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 7 of 11.
“Some have abusers who have already been deported back to the country of origin and are waiting for them. Under this bill, they would be stripped of the right to seek safety. They would be sent back into the hands of those who have threatened, harmed and exploited them. (1040) The Canadian Civil Liberties Association made another critical point. The government's supposed justification for the one-year bar of deterring fraudulent claims is unfounded. Those intent on deception will simply file quickly. The people who will be excluded are those who delay filing because of trauma, confusion, language barriers or evolving circumstances. In practice, this bill punishes vulnerability and not fraud.”
“As conditions for LGBTQ2S+ people in Turkey rapidly deteriorated, she filed a refugee claim 18 months after her arrival, a claim that was accepted in 2020 because the threat to her life was real. Under Bill C-12 , she would never have had that opportunity. She would have been barred from seeking protection simply because her claim came after 12 months. This bill would have sent her back into the hands of a state that was targeting her for who she is. It is also clear that the one-year bar will disproportionately harm women, 2SLGBTQ+ people, survivors of gender-based violence and trafficked persons. The FCJ Refugee Centre explained that many survivors cannot file a claim within a year due to trauma, fear, coercion by abusive partners or complexities of escaping trafficking networks.”
“A date on a piece of paper could determine whether or not they can have safe harbour. We have seen the harm caused by similar rules in the United States, where one-year deadlines have resulted in refugees being deported despite having a genuine fear of persecution. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees advised Canada against this approach as far back as 1999, reminding us that under international law, the passage of time does not alter our obligation of non-refoulement, our duty not to return people to danger. These are not theoretical concerns. They are lived realities. In a Canadian Press story from October 31, we heard from Asya Medea, a trans woman from Turkey. She came to Canada in 2018 on a student visa.”
“The Canadian Bar Association's Immigration Law Section was unequivocal. It said this bill risks “exacerbating rather than alleviating existing problems”, undermines Canada's commitments to refugee protection, and erodes the checks and balances fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. It further noted that the retroactive nature of the one-year bar is “particularly offensive to the rule of law.” Amnesty International's Julia Sande said this bill judges people on how and when they enter the country, factors that have nothing to do with whether they need protection. She warned that under this bill, even someone who first entered as a baby for a single day and who, decades later, faces persecution due to war, political violence, their gender identity or their sexual orientation would be denied the chance to have their claims heard.”
“It codifies in law the stigmatizing narrative that treats refugees as security threats rather than human beings seeking protection. Contained in Bill C-12 is a one-year bar on refugee claims. What does that mean? It means that anyone who entered Canada more than 12 months before filing a refugee claim becomes ineligible for the refugee protection process that has existed for decades. The bar is retroactive to June 24, 2020, based on the individual's first entry into Canada. That means someone's safety is based not on whether they have a valid refugee claim or a claim of persecution, or that their life is in danger, but on some arbitrary date. Experts across the sector, like the Canadian Council for Refugees, women's organizations and more, have warned us of the consequences.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the strongest possible terms against Bill C-12 , a bill that represents not only poor public policy but a profound abandonment of Canada's legal obligations, humanitarian commitments and democratic safeguards. The legislation is not an effort to strengthen our immigration system. It is not an attempt to improve processing, bolster safety or address affordability. Rather, it is the latest chapter in a troubling pattern: Liberals and Conservatives competing to see who can scapegoat migrants more harshly. It deflects blame for successive Liberal and Conservative governments' own long-standing failures in their housing policies and economic planning. It preys on the fears and insecurities of Canadians in the face of an affordability crisis through the politics of division.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her amendment motions today. We in the opposition are here doing our level best to stop this; rightfully, Bill C-12 should be withdrawn. With that being said, I wonder what the member's thoughts are with respect to this. During committee, I tried to move an amendment for the government to at least change the provisions related to the one-year bar: to, instead of deeming someone ineligible to make a refugee application if they have been here in Canada for one year, at least strike that provision, or, at minimum, instead of having the date be that of the first entry into Canada, move it to the latest entry into Canada. I wonder what my colleague's thoughts are, because the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc voted against it.”
“Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to suspend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement until the Government of Canada has certitude that the Israeli government is no longer acting in violation of international laws with its deliberate blockade, and to impose sanctions on all members of the present Israeli government who have publicly expressed their support for the continued blockade.”
