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 4 of 5.
“Conservatives will continue to fight for real consequences to protect Canadians and save lives. To be effective, Bill C-12 must be strengthened. Conservatives are calling for mandatory life sentences for major fentanyl traffickers, real resources and staffing for CBSA to enforce our laws, strong privacy protections with independent judicial oversight and mandatory public reporting for any future orders affecting privacy or mobility rights. Canadians deserve legislation that delivers security with transparency and accountability, not legislation written to manage headlines. Bill C-12 reflects a pattern we have seen repeatedly from the government, which is to introduce sweeping and vague legislation, face public push-back, retreat temporarily and then attempt to reintroduce the same measures under a different name. That is not leadership.”
“Just two milligrams, a few grains of salt, can kill a person. This is not recreational drug use. It is deliberate mass poisoning. Conservatives believe that, if someone is manufacturing or trafficking fentanyl in lethal quantities, they are knowingly causing death and should face a mandatory life sentence. We have tabled targeted proposals to ensure major traffickers, importers and producers face real prison time, yet Bill C-12 is silent. There would be new offences, no new mandatory penalties and no enhanced enforcement measures for cross-border traffickers. While Canadians are losing their loved ones every day, the government refuses to act. We cannot accept a justice system that allows fentanyl traffickers to receive house arrest or suspended sentences.”
“Bill C-12 would allow the minister to unilaterally cancel immigration documents based on allegations of fraud or criminality without defined criteria or independent oversight. Canadians expect fairness, transparency and accountability, not political discretion that could undermine the integrity of our immigration system. In Richmond Centre—Marpole, residents are deeply concerned about the pressures on housing, health care and public safety. They support legal immigration and strong enforcement, not a system where ministerial power replaces due process. (1620) More than 50,000 Canadians have died from opioid toxicity since 2016, and nearly 80% of those deaths involved fentanyl. Police have dismantled superlabs in Langley, Falkland and Richmond capable of producing kilograms of fentanyl every week.”
“Some of these measures are constructive and will assist law enforcement, for example, allowing CBSA to use private export facilities for inspections, enabling the Minister of Health to quickly ban precursor chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl, allowing the Canadian Coast Guard to share security information with law enforcement and tightening safe third country rules so that illegal border crossers may be returned to the United States within 14 days if they do not qualify for asylum. These are constructive elements. Conservatives support targeted reforms that improve enforcement and close gaps in coordination. However, these improvements are overshadowed by sweeping new powers the bill grants to the minister, powers that lack clear safeguards, transparency or due process.”
“At major border crossings, such as the Pacific Highway and Douglas port near Vancouver, officers are stretched thin, trying to stop sophisticated smuggling operations with inadequate staffing and outdated resources. Organized crime is exploiting these enforcement gaps right now, yet Bill C-12 contains no staffing commitments, no new resources and no operational enhancements. lt does not address the real challenges facing our border agents. Bill C-12 amends 11 acts.”
“Security and privacy are not competing objectives. In a democracy, they must coexist. The government removed the most invasive powers from Bill C-2 only because it was exposed, not because it understood the threat to Canadians' rights. The public safety minister has openly stated that those powers are still being pursued. The RCMP commissioner confirmed they are working with the minister to bring them back. Canadians' privacy has not been safeguarded, as this has merely been postponed. We must remain vigilant because the government has shown a willingness to reintroduce these measures quietly when public attention shifts. While seeking new powers, the government has failed to deliver on basic enforcement. It promised to hire 1,000 new CBSA officers. That promise was broken.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12 , legislation the Liberal government claims will strengthen our borders and protect our immigration system, but when examined closely, this bill is not about proactive security, it is about political damage control. Bill C-12 is not a fresh start. It is a rebranded version of Bill C-2 , legislation the government withdrew after Canadians were outraged by its sweeping powers to access personal digital data without a warrant. Bill C-2 would have allowed authorities to obtain Canadians' communications from phone companies, dating apps and even mental health platforms, with no judge, no oversight and no accountability. Conservatives said no. We believe in strong border security and effective enforcement, but never at the expense of Canadians' fundamental freedoms.”
