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 2 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians watched a poorly staged performance last week when the Prime Minister responded to a simple question on private property rights from another Liberal MP. They could not even pretend to care. The fact remains that the Liberal government issued a litigation directive instructing federal lawyers to avoid protecting arguments for private property rights. That directive remains posted on the Liberal government's website today. Is this directive still government policy and if so, will the Prime Minister withdraw it, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they defend private property rights, yet in the Cowichan case they chose not to argue extinguishment, which is how fee simple ownership has been historically defended. They weaken protections and then claim to defend them. Will the Liberals withdraw their directive and instruct their lawyers to defend private property rights to protect Canadians, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that the justification given by the government is that there are bad apples among the private colleges. However, denying students who attend good private colleges for programs that could help them build their career in the future is denying them opportunities. Does my dear colleague agree that this policy would harm our young people?”
“Mr. Speaker, the City of Richmond has written to the federal government repeatedly, most recently just two weeks ago, asking for a clear commitment to defend private property rights in the Cowichan land claim. Homeowners are worried. Investors are pulling out. People are asking if their homes are still secure, yet the Liberals have offered no clear answer. Why is the Liberal government ignoring Richmond city council and abandoning the people of Richmond?”
“Mr. Speaker, appealing the decision is not the question. The government still has not said whether it is arguing that Canadian homeowners' private property rights come first. I will keep asking this question until there is a clear answer. Will the Liberals make that position clear in court and in all future agreements, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government avoids the question, hiding behind appeals and technical definitions instead of stating a clear and substantive position. This is pattern. In court and in backroom agreements, the Liberals refuse to say whether they will stand up for Canadian homeowners. Canadians deserve certainty. Will the Prime Minister direct lawyers to argue that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must come first, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, a year ago, a tragedy in Vancouver turned a joyful Lapu-Lapu festival into sorrow. As we approach this anniversary, the grief and trauma remain. For many families, the path to healing continues. Even in the midst of that pain, we saw the strength of a community coming together, a community with compassion, resilience and strength. Neighbours lifted up one another, strangers became family and Canadians across the country stood in solidarity. Last Sunday, I attended a community fundraiser supporting those still on the road to recovery. It was a reminder that as time passes, our support must not. As we honour those we lost, we stand with those still healing, together.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the comments made by my colleague. It is really a tough debate, but it is worthwhile because we are here to work for Canadians and to safeguard their safety and privacy. I am sure that when we debate this in committee, we will do our best to work together so that we can achieve the common goal, which is the betterment of our community and the safety of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing a problem, which is a lack of confidence in the government to protect their privacy and their constitutional rights. Time and again we have seen the Liberal government abuse its power. I hope that in committee, we can have meaningful debate and careful scrutiny of the proposed bill and, again, just like when we talked about Bill C-8 , be able to work with our Bloc colleagues and also come to some kind of agreement or consensus that we could improve this bill, so that we can rebuild the trust of the Canadian people in our government.”
“Mr Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague that this is a very sensitive subject, certainly to Canadians who care about their safety and at the same time care about the protection of their privacy. As I mentioned in my speech, there are some parts of the bill that are very useful and would move us forward in protecting our safety. However, at the same time, it is the duty of the House to very carefully scrutinize the other parts of the proposed bill so that we can make sure that Canadians' privacy is being protected. Canadians want clear rules, they want strong limits, and they want real oversight and meaningful accountability.”
“Conservatives will focus on ensuring that data retention is limited, justified and proportionate; strengthening safeguards around technical requirements; clarifying the scope and application of the bill; and ensuring strong, transparent and balanced oversight, including the role of privacy protection. If this bill is to move forward, it must earn the trust of Canadians. Canadians want safety. They want police to succeed. They want criminals held accountable. However, they also want their rights respected, their data protected and their government to act with restraint. This bill would include a review after three years. That is a step in the right direction, but we should not wait three years to fix what we can improve today. The choice is not—”
“It would give law enforcement agencies faster access to basic information, clearer legal tools for digital evidence, emergency powers when time is critical and improved co-operation with international partners. These are tools that police have been asking for, for many years, and we recognize that. However, supporting these objectives does not mean we ignore legitimate concerns. It does not mean we stop asking questions. One resident wrote to me about Bill C-22 , saying, “Privacy is the shield of free people.” Another resident wrote, “A free society should not treat everyone like a suspect.” These are not extreme views. They are common sense. Our approach is clear.”
