Julie Dzerowicz
Davenport, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I have exciting news. June is Portuguese Heritage Month and today we also celebrate Dia de Portugal, de Camões e das Comunidades Portuguesas . Can the hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, conflicts around the world are intensifying, and Canadians are feeling their impact here at home. Meeting this moment means delivering on our security commitments and reinforcing the alliances that keep us safe. The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently came back from the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Sweden.”
“Mr. Speaker, 52 years ago this month, on April 25, 1974, the Portuguese people ended nearly 40 years of dictatorship, and they did it almost without firing a shot. Soldiers placed carnations in the muzzle of their rifle. People then walked into the streets, and they chose democracy.”
“[ Member spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows: ] Mr. Speaker, as the proud daughter of a Mexican immigrant, I rise on April 23 to celebrate Spanish Language Day, recognized by the United Nations and 21 countries around the world.”
“A judge can issue an order, and a company can simply reply that it is not technically able to provide the information. Bill C-22 would fix that with requirements tailored to each class of provider and with oversight from the independent intelligence commissioner.”
“They need to know which telephone company, whether it is Rogers, Bell, Telus or anyone else, actually services that number so they know where to send a court order. Under Bill C-22 , they can ask that single question: “Do you or do you not service this number?” That is it. There is no name, no address, no content, just yes or no.”
The complete record
Every one of 255 lines we hold for Julie Dzerowicz, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, I have exciting news. June is Portuguese Heritage Month and today we also celebrate Dia de Portugal, de Camões e das Comunidades Portuguesas . Can the hon. Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages speak to the significance of the Portuguese Canadian community and its contribution to Canada's diversity?”
“Mr. Speaker, conflicts around the world are intensifying, and Canadians are feeling their impact here at home. Meeting this moment means delivering on our security commitments and reinforcing the alliances that keep us safe. The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently came back from the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Sweden. Can the minister please share with the House how Canada is working with our allies to turn our commitments into real capabilities?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, in relation to the motion adopted Wednesday, April 15, 2026, regarding Canada's immigration system.”
“Mr. Speaker, 52 years ago this month, on April 25, 1974, the Portuguese people ended nearly 40 years of dictatorship, and they did it almost without firing a shot. Soldiers placed carnations in the muzzle of their rifle. People then walked into the streets, and they chose democracy. In my constituency of Davenport, which is home to the largest Portuguese community in Canada, we remember 25 de abril every year, but this year we remember it differently. Democracy is being tested again by authoritarianism, by disinformation and by leaders who treat freedom as inconvenient. The Portuguese diaspora knows this story. It members left a country that gave them too little future, and they came to places like Toronto, where they built new lives and strengthened ours. From their new home country, they also helped keep a freer Portugal alive.”
“[ Member spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows: ] Mr. Speaker, as the proud daughter of a Mexican immigrant, I rise on April 23 to celebrate Spanish Language Day, recognized by the United Nations and 21 countries around the world. Spanish is now the most widely spoken non-official language in Canada, connecting more than 1.7 million Canadians to their heritage, identity and traditions. Three provinces and 14 cities have now proclaimed April 23 as Spanish Language Day. Our Prime Minister has called this day “a wonderful opportunity for Canadians of all backgrounds” to learn from our Spanish-speaking communities. Communities across our country have spoken. Let us proclaim April 23 as Spanish Language Day at the federal level. [ Member spoke in Spanish ] [ English ]”
“Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is exactly what was raised by Davenport residents. The bill has been built carefully with judicial oversight at its core and with independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, and it is the way Canadians expect us to work, by respecting their rights while allowing us to make the laws, enforce the laws and keep our communities right across the country safe.”