“Mr. Speaker, residents of Richmond are deeply concerned about the Cowichan land ruling. This decision raises serious questions about long-standing private property rights in British Columbia. People want to know if their land titles are secure and what this means for their homes and their future, yet the Liberal government has remained silent. There has been no explanation, no reassurance and no plan. As a result, Richmond is holding a public information session on October 28 so residents can get the answers the federal government has failed to provide. Property ownership is a foundational Canadian right. It is not optional; it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect it. Canadians are watching. They expect the government to stand up for their rights, not stand by in silence.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' taxpayer-funded safe supply is anything but safe. In British Columbia, the drugs are flooding the black market, funding organized crime and feeding the very addiction crisis they claim to solve. The Liberal government is subsidizing the drug trade, while the public safety minister refuses to acknowledge this public safety crisis. When will the Liberal government end its reckless drug supply scheme that is poisoning Canadians and pouring profits into the hands of criminals?”
“Will the government admit it was a mistake to give that directive, and will it now appeal the ruling with a full defence of home ownership and scrap that directive immediately?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians work hard, save and sacrifice to buy their homes, and they expect their government to protect that investment, but Justice Young's ruling on the Cowichan land claim has shaken the very foundations of private ownership, what Canadians know as “fee simple title”, which guarantees the safety and security of their homes. Instead of standing up for Canadians, this government chose politics over people's property rights. It issued a directive telling its lawyers to abandon the very argument that protects home ownership. Since that judgment was made, Canadians have heard nothing but silence. Families feel betrayed when their own government walks away from them.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians have spoken. Sixty-eight per cent of Canadians said that our current bail system is too lenient. We can talk to law enforcement officers, mayors and councillors all over the country, and they are going through the same thing. There is a crisis in their communities, and they need reform in the bail system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find that information very inspiring and interesting. We are talking about repeat violent offenders who have committed crimes on many occasions and are just allowed to walk free on the streets. As I mentioned in my speech, only about one-fourth of those offenders are detained, so the others are walking our streets, threatening the safety of the general public. We are not talking about one individual case but about a phenomenon that has been happening time and again in our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am new to the House, but I have one observation so far. When my learned colleagues on the other side of the chamber make a statement about their achievements, it could mean a very small step, but they left out 99 steps that they have not addressed. By saying that Bill C-75 made some progress, the member has left out many of the loopholes, many of the gaps and many of the challenges that our ordinary citizens are facing and suffering from.”
“It is not about punishment; it is about prevention, about protection and about restoring trust. Let us stand with victims, restore safe streets and act now, because justice delayed is danger delivered, and Canadians cannot wait for more.”
“They lecture Canadians about root causes, while ignoring the root fact, which is that when a violent offender is behind bars, they cannot harm innocent people. That is why we are supporting the jail not bail motion. It is not radical; it is reasonable. It would not target first-time offenders. It would not strip anyone of their rights. It does say that if someone has been convicted of three or more serious offences, they should not be eligible for bail, probation or parole. It says that if someone is charged with a major offence, like sexual assault, home invasion or a firearms offence, they should face reverse-onus bail. Judges must consider someone's full criminal history, not just the current charge. If someone has recently been convicted of a major offence, they should not be released again while facing new charges.”
“The answers are buried in legislation that prioritizes leniency over logic and in a judicial culture that has lost sight of its duty to protect. A recent survey shows that 68% of Canadians now believe that the bail system is too lenient, a dramatic increase from just 41% three years ago. This is not just a perception problem; it is a reflection of lived experience. I know what the Liberals and their NDP allies will say. They will argue that tougher bail is too harsh. They will say that criminals deserve a second chance, but how many second chances should a repeat violent offender get before an innocent person loses their life? How many times should a small business owner be robbed before we admit that the system is failing? The truth is that our opponents are more concerned with ideology than with safety.”
“Victims often face sleepless nights, anxiety and fear, not just from the crime itself but also from the knowledge that the system may not protect them. Families like that of Tori Dunn feel betrayed. Survivors of assault and harassment are forced to relive their trauma every time they see their attacker walk free. This is not just emotional; it is systemic. When victims see attackers released without consequence, it sends a dangerous message that their pain is secondary, that their safety is negotiable and that justice for them is optional. Across Canada, people are asking why violent offenders are walking free. Why are police arresting the same person over and over again? Why does the system seem more concerned with the rights of repeat offenders than with the safety of law-abiding citizens?”
