Chak Au · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

2026-06-17

“I don't like when the government shuts down debate. I want the government to have less power and to listen to different views.”

“I'm saying the government shouldn't shut down debate. They need to give us more time to look at this complicated bill. When all these different parties agree on something, it means the government messed up.”

Official Hansard

Madam Chair, I have to point out that we cannot replace necessity with convenience. It may be convenient for the government to shut down debate in the name of urgency or in the name of saving time. As I mentioned, with a bill that is so complex and sometimes difficult to understand thoroughly, we need the time to do thorough work. It is necessary. It is not just for the sake of convenience that we shut it down. I also want to point out that someone made a very interesting observation, which was that the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, all parties that are very different on the political spectrum, are united in opposing Bill C‑22. That is rare. With that kind of a situation, it is obvious that something is wrong. In this case, the Liberal government is wrong.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You are moving too fast on this huge and complicated bill. The government keeps using time allocation powers to shut down debate before MPs have even started dissecting the most serious parts. That's undemocratic. Does my honorable colleague across the aisle agree?”

“I want part 1 of the bill to pass with some changes. I don't want part 2 to pass without more careful review. The government should not rush this bill through. We need more scrutiny and debate on surveillance powers and privacy concerns.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express serious concerns with part 2 of Bill C‑22 and to oppose the motion in Government Business No. 13. Let me be clear from the outset: Conservatives believe that law enforcement must have modern tools to combat organized crime, fentanyl trafficking, child exploitation, terrorism and foreign interference in a digital age. These types of rampant criminality cannot go unattended. That is why Conservatives have taken a constructive approach to Bill C‑22 and have indicated that we are prepared to support part 1 of the bill, subject to several changes, clarifications and amendments, even though we recognize that part 1 is not perfect. In fact, Conservatives have repeatedly proposed at committee that the bill should be split, allowing part 1 to proceed, while part 2 undergoes more thorough study and scrutiny. Part 2 would create an entirely new framework governing electronic service providers and compelled assistance. It is this portion of the legislation that has attracted substantial criticism from privacy experts, constitutional experts, technology companies and civil liberties organizations. If the government believes those concerns are unfounded, then it should welcome scrutiny, not shut it down. When legislation grants new surveillance powers, expands access to personal information and creates new obligations for communication providers, Parliament has a duty to scrutinize those powers carefully, deliberately and transparently. That duty becomes even more important when respected legal, privacy, constitutional and technology experts continue to warn that significant concerns remain unresolved. However, instead of allowing Parliament to complete that scrutiny, the Liberal government has brought forward the motion to force this legislation through before Parliament has properly completed its work. That is precisely backwards. When respected experts continue to identify unresolved concerns, Parliament's responsibility is to examine those concerns, not to declare that the discussion is over. Throughout committee consideration of Bill C‑22, witness after witness identified concerns regarding privacy protections, judicial oversight, transparency and the impact on personal and business communications. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has stated that amendments remain necessary to strengthen privacy protections within the legislation. That alone should give Parliament pause before debate is cut short. The Privacy Commissioner was denied the opportunity to appear during clause-by-clause consideration, by Liberal members at the public safety and national security committee, despite being Canada's foremost independent authority on privacy rights. The Canadian Bar Association has also raised concerns regarding the legislation. In its submission on Bill C‑22, it warned that certain provisions expand state powers while reducing traditional safeguards and questioned whether the government had adequately demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of some of the measures being proposed. Those concerns deserve answers before debate is terminated. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has seemingly warned that aspects of Bill C‑22 raise significant constitutional and civil liberties concerns. It has argued that broad surveillance powers require proportionally strong safeguards, oversight and accountability measures. That principle should not be controversial. Throughout Canadian history, Parliament has recognized that extraordinary powers must be accompanied by extraordinary safeguards. Canadians expect no less. Researchers from The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto have also raised concerns regarding the scope and operation of certain powers contained in Bill C‑22. The Citizen Lab is internationally recognized as one of the world's leading research institutes on digital surveillance, cybersecurity and human rights. Its work has been cited by governments, courts, journalists and academics around the world. When researchers of that calibre identify concerns with surveillance legislation, Parliament should carefully examine those concerns rather than rush the bill through the legislative process. Even major technology companies and communications providers have expressed important concerns about the legislation. Their concerns are not about avoiding the law; they relate to whether legislation intended to improve public safety could inadvertently weaken cybersecurity, undermine encryption or create new vulnerabilities for law-abiding Canadians. Canadians deserve confidence that legislation intended to improve public safety would not inadvertently compromise digital security. This is where Government Business No. 13 becomes especially troubling. The government is effectively asking Parliament to conclude that the debate is finished, but the debate is not finished. In fact, it has barely begun. The Minister of Public Safety has changed his position on part 2. He began by resisting amendments, but after hearing the extensive evidence provided by the opposition and expert witnesses on why part 2 required amendments, he agreed that changes were necessary. However, by shutting down further clause-by-clause debate before we have even begun considering part 2, the government would be using the motion to effectively prevent the very amendments that the minister himself has acknowledged are necessary. With the proposed shutting down of further clause-by-clause debate, experts, industry and parliamentarians continue to raise concerns. The Liberal government is free to disagree with those concerns, but disagreement is not justification for shutting down parliamentary scrutiny. The purpose of Parliament is not to rubber-stamp legislation but to democratically challenge assumptions, test arguments, identify flaws and improve laws before they affect millions of Canadians. Government Business No. 13 would disregard democratic process and parliamentary responsibility. The Liberal government argues that the legislation is urgently needed because Canada has fallen behind in modernizing lawful-access authorities. The Liberal government has a long history of asking for extraordinary powers in the name of urgency. Parliament's responsibility is to determine whether those powers are truly necessary, proportionate and accountable, before they are granted, not after they have already been exercised. This is where scrutiny matters the most. Conservatives believe that Canadians deserve both security and freedom. Canadians can have effective law enforcement while safeguarding the constitutional rights that define our democracy. Public trust is essential, and it is strengthened when security measures are carefully designed, properly supervised and transparently justified. Public trust is weakened when governments appear eager to curtail debate before legitimate and constitutional concerns have been addressed.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Seniors

