Dave Epp
Chatham-Kent—Leamington, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago.”
“We are celebrating that in the Vineland region, where my great-grandmother is buried. That same Gerhard Neufeld who was decorated by the czar was shot dead in his bed, five days before they came to Canada. My great-grandmother left, bringing five children, and I and my mother are here because of that history.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I come today representing, especially, both the people of Ukrainian ethnicity and those of Ukrainian heritage. There is actually a difference, and I am going to come back to that in a moment.”
“Rather than serving in the army, he served in what was called the Forsteidienst , the forestry service, so he was stationed on the banks of the Black Sea at the czar's summer resort, Yalta.”
“They came to the steps of Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great to farm, to break those steppes of Ukraine, and they turned that into part of the breadbasket of Europe. That heritage is in my blood today. They were told, actually, that the territory at the time was empty.”
“As many members know, I am from a Mennonite background, and there are a number of Mennonites here in the chamber who have the honour of representing their constituencies. This year marks 100 years since all four of my grandparents came to Canada from, at the time, the steppes of Russia, which is now part of Ukraine.”
The complete record
Every one of 159 lines we hold for Dave Epp, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago. Now I am experiencing a majority government for the first time in my elected career. Is this what I am to expect, time allocation, closure and cutting off debate? Is this how the government intends to reflect the minority mandate, quite frankly, that the Canadian people gave it?”
“I stand here proudly today, as proud as a humble Mennonite can be proud, to support Canada's relationship with Ukraine and the designation of September as Ukrainian heritage month.”
“It has always been tomatoes and the Ukrainian involvement in the tomato industry. I could spend another hour talking just about that, but I will not. In the final minute of my speech, I want to talk about other areas in which Canada and Ukraine have become close and have supported each other. Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence, and since then, we have maintained a close bilateral relationship. Canada is one of the leading bilateral development assistance partners of Ukraine, and many of us continue in that work today. Our free trade agreement has allowed for the further expansion of trade. Of course, time will not allow me to get into the last four years, but it is war, again, that has brought our relationship even closer.”
“Stalin slammed the door shut on my great-grandparents. Their visas and passports were never honoured. They tried and retried. Those seven years of letters became increasingly desperate, and eventually a letter came from my great-grandfather to my grandfather stating that his mother had passed away at the beginning of the Holodomor. My great-grandfather would follow, dying of starvation in 1933. My own heritage is intertwined with the conflict that comes from war and revolution. My parents never had a desire to visit Ukraine, and neither did any of my grandparents, even when those opportunities opened up again post-1991. I, on the other hand, have been back three times. I have been to that soil, but it actually has not been my own heritage that has allowed me to go back.”
“We are celebrating that in the Vineland region, where my great-grandmother is buried. That same Gerhard Neufeld who was decorated by the czar was shot dead in his bed, five days before they came to Canada. My great-grandmother left, bringing five children, and I and my mother are here because of that history. On my father's side is my Epp heritage. In 1926, my great-grandfather Epp bought, yes, bought, a passport in order to flee. He saw what was coming. My grandfather came to Canada on that passport at the age of 22. His parents were going to come that fall. When they had finished the harvest in southern Ukraine, they were going to join their family. For seven years, there were letters that went back and forth between my grandfather and his parents, and here is where those histories of ethnic Ukrainians and heritage Ukrainians unite.”
“Rather than serving in the army, he served in what was called the Forsteidienst , the forestry service, so he was stationed on the banks of the Black Sea at the czar's summer resort, Yalta. My mother's father's family, the Neufelds, came from wealth, so my great-grandfather had been educated in Europe and knew that the phylloxera virus was spread by the aphid, and he saved the czar's vineyards from the phylloxera virus. He was decorated with a silver pocket watch, which remains in our family to this day. It was given to him in 1904. Those who know me personally know that I do enjoy the odd sip of wine. I do that not for enjoyment reasons but obviously because I am genetically predisposed to enjoy wine, given my Neufeld heritage. My Neufeld family, on August 1 and 2 of this year is celebrating 100 years of settlement in Canada.”