“Deputy Chief Howard Chow said that reverse-onus bail provisions would, in his words, “dramatically improve” public safety. Even Vancouver mayor, Ken Sim, speaking bluntly, said, “Excuse my language, but that's [BS]”, when he was talking about a man with 60 police interactions who was released yet again, only to commit another violent attack. (1555) This is not just a policing issue; it is also a public safety crisis. While the system fails to contain repeat offenders, victims are being retraumatized. Imagine surviving a violent crime, reporting it and then seeing one's attacker walking free, days after, back in one's neighbourhood, back into one's life. There is no justice in retraumatization.”
“Crown prosecutors, constrained by federal policy, seek detention in fewer than one in four cases. Even when they do, judges often decline. This disconnect between the Crown and the judiciary is not just procedural but dangerous. It creates a system where public safety is treated as secondary, and where legal technicalities override lived realities. Meanwhile, our peace officers are sounding alarms, and it is time to listen. Police officers are arresting the same individuals repeatedly, only to see them walk free. They face burnout, frustration and rising violence. In Vancouver alone last year there were 6,200 violent crimes, including nearly 5,000 assaults. Assaults on public officers rose by 20% in a single year. Vancouver police chief, Adam Palmer, has called for urgent bail reform.”
“In violent crime cases, judges ordered detention in only 43% of them, even when the accused was already out on bail for yet another violent offence. In Kelowna, 15 repeat offenders were responsible for over 1,300 police files in one single year. That is one police interaction every four days per person. This is not a justice system that protects the public; it is one that enables repeat offenders. At the heart of the crisis is Bill C-75 . Passed in 2019, it introduced the principle of restraint, requiring judges to release accused offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the least restrictive conditions. While intended to ensure fairness, it has had the opposite effect on public safety. Judges now feel bound to release individuals who pose a clear risk. Repeat violent offenders exploit the system.”
“There is also Jordan Paul Campbell Mutual, who had 10 outstanding warrants while out on bail. He set two police officers on fire during an arrest attempt. Mohammed Majidpour, who had over 24 prior convictions, assaulted a woman with a metal pole and committed arson on the same day. He had been released on bail multiple times. These are not isolated incidents; they are the result of a justice system that prioritizes procedure over protection and leaves communities to bear the consequences. The numbers do not lie. Between November 2022 and December 2023, British Columbia held nearly 4,800 bail hearings. In them, crime prosecutors sought detention in only 23% of cases, and judges granted detention just 41% of the time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge . I rise today not to debate ideology but to defend a principle that every Canadian holds dear: the right to feel safe in their own community. From Richmond to Vancouver and from Kelowna to Surrey, Canadians are witnessing a justice system that no longer protects them. Violent offenders are arrested, brought before a judge and, despite long criminal histories and active bail conditions, are released again, sometimes within hours and sometimes with fatal consequences. Let me tell members about Tori Dunn, a 30-year-old woman from Surrey who was murdered in her own home by a man who had been released on bail despite facing robbery charges and having a long history of violence. Her death was not inevitable; it was preventable.”
“Madam Speaker, as I already pointed out, the bill would not really protect Canadians. It would only give the government and the ministers more power to intrude on the privacy of average Canadians. It is the secrecy in the bill that is problematic. We have reflected on this many times at the public safety and national security committee, and I am sure we will hear more presentations and discussions on it if the bill goes to committee again.”
“Madam Speaker, we are not hesitant to support a bill that would really protect Canadians. However, the problem is that the bill is very narrow in scope and flawed in terms of giving the ministers too much power. There is no balance between rights and protections. If the bill were amended according to what we suggest, we would like to see it discussed further. With the form it is in right now, we cannot support the bill.”
“Madam Speaker, definitely. It was discussed at the last public safety and national security committee. We listened to presentations from many witnesses, who told us about the problems with Bill C-26 . If the bill goes to the committee again, we would like to hear more from experts, concerned parties and stakeholders on the problems that we have in the bill as presented.”
“Madam Speaker, we are debating legislation brought in by the government to try to improve cybersecurity. However, what I see is a law that would be as problematic as Bill C-26 . There is one little improvement, but most of the contents of Bill C-26 will remain the same. How can the government say that this is going to protect Canadians more? Furthermore, this bill might address improving the pipe, but it does not guarantee or secure what goes through the pipe. This is not real cyber-resilience. It is smoke and mirrors.”
