Arielle Kayabaga
London West, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Madam Speaker, earlier a member of the opposition talked about the fact that they were not filibustering, yet she was the one who actually told the story about an elephant in a discussion of Bill C-30 , where there is money that has to go out to people who need more housing in a faster way.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member has been at the municipal level before, and we know that we cannot build homes without cities and without partnerships with the provinces and municipalities.”
“Earlier, Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague who sits on committee with me said he feels we are not listening. I talked about the fact that we did extensive collaboration.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Of course, we all know that our systems and institutions are very robust in Canada, and I know my hon. colleague touched on that in his speech. Can he tell us more about what Canadians stand to gain from this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting from the member opposite, who also sits on the committee with me, is the fact that he said he is not buying what we are selling, though we worked in collaboration with their team to bring the bill forward as quickly as possible.”
“Bad actors may try to interfere with our democratic processes and our elections from anywhere in the world at any time. Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections are safe.”
The complete record
Every one of 419 lines we hold for Arielle Kayabaga, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“On this side of the House, we believe that Canadians want a government that functions, that responds to pressures, and that can also withstand external pressures, such as these global issues that impact us all here in Canada. As we have seen, there have been many global challenges that continue to impact us economically. Even when we have economic plans, we can always plan to see other pressures come into play, and we have to be ready to respond to those pressures. We have to be ready to support Canadian families and Canadian workers, which is why they sent us back in April 2025 to this House, to make sure that we can respond to tariff pressures, respond to issues in which young people are unable to access homes that are affordable to them and respond to Canadian family pressures around affordability.”
“The tariff pressures came on top of the extra economic pressures that Canadians were already feeling, which were due to many external pressures, such as COVID-19 and the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine. These were all factors in why Canadians were experiencing pressure on their pocketbooks. Families were scrambling to feed themselves. There was a lot of price gouging in food prices, and Canadians were feeling real pressure, whether it was with finances, putting their kids into extracurricular activities or even putting their kids in day care. We have been a government that has constantly responded to these pressures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very happy and excited to rise to speak in support of Bill C-15 , the budget implementation act, and explain why this legislation matters to communities such as London West and the broader southwestern Ontario corridor. We came off a campaign in April 2025 with an ambitious plan to respond to pressures that Canadians sent us to resolve in this session. In the last election, I spent many hours speaking to many Londoners, asking them what the most important issue was for them. I believe that, in this election, the most important issue was actually responding to the tariff pressures and the economic pressures that Canadians were feeling.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: Motion That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of Oral Questions on Wednesday, November 26, 2025, a member of each of the recognized parties, a member of the New Democratic Party, the member of the Green Party, and the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak each be permitted to make a statement for no more than five minutes; and that the time taken for these proceedings shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders”
“Motion Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That a take-note debate on the softwood lumber industry be held on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; (b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.”
“[ Translation ] Finally, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That, pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Building Canada Act and section 62 of the Emergencies Act, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to review the Governor in Council’s and the minister’s exercise of their powers and performance of their duties and functions under the— Some hon. members: No.”
“On Wednesday and Thursday of next week, we will call second reading of debate of Bill C-13 , an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I would also like to inform the House that there will be a ministerial statement on Tuesday, November 25, which is the first day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and answer the Thursday question on behalf of the government House leader , as the deputy House leader. Of course, there has been a lot of discussion this week, but, most importantly, what I have heard from Canadians is that they really want to talk about the budget that we put forward, which many members of this House voted on. Lots of Canadians want to talk about the jobs that will be created through the budget and the affordability measures that are in the budget to help Canadians move forward. This afternoon, we will continue the debate on second reading of Bill C-15 , an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. We will resume debate on the bill tomorrow, as well as next Monday and Tuesday.”
“By focusing on results, we are making sure that federal investments land where people actually live. London West helped shape this initiative. I will keep working to ensure that our young people are at the forefront of the line.”
