Debates of June 5th, 2025

Hon. Marc Garneau

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today in the House and across the country, we are mourning the loss of a great Canadian and honouring his memory. This man dedicated his life to serving his country, and his legacy will echo far beyond these walls. Canada has lost one of its most accomplished citizens.

From his early days as an officer in the navy and his pioneering journey as the first Canadian in space to his many years of service to Canadians as a member of Parliament and minister, Marc Garneau's life was marked by unforgettable moments and defined by one constant: service.

Whether wearing the uniform of the Royal Canadian Navy, the flight suit of an astronaut that bore the flag of our nation or the suit and tie of a parliamentarian, Marc Garneau served with honour, with humility and with heart. He inspired a nation in 1984 when he made it into space aboard the Challenger. He reminded us that Canadians could dream big and that we could aim for the stars, quite literally.

I was a young person then, and we forget how big an event and moment Marc Garneau's heading into space representing us all really was. When he returned to earth, safely thankfully, he did a splendid, incredible tour across this great country. When he would arrive in communities, throngs would be out to greet him, and Marc, who it must be said was a shy, humble and reserved man, would, we could tell, be bewildered, mystified and in total awe of the outpouring of emotion for him. However, I think he understood then, as he certainly understood later, that he became a powerful symbol of the achievements and accomplishments of this great country of ours.

A bilingual, former naval officer raised from humble origins who got into the atmosphere, Marc Garneau took the dreams, hopes and prayers of little boys and girls everywhere with him into space. Then right after making this history, he gave his next decades to building a better Canada right here at home.

As transport minister and later as foreign affairs minister, he showed thoughtfulness, discipline and quiet strength in every one of his decisions. He was a man of science, but also a man committed to the principles of democracy and diplomacy.

Marc was a colleague to many of us in the House. To a lot of Canadians, he was a national hero. Most of all, Marc was a kind, grounded and caring man. His passing affects everyone who still believes in a society built on knowledge, ethics and accountability. It reminds us that great statesmen can still exist, unassuming, yes, but essential. Marc Garneau leaves behind an inspiring legacy. His journey continues to show everyone that it is possible to dream big, to serve with dignity and to help raise a nation.

Marc was also a late-blooming but very effective partisan, as I am sure all my colleagues in this House will agree. In his first election, he was not successful, which is amazing to consider.

Marc Garneau ran in Vaudreuil—Soulanges alongside Paul Martin, our former prime minister. I remember campaigning with Mr. Martin and Mr. Garneau in Coteau‑du‑Lac. We went to an outdoor rink, but it was spring so there was no ice. Schoolchildren and all kinds of people had come out. I am talking about crowds that no other politician in the House could ever dream of attracting. When you come to a town with a leader and the candidate draws thousands of people, young and old, you know that things are going to go well. He was such a hero that even people who would vote against him wanted to come out and talk to this man, to see him and touch him. Of course, Marc later managed to get a seat in this House.

He took the work very seriously. As we all know, Marc Garneau was a committed Liberal. He was someone who was willing to travel across Canada to help candidates and supporters. He talked about himself and shared his experiences with Liberal supporters, but also with communities as a whole. He always combined his visits to Abbotsford, Vancouver, Calgary and St. John's, Newfoundland, with trips to the far north. He took time not only to meet with young people and schoolchildren, but also to do the hard work of rebuilding the Liberal Party of Canada at that time. This is the tribute that I would like to pay to him.

The person I was happiest to see being sworn in at Rideau Hall on that magnificent day in 2015 was Marc Garneau. A lifetime of achievement brought him there: a life of public service, military service, and service in space. Marc Garneau also served as the chancellor of Carleton University. He served as president of the Canadian Space Agency. A journey filled with such humble public service is remarkable. He was one in a million.

I have no doubt there are members in the House who had the opportunity to talk with Marc Garneau. He was quite reserved, even shy. Yet, if anyone asked him a question about what it was like in space, his eyes would light up, and you would see a man who was proud to have seen the Earth from outer space with his Canadian eyes and proud to have brought the hopes of young men and women with him.

Marc Garneau was far too young to die. He had so many other stories and wonders to tell us and so much more to give. We will miss him. Canada will miss Marc Garneau. Here in the House, we greatly mourn his passing. He was a great man, a great Liberal and, above all, a great Canadian. Thank you, Marc.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very humbled to take the floor. I have the great privilege today of paying tribute to the Hon. Marc Garneau. Our country has lost one of its greatest Canadians, one of its greatest citizens.