2026-06-12

“Liberal policies are causing a crisis. Seniors can't afford housing. They're homeless and shelters are full. Seniors shouldn't live like this after working so hard. The Prime Minister should reverse his expensive policies so Canadians can afford to live.”

“Seniors are sleeping in Tim Hortons because they can't afford a place to live. The Prime Minister spends a lot of money on luxury catering. Canada is the only G20 country in recession. Canadians can't afford food, rent or housing. The Prime Minister's policies are failing Canadians. Why doesn't he admit it?”

Statements by Members

Chinese Canadians

2026-06-09

“I want the government to officially recognize the contributions of Chinese Canadians. This will make my voters happy and help my re-election.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, former prime minister Stephen Harper delivered in this House a historic apology and redress for the Chinese head tax. That was a defining moment in our country's reconciliation. It recognized a historic wrong and affirmed the great contributions of Chinese Canadians to Canada. From the railways that united our nation to the businesses, professions and communities that strengthen it today, Chinese Canadians have shaped our country's success for generations. Today, Chinese Canadians continue to excel in public service, entrepreneurship, academics and culture. That is why I have introduced Motion No. 32, which would designate June 22 as national Chinese Canadian contributions day and recognize June as Chinese Canadian contributions month. As we mark this important anniversary, let us honour the resilience, achievements and legacy of Chinese Canadians and ensure that their contributions continue to be recognized for generations to come.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Airport Workers Day

2026-06-05

“I want to cheer for a program that spends money in my riding. It's good because it lets me say nice things about people with jobs in my area.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Airport Workers Day and to pay tribute to the thousands of dedicated workers who keep Canada's airports operating safely, efficiently and reliably every day. As the member of Parliament for Richmond Centre—Marpole, home to the Vancouver International Airport, I see first-hand the vital roles played by these workers in connecting our communities, supporting our economy and strengthening Canada's links to the world. They are the engineers, ground crews, security personnel, cargo handlers, maintenance staff, emergency responders and logistics professionals whose hard work often takes place behind the scenes. Last year, YVR welcomed a record 26.9 million passengers and handled over 365,000 tonnes of goods. These achievements are a testimony to the professionalism, dedication and excellence of airport workers. On June 25, national Airport Workers Day, let us thank them and recognize their outstanding service and contributions across Canada.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