“The starvation of civilians and other forms of collective punishment are also criminalized by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which Canada ratified on July 7, 2000. The Government of Canada is the custodian of Canada's reputation as a country that upholds international human rights laws, and it has a duty towards Canadians to ensure that this reputation is not diminished by Canada's inaction in the face of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute by other states.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table e-petition e-6581, which has 7,531 signatures. The petitioners note that the Israeli government's blockade of food and medicines to Gaza has continued for more than 90 days since its commencement on March 2, 2025. According to the food security analysis released on May 12, 2025, by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification partnership, three-quarters of Gaza's population is currently experiencing “emergency” or “catastrophic” food deprivation. Canada has ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, giving these the force of law through the Geneva Conventions Act of 1964, which prohibits the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.”
“Madam Speaker, behind closed doors, without B.C. and first nations at the table, the Prime Minister agreed to lift the tanker ban, put at risk the way of life of coastal communities, bring in a new fossil fuel subsidy at the expense of renewable energy and clean technologies, and move Canada further away from its greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Prime Minister said they will not proceed without the consent of B.C. and the free, prior and informed consent of first nations, but nowhere is this spelled out in the MOU. Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, at no time during the campaign did the Prime Minister say the tanker ban would be lifted or changed. B.C. coastal first nations are saying loud and clear that the tanker ban is not up for negotiation, and no MOU will change that. The secret deal signed behind closed doors without B.C. and first nations at the table is a betrayal. Enbridge 2.0 will not proceed without first nations' free, prior and informed consent, and B.C. will not stand for it. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this is a pipeline to nowhere but the courts and stop wasting everyone's time with this political posturing?”
“Madam Speaker, this is an austerity budget. This is actually what the Conservatives want. However, we do not support this. What the NDP called for was for the government to protect services, to support working families and to ensure deeper affordability measures. If we are serious about Canada's future, about—”
“Madam Speaker, I will tell the House what I was looking for in the budget that I did not see. I was looking for affordable housing at scale, that is, a million units over a decade to deliver for and address the affordability housing crisis. I was looking for community housing for people in Quebec, in British Columbia and across the country, not a measly $500-million investment that will barely, barely have an impact. We were looking for investment in public transit in Quebec and in British Columbia. We were looking for an east-west energy grid connecting provinces with clean energy. Instead, Canadians are left with incremental changes, tax breaks for corporations and more austerity for the public sector. Not to mention, there was no support for the environment.”
“Madam Speaker, well, let me be very clear: I voted against the Liberals. I did not vote with the Conservatives; I voted against the Liberals. Why? The NDP actually tried to make this work and went to the government, saying we would support the budget if, for example, it invested $1.5 billion in co-op housing with affordability criteria attached; if, in fact, it brought forward an EI support program for workers who are going to be losing their jobs; and if it would not impose cuts that would impact indigenous people's services, for example. There was a list of things we brought to the government, and it rejected them. This is what we voted against: the government refusing to support the Canadians who need help the most during this affordability crisis.”
“With no firm commitments, and without clear affordability guarantees, Build Canada Homes will fail to deliver the affordable homes Canadians desperately need. Budget 2025 promises a lot, a trillion dollars of investment, but most of it is pre-committed, reclassified or private sector investment that may never materialize. The government talks a lot, and there is a lot of fanfare and hype, but in reality, much of it is just hot air, with recycled announcements and recalibration of existing programs and investments that have already been committed. A $25-billion headline number shrinks to just $0.3 billion in new R and D—”
“On the issue around housing, Build Canada Homes comes with a lot of hype and promises. The government talks about delivering 40% affordable units and deep affordability tied to 30% of the median income. It turns out that this commitment only applies to six sites. For the rest, there are no affordability criteria attached. Not only that, but there is only $6.5 billion of new money in budget 2025; the rest of the $25 billion is carried over from previous budgets. With that, so far, the only target we have heard from the government is that 4,000 new homes are scheduled to start next year. This is a drop in the bucket of the million non-market housing units needed over a decade to address backlogs. The government is also leaning heavily on provinces to subsidize deep affordability.”
“It is not exactly a worker-friendly budget, is it? Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, a housing crisis and an overstretched health care system, yet the government is asking workers and families to tighten their belts while defence contractors get a windfall. The cuts to the federal public services are short-sighted and unnecessary. These are the people who process benefits, GIS applications for seniors, tax refunds and EI applications, which are services that keep government running. Undermining these things means undermining services that Canadians need. A truly generational budget would invest in people, in affordable homes, green jobs, public health care, climate change mitigation and a post-secondary education system that has been decimated by the Liberals' mismanagement of student visas.”
