Carol Anstey
Long Range Mountains, Newfoundland and Labrador · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has said affordability is the best that it has been in decades, even though some Canadians are crowdfunding their way through this cost of living crisis. He is so out of touch. The costly Liberal Prime Minister is the only G20 leader to drag his nation into a recession.”
“Mr. Speaker, targets may not matter to that Liberal minister, but disabled Canadians rely on those supports and they certainly deserve better. Large areas of Gros Morne National Park are covered in dry timber and at risk of wildfire because of the spruce budworm outbreak.”
“They have exhausted their savings, maxed out their credit cards and refinanced their homes just to keep up with food inflation, rising rents and soaring mortgage payments. Clearly, the plan is not working.”
“At a critical time when we need more supply and builders are asking for less government, the Liberals are focusing on building a new bureaucracy that is simply an expensive exercise in rebranding.”
“Do not take it from me. A witness from the Ontario Home Builders' Association testified, “As the industry association representing home builders...we know that builders are the experts and the ones who are best suited to construct the homes we need, not the government” and “the path forward is not for government to step into the role of t…”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, who has strong ties to Newfoundland and Labrador, for that question. When we build out government bureaucracy, we build out the size of government and we increase government spending, which drives up inflation, which drives up the cost of everything, including the cost of homebuilding.”
The complete record
Every one of 352 lines we hold for Carol Anstey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak to the ecosystem that is currently created between public and private institutions that collaboratively work together to address the labour market shortages. Is this something that he would like to expand on, with respect to this recommendation?”
“For that reason, we support sending the bill to committee, where it can be strengthened and improved to ensure that it delivers real results for Canadians while respecting the roles of provinces and the importance of fiscal transparency.”
“We believe amendments should be considered to ensure that provincial collaboration is explicit; that terminology, such as “standards”, is clearly defined in line with advisory clinical practice; and that cost implications are fully examined before implementation proceeds. These are not objections to the intent of the bill but recommendations to ensure that if the framework moves forward, it does so in a way that is responsible, collaborative, grounded in the realities of the health care system and the regions of the country, practical and respectful of jurisdiction. Canadians living with this disease and their families would definitely benefit from better coordination, better awareness and better outcomes. The question is not whether we should act, but how we act, and how we do it in a sustainable and co-operative way.”
“We also need clarity on accountability. The bill would distribute responsibilities across multiple departments. While coordination is important, Canadians also expect clear lines of responsibility so progress can be measured and reported in a meaningful way. The appropriate next step is to send this bill to committee. In committee, there is an opportunity to strengthen the legislation, improve its language, ensure it respects provincial jurisdiction and address the fiscal unknowns that remain. It is also the place to hear from stakeholders, medical professionals and provincial partners to ensure that the framework is both practical and effective.”
“Long wait times and limited access to health care professionals can create a higher risk for these Canadians. Therefore, neonatal screening, when done appropriately and in partnership with provinces and territories, we recognize, can make a meaningful difference in outcomes for patients with a rare disease like sickle cell, but again, the keyword is partnership. The framework must be developed in collaboration with provinces and territories. Conservatives believe the federal government should work with provinces on national health objectives. It must be developed collaboratively with provinces and territories, with clinicians, with patient advocacy groups and with those who are directly affected by the disease. Without that collaboration, the most well-intentioned framework can fall short in implementation.”
“When dealing with rare diseases, efficiency, coordination and clarity in policy design are essential. Families affected by sickle cell disease need streamlined support, not overlapping systems. That said, I want to recognize that the objectives in this bill align with important policy goals we have supported in the past. For example, improving caregiver recognition and support is something Conservatives have long advocated for, including making caregiver benefits more accessible and more responsive to real-world needs. Likewise, streamlining access to disability supports and improving drug approval and treatment pathways for rare diseases are areas where there is room for constructive work. We also recognize the importance of early diagnosis and awareness.”
“A national research network, expanded neonatal screening programs, public awareness campaigns, enhanced training and potential expansions to drug coverage and disability supports are all meaningful initiatives, but they do come with fiscal implications that have not been fully defined yet, so transparency on those costs is important. At present, there is no fiscal appropriation and no Parliamentary Budget Officer estimate. Before this is finalized, Parliament should have a clear understanding of what the measures would cost and how they would be implemented. (1355) Third, there is a question of duplication. Canada already has a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases. We need to ensure that this framework complements that strategy rather than overlaps with it, so that there is no confusion over how support is delivered.”