“They came into Ukraine and left Ukraine for the same reason, and that same reason is actually one of the reasons we are talking about the bill today. It was the fact that they were experiencing both war and revolution. Mennonites have a complicated relationship with government. When they feel that their allegiance to their faith is superseded by government, historically they have fled or moved, but we must not mistake that for a lack of service to country. That is evidenced by the members of the chamber, and it is evidenced by my own family history. I am going to get into two short stories. My great-grandfather Gerhard Neufeld was drafted into the service, in 1904, of Czar Nicholas II.”
“They came to the steps of Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great to farm, to break those steppes of Ukraine, and they turned that into part of the breadbasket of Europe. That heritage is in my blood today. They were told, actually, that the territory at the time was empty. Reflecting now and looking at history, that actually is not true. The Tatars had been cleared of that area, and the land was given to my forebears in 1804. It was the second wave that came into southern Ukraine. The first wave of Mennonites who came from the Prussian empire actually came in 1789, settled into the Khortytsya region, which is called Zaporizhzhya today. My ancestors, as I stated, came in 1804, settling into the Molotschna region, which is near the present-day city of Tokmak. I will come to that. (1425) They left 100 years later.”
“I could spend my 10 minutes and the next three hours talking about that wave of history, as Mennonites have fled war and persecution from the Russians from the late 1500s to Danzig in northern Poland, and then to Ukraine. I am going to talk specifically for a moment about the ties that bind my own family, specifically my Epp lineage, but I am fairly confident that my Neufeld, my Reimer and my Rempel sides also trace this same path of immigration into Ukraine in 1804. My ancestors spent 122 years in Ukraine and now 100 years in Canada. They came to Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great. This is important because, again, they were fleeing, at the time, greater government intervention in their lives in Gdańsk, called Danzig at the time of the Austrian Hapsburg empire, in northern Poland.”
“As many members know, I am from a Mennonite background, and there are a number of Mennonites here in the chamber who have the honour of representing their constituencies. This year marks 100 years since all four of my grandparents came to Canada from, at the time, the steppes of Russia, which is now part of Ukraine. All four of them were actually part of the second wave of Mennonites who left Ukraine and chose Canada as their home. The first wave came in the 1870s and settled in southern Manitoba, primarily in the east and west reserves. They were also fleeing the greater intervention of the Russian government at the time into their way of life in the colonies of what we call Russia. I consider myself of Russian Mennonite background. There are two streams: Russian Mennonite background and Swiss Mennonite background.”
“These figures come from the Government of Canada in 2020, and I am actually going to dispute some of the numbers in a moment. Most Ukrainians from this period settled in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which we have heard from other interventions today. They came to obtain farmland, bringing their rich heritage of agricultural expertise from the steppes of what was Russia at the time and is now Ukraine, here to Canada, to our untamed west at the time and to Ontario. In fact, 28% of Canadians identifying as being of Ukrainian ethnic descent live in Ontario. These are the statistics from Canadians who identify as being of Ukrainian ethnicity, but as I mentioned earlier, there are others who claim Ukrainian heritage, and I count myself among that group.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I come today representing, especially, both the people of Ukrainian ethnicity and those of Ukrainian heritage. There is actually a difference, and I am going to come back to that in a moment. Of course, we are talking today about Bill S-210 , about designating September as Ukrainian heritage month. Here are some ties that bind our country of Canada and our country of Ukraine. Canada is home to approximately 1.4 million people of Ukrainian descent, and I am referring to ethnic descent. That actually represents 4% of Canada's population. Canada has the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora outside Russia in the world. The first Ukrainians came to Canada in 1891, with about 150,000 estimated to have landed between 1891 and 1914.”
“Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the Minister of Justice referenced the procedural tools of the trade that are used. He decried the Conservative Party's use of the tools in the past and justified the use of the tools in this present hour. How is the Conservative Party's use of procedural tools equivalent when comparing what is being done to stifle debate at the health committee by going in camera on PrescribeIT versus what we are witnessing here today?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member just responded to my colleague and said, “I believe the things I say.” She also concluded her speech with, “Our new government is on the right track.” I want to read a quote from March 10 of this year: “Mr. Speaker, the motion we are going to vote on today is another example of the government's overreach and tyranny and of how it always wants to shut down debate, especially when it comes to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.” As for the member's response of “I believe the things I say,” how does she reconcile those two quotes from herself?”
“Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, under the Liberal Prime Minister . Farmers warn that food security begins with protecting valuable farmland, yet the Liberals continue to advance the $90-billion Alto rail project, despite concerns about its impact on more than 5,500 farms. While $2.5 million in bonuses has already been paid before a single inch of track has been laid, Canadians across the country pay and local communities suffer. Is the Liberals' plan for food security to slice up farmland? Is this what they call governing in a technical recession, or is it really just a technical war on agriculture?”
“Mr. Speaker, our “missing middle” processors have been missing. Finally, we are seeing some action, but Canada's productivity crisis did not start this year. Weak investment did not start this year. Declining competitiveness did not start this year. These are the consequences of a decade of bad Liberal policy choices. As Sylvain Charlebois recently stated: “The greatest threat to Canada's food economy isn't a recession. It's the illusion that someone else is responsible for our economic decline.” Does the Liberal Prime Minister plan to reverse these declines or just have a new definition of a recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. While Canadians can delay buying a home or a car, which also hurts our economy, they cannot stop buying food. Families are stretching every dollar at the grocery store, restaurant demand is weakening and our agri-food sectors are facing exploding input costs. Experts have warned that Canada's food economy cannot outrun a shrinking national economy. Why are the Liberals content to watch Canada's competitiveness and productivity erode? Is this a technical recession or technically a failure of policy?”
“Mr. Speaker, while I was not personally involved, I would like to note the co-operation between our side of the House and the Bloc in getting amendments in based on the witness testimony. As I have been following the debate today, the question I keep asking myself is this: Why? Why are the victims being ignored? Why is all the testimony being ignored, along with the amendments that the committee worked so hard to put through? Could my colleague venture as to why the government is taking this route as opposed to following the hard work of the committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister went to the Canadian people and said that he was going to move at speeds unseen in generations. We thought that was for major projects, and that is not what we have seen. Now what we are seeing is speeds moving and steamrolling over committees and over the co-operative work of this House. Is that what the Prime Minister meant by moving at speeds unseen in generations, ignoring the will of this House through the committee network?”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way has, at times, criticized me in this chamber for not lauding the government's efforts at supporting industries in my riding, and so I want to congratulate the government for hitting a single when it extended accelerated depreciation to the greenhouse industry. However, with the new-found majority the Liberals are proposing to find at committees, would he attempt, with his government, to hit a home run and extend that accelerated depreciation across all of the industries that are hurting, because the Prime Minister did not get a deal with our neighbour of the south, as promised last July?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chief government whip for representing the largest riding in Canada by population. I am not sure if he is aware of that. The member cited a number of examples of precedents of floor crossing. However, he acknowledged that it is unprecedented that we now have a majority government by a combination of by-elections and floor crossings. Obviously, the by-elections change nothing, but would the member acknowledge that this is the first time a minority has tipped to a majority due to floor crossings and that this is a result of an orchestrated campaign from the Prime Minister's Office?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not speak French, but I am learning French on Duolingo every day. Today, I reached a 1,068-day streak. [ English ] One would think I would know, or I should know, more French by now. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands referenced early in her speech that the fact that we are turning the House from a minority to a majority is an unprecedented scenario. Would she acknowledge that this is the first time in Canadian history that it has also been the result of a concerted campaign from the PMO?”
“That is how much the government values agriculture, less than 2% investment in the largest manufacturing sector in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, at least the minister addressed my question. The response we just heard, actually, is typical and it exemplifies the government's approach to agriculture. I recently participated in a poll from a national polling firm, answering the question of how I felt the government values agriculture and the agri-food sector. Here is how I responded. The sector provides $150 billion in GDP. It is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada, larger than auto and mining combined, and it provides for one in nine jobs in Canada. Let us look at the federal budget, $498 billion. Call it $500 billion. Strip away those nine zeros and just think about the number 500. The federal budget investment in AAFC is $3.6 billion. If we get rid of the nine zeros, that's 3.6. That is less than 2%.”
“There are certainly other areas in the ag portfolio where we could help them identify savings. We would be only too happy to help with that. We are talking about the renewal of the five-year ag policy framework right now. I will go back to those ag station closures. The witnesses at committee were critical of both the process and the outcome of the decisions. This needs to be reversed.”