The Hon. Marc Garneau was an inspiration to millions of Canadians throughout his life, and he will continue to be for decades, if not hundreds of years. He devoted his life to public service and did so everywhere, on land, at sea, and in space. He was a distinguished politician. Across Canada, he is remembered today with words like “integrity”, “dignity” and “statesmanship”. He always acted with deep humility.

Marc Garneau was born in Quebec City, so of course he had a good start in life. He excelled in his engineering studies, but he did not stop there. He earned a Ph.D. in engineering. He served as an officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. When he was young and wanted a change of scenery, he sailed across the Atlantic. While he is most likely the Canadian who has travelled the fastest in space, reaching a speed of 28,000 kilometres per hour, he also crossed the Atlantic in a sailboat. This proves that, for some folks, time is relative.

He was Canada's first astronaut. Four thousand people across the country applied, and he was the number one candidate out of 4,000 Canadians. He was the first to go into space on October 5, 1984. Every anniversary of that date, I would post a little picture to commemorate the event, especially when he sat in the House. As someone who is passionate about space exploration, it was an important moment for me. I would be willing to bet that everyone here who has a bit of white hair, like me, remembers exactly where they were when Mr. Garneau became the first Canadian to go into space.

During his first mission, he did his country proud, not once, but twice. One of his tasks was to shoot a film with an IMAX camera. As many people know, IMAX is a Canadian invention. As he was filming, he always made sure to show the Canadarm.

The famous Canadarm is one of the greatest Canadian achievements in space. We shall be proud of it for all our lives.

I once met him in private and asked him if he went out of his way to film the Canadarm with the Canadian flag and the word “Canada” on it because we saw it a lot in the films. He said it was just a coincidence. The proud Canadian that he was, he certainly made sure to capture the word “Canada” in the image and the Canadarm in all its splendour. Let us not forget that he brought a hockey puck with him. He was Canadian through and through.

He did not stop after his first trip to space. He made a second and a third trip over the course of his career that spanned 16 years. That is rather significant. An astronaut is already the best of the best. Out of eight billion people, there are only a few hundred who have gone into space. He went three times. That is a testament to his intelligence and his absolutely extraordinary intellectual acuity, but also to his physical health. He perfectly embodied the expression “a healthy mind in a healthy body”.

Beyond these three missions, what impresses me most as a space enthusiast is that he served as a “capcom” a dozen times. What is that? My colleagues have probably seen the movie Apollo 13, which shows people in the Houston mission control centre. They are all there and talking to each other, but there is just one person talking from Houston to the astronauts in space, and that is the capcom.

I am making a point of this because capcoms are the only link between Earth and the astronauts in space. They are the most important people for astronauts, especially since all capcoms are astronauts. This dates back to the 1960s. The astronauts at the time wanted them to be peers, people like them who knew how to fly and go into space, not some technical or engineering expert whose only experience was being a passenger on an airplane. Astronauts were particularly sensitive at the time.

Mr. Garneau was the first Canadian capcom. He therefore had the respect and admiration of all his fellow astronauts and everyone who worked in Houston, including engineers and program directors. He was the only one who spoke to the astronauts. This is on top of the fact that when they spoke, they used very long acronyms, but Mr. Garneau knew exactly what they were talking about because he was the direct link to the astronauts. We can be very proud of what Mr. Garneau accomplished as an astronaut.

He then decided to serve in politics. No one is perfect, obviously. In his memoir, he talked about blue Liberals. That was not so bad; it was a good start.

We might joke about the fact that he was an astronaut, but he was a star candidate, to say the least. Obviously, everybody knew him around the country, and as my other colleague said earlier, he was an attraction for everybody. He worked hard, tirelessly, trying to convince people, and then suddenly, bang, he lost. That is what politics is all about.

It was not his only disappointment in politics, because he lost a second time in the leadership. I will not repeat what my colleague said about the fact that it was incredible that he lost in his first election. He also lost the leadership. I will not repeat what the member said there, but it was incredible that he lost the leadership too.