“That means shrinking public services, targeting the very frontline workers who deliver the essential care that everyday Canadians rely on. The Prime Minister hides the impact of the cuts in euphemism. The budget is riddled with terms such as “modernizing”, ”streamlining” and “recalibrating”. What does that really mean? It really means that services will be cut, and it imposes austerity that disproportionately affects women, frontline workers and vulnerable communities. For the workers and families who have lost their jobs, or the 40,000 workers who will lose their jobs because of the 15% cut across all departments, with a few minor exceptions, there is no support for them in budget 2025. There is no EI reform for these workers and their families, retraining or transition; there is no support for them.”
“The Prime Minister calls this a “generational investment budget”, but it is not the kind of investment that working Canadians have been asking for. It misses the mark. The budget shifts resources away from everyday people in an affordability crisis. It has very little investment in indigenous communities and indigenous-led projects, and there is no mention of the calls for justice on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It delivers deep cuts, at 15% across most ministries, and downsizes critical public services, all to make room for a record increase in military spending. The government is reining in its day-to-day spending through a so-called comprehensive expenditure review, cutting $13 billion annually by 2028-29, for a total of $60 billion in savings, it says.”
“None of them has been at the table. British Colombians will not stand for the lifting of the tanker ban, and B.C. Liberal members know it. Instead of sowing division, why does the Prime Minister not work on truly nation-building projects that are good for the economy and the environment and help Canada meet its Paris accord commitments? Canadians were told that budget 2025 is a bold statement of generational ambition. They were shown the headline figure of $1 trillion in public and private investments over five years and told that this budget would secure the future of Canada, yet despite all the fanfare, few Canadians feel inspired. Why? It is because the budget, at its core, is underwhelming, contradictory and deeply conservative in its priorities. (1115) It is back to the future with austerity and the Liberal government.”
“The Prime Minister 's actions are a far cry from his election promises to Canadians, and as it stands, Canada has become the only G7 nation without a trade deal with the U.S. During the campaign, the Prime Minister promised Canadians he would get clean energy projects built. At no point did he say he would end the tanker ban and build a new pipeline. What is the Prime Minister doing? He is signing an MOU with Premier Danielle Smith on advancing a new pipeline to the B.C. coast, an agreement developed behind closed doors with zero consultation with B.C. and first nations. British Colombians do not want another megaproject that increases emissions and threatens coastal ecosystems. The Prime Minister cannot justify negotiating a pipeline deal with Alberta that excludes B.C. entirely, affected first nations and impacted communities.”
“As if the Prime Minister was put on steroids to further appease Trump, he committed to boosting defence funding from 2% to 5% of GDP, and we saw a commitment of a whopping $81.5 billion over five years made in budget 2025. It does not stop there. To further placate Trump, under the guise of border security to address Trump's imagined fentanyl border crisis, Bill C-12 was the Prime Minister 's first piece of legislation in this House, a dangerous omnibus bill that threatens Canadians' civil liberties, infringes on their privacy rights, eliminates due process and takes a page directly from Trump's anti-refugee, anti-rule-of-law agenda. When Trump took offence to an ad that accurately recounted former president Reagan's view on tariffs, the Prime Minister kowtowed to Trump and apologized. This is not exactly elbows up, is it?”
“In the Prime Minister 's definition of elbows up to appease Trump, he has rescinded the digital services tax, which is a 3% tax for massive multinational companies operating in Canada such as Google, Amazon and Netflix. This is a tax the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects would generate over $7 billion in new revenues over five years for Canadians. While the Prime Minister wanted Canadians to believe that every tariff blow Trump threw our way was met with retaliatory countertariffs, in reality, after the initial hurrah, the Liberals removed all tariffs on goods from the U.S. that are covered by CUSMA. They then quietly removed countertariffs on American goods that are not compliant with CUSMA.”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on a promise that the Liberals would stand strong against Trump and would fight American tariffs. He even did an elbows-up dance following the election. What has the Liberals' rhetoric, with Canada strong against Trump and elbows up, looked like since the election? The U.S. has imposed a 35% levy on all Canadian goods, even though most are exempt under an existing free trade agreement. Trump has slapped sector-specific levies on Canadian goods, including a 50% levy on metals and a 25% levy on automobiles. Trump has imposed a new 10% tariff to the existing anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian lumber, bringing the levy to over 45% and crippling the industry. In addition, 25% has been imposed on certain finished wood products.”