“We need to put these cuts to agriculture research in some context. Over the past decade, the size of the federal bureaucracy has grown by 40%, but Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada by only 11%. The Prime Minister has charged many departments to cut their spending by 15% over the next three years, and we absolutely agree that the size of the federal government needs to shrink, but 15% cuts across all departments cut differently when a department has only grown by 11%. The reality is that with the previous cuts to ag, that sector is going to shrink by 27% while all other departments have gone up 40% and will then go down 15%. The minister was right that we should not go down the path that the government is contemplating with these closures. Science should be supported.”
“I got a confession. When those in the sector told us about their five priorities, we assumed they had also told the Liberal Party those same five priorities. The minister acknowledged the following in his response to me. He said public investment in ag R and D is down 15%. He acknowledged that private sector research at universities has plummeted 77% and that the number of enterprises doing research has shrunk by 30%. He is right about one thing. He concluded by saying we cannot keep going down this path, and he is absolutely right, but what he forgot to say is that it has been Liberal governments driving the ship for the last 11 years. He also acknowledged that academia and the private sector are not in the position, as is sometimes misstated at committee, to take over the shortfall on research.”
“The primary focus was to maintain, enhance and support funding for research and innovation. Time will not allow me this evening to expand into the other priorities, but I just want to list them: the harmonization of regulations and elimination of red tape; the elimination of the carbon tax; realigning the mandates of the CFIA and PMRA to include an economic lens to decision-making; and finally, ensuring continued access to labour. However, the primary ask was to keep a focus on research and innovation, on science. What did the government do? It just announced three agricultural research station closures and four site-specific field station closures. When I asked the minister why the government would do this when the sector has identified research as foundational to the food sector, I, surprisingly, did not get a defence.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber, and this evening I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow up on a question to the Minister of Agriculture from March 13, when I probed why the government is closing ag research stations. Over 20 ag organizations have written in to the AGRI committee in response to our study examining these closures. “Why?” is the question. We are coming up on one year since the last general election. As part of the preparation for our policy platforms for that election, meetings were held with all ag organizations, and there are an awful lot of ag organizations. We were after the priorities that were on the minds of those in the sector. Those ag organizations do not always agree, but they did agree on five priorities.”
“Mr. Speaker, a previous colleague of ours shared the metaphor that one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. I wonder if my hon. colleague could respond to the following metaphor with respect to the government actually behaving itself if this legislation were to pass. A previous assistant deputy minister once said to me that a hog can never slaughter itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. In interventions from the government side, we have heard that we should be confident that the government intends to do the right thing going forward. I want to ask my hon. colleague what level of confidence he has, given that the Prime Minister committed to having a free trade agreement with our cousins to the south, and to building things at unheard of speeds. In the past we have also heard that the budgets will balance themselves. What level of confidence does my hon. colleague have that, on its own, the government would do the right thing?”
“Mr. Speaker, manufacturers like mould-makers, steel fabricators and aluminum extruders are at risk because this Prime Minister failed them. He promised a U.S. trade deal last July, but a year later, the tariffs have more than doubled. With respect to machinery parts, manufacturing materials, steel and aluminum, tariffs are way up. These Canadian companies and jobs are at risk, while lower-cost countries with non-market economies are moving in to fill the gap. When will the Prime Minister , who is avoiding his responsibility, finally secure the American trade deal that he promised last July?”
“Mr. Speaker, these Liberals are going to have to pick a lane. On the one hand, they claim that a hidden industrial carbon tax buried in the food supply chain does not affect the price of groceries. On the other hand, they offer temporary half measures of relief for Canadians from rising fuel prices, acknowledging the hidden costs, the excise taxes and fuel prices, and are still pocketing the higher tax revenues generated from those same rising fuel prices. Why did the Liberals vote against our plan to remove all fuel taxes for the entire year?”
“Mr. Speaker, 74% of Canadians report that rising gas and food prices are killing their household budgets. While the Liberals claim they care about affordability, food banks are literally removing meat from their shelves, because it is too expensive to stock. Now, add the fuel surcharges being introduced by some food suppliers on deliveries to grocery stores. Does the Prime Minister truly believe that his temporary 10¢ per litre reduction, which expires after Labour Day, will fix the supply chain crushed by his industrial carbon tax and now rising fuel prices?”