We know star candidates run for election. They usually get elected, but when they lose, they usually disappear from the political landscape forever. Mr. Garneau did not. He kept trying, which proves that he was in politics for the right reasons. He was there to serve. As another member said, he was first elected as an opposition member. That happens. Then he was elected as a government member. That is what everyone hopes for. He served as a minister, and I had dealings with him a few times.

I must admit that the first time I saw him, it was at the cafeteria in Centre Block. I saw him from a distance. He was eating just like a normal person. I thought, “No way, that's Marc Garneau right there.” Trembling like a leaf, I said hello and told him I was happy to meet him. He replied and called me by my name. Imagine that. He knew me, the little nobody that I was. I was happy and I could not believe it. He looked at me with a bit of a grin, then I told him I had a huge problem with him because he was one of my Canadian heroes. How could I do my job in the opposition? He said he was convinced that I could do it. Indeed, I tried my best.

He was a good listener. Among other things, I remember conversations I had with him to allow the C Series aircraft, as they were called back then, to land at Billy Bishop airport. Later, he served as foreign affairs minister, for a mere nine months, unfortunately. He did a good job.

Fortunately, even though his life was too short, as my colleague so aptly said earlier, he had the opportunity to write his memoirs, which will be very useful.

I would never claim to be a close friend of Mr. Garneau. I kept in touch with him during his political life and even after. We would write to each other from time to time. We shared our observations. The last time I wrote to him was about a month ago. As my granddaughter Léanne was celebrating her fifth birthday, we had the pleasure of giving her an astronaut suit. To her little sister Elizabeth—when it is one child's birthday, you have to give a small gift to the other—we gave a little astronaut stuffie. I sent photos to Mr. Garneau. A few minutes later, he replied that my granddaughters were adorable and that Léanne was wearing a nice suit. He asked if she was ready for a space walk and said that the next generation had arrived.

Yes, the next generation has arrived, and they will always be inspired by your life, which has been so inspiring to all Canadians. Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for nearly 15 years, we had the privilege of working alongside a man who left his mark on the history of Quebec and Canada. In the mayhem of parliamentary sparring and our political debates, where partisanship takes over and things heat up rather quickly, far too often we forget the greatness of the women and men we encounter. I am guilty of that. Here in the House, there are women and men who have had breathtaking professional or personal journeys.

However, who can boast about having spent 677 hours in space? Who can boast about starting his days by staring down at the Earth from the sky?

Marc Garneau is the first Quebecker and the first Canadian to have achieved the absolutely extraordinary accomplishment of going to space. The hon. Marc Garneau participated in three NASA missions: one mission in the space shuttle Challenger and two missions in the space shuttle Endeavour. He was responsible for manipulating the famous Canadarm during his second mission to space.

He was an astronaut. He was an astronaut in a spacesuit, just like the ones we saw in the movies that made us dream big when we were kids. Marc Garneau took the dream that was out of reach for so many young Quebeckers and Canadians and made it a reality. He paved the way for Chris Hadfield, Julie Payette and David Saint-Jacques, to name just a few. He showed us the way to the stars.

Of course, politically, we had our disagreements. To be honest, I remember the disagreements more than the agreements. Nevertheless, he was among the first federal Liberals to want to ensure that the Quebec nation was recognized in the federal Parliament. His commitment to Quebec must be recognized. The Canadian space program and the important role that aeronautics and aerospace play in Quebec's economy, particularly in the greater Montreal area, would not be the same without Marc Garneau's contribution.

Marc Garneau left us yesterday. To his family, his friends, his colleagues who served with him, to those who travelled around our blue planet with him, and to those who have chosen to follow in his footsteps and embrace the dream of going into space, I offer, on my own behalf and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, my sincere condolences.

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sincere and profound respect that New Democrats add our voices to honour the life and legacy of our colleague, the Hon. Marc Garneau, a trailblazer, a patriot, a devoted public servant and an exceptional human being.

As Canada's first astronaut, Mr. Garneau soared beyond our world, embodying the spirit of exploration and the pursuit of knowledge. His historic journey inspired a nation and marked a global milestone in our country's scientific achievements. We are still inspired by his wise words about Earth. He said that it is our home and we must take care of it.

Mr. Garneau dedicated himself to public service and this Parliament with resolve and grace. As member and minister, he demonstrated by word and by action that it is possible to go beyond partisanship for the betterment of Canada.

