Bill C-8

An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. It also establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to secure the Canadian telecommunications system as well as rules for judicial review of those orders and regulations.
Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. It also, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system;
(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to establish classes of operators in respect of a vital service or vital system;
(c) requires designated operators to, among other things, establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions;
(d) provides for the exchange of information between relevant parties and the disposal of personal information; and
(e) authorizes the enforcement of the obligations under the Act and imposes consequences for non-compliance.
This Part also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.
Part 3 provides for a five-year review of the provisions enacted or amended by this Act.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact and in reality, the government has been very ambitious in bringing forward a crime package to ensure the security of Canadians. We have heard time and time again of what is happening on the streets, and so we have been very bold in our approach, bringing forward Bill C-5, Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and soon Bill C-16.

We are very much looking forward to the Conservatives' co-operation.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Conservative motion presented today on public safety, extortion and our immigration system. While this is an important conversation, I have been following the language used by the Conservative members very closely. Unfortunately, it is based on flawed assumptions, misinformation and political posturing, rather than a thoughtful, evidence-based approach to justice in Canada.

Let me be clear: Our government is committed to a justice system that protects victims, punishes repeat violent offenders and is rooted in evidence, not political ideology or fearmongering. In the face of partisan attacks, we are going to set the record straight.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I will specifically focus on parts (c) and (d) of this motion. First, let us talk about part (c) of the motion, which seeks to bar judges from considering some collateral consequences at the sentencing stage. For those unfamiliar with our sentencing framework, judges can consider a wide range of collateral consequences when imposing a sentence. These include impacts on employment; travel restrictions; loss of professional licences; mental health; housing; firearm rights; inclusion in the sex offender registry; family responsibilities, such as care for sick relatives; and immigration status.

Here is the question: Why are the Conservatives complaining only about judges' considering immigration status when deciding a sentence? Why are they not raising the same concern when judges consider the loss of a firearm licence, even in cases involving firearm-related offences? If their goal is truly to remove one type of collateral consequence from judicial consideration, then logically they should be advocating to remove all of them. This includes the very ones, like the loss of a firearm licence, that directly affect public safety. However, the Conservatives focus solely on immigration status. This tells Canadians everything they need to know. Rather than addressing collateral consequences that impact public safety directly, the Conservatives are choosing to stigmatize immigrants.

The reality is clear: Judicial discretion considers all relative factors, and selectively targeting immigration status is both misleading and dangerous. This is not the Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney, who worked to ensure that we did not stigmatize immigrants or portray them as criminals. This is not even the Conservative Party of former prime minister Harper. In fact, the practice of judges considering immigration status as collateral damage and consequence actually started under former prime minister Harper's government.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Pham ruled that judges could consider immigration status only if so doing ensures that the sentence remains proportionate to the crime committed. Former prime minister Harper was fine with that, because it allowed judges the necessary discretion to evaluate all relevant factors. Even the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who were in cabinet at the time, said nothing. I suspect they knew it was not a problem then and know it is still not a problem today. However, they are now exploiting the issue to scare Canadians, score political points, cater to the far right base and portray all immigrants as criminals.

This is shameful, and anyone who supports the motion should be equally ashamed. The Conservatives are once again pushing for a failed approach that undermines judicial independence and ignores binding Supreme Court precedent. Rather than interfering with judicial discretion, let us focus on the facts. The courts are not misapplying sentencing guidelines or reducing sentences inappropriately. If the Crown believes a sentence is too lenient, it has the right to appeal. It is just that simple. I dare the members opposite to point to a single case in which the Crown has appealed a sentence for a non-citizen based on immigration status. They will not find one.

Now let us turn our attention to part (d) of the motion, which calls for the repeal of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. These bills were critical reforms designed to modernize the criminal justice system, protect victims and address the realities of today's world.

Let us take Bill C-75. This bill strengthened protection for victims of intimate partner violence, which is something every member of the chamber should be concerned with. Under Bill C-75, we defined “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code to include ex-partners for all Criminal Code-related purposes, and we created a reverse onus for repeat offenders of violence between intimate partners, making it harder for them to get bail. Repeat offenders, the ones who are the most likely to reoffend, are being targeted.

However, the Conservatives are so blinded by their obsession with headlines that they refuse to see the facts. They claim that Bill C-75 weakened public safety, but the president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association has made it quite clear that this claim is a false narrative.

Let us talk about Bill C-5. The Conservatives have tried to make it sound like we were somehow soft on crime, but that could not be farther from the truth. They have raised concerns about house arrest for extortionists, but what they fail to say is that conditional sentences are not available for serious crimes like extortion when the sentence is two years or more, or when the offender poses a threat to public safety. Therefore, Bill C-5 did not give criminals a free pass. We actually maintained mandatory jail time for extortion involving illegal firearms or criminal organizations, the kinds of crimes that concern Canadians most.

While the Conservatives play politics, our government has a comprehensive agenda to combat organized crime. Bill C-14, for example, would introduce over 80 targeted Criminal Code reforms aimed at tackling violent offenders and organized crime, including extortion, yet what did the Conservatives do? They blocked the bill at committee. Their members wasted valuable time at the committee. They are on record talking about their love of cats and puppies, instead of focusing on bail reform, sentencing reform, gender-based violence and extortion.

Let us not forget Bill C-16, which tackles the growing menace of sextortion, a horrific form of online exploitation. The Conservatives have done nothing but block it. They are even asking the government to split the bill.

While the Conservatives stand in the way of very important public safety reforms, we are pushing forward with real solutions. We have introduced targeted reforms, including lawful access, which would, with Bill C-2, give law enforcement the tools it needs to catch the extortionists before they even commit the crime.

With Bill C-14, we would create new reverse onus provisions for people accused of extortion involving violence, making it harder for them to get bail. We would require that a sentence for extortion be served consecutively to a sentence imposed for arson, not concurrently. We would prohibit weapons at the bail stage for people accused of extortion and organized crime. We would even strengthen bail conditions for extortionists in organized crime, such as geographic limitations. What are the Conservatives doing? They are obstructing.

Let us be clear: Our new Liberal government is committed to protecting victims. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have chosen to play politics with the safety of Canadians. They have obstructed every meaningful reform we have tried to pass, and now they are using partisan rhetoric to undermine our justice system. Canadians deserve better; they deserve a justice system that works for everyone, not just for the politicians who want to score political points.