The Economy

2026-05-29

“Canada's economy shrank for two quarters in a row. The prime minister raised taxes and kept bad laws. I don't like that. Other countries deal with the same problems, but only we are in a recession. I would cut taxes and spending to help the economy. The other party should admit they failed and change what they're doing.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we learned that Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession. Our economy contracted both in the last quarter of 2025 and in the first quarter of 2026, which is two straight quarters of negative growth. This happened because the Liberal Prime Minister raised industrial carbon taxes, kept antidevelopment laws in place and doubled Justin Trudeau's deficits. Every other G7 country faces the same tariffs and global challenges, yet none are in a recession. It is only Canada. The Prime Minister is now the only G7 leader to push his country into recession. The Conservatives would cut taxes, repeal antidevelopment laws, control spending and restore growth and investment to Canada's economy. It is time for the Liberals to realize their policies have failed and to change course.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“I agree that the Liberals are bad for culture. A new tax won't make us stronger. Stop talking about Trump; this is about us. We need more investment in our own culture industries. Competition and the market will help our culture more than government can.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments that my Bloc colleague made earlier that the Liberals are a major threat to the cultural sector in Canada. Imposing that kind of levy with an increase is not going to make the cultural sector stronger. Also, I believe we are focusing too much on Trump. We are talking about our own production and our own film industry in our country. Very often, Trump is being used as an excuse or as a defence, which again sidesteps the issue. We have to encourage investments coming into our country for the cultural sector, so that those investments and their efficiency through competition will make Canada's culture be more widely broadcast, not by government intervention, but by the market economy.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to sound like I agree with you. I want to say the tax is bad. More taxes might mean fewer jobs in our towns. That is sad. The government should not hurt jobs.”

“You're hiding behind the CRTC to dodge the real issue. This tax hike will hurt people. Will your government make people pay more?”