Throughout, he displayed an unwavering commitment to improving life for Canadians. In his quiet way, he stood courageously for his principles, often supporting opposition colleagues with words of encouragement. The NDP especially appreciated his support for better mental health and addictions policies in this House, and he backed that up by voting for those principles, sometimes against his own party.

His leadership was characterized by integrity, rationality and decency. Though possessed of a prodigious intellect, he comported himself with modesty and humour. He was one who truly earned the title “Honourable”.

The passing of Marc Garneau is a profound loss for our country.

We extend deepest condolences to Marc's wife Pam, his children, his family, our colleagues in the Liberal Party and all who were touched by his remarkable life. May his legacy continue to inspire future generations to reach for the stars and to serve with honour.

I thank him and say farewell.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today to add my voice to those paying tribute to our dear friend Marc Garneau. It is a big shock that he is no longer with us today.

It was a great honour to work with him. We had been friends for over 14 years. I worked with him here, in the House. When I was elected in 2011, the Conservative Party had a majority government on this side of the House, and Marc was in the corner, because the Liberal Party was the third party in the House. There were only four Bloc Québécois members, and I was in that corner too. We were there in the spring of 2012 when Prime Minister Harper brought in his omnibus Bill C‑38 to gut environmental laws. I fought hard against that bill.

I was surprised to learn that it was thanks to Marc Garneau that the Liberal Party gave me its support. Marc supported my efforts and joined my fight against Bill C‑38.

I will never forget how extraordinary it was. He was the leader in the House for the Liberal Party then, and I had gone to the other opposition party leaders. I said to him, “Look, I have about 400 amendments to this, and I have the right to present them at report stage, but I really do not want to do it all by myself because I know it will generate a lot of opposition.” He said, “Let me think about it.”

It was not long, maybe a day, until I found that he had gone to a media scrum and said, “We have decided to support what Elizabeth May is doing with these motions and amendments.” I thought that he could just as easily have taken them and presented them as Liberal amendments. I would never have said anything; I would have been grateful if someone else had taken up the fight. His lack of partisanship in that moment, that willingness to be so generous, was absolutely breathtaking, and it cemented a friendship. I was so very honoured to work with him.

He was a great Canadian, a great member of Parliament and a great man. He also had a remarkable background in science, in addition to his career as an astronaut. As my colleagues have already pointed out, he took part in three space missions.

When Marc Garneau reflected on that time in space, he said that, the first time in space, “What you aren't ready for—on an emotional and intellectual level—is how looking down at Earth will profoundly affect you.” On this World Environment Day, it seems fitting, and really hard, to say goodbye to someone who was unfailingly kind and unfailingly respectful across party lines.

As my Conservative colleague mentioned, Marc Garneau was known as a true star, an exceptional yet remarkably humble person. I will never forget his last day here; his seat was not far from mine.

He had to pass by me. He took his leave of this place without this kind of round of speeches, because he did not let us know he was going until one day he stood up and said, “I'll be going now.” He gave a speech, begging us to co-operate more, to be more respectful, and I will never forget it. He packed up his briefcase, buckled it, and started to walk past the aisle, past me. I asked him, “Marc, is this it? Are you going today? Is this it?” I threw my arms around him and gave him the biggest hug. It was the last time I saw him. I said, “I'm just going to miss you so much, but let's stay in touch.” I kick myself now. We did not do that so well.

We have lost a very great human being. To his entire family, I send my deepest condolences and sympathy. May they know that in that space where he looks down at planet Earth now, I think it is a place called heaven.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Hon. colleagues, I thank you very much for your words in tribute to our friend and colleague, the Hon. Marc Garneau.

He was a man for all seasons., a man of sterling integrity, an adventurer and a Canadian hero.

Anyone who had a chance to talk to Marc realized how accomplished he was. Everything he did was at the highest level of excellence.

He was a scientist, an athlete, a public servant, an opera lover and, as anyone who has read his autobiography, A Most Extraordinary Ride, will know, a gifted writer.

He was also a devoted family man. The last time I spoke to him, a year ago, he told me about this book and what it meant for him to write it for his family. I am halfway through the book, and I can hear Marc's voice as I turn the pages. In particular, I hear his sense of humour when he describes his adventures in space and in politics.

