Jenny Kwan
Vancouver East, British Columbia · NDP · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table three petitions today. The first petition is signed by electors of Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby and Vancouver Quadra, who brought their petitions to their local MPs but had to ask for my assistance to table this in the House.”
“Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules.”
“They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries.”
“Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes.”
“In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indig…”
“It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province.”
The complete record
Every one of 508 lines we hold for Jenny Kwan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back and think they are doing so well, because their focus is all on the big corporations. It is about the CEOs. The government is shovelling support to all of them, but everyday Canadians are all being left behind. The fact is that the divide in wealth is becoming greater and greater between the haves and—”
“I would say that the government absolutely needs to pause this insidious action, do the consultation and reinstate scientific experts in every part of the department.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is actually on top of so many of the issues, and he is absolutely spot-on. The Liberal government and the Prime Minister snuck into an omnibus bill, Bill C-30 , a tiny sliver of reference that they would be taking away critical regulation and regulatory practices that ensure that our food system is safe with respect to pesticides. This is what the government is doing. Supposedly it is looking after Canadians and our health, but, my goodness, what it is doing is just trying to hide this information, and there would be absolutely serious consequences for Canadians. The government claims that it supports science, but it would be gutting science. It is actually not relying on science, and it is putting in jeopardy our health and the scientific knowledge that is there.”
“When they were little, I submitted their names into the draw, but sadly, none of my children's names were drawn, and they could not get into French immersion. That is the reality Canadians are faced with. That is the reality British Columbians are faced with. That is the reality Vancouverites are faced with. I would call on the government members, instead of patting themselves on the back to say how swell they are doing, to look at where the problems are and to take action.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will give an example of the challenges that, in British Columbia, and in Vancouver more specifically, we are faced with. With the francophone community, particularly in the education sector, the federal government actually can ensure that provinces receive significant increases in funding to backstop this. Do members know what we are reduced to in our education system for children who want to have access to language training in French, in French immersion classes? We have to go in for a lottery draw. If someone is lucky enough, their name will be drawn, and then they can actually enrol in that particular school. Many students did not get that chance, including my own children, by the way.”
“What the government is doing is allowing those kinds of abusive practices, and sending a message that they can actually continue. What the government can do, and what the NDP has advocated for, is to have people get landed immigrant status upon arrival. They should get status so they can be protected and not be subject to exploitation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy for his community. It is absolutely essential that all parliamentarians stand up for all workers. Migrant workers have been abused in this country. Frankly, both the Liberals and Conservatives, when it was convenient for them, brought in temporary foreign workers so they could bring down wages, suppress wages. In fact, the UN rapporteur actually said that Canada's temporary foreign worker program, with the approaches the Canadian government has taken, is equivalent to modern-day slavery. Many migrant workers are subject to abuse and exploitation, and the member cited an example from his own community. Even when abuses are found, the penalty is so small, so minimal, that it is absolutely outrageous.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting, actually. In this sitting, in these last two weeks, the government has brought down the guillotine for significant major legislation, including Bill C-22 , and we are poised to rise, probably by the end of today, I suspect. What is left on the agenda, which was not actually a priority for the government to push through, is the bill on apprenticeship to support union workers, so there we go. The Liberals are pretending they support unions, yet at the same time, they are ramming down back-to-work legislation. They are invoking section 107 to take away the rights of unions to strike. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre , has a private member's bill on that. Will the government members support it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the people sleeping outside tonight cannot wait. The seniors choosing between food and medication cannot wait, and the constituents facing administrative collapse in a federal compensation program cannot wait. Budgets reveal values, and this bill reveals them clearly. Canadians deserve an economy built on fairness, transparency and delivery, not on delay and indifference. They deserve a government that is willing to govern for all Canadians, not just for the hedge fund managers, the private equity CEOs and the finance bros who hang out at the Empire Club of Canada in downtown Toronto, such as the Prime Minister and his narrow circle of insiders. Everyday working Canadians deserve better.”