“We have seen in previous framework legislation, including in areas such as Lyme disease and firefighter cancer frameworks, that the most effective federal role is often one of coordination and guidance rather than prescriptive direction. In this case, the bill would benefit from clearer language around what is intended as guidance and what is intended as a binding expectation to reflect reality. Second, while this bill would not include a direct appropriation of funds, it points to areas that would carry cost implications.”
“Health care delivery is, and must remain, the responsibility of the provinces. Any national framework must respect that division of powers. If federal initiatives move too far in setting standards without clear collaboration, we risk creating friction with provincial systems that are already managing significant pressures. In fact, this bill uses the term “standards” rather than “guidelines”, which differs from comparable federal health framework legislation. The choice of language is important. Clinical practice is determined by medical professionals and provincial systems, and any federal role should be clearly advisory in nature.”
“Conservatives have supported efforts to raise awareness and improve outcomes for Canadians living with this disease. We supported the recognition of June 19 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Day and have consistently supported broader efforts to strengthen frameworks that improve health outcomes for Canadians. We also recognize the importance of advancing a rare disease strategy to support treatment development and of working with provinces to improve labour mobility through nationally recognized credentials for health care professionals. These are practical steps that could help strengthen care across the country, and especially in areas where barriers to access exist. However, there are considerations that must be addressed with this legislation. We must be very careful about jurisdiction.”
“Many Canadians living in rural, remote and coastal areas experience these same challenges, often waiting extended periods of time to see specialists. Therefore, coordination can be very useful. Bill S-201 proposes the development of a national framework that touches on a wide range of areas, from health care provider training to public awareness, neonatal screening, research networks and even the analysis of potential tax credits and changes to disability and drug coverage programs. In principle, coordination and information sharing across jurisdictions can be beneficial. We should always be open to improving how provinces and territories learn from one another and how best practices can be shared. Canadians definitely benefit from governments working together.”
“Therefore, we are not able to properly track outcomes, evaluate treatments at scale or ensure that best practices are shared effectively across the country. That gap is part of the reason conversations like this one are so important. In Newfoundland and Labrador, while the prevalence may be lower than in larger urban centres, we are no strangers to the challenges of rare disease management. Patients in rural, remote and coastal communities often face additional barriers simply because of geography, whether that is access to specialists, access to diagnostic services or access to ongoing treatment support. In fact, after affordability, access to health care is the second-biggest concern that I hear about in my riding of Long Range Mountains.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House, and specifically today to speak to Bill S-201 , an act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease. To begin, I want to acknowledge the important intent behind the legislation. Sickle cell disease is a serious, lifelong condition that affects approximately 6,000 Canadians and their families across this country. It is a painful, complex and often under-recognized illness. Better coordination and improved awareness within our health system are important. For those Canadians affected, this disease has had a profound impact. Families face repeated hospital visits, chronic pain crises and uncertainty around access to consistent treatment and care. These are real challenges, and Canada currently has no coordinated data infrastructure for sickle cell disease.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador in that member's riding reported that the high gas prices are driving single parents to make impossible decisions, such as whether to heat their home or put food on the table, yet $10 billion is how much this Liberal government will still collect in fuel taxes this year, while people in Newfoundland and Labrador pay some of the highest gas prices at the pump in Canada. The Liberals' plan saves just pennies, while costs hit rural and remote communities the hardest. Conservatives have a plan to cut 25¢ a litre for the rest of the year. Will they stop these half measures and deliver real relief for hard-working Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, 35% is how much more Canadians are paying because of rising global oil prices. In Newfoundland and Labrador, fuel is not a choice; it is a necessity. Truckers need it to deliver goods, and families need it just to get through the week, yet Liberal taxes are driving prices even higher, while the Liberals pretend that a partial tax cut is real relief. Their plan applies to only a fraction of the taxes they collect, while they take billions from struggling Canadians. When will the Liberals stop punishing Canadians and finally remove all federal taxes on gas so that Canadians can save 25¢ a litre for the rest of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government stands to collect $9 billion to $10 billion in revenue. We are asking for half of that to go back into the pockets of Canadians. What does that mean? It means that they would have more money for groceries, to attend their kids' events, to put back into local economies, to support local businesses and to make trips to their cabins. This is a real and tangible measure. There is also a tax on gas, which impacts everything, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador and rural Canada. This is a meaningful measure, which is exactly why Conservatives are proposing it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The industrial carbon tax is something we are studying right now. We have heard numerous reports that it does nothing, simply because of carbon leakage. That means that, instead of these producers investing in our economy, they go into other countries that do not enforce an industrial carbon tax, so it has an impact on the overall economy. In addition to that, we know that, when we tax fertilizer and farm equipment, it eventually makes its way to the grocery store shelves and contributes to the increased cost of living for Canadians. That is what Conservatives are fighting.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, I cannot stop any war, which is exactly why this proposal is so important. We are proposing that the Government of Canada, the Liberal government, do what it can in the face of what is happening right now and what Canadian families are facing. This is a meaningful measure that could reduce prices by 21¢ per litre on diesel and 25¢ on gas. We know we do not have control over other countries and the other things that are happening. What we do have control over is how we can put more money back into the pockets of Canadians. That is exactly what we are proposing.”
