have the power to cancel this document. Right now, that power does not exist.
[Translation]
This power does not apply to groups of immigration documents. This legislation would help Canada better respond to global events like the pandemic by allowing Canadian authorities to suspend, amend or cancel a number of immigration documents at once.
[English]
These authorities would help us protect the public interest, protecting against safety and security threats, health risks and abuse of publicly funded programs. To be clear, there is no plan to cancel the documents of any particular groups. These measures are intended to strengthen the integrity of our immigration system for the future.
The use of any of these authorities would require a separate process. Decisions would have to be driven by evidence and facts and would rest with the Governor in Council, not the minister alone. There are checks and balances in the process to ensure these measures would be used in the public interest of Canadians.
Through this legislation, the government would improve and streamline our asylum system, strengthen how we work with provinces and territories, support Canada's asylum system, and focus our decisions and resources. We would empower government to respond to changing times quickly.
[Translation]
These processes will be simpler, faster and more targeted. The proposed changes will improve public safety as well as the integrity of our government programs and services.
[English]
There would be fast, fair and final decisions so that our system meets our economic, social and humanitarian objectives.
I encourage all members to support this legislation to move these critical changes forward. I also encourage Canadians to look at the language of the legislation. If members help us put in these changes, we can have a system that we are proud of.
With these words, I am happy to take a few questions.
:
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to share some really good news. Two athletes from my riding, Bennedict Mathurin and Luguentz Dort, have made it to the NBA finals. We are bursting with pride in these young Quebeckers from Montreal North. They are of Haitian descent, were born and trained here, on our streets, in our schools and in our parks. This is a great response to people who, like the president of our neighbour to the south, have denigrated communities with Haitian roots. This time, greatness is a 100% Canada-Quebec production made in Bourassa. In addition to these two athletes, I would also like to mention Chris Boucher, past winner of the NBA finals.
This news illustrates the strength of our community's talent, perseverance and pride. These three young people shine and, today, their light is illuminating the world's largest basketball stage. Their journey is an inspiration that drives us to keep investing in our young people, celebrating our local talent and showcasing the riding of Bourassa at home and abroad. Now more than ever, a sports centre is an important and essential asset sorely lacking in Bourassa. The borough is organizing a public screening of the finals at Pilon Park in Bourassa so that we can all share this historic moment. Everyone is welcome to join in this collective outpouring of pride. Fortunately, these young men did not turn to crime as some unfortunately do.
We are talking about crime today, and I want to acknowledge that the and the have done careful, concrete work on this. The bill before us is ambitious, pragmatic and, above all, necessary in the current context. It is based on clear and focused SMART principles. It is a clear and effective response to very real threats: drug trafficking, organized crime, money laundering and weaknesses in our intelligence system. This is about more than legislative principles; it is about human lives. In Montreal and other big cities, people want to live in safe, peaceful neighbourhoods free from violence and crime. This bill is not just a legislative exercise; it is a commitment to people's peace of mind.
I will give a few examples. The situation is alarming in our major cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary. In the greater Montreal area, we are seeing a resurgence of violence and clandestine synthetic drug labs. The chemicals arrive through indirect channels, often by mail or international packages. This bill will allow for better monitoring of these products and rapid intervention by the Minister of Health.
In Toronto, criminal networks are exploiting gaps in data access to operate large-scale fraud and money laundering schemes. Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, as well as cross-border information-sharing mechanisms, will give our police officers the tools they need to take action. In Vancouver, customs officers are facing an influx of suspicious goods arriving by sea. Amendments to the Customs Act and the Oceans Act will allow for upstream interventions, which I will discuss later. There is a lot of talk about being proactive. In Laval, Ottawa and Halifax, police are struggling to intercept packages containing prohibited substances because of restrictive postal laws. By amending the Canada Post Corporation Act, this bill will finally give them the means to do something about it. We also want to modernize legislation and strengthen operations.
I would like to highlight some aspects of this bill. Bill aims to clarify exemptions from drug and cannabis laws to better regulate investigative tools. It seeks to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, giving the Minister of Health targeted powers over precursor chemicals. Once again, this is about being proactive. It is essential to take action upstream to stop these precursor chemicals, as they enable clandestine labs to operate. These precursor chemicals are used in the manufacture of fentanyl, for example. The bill seeks to enact the supporting authorized access to information act to ensure that electronic service providers can legally co‑operate with investigations.
Access to cross-border data has to be improved, with respect for fundamental freedoms, and the Canada Post Corporation Act has to be amended to allow suspicious mail to be opened within a strict legal framework. Of course, there are a number of concrete measures against money laundering, including restrictions on cash payments and third-party deposits.
As former vice-chair of Montreal's Commission de la sécurité publique, I saw first-hand the challenges that our police services are facing: legal limitations, administrative delays and a lack of coordination between the agencies. The bill addresses many of those gaps. It is not just a technical adjustment but a real strategic shift toward more proactive—as I have pointed out—more coordinated and better equipped public safety. That is why we need to ensure that new powers are balanced with mechanisms for transparency, accountability, and parliamentary oversight.