“We have also put a substantial amount of money into hiring more CBSA agents and more law enforcement agents across the country. The resources are there, and the priority is there as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, on privacy, the first thing I would say is that we really spent the time over the last year to get this right. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we met with constitutional experts, privacy groups and members from all parties in the House to try to make sure that we got this legislation right, that we were honouring our charter rights. However, we were also moving forward and making sure that we provided law enforcement, the police and CSIS with the tools they need to be able to counter today's crime. That is the first thing I would say. On the priority of our resources, the attention we are giving to law enforcement, and funding, I would say we are spending a lot of time and money on ensuring public safety in this country. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation for that cause.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. My colleague who gave the last speech said this, and I think he was right. We introduced Bill C-2 . It had much more comprehensive legislation in it, but we came across a lot of concerns, so we pulled back this section of Bill C-2. Then we decided we were going to consult and listen further. We then went to privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took all the concerns seriously, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill. I think we know it is always much better, if we get bills to committee and if we all work with the right intention, that we are open to listening. We want to make sure the bill is as strong as possible.”
“To those across Davenport who care fiercely about privacy in the charter, I want them to know that the bill has been built carefully, with judicial oversight at its core and independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, together, the way Canadians expect. Crime has modernized. It is long past time our laws did too. I urge all members of the House, from every party, to send Bill C-22 to committee, to study it, to strengthen it where they can and to get it passed. Canadians have waited many years. They should not have to wait any longer.”
“Standing with the chief, hearing directly from him about what Toronto police officers face every single day, such as the extortion cases hitting families across the city, the auto theft rings and the online exploitation of our children, one understands very quickly why the bill matters and why the delay has real costs, and it is not just Toronto. There is also support for this bill from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Police Federation and the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police. In closing, to my constituents in Davenport and to the families that have been scammed, the parents worried about their children online and the small business owners who have been threatened with extortion, the bill is for them.”
“As well, the whole act would come back before Parliament for mandatory review three years after it comes into force. To be absolutely clear, there are no back doors in this bill. Police would not get direct access to anyone's communications. Service providers themselves would retrieve the information, and only after a court has authorized it. This is lawful access, with the emphasis on “lawful”. Last month I had the privilege, as chair of the Toronto Liberal caucus, of joining the federal Minister of Public Safety and Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw at Toronto police headquarters, where the minister spoke about the legislation.”
“We heard the concerns raised by privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took those concerns seriously, we consulted broadly, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill. Here is what changed. Warrantless access to subscriber information is gone, and judicial authorization would be the rule. The definition of “subscriber information” has been narrowed to the basics. The bill would also explicitly protect solicitor-client privilege and medical information. Ministerial orders would require approval by the independent intelligence commissioner. Data retention would be strictly limited to metadata, for a maximum of one year, and not content, not web browsing history and not social media activity.”
“A judge can issue an order, and a company can simply reply that it is not technically able to provide the information. Bill C-22 would fix that with requirements tailored to each class of provider and with oversight from the independent intelligence commissioner. Fourth, the bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canadian police to work with our allies when crime crosses borders. In 2026, organized crime does not stop at the 49th parallel, and our law enforcement has to be able to move just as quickly. (1625) I am very blessed to represent one of the most engaged and most thoughtful communities in this country. Davenport residents care deeply about privacy and the charter. I want them to know their federal government has listened. This is not the first version of the bill. An earlier version was part of Bill C-2 last year.”
“That is judicial oversight. That is the charter at work. This is not police walking away with someone's name on their own say-so. It is police going before a court, making their case, and a judge deciding whether the threshold has been met. Frankly, this is the same kind of information that used to sit in the phone books on our kitchen counters, but because digital identifiers now reveal so much more about us, the Supreme Court has said, rightly, that accessing them requires a warrant, and Bill C-22 respects that. Third, the bill would require our major electronic service providers to actually be capable of responding to a valid court order. This sounds almost unbelievable, but under current Canadian law, there is no such requirement.”
“They need to know which telephone company, whether it is Rogers, Bell, Telus or anyone else, actually services that number so they know where to send a court order. Under Bill C-22 , they can ask that single question: “Do you or do you not service this number?” That is it. There is no name, no address, no content, just yes or no. Today, without this tool, police can spend weeks or months in court, company by company, just to figure out whom to serve. Bill C-22 would let them skip that guessing game and get on with the real investigative work. Second, and this is the critical privacy safeguard, once police know which provider to go to, they still have to go to a judge. A judge has to independently authorize what is called a subscriber information production order before police can get the name and address behind that account.”