“The question is whether the Liberal government is prepared to do something about it. We are offering a clear choice, immediate meaningful relief at the pump, and a plan that puts Canadians first and gives Canadians a break. The Prime Minister has already confirmed that Conservatives have the solutions for Canadians, but instead of only delivering a third of the taxes, I urge all members of this House to support this motion, stand with Canadian families, workers and small business owners, give them the relief they deserve and support our motion.”
“We are seeing the same kind of leadership at home in Newfoundland and Labrador where the provincial government has taken action to permanently reduce the provincial tax on gasoline and diesel. That is what it looks like to recognize the pressure that people are under, with real relief. Here in Canada, the Liberals are doing the opposite. They are offering a temporary measure that is not going to provide the real relief that Canadians need. If the Liberal government is going to collect billions of dollars in unexpected revenue because of higher oil prices, the least it can do is return half of that money to fund real relief for the people who are paying it. Canadians are already doing everything that they can do to manage rising costs. They are cutting back, delaying purchases and making sacrifices.”
“Heating costs go up and for families in western Newfoundland who still rely on home heating fuel, those increases hit especially hard. Having spent my career in real estate, I can say that in many rural areas across our province, a significant number of households still depend on home heating fuel. Many of those residents are seniors living on fixed incomes with older properties in need of repairs and upgrades and this is an added cost that they cannot afford. Construction costs go up. Small business owners face higher input costs, higher delivery costs and higher operating costs. Suppliers add fuel surcharges. Local business owners are forced to pass on costs or cut back.”
“All of these families had never had to ask for help before, and many are working professionals. Some are working two or even three jobs and still they cannot make ends meet. Almost 70% of those receiving food support from the association's food bank are children under the age of 17. That is the human cost of rising fuel prices. The association's executive member also reported that they have been staying in touch with government in the hopes that there will soon be relief. My message to them is that Conservatives are fighting with them on this issue, not just for temporary relief, but for long-lasting, meaningful relief. We know that when gas prices go up, everything goes up. Groceries become more expensive because transport costs rise.”
“Across Newfoundland and Labrador, increased diesel prices that drive up the cost of shipping are so prevalent because, on an island, so much of our food, goods and services must be brought in mostly by tractor-trailer. That means that higher fuel costs translate directly into higher prices on store shelves. Single parents in my province are reaching out for help because their budgets are completely stretched. Soaring gas prices are adding a new level of stress to these families. People at the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, based in St. John's, have said that these rising costs can mean the difference between putting food on the table and heating a home. People are already seeing the impact. The association reported that almost 30 additional families have turned to it for support so far this year.”
“Many cabin owners in the area where I live travel every single weekend to ice fish, pick their berries, cut their firewood, go moose hunting and enjoy the company of their cabin neighbours and friends. Owners of small business operations rely on those activities to sustain them and when fuel prices increase, these businesses are at risk, not to mention our rural way of life. Therefore, when the cost of fuel rises, it hits every single part of life in Long Range Mountains, in Newfoundland and Labrador and all across Canada. As one of my constituents told me, let us get rid of all of the taxes on gas. People cannot afford these hikes. It makes everything else more expensive, for example food. This is the reality people are living every single day.”