“Mr. Speaker, I speak for the people of London West when I say that we welcome the passage of the budget. I want to highlight one of the concrete steps that it takes, one that came directly out of a pre-budget consultation held in my riding: the creation of Canada's climate corps. This is a practical, skill-driven program that will train young Canadians for real jobs in resilience, emergency response, retrofits, green construction and community infrastructure. When I met with young people in London West, the message could not have been more clear. They want opportunities that are hands-on, well-paid and connected to the real needs of our local economy. The climate corps delivers exactly that. It links youth to in-demand careers and helps employers fill critical labour shortages. This is what building one strong Canadian economy looks like.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the hon. member for Halifax what she has been hearing. We just had a riding week, and she must have spent a lot of time with folks in her riding. They must have had multiple conversations about budget 2025 and the things that are really important for Halifax. Could the member share with the House some of the great conversations she has been having with members in her community?”
“As a result, the government will continue to work with all parties to ensure that they have the information they need, in the format of their preference, to assist them in their parliamentary functions.”
“The budget documents distributed to members in the lock-up, as well as the budget documents distributed to members in the House, are a courtesy to assist members in preparing for the budget debate. The official and complete budget document was tabled by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue on November 4, immediately preceding the budgetary speech. It is for these reasons that neither allegation raised by the member for Joliette—Manawan constitutes a breach of the privilege of the members of this House. That being said, the government is of the firm view that all members should be afforded the opportunity to be informed of the content of the budget as a courtesy to assist in the discharge of their parliamentary functions.”
“With respect to the assertion of the member for Joliette—Manawan that the budget he was provided with in the House was not complete, I would refer the member, and indeed all members of this House, to what the former minister of state and leader of the government in the House of Commons stated on February 26, 2003, with respect to which document constitutes the official budgetary policy of the government: First, it is not the budget statement that is made in the House, that is the budget itself. It is the instrument that is tabled by the minister prior to him reading the budget statement. Mr. Speaker will no doubt know this as indeed would most hon. members. The document that was tabled in the House constitutes the budgetary document of the government.”
“It would not be proper for the Chair to get involved in the interpretation of budget secrecy, nor the matter of the lock-up. As for the issue of privilege...let me quote again Speaker Sauvé. In a decision which can be found in the Debates of November 18, 1981 at page 12898 she stated that: -a breach of budget secrecy cannot be dealt with as a matter of privilege.”
“With respect to the budget lock-up, there are many Speakers' rulings that substantiate that these venues are not proceedings of Parliament and are offered to parliamentarians as a courtesy to assist parliamentarians in preparation for the budget debate. On March 6, 1997, on matters related to budget secrecy, the availability of budget documents and the budget lock-up, Speaker Parent ruled: On the issue of budget secrecy, perhaps it would be helpful to remind all members of what Speaker Sauvé pointed out in a decision she gave to the House on April 19, 1983 at page 24649 of the Debates: -budget secrecy is a political convention. So also is the practice whereby the minister presents his budget in the House before declaring it in any other public forum. I agree with Speaker Sauvé.”
“Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on November 5 by the member for Joliette—Manawan respecting the budget documents distributed during the budget lock-up and for the budget presentation in the House. The member alleges that the physical budget documents distributed in the lock-up and in the House did not contain all of the information contained in the budget that was tabled on November 4 by the hon. Minister of Finance and National Revenue . I can confirm to this House that the budget documents that were tabled by the Minister of Finance in the House at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4, were complete and contained all required information. These documents represent the official documents relating to the 2025 budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague could go a bit further and tell us what parts of the budget speak to her community. There is so much stuff in this budget that will respond to every riding represented across the House, but I want to hear from my colleague what from the budget she will tell her residents.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague for her tremendous work on this file. Unfortunately, she did not get the chance to finish her speech. I want to give her an opportunity to add some of the comments she was not able to finish in her speech and ask her to highlight how the Liberal government is the government that has increased trade partnership across the world, more than any other government in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I think that you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: Motion That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the hours of sitting and the order of business of the House on Thursday, January 29, 2026, shall be those of a Friday, provided that any recorded division deferred to, or requested on, that day in respect of a debatable motion, other than an item of Private Members' Business, be deferred until Monday, February 2, 2026, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.”