“The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has reported that police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents rose 374% between 2014 and 2024. In 2024 alone, 94% of online child sexual abuse material did not result in charges, often because police simply could not identify the person behind the screen name, and that is unacceptable. Bill C-22 would help to change that. Let me walk through, in plain language, what Bill C-22 actually does and, just as importantly, what it does not do. I think that when people understand the mechanics, a lot of the worry might fall away. First, the bill would create a simple yes-or-no tool called a confirmation of service demand. Here is how it works. Say police are investigating an extortion case and they have a phone number.”
“With child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, extortion, money laundering, auto theft rings, hate-motivated violence and foreign interference, criminals have moved online, and our laws have not yet kept up. Canada is currently the only country in the Five Eyes and the only country in the G7 without a modern lawful access framework. Every one of our closest allies has legal tools that let their police, with judicial oversight, obtain basic digital information during a criminal investigation. Canadian police do not. That gap is not theoretical. It means that Canadian investigations stall. It means that tips from foreign agencies sit unused. It means, in the worst cases, that investigations are simply abandoned before they begin.”
“Mr. Speaker, under our federal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars: stronger laws; stronger support for the front line, including 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders; and stronger upstream investments in housing, mental health and programs for at-risk youth. Bill C-22 sits inside the first two pillars. It would modernize our laws and give our police the tools they have been asking Parliament for, not for years but for decades. Let me speak plainly about why we need this legislation. Today, the most serious crime does not happen only on our streets. It also happens on our phones and on our apps. It is planned in chat groups. It is carried out across borders, and it is all done in seconds.”
“They are also telling me that they are worried about online scams, which keep getting more sophisticated, the ones that are aimed at their parents, at newcomers, at anyone who answers the phone. They may not always call it public safety, but they feel it and they expect their government to respond. This is exactly what Bill C-22 is about. Under the Mark Carney Liberal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars.”
“Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak in support of Bill C-22 , the lawful access act, 2026. When I talk to Davenport residents, the issues they raise with me most often are affordability, housing and jobs. Those remain the top concerns, and I want to be honest about that, but when the conversation turns to safety, what I hear has me worried. Davenport residents tell me they feel uneasy when they see drugs on our streets. They worry about encampments down the block. They are worried about watching another storefront on our main streets board up its windows after a break-in. They have heard of a neighbour's car stolen off the street in the middle of the night. They are unsettled by a number of stories about safety in our community.”
“Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we have started to incorporate a number of the recommendations that Justice Hogue made in the foreign interference report. It may not all be in the bill, but this is first reading. This bill will go to committee, and there will be an opportunity to propose and suggest additional amendments or additions. There is also an opportunity, in the near future, to introduce another bill and make more reforms moving forward, but it is the intention of our government to implement all the recommendations from Justice Hogue.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed right. The per-vote subsidy, as the main political party funding reform, is not in the bill. In the bill, we focus on political financing. We are trying to prevent foreign and dark money from getting into our political system. As I mentioned in my speech, we have many opportunities to continue to improve our democracy, to continue to improve the Canada Elections Act, to continue to fight and to put in tools and measures that would counter disinformation and misinformation. I mentioned a number of them in my speech, and I look forward to the work ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, as that has nothing to do with Bill C-25 , which is before us right now, I will give a very general comment. Floor crossing has happened on both sides of the bench, and I think it has been part of our parliamentary tradition. However, today I am very pleased that our minister has introduced formally into the House Bill C-25 . It is the strong and free elections act. It proposes targeted priority amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would further protect and secure Canada's elections.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things about the Canada Elections Act is that we have done a fairly good job over time of making sure that we are constantly updating it to meet the threats of the moment. Deepfakes are definitely one of the threats of the moment. I am very pleased that our minister responsible for democratic institutions has acted fast and has worked in coordination across party lines to actually put some protections in the new bill in order for us to address this new threat. We need to continue to be vigilant and to be aware of the new threats coming our way, so we can continue to make sure we are protecting our elections and democracy here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his participation in providing some input into Bill C-25 . I think it is enormously important that we work across party lines. I am going to focus on the bill. The government is taking action to ensure that Canadians continue to have confidence in the integrity of our elections, and to further strengthen our democratic institutions in response to the rising threats being faced by countries around the world. This is just one of the many steps we need to be taking. There are about 29 changes being proposed in Bill C-25 . We have more to do.”