“(1255) However, there is a tougher reality, outside of our kids' hockey tournaments, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. People do not have the luxury of public transit. They drive long distances to get to work, to get groceries and to access basic services like health care, often travelling these vast distances to see a specialist or to access the only children's hospital. Truckers rely on fuel to deliver goods to our communities. Small businesses rely on fuel to move goods across long distances. Families rely on fuel just to get through the week. In addition, we rely on fuel to enjoy the back country on our snowmobiles and ATVs or to access to our cabins.”
“While in my riding, I recently spent several days travelling with my nine-year-old twins, Emma and William, to their provincial hockey tournaments. Like so many families across Newfoundland and Labrador, especially during Easter tournament season, this is a very important part of our lives. We travel long distances across our vast province to support our children and cheer them on, but these punishing fuel prices are making it harder for families to take part in those moments at a time when many are already stretched thin. One tournament meant driving from Deer Lake to Glovertown and back, approximately 600 kilometres, and another from Deer Lake to Clarenville, roughly 860 kilometres. Altogether, that is nearly 1,500 kilometres on the road just to be there for our kids.”
“Our motion would save Canadians 25¢ per litre on gas and 21¢ on diesel. This is not real relief. Canadians are paying 35% more due to rising global oil prices, forcing Canadians to pay almost, and this is an important point, 20% more than Americans. Conservatives recognize the tough situation Canadians are facing. Instead of holding on to that windfall, we are proposing a meaningful approach to suspend federal fuel taxes for the rest of 2026 and permanently eliminate the clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax, which is projected to shrink the economy by 1.3% and lead to 50,000 job losses for hard-working Canadians. That is a real, tangible solution that creates real savings. Once again, this would mean saving 25¢ per litre on gasoline and 21¢ per litre on diesel.”
“That is why Conservatives are putting forward a long-lasting, meaningful solution: Suspend the federal taxes on gasoline and diesel for the rest of 2026, permanently remove the fuel standard tax and permanently remove the industrial carbon tax. Conservatives are proposing the motion. A top Liberal economic adviser pointed out that every $10 increase in the price of oil generates roughly $2 billion in additional revenue. Oil prices are now roughly $45 to $50 higher than the pre-crisis baseline. This means that the Liberal government stands to collect close to $9 billion or even $10 billion in extra revenue, money it did not budget for, money the government currently stands to collect just because prices are high. In exchange, the Liberals only want Canadians to save 10¢ per litre and four cents on diesel.”
“Rising prices are increasing government revenues at a time when Canadians are struggling to keep up. The most recent response from the Liberal Prime Minister is acknowledging that Conservatives have the solution for Canadians but delivering only a temporary measure that is not going to provide lasting, meaningful relief. Their announcement only affects a third of the taxes on fuel they collect for a third of the year. It minimizes the seriousness of what Canadians are facing. We need a Prime Minister who acts in the same measure that Canadians are feeling this pressure. They need meaningful, long-lasting relief.”
“As a mom of four myself, someone who has worked really hard my entire life to stay and live and work in the province that I love, I can relate to these stories and situations. Canadians are being squeezed at every turn. They are paying more to drive to work, heat their homes and put food on the table. At the same time, the Liberal government is taking more from them with every litre of fuel that they pump and put into their vehicles. Canadians are doing everything right, working hard, budgeting carefully and cutting back where they can, but they are still falling behind. To begin, let us be clear about what is happening. As global oil prices rise, the government is seeing billions more in revenue, while Canadians are feeling the pressure of higher costs at the pumps.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to our opposition day motion to remove federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026. All members have just returned from time spent in their ridings and I can share, just as I am sure many others can, that the number one concern I am hearing from constituents is the high cost of living. In Newfoundland and Labrador, which currently has one of the highest gas prices of any province in Canada, we are seeing the effects of these rising costs in ways we simply have not seen before. I speak with passion on this issue because of the incredibly difficult stories that I hear and that my staff hear regularly from the people that I represent. These are stories of families being stretched to their limits and facing choices no one should ever have to make.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member opposite could carefully explain to us what assurances Canadians have that their privacy would, indeed, be protected with Bill C-22 and that there would not be government overreach. This is a common concern that I get all the time, and I would really like for the member opposite to speak directly to that.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we are pushing against the legislation. It is because there is a respect for this perspective about separation of church and state, and in this case, the government would be infringing on religious freedoms, which is actually our attempt to protect the church. The government is coming over into our lane and religious organizations are pushing back as a result, so we are actually respecting the separation of church and state.”