“Disabled Canadians are waiting. Families are waiting. Waiting has become the default policy, but Canadians cannot wait indefinitely. The crisis is before Canadians. It is time to act for the people, not for corporations.”
“They have called on Canada to increase humanitarian assistance; support access to food, medicine and fuel; and pursue constructive diplomacy. They have urged Canada to work with international partners to ensure that relief reaches those in need and to maintain an independent foreign policy grounded in dialogue, co-operation and respect for self-determination. Canadians understand our international role and Canada's proud history of our commitment to peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance and international solidarity. It is not time to turn our backs on what has historically made Canadians proud. Let me close with this, Mr. Speaker. This bill reveals clear patterns. Housing is delayed. Indigenous housing remains uncertain. Health care programs lack transparency. Dental eligibility is unstable. Survivors are waiting.”
“Many constituents have raised concerns regarding military goods and components exported to the U.S. that may subsequently be transferred elsewhere without the same level of scrutiny that applies to direct Canadian exports. Those concerns were reflected in proposals such as my private member's bill, Bill C-233 , the no more loopholes act, which was defeated by the government. Canadians want robust risk assessments. They want transparency. They want accountability. They want assurances that Canadian-made military goods are not contributing to human rights violations or breaches of international humanitarian law. Economic policy and trade policy cannot be separated from human rights obligations. (1210) Many constituents have also written regarding the humanitarian crisis facing the Cuban community.”
“Canadians deserve to know why the Prime Minister would prioritize pipelines over funding for transit expansion, especially when B.C. faces the highest and most sustained fire risk in the country. Similarly, Canadians deserve to know why billions of dollars can be found for military expansion when communities continue to be told to wait for desperately needed social investments. If the government believes military spending must increase, it should explain why the same urgency is absent when it comes to homelessness, poverty, housing and health care. Increased military spending is happening when there has not been a robust public debate on it, during the last election or thereafter. It was just announced by the Prime Minister as a fait accompli .”
“One constituent described losing weight because they cannot afford enough food. Another, a 77-year-old senior, said they are relying on a food bank for the first time in their life. These are not isolated cases. They are becoming systemic. As one constituent put it, on the issue of transit, we need our transit to green commutes more than we need another pipeline. Every budget decision involves trade-offs. Canadians deserve transparency about those trade-offs. We are faced with deep drought conditions across Vancouver Island, the Okanagan, the Chilcotin and the South Thompson regions. Climate change is real. Instead of investing in transit, the spring economic update cuts it by $5 billion, while the Prime Minister signs an agreement with Alberta to build yet another pipeline.”
“We are seeing delays in social program delivery and increased military spending, alongside constrained social investments. Budgets are about choices, and choices are about priorities. Canadians are asking, what does increased military spending mean for housing, for pharmacare, for dental care, for indigenous housing, for transit and for disability supports? These are not abstract fiscal questions. They are real-world opportunity costs, and Canadians deserve transparency about them. In Vancouver East, the consequences are very real and very visible. Seniors are relying on food banks. Families are skipping meals. People are delaying medical care. Housing is increasingly out of reach. Affordability is being eroded not just by prices but by systems that are less transparent and less responsive.”
“The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission repeatedly flagged concerns over monopoly pricing, noting that user costs, passenger charges and parking fees surged dramatically. Airlines passed escalating landing fees directly to passengers via higher ticket prices when they privatized. The Shipping Australia industry association noted that private port operators prioritized maximizing shareholder returns, implementing heavy rent increases on terminal tenants that trickled down into standard freight and consumer goods. If Canada goes down this track, this is what Canada can expect. (1205) This neo-liberal playbook seems to be from another era. A broad pattern is emerging. We are seeing the increasing centralization of decision-making in Ottawa from the Prime Minister .”