“Madam Speaker, I imagine that the member opposite was here in the last Parliament. His party voted for the bill to pass. This is part of the misleading misinformation. They are trying to fearmonger, trying to get Canadians to think that we are doing something we are not doing. The Conservatives voted against our tough-on-crime bill. They have no plans to support our budget, which Canadians sent us to the House to vote on. When it comes to dividing Canadians, they rise up. Why did the member vote for the bill in the last Parliament, which passed? Why did the Conservatives mislead Canadians to believe that they were going to do this? In the new Parliament, they now want to shift it. They want to use it as a political score point so they can send budget fundraising emails, to raise money. Why are the Conservatives doing that to Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, I agree that my emotions may have got the best of me. I apologize to the member opposite. I agree that we should not use those words in the House. However, I have to say it is very misleading and very un-Canadian of the Conservatives. I will switch out those words to “misleading Canadians”.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a lot of points of misinformation that the party opposite has been spewing on this really important bill. We made a promise to lost Canadians that we were going to restore this specific requirement to access their citizenship for their children and grandchildren. Many of us did that work. The member put those points of misinformation to the forefront and explained what the party opposite was lying to Canadians about. Can the member expand on why we cannot use this as a divisive point to lie to Canadians and mislead them into thinking that we are doing something we are not?”
“Madam Speaker, it is very sad to hear the comments by the member opposite. In the last Parliament, I spent many hours on the committee that was working on this bill. I met families that served Canada and that are impacted through this policy, which was implemented by Harper. In fact, I think this was the policy that made him lose his election. What does the member have to say to Canadian families that served their country, are impacted, are part of the lost Canadians, a system Harper created, and that are very sad to hear his very shameful comments in the House?”
“Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois. We have heard the Quebec government repeatedly call for tougher laws on bail. Does my Bloc Québécois colleague not think that we should encourage everyone here to send this bill to committee so that it can be discussed and passed as quickly as possible? First of all, the Quebec government has asked for this. Second, Bill C-14 responds to those demands. Third, the bill aims to keep Quebeckers safe. Can my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois tell us whether he thinks we should pass this quickly and have these discussions in committee as soon as possible in order to pass this bill as quickly as possible?”
“To simplify things for the Chair and members who do not sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as noted in the meeting minutes, on October 23, 2025, the committee agreed: That the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner be invited to appear for one hour in relation to the study of the forms and procedural and interpretative guidelines from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.”
“Therefore, I believe it is premature for the Chair to rule on this question and that it would be more prudent to wait for a report from the committee on this matter, which will provide more context on its study and recommendations. This would also be consistent with the practices and rules of the House, which clearly stipulate that the Chair must not intervene in matters before a committee until a report has been tabled in the House.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes on October 25. First, I would like to clarify that I do not believe this issue is a matter of privilege that should take precedence over all other business in the House. That being said, I would like to inform the Chair that the question raised in the House on October 25 is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in accordance with a motion adopted by that committee on October 23. Furthermore, it is appropriate for the Chair to await a committee report to the House before intervening in such matters, and no committee report has been presented to the House.”
“Madam Speaker, many police associations have called for the rapid passage of this bill. In fact, the London Police Association said, “The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act represents a vital and long-overdue advancement. This is an essential step in creating a safer London that our members serve. Equipping them with much needed legislative supports, holding violent repeat offenders more accountable.” Maybe the minister can share with the House why it is really important that we work together, all parties across the House, to make sure this bill passes as soon as possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. I know that he was not here during the previous Parliament when we had a great deal of debate on this bill. We had discussions with families that fall under this category. These are Canadian families that have served outside Canada. What does my colleague think about the fact that this matter has come back to the House a couple of times and that Conservatives continue to put barriers to Canadians' access to this birthright? Most importantly, what message does this send to families that have served outside Canada if we prevent them from obtaining citizenship for their children or grandchildren?”
“Motion Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: a) when the House adjourns on Thursday, January 29, 2026, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, February 2, 2026, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, January 30, 2026; b) when the House adjourns on Thursday, March 26, 2026, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, April 13, 2026, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, March 27, 2026; and c) any standing, standing joint, special and special joint committees, as well as their subcommittees, shall not be empowered to sit on both Fridays.”