“Mr. Speaker, several religious faith-based organizations have spoken out about this piece of legislation. Inciting violence is already illegal, and faith teachings are spoken in love, not hatred. His question is precisely the reason the legislation needs to be walked back. It is because it can be taken out of context and people of faith understand that when pastors and teachers are speaking about scripture, they are speaking about it in love, not in hatred, which is already illegal in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will make a couple of comments. I was following the legislation very closely, and there are just a couple of things. When the amendment was passed, they did not consult with any faith groups or faith organizations. They did not call one witness. In addition, I will add that, if the member was listening to my speech, he would have heard me say that there are already laws in place. This is not scripture wrapped up after inciting violence. That is already illegal in this country, so his comments are not relevant.”
“Over time it erodes the freedom that defines us. In closing, I urge the House to listen to Canadians, restore the good-faith religious defence and protect Canadians, so we do not undermine the freedom that unites us.”
“I would like to reiterate the words of my pastor, who said that we, as a faith community, have helped our government in helping society as a whole. From our single moms group and support for those battling addictions to aid for medical emergencies and the children and youth ministry, the church helps to close the gap for those in need. Our government should respect the work of the church and try not to hinder it by removing this protection. As a person of faith myself, this is extremely important to me. The government is pushing back on an amendment that compromises our beliefs and our teachings. Governments have no place to tell Canadians what they should or should not believe. This is precisely why the amendment raises such concern. Even the perception of legal risk creates a chilling effect.”
“Why not spend time conducting meaningful consultation on the amendment instead of shutting it down? Before I close, I want to point out that there are several faith leaders and people of faith right here in Ottawa for the National Prayer Breakfast. They have taken their time and their resources to be here to pray for our nation. The government should respect their widely held concerns and walk back on the legislation. If Canadians have concerns, the government should listen. I would also like to point out that, in Newfoundland and Labrador, our faith groups provide services to single moms. They give children Christmas when their families cannot afford it. They run the food banks. They feed the seniors. They are an extremely important part of our communities.”
“I want to take a minute to reiterate some of the groups that have been vocal about opposing the legislation, and this is not an exhaustive list: the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church of Canada, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the National Council of Canadian Muslims. This is a cross-section of Canadian society, yet despite all of this, the government continues to double down and push forward. Conservatives want to know why the government is not pulling back in the face of this opposition. Why continue down this path after hearing from Canadians right across the country, including in their own ridings? Why shut down debate instead of allowing it?”
“We offered to split the bill, to pass the uncontentious provisions quickly, while allowing proper study and debate on the more controversial elements. The government rejected that proposal. Instead, Liberals chose to move forward with the full bill rather than take the time to get it right. They also introduced language claiming that the bill would not infringe on freedom of expression or religion, but that language offers no real protection. When Conservatives proposed stronger safeguards to protect charter rights, those efforts were rejected. I want to reiterate something I mentioned earlier. This is not the Conservatives incorrectly interpreting the legislation or opposing just for the sake of opposing.”
“I also want to point out something that Canadians have consistently reminded me of, and it points to why they are so untrusting of the Liberal government when it comes to their faith. They talk about how the government imposed a values test on the Canada summer jobs program, requiring faith-based organizations to attest to positions that conflicted with their deeply held beliefs in order to access funding. They bring up discussions about removing charitable status from organizations engaged in the advancement of religion. They feel that there has been an attack on their faith by the Liberal government. When the government members now say to trust them, that this is not going to compromise Canadians' freedom of expression or of religion, they do not trust them. Conservatives proposed a reasonable path forward.”