“Food safety is also at stake. Proposed changes to pesticide regulation have raised concerns from environmental and public health organizations, including Ecojustice, which warns that reforms risk weakening scientific oversight and transparency. Canadians expect food safety to be grounded in independent science. They expect precaution where health is at stake. They expect transparency in regulatory decision-making. Anything less undermines public trust. My constituents have also raised concerns regarding the Prime Minister 's intention to privatize ports and airports. Even Stephen Harper would not dare to touch these critical assets. They are strategic national infrastructure essential to supply chains, trade and economic resilience.”
“It means two Canadians can stand in the same digital marketplace and see different prices based on what a corporation believes they can pay. Even when legislation such as Bill C-36 references algorithmic pricing risks, it does not actually prohibit surveillance pricing. It does not even name it. It does not stop it. Instead, it leaves Canadians exposed to opaque pricing systems that they cannot see and cannot challenge. Premier Wab Kinew has taken decisive action in Manitoba to stop it. The Prime Minister and this government have refused to take a stand. What side is the Prime Minister on? Unlike the Liberals, who will always be on the side of big corporations, the NDP will stand on the side of the people. That is why I will be introducing a private member's bill this fall to ban surveillance pricing outright.”
“They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries. They care about whether universal pharmacare will actually become universal. The Prime Minister sent a clear message that universal pharmacare is not a priority for him when the spring economic update did not provide additional resources to this key initiative. On affordability, Canadians are increasingly concerned about surveillance pricing. This is the use of personal data, behavioural tracking and algorithmic systems to charge different prices to different individuals for identical goods and services.”
“These are often seniors who opted out of private dental care insurance years ago because premiums were unaffordable on fixed incomes. At the time of approval, they met eligibility criteria and were approved. They acted in good faith. They made irreversible financial decisions based on the government's approval. Retroactive reassessment after reliance undermines trust in public programs. A system cannot function if eligibility is uncertain at the outset and reversible after the fact. This is not fairness. This is instability. Health care affordability is another glaring omission from this bill. Many Canadians welcomed the promise to establish an expanded universal pharmacare, yet constituents increasingly tell me that they worry that those promises are being quietly abandoned.”
“(1200) Aside from housing, Van East constituents continue to raise serious concerns about the Canadian dental care plan. I have written to the minister regarding applications for medically necessary procedures, including crowns, that are being rejected using template language that provides no meaningful explanation of what criteria were not met. Patients are left without clarity, providers are left without guidance, and appeals are effectively blocked. Even more troubling are cases where some of my constituents were previously approved for the Canadian dental care plan, received care in good faith and are now being told that they are not eligible after all. In some cases, they are even being asked to repay benefits that they already received.”
“Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes. Rising Star and China Creek, for example, in my riding, will be hit hard if the rental assistance subsidy is not renewed. The expiry of the FCHI phase 2 funding without a successor program or extension risks undoing decades of investment in this model and displacing established community members, including families with young children and seniors who depend on it. Access to rental assistance is necessary to enable co-ops to be a deeply affordable housing solution. FCHI cannot, and must not, sunset.”
“In Vancouver alone, indigenous people represent a disproportionate share of those experiencing homelessness, despite being a far smaller share of the population. They are the predictable result of decades of underinvestment and policy delay. Housing providers are ready to build. Friendship centres are ready to build. Indigenous-led organizations are ready to build. The problem is not capacity. The problem is execution. People cannot live in promises of affordability. They cannot sleep in frameworks. They cannot raise children in consultations. Constituents are also increasingly concerned about rental assistance for co-operative housing members. Co-ops work. They provide stability. They provide affordability. They provide community-based housing that has proven effective for decades.”
“We fought for that and won interim funding of $300 million and long-term funding of $4 billion over seven years for FIBI URN, and an equivalent amount of $4 billion over seven years for distinction-based funding, yet the funding of the long-term component has yet to flow. Indigenous housing providers continue to face uncertainty about governance, timelines and implementation. Even as funding is referenced in the federal announcements, there remains no clear guarantee that delivery will remain indigenous-led in practice, nor a firm timeline for rollout. While policy frameworks evolve in Ottawa, indigenous communities continue to experience the highest rate of homelessness in Canada.”