“I don't like the CRTC increasing costs for streaming platforms. It will make Canada less competitive and hurt consumers. The Liberals are making Canada more expensive and over-regulated. I want lower costs and more investment in Canada.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government must reject the CRTC's massive increase imposed on our online streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV, an increase sometimes referred to as the “Netflix tax.” The government may try to frame this as a technical broadcasting adjustment, but Canadians know what it really means. It means higher costs and another blow to affordability at a time when families are already struggling. The government could not even contain itself from taxing at-home leisure. The CRTC has now increased the required contribution from major streaming services from 5% to 15% of Canadian revenues, tripling the burden imposed on these companies. The 15% levy now places Canada among the most expensive countries in the world for streaming services to operate in. Let us be honest, business and Canadians do not operate alone or in a vacuum. When the Liberal government increases costs, those costs do not simply disappear. They erode the quality of leisure for hard-working Canadians. The Liberal government will, of course, avoid answering a very simple economic question: Who ultimately pays for this massive increase in costs? There are only two possible outcomes. Either streaming platforms decide Canada is becoming too expensive and not worth investing in, or they pass the high costs directly on to Canadian consumers. In both cases, Canadians lose. If productions move elsewhere, Canada loses jobs, investment and economic activity. This industry is highly mobile. Streaming companies can produce content almost anywhere in the world. Governments everywhere are competing aggressively to attract these productions, because they generate high-quality jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity. Why is the government increasing costs at a time when Canada is already struggling to attract investment? Canada already has a growing reputation internationally for being expensive, over-regulated and increasingly difficult to do business in. We have already seen capital leaving sectors such as energy, manufacturing and resource development. This policy discourages investment in Canada and is particularly damaging for major film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto. If the government believes companies will simply pass the costs on to consumers, then let us call the policy what it really is, which is an indirect tax on Canadians. The Liberals may insist this is not technically a tax because the money does not flow directly into government revenue, but if government policy deliberately increases costs for companies and companies then raise prices for consumers, the effect on Canadians is exactly the same: Families pay more. Whether it appears on a tax form or on a monthly streaming bill, it is still more money coming out of the pockets of Canadians during a cost of living crisis. The Liberals may argue that the increase per household is small, but Canadians are tired of being told every increase is small. A few dollars more for streaming, a few dollars more for groceries, a few dollars more for fuel and a few dollars more for utilities, and eventually, those small increases become a major burden for families already living paycheque to paycheque. The total amount involved is not small. Reports indicate the new framework could extract hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually from the Canadian market, potentially approaching $600 million overall in contribution obligations. That is money Canadians could otherwise spend in the broader economy. That money could go toward groceries, restaurants, children's clothing, mortgage payments or supporting small businesses. Instead, the Liberals are squeezing more money out of consumers during a cost of living crisis. While the government talks about supporting industry, these platforms are already major contributors to the Canadian economy. Netflix alone has stated that, between 2021 and 2024, its activities generated approximately $6.5 billion in economic impact in Canada. These productions support thousands of jobs: camera operators, editors, visual effects artists, drivers, construction workers, caterers and countless small businesses connected to film production. This is especially important for major urban centres, such as Vancouver and Toronto, where the screen production industry has become a major economic engine. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver, creating more than 450 jobs in the city and bringing significant investment into British Columbia. This issue matters deeply to my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond and the broader Metro Vancouver region are directly connected to British Columbia's growing film and streaming industry. Many residents in my community work directly or indirectly in these sectors. In Richmond alone, filming activities take place almost every day of the year. When productions expand, jobs are created. When investments slow, local workers and businesses feel the consequences. Conservatives believe Canada should be a country that attracts investment, rewards innovation and creates jobs. However, once again, the Liberals are moving in the opposite direction. Every time a sector becomes successful, this government seeks another opportunity to impose higher costs and heavier regulations. At a time when Canada desperately needs economic growth, productivity and investor confidence, this government is making Canada less competitive. Canadians are the ones who will pay the price, through fewer jobs, less investment or higher monthly bills. This increase is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Canadians deserve affordability. Canadians deserve economic opportunity. Canadians deserve a government that understands growth cannot come from squeezing more money out of consumers and businesses. Conservatives will continue standing up for affordability, investment, jobs and common sense.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-26

“The housing minister said our warning about Cowichan was fearmongering, but it's already having real effects. Expert reports say Richmond property values could fall 40% from the uncertainty the government created. Families and businesses are worried. The Liberals must admit their mistake and give homeowners certainty.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-25

“The government should replace guideline 14. Put property rights first in Cowichan. Protect fee simple ownership. Publish a plan. Vote Conservative to protect property rights.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-08

“I want to make the Liberals look bad. I want you to say what you disagree with. People need to know what they can own.”

Statements by Members

Public Safety

2026-05-08

“Shoplifting is up in my riding. $10 billion is lost to shoplifting every year. Businesses pay more for security. Customers pay more for goods. The system isn't stopping offenders. The government needs to take real action now.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, shoplifting is no longer a petty crime. It is becoming a growing crisis, affecting public safety, affordability and confidence in our justice system. Across Canada, police have reported that shoplifting has increased by 66% over the past decade, with annual losses at nearly $10 billion. In Richmond, police recorded more than 1,700 shoplifting cases last year. In the first two months of this year, reports surged another 70%. Businesses are spending more on insurance and security instead of spending on growth. Retail workers face intimidation and unsafe conditions. Consumers are paying the price through higher costs. Canadians feel abandoned by a system where repeat offenders are arrested, released and soon back in the very same stores again. People are left asking how much worse this crisis must become before meaningful action is finally taken by the Liberal government.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“The government has a choice. They could say they made a mistake in 2018. Or they could say they still support the 2018 directive. Either way, Canadians lose. Richmond pushed to keep the fee simple argument in the appeal. Thank you to Richmond. Shame on the government.”

“I want this to pass quickly. People in my riding are worried. The government should work with us on a solution now.”

“You screwed up. You were late. You tied lawyers' hands. And now you say nothing.”