Let us pass Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. Law enforcement and Canadians are waiting for this critical legislation to secure our borders, our streets and our communities.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assume the member is talking about the opposition motion because what we are debating here is a motion, not a bill. Since he was careful to correct people on their use of language, I thought I would return the favour.

I have expressed my views very clearly. I think the motion before the House is a form of obstruction in itself, because if we go through all of these pieces of legislation, Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, they are addressing the very issues that Canadians are clamouring for and that the member and his colleagues are clamouring for.

I will repeat: Please help us get the legislation passed like we did with Bill C-14.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Manitoba is going to sit there and heckle, and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is just going to heckle. He has nothing to add. He has been part of this obstruction from the start. He has been here for 10 years, but he has brought nothing to the table in terms of this problem, except yelling, screaming and pounding his desk on a non-binding motion. He has an opportunity. He is still yelling.

He has an opportunity to go to his leader's office. His leader sent a letter to the Prime Minister saying he's ready to co-operate. These are words on paper. Yes, on one of the pieces of legislation, the Conservatives have moved forward. On Bill C-14, we have seen some movement. After months of holding it back, after months of filibuster, we have finally seen some movement on that. My understanding is it finally passed committee after, again, mayors and chiefs of police begged the Conservatives to let these pieces of legislation through.

We still see a lot of work ahead of us. We can look at Bill C-2. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated that Bill C-2 is “a timely and necessary step as part of a sustained commitment to modern laws, modern tools, and modern collaboration.” This will give law enforcement the tools they need to dismantle and prosecute increasingly sophisticated organized crime networks threatening our communities.

Again, the chiefs of police are calling for action, and what do the members have on the other side? They have a non-binding motion, a non-binding resolution. Where are they in their committees? When are they saying to their leaders, “We need action on this. Our chiefs of police, our police associations are demanding action on this. They are demanding action on lawful access.” They will get up and say that terrorism and child exploitation are problems, but they have concerns with the bill. They will not examine it in committee. They will fight it here. They will go back to their constituents and say they supported a non-binding motion. Where are they? They say this is their issue. They talk about it time after time.

I would like to believe the Conservatives have some legitimacy in this space, but where are they? If these bills are so terrible, why are they not getting them to the committee to amend them and make them better in their minds? They are just leaving them here on the floor of the House of Commons. They are not speaking to the Conservative members of their caucus in the Senate to make sure the bills are expedited.

Premier after premier is screaming to get these pieces of legislation passed, whether it is Bill C-2, Bill C-8 or Bill C-9 on combatting hate. The Conservatives are just fundraising off their obstruction of Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. We even heard the member wanting more mandatory minimums. At the same time, he is obstructing Bill C-16. It is unbelievable, but again, they have a non-binding motion. That is their solution. I am sure that when they meet with chiefs of police and with mayors, they are going to say, “Well, we have this piece of paper.” When they are asked why they would not support other legislation that we have been calling for, they will have no answer. They have had no answer here.

The only thing the Conservatives do have, which I am sure they have not mentioned, is that crime is actually down, but who are they going to blame? They have a non-binding motion to blame immigrants and refugees for the problem. At the same time, they are clutching at their pearls.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

Let me begin clearly: Extortion is a serious crime. It terrorizes families, threatens small business owners and undermines confidence in public safety. In Surrey and across British Columbia, I have met with constituents who are living in fear. They deserve real solutions, not political theatre.

The Conservative motion claims to be about fighting extortion, but it relies on misinformation and proposals that would weaken, not strengthen, our justice system.

In British Columbia, the federal government has provided significant resources to combat extortion. We have committed $4 million to strengthen the B.C. extortion task force through the regional integrated drug enforcement team. In addition, the federal government and the Province of B.C. have jointly provided $1 million to support victims of extortion. The federal RCMP will deploy up to an additional 20 RCMP officers, along with helicopter resources, to support on-the-ground enforcement efforts in Surrey. Further funding is being delivered through the federal gun and gang violence action fund to disrupt gun and gang violence linked to extortion networks.

We have also taken decisive action by listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist organization. The RCMP and the CBSA are actively supporting investigations, laying charges and, where appropriate, also pursuing removal orders against foreign nationals who are inadmissible due to criminality or to non-compliance with Canadian law.

Once passed, Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, would modernize immigration enforcement and crack down on transnational organized crime, including extortion networks, making it harder for violent offenders to exploit procedural delays.

Now let us address the Conservative proposals directly. They are claiming that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes can make refugee claims to avoid consequences. That is simply false. Claiming asylum does not and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their criminal case proceeds. If they are found inadmissible, their asylum claim is terminated, their lawful status ends, and they face removal.

Foreign nationals already subject to a removal order cannot make a refugee claim. In cases of serious inadmissibility, those individuals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada.

CBSA is aggressively pursuing the removal of criminals attempting to misuse the asylum system. Where credibility issues arise, CBSA prioritizes those files, presents evidence to the Immigration and Refugee Board and seeks dismissal or admissibility hearings leading to deportation.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a claim is already ineligible if the person is inadmissible for serious criminality or has been convicted in or outside Canada of an offence punishable by at least 10 years. Adopting the Conservative proposal would not close a loophole; it would create new administrative layers and invite litigation.

Paragraph (b) of the motion would bar asylum claims for those with active criminal proceedings. That, too, has already been addressed. CBSA officers may suspend eligibility reviews when a claimant is charged with a serious offence. Once the criminal case is resolved, the officer resumes the assessment and may deem the person ineligible. Canada's system already prevents asylum claims from advancing when serious charges are pending.

In paragraph (c), the Conservatives call for an end to so-called leniency to avoid deportation. What they are really proposing is to prohibit judges from considering immigration consequences at sentencing. Judges may consider immigration consequences to ensure that a sentence remains fit and proportionate, but never to reduce a sentence below what is appropriate. There is no evidence that the courts are improperly lowering sentences to avoid deportation. Any rare adjustments are reviewable on appeal and often reflect the joint positions of the Crown and defence. Eliminating judicial discretion would weaken, not strengthen, the justice system.

