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 8 of 11.
“Mr. Speaker, deep cuts are being planned for the arts and culture sector in the upcoming budget. Festivals and events could lose $22.5 million, reducing their funding to 2007 levels. The Canada Council for the Arts could face a $50-million cut. Arts and culture not only feed our soul but are a major economic driver, contributing $65 billion to Canada's GDP in 2024 and generating $17 billion in federal and provincial tax revenue. Funding should be increased to support these made-in-Canada jobs. Will the Minister of Finance scrap these cuts?”
“They are therefore calling on the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-2 in full, uphold the elbows-up promise to reject Trump-style policies, ensure immigration security and privacy legislation, reflect our nation's commitment to democracy and human rights, honour the responsibility of elected office, and affirm our charter and not trample it.”
“Canada's asylum policy is a source of national pride and identity, and Bill C-2 proposes arbitrary limits that abandon the most vulnerable while doing nothing to improve safety and disgracing our identity at home and abroad. The petitioners also note that Bill C-2 appears to be a Trojan horse for sweeping surveillance policies, expanding police access to personal data without a warrant, lowering privacy thresholds to “reasonable grounds”, weakening protection on international data sharing and allowing Canada Post to open private mail. They note that the legislation is as offensive as it is undemocratic. Finally, they note that Bill C-2 tramples on our charter rights and freedoms and puts Canada on a dangerous path of xenophobia and racism.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by over 10,000 Canadians across the country. The petitioners note that the Prime Minister made the “elbows up” promise to defend Canadian sovereignty and democracy and to distinguish Canada from the dangerous politics of the United States. Bill C-2 is a gross concession to the U.S., ushering in Trump-style legislation at the expense of our well-being. It is a dramatic bait and switch on Canadian voters, and the owners of Canada do not approve. It threatens to destroy the lives of nearly one-quarter of Canadians; almost 10 million friends and family members would lose their right to due process under the legislation, allowing their immigration status to be revoked or altered without an individualized review.”
“Mr. Speaker, housing cost is the biggest contributing factor to the affordability crisis. Notwithstanding the promise of Build Canada Homes, new homes will not materialize until years from now, and there would be no federal subsidies to ensure affordability. Renters are in a crisis now. Corporate landlords are hiking rent far beyond inflation, and ordinary Canadians are being forced out of their homes. Housing profiteers are jacking up rent by 30%, 40% or even 50%. National vacancy control legislation would stop this gouging cold. Will the Prime Minister bring back a national vacancy control, like the one we used to have before the war, to protect renters?”
“Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here is that the Conservatives, more than a decade ago, brought in a law that is in violation of the charter. I know the member is a feminist, and this violation hits women the most. That is what the court found. If we stand with women and their rights, why would we not ensure these amendments are passed?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is important because Canadians are global citizens. We travel. Canada is a global country, so when people travel, study abroad and work abroad, they should not be penalized for it. That is why we need to fix the legislation right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for seconding my motion and for her ongoing advocacy for basic human rights, not just for Canadians but for everyone across the globe. Her relentless, untiring tackling of and fighting for basic human rights for all people is who we are as Canadians. By the way, the law on lost Canadians' citizenship birthright has been deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court. In fact, the government has been forced to bring this legislation forward. It should have been done years ago, without the court's making the ruling, but the government has not done it, and the court has ruled that the law is unconstitutional. We have to rectify this. Again, I ask all members of the House to support my amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, it would apply to second-generation born-abroad children. That is what this is about. The amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc supported treat second-generation born-abroad children as though they were immigrants. That is the issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been carrying this file for more than a decade. As I have said, I do not have lost Canadians within my own family unit. My children were born in Canada. I am an immigrant, so I am a first-generation born-abroad individual, but my children were born here, so they are not impacted in any shape or form. However, that does not matter. What matters is that there are people who are lost Canadians in this context. It is critically important to pass this legislation back to its original form, based on the amendments made to Senate Bill S-245 that I motivated. It is also based on the government bill later introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-71 . Here we are. It is morally and legally the right thing to do, and that is why we have to do it.”
