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 6 of 9.
“It would protect our asylum system from being overwhelmed and would allow Canada to focus resources on people who genuinely come here looking for protection. It is about protecting and compassion with order. We, as a country, will remain open to those who are most vulnerable. Our borders will remain open to those who are truly fleeing persecution around the world. That is who we have been and that is who we will continue to be, but we must do so in a way that keeps our borders more secure and processes very credible. Bill C-12 would bring our immigration system into the modern age of data and technology. For too long, different departments and provinces have worked in silos, and information gaps have slowed down processing, creating unnecessary duplication and adding unnecessary costs.”
“Bill C-12 would repeal outdated measures, like designated country of origin regime, a policy that no longer reflects the realities of modern migration. Together, these changes would create a faster, more complete and efficient asylum system that would protect the integrity of the process and at the same time uphold Canada's humanitarian tradition. The bill would strengthen the integrity of our borders and make it clear that those who deliberately delay filing a claim or who try to reset the clock by re-entering Canada would not be able to bypass our laws. It would introduce new eligibility rules; for example, claims filed more than a year after arrival may be deemed ineligible, and those who cross irregularly between ports of entry or avoid the safe third country agreement would not be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board.”
“Bill C-12 would fix those issues by creating a single intake system for asylum claims, which means that we would have less red tape, faster decisions and no more confusion about who is responsible for what in getting through these systems. Under the new system, only hearing-ready cases would go before the Immigration and Refugee Board, which means background checks and identity verification would be completed first. This would reduce unnecessary delays and ensure that decisions are based on full information for the people who are making those decisions. The bill would also provide the board authority to remove abandoned and incomplete claims. If someone stops responding or no longer wishes to pursue their case, officials could close the case and focus on those who truly need protection.”
“It fuels our workforce, builds our communities and keep our economy growing, but as the world changes, we need systems that keep pace; we need systems that are fair, fast and firm. We live in a time when migration patterns are shifting. Conflicts are driving displacement, and technology is changing how people move across borders. Fraud has become more sophisticated. Organized crime and human trafficking networks have become more active. However, Bill C-12 would ensure that Canada's systems stay strong, credible and compassionate, and protect both our humanitarian obligations and our national interests. The first set of reforms would modernize Canada's asylum system, making it faster, fairer and more transparent. Right now, multiple departments often handle the same files, duplicating work and creating backlogs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise on this bill and talk about what our government is working on. The Prime Minister has already outlined seven priorities for our government, and one of them is being able to attract the best talent in the world to help build our economy while keeping our immigration levels in a sustainable way. Today, I rise to speak on that and to support Bill C-12 , the proposed strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. This bill is about getting that balance right. It would strengthen our immigration and asylum systems, improve information sharing and ensure that our borders are ready for the realities of a changing world. Immigration has for so long been part of our country's story. It has been part of our past and our present; it will continue to be part of our future.”
“Mr. Speaker, we believe in our public sector. As we said, this budget is going to spend less and invest more in Canada and invest more in Canadians. That means we have to review everything. We have to review our operations, everything that we do. I trust that the public sector is doing that work right now to review and to make sure we have the ability to invest in Canadians. I would think the member would support that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague's question. I also want to congratulate him on all the work he does for francophones outside Quebec. As a francophone outside Quebec, I greatly appreciate all of his work on that front. As I mentioned, on November 4, we will have very good news for Canadians. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue will bring down a generational budget, a disciplined budget that aims to help Canadians in several sectors, but especially the energy sector and the sectors affected by the tariffs. It will be a budget unlike any we have seen in a very long time. I know that my colleague will vote in favour of the budget, but I also hope he will use his parliamentary influence to convince our colleagues and his friends to vote in favour of the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows perfectly well that the carbon tax did not apply in Quebec. For those who paid it, unfortunately, we had to return that money and remove the carbon tax for Canadians, because the issue became polarized thanks to the Conservatives, and they are still doing it today. They started with the carbon tax. Everything they touch becomes polarized. Now they want to polarize Canada with slogans saying that Canada is broken, when that is not the reality. I hope my colleague across the aisle will continue to work with us to be more disciplined, especially in the language we use to communicate with Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments, we acknowledge that inflation has hit Canadians. I acknowledged that housing costs and food costs have gone up, but that is not just in Canada. I know the Conservatives love to talk down Canada. Today, in question period, they used the same script. Maybe the same person writes the script. Perhaps they need to change that person, because they were given misleading information to mislead Canadians and said that Canada is not growing. That is simply not true.”