The Conservatives are also demanding the repeal of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Canadians elected this government with a mandate to strengthen public safety and modernize the justice system, and we are delivering. We have tabled more than six major public safety and criminal justice bills designed to crack down on violent and repeat offenders. Conservatives have delayed them, while premiers, police chiefs and municipalities have called for their urgent passage.

Bill C-75 did not weaken bail. It strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence by defining “intimate partner” to include former partners, creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders and requiring courts to consider prior convictions. Bill C-14 would go even further by clarifying that restraint does not mean automatic release, yet the Conservatives have blocked it. I have seen that in the House. The other day, speaker after speaker from the Conservatives did nothing but block Bill C-14, which would strengthen the bail act.

Bill C-5 did not allow house arrest for serious extortion. Conditional sentences are unavailable when sentences exceed two years or offenders pose a public safety threat. Mandatory jail time remains for extortion involving firearms or criminal organizations, which are exactly the cases that Canadians are most concerned about.

Our current legislation agenda targets extortion directly and effectively. Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for violent extortion, require consecutive sentences for related crimes like arson, prohibit weapons at bail and strengthen geographic restrictions. Together with Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, these reforms would strengthen border enforcement, cybersecurity, hate crime laws and immigration integrity. These are evidence-based measures supported by law enforcement and municipalities across Canada.

Extortion is not a street-level crime; it is driven by organized networks and money laundering. That is why the response must be comprehensive. Fighting extortion requires evidence-based policy and firm endorsement, not false promises, and it requires a justice system that is tough on crime while still upholding the rule of law.

The Conservative approach is to blame immigration and repeal laws. Our approach is to dismantle criminal networks, strengthen enforcement, protect victims and uphold the rule of law. Victims of extortion want results, not slogans. This motion would divide communities, undermine due process and distract from real solutions.

For those reasons, I will oppose this motion and support the serious, targeted reforms needed to keep Canadians safe.

Financial Administration Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, whether it is the Epstein files or Santa Claus, the names on the lists are never released. Society has come to the moral place where those who have done wrong are protected: tax cheaters, offenders living among us or parliamentarians who have worked negatively with foreign governments. Everything is withheld behind the false veil of privacy.

Why is it that the government wants to track the information of millions of average Canadians on their laptops but will not go after those who go against one of the most basic social contracts of society, paying taxes? We have a solution in Bill C-230.

In recent years, the CRA has been waiving debts owed to government. Last year, the government waived the following debts: $4.7 billion in writeoffs, $10.9 billion in forgiveness, $0.4 billion in remissions and $2.6 billion in waivers, for a total of $18.4 billion. Writeoffs and waivers for taxes owed are done in secret because of privacy provisions under the Income Tax Act. While the CRA is pursuing small businesses and ordinary Canadians for minor amounts owed to government, it is writing off debts owed to government by corporate entities in record amounts.

Canadians deserve to know which corporations are benefiting from the CRA's decision not to collect debts to government. The solution in Bill C-230 is to create a public registry that would require the Treasury Board to publish, annually, a list of corporate entities that have debts owed to governments forgiven, written off or waived if that amount exceeds $1 million. One million dollars is a lot of money. It is not forgetting to pay back $20, or “I will get lunch next time.”

In 2023-24, 11 companies received $1.2 billion in combined writeoffs. The 11 companies account for nearly a quarter of the $4.9 billion in writeoffs approved in fiscal year 2023-24. What are these companies? Right now, we do not know. How would Canadians feel if these were publicly traded companies posting profits or even record profits? What if Brookfield was one of those companies? Right now, we do not know. Why should big corporations get enormous debt writeoffs when they target the little guy for significantly smaller amounts?

I have a message from a constituent, who writes, “They're claiming that I owe them $126 from a payroll account more than 15 years ago”.

Another constituent writes:

CRA has been holding up my return for months—with no proper timetable for a return—and meanwhile they have sent me to collections—causing me not only a large amount of stress and anxiety—but also causing me serious financial strain—in that I have had to take loans out to pay bills and support payments (which would have been covered in my return)

Another constituent is being withheld money from his mother's death benefit due to CRA delays.

He writes:

I followed every instruction I was given, yet I received no communication for months. I assumed my file was being processed, only to learn that it had been discarded. It is incredibly discouraging. This does not reflect a system that serves the people. It feels like the opposite, and that is deeply concerning.

Here's another account from a constituent:

Our mom passed away on February 28th, and her death was reported to CRA. A mistake was made and they deposited OAS into her account 2 months after her death, and then sent us a letter telling us we had to pay it back. Our dad passed away on June 8th; again, his death was reported to CRA but we have been receiving...cheques in his name. Now, we've received a letter from CRA saying they overpaid our dad's GIS for the period after our mom passed to when he passed and we owe them over $1,900.

How is an agency so incompetent that several mistakes are made [in a single] estate?

It is the Conservatives who have always advocated for transparency in government departments, tax policies and procedures. Motion 43 in the 42nd Parliament, put forward by the member for Calgary Crowfoot, was a duty of care to the taxpayer. If someone is found to be not owing, forgive the amount but also pay for legal fees.

At our recent convention, this resolution was passed:

A Conservative government shall introduce legislation requiring the forgiveness or writing off of any non-personal debt owed to the Government of Canada be publicly announced in the Canada Gazette.

Why does the Liberal government like to collect swaths of information about ordinary Canadians to place moral decision-making into its own hands but will not ever release the names of those who have violated one of the two basic tenets of our society? These are, pay one's taxes, and, pay one's fair share so we can attempt to live in a functioning and compassionate society.

The government has also not released the names regarding foreign interference. The government refused to share which federal politicians wittingly co-operated with foreign interference. The former member of Parliament for University—Rosedale only said, “our government takes foreign interference very, very seriously”. The current Minister of Justice also defended this position. This report outlined several activities, such as collaborating with countries like China, including accepting money or favours from diplomats. The National Security Intelligence Committee was chaired by the current defence minister.

Why do they not release the names?

They concealed the scope of the federal job cuts from analysts at the budget office. On November 5, 2025, the budget office asked federal managers for a breakdown of planned savings by program, but public servants and Canadians were left in the dark as to which departments would be affected or how it would impact services.

Release the names on the list.

