Chak Au

C-289 Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Supreme Court struck down a law that would make drug dealing even more legal across Canada. Canadians need protection from traffickers flooding our communities with deadly drugs. Our Conservative plan, alongside Bill, would toughen penalties for serious fentanyl traffickers and save lives. Will the Liberal government appeal the ruling and support the legislation that [more]

Mr. Speaker, as I repeatedly said, we do not need another layer of bureaucracy, papers and legislation in order to build faster and more responsibly.

C-39 Mr. Speaker, Canadians want Canada to build. They want more housing and energy infrastructure, stronger ports, better transportation corridors, and major projects that create jobs and expand our trade. Therefore, the question before Parliament is not whether Canada should build, but whether Billfixes the problems that are preventing Canada from building. C-5 That brings me to this basic [more]

Mr. Speaker, actually I am not in favour of doing away with all of that legislation. As I have pointed out in my speech, the legislation already exists. The Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the port authorities national trade corridors fund are already in place. I am not arguing that we should get rid of that legislation. I am just saying that, if that legislation is not put [more]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already explained, we need the right tools to address the right problems. If the problem was not moving faster enough, the problem may not be the lack of legislation; it could be a problem of implementation or inefficiency. Before we introduce more legislation, we have to answer the question to find out where the problem is. Is it implementation or is it a lack of another [more]

Mr Speaker, in Richmond, the RCMP says shoplifting has increased dramatically over the last five years. Some offenders were arrested twice in one day. This is Liberal catch-and-release in action, and Richmond small businesses and store clerks are paying the price. Liberals talk but deliver no results. Conservatives will lock up repeat offenders. When will the Liberals stand with law-abiding [more]

Mr. Speaker, it is just like the example of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project that I used in my speech. It has undergone more than a decade of federal assessment. The assessments were actually completed in 2023, and it is still sitting there. Again, the problem is not with legislation. We have the legislation to support the project. It takes the federal government more than a decade to complete [more]

Can anybody supply more information?

Yes. I think, also, at the hearing, a key question was asked, which was this: Should a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding subscriber information linking an IP address to their identity? I think the Supreme Court's ruling was yes, right? The Supreme Court felt there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy for subscriber information.

In other words, we're breaking into new ground. We are doing the experiment, and we do not know what the end result is yet. Is it fair to say that?

I will have questions further down the road.

Mr. Chair, before we go on, instead of relying on memory, shall we find out from the minutes what was submitted at the time? Otherwise, we are basing this on memory, which could be faulty. May I suggest that we pause and find this out from the minutes?

Before I go on, I want to applaud Madame DeBellefeuille for her remarks. I think she is right that as representatives of the people, it's our duty to ask questions to make sure that we understand 100% what the bill before us would imply and to defend the constitutional right of Canadians to privacy. I also applaud her for pointing out that the Quebec Bar Association has made a very strong case [more]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to pick up from where I stopped. As I mentioned, I'm continuing the line of questions as posed by MP Lawton. There was talk about international comparisons and whether or not there are similar approaches to the threshold of obtaining permission. I said before the break that I would like to have more concrete examples instead of a general description saying that [more]

Mr. Wong, I think you have opened up another can of worms. By what you just mentioned, you're saying that one can lead to the other and to many others. This is exactly why we are being cautious. You were just telling me that this is a way to open up the gate to investigate many more people who may or may not be associated.

Thank you. I have many questions, but I just want to ask one question for now, based on the answer given by Mr. Wong to MP Ramsay's question. It's a follow-up of the previous question. I get that there are numbers. You can talk about hundreds or thousands of cases in which investigations cannot be completed for many reasons. You gave the number, but I did not see the connections between the [more]