“There would be a fundamental change in the relationship between citizens and the state. Many Canadians are concerned that this bill could enable further surveillance architecture if not properly constrained. We must also consider the burden placed on companies. They would be required to build and maintain systems, comply with strict technical requirements and face penalties for non-compliance. This would affect not only large telecommunications providers but also smaller and emerging companies. We must ensure that this would not discourage innovation or create barriers to entry in Canada's digital economy. Now, there are strong parts in the bill.”
“Without that clarity, there is a real risk of overreach, intended or otherwise. A third concern is transparency. Under this bill, ministerial orders could be issued confidentially. There would be no public registry, no direct parliamentary approval and no guarantee that Canadians would ever know when those powers were used. That is a serious issue because lawful access in a democracy must not only be lawful but also be transparent and accountable. When significant powers operate behind closed doors, public trust begins to erode, and once that trust is lost, it is very difficult to rebuild. We should be careful not to move from a system grounded in reasonable grounds and judicial oversight to one where information is collected first and justified later. This would not be a small shift.”
“If these powers affect the data and the digital lives of Canadians, why is privacy not formally embedded in the oversight structure? (1730) Oversight must be balanced. Security considerations cannot come at the expense of privacy protections. Both must be present, and both must be strong. Another concern is the scope of the bill. Part 2 would apply broadly to electronic service providers. This does not just mean large telecommunications companies. It could include messaging platforms, cloud service providers and email services. In other words, it could apply across the entire digital ecosystem that Canadians rely on every day. This is a very wide scope, and with a wide scope, the safeguards must be stronger. People I represent are asking for clarity. Who is covered? What exactly is required of them? Where are the limits?”
“Law enforcement still requires proper authorization, including warrants in most cases. The bill does not allow the collection of content such as messages, browsing history or social media activity under these provisions. That distinction matters, but concerns remain. How do we ensure this stays targeted? How do we prevent this from expanding beyond its original intent? Conservatives will be ready to hold the government accountable for any overreach. There are also serious questions about oversight. The bill allows for ministerial orders that can require companies to develop specific technical capabilities. These orders require approval from the intelligence commissioner but there is a clear gap. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has no formal role in this oversight process. That raises a fundamental concern.”
“That operation has been widely reported as having involved highly sophisticated state-backed actors. This is the environment we are operating in today. The question is not whether we need lawful access; the question is how we implement it safely and without introducing new risks. Another concern raised by people in my riding is data retention. Bill C-22 would require certain providers to keep metadata for up to one year. The intent is clear. When police have legal authority, the data is there to help investigations. That makes sense. People in my community are asking what the limits are. What are the safeguards? Even metadata can reveal a good deal about a person's life, where they go, who they contact and when those interactions happen. To be fair, this data is not freely available to the government.”
“My office has heard from many people in my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. They understand the need for safety. They understand the threat of organized crime. They are asking for something simple: balance, accountability and restraint. One concern raised by my community is the requirement for companies to build surveillance capabilities into their systems. That concern is straightforward. If we create access points into secure systems, we must be absolutely sure they cannot be abused. If they are, we do not just create tools for law enforcement; we create targets for bad actors. We have already seen what can happen. In 2024, a major cyber-attack known as Salt Typhoon targeted telecommunications infrastructure and compromised sensitive communications systems.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22 , the lawful access act. Let me be clear from the start. Canada needs lawful access, but Canada must get it right. Conservatives believe in law and order. We believe that police must be given the tools to stop criminals, dismantle organized crime and protect the most vulnerable, especially in a digital world. Today, this is a real problem. Our laws have not kept up with technology. The investigations are stalling. Evidence exists but cannot be accessed in time, and criminals take advantage of the gap. Bill C-22 is trying to fix this and that goal is necessary, but we must be prudent and use good judgment. In fixing one problem, we must not create another. We must not weaken the rights that we have and that we are trying to protect.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government says it supports private property rights, yet it negotiated the Musqueam agreements behind closed doors without protections and consultation with affected communities. That approach is creating uncertainty for homeowners, businesses and investors who rely on transparency and stability. Canadians still feel their property rights are not safeguarded by this Liberal government. Will the Liberals match their words with action and commit to a full, legally binding transparency agreement and to protecting private property rights in all future agreements?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the Cowichan land claim case, the Liberal government instructed its lawyers to abandon the fee simple argument, the very cornerstone of private property rights in Canada. That decision has created real uncertainty for homeowners, businesses and everyone who depends on secure land ownership in this country. By stepping back in court, the government is effectively walking away from defending Canadians' property rights. Will the Prime Minister reverse this decision and direct its lawyers to fully defend fee simple ownership, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard from many members of Parliament today that they have received a lot of responses from a wide range of religious groups and leaders. On the other hand, we keep hearing from the other side that people and religious leaders are being misled or are being fed misinformation, as if this is an insult or a put-down to these groups. Does my colleague want to comment on that? Is this a put-down or an insult?”