“Mr. Speaker, based on news reports, the Prime Minister appears ready to sign an MOU with Alberta that could green-light a brand new pipeline to B.C.'s north coast, behind closed doors, without B.C. at the table, by carving out an exemption to the tanker ban that protects our communities and our coast. I ask the Prime Minister , will he commit today that he will not proceed with the project without the full consent of first nations and the Province of B.C., and will he honour the tanker ban and put a stop to this pipeline scheme?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We want Canadians to feel proud, and we want the Canadian government to take action so we can proudly stand on the international stage and say that Canada is not complicit, because as it stands right now, we are. Our arms, our components and our weaponry are ending up in some of the most brutal conflicts in this world, which are killing civilians using Canadian-made arms. That is wrong and has to stop. I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-233 .”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government continues to argue that Canada is not violating the Arms Trade Treaty. If that is the case, manufacturers here in Canada have nothing to worry about. All I am saying is that we need to make sure when we export to the United States that exports meet Arms Trade Treaty requirements so that we do not contribute our weaponry, parts and components to atrocities and to committing genocide and crimes against humanity. I do not think Canadians want blood on their hands, and that is what the bill would mean. If companies do not violate the act, there is nothing they need to worry about. It would not impact them at all.”
“Mr. Speaker, with Canada's current commitment, the export of arms and weaponry to every other country has to go through a permitting process. That has to be measured against risk assessments and the standards outlined in the Arms Trade Treaty, except for the United States. The vast majority of the weaponry that goes to the United States does not require a permitting process. This is what we are talking about. We need to close the loophole to ensure that weaponry, parts and components that go through to the United States are measured against the Arms Trade Treaty, and that the standard applied to every other country applies to U.S. exports as well. In that way, we can be—”
“When the crime is the killing of innocent civilians, there can be no loopholes, no silence, no culture of impunity, no looking away, no wilful ignorance and no moral blindness. (1745) Canadians will be watching how each member votes, and it will be recorded in Hansard forever. They want Canada to be a force for peace. It is time for us to live up to that promise.”
“Children are dying in hospitals that are running out of fuel and medicine. Somewhere in the chain of destruction, there are Canadian-made parts, like propellants and circuitry, that help make these weapons possible. That must end. History will judge us not by how we defended industries or alliances, but by whether we defended humanity. Bill C-233 is about closing the loopholes, yes, but it is also about opening our eyes. It is about aligning our laws with our values, our words, our deeds, our actions and our conscience, with no more exceptions, no more excuses and no more Canadian complicity in war crimes. To my colleagues in this House, if we truly believe in human rights, in the rule of law and in peace, then we must support this bill.”
“We cannot and must not build prosperity on the backs of human suffering. This is ultimately a test of our integrity, particularly at a time when there will be unprecedented defence spending with a commitment of $81.8 billion in budget 2025, far exceeding the 2% NATO commitment the Prime Minister made during the campaign. We cannot continue to call for peace while profiting from war crimes, and we cannot condemn atrocities abroad while quietly enabling them through our exports. Canada once led the world in peacekeeping. We once stood proudly as a voice of conscience on the global stage. However, today, our moral standing is being eroded, not by what we say but by what we permit. As we debate this bill, the bombs are still falling on Gaza. Families are still being buried beneath rubble.”
“Passing Bill C-233 would, in fact, bring Canada into alignment with the vast majority of our allies, not out of step with them. Some have bizarrely claimed that more transparency would compromise our sovereignty. Transparency is not a threat to sovereignty; it is its foundation. A sovereign nation should be able to stand before the world and say with confidence that its weapons are not being used to kill innocent civilians. This is not weakness; this is actually strength. While I acknowledge that Canada's defence industry contributes to our economy, that economic benefit cannot come at the expense of human lives. Our message to the defence industry is clear: If exports are compliant with international law, business can continue; if exports risk enabling war crimes, then they must stop.”