In conclusion, the bill is a direct response to the everyday problems experienced by our constituents and especially by our police services. Passing the bill will send a clear message that Canada is protecting its borders, its children and its families. In other words, our sovereignty is being exercised in our neighbourhoods, on our streets, in our ports, in our digital networks and in our democratic institutions.
I therefore support this bill with determination, but also with vigilance, to protect our communities, strengthen our security and uphold the values of justice and freedom that make our country, Canada, strong. This is a comprehensive bill that does not include any proposals from the opposition parties, which always come from a silo perspective. It really prioritizes prevention and proactive measures to ensure that Canada is truly safe and secure.
:
Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your appointment.
This is my first substantive opportunity to speak in the 45th Parliament. Before I speak on Bill today, allow me to begin with a few words of thanks. I thank my election campaign team for their commitment, their long hours and their belief in what we stand for. Every door they knocked and every conversation they had helped bring us here.
I thank my family, my spouse Angela and my twin daughters Jennie and Emma, for their love and patience. This job is demanding; it takes me away from home, from holidays and from dinners, but their support never wavers, and I am forever grateful for it.
I thank the great people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for trusting me to be their voice in Parliament. I carry their hopes, frustrations and priorities into everything I do in this place. They have given me a mandate to be their voice, their advocate and their defender. I carry that duty into this chamber with great responsibility and deep humility.
Now, let us get to the heart of this bill, but more importantly, let us get to what is missing from it. While the government may be eager to pat itself on the back, Canadians deserve to know that this bill stops short of promises made in the Speech from the Throne and doing what is actually needed to protect them.
In the throne speech, the government said it would bring a renewed focus on car theft and home invasions by toughening the Criminal Code to make bail harder to get for repeat offenders charged with committing these crimes, along with human trafficking and drug smuggling. However, none of this is to be found anywhere in all 172 pages of this bill. It is as if the Liberals have been tone-deaf to the pleas of premiers, law enforcement and victims who have been demanding bail reform for well over three years. While there are pieces that may be helpful, these are small steps in a system that is already broken at its foundation after a decade of soft-on-crime laws.
This bill may tighten a few screws around the edges, but it ignores the structural damage done by the Liberals' own justice reforms. It does not touch bail, not once. There is not a word about repealing or reforming the principle of restraint that is allowing repeat violent offenders back out on the street before the ink is even dry on their charge sheets. There is not a word about empowering Crown attorneys to actually keep dangerous individuals behind bars. There is not a word about protecting victims from seeing their attacker back in their neighbourhood hours after an arrest.
That revolving door opened by Bill is still spinning, and this bill does nothing to stop it. It does not touch sentencing either. The Liberals talk a big game about cracking down on traffickers, smugglers and organized crime, but they have kept in place their signature legislation, Bill , which stripped away mandatory minimum sentences for the very criminals they now claim to be targeting.
The bill does not bring back any of those minimums. It does not impose serious time for serious crimes. It does not deliver justice for the victims who have been left behind, even in the middle of a national fentanyl crisis that is taking thousands of Canadian lives every single year. Those traffickers are pumping lethal drugs into our communities. Often, those with links to organized crime and foreign cartels are still eligible for a light sentence or, in some cases, conditional releases that are a form of house arrest. It certainly does not send a message to the organized criminals who are exploiting our legal system, flooding our streets with fentanyl and laundering their dirty money across borders that their time is up. This is a missed opportunity, a chance to clean up the mess the Liberals created.
Here is the reality right now in Canada: Violent crime is up 50% in this country; homicides, up 28%; sexual assaults, up 74%; auto theft, up 46%; extortion, up a whopping 357%; gang-related homicides, up 78%; violent crimes with guns, up 116%; terrorism charges, up 488%; and hate crimes have more than tripled. Those are the tragic stats that show the disheartening reality right now in this country.
While the crime crisis sweeps across our country, what this bill would really do, beneath all the legal jargon and bureaucratic language, is keep the worst parts of the Liberals' justice record firmly intact. It would keep Bill , the law that tied the hands of police and prosecutors and told judges to favour release over detention, even when dealing with repeat violent offenders. It would keep the so-called principle of restraint that has allowed known gang members, gun criminals and repeat abusers to walk free even before officers finish their paperwork. It told Canadians that violent history does not matter and that past behaviour should not prejudice future bail decisions. What has been the result? Repeat offenders are back on our streets, and arrests made in the morning have criminals out before the officer even finishes their shift. However, the bill does not touch that law. It would keep it in place, and by doing so, it keeps that revolving door spinning.
