Chak Au
Richmond Centre—Marpole, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“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…”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 204 lines we hold for Chak Au, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Madam Speaker, the government is known for its intention, its seeking of power and its expansion of its power. Therefore, I suppose that through shutting down this debate, the government wants to have more power, and it wants to do what it wants to do without really caring about the different views being expressed by the public and by professionals.”
“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.”
“Madam Speaker, with a bill that is so complex and complicated, we need time to understand it thoroughly and assess each portion of the bill so that we can address the concerns being raised and the questions being asked by the public and by professionals. I want to ask whether the member on the other side agrees that it is not democratic that we had not even had the chance to start debating clause-by-clause on part 2, and the government chose to shut down the discussion.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (2025) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“In principle, those who profit from trafficking and producing large quantities of synthetic opioids should face serious consequences. Emmy's legacy can be more than a tragedy. It can be a call to strengthen penalties for the most serious drug offences and to protect Canadian families from experiencing the same loss. In honour of all of the lives lost, I ask all members of this House to support this legislation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C‑289. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑289, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make a related amendment to the Criminal Code . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my first private member's bill, the stopping supply to save lives act. I hope Canadians will come to know this as Emmy's legacy, in memory of Emmy Liu, a 14-year-old girl who lost her life to a fentanyl overdose in January 2025. Since her death, her mother has shown remarkable courage in advocating for stronger action against this deadly poison. Emmy had her whole life ahead of her. Instead, it was cut short because criminals sold her poison that had already killed tens of thousands of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by nearly 1,000 Canadians, mainly from my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole, who are concerned about mental health and about suicide prevention in Canada. The petitioners note that one in five Canadians experiences a mental health challenge each year, that many youth are affected and that suicide remains the second-leading cause of death among Canadians aged 15 to 34. They believe that people struggling with mental illness deserve treatment, support and a message of hope, not an option of death. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-218 to exclude mental illness from MAID, and to invest in critical resources in mental health services for Canadians. I thank the petitioners for bringing this important matter before Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is seeing a growing homeless senior population. Emergency shelters are overflowing, and seniors are saying that they do not feel safe staying in them. After working their entire lives, seniors surviving on a pension should not be sleeping in restaurants or searching for a safe place to spend the night. Canadians deserve better than this Liberal-made affordability crisis. Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies that created this crisis, so Canadians can afford to live again?”
“Mr. Speaker, CTV reported that seniors in Richmond Centre—Marpole are sleeping in Tim Hortons because they cannot afford a place to live, while the Prime Minister spends nearly $1 million on luxury catering in his taxpayer-funded aircraft. Canada is the only G20 country in recession. Canadians cannot afford food, rent or housing. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept the fact that his policies are failing Canadians?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think my city and his riding are in a similar situation. We have a growing film industry, and we are creating jobs and economic activities in our community, which is very beneficial to people. I think we have to keep this economic growth going. If this kind of levy is imposed on companies creating jobs for our communities, I think it will hurt people. We have to safeguard and encourage the film industry, and not have it destroyed by this kind of additional cost for businesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us see who is sidestepping here. From 2021 up to now, we have seen numerous occasions where the government intervened with decisions made by the CRTC. Now the Liberals are trying to hide behind the argument that the CRTC is an arm's-length organization. Let us be clear. We are not talking about the CRTC's mandate here today. We are talking about affordability and the burden on the people with this increase in levy. Let me ask a simple question: Does the government agree that this increase would impose an additional burden on the people? Also, will the government support this additional burden on the people?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1155) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal housing minister accused Conservatives of fearmongering over the Cowichan ruling, but the impact is already real and immediate. According to expert reports in March, Richmond property value could fall by 40% because of uncertainty created by the government. Families, homeowners and businesses are worried, yet the Liberals remain in denial, denying the impact and denying that their litigation directive was a mistake. When will the government wake up and restore certainty for homeowners?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are in denial. Canadians are demanding certainty, yet the Liberal government continues to leave homeowners, businesses, farmers and municipalities in limbo after the Cowichan decision. Conservatives have put forth a motion that would compel the government to replace litigation guideline 14, put private property first in the Cowichan case, secure fee simple property protection in future agreements and publish a plan to protect Canadians' land titles. Will the Liberal government finally stand with homeowners and vote for our Conservative motion to protect private property rights in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says it disagrees with the Cowichan ruling, but Canadians still do not know what exactly the Liberals disagree with. Which part of the ruling are they appealing? On what legal basis does the government believe that private property ownership can coexist with aboriginal title? Homeowners, municipalities and business owners deserve clarity. Why are the Liberals refusing to give Canadians certainty?”
“People are left asking how much worse this crisis must become before meaningful action is finally taken by the Liberal government.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the question the Liberal government has to answer. The Liberals either have to admit they made a mistake in giving the directive, or they have to stand up and say they are still honouring that directive. Either way, Canadians are the losers. With respect to the appeal, it is because the City of Richmond insisted right from the beginning on the fee simple argument that we are able to proceed in the appeal for that argument. I thank the City of Richmond for insisting on that argument. Shame on the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, this is an urgent matter in the sense that we have already felt the consequences on the ground. People in my riding and in the province of British Columbia are worried, and they are already being impacted by the consequences and uncertainty. In addition, we have asked for an emergency debate before, which was not granted. This is not a matter on which we can keep waiting, and we have been asking the government to work with us on a solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, would my colleague on the other side not admit that the Liberal government did not appeal the ruling until the very last moment, long after the City of Richmond and the Province of British Columbia had done so? Would he not admit that the Liberals gave their lawyers the restrictive directive to tie their hands in court? Does he not admit that they have been silent for eight months and that, still, to this day, they have not given us any clarity?”