“While the Liberals did focus on upstream steel and aluminum production, they took far too long to acknowledge the downstream industries such as the fabricators, processors and manufacturers who actually turn those materials into the products Canadians depend upon. If they truly believe in building Canada, why are they failing to stand up for the very industries and workers who literally make that possible?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand up for sectors of the Chatham-Kent—Leamington economy that are vital to all of Canada: the steel, aluminum and mould-making industries. These sectors support over 100,000 Canadian jobs and form the backbone of the infrastructure we rely on every day, such as bridges, hospitals, vehicle parts and transit systems, yet today they are under immediate threat. After a year of trade turbulence, business uncertainty is critically high as unfairly traded imports undercut Canadian producers. U.S. tariffs, in some cases reaching as high as 4,000%, are devastating our mould-makers, forcing companies to hold shipments and putting thousands of jobs at immediate risk.”
“Mr. Speaker, building on the Bloc question, given the history of overreach by the Liberal government, where does my colleague's confidence come from that the Liberals will hold their tendencies in check at committee and actually be open to reasonable amendments so that the privacy of our citizens is properly protected?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North seemed to be lamenting, in his extensive speech, that the Conservatives were not automatically co-operating. He went on to list a number of bills that, as my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola said, faced scrutiny in the House, which I believe is our job. What the member neglected to mention is the fact that Bill C-5 was passed in five parliamentary sitting days, giving the Prime Minister extraordinary powers. Bill C-4 was brought in through a ways and means motion first, and the government waited six months to bring it to the chamber. We passed it and co-operated on it all the way through. What is so difficult to understand? When good legislation is brought before the chamber, this side of the House co-operates and moves it through.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me tell members what 15 national agriculture organizations wrote to the committee. They wrote that closing agricultural research centres will undermine research that they say is fundamental to keeping food affordable. At the same time, the Liberal government is pushing ahead with its fuel tax, which is rising from 7¢ to 17¢ per litre, while also raising the carbon taxes on steel, aluminum, plastic and farm equipment. All of these Liberal decisions have a direct impact on Canada's agriculture sector, causing production costs to rise, which get passed on to Canadians at the grocery store. These costs are imposed at home, not abroad. When will these Liberals stop driving up food prices for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, our farmers and fishermen are being punished with unreliable fertilizer supplies and a rising fuel tax to 17¢ that is driving up the cost of everything. Instead of supporting them, the Liberals have shuttered agricultural research stations and fuelled the G7's worst food inflation. It is outrageous that while he plays economist, one in five Canadians over 50 is now trapped in poverty, choosing between eating and heating. When will the current Liberal Prime Minister accept responsibility for what he can control and scrap the Liberal taxes and policies that are making life unaffordable for Canadians?”
“We need to protect the constitutional rights of Canadians to live according to their conscience and their faith without fear of the state. I call on the government to scrap this programming motion or to split the bill, as we have offered to do before. Let us focus on the real criminals and bring safety to our streets and freedom and safety to our places of worship. Let us unite Canadians instead of dividing them by their beliefs.”
“That is why Conservatives are fighting this programming motion, which seeks to push the justice committee to the point of not being allowed to adjourn until the bill is disposed of and to allocate only one day for report stage and one day for third reading, so the Liberal government will have accountability at the committee to not make the mistake of going over the edge of the cliff. The Conservative Party will not stand by while the government uses procedural tricks to silence the concerns of literally millions of Canadians. We don't need Bill C-9 to tell us that violence is wrong or that hate speech is wrong. We need a government that actually punishes the violent. We need accountability for those who burn down churches and attack synagogues.”
“Under this bill, and without the religious defence, a simple conversation in a public space could be interpreted as intimidating or hateful by a motivated activist. The bill does not provide safety. It provides a weapon for the state-sponsored harassment of people of faith. What about the churches across this country, including those right here in Ottawa, that go into the streets every winter to provide food, scarves and warm clothing because their Bible tells them to take care of the least of these? This is the practice of faith in the public sphere, but if the government decides that the motivation behind that charity, the scripture itself, is hateful or intimidating, does that work become illegal? I would surely hope not. This is not a slippery slope; it is a cliff.”
