Shuvaloy Majumdar
Calgary Heritage, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, 1867 brought a sacred covenant, with free people governing themselves, rising above region and religion and building a sovereign nation on ordered liberty, under laws we wrote ourselves. That promise was betrayed by decades of central control. The Laurentian consensus treated provinces as problems to manage.”
“Ours is a federation of equal partners and a vital contribution to the most successful civilization in history. It is being dismantled and it must be restored. The choice is clear. Either we decline as a grievance-ridden middle power under central control or reclaim the strength and ambition of a rising major power.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have laws and basic standards to hold those responsible for slavery accountable in Canadian supply chains. Canadian law requires the government to table the anti-slavery report from the ombudsman every year. It has refused to do so for three straight years. Why does the government keep breaking the law?”
“Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour the life of Bobbie Sparrow, who passed away in February at the age of 90. Bobbie earned respect through a lifetime of service and of unwavering fidelity to her principles.”
“It is the product of a confident Arab leadership, not imported dogma. It is therefore unsurprising that the clerical military regime in Tehran, whose revolutionary ideology has relied on exporting instability and targeting pragmatic Arab success stories, has directed proxy attacks and threats against the UAE in recent years.”
“Grand ideologies, whether imported socialism dressed as pan-Arab unity or political Islamism promising moral regeneration, have repeatedly subordinated practical governance and individual agency to abstractions with measurable costs in human welfare and stability.”
The complete record
Every one of 137 lines we hold for Shuvaloy Majumdar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“It would be an opportunity for them, not to be part of some kind of witch hunt about the Prime Minister's individual conduct, but for parliamentarians and all Canadians to understand clearly what the perils might be in the screen they have set up. Both the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister 's chief of staff are unique. As government and public officials, they are administrators of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen. With the opportunity to appear before committee, people deserve to know how the screen is being applied, when it is being applied and what loopholes need to be closed to protect the public interest. This is a central issue to how our government conducts itself on behalf of the taxpayer every single day.”
“The third is whether the Prime Minister thinks that somehow he might be above the rule of law in this land, always knows best, can always make the right decision and does not need to subject himself to the standards of transparency that the great people of Calgary Heritage and all Canadians deserve him to be held to. Let me start with a little reflection on why Canadians deserve answers with respect to the integrity and transparency of their government. Canadians deserve to understand exactly what the Prime Minister 's conflicts of interest are. They deserve to know that the loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act are not being used to make politicians richer. That is why we are calling for the Clerk of the Privy Council and the chief of staff to the Prime Minister to appear before committee.”
“Madam Speaker, as a long-time fan of yours, I know you are a deeply thinking person, and I always appreciate the opportunity to hear your thoughts on a range of issues. With that compliment, I am hoping for all of the graces afforded to parliamentarians in this great chamber. I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today. I will be splitting my time with my dear friend, the hon. member of Parliament for Calgary Crowfoot . The debate today is a central one to the integrity of the nature of democracy in our country. We need to ask ourselves three principal questions. The first is why this motion is being debated today. The second is what concerns the Liberals have when it comes to opening up transparency on the Prime Minister 's conflicts of interest.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are 300,000 asylum claimants in the system, as we know. The Liberals' interim health program is now $1 billion. Toronto has to increase rents. The Liberals broke the system. Many legal experts have suggested that the immigration provisions in the bill are unconstitutional. Some have even said they are undertaking research in preparation for legal challenges. Knowing this, is the government prepared to challenge court rulings against the provisions, or is it just planning on punting the utter mess it has made of the asylum system to the courts?”
“Mr. Speaker, the prism refracts the light. Two years ago, the world turned on itself, with an epidemic of anti-Semitism against the Jews and their state, the greatest test of our generation and our way of life, a fight for civilization over our medieval rivals. Across millennia, Jews have faced down Haman and Antiochus, and, in the last century, Hitler and Hamas. All through this, Canadian Jews have taken their mezuzahs off their doors out of fear, students have hid and mobs have gathered outside classroom doors, as everything we know, everything we are, is torturously inverted. Where were we. May the memories of Ben, Vivian, Judih, Adi, Alexandre, Netta, Shir and Tiferet be a blessing. May we remember that the source of both pain and joy is love. In this broken prism, I thank God for the Jewish world that is the light.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his incredible work on restoring trust among our young people and trust between communities. The Nazi hooked cross was culturally appropriated from the ancient civilization of Hindus and Indians. People of Indian origin and Hindu faith have often seen that symbol, the swastika, as it is properly known, as a symbol of peace, love and prosperity. When the Nazis culturally appropriated it and made it famous as a symbol of hate, they chose to do something terrible in this country. In how we speak about hate crimes and hate symbols, it is so important for us to learn this lesson of history, to classify the hooked cross of the Nazis correctly, to defend our Hindu community and to defend our—”
“They were diminished by the farce of what was proposed, the Emergencies Act, against them and against the freedoms of Canadians, freedoms that were shaken in our financial systems with subjective enforcement of the rule of law. These things need to be confronted and should never again be permitted to happen.”