“I hope we can support these amendments so that we can all stand tall and proud that Canada's citizenship laws will finally be charter-compliant. Let us not conflate immigrants' rights to earn their citizenship with that of Canadians' birthright. Let us not fuel the current atmosphere of anti-immigrant and anti-migrant sentiment that is washing over us from south of the border. We are better than that. Let us not fall prey to that. Conservatives may not believe that, because that is who they are. Maybe that is what it is, but I am not like them and I refuse to let it happen. I hope all members of this House will support these amendments so that we can stand tall and proud, with our Canadian values intact.”
“There is no quid pro quo. I do not have any lost Canadian family myself, but I am doing this because it is the right thing to do. It is an important thing to do. It is the Canadian thing to do. We should all be treated equally. No one should be treated as a second-class citizen. The citizenship rights of those who are lucky enough to be born with citizenship should be celebrated and honoured. There is no question about that. Of course, we should not abuse it. However, we should not penalize the people who travel, work or fall in love abroad, and God forbid they should have children abroad. That is what these amendments would do. Restoring those rights per the court ruling and bringing the bill back to its original form are the right things to do.”
“It is a reflection of many lost Canadian families, including those who have been harmed, those who took the government to court and those who were told when they were pregnant and expecting a child during COVID that they were somehow supposed to leave their families, travel back to Canada, find a place to stay and find a new health care team to deliver their child. That is what they were supposed to do during COVID just so they could ensure that their child would have citizenship. How does that make sense? It does not. Our laws have been discriminatory for more than a decade, ever since the Conservatives, under the Harper regime, stripped lost Canadians of their rights to pass on citizenship to second-generation born-abroad children. I want to be clear that in bringing these motions forward, there is no deal with the Liberal government.”
“They erode the very principle of equal citizenship by creating a hierarchy of rights based on geography and every Canadian’s mobility rights are weakened. What is most frustrating is the politicking behind these changes. The amendments are being used as a proxy battle over immigration fears rather than a good-faith debate on citizenship equality. The lack of preparation from some MPs and the eagerness to grandstand rather than legislate responsibly are infuriating. I might add that at committee, officials noted that with these amendments, it is possible that a new class of lost Canadians could be created. Those are the sentiments of a lost Canadian family.”
“My Canadian identity is not conditional on geography, nor should my children’s right to citizenship depend on political games. The notion that I am somehow less Canadian because I have lived internationally is offensive and contrary to the Charter’s principles of equality and mobility. (1010) The shift away from the cumulative 1,095-day connection test to a consecutive-day requirement is unworkable, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. It disregards the modern realities of family, work, and study, and it directly violates Section 6 of the Charter, which guarantees the right of all Canadian citizens to move, leave, and re-enter Canada freely. These amendments do not only harm Canadians abroad—they harm all Canadians.”
“Canadians who live, study, or work abroad contribute meaningfully to Canada’s global presence, economy, and values. They should be celebrated, not excluded. Second, the rhetoric around so-called “Canadians of convenience” has been weaponized to justify exclusionary amendments. That narrative is deeply harmful and, frankly, inaccurate. At one point, [the member for Saskatoon West] referred to people like me as “visitors to Canada.” I found that remark profoundly insulting. It deepens the wounds inflicted by the First Generation Rule—a policy that already fractured the identity and sense of belonging of thousands of Canadians abroad. I am a Canadian. I was raised in Ottawa and Whistler; I have lived and worked in Canada for most of my life.”
“I have received so many letters and calls from lost Canadian family members about this. Let me put their words on the public record. Referring to the Conservative and the Bloc members, she said: Overall, their interventions were framed around immigration anxieties rather than citizenship rights.... A few points stand out: First, Members of Parliament continue to conflate immigration and citizenship. When she says “Members of Parliament”, I want to be clear that she is referring to the Conservative and Bloc members of the committee. She continued: Bill C-3 is not about granting citizenship to newcomers with tenuous ties to Canada; it is about restoring equal rights to Canadians who already have a genuine, demonstrable connection to their country.”