“When Canadians voted on April 28, they sent us here to do exactly that, and we have to meet the moment. While Conservatives continue to chase headlines, this government will continue to focus on real results. We will continue to build an economy that works for all Canadians, an economy powered by Canadian talent, industry and ambition. We are building a Canada that simply works for the middle class, the next generation and every region across this nation. That is leadership and what leadership looks like.”
“That is what the Conservatives are being given an opportunity to do, and I really hope they will take the opportunity to invest in Canadians and support budget 2025. We are moving forward with short-term fixes to long-term building, from dependence on a single market to resilience in global trade, from uncertainty to steady growth. [ Translation ] We are going to build an economy that works for everyone, an economy based on discipline, innovation and Canadian pride. In fact, Canada's real strength is its people, its ambition and its ability to deliver results. [ English ] This is about building a strong nation. It is about building the future for young people. It is about imagining what Canada could look like when we invest in children, young people and seniors, and when we work together, the government and opposition parties.”
“They voted against the dental care plan, pharmacare, affordable housing, clean energy projects and families and children in this country, even in their own ridings. When they say they stand with workers but oppose pension reforms that would fund new industries right here at home, they are misleading Canadians. That is not leadership. That is politics for politics' sake. Canadians can see the difference and made their choice in April. This is the moment that the Conservatives can come together and support the government to rebuild Canada's economic strength for the long haul. Budget 2025 will set the foundation for a new industrial strategy, one that secures our energy future, rebuilds our supply chains and attracts the kind of investment that turns local opportunity into national growth.”
“By removing the GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers, we are saving families up to $50,000 and making ownership a reality for many young people. (1740) [ Translation ] Every house built will be a dream come true, a job created and a community growing ever stronger. That is what building Canada is all about. [ English ] Our plan is rooted in fiscal discipline and economic realism. We are spending less and investing smarter. We are capping the size of government, cutting duplication and using technology to deliver better services. Every single dollar must deliver value. That is called fiscal discipline with purpose. Meanwhile, the Conservatives cannot pick a lane. One week they promise cuts everywhere; the next they say they will invest.”
“It will focus on the fundamentals, which are housing, infrastructure and skills. It will build partnerships that attract private investments across every region of Canada. Since the new government took place, we have been putting money back into Canadians' pockets. We know that the middle class tax cut is helping 22 million Canadians keep more of what they earn. For a two-income family, that is up to $840 next year. It is real help and not political fodder. We are also tackling housing head on through Build Canada Homes. We are fast tracking affordable prefabricated homes on federal lands. This will help young families get into the market and create skilled trade jobs, unlocking a whole new generation of Canadian builders.”
“We have to pass bills in the House and not just talk down to Canadians. That is exactly what this side of the House is doing. Let us take a look at the facts. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have a AAA credit rating from every major agency. Inflation has stayed within target for over a year. These are not just talking points, these are real measures and real results. I am sure Conservatives will talk about inflation, but what they forget to tell Canadians, every single time they bring it up in the House, is that inflation is something that has plagued the whole world in the last number of years. We have good news. On November 4, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue will table a budget, a plan to grow the economy, to boost productivity and to restore long-term prosperity.”
“We are investing in clean energy, electric vehicles, advanced manufacturing, and the copper and critical minerals that power the world. These are not abstract plans. They are the backbone of Canada's economy. [ Translation ] While the Conservatives keep criticizing, we keep building a strong economy. We are going to deliver results for families, workers and communities across the country. We are preparing ourselves and preparing our nation for the future with the same ambition as the generations that built Canada. [ English ] We know that times are tough right now. Canadians have told us that. Bills are high, housing is tight and groceries are costly. This is when Canadians need leadership. It means that we have to show up with solutions and not slogans. It means that we have to serve Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw that word and would replace it with “misleading”, as they are misleading Canadians through the many comments we have heard in the House. We know that Canadians want results. They want leadership that builds and not one that just continues to blame consistently. While Conservatives spend their time talking down Canada and Canadians, our government will continue to focus on building with discipline, direction and delivery. We are strengthening an economy that is already the most stable in the G7 and positioning it for the next generation of growth. We are investing in Canadians. We are investing in their ideas. We are investing in their skills and in the industries that will carry this country forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pickering—Brooklin for sharing her time with me. I am very happy to rise on this motion. First of all, let us address the elephant in the room. The Conservative Party has brought forward a motion that is, once again, heavy on slogans and light on substance. Canadians are tired of the noise. It is unfortunate to see that, with the few opposition days they have, this is how they are choosing to spend them, by lying to Canadians. We know what Canadians want—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Prime Minister Trudeau is still part of their economic plan and their plan to government, even though it did not work in the last election. Perhaps the member opposite can tell us why he thinks that the child tax benefit is a waste of money? This is a tax credit that has lifted over 400,000 children out of poverty. Why does he think that investing in child care across this nation, an economic policy, is a waste of money? Also, what is the obsession with talking down on Canadians and Canada? Today in question period, we heard, in almost every question, the Conservatives talk down Canada. What do they have to actually offer Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very good speech, which updated the House on the economic stance of Canada. He just mentioned that the opposition is perhaps not understanding. Is it that they are not understanding, or is it that they want to continue to mislead Canadians? The motion before us includes the former prime minister. Is it that they miss him? Do they really care about what Canadians voted for in this election? Maybe the member can tell us why the Conservatives' rhetoric remains the same.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for this really important work. The member opposite just talked about how the Conservatives fully agree. That is a good thing. This is what Canadians want. Canadians elected us to pass legislation such as this in a quick and effective manner so that we can continue to serve Canadians. Conservatives have often voted against and even delayed bills that pertained to indigenous communities. Can the minister talk about why it is important for the entire House to work together to pass this bill in a quick and effective manner?”