“They are trying to make Canada unsafe for those who profess their faith, by removing legal protections while their hug-a-thug bail reforms allow repeat offenders to walk free. It makes no sense, unless they are actually trying to divide Canadians. A Jewish family in Toronto or a Christian family in Ottawa should feel safe in their place of worship. Under this government, they are safe nowhere, not in the street, and soon not even in their own pews. I think of the people of my own congregation, or a member of my own staff who meets friends at a local coffee shop. They pray together, read scripture and discuss how to apply these ancient words to their lives. Under the vague definition of Bill C-9 and the removal of the good-faith religious defence, will my staff member be criminalized for a private conversation in a public space?”
“Does Bill C-9 stop one brick from being thrown through a window? It does not. It does nothing to address the rise of anti-Semitism or the glorification of terror. It only empowers bureaucrats to police the speech of the peaceful. Where is the Liberal intensity for these crimes? Where is the bill to protect these sacred spaces? The government's silence is deafening. It has no problem trying to keep faith out of the public sphere through legislation, yet it offers no protection for those same faith communities that are literally under fire. We are seeing the glorification of terror on our city streets, but instead of using the present Criminal Code, which already provides protections against violence, threats and incitement, the Liberals are focusing their resources, the House's resources, on Bill C-9 .”
“While the Liberals use priority House resources to rush Bill C-9 , they have been utterly silent on the actual physical violence against houses of worship. This programming motion is a guillotine motion. It is actually a censorship motion on a censorship bill, as has been stated numerous times throughout the debate today. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute report shows that arson against churches has doubled. Thirty-three churches have been burned to the ground since 2021, including in indigenous communities like the Osoyoos Indian Band, where the congregation had to meet in a band council office because their church was in ashes. Over 96% of these arsons remain unsolved. Furthermore, we see a 150% rise in hate crimes against our Jewish community. We see synagogues targeted and students harassed on campuses.”
“By removing this safeguard, the government is signalling that the Bible, the Torah and the Quran are no longer protected in the public square. If a pastor stands in a pulpit and reads a passage on traditional morality, or if a Rabbi speaks on the historical covenants of his people, they are now one subjective interpretation away from a criminal investigation. We have already seen the former Liberal justice minister label portions of these texts as “clearly hateful”. When a minister of the Crown begins labelling scripture as hate and then introduces a motion to shut down debate on the very bill that would criminalize it, every person of faith of every faith should be deeply concerned. (2000) The hypocrisy here is staggering.”
“Instead of reversing these failed policies, the Liberals are focusing on Bill C-9 , which targets the words of law-abiding citizens rather than the actions of violent criminals. Canadians want a justice system that puts the rights of victims above the rights of repeat offenders to terrorize their neighbourhoods. This programming motion seeks to rush through a bill that would remove a critical constitutional bridge. For decades, the Criminal Code has protected those who express, and this is important, “in good faith” an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. This was not some loophole. The Supreme Court recognized that this defence is a constitutional necessity. It was the bridge that allowed our hate speech laws to coexist with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-9 seeks to dynamite that bridge.”
“I think we would all like to know why there is such a rush to silence debate in the House and at committee. As someone of faith who is active in my own church community, I know that Canadians are not asking for more vague, subjective laws that police their speech. They are asking for a government that has the courage to enforce the laws we already have. They are asking for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. They are asking for protection, not persecution, for the peaceful. Again, I think about how the Liberals are approaching firearms. However, the reality for too many Canadians is that our streets are being ruled by repeat criminal offenders. The government's hug-a-thug bail reforms have created a revolving door where someone can be arrested for a violent assault in the morning and be back on the street by the afternoon.”
“We are in this chamber today to debate the astounding desire of these Liberals to squeeze their weight of accountability as well by putting forward a programming motion that seeks to bypass the scrutiny of the House of Commons. The Liberals are seeking to bypass the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights by forcing “deemed moved” status on all amendments and forbidding adjournment until the bill is disposed of. This means no more debate. Again, I cannot help but think of the parallels between firearms and how the Liberals are trying to go ahead. We offered to split this bill into the portions that were well agreed upon in this chamber and the contentious areas that we would debate and continue to look at. That offer was rejected.”