In the book, he recounts where he was for the first moon landing in the summer of 1969. While many of my generation were sitting in front of the television watching a fuzzy picture, Marc Garneau was on a 57-foot sailboat called the Pickle. He was part of a crew of 13 in a race from Newport, Rhode Island, to Cork, Ireland, crossing the Atlantic Ocean. He spoke about floating on a tranquil sea, gazing up at the moon in a brilliant night sky, listening to the radio as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took their first steps on the moon's own Sea of Tranquility. It was while he floated on a boat, one of the world's oldest forms of transportation, that the seed was planted for him to one day make his own great voyage, in a ship of another kind, into space.

Marc was a man of great courage and conviction. Like every member of Parliament, he brought his own perspective to this place. He was gifted with impressive intelligence and a wisdom that perhaps came from the silence and tranquility of space. Canadians, especially members of Parliament, have all benefited from that wisdom.

In his final journey, we wish him peace and offer our deepest gratitude. To his family, we present our condolences, and we hope that his extraordinary legacy is a source of comfort and pride.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Strong Borders Act

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, the strong borders act would choke off organized crime groups from profits stemming from drug and firearms, trafficking and human smuggling. We will continue to make the safety and security of Canadians and our country a priority.

Canadians know the true value of the rule of law. We would be protecting that with the bill before us. We are proposing the legislation to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence at all levels would have the tools, authority and resources they need to do their job and to keep pace with new and sophisticated methods used by criminal organizations.

By strengthening our border, we would stamp out the traffic in illegal firearms and fentanyl. New provisions concerning lawful access and intelligence sharing would empower our law enforcement agencies and security agencies to intercept stolen vehicles and dismantle organized crime networks involved in things like extortion and child exploitation. I can assure members that we will never stop putting the safety of our communities first.

Canadians are calling out for decisive action, and we are here to deliver. Already, law enforcement agencies and security organizations are coming out in support of the legislation. For instance, the Canadian Police Association has described Bill C-2's provisions as “crucial” and concluded that, “If passed, this proposed legislation would provide critical new tools for law enforcement, border services, and intelligence agencies to address transnational organized crime, auto theft, firearms, drug trafficking, and money laundering.”

The updates would help ensure that Canadian police officers have the tools and intelligence they need to hold offenders accountable regardless of where they operate. The bill is an important first step in the current Parliament's efforts to combat crime. Canadians expect us to act; let us not let them down.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we all want to cut down on crime and resolve the issues at the border.

As the shadow minister for civil liberties, I have one question for the member. There is a measure in the bill that talks about Canada Post and the employees having the ability to open mail and potentially seize it. In light of our charter right to ensure no unwarranted search and seizure, I wonder what criteria would be applied. What would be the threshold to allow Canada Post workers to do that?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I say it here today, I do not think members and most Canadians would believe it: Even with a warrant, our authorities are unable to search Canada Post mail. The bill would allow the authorities to access a general warrant from a court so they could capture fentanyl or parts being imported to modify guns for people to make their own assault rifles here in Canada.

These are very important measures we need to give law enforcement in order to keep our streets safe. I think Canadians expect us to have these provisions in place.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's question.

If this bill moves forward, what criteria would allow Canada Post employees to open mail: suspicion? Reasonable grounds?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the police authorities would have to access a warrant from the court. It would not be the case that Canada Post employees would randomly open up pieces of mail. This would give our policing authorities, the CBSA, and the RCMP in particular, the ability to get a warrant in order to open the mail. It is currently being done with FedEx, Purolator and all other types of mail. The only restriction was with Canada Post, so this would be in line with all the other methods we have in place.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation was introduced just this week, and constituents in the riding of Waterloo have already become very engaged, which speaks to its importance and the need for it. They also hear a lot of the commentary being shared in regard to the charter.

What was exciting today, listening to the debate, was that the opposition, the Conservative Party, on two occasions now, has asked for a charter statement. I remember when our government started with charter statements. They labelled them in many different ways, but today are recognizing the need for us to protect our rights and freedoms, and with rights and freedoms come responsibilities.

My question is one that a constituent in the riding of Waterloo asked, which is whether the secretary of state can just clearly and understandably explain what the legislation would do for Canadians and what it would not do for Canadians.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question is excellent. We have been talking about the crime that is prevalent in our communities, like auto theft, as well as criminal organizations trafficking guns, human trafficking, all these different types of things.