The federal government may not want to release information for the benefit of Canadians, but it is eager to pass legislation to infringe upon the privacy and actions of ordinary Canadians. Bill C-8, an act respecting cybersecurity, states that cabinet “may...prohibit a [telecom] service provider from using all products and services provided by a specified person” if it “believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat”. This order may be kept secret. No warrants are required. This was also attempted in Bill C-2.

Bill C-63, in the last Parliament, proposed increasing the maximum sentence for hate speech, which carried a sentence of five years to life under the Criminal Code. This would have placed it among the most serious offences, such as manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault, which also carry life sentences. That could have effectively resulted in someone being sentenced to life for hate speech, while someone convicted of the sexual assault of a minor receives a maximum of only 14 years, or it is a maximum of 10 years for an individual found guilty of assault with a weapon.

The bill also proposed that anyone who breaks any other federal law motivated by hate be found guilty of a hate crime and subject to a maximum of a life sentence, yet it is no problem at all to forgo paying millions in taxes.

When it comes to protecting their friends and political interests, the Liberals have no problem withholding information or giving cover to their allies to do so. However, when it comes to our privacy and personal information, such as who we like, what we like, where we eat, where we shop or who we communicate with, the Liberals have no problem holding us to account and taking away our rights.

Paying one's fair share of taxes is a basic tenet of Canadian society that allows for the smooth functioning of our society. This is why Bill C-230 should come to pass. Canadians could be made aware of who is paying their fair share to society and, more importantly, why. The government does not want Canadians to know, perhaps because of who is on the list.

What pieces of indigenous art are missing? What are the names in the green slush fund documents? Who approved ArriveCAN? We may never know, but the government has the opportunity, in this moment, to shed some light on society and hold everyone to account regarding paying their fair share.

Let us pass Bill C-230 and work towards starting to achieve this.

Speaker's Ruling

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, particularly with you in the chair. You and I founded the all-party maritime caucus. That is proof that we can work together even if we are of different political persuasions.

I also want to sincerely thank the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Calgary Nose Hill for very generously allowing me to move up my speaking spot.

Teamwork is the calling card of the Bloc Québécois. Bill C‑12 is a big bill, a massive bill, an omnibus bill. It has not been easy to work on this bill because it amends so many laws. In addition, we did not have a lot of time because there was an agreement between the Liberals and the Conservatives to cut certain witnesses' time short. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security split the work of studying Bill C‑12. It was a monumental task.

Doing the clause-by-clause study of such a huge bill is a team effort. I would like to sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who studied the entire part dealing with amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

It was a big job for him, for the entire team in the offices of the leader and whip, for our researchers, Maxime and Michaël, for my assistant, Racim, and especially for the witnesses, who appeared before both the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We must not forget our legislative counsel, our analysts, Sabrina and Alexsandra, our clerk, Mr. Wilson, and, of course, all the staff who provide interpretation services.

The Bloc Québécois moved amendments to Bill C-12. One amendment was adopted. We take a very constructive and rigorous approach to our work. When we are considering a bill, we determine whether it is good for Quebec. If it is, we support it.

We worked hard and effectively. We listened. We supported amendments from the Conservative Party and adopted clauses proposed by the government. I also remember voting on an amendment from the member for Vancouver East. That goes to show the value of committee work, when we are conducting a clause-by-clause study of a large bill.

We also passed an amendment that I am quite proud of. It was drafted in the wake of a visit from the Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, whom I salute and thank for his thoroughness, his work and his vigilance. He reads every bill to see if it can be improved.

The Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment to clause 4 in order to add clear and specific guidelines to ensure that a warrant is required to search a home. There was some ambiguity about that, because the clause was not entirely clear. This clarification helps protect privacy. Privacy and security are often pitted against one another, but the Bloc Québécois believes that it is possible to strike a balance between security and privacy. For us, these two elements are not at all incompatible.

We supported amendments that compel the government to be more transparent and more accountable. We supported amendments that sought to clarify the extraordinary power granted to the minister to cancel, vary or suspend various immigration-related documents. We opposed amendments that were too harsh, that violated the fundamental rights of asylum seekers or that went against the spirit of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Even though all the committee members acted in good faith, I was still surprised by the deal that the Liberals and the Conservatives struck to have the committee sit until midnight to speed through the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

I thought that was unproductive and inconsistent with the concept of work-life balance. How energetic, productive and attentive can members still be when they are made to work until half past midnight?

There was this deal, which really surprised me, and it led to a long day. We sat until quarter past midnight. Unfortunately, this meant that we were unable to study the briefs. There were some briefs that we did not even get to read, because we received them after the clause-by-clause study had been finalized. In fact, about eight briefs were not translated in time by the Translation Bureau. The committee sped through its work so fast that the Translation Bureau could not provide us with the translated documents. That means that people took the trouble to write briefs and send them to us, but we did not have access to them before the bill was adopted.

I was also really surprised by the filibustering by some colleagues around the table who were strategically trying to buy time so they could debate certain clauses a little later. It was disgraceful of them to waste the time of the public servants and interpreters for the sake of parliamentary strategizing. I am not the most partisan member of Parliament, but it bothers me when public servants come to support us for clause-by-clause study and the time is not used for that. It was a waste of time for the public servants, interpreters, and also the members who were there to work.

Some of the amendments introduced at report stage, if adopted, would make Bill C-12 practically useless. We are obviously going to oppose some of the amendments proposed to us this evening. I think we worked diligently. In my opinion, we could have taken a little more time to study this bill. I feel a little disheartened for the people who asked me to invite them to testify before my committee on the very day the bill was adopted. Obviously, since everything had already been adopted, inviting them was no longer an option.

It is often said that there is no shame in looking foolish. An hour before we started the study, we listened to a witness make recommendations concerning Bill C-12. Obviously, we could not take those recommendations into account, since the amendments had been tabled several days earlier and everything was sealed for debate and for the work to begin.

I would still like to thank all my colleagues. I really enjoyed working with the member for Calgary Nose Hill. She is a hard-working and diligent member who explained her amendments to us with passion and determination. It was obvious to us how much knowledge she has accumulated over the years on the issue of immigration. We do not always agree, but we do share a mutual respect for parliamentarians' ability to express themselves calmly and debate their ideas. Sometimes we agree to work together, and sometimes we prefer not to. That is understandable, and we do not hold it against each other. I wish other parliamentarians could show the same degree of respect, given that this is meant to be a place for debate. I wanted to emphasize that I really enjoyed working with her, as well as with my colleagues from the other parties who, throughout the study of Bill C-12, seemed to have a genuine interest in improving it.