“Mr Speaker, what happens abroad may be beyond our control, but the Liberal policies making life more expensive are not. Our seniors are paying the price. Seniors are being forced to work, with retirement slipping further out of reach. The National Institute on Aging reports that one in five Canadiens over 50 is now living on the poverty line, yet the Liberals are making it worse by sneaking in carbon taxes that drive up the price of essentials. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for what he can control and scrap the Liberal policies that are making life unaffordable for Canadians, including seniors?”
“Mr. Speaker, in my riding, this is exactly what I hear, day in and day out. People need homes, not allocated or dictated by the federal government on what type of housing they should have. They do not need to rent for life. They want to have the opportunity to save enough money to own their own home one day.”
“Mr. Speaker, my response to that question would be that we do not need the federal government to direct us on what to do. Each community would have its own priorities, needs and the best way to resolve them. Again, using Richmond as an example, in the past 15 years, because Richmond has a good housing strategy, we were able to build thousands of homes in partnership with the building community, not with any government funding from the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, we do not need more bureaucracy and we do not need more reports to build more homes. Let me give another example. Just last week, Richmond opened 84 units of affordable low-income housing, without federal funding. Cities can do it. They do not have to be told what to do. They need the opportunities, freedom and resources to build homes, not another layer of bureaucracy.”
“Mr Speaker, what we hear, day in and day out, in our communities is how unaffordable things are, including housing. It is because all kinds of bureaucracy, taxation and added costs in building new homes have created this problem, the crisis that people are facing right now. Again, the lack of consultation by the federal government has resulted in inappropriate solutions for the problems that people are facing. I was told that before the launching of this new agency, the Richmond City Council was not consulted. They have no role to play in giving feedback and inputs to the new agency. This is one example where the lack of consultation is a problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree that the federal government has a role to play in providing affordable housing to Canadians. However, I have the experience of being a city councillor for the last 12 years, and my experience has been that first, the federal government always downloads everything to the local government and second, the federal government does not consult. There is a lack of consultation, and at the end, the federal government does what it wants to do, and it does not provide the means that the local community could provide in a better way. It is better for the federal government to get out of the way and let local governments and other partners work to make things better for our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how recycled ideas could be disguised as new operations. We have seen repeated announcements in the last decade promising the same thing. Recycled ideas will not bring hopes or homes. It is not even a dream; it is just a disillusion. I do not understand why these recycled ideas could be disguised as new.”
“When he first ran for mayor of Vancouver, he made a bold promise that street homelessness in Vancouver would be ended by 2015. It was a clear commitment that he widely publicized, but by the end of his time as mayor, the number of homeless had increased, housing prices in Vancouver had soared and Vancouver became one of the least affordable housing markets anywhere in the world. That record matters. Once again, Canadians are being told that the same leadership, ideas and approach will now help fix the national housing crisis. To conclude, Canadians have seen a pattern for more than a decade: promises made and promises broken. Billions have been spent and bureaucracy has expanded, yet the homes Canadians need are still not being built. Canadians are told that this time it will be different.”
“If this new agency simply adds another layer of administration, then Canadians are not getting more homes. They are getting more bureaucracy. (1715) Housing affordability will not improve because we create more government entities. It will improve when we build more homes faster and more efficiently. That is why Canadians are skeptical when they hear the Liberal government's latest announcement. This brings us directly to Bill C-20 . Once again, the government's answer to real problems is not reform, but reorganization. Instead of fixing the delays that prevent homes from being built, the government proposed to create another federal housing body. Let us consider the Minister of Housing 's own record. He is now leading in the so-called new housing plan.”
“Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada is responsible for implementation of the national housing strategy. On top of that, the Liberal government has created additional structures over the past decade, including the federal housing advocate, the National Housing Council and multiple new program administrations. With all of these institutions already operating in the housing space, Canadians deserve clarity. What exactly would this new agency do that cannot already be done by the existing agencies? What specific function is missing from the current system? If this new agency is truly necessary, Canadians deserve to hear other answers as well. What existing programs will be streamlined? Which agencies will have their responsibilities reduced? Which bureaucratic processes will be eliminated to avoid duplication and more red tape?”
“This time, we are told a new federal housing agency will fix the problem. Canadians have heard this before. Each time a new program is announced, the government claims the housing crisis is about to turn a corner, yet each time the targets are missed, the timelines are extended and the crisis deepens. At some point, we must ask a very basic question: Why should Canadians believe that this new promise will succeed when all previous promises have failed? Another question must also be asked. Canada already has multiple federal bodies involved in housing policy. We have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has long been the federal government’s primary housing agency. Infrastructure Canada funds projects tied to housing development. The Department of Finance designs housing tax policies and financial programs.”
“Billions of dollars were allocated. Targets were announced. New programs were created, but what actually happened? During roughly the same period that the government was rolling out these plans, housing prices in Canada nearly doubled. Young Canadians are increasingly locked out of home ownership. Families are struggling with rising rents. In many major cities, housing affordability is now among the worst in the world. The government announced another plan, then another fund and then another target. The housing accelerator fund was introduced with the promise that it would help build hundreds of thousands of homes by cutting red tape. Then another national plan was released, claiming that Canada had the strategy to solve the housing crisis. Now, once again, Canadians are told that this time the government has found the solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand very well that the best predictor of future performance is past results. That is why Canadians have every reason to be skeptical about the Liberal government's latest housing promise. For nearly a decade, Canadians have heard the same story repeated again and again: a new announcement, a new strategy, a new fund, a new target. Each time, the government assures Canadians that this time the housing crisis will finally be solved, but when we examine its record carefully, a troubling pattern emerges. In 2017, the government introduced what it described as a historic initiative: the national housing strategy. It committed more than $115 billion in housing spending over 10 years. It promised to drastically improve affordability, reduce homelessness and expand the supply of housing across the country.”
“Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 and to protect religious freedom by preventing government intrusion into matters of faith.”
“Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 and to uphold and protect religious freedom, including the right to read, share and teach sacred texts without fear of criminal sanction. The last petition I am presenting is on the same theme. Petitioners warn that removing the good faith religious defence from the Criminal Code risks criminalizing the reading and sharing of sacred texts, including the Bible, the Quran and the Torah. They believe that this opens the door to persecuting Canadians for expressing deeply held religious beliefs. They remind the House that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are fundamental rights of a free and democratic society.”
“Mr. Speaker, therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect the rights of Canadians to read, share and speak their religious convictions freely. I have another petition to present. The petitioners are seriously concerned about Bill C-9 and amendments adopted at the justice committee. The petitioners believe that these changes remove long-standing protections for good faith religious expression. They fear that this would allow the state to intrude into religious teachings, sacred texts and the peaceful expression of deeply held beliefs. They affirm that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights in Canada, and they should be protected from government overreach.”
“Mr. Speaker, residents from Richmond Centre—Marpole and hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country are standing against Bill C-9 and for the protection of religious freedom in Canada. The petitioners note that the Liberal-Bloc amendment adopted at committee would remove the good faith religious defence from the Criminal Code. They warn that this change would allow the state to persecute individuals for sharing passages from sacred texts, such as the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other religious teachings, if they are deemed offensive. Canadians understand that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are cornerstones of a free society. People of faith should never have to wonder whether expressing their beliefs will bring the power of the state to their—”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of new titles and moving offices. They do not want more announcements. They want results. They want homes. The government now proposes another federal housing body, but we already have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, infrastructure Canada, the Department of Finance Canada and the Canada Lands Company all working on housing, land and financing. If all these agencies already exist, what exactly would the new body do that the others cannot? Would it build homes faster? Would it cut permits? Would it remove taxes like the GST on new homes? No, it would simply add overhead and administrative delays. Housing affordability will not improve by multiplying paperwork. It is time for the Liberal government to cut red tape, get out of the way and let builders build.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, I believe the residents of Richmond do not buy the argument that since the case is before the courts, we cannot make comments. The B.C. government and the Richmond city council have made comments, so it is not right for the federal government to be silent on this issue. Secondly, to say that the government has appealed is not enough. It filed an appeal at the very last minute and without a clear direction about what it is going to use as the grounds for the appeal. Once again, will the Liberal government retract its directive to its counsel and use extinguishment as the grounds for appeal in this case?”