“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 the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Mr. Wilkinson (North Vancouver-Capilano) for Mr. Fergus (Hull-Aylmer).”
“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: That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Mr. Wilkinson, North Vancouver—Capilano, for Mr. Fergus, Hull—Aylmer.”
“They will be built here, create jobs here and strengthen Canada's economy. I am proud to serve in a government that is building a strong Canada through the strength of its people.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week in London we announced a $3.5-million investment through FedDev Ontario delivered to TechAlliance to fuel local innovation and create opportunities across southern Ontario. This funding will support innovators like Deep Breathe in developing health solutions, Vessl Prosthetics in transforming prosthetics with cutting-edge design, PolyAnalytik in advancing materials science, and many more companies. These companies prove that London has the talent, the creativity and the drive to lead. For our government, this is about more than just dollars. It is about delivery. We are backing people who take risks, solve problems and create real results for families. From London to every corner of our region, this investment ensures that the next breakthroughs will not just be imagined here.”
“Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments, and he mentioned in the first part of his speech that many Canadians, especially people of colour, have been victims of hate crimes. I represent the riding of London West, where on June 6, 2021, a Muslim family, a family of colour originally from Pakistan, were just out for a walk and were murdered by someone simply because they were Muslim, simply because they were people of colour. I followed the member's comments about the importance of protecting families and Canadians like the family in my riding, who were murdered because of their race and religion. Would the member not agree that the bill would do exactly that? Of the many requests that came through the summit on Islamophobia, that was one of them. Why will the member not support the bill?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to invite my colleague to join this very important discussion. It was important during the last Parliament, and it is even more important in 2025. It is important for small businesses in his community and in my community. It is important for our hospitals and our systems. It is important that we send the bill to committee and pass it.”
“Madam Speaker, I think I talked about that in my speech, that we want to be able to provide operators the tools they need to be able to secure the networks for Canadians. I talked about the importance, especially in 2025, of making sure we do this in a timely manner. Perhaps the member can talk to his colleagues about why they want to grandstand in this debate when we are just asking that the bill go to committee so that we can talk about it more. The members can add amendments as necessary, and then we can move along. If this is really important to Canadians, and I am sure the member opposite heard this at the doors, and I am sure this is really important to him as well, why can we not send this to committee to be—”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague was asked the same question earlier, and I will give the same answer. We have already consulted the provinces, and we will continue to consult them. If my colleague wants to propose amendments, then he understand how important it is to send the bill to committee as soon as possible so that we can discuss it.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member was not in Parliament in the last session and does not remember that, after a long filibuster and grandstanding from the Conservatives, the Conservatives ended up voting for it. They sent it to the Senate. For very small amendments, the Senate sent it back to the House. We are able to introduce the legislation again under Bill C-8 . The member opposite did not have the opportunity to be here, so he does not know there is a lot of hypocrisy when his colleagues grandstand and say they are not going to support it, and then they vote for it. Maybe he wants to have some conversations with his colleagues about that.”