“Reconciliation requires action. It requires resources. It requires government to ensure that organizations serving survivors have the certainty necessary to continue their work. If the government can find fiscal room for subsidies for big oil, it can find the resources necessary to provide stable support to those serving residential school survivors. Turning to housing, the “for indigenous, by indigenous” urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy was something that the Liberals committed to in the last Parliament. It was something that the NDP prioritized in the confidence and supply agreement. I fought for that.”
“In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indigenous Services Canada that the organization would receive confirmation for its two-year funding by mid-May, to date, there is still no action. The funding will end on July 1. This delay is going to have serious operational impacts for the people it serves. The organization continues to seek certainty regarding its long-term core funding. Reconciliation cannot depend on year-to-year uncertainty. Reconciliation is not a slogan. It is not a press release. It is not a commemorative statement.”
“Reconciliation is not achieved through short-term extensions, but is achieved through durable commitments that governments keep. Right now, that certainty is missing. (1155) The same pattern is evident with support for survivors of residential schools. Many indigenous leaders, survivors and advocates have repeatedly raised stable funding for the Indian Residential School Survivors Society. For decades, survivors have carried the trauma inflicted by Canada's residential school system. They have carried grief, loss and intergenerational harm resulting from policies designed to erase indigenous identities, cultures and communities. Today, many continue to rely on the Indian Residential School Survivors Society for culturally appropriate counselling, crisis support and healing services.”
“It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province. Despite early assurances that a renewed long-term agreement would be included in the 2026 spring economic update, first nations partners were instead informed that only a one-year extension would be provided. A one-year extension does not provide for stability. It produces uncertainty, and uncertainty in education is not abstract. It affects staffing, planning and children's outcomes. The First Nations Education Steering Committee and first nations leadership have been clear: What is required is a 10-year renewal agreement that provides predictability, continuity and proper fiscal planning.”
“Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules. This is not administrative complexity. This is a failure of delivery, and Canadians are living the consequences of this unfortunate reality. I will begin with first nations education. In B.C., first nations education is supported through the BC Tripartite Education Agreement between first nations leadership, the province and Canada. At the centre of that agreement is the First Nations Education Steering Committee. This is not a symbolic structure. It is the core funding architecture for first nations education in B.C.”
“In Vancouver East, constituents are facing housing insecurity, food insecurity, gaps in health care coverage. uncertainty in indigenous housing initiatives, delays in compensation programs and rising affordability pressures across every essential service. They are also increasingly concerned about federal priorities shifting toward expanded military spending while social programs remain underfunded or delayed. Across all these areas, a pattern is becoming unmistakable: announcements without delivery, commitments without timelines, programs without certainty sunsetting out of existence, and decisions increasingly centralized in Ottawa, far removed from the communities they affect.”
“The question before us is not simply whether the measures contained in Bill C-30 should proceed. The question is whether this bill would respond to the realities Canadians are living every day. This is where my concerns lie, which is that this legislation does not not meet the moment of the challenges everyday Canadians face. It does not live up to the hype of the projected progressive Prime Minister that was portrayed during the election or what we have come to read about him. There is a dissonance between words and action, and therein lies the problem. In my constituency of Vancouver East and in communities across this country, the gap between policy and lived experience is widening, and the concerns around the centralizing tendency of the government are being noticed across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-30 , the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. As parliamentarians, our responsibility is to examine not only what the government has chosen to include in an economic update, but also what it has chosen to leave out. Bill C-30 would implement selected measures announced in the spring economic update, but budgets and economic updates are not technical exercises conducted by the Prime Minister on his own or by his narrow circle of advisers. They are statements of priorities for all Canadians. This is the hope and vision of what our constituents expect of us: to take off our blind spots and look at the bigger picture. What we ask of the Prime Minister today is to review what the government values, where it is prepared to invest and whose needs it is prepared to postpone.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous peoples harmed by Canada's colonial systems. They were promised by Indigenous Services Canada that they would receive confirmation for their two-year funding by mid-May. Today there has been no action and their funding ends on July 1. Can the parliamentary secretary explain why?”