I will conclude by saying that we look forward to voting at report stage of the bill so that we can move on to third reading. Although we are eager for the House to rise, we at the Standing Committee on Public Safety are eager to move on to another bill, because there is another important one waiting for us. We are supposed to start studying Bill C-8 on cybersecurity after the holidays.

Again, I want to thank everyone for putting in all the necessary effort to improve the government's bill.

Liaison

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek concurrence on the first report of the Liaison Committee, which details the work of the standing committees of the House. I am doing so to sound the alarm over the systematic obstruction we are witnessing on multiple committee fronts, perpetrated by the Liberal government.

I will split my time, as well, with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

In addition to my work as chair of the ethics committee, I serve as the Conservative caucus committee coordinator. As part of my responsibilities, I make a point of observing a wide cross-section of standing committees and can report that Liberal obstruction tactics include purposely not scheduling meetings, intentionally withholding ministers from facing accountability at committee, preventing witnesses from testifying, lengthy filibusters and breaking procedural rules to their advantage.

In a phrase, the Prime Minister treats Parliament like a corporate boardroom meant only to rubber-stamp his agenda. I have news for him and his government: This is a G7 democracy, not a meeting of shareholders.

This is a minority Parliament. Committees are composed in such a way that the Liberals must work with at least one opposition party to advance the government's agenda. It also means that when opposition parties unite to hold the government to account, the government must comply with the will of the committee. However, rather than working constructively with opposition parties, the Liberals prefer to take their ball and go home.

Allow me to cite some examples of Liberal obstruction.

At the justice committee, after Conservatives worked productively to receive witness testimony on Bill C-9, the Liberal law on hate speech, the committee got bogged down by a Liberal filibuster on a Conservative motion that called for the strongest legislative response possible to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory prison time for those convicted of possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material.

That is right. Rather than prioritize legislation on hate crimes or bail, the Liberals ran cover for an egregious court decision that eases sentences for perverts in possession of child pornography. They filibustered three meetings: November 6, November 18 and November 20.

Following a filibuster on December 2, after it became clear that the Liberals were not serious about their hate crime bill, Conservatives moved that the committee prioritize the bail bill, Bill C-14. Given the daily news reports of violent crimes being committed by repeat offenders, I would think the Liberals might have wanted to work with us to pass that bail law. Conservatives are of the view that, while the bill does not go nearly far enough to fix the broken bail system, a partial measure is better than nothing.

What did the Liberals do with our offer to work quickly on Bill C-14? They voted to adjourn debate. Instead, the Minister of Justice went rogue and made a deal with the Bloc to remove religious protections built into the Criminal Code as part of the hate speech bill, leading to division in their own caucus and a stalled agenda at the committee.

Nevertheless, Conservatives agreed to work constructively through the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The Liberals secured committee resources through to midnight on December 2, but after passing just one clause that day, they quickly adjourned the meeting, preventing the committee from dealing with the amendment on the religious exemption.

Since then, the chair refused to schedule a meeting on December 4 and has yet to put out a meeting notice for this week. While the Liberals obstruct their own agenda, the victims of crime are the ones who suffer.

I will reiterate our offer: Conservatives would be pleased to set aside other work before the committee to see that Bill C-14 becomes law.

Liberal obstruction goes far beyond just the justice committee. At the transport committee, the Conservative Party worked constructively and efficiently on Bill C-5, the so-called Building Canada Act. I note that, since its passage, not one project has been listed in the national interest, and the promise the Liberals made to approve projects and build Canada remains unfulfilled.

Conservatives secured several amendments to that bill, which included protections for indigenous people, as well as ethics and oversight provisions. One might think this would have created some goodwill among parties at the committee table. It did not.

The committee conducted a study on the Driver Inc. issue and examined ways to improve highway safety. Opposition members proposed extending the study by two sessions in order to hear from victims of trucking accidents and obtain related documents from the government. The Liberals are determined not to show Canadians that the government is unable to keep them safe, so they have launched a procedural war against this motion.

To prevent debate, the Liberal chair cancelled meetings scheduled for November 18 and 20. The members of the opposition used an extraordinary tool to force an emergency meeting through Standing Order 106(4), which began on November 25. If members consult the parliamentary website, they will see that the meeting that began on November 25 is still ongoing.

As of now, this is a 13-day meeting. The Liberals began by filibustering for hours, which was followed by a multi-day suspension, another Standing Order 106(4) letter to force the recall of the committee, another four-hour filibuster by the Liberals and another multi-day suspension. At one point, the chair attempted to mislead committee members that a suspension would last 30 minutes, but then he exited out the back door and allowed the suspension to last for days.

Rather than get answers for victims or prepare recommendations for expanded road safety, the Liberals are obstructing the work of the transport committee. We are seeing similar obstruction tactics by chairs at other committees, such as at the finance, science and research, health, and human resources committees, and more. I am pleased to begin this important debate to allow members of the House to air the grievances they have with the conduct of the chairs of these committees. It is a committee Festivus, if one will.

Unfortunately, Liberal chairs are not the only ones obstructing committee work. Ministers of the Crown are also direct participants in this obstruction. We have seen multiple absent ministers. The justice committee invited the Minister of Justice to appear in relation to his mandate and priorities on September 23. He has yet to appear. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety were also invited to participate as witnesses in the justice committee study on the bail system. Both ministers declined to participate.

This dynamic duo was repeatedly invited to the status of women committee to participate in its study of section 810 of the Criminal Code and women's safety. Again, they have ignored that invitation. The Minister of Justice was also invited to the national defence committee as part of its study on Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, given that he would be responsible for the civilian process to deal with sexual harassment in the military. Again, he obstructed the work of the committee and refused to appear.

The finance minister refused the request of the industry committee to appear with respect to the Stellantis contract, despite the fact that he was the minister who signed the deal and the contract in the first place, which has yet to demonstrate any form of job guarantee for Canadian workers. The public safety minister refused to appear at the transport committee as part of its investigation into security concerns around the decision of the Infrastructure Bank to fund the purchase of new vessels from China for BC Ferries.