“I hope that colleagues at committee will have the time to ensure that timelines will also allow the time to consult, that thresholds and formats are clear, and that we streamline duplication with sectoral regulators where possible. Critical services in indigenous and rural communities face unique constraints. I do not think I will be able to finish my speech, but I want to say that the legislation is really important for all Canadians. I am happy to speak to and support the bill. I look forward, for all our colleagues who have been speaking to the bill today, to their actually helping us bring it to committee so we can bring amendments that are necessary and we can pass the bill as quickly as possible. They voted for it in the last Parliament under Bill C-26 . It is back now, and it is really important we pass it as quickly as possible.”
“I support complementary measures alongside Bill C-8 : practical guidance, shared services, threat intel programs that actually reach the front lines, and funding that helps smaller providers implement the basics, such as asset inventories, multi-factor authentication, network segmentation, backup discipline and tabletop exercises. Standards without support risk becoming paper compliance. What we should be trying to do with our approach is to enable real resilience for Canadians. We also need to be honest about where the real attack surface is today: suppliers, managed service providers, and software dependencies. Bill C-8 's supply chain provisions are a step forward, but we must continue to keep pushing for secure-by-design practices. The objective is learning and early warning, not blame-shifting.”
“I am sure there will be more suggestions that I look forward to reading from my colleagues. I am sure they will support and pass the bill in a very timely manner, because if we are having a conversation about a cybersecurity bill in 2025, we need to pass it. I think we understand that the bill is not coming forward as a nice-to-have conversation; it is really critical. Not every critical service is a national giant. Many are medium-sized providers or municipal utilities that keep water flowing and transit moving. For these operators, the question is often capacity. Having the people, the tools and the processes that meet modern standards is really important.”
“We can also look at strengthened due process, making judicial review avenues practical and timely, and clarify data handling and retention so information shared for cybersecurity is not used for unrelated purposes and that it is protected with robust safeguards. I do not sit on the committee, but I do know we have colleagues on it from across the aisle who are going to have robust conversations on how to strengthen the bill as we did in the past. We voted for Bill C-26 . It is now back in the House, refined and reframed for all our colleagues to discuss and to propose measures they want to see within the spirit of wanting to protect cybersecurity for all Canadians. I think these are reasonable and constructive asks that would make for good dialogue and would strengthen the bill.”
“I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge those concerns, which are clearly on the floor of this House. Some of our colleagues have mentioned them in this debate. The goal of Bill C-8 is to protect Canadians, not to weaken their rights. As this bill advances to committee, I look forward to seeing the conversations that colleagues from across the aisle will have and the suggestions they will be putting forward. As we did before on Bill C-26 , I think we will be able to achieve a consensus on what this bill is going to look like. Essentially, the goal is to protect Canadians. (1405) I also have some thoughts on some of the things we could look at. Number one is that we could look at tightened transparency around reporting, including public statistics on the use of cybersecurity directions wherever national security considerations allow.”
“There are administrative monetary penalties for non-compliance because rules without consequences are just suggestions. We cannot afford to bring just suggestions forward. On the telecom side, Bill C-8 would modernize the tool kit so that government can act surgically when credible threats emerge in our networks. These powers are not a blanket. They are tied to concrete risks and are subject to review. In today's environment, speed matters. A 72-hour delay can be the difference between a contained incident and a national outage. Some civil society groups and legal scholars have raised important concerns about privacy, transparency and due process, especially around how directions are issued and reviewed and how information flows between government and private operators.”
“The southwestern Ontario supply chain and the supply chain across Canada, which include major investments in EVs, batteries and advanced manufacturing, cannot function with brittle digital infrastructure. When a single compromised supplier can ripple through an entire regional economy, cyber-resilience becomes a competitiveness strategy. Essentially, what Bill C-8 would require under the CCSPA is that designated operators, such as those in banking and financial services, telecommunications, energy and transportation, must establish and maintain a cybersecurity program proportional to their risks, report cyber-incidents quickly and consistently, manage third party and supply chain vulnerabilities, and comply with enforceable directions in extraordinary circumstances.”
“With Bill C-8 , our government has brought back a refined, clearer and in some places improved framework because the threat landscape did not pause when Parliament did. Several independent analyses confirm that Bill C-8 substantially revives the Bill C-26 approach while correcting drafting issues and clarifying process where needed, and that is prudent governance. Why does this matter? For Canada, cyber-risk is now an economic risk, a jobs risk and a public safety risk. A successful attack can freeze payrolls, disable hospitals, shut down pipelines or even take down our 911 lines. Across London, manufacturers, research labs at Western University, students at Fanshawe College, local clinics and small businesses on our main streets all depend on secure networks.”