The bill keeps Bill , the Liberals' flagship soft-on-crime legislation that wiped out mandatory minimum sentences for some of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code. We are talking about drug trafficking, gun smuggling, armed robbery and repeat violent offences. Instead of sending a message that these crimes carry consequences, Bill said they might be eligible for house arrest, which is the message fentanyl dealers and gang leaders heard loud and clear. Now, even in the middle of the worst drug crisis our country has ever seen, the government refuses to put those minimums back in place. The very offenders we should be locking away are still being given second, third and fourth chances, and the government calls that justice.
While the bill claims to be a response to growing threats at the border from organized crime and transnational drug trafficking, it does not say a single word about reversing the same Liberal policies that got us here in the first place. We can tighten customs inspections, but if the trafficker is still released on bail within 24 hours, if the fentanyl producer still walks away with time served, if the gun smuggler knows there is no minimum sentence waiting at the end of the line, then what exactly are we doing as legislators? Without serious bail reform, mandatory minimums and real consequences for serious crimes, the system is still broken. These are the same policies that let fentanyl traffickers off.
Fentanyl is a public health crisis. It is a criminal epidemic being driven by organized crime, enabled by weak laws and made worse by a justice system that fails to deliver real consequences. We are losing more than 20 Canadians every single day to opiate overdoses, and fentanyl is at the centre of it. It is cheap, it is lethal, it is everywhere, and behind almost every fatal dose is a trafficker, a producer or a cartel that profits from death and misery. Despite the crisis, the bill says nothing, would do nothing and would fix nothing when it comes to holding fentanyl traffickers truly accountable.
Let me remind the House of what happened last year in Falkland, British Columbia, where the RCMP dismantled the largest and most sophisticated illegal drug lab ever uncovered in Canadian history. What they found was shocking: 54 kilograms of finished fentanyl, 390 kilograms of methamphetamine, 89 illegal firearms and half a million dollars in cash, all inside a rural compound operating under the radar. To put that seizure into perspective, those 54 kilograms of fentanyl were enough to create over 95 million lethal doses. That is enough to kill every Canadian in this country twice over.
This was not a low-level street dealer. This was not some desperate individual struggling with addiction. This was a high-level, professional drug-production operation. It had all the markings of transactional organized crime, and the RCMP confirmed direct links to Mexican cartels, the same cartels responsible for mass killings, political assassinations and destabilizing entire countries. Now they are operating here on Canadian soil, building superlabs and churning out poison every day. Still, there is no mention in this bill of mandatory life sentences for those who operate fentanyl labs capable of killing millions.
The message is clear here. Prior to the passage of Bill , there was a mandatory minimum penalty for those producers, those manufacturers, those importers, those exporters and those traffickers. However, according to the soft-on-crime Liberal government, that was too draconian a law; it had to be repealed.
There has been no effort to bring back mandatory minimum sentences for large-scale drug production or trafficking. There is no recognition in this bill that Canada's criminal justice system needs to change to meet the scale and violence of this threat. What message does that send? To the cartels watching us from across the border, it says that Canada is easy money. The low- and mid-level traffickers in this country have a big smile on their face now that the weak, soft-on-crime government is back in Ottawa. To the fentanyl traffickers, it says that they will get a deal, maybe even a conditional sentence. To the victims, to the thousands of parents burying their children, to the first responders administering naloxone day after day, to the communities being hollowed out by addiction and death, it says that their pain is not enough to warrant serious change by the weak government. That is not acceptable.
When a criminal operation can manufacture enough fentanyl to wipe out the entire country and still not face life in prison, something is deeply broken. Criminals have taken note. The RCMP says there are now more than 2,000 organized crime groups operating in this country. What good is controlling fentanyl precursors if we are not throwing the book at the criminals making it? What good is data sharing if repeat offenders are out on bail before the paperwork is even processed? What good is fighting crime on paper if the sentences handed down in court do not match the seriousness and the moral culpability of the offender?
This bill is a good starting point, but it is simply not enough. For all the government's talk and for all the legal language and administrative tweaks buried in all 127 pages, the bill still fails to deal with the single most urgent problem we face in this country: violent, repeat offenders who face no real consequences under the government's so-called justice reforms. This is the crisis Canadians live with every single day on their streets, on their transit systems, in their neighbourhoods and in their homes. Canadians are seeing criminals cycle in and out of jail like it is a revolving door, and we are being told that is progress.
Canadians do not want more promises with headlines; they want results. They want their kids to walk to school without fear. They want fentanyl dealers to face real prison time, not house arrest and a slap on the wrist. They want to see gang members and gunrunners behind bars, not out on bail within hours. They want a justice system that puts their safety first, not a system that prioritizes the release of repeat offenders.