“Not only is there no evidence that it would delay or potentially block Canada's military aid to Ukraine, but the vast majority of the aid to Ukraine is sent either directly to Ukraine or to European allies. This bill seeks to standardize the regulatory process for arms exports going to the U.S. In addition, transfers of military aid, including for Ukraine, are handled by the Department of National Defence, not the export permitting process overseen by Global Affairs. Fourth, harmonizing export controls with our European allies strengthens, not weakens, NATO. Of the 32 NATO members, 30 are state parties to the Arms Trade Treaty. The two states that are signatories to the Arms Trade Treaty but have not acceded to the treaty, are Turkey and the U.S.”
“Let me address each one of these points head-on. First, living up to Canada's commitments to the Arms Trade Treaty is not misguided. It demonstrates the integrity and trustworthiness of a nation. Second, the bill would not decimate the defence industry. It would simply require that all exports, including those going to the United States, meet the same human rights and risk assessment standards that we already apply to every other destination. If a country is already compliant with the Arms Trade Treaty, it has nothing to worry about. Canada's defence system will not be put in jeopardy, as Canada is reliant on imports of military goods going to Canada, not exports. Third, this bill would not disrupt NATO or delay aid to Ukraine.”
“export loophole requiring permits and human rights assessments for all military goods, regardless of destination; end the issuance of general export of brokering permits that bypass case-by-case review; ensure full transparency and public reporting of all military exports, including those to the U.S.; and reinforce Canada's compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty and restore integrity to our export regime. (1740) A few weeks ago, I received a leaked document of the Liberals' talking points to counter my private member's bill. The Liberals say that Bill C-233 is misguided. They say this bill would decimate Canada's defence industry, that it would create unnecessary delays and potentially block Canada-made materials and equipment from getting to our allies in Europe like Ukraine, and that it would weaken Canada's role in NATO.”
“Article 6 prohibits transfers that would contribute to genocide, crimes against humanity or serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. Article 7 requires each state to assess the risk of exported weapons being used to commit such acts. When the government issued general export permit no. 47 in 2019, allowing the full export of full-system conventional arms to the U.S. without permits or risk assessments, it undermined the very treaty we acceded to. That was why we need to pass Bill C-233 , to end such blanket exemptions, so that Canada can finally live up to the promises we made to the world and to ourselves. Bill C-233 , the “no more loopholes act”, will close the U.S.”
“The former foreign affairs minister said that no Canadian “arms or parts of arms” were sent to Gaza. Her successor, the current foreign affairs minister , said that Canada would “not allow Canadian-made weapons to fuel this conflict in any way”. Those words ring hollow when confronted with the evidence. The government has done nothing to close the U.S. loophole, nothing to stop the use of Canadian-made weapons or components in the bombardment of Gaza, nothing to ensure compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty. By exempting U.S.-bound exports from oversight, Canada is violating not just the spirit but the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty. Article 5 of the treaty requires all state parties to regulate arms transfers in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner.”
“When Canadian-made components end up in weapons that kill civilians in Gaza, when our explosives are part of the bombs that are dropped on hospitals and apartment buildings, Canadians bear responsibility. When weapons bearing the logo of a Canadian arms manufacturer have been documented in the hands of paramilitary groups in Sudan, groups accused of massacring civilians and committing ethnic cleansing, Canada is complicit. The United Nations and human rights observers have warned repeatedly that the flow of arms, including those traced back to Canada, has fuelled one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. We cannot continue to hide behind bureaucratic language or the convenient fiction that what leaves Canada for the United States stays in the U.S. It does not, and we all know it. The government has tried to reassure Canadians.”
“Between April 2004 and August 2025 alone, 34 shipments of Canadian-made aircraft components went to Lockheed Martin in the United States. Later, those same components were transferred to the Israeli Ministry of Defense and Israeli weapons manufacturers. Another 360 shipments of Canadian aircraft parts went to the F-35 assembly facility in Fort Worth, Texas. These are the same F-35s that have been dropping bombs on Gaza. Meanwhile, 150 shipments of explosives from Quebec went to U.S. ammunition plants, producing 2,000 pounds of bombs and artillery shells exported to Israel. This is not indirect complicity. This is active participation in a deadly supply chain. Let us be clear about what that means.”
“In fact, in 2009, under the Harper administration, General Dynamics Land Systems, a Canadian company, provided 724 light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. These light armoured vehicles were seen being used in Saudi Arabia's operations in Yemen for years, where hundreds of thousands of Yemenis were killed. (1735) In 2014, under another contract, Canada supplied a newer make of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. In 2015, that continued under the Trudeau administration. This is not speculation; this is not hyperbole. This is fact, documented in commercial export data, defence contracts and investigative journalism. A recent report by Arms Embargo Now uncovered that hundreds of shipments of Canadian military goods are directly contributing to atrocities abroad.”