This bill would give law enforcement the ability to modernize and keep up with the new techniques that criminal organizations are using, especially those that are exploiting our children. It has been a long time since we have modernized our acts and the authorities that we give law enforcement. I think that is very important.

There are safeguards in place. There are safeguards to each measure. We have to have reasonable suspicion in some cases, and in other cases we have to have court oversight. Courts will oversee this whole process.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have read Bill C-2. I am going to address gun crime again. Let us get to the facts here. The guns are here and crimes are being committed. People are getting shot. There were records set in my city. I do not read anything in this bill that would curb that.

Will the Liberals repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75? Catching criminals was never the problem; it is keeping them in jail.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in question period today, the provinces have a very important role to play when it comes to the administration of justice. If somebody is a public threat to society, at risk of reoffending or at risk of flight, the law currently states that they should not receive bail. I believe the provinces should also do their part. We are going to do ours.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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 Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, the member for Vancouver Centre, the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, the member for Humber River—Black Creek and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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 C-2, 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 C-63, 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 minister'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 C-2 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 C-2 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 Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and introduced Bill C-63, 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 minister, a green Prime Minister 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 C-2 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 C-63 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.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody in the House listens carefully to what my colleague has to say because she has a lot of experience with a lot of legislation and everything that she said is right on the money.

I want to follow up on some of the civil liberties issues she was pointing out and ask her about not only some of the things that are in the bill that impact people's privacy rights but also some of the language in the bill that talks about, if the government suspects money laundering, it could potentially get someone's financial information. This, of course, gives shades of the issue of freezing bank accounts.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government put this bill out and did not explain to Canadians specific instances or why Canadians should be giving up these liberties. I do not think we should be giving them up. It is completely unreasonable for the government to say “just trust us” when there is an entire burden of proof that we should not ignore.

I remember the former finance minister, during her description of why the government unlawfully used the Emergencies Act, and she essentially said it was to suspend the rights for financial transactions for Canadians. The whole promise of Canada is freedom, and we do not have—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing that the member stands up with a speech that is literally riddled with conspiracy theories from all extremes. She gives the impression that we are going to have Canada Post workers opening up every envelope. She is saying, “Canadians, be aware that this is going to happen,” as though she is giving a warning to every Canadian. She needs to get a grip on real life.

Even the Canadian Police Association has come out saying this is good legislation, and it is looking forward to seeing it pass. The member criticizes and attacks the Minister of Immigration, but she was there when Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney cancelled the parents sponsorship program, not to mention their deleting hundreds of thousands of files that were under process. They had a broken system, too. At least we are trying to balance it. When will the member get real?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if 2025 me travelled back in time to 2015 and said, “The government is going to use the Emergencies Act to freeze Canadians' bank accounts and then introduce a bill to criminalize thought crimes and cause news bans,” in 2015, I would have said, “What?” However, that is exactly what happened.

Call me skeptical, but I am saying no to any bill that has provisions that give the government more power to take away my right to free speech and my constituents' right to free speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague shares my concern about the government's current lax approach to controlling gun trafficking. We know that guns are being smuggled illegally from the United States into our country, mainly in my riding, by waterway.

Does my colleague agree that the Coast Guard should be given greater authority to monitor, document and report to authorities on certain crossings where illegal firearms are smuggled? Would she agree to having this added to the bill?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are elements of this bill that are worthy of study that could make things safer. The problem is that the Liberals have, once again, forced all of us, including my colleague, into a situation where we are supposed to choose between civil liberties and protecting our constituents.

I am hoping there can be some sort of resolution here that does not involve that choice. I hope the government would be open to looking for ways to do that so some of the components of the bill that could be deemed acceptable could be studied and perhaps passed. For some of this other stuff that is clearly going to cause contention among everybody, perhaps the Liberals should not have put that in the bill.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. She highlighted that there are many concerns in this bill and that it will trample on people's civil liberties, privacy, due process and procedural fairness. The powers that are granted in this bill to different authorities include cabinet. They are sweeping, and few details are provided. In addition, it is effectively an omnibus bill.

Does my colleague believe that parts of this bill should be separated out? Clearly, this is a bill the Liberals have thrown everything in. I would like her thoughts on that.