The bill does not deliver. Instead, it leaves untouched the broken laws that started this crisis and refuses to bring back protections that Canadians and law enforcement have been demanding for years. Canadians have a right to ask, why have the Liberals not brought back mandatory minimums for fentanyl traffickers? After the largest fentanyl bust in Canadian history, with enough poison to kill the entire population, why are life sentences still off the table? Why is the principle of restraint, which prioritizes releasing offenders over protecting communities, still baked into our bail system? How many more innocent Canadians need to be attacked, robbed or killed before the government admits that its soft-on-crime approach has significantly failed Canadians? Why are we tiptoeing around the rights of traffickers, gang members and repeat violent offenders while law-abiding citizens pay the price in blood, trauma and fear?
The bill focuses on border security and public safety, but it completely fails to deliver on core fundamentals.
Conservatives have long called for decisive action to protect Canada's borders. For years, we have urged the Liberals to fix the border crisis that they created, yet they have ignored the warnings and failed to act. The fundamentals are clear. If we want safer communities, we need tougher sentences for serious crimes. If we want to stop organized crime, we need real punishment for drug traffickers, not plea deals. If we want to stop repeat violence, we need to end the revolving door of bail. Most importantly, if we want to restore trust in our justice system, we need to stop coddling criminals and start standing up for victims.
The bill, unfortunately, does none of those things. It fixes the optics but leaves the core problem untouched. It offers minor changes when what we need is structural reform. It fails to reverse the damage done by Bill and Bill . It fails to recognize that organized crime is not a future threat; it is here now and has been for many years. It fails to respond to the fentanyl crisis with the seriousness it demands. It fails to protect Canadians while crime surges in every category.
Canadians are demanding real change, and they are right to. Mandatory minimums must be restored for serious gun and drug offences. Fentanyl traffickers and cartel-connected criminals should face mandatory life in prison, no exceptions, full stop. The so-called principle of restraint has to be repealed so repeat violent offenders stay behind bars, where they belong. What this country needs is a justice system that protects victims, enforces accountability and puts public safety first, before political ideology, because keeping Canadians safe is not negotiable. It is the prime responsibility of a government.
Conservatives are committed to real, results-driven public safety measures. That means securing our borders, closing loopholes in our immigration system and shutting down the financial lifelines of terrorism and organized crime. Let us not forget why we are here in the first place. The bill only exists because of 10 years of Liberal inaction. The bill only exists because they have problems dealing with the American administration to the south. For a decade, they have watched crime rise and courts weaken.
Since the Liberals took office, illegal border activity has not just risen; it has exploded. There has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people crossing illegally from Canada. That is not just a stat; it is a failure of national security. It is what happens when the government refuses to enforce its own borders and lets crisis become the norm, the status quo. The Liberals say they are investing $300 million in border security, but where is it? There is no rollout plan, no timeline and no public accountability, just more vague promises. Canadians are tired of the talk. Opposition members are tired of this talk. They want action. They want to see trust.
We cannot protect Canadians by turning law-abiding citizens into suspects. The expanded surveillance powers in this bill raise very serious privacy concerns. Conservatives will ensure that in the name of security we are not trampling on the rights of innocent Canadians. We can be tough on crime without being reckless at the same time with civil liberties. Our job does not end at opposing what is wrong. It is about pushing for what is right.
Conservatives will keep fighting for real protection at our borders, stronger enforcement at our ports, and sentencing that reflects the seriousness of the crimes Canadians face. The goal is not just to punish crime; it is to prevent it and to restore trust in a system that too often lets people down. Justice in this country should not be optional. Public safety should never be negotiable, and the rights of law-abiding Canadians must always come before the rights of repeat offenders.
:
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for .
As I rise in the House today to deliver my maiden speech, I do so with deep humility and heartfelt gratitude. On April 28, the people of Winnipeg West honoured me by placing their trust in me once again and electing me to be their voice in this esteemed chamber. Having served from 2015 to 2019, returning to the chamber is more than just a homecoming; it is a renewed call to service. I am profoundly thankful to the constituents of Winnipeg West for entrusting me with the privilege of representing them, and for allowing me to champion their causes, advocate for them and bring attention to the pressing issues facing our community.
I would like to give special thanks to my wife, Sowmya. From my very first campaign in 2015 to my return in 2025, she has been my constant source of encouragement, strength and support, and, yes, I have already apologized for, once again, leaving her with the unfortunate duty of dealing with our cats' litter box.
As I reflect on the journey that brought me here, I must take a moment to recognize the extraordinary volunteers of Winnipeg West. Their dedication, passion and tireless efforts were the heartbeat of the campaign. As I juggled emergency department shifts alongside the campaign, it was our incredible volunteers who carried the torch and kept us moving forward. From door knocking with me in snowstorms to making countless phone calls, organizing events and spreading our message, they showed up day after day with purpose and resolve. The campaign simply would not have been possible without them, and I am endlessly grateful for their steadfast belief in our shared values and vision for a stronger, more inclusive Canada.