“We need legislation that provides oversight and accountability, not blank cheques for secrecy. We need legislation that shares the cost of national security fairly, instead of forcing families to pay through hidden charges. We need legislation that integrates—”
“Suggesting that Bill C-8 would stop foreign interference misleads Canadians and risks creating dangerous complacency. What would Canadians really get with Bill C-8 ? They would get a law that still misses the real victims of cyber-attacks. They would get a law that still hides decisions from public view. They would get a law that still sticks consumers with the bill. They would get a law that still does almost nothing to address the broader threat of foreign interference. That is not cyber-resilience. That is not leadership. That is smoke and mirrors. Conservatives believe in stronger cybersecurity, but we believe in getting it right. What Canada needs is legislation that actually works with provinces and municipalities to protect the services Canadians rely on most: hospitals, schools and local governments.”
“The government may argue that by forcing telecom companies to strengthen their networks, hospitals and schools that rely on those networks are indirectly protected, but that argument does not hold up. The attacks we have seen in British Columbia did not come through telecom backbones; they came through local servers, outdated software and ransomware emails. Protecting the pipes does not protect the people. The government may also claim that the bill would help stop foreign interference, but again, this is spin, not substance. Bill C-8 would deal with cyber-intrusions into networks. It would do nothing to address the broader reality of foreign interference, such as disinformation campaigns, covert political financing, intimidation of diaspora communities or manipulation of democratic institutions.”
“Operational secrecy during an active attack may be justified, but secrecy without time limits or oversight is simply unacceptable. That is not transparency, that is not accountability, and it does not inspire public trust. Canadians deserve to know, after the fact, what actions were taken in their name. The third flaw is cost. Bill C-8 , like Bill C-26 before it, makes it explicit: There would be no compensation for companies forced to comply with government orders. If a telecom company was told to strip out hundreds or millions of dollars of equipment, Ottawa would not pay a cent. Those costs would land on Canadians, who would see higher phone bills, higher bank fees and slower upgrades to essential services. National security should be funded fairly, not through hidden taxes on consumers. The fourth flaw is scope.”
“The government says it would protect vital systems, but the very systems Canadians interact with every day, their hospitals, their local governments, their children's schools, would be left outside the law's reach. A cybersecurity bill that does not secure hospitals, cities or schools is like locking the front door and leaving the back door wide open. The second flaw is secrecy. Just like Bill C-26 , Bill C-8 would grant sweeping powers to ministers and to cabinet. With the stroke of a pen, the government could order a company to block a service, rip out equipment or suspend operations, and those orders could be kept secret indefinitely. Companies could even be kept from telling Canadians that the government had interfered with their networks.”
“Vancouver Coastal Health, which cares for more than a million people, was hit with ransomware that disrupted hospital operations and delayed patient services. The City of Richmond, my own city, faced cyber-intrusions and compromised email systems, threatening the delivery of municipal services. Even the Richmond School District fell victim to a cyber-attack that exposed private and financial information of teachers, staff and families. (1315) These are not hypotheticals. They are real attacks on real people. Not one of these institutions would be protected under Bill C-8 . That is the first fatal flaw. Bill C-8 offers Canadians a false promise of security.”
“The downloading of costs onto consumers is still there. Most importantly, the narrow scope of the bill, covering only federally regulated industries while excluding hospitals, municipalities and schools, is still there. Canadians deserve better than a reheated version of a flawed bill. A single fix does not change the reality that this legislation would fail in its core purpose, which is protecting Canadians where they are most vulnerable. Let me bring this closer to home. Cyber-attacks are not theoretical, and they are not distant. They are happening right now, and they are hitting our communities hard. In British Columbia, the B.C. government itself was breached. State-sponsored actors infiltrated its email systems and accessed sensitive personal information.”