“It is with dismay that I stand here today to move these amendments and make these statements. Many lost Canadian family members contacted me right after the committee, expressing frustration, anger and dismay. I share their views. I have had much to say on this topic in the last 10 years. I have carried this file with me for years. Finally bringing it to the stage where we can ensure that Canada's citizenship laws are charter-compliant was extremely important, and seeing it dismantled the way it was at committee was shocking. At this point, I think it would be most appropriate to put on the record the words of a lost Canadian family in reaction to the Conservative and Bloc amendments to Bill C-3 at committee. This letter is from a woman named Majda Dabaghi, who represents the sentiments of many lost Canadian families.”
“They respond to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling that Canada's citizenship laws are unconstitutional. They would restore justice for lost Canadian families. Canadians who live, work or study abroad and their second-generation born-abroad children should never be treated as lesser citizens. When Bill C-3 went before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, to say I was disappointed in the amendments from the Conservatives, which were supported by the Bloc, is an understatement. Frankly, I do not understand why the Bloc changed its position. When I was at that committee, I worked closely with the Bloc member. We were in agreement on making these changes. After the election, something happened. I do not know exactly what happened, but the Bloc flipped and supported the Conservative motions.”
“moved: Motions Nos. 8 to 11 Motion No. 8 That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting line 40 on page 7 to line 15 on page 8. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 5.1. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-3, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 23 on page 9 with the following: “6 Paragraph 27(1)(j.1) of the Act is amended by” Motion No. 11 That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 6.1. She said: Mr. Speaker, my motions to amend Bill C-3 would restore the bill to its original form. They would rectify the Conservatives' punitive and unconstitutional law that stripped the children of Canadian parents the right to pass on Canadian citizenship to second-generation born-abroad children, separating families, rendering some stateless and creating two classes of Canadians more than a decade ago.”
“moved: Motions Nos. 4 and 6 Motion No. 4 That Bill C-3, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting line 30 on page 4 to line 6 on page 5. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended: (a) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 7 with the following: “at least 1,095 days before the person’s adoption; or” (b) by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 7 with the following: “at least 1,095 days before the person’s adoption.””
“moved: Motion No. 2 That Bill C-3, in Clause 1, be amended: (a) by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 3 with the following: “1,095 days before the person’s birth; or” (b) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 4 with the following: “1,095 days before the person’s birth.””
“I will be at the table with the government to work with it to bring better legislation forward to enhance and support our immigration system.”
“Madam Speaker, let me say this: Over 300 civil organizations are against the bill and are calling for the government to withdraw it. My question is this: Why should a person's claim be ineligible simply because they visited Canada sometime in the past? This is more of an attempt of the government to try to hollow out Canada's refugee determination system, the IRB, by pre-emptively stopping people from even applying or making an application. Perhaps that is the goal of the government, after all, to move Canada's system to where almost no one will be heard by the IRB. Canada can do better, and we must do better. The NDP do not support the approach the government has adopted. We have lots of suggestions of how the government can do better. Let us engage in proper consultation and scrap this bill.”
“I want refugee and asylum claimants to have access to due process under the IRB. Yes, there needs to be reform, but not this way.”
“Madam Speaker, let me put this on the record for all members to hear very clearly. My mother passed away on October 4. She left China, a Communist regime that attacked her and her family. They fled to Hong Kong and eventually moved to Canada, where we established ourselves. I am not a Communist. Let us be clear about that. I am actually being persecuted right now by the Chinese government under the foreign interference act. They are targeting me as an evergreen target. Let us be clear. I am not Communist, but I stand for equality, justice and what Canada has always been in my eyes, which is standing up for people and protecting them. That is what the refugee system has been, and bit by bit, the Liberal government, under Bill C-2 and now under Bill C-12 , is eroding that.”
“Madam Speaker, the numbers actually come from the minister's transitional binder. I would advise the member to read the bill. The bill is egregious in its violation of rights. There has been plenty wrong, with the Liberals at the helm for the last 10 years, in Canada's immigration system. I can go on for days about that. However, stripping people of their rights or putting women who face gender violence in danger is not the right way to go. Putting the lives of LGBTQ2 members in danger is not the way to go. Stripping refugees of their right to due process is not the way to go. In fact, I tabled a private member's bill calling for an immigration ombudsperson. That is what we should do to ensure that we do this fairly and properly and not just give carte blanche power to a government.”