Having practised emergency medicine in Winnipeg for over 25 years, I have always believed that a fundamental duty of a society is for us to look out for one another. I had a personal experience that tells me what that means. In 2022, while visiting Vancouver, I suffered a sudden cardiac arrest while running in Stanley Park. I survived because complete strangers stepped in, performed CPR on me for 25 minutes and administered two shocks with a defibrillator before paramedics rushed me to St. Paul's Hospital, where I underwent emergency coronary bypass surgery. I was discharged a week later, and the total medical bill to me was zero dollars.
That experience reaffirmed something deeply meaningful: This is what Canada is all about, a country where people step up for each other and a place where our public institutions are there to care for those in need without asking whether they can pay. This is the Canada I believe in and the Canada I am committed to helping preserve.
Winnipeg West is a unique riding, a place where diversity, resilience and unity come together. What sets the community apart is its blend of urban vibrancy and rural character. While rooted in the west end of Winnipeg, our riding also stretches across municipalities like Headingley and Rosser, each with its own identity, history and contribution to the fabric of Manitoba.
From thriving suburban neighbourhoods to family-run farms and tight-knit rural communities, Winnipeg West represents a microcosm of the province itself: diverse, connected and grounded in shared values. Our riding of Winnipeg West is a true reflection of prairie pragmatism, a place where politics are not measured by headlines but by results. In my riding, people are less concerned with partisan politics and are more focused on real, tangible solutions that improve everyday life. Whether it is advocating for affordability measures, improved infrastructure in our municipalities or support for small businesses and the local agriculture sector, residents want action that makes a difference.
Our riding has long been a political battleground, not because it is divided but because its people are engaged, thoughtful and principled. There, people do not hesitate to ask the hard questions, challenge assumptions and expect their elected representatives to earn their trust every single day. This spirit of democratic engagement is not only a cornerstone of Winnipeg West; it is also a strength of our democracy, and it is a responsibility I carry with great humility and purpose.
In last week's Speech from the Throne, our government laid out a bold and unifying vision: to build one strong Canadian economy out of 13, and to position Canada as the strongest economy in the G7. At a time when we are facing significant generational challenges, including mounting economic pressures from our closest ally, the United States, our government remains focused on delivering real, tangible results for Canadians.
This means making life more affordable for Canadians by implementing targeted measures like the middle-class tax cut that puts more money back into the pockets of people in communities like Winnipeg West, tackling the housing crisis head-on by accelerating home construction at a pace this country has never seen before, and investing in critical infrastructure and nation-building projects that will drive long-term economic growth and unlock new opportunities for every generation of Canadians.
One of the key pillars of the plan is securing our borders, as to be truly strong, Canada must be secure. Border security is critical, not only to ensuring public safety but also to safeguarding our economic prosperity and national sovereignty. That is why, earlier this week, the introduced Bill , the strong borders act, a comprehensive piece of legislation aimed at strengthening Canada's border integrity and enhancing our capacity to respond to evolving security threats.
The strong borders act would build upon Canada's $1.3-billion border plan, the largest single investment in border security in Canadian history. Bill proposes important measures to modernize our border infrastructure, improve information sharing among Canadian agencies, preserve the integrity of our immigration and asylum systems, and prevent the unlawful movement of goods and people across our borders. It also addresses growing concerns about the illegal fentanyl trade, transnational organized crime, money laundering and terrorist financing, all of which pose serious risks to both our public health and national security. With the legislation, we would be reaffirming our commitment to a secure, resilient and sovereign Canada.
In my riding of Winnipeg West, home to the Winnipeg Richardson International Airport, the proposed changes would have a direct and positive impact. The bill would help strengthen frontline operations and would ensure law enforcement agents are equipped with the right tools to secure our borders and carry out their duties more effectively, while ensuring accountability and transparency.
As I conclude my remarks today, I would be remiss not to acknowledge the devastating wildfires currently sweeping across Manitoba. This year's wildfire season has escalated with unprecedented speed and intensity, displacing thousands of families and putting many first nations communities at serious risk. With a provincial state of emergency now in effect, countless Manitobans have been forced from their home and are facing profound uncertainty and loss. My thoughts are with everyone affected by the crisis.
In response to urgent requests from the province, the federal government acted swiftly by deploying the Canadian Armed Forces to support evacuation efforts and ensure the safe relocation of residents. Multiple agencies and organizations are working around the clock in close coordination, to deliver critical aid and assistance on the ground. To support recovery efforts, the Government of Canada has also committed to matching donations to the Canadian Red Cross campaigns, offering Canadians a way to stand in solidarity with those who have lost so much.
Finally, I am thankful to all the brave heroes on the front lines: first responders, firefighters, volunteers, humanitarian workers and the local community leaders. Their courage, compassion and unwavering dedication are a source of strength for the entire community. In the face of hardship, they remind us what it means to be truly united.
:
Madam Speaker, I rise here today recognizing that we stand on the traditional territories of the Algonquin nation. I want to congratulate you for your role again here as Assistant Deputy Speaker.