“By omitting these articles, it means that, under section 7 of the Export and Import Permits Act, the lion's share of exports to the United States are exempt from the permit reporting and human rights risk assessment requirements that apply to every other country. That means that Canadian-made weapons, explosives and parts can cross into the United States completely unmonitored, with no transparency and no public record. Once they arrive in the U.S., those components are often integrated into larger weapons systems, F-35 fighter jets, Apache helicopters and heavy munitions, and then exported to countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, where they have been used to devastate civilian populations.”
“What we were not told, and what Canadians are now only beginning to understand, is that the 2019 amendments left open a gaping loophole, a loophole that has since become a giant and open back door for weapons, components and explosives to flow freely from Canada to the United States and then onward to some of the most brutal conflicts in the world. The U.S. loophole is indeed the heart of the problem. Canada never adopted article 4, which required Canada to treat weapons, parts and components with the same scrutiny as full weapons systems. Canada also left out article 6, which clearly prohibits arms transfers where there is a serious risk that they will be used in genocide or war crimes.”
“The bill is our opportunity to say no, clearly, unequivocally and finally. Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019. The government did so with great fanfare, promising to uphold the highest standards of transparency, accountability and peace. Bill C-47 passed to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, establishing a new framework for arms brokering and export controls. At the time, Canadians were told that our government was committed to ensuring that our weapons would never contribute to human rights abuses, that we were joining the world in saying never again to atrocities fuelled by the global arms trade.”
“It is about whether Canadian-made weapons, the products of our factories, our labour and our infrastructure, will continue to fuel the killing of innocent civilians abroad. We cannot claim to be one thing on the world stage, a supporter of human rights, while turning a wilfully blind eye to what we are doing by maintaining this giant loophole. Canadians expect and deserve better. Let me emphasize first and foremost that the legislation is not partisan. It should never be partisan. Every member of the House, regardless of political stripe, must ask themselves whether we want Canadian-made arms to be used to commit war crimes. Do we want our export laws to continue to contain loopholes so large that bombs and munitions slip through them? Do we want Canada's name to be associated with genocide and human suffering?”
“moved that Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-233. Second reading She said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie , for seconding this important bill. It is with both a heavy heart and a deep sense of purpose that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-233 , an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, or what many civil society organizations have been calling the no more loopholes act, legislation that seeks to finally bring Canada's arms export regime into full compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty. The bill is about something far larger than policy or procedure. It is about whether we, as a nation, will choose to be builders of peace or merchants of war.”
“Caregivers should not be treated as second class or a footnote in Canada's immigration policy. The Liberals must expand the allocation for caregivers, clear the backlog and give those workers the dignity they deserve.”
“Mr. Speaker, after decades of advocacy, caregivers' dream of landed status on arrival finally came with the Canada's home care worker immigration pilot. However, the pilot never opened for intake, and it has been closed without any explanation. This is a betrayal to the people who fought so hard for respect and fairness. Meanwhile, the PR processing backlog for caregivers already in Canada stands at over 34,000 cases. Instead of expediting the processing, the allotted PR quota for all economic pilot programs, including caregivers, under the new levels plan is being reduced. It will take over seven years to process the backlog. This means that tens of thousands of caregivers already in Canada, caring for our children and elders, doing this essential and often undervalued work are left in limbo.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was much hype about the budget. Much had already been made public in the pre-budget announcements. My question is about what is not in the budget. The impact of the 15% cut across most departments, including the loss of 40,000 workers, is buried in buzzwords like “streamlining”, “modernizing” and “recalibrating”. Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians what programs are being cut, which ones will end when the funding sunsets and how people in our communities will be impacted? Canadians deserve to know.”
“Mr. Speaker, the NDP secured $4.3 billion in funding to address urgent unmet housing needs for first nations, Inuit and Métis people living away from their home community, and NICHI, a national indigenous-led organization, helped deliver that interim funding without a hitch. Many shovel-ready projects are desperate for the $4 billion in long-term funding to flow, and with winter fast approaching, another construction season will be missed. Will the Prime Minister just let Indigenous Services task NICHI to get the funding out the door, or are the Liberals are going to re-announce the $4 billion in budget 2025 and pretend it is new funding?”