“First, it would modernize the Telecommunications Act so that our security agencies and responsible ministers can issue targeted, time-limited directions to defend our networks against serious and evolving threats. Second, it would enact the critical cyber systems protection act, the CCSPA, which would set baseline, legally binding cybersecurity duties for designated operators in federally regulated critical sectors. This would mean cyber-risk management programs, timely incident reporting and accountability up and down the supply chain. Those are not “nice to haves” anymore; they are the basic hygiene that we need for running a critical service in 2025. Colleagues will recall earlier efforts under Bill C-26 .”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-8 , an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts. This legislation is a necessary, measured step to protect systems that Canadians rely on every single day. This bill would help critical infrastructure operators better prepare, prevent and respond to cyber-incidents. It would do what responsible governments must do: It would set clear, enforceable standards for operators in the most critical sectors; it would enable rapid, targeted interventions when threats emerge; and it would ensure that Canada is aligned with international partners that are facing precisely the same challenges. In this era, it is very important that we pass this piece of legislation. Let me talk about two big things the bill would do.”
“Madam Speaker, I am sure the member opposite remembers the efforts on Bill C-26 before the election happened, which he and his colleagues spent two years calling for. He is saying we do not want to have the conversation, and I want to disagree with the member, because we put forward a bill. We put it forward in the last Parliament, and we are putting it forward again. We want to bring it to committee. We want members to bring suggestions and amendments. We understand the importance of cybersecurity for Canadians, especially in 2025. Why will the member not agree to send this to committee instead of arguing just for the sake of arguing?”
“Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about the protective measures, but the bill is one that has been in the House before. I think she supported it in the past as well. Are amendments to establish a regulatory framework to strengthen the baseline of cybersecurity something the member would like to bring to committee to discuss and support, going forward with the bill?”
“Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's very thoughtful speech. I wonder if my colleague sees what else this law can bring. Can we have tools in this bill that can help inform and educate our communities so that people understand how to protect themselves in cyberspace? Of course, the bill focuses on institutions, but I wonder if we can bring in tools to teach and educate people who spend time in cyberspace.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member and I have the privilege of representing the good people of London West. I have spoken to so many people in London who, during the time that we had the GST pause, saw an increase of people using their restaurants and saw families go out and buy goods. I have heard from families in London that have benefited from the dental care program. More than 1,290 children in London West alone, not covering the entire region of London, have benefited from dental care. The child tax benefit has lifted so many families in London out of poverty. Why has the member voted against all those things that help the people of London? Today the member is talking about helping and supporting. Why does she vote against them?”
“Mr. Speaker, what my colleague is talking about today is secularism. Since he wants the federal government to stay out of a situation that is directly related to the federal government, what would he think if other provinces were to use this clause, especially if it attacked the French language in Canada or Quebec? What would he say if that were the case?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's comments, but I do have a question for him. How does he explain to energy workers that he spent 10 years in cabinet and did not build one single pipeline to the coastline, which cost Canadians millions of dollars? What does he have to say to those people today?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, and I welcome her to the House as a new member. Our Prime Minister has been very serious in addressing this issue. We have a public safety minister , we have a justice minister and we have a secretary of state who is in charge of combatting crime. This government is serious about crime, and we are going to do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, U.S. policies will never work in Canada. Also, if I may, I would like to remind him that I am a francophone. There is no need to thank me for speaking French, because I am a francophone. The point I was trying to make is that importing U.S. policies to Canada has never worked and will never work. The proof is that my colleague's leader was not elected as the head of the Government of Canada. Canadians have asked us to make sure that we address these issues. We have bills that we are in the process of implementing, and it would be great if my colleague could support them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my colleague. It is very thoughtful. That is what I have been trying to say: This policy did not work in the United States. The research shows that instead of bringing about the desired change, this policy increased the crime rate. Instead of proposing such legislation, the Conservatives should support the bills the government is already proposing in the House. We have already introduced Bill C-2 , and we are getting ready to introduce a bill that will fight crime in our country. As I already said, there are victims of crime in all of our communities. We were elected and have the mandate to solve this problem. However, the type of legislation being proposed today does not work. In several U.S. cites, it was actually associated with an increase in crime. This U.S. policy will not work in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. As I mentioned earlier, I sympathize with all victims across Canada. I would like to finish the thought I started earlier. Anytime a government has implemented a bill like the one proposed by the opposition today, the law was ineffective. Instead, there was a 10% to 12% increase in crime. I do not understand why the Conservatives want to propose legislation that does not benefit our communities. There are victims in every one of our communities, and we are here to represent them.”