“When we talk about immigration, we are talking about people: families, workers and children who come here seeking safety and a better life. We should be strengthening our refugee system and not weakening it. The Liberals put women and girls at risk of being deported back into danger. The one-year bar is a copycat of the U.S. refugee determination system. Get this: In the U.S., the one-year timeline starts at their most recent entry into the United States. Canada's proposal is actually worse; it starts at the beginning, the first time they visit Canada. This means that if someone visited Canada some years ago as a child and they are now being persecuted, they will not be able to apply for asylum here in Canada, and that is wrong.”
“Bill C-12 would expand cabinet's ability to rule by order. It would give ministers unilateral power to cancel applications, suspend rights and make regulations without parliamentary oversight. This is not the Canadian way. Our immigration and refugee system should be based on clear laws, fair processes and independent decision-making, not on who happens to sit in cabinet. Let us recognize who would bear the brunt of these policies: women fleeing violence, LGBTQ2+ refugees seeking safety, migrant workers exploited in precarious jobs and indigenous people in border communities, who already face racial profiling. Bill C-12 would deepen these inequalities instead of addressing them. Let us make sure we do this right.”
“Rather than listening to the hundreds of organizations demanding its withdrawal, the government chose to split the bill into two, hoping Canadians would not notice. However, we do notice. We notice that these measures come at a time when asylum claims have dropped by 34% and when the average number of daily refugee claims has plummeted from 165 to 12. What is the crisis, exactly, that the government is responding to? This is not about border security; it is about politics. It is about appeasing a Trump-style, anti-immigrant, anti-migrant narrative that is creeping into our political discourse. There is a dangerous pattern emerging under the current government, an obsession with centralizing authority and sidestepping accountability. It is carrying out the Conservatives' agenda but with a new Liberal leader dressed in red.”
“It empowers border agents to access private facilities and detain goods for export. It expands the Coast Guard’s role into intelligence collection and surveillance. (1550) Even though the government removed some of the most intrusive measures from Bill C-2 , such as the warrantless access to Canadians' private data, the spirit of the bill remains the same: centralization of power and erosion of rights. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has warned that the bill “fast tracks...the most egregious aspects” of its predecessor. It would not fix the problems; it would accelerate them. Let us not kid ourselves: Bill C-12 exists because Bill C-2 became too toxic to pass.”
“The NDP stands with the hundreds of organizations across this country, civil liberties advocates, refugee lawyers, women’s groups and faith communities who are united in saying that we should withdraw Bill C-12 and Bill C-2 . How can the government put forward legislation that will knowingly endanger survivors of violence or those being persecuted for who they love? Sixty-four countries criminalize homosexuality. That is not all. Under the U.S. administration, Trump's executive orders threaten the rights, the health care and the existence of transgender people. More and more, actually, my office has heard from people who are living in fear in the United States. Bill C-12 is also a blow to civil liberties. It authorizes unprecedented information sharing across departments without proper safeguards.”
“Bill C-12 sends the opposite message. It says, “If you didn’t file your paperwork within a year, we don’t want to hear your case.” We can imagine a woman fleeing gender-based violence, arriving in Canada with nothing, struggling with trauma, with no access to legal support, just trying to survive, and then being told she is too late to seek safety. As Women’s Shelters Canada and LEAF have pointed out, arbitrary timelines such as these deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they need it most. We should be upholding the rule of law, not concentrating power in cabinet. Bill C-12 represents a dangerous step backward. It undermines our international obligations, our charter values and our reputation as a country that welcomes those in need.”
“It is not just the actions that the government might take with this kind of power that we should be concerned about. It would be giving that power to future governments as well. The bill also allows the government to block refugee hearings, to impose retroactive one-year bars on asylum claims and to strip people of their status en masse. These are powers that echo some of the most extreme anti-migrant policies we have seen south of the border. The Prime Minister likes to claim that this is about modernization and efficiency. It is not. It is peddling a racist, discriminatory narrative with Trump leading the charge. The bill would directly harm refugees and vulnerable migrants, people fleeing war, persecution and violence. Frankly, it is un-Canadian. Let us remember that Canada once prided itself on being a refuge for those in need.”