We are debating Bill , which would enact several legislative amendments, including important measures to help detect, deter and disrupt cross-border money laundering and terrorist financing networks. These are matters of utmost importance to our country, particularly British Columbia and my hometown, Richmond, a gateway city that is integral to our economy.
I want to take a quick moment before I speak to the bill; this is my first intervention, although I did have an opportunity to give a statement. I want to take a moment to thank everyone from Richmond East—Steveston for putting their trust in me and supporting me once again: my campaign team and the hundreds of volunteers and supporters who worked tirelessly because they believed in me and the very important work our new government set out to do—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Parm Bains: Madam Speaker, there is also the work I did with the member across, but I did not catch what he said. We spent some time on the mighty OGGO committee, and I know he probably wants to see me there again.
Everyone in this House knows the sacrifices families make for us to be here, and their strength helps us do the important work we all do. I remember my wedding day 23 years ago. In my reception toast to my wife, Gurpreet, I said that she makes me a better person. Without her support, I would not be here.
My kids, Hasina and Daya, stepped up and they pounded the pavement. My sister, Nav, knocked on thousands of doors once again. She is the best sister in the world, always ready to stand up for her little brother. Of course, I can never forget the sacrifices my parents made. My dad, like so many Canadians, left his homeland at a young age to make a good life here. He worked as a steelworker in England and then in Canada, and he was a dump truck owner-operator. He worked hard. My mom worked tirelessly as a seniors care aide. We had a very modest upbringing with endless opportunities before us, so I thank them and I love them.
Going back to the bill, it is a huge honour to represent the city that raised me and, most importantly, to be their voice in this House to talk on this today, Bill , with respect to the strong and effective anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing measures included in it. They are integral components of a secure Canada-United States border. These measures not only protect our financial system but also safeguard our communities from the devastating impacts of crime and terrorism.
Money laundering supports and perpetuates crimes by allowing criminals, such as fentanyl traffickers, to benefit from their illicit activities. Terrorist financing enables terrorist activities in Canada, the United States and abroad, posing a significant threat to global security. To combat these threats, Canada has established a robust anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, underpinned by federal statutes, including the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
Banks and other businesses and professionals with obligations under this act are on the front lines of the fight against financial crime. The bill would require that these businesses and professionals report certain financial transactions to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, as well as implement compliance programs to identify clients, monitor business relationships and keep records.
Over the last few years, the centre has identified an alarming trend regarding the difficulties reporting entities are having in maintaining effective anti-money laundering controls, as have our partners in markets where Canadian institutions operate. This led the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to issue its largest-ever administrative monetary penalties in 2023 and 2024.
The government takes financial crimes seriously. If left unchecked, these kinds of deficiencies risk undermining the effectiveness of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act in the fight against financial crimes.
The bill proposes a comprehensive set of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its regulations to ensure reporting entities maintain strong controls that are effective in detecting and deterring money laundering and other financial crimes. The first part of these measures includes strengthening the administrative monetary penalty framework, enhancing the compliance of reporting entities, more effectively punishing serious criminal non-compliance and strengthening supervision and the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework in general.
These changes are needed to ensure strong anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing controls, as well as that non-compliance is not treated as the cost of doing business. Recent trends also highlight the importance of close coordination between the financial sector regulators. In December 2024, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada signed a memorandum of understanding with regulators in the U.S. to ensure strong money laundering controls of cross-border banks.
In Canada, the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee facilitates consultation and the exchange of information on matters relating to the supervision of federal financial institutions. Making the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of this committee would enable better coordination across agencies in Canada in fighting financial crimes.
Ensuring strong controls of reporting agencies is necessary but not sufficient in our fight against financial crime. We must also take decisive action to directly target the evolving means and methods used by criminals to launder their illicit proceeds. British Columbians know the harms money laundering can cause. Five years ago in Richmond, the operator of an underground bank was shot and killed in broad daylight. In response to this and other concerns about money laundering in B.C., the provincial government established the Cullen commission. The measures proposed in the bill would complement the commission's recommendations to the province.
Of course, British Columbians are concerned about another matter addressed by Bill , fentanyl trafficking and other profit-driven crimes. These criminal activities generate large cash proceeds, and cash remains a preferred method of payment for criminals as it is autonomous and easily transferable. Organized crime networks and drug traffickers exploit money mules to make small deposits in cash in multiple accounts at numerous financial institutions to avoid detection and mandatory reporting.
Criminals also launder their illicit cash proceeds through the purchase and resale of luxury and high-value goods, as well as through large cash payments to service providers who are controlled or influenced by a criminal organization. Large cash payments for goods or services may also be used to evade taxation. For these reasons, many countries, including the United States and other G7 partners, maintain restrictions on large cash transactions.