The Liberals have run interference to prevent the Minister of Industry from appearing at the public safety committee on Bill C-8, even though their proposed law would give her sweeping powers to remove the Internet from citizens. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence has failed to appear at the ethics committee, despite 11 requests to do so, or the status of women committee as it conducts studies on the various impacts of AI on Canadian life.

The Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature has ignored three invitations from the environment committee related to the industrial carbon tax, the global carbon tax on marine transport and the EV mandate. The Minister of Indigenous Services has failed to appear at the indigenous affairs committee to respond to the Auditor General's report on progress for indigenous communities.

The Minister of Jobs and Families, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance have all failed to appear before committees on the supplementary estimates.

Billions of tax dollars are going unscrutinized before they go out the door. The list goes on. There is a lot more to say on the Liberal attack on and decline in our democracy, and the attack on committees, but I am short on time. In conclusion, we demand, on behalf of Canadians, that the Liberals end their obstruction and start being accountable for every dollar they spend, law they propose and incursion of freedom they attempt to do.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our job as the opposition is to make bills better. There are a number of bills that have come through us. We are talking about the budget right now, but we can talk about Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and a number of other bills that, quite frankly, are not in the best interest of Canadians.

Our job as parliamentarians is to make those bills better. I have no problem at all trying to do that. We were elected to represent our constituents, point out the flaws in these bills and try to make them better. That is what we will do. This is our job. This is our requirement. This is what we will continue to do.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that Bill C-8 purports to be able to shut down people's Internet without a court warrant. In an era in which the government is moving toward digitization and AI controls, people could end up in digital jails. That is why it is so important to have safeguards and accountability and ensure that with the government collecting this data, we know how it is used, we know that people's civil liberties are being upheld and we know that the government is being held accountable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if I look at the contrast, we are not fearful of technology. We see the important role, for example, that the Internet plays in the advancement of society. There are a lot of positive things, but there are some negatives, which is one of the reasons we brought in Bill C-8, the cybersecurity act. However, the Conservative Party has refused to allow it to go to committee so that we can address some of the concerns, and some might say paranoia, that is espoused from the other side.

Bill C-8 would protect our industries; it would protect our consumers. Can the member provide her thoughts regarding why the Conservative Party does not recognize the value of Bill C-8, which is all about cybersecurity, protecting Canadians and protecting Canada's economic industries?

Citizenship Act

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House, but I must say I rise today in utter sorrow to speak about Bill C-3 and what could have been. I had the honour of speaking about this bill at second reading, and I poured my heart into that speech.

I spoke in French for the first time in the House during my last speech to highlight that Canada is not a postnational state. On the contrary, it is a blend of two peoples, one French and one English. It is unique in the world. Our unique heritage must be respected to maintain the value of our citizenship. Canada is strong because Canadians work hard to make it strong. That is why we object to a two-tier citizenship system. If the children of people who left want to come back, let them come after they pay our taxes, obey our laws and learn our languages. It is not complicated.

Would anyone believe that the first thing that happened after my speech was the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government leader in the House standing and saying, “voters want more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons”? I agreed. He said we should vote for Bill C-3, allow it to go to committee and pass amendments to make it a better law. I am new here, and it is perhaps for this reason that I took him at his word. I voted for Bill C-3, and at committee, Conservatives brought forward excellent amendments to make a better law.

Shortly after that speech, I did an interview with the local CBC syndicate radio station in Kitchener-Waterloo. The host, Craig Norris, asked me what I was working on and whether there were opportunities to co-operate with the Liberals in the House. I immediately spoke about Bill C-3 and my honest belief that the Liberals would allow us to remediate this law through amendments at committee. That is why I stand in sorrow today. It seems the rug has been pulled out from under us.

Those following at home will recall that Bill C-3, before amendments, would have allowed the grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren of Canadian citizens who had left the country to claim Canadian citizenship, even if they had barely lived here, had criminal records, did not speak either of our official languages or had never paid our taxes or contributed to our civil society by working or living here. Even if they had no intention of ever coming here, except to use our health care system in a pinch, they could become Canadian citizens.

In short, the bill would make Canadian citizenship out to be some sort of free goodie bag to be passed around, rather than a treasured family heirloom, but that goodie bag is not free. It is only the hard work of the Canadian citizens, permanent residents and refugees who build their lives here and build the country to make the country strong that is filling up these goodie bags the Liberals want to recklessly pass out.

It is estimated that in excess of 100,000 such free goodie bags, containing free citizenship for people who do not live here, would be handed out if the unamended law passes. We say it is estimated to be more than 100,000, but as the hon. member who asked a question just pointed out, the immigration minister says she has no idea how many more beyond 100,000 it could be.

Obviously, this would be terribly unfair to the permanent residents who are here paying taxes, respecting our laws, learning our languages and working so hard to become Canadian citizens. It is so unfair for them to have to watch 100,000 people who are not doing those things skip the line as a matter of unearned privilege. That is what we mean when we talk about a citizenship system of two tiers. Our amendments seek to level the playing field and prevent a two-tiered system from being imposed. It is with an eye to this that we structured our amendments. We used the exact same language for the same criteria that permanent residents have to fulfill.

They are eminently sensible amendments. For a person to get citizenship as the grandchild of a Canadian citizen, one of their parents must have lived in Canada for five years, they must pass a citizenship test and a security background check and they must speak one or both of our official languages to prove their substantial connection to our country. I believe the voters who want to see co-operation in this House, as referenced by the member for Winnipeg North, would want to see co-operation on each of these points.

I cannot understand how anyone except the most radical postnational ideologues, who, like Justin Trudeau, believe that Canada has no core identity, could oppose these amendments.

The new Prime Minister promised change, and voters gave him a tentative mandate as a minority Parliament on the promise of change, yet here he is, enacting Justin Trudeau's insane postnationalist ideology.

I went through the Liberal Party's 2025 election platform. Nowhere in that document could I find any proposition to give away 100,000-plus citizenships to people who have never lived here, who do not speak our languages or who might have criminal records, without passing the citizenship test. This is an absolute bait and switch. It is not what the Liberals ran on.