“More than 500 residents attended a public session seeking answers while provincial officials stepped in to provide reassurance. Property law cannot operate in governmental ambiguity. Certainty underpins mortgages, development, taxation and long-term investment across this country, and the federal government carries the ultimate responsibility for securing property ownership in Canada. Will the Liberal government explain why it directed its lawyers not to advance the extinguishment argument, what legal principles it now intends to defend and what immediate steps it will take to restore certainty and confidence for Richmond residents and Canadians across this country?”
“If this reflects a policy shift, Canadians deserve transparency. If a new framework is being adopted, it should be clearly communicated. The government's decisions have consequences. In Richmond Centre—Marpole, families are concerned about the security of their homes, which are often their life savings. Lenders are raising questions. Developers are pausing projects. Large and small businesses are reassessing long-term plans. On October 23, 2025, the City of Richmond wrote to the Attorney General urging restoration of the extinguishment argument on appeal and seeking clarification. There has been no response. City council subsequently passed a motion calling for federal action. There has been no meaningful engagement.”
“However, during the Cowichan litigation, the federal Liberal government made a deliberate decision not to advance that argument at trial. That was not a procedural failure; it was a directive to the federal counsel. The extinguishment argument, central to fee simple certainty, was not defended. Since that ruling, uncertainty has spread beyond one region. Land title questions are surfacing elsewhere in British Columbia, including most recently in relation to land claims in the Kingcome Inlet area. When foundational legal principles appear unsettled, the ripple effects extend far beyond the original case, yet the federal government has provided no clear public explanation of its directive, no detailed legal justification and no clear statement of principle. Filing an appeal does not explain what doctrine the government now stands behind.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan decision is not a small local dispute. It is a Canada-wide concern. It raises fundamental questions of property ownership. The court found that aboriginal title may exist over lands currently held in fee simple by private owners. That finding carries significant implications for Canada's land title system, a clear system built on certainty. For generations, when the Crown granted fee simple interests, those grants were understood to provide certainty of ownership. One of the doctrines historically relied upon to support that certainty was the extinguishment argument, the position that historical Crown grants were treated in law as having settled questions of aboriginal title in those lands. This has long formed part of the legal architecture underpinning property ownership in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, once again, we have seen this before. The Liberal government is trying to address a structural problem by providing short-term relief measures. As we have seen in the past, when these kinds of measures are temporary and short-lived, they do not help the cost of living. While these programs are being offered, the cost of living is still rising. I want to challenge the government to provide one example of these kinds of measures creating long-term, sustainable and measurable reductions in grocery prices. If this has not worked before, why would the government believe that this time it would work?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is of interest to me that, as my colleague pointed out, while the Prime Minister called the Canada-Indonesia CEPA a game-changing agreement, it is comparably disadvantaged with respect to the agreements Indonesia has with the U.A.E. and the EU. I want my colleague to elaborate further. What does this kind of situation reflect? Is it because of incompetence on the part of the government or any kind of failure on the part of the federal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians concerned about the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese Communist Party. The petitioners note documented human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention, torture and forced organ harvesting, as well as incidents of transnational repression here in Canada, such as harassment, intimidation and recent threats against Shen Yun performances. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to publicly urge an end to the persecution, to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability for those responsible, and to take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community from foreign interference.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians who are concerned about recent attacks on churches and other places of worship across our country. The petitioners advocate that freedom of religion is protected under the charter, and they emphasize that all Canadians should be able to worship in safety, free from violence, vandalism or intimidation. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to condemn these attacks, take stronger measures to prevent and respond to them, ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice and affirm Canadians' commitment to protecting religious freedom for all.”
“Madam Speaker, Canadians do not need handouts. They need a government that is competent and that will help us make the economy better and stronger, so that everybody can be self-reliant and independent and feed their families with the incomes they receive. Canadians need more help, not in terms of handouts but in a government that is competent enough to help the country and the economy move forward.”