“It is an ongoing responsibility, one that this generation of parliamentarians has been asked to carry. Our democracy is strong, but it is not invulnerable. Canada is worth protecting. Our democracy is worth protecting. The residents of Davenport and of every riding in the country are counting on us to do exactly that.”
“The Chief Electoral Officer has called for transparency labels on AI-generated election content. Our NATO allies are asking us to build whole-of-society resilience that includes media literacy, support for independent journalism, accountability for platforms, and deeper international co-operation. We will need to keep going. We will need to keep updating our laws as the threats evolve. We will need to keep doing this together, across party lines, because the adversaries trying to weaken Canadian democracy do not care which party any of us belongs to. They want to weaken us all. I commend our government for bringing forward Bill C-25 . I urge every member of the House, from every party, to support it. I urge every one of us to recognize that defending Canadian democracy is not a one-time vote.”
“These are tools our election watchdog needs, and experts have been calling for them for years. Fourth, the bill would protect candidates and election workers themselves, because threats to our democracy are not abstract. They are directed at real people, including candidates, returning officers and their families, who increasingly face harassment and intimidation. Fifth, it would finally establish a comprehensive privacy regime for federal political parties. This has been recommended for years by the Privacy Commissioner and by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it is time we got it done. I want to be clear with the House. The bill is a necessary step but not the final step. Justice Hogue has called for a dedicated body to monitor disinformation.”
“Second, it would close the doors on foreign and dark money. It would prohibit anonymous and untraceable contributions, including cryptocurrency, prepaid gift cards and money orders. It would strengthen the rules on third parties. It would prevent foreign entities from funnelling money into our politics through Canadian intermediaries. Critically, it would extend these protections to nomination and leadership contests, which Justice Hogue identified as real points of vulnerability. Third, it would give the commissioner of Elections Canada enforcement tools she has asked for: higher penalties, the power to summon witnesses and compel evidence without clogging up our courts, the ability to co-operate with international partners, and a specific requirement that the commissioner consider foreign interference when determining penalties.”
“NATO itself calls these campaigns attempts to “sow doubt in the minds of target populations [and] to destabilise and undermine societies.” Our NATO allies are asking us to do more, and the bill would be Canada's doing more. What would Bill C-25 actually do? First, it would protect the ballot itself. It would create a new offence for intentionally spreading false information about the voting process to disrupt an election. It would criminalize tampering with the computer systems that run our elections. For the first time, it would criminalize digital impersonation and the use of AI-generated deepfakes to impersonate candidates, the Chief Electoral Officer or other election officials. In an era when a convincing fake video can be produced in minutes and shared with millions of people in hours, this protection is long overdue.”
“In that role, I meet regularly with parliamentarians from across the alliance, and I can tell the House that disinformation and hybrid threats come up in virtually every single conversation we have. (1345) Last year at the 71st annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Ljubljana, I had the opportunity to ask the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, directly about the application of article 5 in the context of hybrid warfare and cyberwarfare, because these are not abstract questions for our allies. Russia, the People's Republic of China, Iran and North Korea are running sophisticated hybrid campaigns against democracies right now, with disinformation, cyber-attacks and political interference.”
“She warned us that if we do not address misinformation and disinformation, they have the power to distort our discourse, to change our views and to reshape our society. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, known as NSICOP, which includes members of every recognized party in this place, has reached similar conclusions. NSICOP has documented disinformation as a central tactic used by hostile foreign actors against Canada, and NSICOP has been clear that foreign interference in even one riding is one riding too many. I want to share one more piece of context with the House. I have the enormously great pleasure of serving as the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.”