“The government could use this clause to shut down entire classes of immigration overnight. As reported by the CBC, for people who apply under the humanitarian compassionate stream, the processing time right now is up to 600 months. That is 50 years. For caregivers, it is nine years; for the agri-food stream, it is 19 years. For entrepreneurs, it is 35 years. This is unheard of. By the way, all this came out of the minister's transition binder. The fear is that the government will just cancel applications en masse. That is what Bill C-12 would allow the government to do. It is stoking fear. If the government wants to say that Canada wants to shut its door to asylum seekers, then it should just say that instead of doing this under the pretense that somehow this is just and fair and respects procedural fairness. This is not good governance.”
“The organizations are right, because Bill C-12 would maintain the sweeping new powers in Bill C-2 related to refugee asylum seekers, whereby the minister and cabinet, at the expense of transparency, fairness and human rights, could engage in a host of actions and would be given a host of authorities. Let us talk about some of the most egregious elements of the bill and what it would actually do. Bill C-12 would give cabinet the authority to suspend or terminate immigration applications and cancel visas, work permits or permanent resident documents whenever it is deemed to be “in the public interest”. However, there is no definition of “public interest”, none; there are no guidelines, no guardrails, no requirements for evidence and no judicial oversight.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today in strong opposition to Bill C-12 , the so-called border security and immigration act. Let us be clear: The bill is not a new approach. It is a repackaging, a political sleight of hand. Bill C-12 is simply Bill C-2 with a fresh coat of paint. It would not fix the fundamental problems of its predecessor. It doubles down on the same anti-migrant, anti-refugee agenda that civil society, legal experts and human rights advocates have already rejected in overwhelming numbers. More than 300 civil society organizations, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the United Church of Canada, have called for the full withdrawal of both bills.”
“Madam Speaker, perhaps the member should read the bill, Bill C-12 . In fact, Bill C-12 takes away those procedural protections. It only relies on the pre-removal risk assessments because a host of people would be stripped of their right to go before the Immigration and Refugee Board to make their application. That is exactly the concern that I have. If the government were to ensure that people's rights are protected and procedural rights are intact, then what the government has to do is withdraw this bill and ensure that the current system of the IRB review process for asylum seekers' applications is kept in place.”
“Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the pre-removal risk assessment process as though somehow that is a fair, due process for asylum seekers. Does the member realize that it actually lacks procedural protections, such as the right to oral hearings, the right to appeal and the right to have a decision made by an independent body? Does he not view those important measures as central for an asylum seeker and to ensure that Canada's asylum process is, indeed, independent, as opposed to one where decisions are made by the government's department?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime posted on X, “On behalf of the Government of Canada I am announcing that on the advice of our officials, we have deemed the group Kneecap ineligible to enter our country.” Can the minister advise whether the parliamentary secretary was authorized to make this announcement? If yes, who authorized it? Was it the minister, department officials or the Prime Minister's Office? If no one authorized it, can the minister advise what follow-up action will be taken to address this serious misrepresentation of authority? Canadians deserve to know.”
“The petitioners are asking the government to immediately reduce processing times for family reunification applications from Gaza and the West Bank to reflect the urgency of the humanitarian crisis; to simplify application procedures to ensure accessibility for applicants facing extreme conditions, including displacement, famine and destruction of infrastructure; to provide alternative options for applicants to complete biometrics or other documentation outside of Gaza and the West Bank; and to prioritize the evacuation and reunification of Palestinians in life-threatening circumstances. Finally, the petitioners urge the government to take real action so that the speed in processing applications meets the guidelines that have been set for Ukrainians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by close to 1,500 Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The petition is to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship . The petitioners note that Canada has a moral and legal obligation to uphold international humanitarian law and refugee protections and that the International Court of Justice and United Nations bodies have raised grave concerns about the ongoing genocide and humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. They further note that Canada has demonstrated its capacity for rapid humanitarian response by processing Ukrainian visas in a matter of days, while Palestinian applications are often delayed for over a year.”