“The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard those criticisms over many months. What happened? Bill C-26 stalled in committee and never passed. It died on the Order Paper because it could not overcome its flaws. Now the government has come back with Bill C-8 , and to be fair, there has been one improvement. The government removed the so-called secret evidence clause, the provision that would allow ministers to rely on confidential materials in court challenges without disclosure to affected parties. It was a step in the right direction, and Conservatives acknowledge that change. However, let us be clear: Beyond that one tweak, almost everything else is the same. The sweeping ministerial powers are still there. The indefinite secrecy is still there. The lack of oversight is still there.”
“However, we also raised serious, legitimate concerns about how the bill was drafted. We warned that Bill C-26 would concentrate too much unchecked power in the hands of the ministers. We warned that its secrecy provisions would undermine transparency and accountability. We warned that the cost of compliance would inevitably be passed down to ordinary Canadians through higher phone bills and banking fees. We warned that the legislation was focused on the wrong targets, federally regulated banks, pipelines and telecom companies, while leaving out the institutions Canadians actually see attacked most often: hospitals, municipalities and schools. Those warnings were echoed not only by Conservatives but also by industry leaders, civil liberty groups and privacy experts.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna . Before I begin, I want to thank the people of Richmond Centre—Marpole for bestowing their trust in me and electing me as their member of Parliament. I am deeply honoured by their confidence, and I am committed to serving them faithfully, with their interests always my top priority. Every time I rise in the House, it is with their voices in mind. We are debating Bill C-8 , the government's latest attempt at a cybersecurity framework. To understand Bill C-8, we must remember where it comes from. This is essentially the reintroduction of Bill C-26 , which the government first brought forward in 2022. Conservatives supported the principle of Bill C-26, the idea that Canada needs stronger protections for critical cyber systems.”
“Mr. Speaker, promises do not build homes, builders do. The Prime Minister promised Canadians 500,000 new homes per year; instead, he is delivering a new housing bureaucracy that will build just 4,000. It is another Liberal bait and switch. Housing starts are collapsing, down 49% in the GTA, 65% in Toronto. Even Vancouver is falling. Families are now spending 55% of their income just to keep a roof overhead, the worst in the G7. Homelessness is doubling, and 70% of Canadians say owning a home is impossible. The Prime Minister says that he is working with local governments to solve this crisis, but municipalities call that nothing more than passing the buck. Canadians know the truth. The Prime Minister builds bureaucracy, not homes. Canadians cannot live in promises. They need homes.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' housing agency's May report confirms that housing starts in Vancouver dropped 10.4% from last year, despite the city receiving $115 million from the housing accelerator fund. In Richmond, housing projects are stalled, and families are facing record-high prices. When will the Liberal government admit its housing plan is failing and that Canadians are paying the cost for its incompetence?”
“Madam Speaker, Canada is burning again. Over 200 wildfires are active right now. Many are out of control. In Manitoba, more than 17,000 people have been forced to flee. The entire city of Flin Flon has been evacuated. Thick smoke is choking towns and cities across the Prairies and drifting into the United States. Every year, the government says it has a plan, that there are lessons we will learn, that next time will be better, but here we are again. The fires are getting worse. The seasons are starting earlier and lasting longer. I ask the government this: What lessons has it really learned and what has it done differently to protect Canadians this time? It is time to stop reacting and stop—”
“Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that this is a very complex question. We have to work together to find ways to address it. However, I also want to point out that repeating the same old approaches used in the past will not bring a different result. Doing the same thing again and again while expecting a different result is foolish, so I would urge the Liberal government to change its failed policies and use a different approach that includes prevention, enforcement, treatment and education. Yes, let us work together. This is a national crisis and we have to work on it, but first of all the government has to change its path.”
“Mr. Speaker, the costly experiment on human lives that was initiated by the Liberal government in providing safe supply was a failure. In huge contrast to that regimen, our neighbouring cities, as I mentioned earlier, had only 1% of overdose deaths last year. That was because we took a very proactive approach to preventing drugs from coming into communities and offered people counselling. We also helped educate the younger population to understand the harm that drugs can cause them. I think the Liberal government adopted the wrong approach in the past decade, which led us to our present state of despair.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member compared tariffs to the drug crisis. The drug crisis was not created by Trump or the tariffs. It was created by the wrong policies, which were adopted by the Liberal government over the past decade. It has nothing to do with Trump. The wrong approach was adopted by the Liberal government in the past decade.”