“After a 16-month inquiry, more than 150 witnesses and a seven-volume final report, Justice Hogue confirmed that foreign interference in Canadian democracy is real. She documented attempts by hostile foreign states, most prominently the People's Republic of China and India, to interfere at the riding level in our 2019 and 2021 elections. Justice Hogue went further. She pointed to something she considered even more dangerous than the traditional tools of foreign interference. In her own words, not mine, “information manipulation (whether foreign or not) poses the single biggest risk to our democracy. It is an existential threat.” This is not a line from social media; it is the considered conclusion of a then sitting justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, after a year and a half of evidence.”
“The bill was not written in a vacuum. It responds directly to the recommendations of the public inquiry into foreign interference, led by the hon. Marie-Josée Hogue; recommendations from Canada's Chief Electoral Officer; and recommendations from the commissioner of Canada Elections. It also builds on the work that was introduced in the last Parliament through Bill C-65 . I want to commend our federal government, in particular our minister responsible for democratic institutions, for bringing the legislation forward and for working across party lines to build as much consensus as possible. Our democracy belongs to every Canadian. The laws that protect it should rise above partisanship whenever possible. Now let me turn to what Justice Hogue actually told us.”
“In January of this year, our own Prime Minister stood at the World Economic Forum in Davos and told the world that we are in the midst of “a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction, and the beginning of a harsh reality”. He reminded us that the multilateral institutions that middle powers like Canada have relied on for decades are under strain, and he called on countries like ours to build our strength at home and to act together. Democracy does not sustain itself. It depends on strong institutions, an independent justice system, the rule of law, a political system that citizens trust enough to peacefully choose who leads them, and access to independent, fact-based journalism. Every single one of those pillars is under pressure today, and Bill C-25 is part of how Canada is responding. Let me be clear.”
“Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport, to speak in strong support of Bill C-25 , the strong and free elections act. Before I speak to the details of the bill, I want to step back and talk about the moment we are living in. Around the world, democracy is under pressure, authoritarian regimes are growing bolder, independent journalism is being squeezed, trust in public institutions is being deliberately undermined and the information environment that citizens rely on to make free and informed choices is being polluted by foreign states, domestic bad actors and the rapid, unregulated power of artificial intelligence. This is not a distant or theoretical concern.”
“Mr. Speaker, as chair of the immigration and citizenship committee, I am presenting two reports today. I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Reconstituting Canada’s International Student Program”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, March 25, regarding Canada's immigration system.”
“Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, I know that parliamentarians across the alliance and countries on both sides of the Atlantic are looking to Canada for leadership in new cutting-edge defence technologies and innovation. It is critical that we rearm, rebuild and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces while building up Canadian industry. Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the critical investments we are making in Canada's defence industry?”
“We enforce the law firmly against those who break it, but we must also reject legislation that is built on rhetoric rather than evidence, that would undermine judicial independence and that would make our system less fair without making anyone safer. On this side of the House, we believe in an immigration system that reflects who we are: a generous, law-abiding, diverse nation that holds people accountable and treats them with fairness. Bill C-220 would not advance that vision. The government cannot support this bill.”
“Allowing judges to consider that reality is not special treatment. It is what ensures that the total consequence is proportionate. We have heard examples from members opposite. The Crown already has the ability to appeal any sentence it believes is unfit. Appellate courts can and do intervene. There is no evidence of courts systematically reducing sentences inappropriately. Due process is not a loophole. It is what ensures that enforcement decisions are lawful, credible and sustainable. Bill C-220 would create a disconnect between two statutes that Parliament has designed to work together. Let me close where I began. Canada's greatness lies in the people who have come here and chosen to build a life in this country. We owe it to them and to every Canadian to maintain a system that is fair, principled and effective.”
“The court was explicit: A sentence must always remain proportionate to the crime and the offender's responsibility. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill was a cabinet minister when that decision was issued. The Conservatives had two full years to legislate on this if they believed there was a problem. They did not. A decade later, the Conservatives brought forward a bill that ignores the jurisprudence, the evidence and the realities of both the courts and the immigration system. The opposition members argue that this creates a two-tier justice system. I would argue exactly the opposite. The punishment is already two-tiered. A non-citizen can also face a second and far more severe consequence that a citizen does not: deportation, permanent removal from their family and the only country that many of them may have ever known.”