The new Prime Minister promised change, but here he is, reheating Justin Trudeau's radical ideological agenda to make Canada a postnational state with no core identity. This bill, in fact, existed in Justin Trudeau's last Parliament, but he could not get it through, because the House was seized with the matter of his corrupt green slush fund. This is not a one-off; this is a pattern. Bill C-8 is also a re-warmed piece of extreme government overreach that Justin Trudeau also tried to pass through this House. Once again, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The new Prime Minister promised change, but he is feeding us microwaved Justin Trudeau leftovers.

It has been six months since the last election, in which the Prime Minister promised change. He leveraged all his credibility as a lifelong bureaucrat who had been waiting in the wings to get Canadians to believe that promise. However, here we are, still debating Justin Trudeau legislation six months later. I suppose the Liberals are taking these six months to frantically prepare a budget that is also six months late.

Speaking of the election, I knocked on every door in Kitchener South—Hespeler during the spring election. I know for a fact that all the Conservative voters who voted for me would find these amendments eminently sensible and necessary.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak. I will be speaking to Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system. What a laughable title from a government that has made such a mess of both our borders and our immigration system.

Let me talk about the mess the government has made of immigration. I want to share three short stories.

The first is the case of Mr. Khant from earlier this year. He was a permanent resident, originally a citizen of India. He pleaded guilty to attempting an indecent act. That is a bit of a legalistic way of saying that Mr. Khant tried to purchase sexual services from a minor. Unfortunately for Mr. Khant, the person he tried to purchase sexual services from was the Peel Regional Police human trafficking unit, as part of Project Juno. Rather than a jail sentence, Mr. Khant received a conditional discharge. Why would that be? In the words of the court, “Mr. Khant is a permanent resident seeking Canadian citizenship and professional licensing. A conviction would not only delay his citizenship by four years but could also prevent him from sponsoring his wife and obtaining his engineering licence.”

If people commit crimes in Canada and they are not Canadian citizens, they should no longer be in Canada.

Just over two weeks ago, there was the case of Mr. Sajeevan, an Indian citizen in Canada on a student visa. He was a roommate with several others, including several female roommates at a home in Barrie. His bedroom was in the basement beside the laundry room, which was shared by all the residents. The laundry room was beside the bathroom, which was also shared amongst the roommates.

Over a period of many months, Mr. Sajeevan used a peephole in the laundry room to spy on his female roommates in various states of undress. In July of this year, Mr. Sajeevan pleaded guilty to voyeurism, despite some initial agreement on sentencing and some very troubling victim impact statements from those who had been spied upon. The court went on to say, “The emotional and psychological harm caused is palpable...Mr. Sajeevan's offending has had a significant and enduring impact on his victims.” The court called it “more than curiosity; it was sustained predation”.

Despite all that and despite the serious nature of the crime and its effect on its victims, which the court acknowledged, the court went on to accept “serious collateral immigration consequences”. The result was a jail sentence of only five and a half months. Why? That is a bit of a strange number. Why five and a half months, when in fact the court said the proper sentence should be somewhere between six and 12 months?

It was because a jail sentence of six months would have made him inadmissible to Canada. In other words, he would have had to leave Canada if he were to receive a sentence of six months. However, we did not get that because the Liberals have so screwed up our immigration system.

Last is the case of Mr. Biron, a permanent resident from the Philippines. In 2021, over four years ago, he pleaded guilty to sexual assault against a minor and was sentenced to 20 months in prison. Beginning in 2022, he was advised that he could be inadmissible to Canada because of the serious nature of his crimes. For over four years, he has fought his deportation. How can it be that a non-citizen who has pleaded guilty to sexual assault against a minor is still in Canada after four years?

Bill C-12, despite being called a fix to our immigration system, does nothing for this. These are not isolated incidents, because we know that, despite the strong border rhetoric and the fix to immigration allegedly coming from the government, we have lost track of hundreds of serious criminals in this country. The cherry on the top of this is that the very minister responsible for our public safety is himself interceding on behalf of members of terrorist organizations.

Let me turn to the border and talk about what a mess the government has made of our borders. Fentanyl, of course, is still making its way into Canada. In fact, earlier this year, in the town of Georgina, in my riding of York—Durham, the York Regional Police broke up the largest drug trafficking ring in our town's history, under Project Madruga, through which 1400 grams of fentanyl were discovered. To put that into perspective, two milligrams is enough to kill a human adult. The York Regional Police said that they had never seen a drug trafficking problem or ring of this size or scope in Georgina.

The government promised during the election to hire 1,000 new border officers, but we have discovered that was just another empty Liberal promise. More than six months later, they have hired only a few dozen and, in fact, do not have a plan to hire any more. The CBSA says that it has turnover of between 600 and 700 officers a year, so even at normal speeds, it would take over five years to hire 1,000 new officers. The Minister of Public Safety himself admitted in an interview that it would take five years to hire 1,000 new officers, and that is not even talking about the backlog and vacancies the CBSA has. The Customs and Immigration Union says there is a 3,000-officer vacancy rate and shortage on the border force.

Last, I want to talk about civil liberties because, for all these messes, whether it is the mess on the border or the mess in our immigration system, for some reason, it seems the Liberals' response is always to attack our liberty. The monstrosity that is Bill C-2, from which Bill C-12 emerged, is just one more example of the pattern of the Liberal disregard for the freedoms and liberties of Canadians.

To be clear, I want to make a point that our freedoms, my freedoms and everyone's freedoms in Canada do not emanate from Parliament or princes. We have freedom and liberty, because we are made in God's image and are human beings endowed with those by our creator, but Bill C-2 remains before the House. It would allow law enforcement to snoop on Canadians without judicial authorization. It would allow Canada Post to open mail without a warrant. As a lawyer, I know that a warrant is a basic protection that we, as normal, average citizens, have fought for hundreds of years to maintain to protect us from the arbitrary power of the state.

Bill C-2 is not the only attack on liberties that Canadians have endured under this government. Bill C-8, which we have discussed, would give unprecedented power to the government to kick Canadians off the Internet, on “reasonable grounds” in respect of “any threat”. What is “any threat”? I have been here for just over six months, and I have already been accused several times, by members from the opposite side, of spreading misinformation because they do not like my opinion. Am I now a “threat” to the government, and will I be kicked off the Internet? There would be no warrant, no trial and no due process.

Another example is Bill C-9, which has more unprecedented power for the police to control and to police speech on the Internet. Over all, it seems like, of the legislation the Liberals have introduced thus far, the majority trample on our liberties as Canadians.