“Mr. Speaker, on October 15, I had the pleasure of joining local partners to announce 42 affordable housing units. Forty-two Londoners will now have a place to call home. I want to thank the City of London and Indwell for their leadership and continued investment in the well-being of our communities. Build Canada Homes is a national strategy that will get housing built faster, smarter and more affordably. It will cut red tape, unlock public land and preserve existing affordable rentals in the country. It brings every level of government together with mayors, builders and non-profits to deliver homes that Canadians can actually afford, in every region across this country. This is what leadership looks like. While Conservatives continue to talk Canada down, our government is getting things built.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have listened, over the last couple of weeks, to Conservatives talk about the importance of protecting our borders and the work that law enforcement does every single day. We are putting forward a bill that would do exactly that. I am curious to know how my hon. colleague opposite feels about the comments that his leader has made about the RCMP.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important for the new member to know that, in the House, he has privileges as a new member of Parliament. He can speak, and he can also ask the opposition why their members are repeating the same lines 120-some times during question period for 45 minutes. Perhaps the member wants to tell us why he feels Bill C-12 is really important for the people who elected him on April 28, asking him to represent them.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my speech just now, we were asked to review our approach by stakeholders, and it was in light of the information they supplied that we split this bill. The spirit and idea of wanting to protect our borders are still there. Last week, as I was saying, I was in Windsor to echo the announcement by the Prime Minister regarding the hiring of 1,000 new officers to work at the borders and ensure Canada's security. We said we would do that during the election campaign and we will continue to do that. This bill is before us today so that we can discuss it. We will go to committee so that people can discuss it further, and we will reach a consensus that will result in a good bill that our workers want and that they will be able to have.”
“We have confidence that our law enforcement officers can reach their own conclusions about the work that needs to be done. As I said earlier, this kind of collaboration is how we can keep protecting our systems here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can share a story with the member. [ Translation ] I am sorry. I will address my colleague in French. What I wanted to say is that I had an opportunity a few weeks ago to speak with a member of the RCMP in my riding. He told me that he once worked in a community where there were no identified cases of fentanyl use. A week after a single package arrived, however, fentanyl was everywhere. By the time the RCMP member left the community, there were about 800 cases of fentanyl use. This shows that a robust mail screening system could have prevented these 800 cases in the small community where he was posted. We initially presented that proposal because there was demand for it. Now, however, we are introducing a bill that proposes something else. That is not to say that we have lost all confidence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the member was in the room when I was making my speech, because I saw him standing a couple of times with his notes. He had his notes prepared before I made my speech. In my speech, if he had listened intently, and in the answer I just gave to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, I talked about the fact that we have increased the number of border agents. We are investing in hiring more. There will be more information for the member opposite through budget 2025 on November 4. We are a government that is committed to hiring law enforcement to meet the needs we are asking of them. If we are going to ask them to do something, we are going to invest in them and make sure they have the right resources, the right tools and the personnel they need for doing that.”
“It is just another things showing that we have to grow and adapt to what is happening in the external world around us while keeping Canada as strong as it needs to be.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question, because it dives deep into what I was talking about. The many systems in this country that we trust and believe in, like the immigration system, evolve with time, and we have to be willing to evolve with them. This bill addresses an issue that we have seen change over time. The member talked about the pandemic and different issues we have experienced, including with international students. This is something we have to continue to monitor. That is why we are here and why we were elected. We must legislate these bills and make sure they are up date and can evolve with time. I talked about technology and how technology plays a role in this new bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I have listened carefully to most of the speeches by the Bloc Québécois members, and I believe that they largely agree with us that we need to work to make this system better. I was in Windsor last week to announce additional measures to hire more border officers across Canada. The Prime Minister is very focused on that. I think that if my colleague has other points he wants to raise to move this bill forward effectively, that could also be done in committee, which would allow us to move forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member opposite was listening to my speech. I do not think he was, because it looked like he was reading a question he prepared way before I made it. Maybe I can ask the member opposite why he is so intent on attacking our systems. Recently, he put forward a motion to deal with DEI, for example. Perhaps he can start with DEI on his side of the aisle. When he works on that system, he can come back and tell the rest of Canada how we can deal with DEI.”