“Madam Speaker, it is important to respect jurisdictional authority, and I am not sure if the government actually struck the right balance in this bill. I am not sure it has struck the right balance in ensuring that respect is in place, but more importantly, to respect the privacy rights and those measures the government put forward that meet the standard of transparency and accountability. There is a lot of stuff in this bill that comes without independent oversight, as an example. That is not good for Canadians; that is not good for anyone. We will see what happens at committee. I expect amendments will be put forward. The NDP does not have a seat at the committee table, but we will be watching to see how things progress and we will make a determination of how we can enhance Bill C-8 for all Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, I cannot really answer why the government is doing what it is doing. It is doing many things I do not agree with, such as what it is doing with Canada Post right now. I cannot answer for the government. What I can do, though, is to raise these concerns again and to put them forward. I expect we will hear from expert witnesses at committee. I expect amendments will be put forward, and I hope they will be taken seriously. I hope we can work collaboratively, because cybersecurity for Canadians is really important, but so too are our rights and our democracy. We can strike the right balance. I really urge the government to stop centralizing all the power and making decisions behind closed doors and giving ministers, in this instance the Minister of Industry , this expansive power without transparency.”
“Madam Speaker, yes, the bill, in the form of Bill C-26 , has gone before Parliament. Some amendments were adopted, but having said that, I think more work needs to be done. I raised a series of questions in my speech. I would like answers from the government. I would like to hear experts respond to those concerns, and then we can move forward with amendments to address, truly, a bill that would balance the need to enhance cybersecurity infrastructure for Canadians with protecting our rights.”
“We can protect Canadians from cyber-threats without trampling on rights, without ignoring workers and without undermining our economy. Bill C-8 is an opportunity to strike the right balance, but right now it does not seem well equipped to do that. Canadians want more answers, transparency and oversight from overreach, as we have seen the tendency of the new Prime Minister to move headlong toward centralization without considering the consequences for public policy and its effects on everyday Canadians.”
“Why would the same compliance framework be applied to banks, nuclear facilities and small ISPs alike? Has the government conducted and published a risk assessment of how Bill C-8 could affect Canada’s adequacy standing with the European Union? The Liberals say the bill would modernize our telecom laws and defend Canada, but democracy must not be sacrificed in the process. Strong cybersecurity should also mean strong democracy. It should protect Canadians from foreign threats without opening the door to unchecked government overreach. New Democrats will continue to push for changes, independent oversight, stronger privacy protections, fair treatment for workers and communities, proportional penalties and sector-specific flexibility.”
“Here are the questions we are putting on the record for the Minister of Public Safety and the government to answer. Why has the government chosen to concentrate so much power in cabinet without requiring independent judicial and parliamentary review? Why would there be no independent oversight body to ensure that orders are proportionate and justified? Why would the bill not guarantee privacy impact assessments or limit onward disclosure of Canadians’ personal data to foreign governments? Why has the government not proposed compensation or transition supports for workers and small providers who would bear the financial burden? Why would penalties be so extreme that individual employees could be personally liable for millions of dollars, even when following management orders?”
“Canada’s adequacy status under the European Union’s GDPR is the foundation of much of our digital economy. It is what allows European data to flow into Canadian systems, supporting banks, airlines and cloud providers, but the European Commission reviews adequacy every four years. If it sees that Canada is granting unchecked surveillance powers, or if it sees data repurposed without necessity and proportionality, we risk losing that adequacy decision. We have already seen what happened to the United States under Schrems II. Does the government truly want to put Canada in the same position? New Democrats agree that cybersecurity is essential, but cybersecurity must not come at the expense of democracy, accountability, privacy or fairness for workers and communities.”
“Bill C-8 envisions fines of up to $15 million a day for corporations and up to $1 million a day for individual employees. Think about that: A frontline worker following orders from management could face personal ruin under the regime. Where are the safeguards to ensure fairness, due process and appeal rights? Fifth is the one-size-fits-all approach. The bill would lump together banks, telecoms, nuclear facilities and energy co-operatives under a single compliance framework. All of them would face the same 90-day timeline to stand up cybersecurity programs, no matter their size or capacity. For large corporations, perhaps this is feasible, but for small operators or co-ops, it could be impossible. Should compliance obligations not be tailored to the realities of different sectors? Sixth are international consequences.”