“It would force a one-size-fits-all approach, asking courts to ignore the fact that a sentence of six months and a day carries a life-altering, drastically different penalty from a sentence of six months. (1755) Let me correct the misconception. When a judge considers immigration consequences, the offender can still be found inadmissible for serious criminality. They are still subject to a deportation order. There is no free pass in marginal cases. The individual retains the right to argue their case before the Immigration and Refugee Board, an expert, independent tribunal that weighs public safety against individual consequences. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada, under a Conservative government, unanimously recognized in R v. Pham that immigration consequences are a legitimate factor in crafting a fit sentence.”
“The question is whether Bill C-220 actually makes Canadians safer or our system fairer. The answer is no. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, when a permanent resident or foreign national is sentenced to more than six months of imprisonment, that constitutes serious criminality. They lose the right to appeal their deportation order. For lesser offences, the immigration appeal division can examine factors such as length of time in Canada and the best interests of children. The law is clear. Serious offences mean serious consequences. Bill C-220 would prohibit judges from even being aware of these consequences when determining a fit sentence.”
“Anyone in the process of becoming a Canadian, whether they are an asylum seeker, a temporary worker, an international student or in any other immigration stream, who commits a serious crime should face the full consequences of the law, including deportation, period, with zero tolerance. Committing serious crimes while enjoying the privilege of being in Canada is unacceptable, and it will not be tolerated. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already provides for exactly that. It defines serious criminality. It provides for inadmissible findings, deportation orders and, in many cases, a permanent ban on returning to Canada. The framework is robust, and it is enforced. The question before us is not whether criminals should face consequences. They absolutely should, and they do.”
“They volunteer in our schools, care for our elderly and show up for each other. They are the backbone of our community, and I am honoured to stand here on their behalf. When I talk to newcomers in Davenport, I hear the same thing over and over. They chose Canada because of what this country stands for: fairness, opportunity and the rule of law. They came here to contribute, to raise their families in safety and to be part of something bigger than themselves. That is the promise of this country, and it is a promise we must honour. Every generation of newcomers has made Canada stronger, more innovative and more resilient, and the generation arriving today is no different. Let me be unequivocal.”
“They have enriched our culture, strengthened our economy and made us who we are. Canada is the envy of the world, and that is not by accident. It is because of the extraordinary diversity of the people who call this country home. Our strength has always come from our differences, from our willingness to welcome those who seek a better life and to stand together across lines of language, faith and heritage. This is the Canadian story, and it is one we should tell with pride every single day. In my riding of Davenport, I see the story lived out in real time. I represent one of the most diverse communities in this country. Families from Portugal, from Latin America, from the Caribbean, from Southeast Asia and from across Africa and Europe have built a vibrant, thriving neighbourhood.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-220 , introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill . My remarks today will focus on the immigration implications of the bill and what I believe is at stake for all of us as Canadians. Before I turn to the substance of the legislation, I want to say something that I believe deeply and that I know the vast majority of Canadians share. We are a nation of immigrants. From the very earliest days of Confederation, people have come to the country from every corner of the world, bringing with them their talents, their traditions, their determination and their dreams. They have built our cities. They have staffed our hospitals and our schools. They have started businesses that employ our neighbours. They have served in our armed forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, last week thousands of investors, workers and innovators gathered in Toronto for the PDAC convention, the world's largest mining conference. Canada has the critical minerals that the world needs for electric vehicles, clean technology and national security. Last week our government announced new investments to accelerate mining projects and strengthen our supply chains with allies. Could the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources update the House on how Canada will help build mines faster, attract investment, create jobs and build a strong, resilient Canadian economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is great news. We have already seen Build Canada Homes move quickly from promise to progress, delivering real results for Canadians. A great example is Dunn House phase two, located in Toronto's Parkdale community, which will provide supportive housing for at-risk seniors. Can the Minister of Jobs and Families, on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure , update the House on how this project reflects the government's approach to accelerating affordable housing across the country?”