The second part of the financial crime amendments in the bill addresses the use of cash for money laundering by prohibiting the acceptance by businesses and other professionals of cash payments, deposits or donations over $10,000, except by regulated deposit-taking institutions; and prohibiting deposits by individuals who are not the owner of the account, i.e., third party deposits.
In 2025 and 2026, Canada will undergo an international peer review by the Financial Action Task Force, the international anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing standard-setting body. The proposed measures would help address issues identified by the Financial Action Task Force and support a positive review.
The bill is a key part of the government's agenda, and I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting its quick passage. I am happy to take any questions.
:
Madam Speaker, I am standing here tonight in the House of Commons, the House of the common people, with great pleasure. It is the first time I will be delivering a substantive speech since re-election.
I would first like to acknowledge my family. My family has been profound in getting me exactly where I am. There is so much work to be done, and without the family support that so many of us in this place have to get us where we are, we would not be here. I thank our families.
I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the impeccable campaign team and my electoral district association of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, which went above and beyond every single day. We ran a seamless campaign. It was impressive, and I am so grateful for all of them. I would also like to acknowledge the importance of serving with humility, grace, grit and sometimes an attitude. Respectfully, we have a tremendous responsibility to do what is right for all Canadians, and I give my word to the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga that I will do exactly that.
It is wonderful to rise on behalf of all Canadians. I would also like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, along with a lot of the new faces and the older faces here in this place. I would also like to thank those who are not returning to the House of Commons after a hard-fought election for their dedication to their constituents in the last Parliament. The last Parliament was a historic, unprecedented Parliament, and I am extremely glad that I was able to share a lot of that with them.
To the topic at hand, as I know everyone is anxiously waiting for me to turn the page, Bill proposes a whole list of changes to various acts of Parliament, and there is a lot to unpack. According to the government-issued backgrounder, it is a catch-all crime bill claiming to stem the flow of fentanyl, cracking down on immigration fraud and fighting organized crime, among other things.
The first immediate red flag that comes up is that this is already asking our underfunded and understaffed security organizations to do more with meagre resources than they already have. In my previous role, I learned a lot about defence and military concepts, and a parallel can be drawn between what we are seeing proposed and an unfortunate constant in our armed forces, an ever-increasing commitment capability gap. We do not have the resources to do the things we need to do. In the Canadian Armed Forces, that manifests itself in a lack of manpower, kit, weapons systems, supports, housing and pay. We may very well need our police organizations to have the authority to do more, but that is completely irrelevant if they are not given the tools to do their current job and what we are asking them to do in addition.
The bill, as it stands, would only increase that gap, which, in turn, would result in more inefficient capabilities across the board as organizations take resources from already struggling sectors to plug into the newly created areas of operation. It may seem as though I am getting technical here, but we really need to dig into this. There are a few parts in the proposed legislation where this is a concern, but there is one in particular that I would like to touch on today, as I have some familiarly, I mean familiarity, with it through my previous work.
I would like to acknowledge that when I was younger, I had a speech impediment, and I have come a long way. I was actually learning sign language when I was younger, in anticipation of not knowing how far my speech would develop, and now I am speaking as capably as I can in English. I am also vigorously learning French, and I am pretty comfortable in Spanish as well, so I have come a long way, but I say to those who have speech impediments or struggle to get up in front of a group, sometimes words from the past or different syllables might catch them, but they just need to keep going. To those who struggle at home, keep going.
Getting back to the legislation, for those listening who may not be familiar with this particular legislation, out of deference to the government, lest I be accused of misleading Canadians as to the content of the bill, I will reference the government's backgrounder, which it produced to ensure that we are getting this particular piece of legislation as clearly as possible so that people can understand it. It reads:
Expand the Canadian Coast Guard’s services to include security activities that will strengthen sovereignty and maritime domain awareness, particularly in remote Arctic waters;
This will enable the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes.
How exactly does the government plan to enable the Coast Guard to carry out these increased activities? Where are the additional ships, helicopters and personnel coming from? The legislation is silent on this. We cannot legislate sailors into existence. A bill does not create helicopters. Bill , or any piece of legislation, does not create capability; it creates only verbal commitment, and that is a very serious problem.
This is not the first time that this government's legislation has widened a capability gap. In the last Parliament, the government introduced Bill . The legislation was essentially created to address miscarriages of justice. While we do enjoy a relatively stable justice system, perhaps its single greatest flaw is the staggering slow pace at which it moves. The reason I wanted to speak about Bill today is the additional burden it put on the judiciary, a burden that has very real consequences.
During the last Parliament, I had the opportunity to speak with Kate, who made it one of her life goals to ensure that women do not have to go through what she did. I am not going to stand before you and repeat all of the terrible details, but, in short, she was the victim of severe intimate partner violence. Her partner tried to kill her. There was a video and photo evidence of her bloodied body as she tried to leave him. He gloated about this abuse to his neighbours. One would think it was an open and shut case. After all, this is Canada, a developed western nation, where justice is king, but after being rescheduled twice, the charges were stayed. She was granted a restraining order and told to be on her way. She had to literally flee the country just to feel safe.