“Mr. Speaker, the last petition that I am tabling has been signed by 25 people, including several constituents of my Vancouver East riding, who share with me their support and calls to the House regarding Bill C-218 . The petitioners say Canadians with mental illness should be provided with treatment and support, mental illness is complex and can include suicidal ideation as a symptom, and they are concerned that the lives of Canadians with mental illness will be at risk when they are eligible for medical assistance in dying on the basis of mental illness alone, especially when treatment and support are not readily available.”
“Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are asking for the government to terminate the safe third country agreement in accordance with article 10 of the agreement and, finally, to instruct the Canada Border Services Agency to change its policy so that it no longer enforces the safe third country agreement.”
“In his recent speech to the World Economic Forum, the Prime Minister called for the creation of agreements that function as described, yet Canada is a signatory to the 1951 UN refugee convention and its 1967 protocol, which violates the refugee convention and its own laws by implementing the safe third country agreement. Therefore, they call on the House of Commons to instruct the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to immediately report to the governor in council that the U.S. no longer meets the requirements for designation as a safe third country, notify the U.S. in writing that Canada intends to terminate the safe third country—”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by Canadians who are concerned about Canada's safe third country agreement with the United States. They note that Canadian law offers safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution. They also note that a continual review of all countries designated as safe third countries should be required to ensure that the conditions that led to that designation continue to be met. The petitioners say refugee claimants in the U.S., including those who enter the country regularly, are being arrested, detained and deported without due process.”
“Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons, the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to rescind the referral of Ksi Lisims' and LNG Canada's phase two to the Major Projects Office as projects of national interest; to not fund, subsidize or in any way support it, but instead refer indigenous-owned, shovel-ready solar, electric and other renewable energy projects to the Major Projects Office for funding as green projects of national interest; and to fund affordable housing through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and other monies.”
“The petitioners are concerned that hydro subsidies for these American-owned projects have been promised and will increase household utility costs. They also note that these projects violate indigenous sovereignty, as the Gitanyow and Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, as well as the Lax’yip firekeepers of the Gitxsan have clearly said no to consent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table three petitions today. The first petition is signed by electors of Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby and Vancouver Quadra, who brought their petitions to their local MPs but had to ask for my assistance to table this in the House. The petitioners have raised many concerns about fracked methane gas and liquefied methane gas, or LNG, including the severe emissions and health impacts to people and the disruption of LNG to clean salmon rivers. They know there is no business case for LNG, and these fossil fuel projects will become stranded assets. They note that Ksi Lisims is 100% American-owned, LNG Canada's phase two is 60% foreign-owned, not Canadian-sovereign, and the Ksi Lisims and Prince Rupert gas transmission pipelines early investors are U.S. private equity firms linked to Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.”
“It is an authoritarian government wielding its majority, not through legitimacy and democracy but through floor-crossers.”
“Madam Speaker, I have been a parliamentarian in this House for 10 years, and prior to that provincially for 19 years. I have never seen a government embark on this kind of process in such an aggressive way, setting aside the basic rights, civil liberties and privacy rights of Canadians, setting aside valid legal experts' concerns, civil liberty advocates' concerns, privacy experts' concerns and a whole host of community concerns. This is from a Liberal government that pretends to listen to people, but what I have witnessed in the last two weeks with the volume of programming motions the government is bringing forward to ram things through on significant bills, such as Bill C‑22 , is unprecedented. I have never seen anything like it. It is not a democratic government.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the Conservatives are trying to do, which is to bring more debate on part 2 of the bill. However, the premise of the amendment is still framed in terms of bringing in closure on debate. That is what I am challenged with. I do not think we should be bringing in closure to any parts of this bill. The two parts go hand in hand and are important, so we should take the time to do the work. This is what I am urging all members to do, take the time to do it right, because it is significant in terms of the changes for Canadians and for us as a country, as a whole.”