“Residents stood up for their families, and I stood with them. We believe in real solutions, not slogans. We support recovery, not surrender. We focus on education, community services, law enforcement and mental health. That is the approach I will continue to champion in Parliament. I came to Canada with a suitcase and a heart full of hope. I was given a chance, and I want to ensure that others have the same opportunity to build, not be broken by the very systems meant to protect them. The crisis is not about ideologies. It is about saving lives. Let us stand together across party lines to act with urgency and seriousness. The future of our youth, our families and our communities depends on it. I again thank my constituents in Richmond Centre—Marpole for their trust. I will work every day to be worthy of it.”
“These are dreams lost, families shattered and futures stolen, yet the government clings to the policies that normalized addiction. Terms like “safe consumption” and “recreational use” are misleading. There is nothing safe or recreational about consuming poison. We must shift the conversation from enabling addiction to promoting recovery. That means investing in prevention, education, mental health, treatment and enforcement. I ask again, when will the government put an end to its reckless drug policy and failed decriminalization experiments? Let us look at Richmond. In 2023, Richmond recorded 27 overdose deaths, only 1% of the provincial total. That was not by accident. We have no cannabis retail stores. In February 2024, our community came together to oppose the installation of a supervised injection site, and we succeeded.”
“(1310) A 2025 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, offered by researchers from Memorial University, the University of Manitoba, and Johns Hopkins, found that opioid overdose hospitalizations increased significantly in areas where safe supply and decriminalization were introduced. The conclusion was clear: More drugs do not mean less harm. This is a dangerous myth, and our young people are paying the price. In British Columbia, overdose is now the leading cause of death for youth aged 10 to 18 years. In April, a 15-year-old boy died in Campbell River. In February, a 14-year-old girl died alone at home in Surrey. In July 2024, a 13-year-old girl in Prince George lost her life to overdose. These were not just tragic headlines. These are children.”
“This is more than all the Canadian soldiers who died in the Second World War, yet the government continues to downplay it. The Prime Minister even said on the campaign trail that Canada is facing a “challenge”, not a crisis. He is dead wrong. This is not just a public health issue. It is a national emergency, and it is deepening. For the past decade, we have seen a steady expansion of failed policies, from supervised consumption sites to taxpayer-funded safe supply and, most recently, drug decriminalization in British Columbia. These were presented as compassionate solutions. In reality, they have led to more deaths, more chaos and more despair.”
“Richmond is a mosaic of the world, yet a community deeply united by shared values. It has 1.4 jobs for every working-age resident and the longest life expectancy in Canada. It has been named the most active city in B.C. Richmond is a Canadian success story, and we are proud of it. However, I stand here today not only to speak about our success. I rise to sound the alarm on a national emergency that is devastating families across the country: the drug crisis. I listened carefully to the Speech from the Throne. I was disappointed and, frankly, alarmed that this crisis was barely acknowledged. Just 18 words were offered on a tragedy that has claimed 50,000 lives in the past decade. Let me say that again: 50,000 Canadians dead from overdoses since 2015.”
“Today, I enter federal office with the same mindset: to ensure Canada remains a land of opportunity, not just for people like me but for future generations and for new immigrants arriving with dreams like mine. Let me tell members about Richmond, one of Canada's most dynamic cities and a true jewel of the west coast. It is the fastest-growing city in British Columbia and a vital gateway to the Indo-Pacific. It is home to the Vancouver International Airport, the second-busiest in Canada, as well as to a major deep-sea port and the largest commercial fishing harbour in the country. Richmond is not just a local hub; it is a centre of global trade, innovation and investment. We are also the most culturally diverse city in Canada. Over 60% of its residents were born outside the country, and more than 120 languages are spoken.”
“They are the reason I am standing here today. To my dear wife, Christine, I thank her for her unwavering support. We have walked this journey together, from uncertainty to service. To our son, Micah, a Richmond firefighter and army cadet officer, I thank him for his strength, values and service to the community. Let me share a little about myself. I came to Canada in 1988 from Hong Kong as a first-generation immigrant, with no family here and little more than determination. Canada welcomed me and gave my wife and me a chance to build a life through hard work, resilience and community. To give back, I served in local government for over 25 years as a school trustee and then as a city councillor. That experience taught me that leadership starts at the grassroots by listening, solving problems and staying grounded in service.”