Why did this happen? It happened because the courts could not handle the volume of cases. Hers was among many that were decided to be tossed out, not because of individual innocence but because of bureaucratic burdens. This is a perfect example of that capability gap that I spoke of earlier. The government needs to be able to ensure that our systems, and the people working to keep them going, can function at all times, and the same goes for our borders.
Moving on, I would like to talk about the practical nature of some of these changes that are proposed, changes that I think are more easily committed to than actually achieved. The document reads:
Enhance the ability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to share information collected under the Act on registered sex offenders with domestic and international partners, including those located in the United States.
The document continues:
Authorize Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to share client information, such as identity, status and immigration documentation with federal, provincial and territorial partners through signed information-sharing agreements;
Make it easier for IRCC to share client information between different IRCC programs (e.g. using permanent residence application data to process citizenship applications);
Allow for regulations to be developed to share client information across federal departments for the purpose of cooperation.
These four proposals are very interesting because, again, they sound great, but exactly how are they to be facilitated? Is a new database being created? Will security clearances need to be harmonized across all departments? How do we know the provinces and territories will agree to these suggestions? Will this necessitate individual processes for each signatory? What if someone moves between provinces? These are all questions that need to be answered and actioned on by an already very slow-moving public service.
I need only point to the Phoenix pay fiasco. Regardless of where blame lies, the government had a very real issue with doing something as basic as paying its employees. The procurement system in the Canadian Armed Forces is piecemeal. Passports were taking months to be issued. ATIPs take months if not years. These are all existing systems that the government has been actively working on to fix, and we are expecting the government to reform IRCC's information-sharing system and incorporate all 13 independent provinces and territories. The Liberals might as well legislate away the national debt, toothaches and bad dreams while they are at it.
The questions keep coming. Bill proposes to do the following:
Ensure that electronic services providers (ESPs) have the capabilities in place to support law enforcement agencies and CSIS in criminal and intelligence investigations by requiring them to fulfil lawfully authorized requests to access or intercept information and communications.
This is an interesting one. I am not entirely sure how legally requiring an electronic service provider to hand over information to the government when asked means they will have the capability to access, recover and transmit that information to the government, but apparently this legislation would make that happen. It would be quite impressive if it works.
This last point segues into another area of concern: the consultative process. This is an extremely sweeping piece of legislation. We are already hearing concerns about the IRCC reforms from digital security experts and personal rights organizations. I am concerned that the government did not do the due diligence that we normally see in drafting this legislation. I am not sure how much conversation was held with stakeholders, the public or, I suspect, even with its own caucus.
This brings me to another point: Why introduce this legislation so early? The answer lies behind the motive. The legislation was not introduced out of a desire for increased security or a concern with the ongoing fentanyl crisis. No, it was introduced because of one word: tariffs.
Bill is the government's attempt to assuage the concerns, legitimate or not, of the Trump administration. I would like to be clear: The Trump administration's tariffs are unprompted, unfair and unjust, and I know the House is united in our feelings about this, but the reality remains that they are here. The only way we get rid of them is by sitting down with our American counterparts, listening, and coming to an understanding that these tariffs hurt not just our economy and our people, but those in the United States as well.
Doing that will take much more than speaking out in the House to an audience that is united in their desire to restore and reinforce our trading relationship with our closest trading neighbour; it will take action. It will mean having those very difficult conversations together. This is why I am personally reaching out to industry associations, stakeholders and policy-makers on both sides of the border at the state, provincial and federal levels to open that dialogue. I intend to work collaboratively with the Canadian and American governments in an attempt to come to a mutual understanding and get these unjust tariffs on Canada's businesses and goods removed.
This morning, I had the privilege of meeting with His Excellency Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Mexico's ambassador to Canada. We had a really good conversation about the importance of building and maintaining the relationships between our two nations.
Not two hours ago, I sat down with American officials, and we had a very productive meeting. In addition, I am in talks with Canadian embassy officials in Washington to facilitate meetings on the ground in D.C., as well as Canadian trade delegates located throughout the U.S.
I recognize the has just ended a visit there, and I would like to thank and applaud him for his efforts, but as the government likes to say, this requires a team approach. I will take this opportunity to invite the minister to join me in D.C. so we can have a real collaborative conversation, the government and opposition together, as we tackle these unfair and unjust tariffs with our American counterparts.
It is not always about Liberals and Conservatives. There are times when it needs to be about Canada and the United States, Canadians and Americans. Neither party nor nation can afford to lose sight of that.
Going back to the big picture and bottom line of Bill , in closing, the Conservatives are committed to implementing the tougher and smarter measures that are needed to keep Canada safe. They include securing our borders, strengthening our immigration system and cracking down on terrorist financing. The safety and security of Canadians are non-negotiable.