“Madam Speaker, it is very unusual for me, as a New Democrat, to agree with the Conservatives. On this bill, the Conservatives, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc are all offering the same voice. What message does that send to the government? I think the message is that the government got it wrong. To the member's question about businesses being worried, yes, some of them have indicated to me that they would actually leave Canada should Bill C‑22 proceed because it would put their companies in jeopardy on the privacy protections for their customers. Equally to the point, it would put them in a liability situation should there be a breach. The backdoor mechanism would create a breach that could actually violate people's privacy and put those companies in a liability situation. Once the cat is out of the bag, we cannot put it back in.”
“What happened was members were asking legitimate questions and then there was a motion to split the bill, by the Conservatives, into part one and part two. The Liberals rejected it. I then observed that the filibustering started to happen. It is a tool. When members get frustrated with the government's approach, they use that as a tool to send a message to the government that it cannot run roughshod when trying to make laws. That was the message, I believe, the members were trying to send.”
“Madam Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner actually appeared as a witness at the committee and offered suggestions. I also contacted the Privacy Commissioner after Bill C‑22 was tabled and asked whether they had any comments about the bill. They provided comments on C‑2 , which the government took into consideration. However, I think that there is much work to be done. I wonder why the government rejected the motion that was tabled by committee members to bring the Privacy Commissioner back to committee to ensure questions were answered by the Privacy Commissioner as the committee went through clause-by-clause. That was rejected by the Liberals. To the member's point about the filibustering, I went to committee and watched what was going on.”
“Madam Speaker, the NDP submitted dozens of amendments. I believe that those amendments, along with some from other parties, would achieve that goal to develop proportionality and bring some balance to this legislation. The amendments would not fix everything, but they would be a good start for the government to adopt opposition member amendments, and not just go forward with government or Liberal member amendments. That is the track record so far with what has happened at committee, and I think it is the wrong track.”
“We heard from other members in the House earlier who say there were not even robust, meaningful and fulsome discussions at committee with witnesses. Witnesses were not able to attend committee. Briefs were not transcribed or provided. This cannot be a path forward, because the structural changes are so significant and impactful for Canadians that we cannot afford to get it wrong. Let us take the time to do it right. I urge all members of the House to do what is important and what is right for Canadians. I urge them to not just follow the orders of what the government whip tells them to do but to do what civil society organizations, advocates and experts tell them must be done. They must examine these issues with their own mind and make that determination. I urge members to do that.”
“A clear understanding of the implications of system vulnerabilities needs to be incorporated with amendments to the bill to ensure those vulnerabilities do not put Canadians at further risk. Absent those kinds of changes and more, Bill C-22 represents a significant step backward for privacy rights and constitutional protections in Canada. This is not what Canadians want, I do not believe, from a Liberal government. The question before us is whether we are willing to accept a shift towards generalized surveillance infrastructure as the default condition of digital life in Canada. I am not, nor are my constituents in Vancouver East, so I urge the House to reject this path. We still have a chance. I want to be surprised. I want to be shocked. I want to see the government members not just roll over and do what they are told.”
“Bill C-22 fails that task. It lowers thresholds for access to personal information. It expands executive authority over digital infrastructure. It mandates or enables large-scale data retention and increases systemic exposure of private communications to risk. Businesses are considering withdrawing services from Canada should Bill C-22 be implemented. For these reasons, this legislation should not proceed in its current form. If not withdrawn and sent back to the drawing board, at minimum, it requires substantial amendments, such as restoration of judicial authorization for access orders, strict limitation of data retention powers, removal of secret system modification orders and clear prohibition of infrastructure changes that compromise encryption or system integrity.”