“Instead of listening, the government has done the opposite. It has used procedural tactics to shut down debate on this bill, cutting off discussion and shutting out the voices of countless Canadians, particularly Canadians of faith who have been writing and calling members of Parliament, urging us to reject Bill C-9 . The government should be listening on this issue. (1640) This is not about defending hate. Calls to incite violence or hatred are already illegal in Canada, and they should be. Nothing in the existing religious defence protects that kind of conduct. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the religious defence plays an essential role in keeping our hate speech laws constitutional because of how fundamental freedom of expression and freedom of religion are in our system.”
““This censorship is not democratic and endangers our country's constitutionally guaranteed freedom of belief and expression. As a duly elected representative, I ask you to please vote against Bill C-9. Furthermore, I urge the other six Newfoundland and Labrador representatives, regardless of their political affiliation, to also vote NO to this harmful legislation.” These are messages from people who are genuinely concerned about the direction of this legislation, and there are many more. I have heard from constituents not just from my riding, but also from Canadians living in Portugal Cove; Mount Pearl; North West River, Labrador; Flat Bay; Conception Bay South and St. John's. They are people who feel that their voices are not being reflected by the government that represents them.”
“It exists precisely to protect speech that is controversial, dissenting or critical of those in power. Bill C-9 moves Canada in the opposite direction. “ I expect my Member of Parliament to reject Bill C-9 in its entirety and to defend the Charter rights of Canadians rather than erode them.... “Bill C-9 should be withdrawn.” Here is another one: “I urge you to please vote ‘NO’ to the upcoming Bill C-9. I am very skeptical of the current government's understanding and definition of ‘hatred’ and ‘hate speech’. It is my sincerest fear that this bill will allow law-abiding citizens to be charged with ‘hate crimes’ for sharing or voicing unpopular beliefs or convictions on social and political issues. This has happened in other supposedly democratic and ‘free’ Western countries.”
“One person wrote, “I am writing to formally and unequivocally oppose Bill C-9, the so-called anti-hate legislation. “Bill C-9 infringes on free expression and free speech, which are foundational rights in democratic society. The bill introduces vague and subjective standards that chill lawful speech, empower government overreach, and risk punishing Canadians for opinions, criticism, or debate that fall outside politically approved boundaries. “Hate crimes are already illegal and under existing law. Bill C-9 does not close the gap. It expands state power into speech regulation, lowers threshold for punishment, and invites abuse through interpretation rather than clear, objective harm. “Free speech does not exist to protect popular or uncomfortable opinions.”
“In addition, I would like to point out that the Liberals would likely be more aware of these deep concerns if they had taken the time to consult with different faith communities on this amendment, but they did not. They did not call one witness to speak to it. Ever since this amendment was introduced at committee, I have received an incredible volume of responses to this issue, including hundreds of signatures on petitions and numerous emails, phone calls and personal messages. Faith leaders are reaching out to their congregants, advising them of the seriousness of this legislation and educating them about the potential consequences. I want to take this opportunity to read a couple of the messages that have been sent to my office on this legislation.”
“When we are doing exactly what we were elected to do, they accuse us of being negative or of talking down Canadians. However, the truth is that Conservatives are the only ones standing up for Canadians on this issue and on many others that are concerning to them. The opposition to this amendment is coming from a wide range of religious organizations that are united on this issue. When that happens, all members should feel a deep sense of responsibility to listen to them. I would suggest that the Liberals, even if they do not want to listen to us, should pay attention to the fact that, while different faith communities do not agree on many things, they are united on this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-9 and, more particularly, to the deeply concerning and controversial Liberal-Bloc amendment that would remove the long-standing good-faith religious defence. This amendment would restrict freedom of expression and freedom of religion in Canada. My opposition to this legislation is not rooted in just my interpretation of this legislation; my concern is shared widely and consistently by faith communities right across the country. I want to expand on this point just for a moment because I have sat in the House for almost a year, and it is extremely frustrating when the members opposite claim misinformation when Canadians are pushing back against the policy decisions of the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member opposite's speech. I picked up on something he said about the many hours of consultation around the legislation. I am wondering if he could be very specific about the witnesses who were called in relation to the contentious amendment that we are discussing here today.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has deep knowledge on this issue. One thing I often hear from constituents is about an attack on faith organizations by the Liberal government, and its response is, “Just trust us.” I am wondering if my colleague would like to speak to that and give a bit of context about why constituents may feel this way based on previous decisions made by the government.”