“They know that the impact of this ruling is real, yet instead of taking responsibility, they are attempting to whitewash the issue and accuse others of fearmongering. This decision will have profound and lasting consequences not only for Richmond, not only for the Lower Mainland and not only for British Columbia but for all of Canada. The government’s actions will be remembered as a shameful chapter in our country’s history. Canadians deserve transparency. We deserve confidence. We deserve real answers.”
“It is home to major transportation, infrastructure and international trade networks; logistics hubs; exporters; and entrepreneurs and families that have invested their life savings into homes and businesses. It is a place where immigrants have chosen to build a livelihood. That is why Richmond's city council raised concerns. That is why residents are paying attention. That is why businesses are watching carefully. The Cowichan ruling has far-reaching consequences, yet the Liberal government is trying to water down its significance and mislead Canadians about its impact. The Liberals know they made a grave mistake when they gave their lawyers the restrictive instructions, and now they are trying to distance themselves from the consequences.”
“A local senior couple has reportedly been unable to sell their property in order to pursue a more secure retirement. Even a deal involving the sale of a local hotel that is not even located within the distributed area has collapsed because of the growing uncertainty surrounding land title and future risk. These are not theoretical consequences. There are real people, real businesses and real livelihoods being impacted right now. Canadians are not asking for abstract legal debates. These are foundational questions about confidence in Canada's economy and its legal systems. These issues matter deeply in my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond is not just another municipality. It is one of Canada's economic gateways to the Indo-Pacific.”
“(1255) Conservatives have been accused of fearmongering for raising these concerns, but let us look at the real-world consequences of uncertainty. Markets react immediately. Investors react immediately. Lenders react immediately. Businesses react immediately. The consequences are already being felt on the ground in British Columbia. Montrose Properties has publicly raised concerns about the uncertainty surrounding land title and investment confidence. The local golf course now sits in limbo, uncertain if it should continue to invest in growth or prepare to sell. Farmers who have worked their land for decades are now questioning how to manage long-term operations while watching property values decline and financing uncertainty increase.”
“Let us be absolutely clear: The central issue in this litigation is that the federal government, through litigation guideline 14, instructed its lawyers to restrict their arguments regarding the supremacy and extinguishment effect of fee simple rights. This directive was issued in the middle of ongoing litigation and represented a clear change of course in the government's line of argument. Rather than fully defending the certainty and finality of private property rights, the government deliberately narrowed the arguments available to its own counsel, creating uncertainty with potentially far-reaching consequences for property owners across Canada. That directive remains publicly available on the Liberal government's own website today, so Canadians are still left asking what exactly the government's position is.”
“They narrow every answer to procedural language instead of addressing the border issues Canadians were actually worried about: whether the government was weakening the legal foundations that underpin private ownership in Canada. That is not the level of clarity that business owners and investors must depend on. Finally, when the Prime Minister did speak, after months of pressure, he still refused to provide the one assurance Canadians were looking for. He would not clearly commit to withdrawing the 2019 directive's litigation guideline 14, which effectively sent its own lawyers into court with one hand tied behind their back.”
“Third, Richmond city council repeatedly attempted to engage with the Liberal government. It wrote letters seeking clarity on the implications of the Cowichan and Musqueam agreements and the border concerns surrounding land title certainty and federal litigation policy. These are not just fringe concerns. Homeowners cannot renew their mortgage. The concerns came from elected municipal leaders representing one of the most economically significant communities in British Columbia. What did they receive? It was silence. There was no meaningful engagement, no public reassurance and no detailed explanation. Fourth, when Conservatives ask questions in committees and in the House, the government consistently provides vague and ambiguous answers. They hide behind legal technicalities. They avoid direct responses.”
“First, despite what the Prime Minister claimed in the House, the Liberal government did not immediately appeal the Cowichan ruling. It waited until the very last possible moment before filing its appeal, long after the Province of British Columbia and the City of Richmond did, which is a clear distinction in willingness to stand up for Canadians. If the Liberals truly believed the ruling created no uncertainty, why did it wait until the deadline had nearly expired? Second, throughout this entire controversy, the government has offered no meaningful public explanation of the ruling and no substantive public statement on the implications for homeowners, businesses, municipalities, lenders or investors. Eight months passed before Canadians even heard a serious acknowledgement from the Prime Minister .”
“Mr. Speaker, for eight months, British Columbians have been left with silence: silence after a court ruling that raised serious questions about the certainty of private property rights in Canada; silence after repeated concerns from homeowners, businesses, municipalities and investors; silence after Richmond city council sent letters asking the government for clarity; and silence after Canadians asked the very simple question of whether the Liberal government still believes in defending the legal foundations of private property rights in Canada. After all that silence, when the Prime Minister finally addressed the issue in the House, Canadians did not get answers. They got talking points, attacks and accusations of fearmongering, but they still did not get clarity, so let us put some facts on the record.”