This is the Liberals' pattern. They might have a new leader and call themselves a new government, but they exhibit all of the same habits as they had before. Whether it is with Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 or now Bill C-12, it seems for every societal problem, there is another Liberal bill ready to erode our freedom, my freedom and the liberty of all Canadians.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so surprised to receive that question. I think I explained it to the member during my last two speeches on government legislation.

The Liberals violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they imposed the Emergencies Act, sections 2 and 8. That is not me, but Justice Mosley of the Federal Court who found that. I would love to hear the member apologize for that violation.

Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-2 also violate our charter. I am not going to let it get through the net.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-12. This is the fourth time I am speaking to a piece of government legislation in this Parliament.

For the first time, I think it is the story of the bill rather than its content that I find most interesting. I apologize to those following at home if it seems a little bit like inside baseball, but in every Parliament, the government introduces bills and numbers them sequentially. After the pro forma throne speech, Bill C-1, came Bill C-2. The present bill, Bill C-12, is the parts of Bill C-2 that had to be salvaged from the flaming dumpster fire of that original piece of legislation. It is as though the Liberals set their own legislative agenda on fire and the Conservatives had to comb through the charred remains to find something salvageable. What an embarrassment it is for the government.

The new Prime Minister ran on his expertise in government, having spent most of his career as a bureaucrat. He had been waiting in the wings for 10 years to plant his legislative agenda. Do members opposite remember when he was asked if he would ever become prime minister? He said, “Why don’t I become a circus clown?” Well, now he has. He has beclowned himself.

Bill C-2 is the very first piece of legislation that the Prime Minister's government introduced, and it had to be split up in this manner. What an embarrassment that is.

Why did it need to be split up? It is because the forefather of Bill C-12 contained clauses that were so howlingly bad that no one on either side of the House, nor from any coast in this country, could bring themselves to defend it.

Bill C-2 includes a provision that would allow the police to ask a doctor, without a warrant, if their services had ever been used by an individual. This is reprehensible. I am a physician; frankly, this does not just offend me as a Canadian and as a person, but it offends my whole profession. It would violate not just our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the Hippocratic oath. If a member opposite or their child went to see a doctor who specializes in addictions, mental health, sexually transmitted diseases or reproductive medicine, on what possible planet would they think it was appropriate for the police to ask that physician to disclose them as a client?

Again, I suspect members opposite are getting ready to say that I am somehow being outlandish in my interpretation of their proposed law. Here, once again, I will read them their own darned bill.

In part 14, clause 158, it reads:

A peace officer or public officer may make a demand...to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information:

(a) whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client

This is bananas. This is, once again, a Chinese Communist Party level of state overreach.

Once again, if the Liberals do not trust my interpretation of their legislation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's interpretation or the Canadian Constitution Foundation's interpretation, will they believe their own public safety minister, the one who introduced the legislation? He was quoted in The Globe and Mail in an October 9 article by Marie Woolf, entitled “Public Safety Minister says he wants to push through refined warrantless...powers to help police”. She wrote that the Minister of Public Safety acknowledged that the “provisions in Bill C-2, the original strong borders bill, [allowing police to ask a] doctor without a warrant” if their services had been used by someone, constituted “overreach”.

This is not the first time the Minister of Public Safety has had to throw the Minister of Public Safety under the bus. Who could forget that, just last month, he told his tenant that his own gun confiscation program was a bad idea that he did not support? I would love to believe that it is merely incompetence over there. It is incompetence; it is just not “merely” incompetence.

I am a physician. I do not sign prescriptions that I have not read. I do not give out prescriptions that I do not believe in, because prescriptions are important documents and I have a professional duty to read them. On the other side of the House, we have a Liberal minister who seems not to read the legislation that he tries to pass in the House. On other occasions, he executes a gun grab he does not believe in. This sort of conduct would not be tolerated from any physician in this country. I dare say it would not be tolerated from any professional under any professional body in this country. Why does the Prime Minister tolerate it from one of the highest office-holders in this land?

As I said, it is not merely incompetence over there. I take it that the public safety minister did not write the legislation, but someone did. I want to know who, because this is not a one-off oopsy doopsy in which a junior staffer wrote a law that would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a clear pattern with the government.

The last three pieces of government legislation that I have debated in the House, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and now Bill C-12 have involved significant power grabs by the Prime Minister. I want to know why.

Bill C-8 would allow the Liberals to kick people off the Internet without a warrant. Bill C-9 would allow the Liberals to police speech on the Internet. Bill C-12, in its previous iteration as Bill C-2, would not only violate patient-physician confidentiality but also allow the government to read letter mail without a warrant.

What is going on over there? Why is the Liberals' response to every conceivable social problem to violate our charter rights? Who is writing the legislation?

I know that as soon as I am done, the member for Winnipeg North will ask why we do not fix this at committee, to which I would say, yes, we are going to have to, but every member in this House should be protecting charter rights. The committee should not be the goalie. The Conservatives should not be the goalie. The Liberals should not be trying to get charter violations past the Conservative goalies. They are the Liberals. They are supposed to believe in liberty. I am honestly starting to wonder if they even know what their party's name means anymore.

Here is the Encyclopædia Britannica entry on “liberalism”:

political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Do the members opposite see themselves at all in this definition today? It has been six months since I was elected to this House, and not once, in between their power grabs, have I heard them make even passing reference to individual liberty or to the fact that the government itself can threaten that liberty.

Conservatives seek to conserve our liberty. Liberals are supposed to seek to expand our liberty. However, this is three times in six months they have tried to get one past us. I am asking them honestly to reflect on this. Are they even Liberals anymore, or have they become something darker? How is it that they have betrayed the Liberal tradition again and again in this House?

I would ask the Liberal backbenchers, in particular, if this is what they signed up to do when they took out a Liberal Party membership and if the Prime Minister's Office ran any of it by them before it tried to ram it through the House. Why do they not do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-2 entirely instead of trying to get it passed piecemeal?

One piece of Bill C-2, Bill C-12, is going to go to committee, but we must not forget the omnibus monstrosity from which it came. We must not forget the questions of competence that the story of Bill C-12 raises, and we must also not look away from the authoritarian tendencies of the so-called Liberals that this story reveals.