“This is a thoughtful and forward-looking bill that would manage immigration in a way that supports our economy and protects those who seek safety here and, at the same time, in a way that upholds our values and who we are as a country. It is about building a system that Canadians can trust and newcomers can count on. I invite the many members of this House who I know have been beneficiaries of the system to stand up for it, to work together to fix it, to stop talking down Canadians and our institutions, and to believe in this country, which many of us have called home for many years.”
“How much better is it that we all work together in this House to strengthen the system that many of us, including me, are so proud of? It is a system that works and allows a child who was a refugee surviving a genocide to become a member of Parliament in this House. That is what we are talking about. Canadians are good people. Canadians are compassionate people, and they want this system to work. The polarization around immigration is not beneficial for Canada. Canadians want us members of Parliament from all parties to work together to address issues when we see them, and I think this bill would do exactly that. It would uphold what defines us as Canadians.”
“It would make government work smarter, focusing resources on what matters most, removing duplication and strengthening our accountability. It reflects a new way of governing, one that combines compassion with discipline and policy with delivery. (1805) To conclude, Bill C-12 is about making our system work better for people. It would make asylum claim processing faster and more efficient, it would strengthen coordination across all departments, it would improve the integrity of our borders and it would uphold what defines us as Canadians. I know that in this House, many colleagues came to this country to become Canadians and are able to serve the communities that have hosted them and given them a second chance at life because of our system and because Canadians trust our immigration system.”
“Our economy has often depended on attracting skilled workers, entrepreneurs and families that contribute to our communities. However, when the system is backlogged, confidence drops and opportunities are lost along the way. Bill C-12 would ensure that the immigration system continues to be a driver of growth for everyone involved, while at the same time protecting the integrity that makes Canada's approach the envy of the world. For employers, it means predictability. For newcomers, it means clarity. For Canadians, it means confidence that immigration remains both fair and beneficial. This is not just about processing applications or updating databases, but about modern governance and a government that learns, adapts and delivers for its people. Bill C-12 embodies that principle.”
“Advocates have asked that we preserve strong pathways for people facing new risks after arrival. Those voices completely matter and we are listening. The committee review will be an important part of that process where we will listen, take up amendments and the advice we are hearing from experts and make sure this bill is ready and prepared to do exactly what the spirit behind it is. Let us be clear. Bill C-12 would not weaken Canada's tradition of protection. It would strengthen it by ensuring the system is credible, efficient and able to deliver on its promises. A broken system helps absolutely no one in Canada, not claimants, not Canadians and not those who need urgent protections. A strong system, however, serves everyone better. Immigration is not only a humanitarian issue in Canada; it is an economic one.”
“The world has seen record levels of displacement. In 2023 alone, more than 110 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide. Irregular migration has increased, and the systems we built 20 years ago were not designed for the scale or speed we are seeing today. If we do not modernize, we risk losing both control and compassion. Canadians have an expectation of their government to manage immigration responsibly, and that is exactly what we are going to do. We are going to uphold fairness for newcomers and confidence for citizens, and we are sure that Bill C-12 is going to accomplish exactly that. It would replace outdated frameworks with a smarter, more adaptive model, one that serves people and protects Canada's borders with integrity. It is fair to say there are concerns about how these reforms would work in practice.”
“Bill C-12 would give the government tools to respond to major or unforeseen challenges, whether that means a humanitarian crisis, a surge in irregular migration or even a global emergency, as we have, in the past, experienced. It would allow immigration documents like visas, electronic travel authorizations and permits to be temporarily suspended or cancelled only when it is within the public interest, for example in cases of widespread fraud or security threats. This would not be an overreach; it is about remaining robust in protecting Canadians and remaining prepared. We will ensure that Canada can act quickly and responsibly when a situation demands it. These powers would be exercised with transparency, oversight and respect for due process. We have to act now because the pressures are real.”
“Bill C-12 would enable secure, modern information sharing across federal departments, provinces and territories and trusted partners with strong privacy safeguards built in. (1800) This would mean that newcomers could access housing, health care and settlement programs much sooner. It would mean that law enforcement and border officials could better detect fraud and identity theft. It would also mean fewer delays for people waiting to build their lives here in Canada. All privacy protections would remain robust. The framework was reviewed by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Every agreement will be written, every safeguard explicit and every disclosure accountable under the law.”