“Madam Speaker, let me offer this. It is true that at the time, I was not in the chamber. I did not represent the great people of Calgary Heritage. At the time, I was a writer, a thought leader, at a place called the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. I happened to be in Ottawa at the time of the convoy protest, and I decided to take a look for myself to see exactly what was involved. I walked from one end to the other. I probably encountered a bit too much beer and weed for my taste, but I will tell members that this was a peaceful protest. These were authentic people fighting for their freedoms and doing so in the best interests of our country and our communities.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. member should look in the mirror. This is a government that has spent the last decade dividing Hindus and Sikhs against one another. This is a government that has failed to utter a single word of strength against a majority of hate crimes being levelled against less than 1% of our population. More than 70% of all hate crimes across the country are focused on less than 1% of the population. Over the last year, what has the government done? It has accelerated hate and poured gas onto the fire. Synagogues have been bombed, schools have been shot and communities have been threatened. Conservatives will take no lessons from Liberals on what it takes to confront hate when they are the ones who have been promoting it all along.”
“Bill C-9 fails to strike the balance Canadians expect. Despite having had the support of the Conservatives since the election, the Liberals only table a law that would essentially repurpose an existing law and would contribute very little to dealing with one of the biggest crises our country has to confront. We must confront hatred with the rule of law and the love of liberty. We must protect Canadians from violence, not expose them to arbitrary prosecutions. We must hold the government accountable for legislation that leaves our communities vulnerable. That is our responsibility. That is our commitment. That is the standard Canadians expect.”
“It is because our government does not have the resources to act and because the Liberals have created a justice system that lets offenders walk back onto our streets. The solution to violence is enforcement of the law by police and by courts, accountability for wrongdoers and genuine condemnation by public officials, none of which we have seen. Bill C-9 , as written, falls short. As hate crimes have risen across this land, successive public safety and justice ministers have failed to bring focus to the source of these crimes. They have failed to provide both legal and moral leadership to stand against the mob and call for civility in Canada, honouring what Gardiner and Voltaire described. Without them, violent crimes go unchecked. It is time to jail the haters, not for what they say, but for what they do.”
“We must resist the left's troubling argument that words alone constitute violence. Words are words. Violence is violence. Conflating the two licenses the idea that real violence is a legitimate response to speech, a principle that is both dangerous and indefensible. The only correct response to offensive or hateful words is more words and more debate. If there has been a rise in hate in Canada, it is not because we fail to police speech; it is because we fail to police actions: barricading neighbourhoods, assaulting members of religious minorities, burning down churches, shooting up synagogues or vandalizing minority-held businesses. It is because we have a government that sows division, pitting one community against another, and that treats one speech as sacrosanct and the other as seditious.”
“Third, another concern with Bill C-9 is its approach to defining “hate” itself. As drafted and as the government indicates, the bill would codify the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of “hatred” as “detestation or vilification”. On its face this seems consistent, but by removing the word “extreme”, the government would lower the legal threshold, enabling police to lay a multitude of charges with less scrutiny and less investigation. In practice, this would risk opening the floodgates to inconsistent prosecution and litigation. This is the kind of overreach we have come to expect in the United Kingdom, but not here in Canada. The Conservatives are the party of free speech, not the party of prosecuting those whose speech we do not agree with. There is a lot at stake in Bill C-9 .”
“That is where Parliament's attention should be: on stronger enforcement, on swifter prosecutions and on support for victims. Unamended, this bill risks punishing the unpopular while the truly dangerous slip through. Second is a question of identity. Where the bill currently refers to the protection of identity, it shifts attention away from protecting individual dignity. This carve-out from free speech would give Liberals the opportunity to define what they do not like as hate speech. Identities and human association are complex and subjective, but the concepts of the individual's rights and dignity are objective. Our laws should defend every Canadian against intimidation, harassment and violence, not protect abstract categories that are open to interpretation.”
“It is against the backdrop of the rising hate and violence the Liberals have caused that I offer three three principal critiques of Bill C-9 . First is the removal of the Attorney General from the process of approving charges for hate crimes. The requirement for AG consent has long served as a safeguard against abuse and as a means for accountability. By removing that oversight, the government would risk giving unelected bureaucrats unchecked discretion over prosecutions, paving the way for radical ideological judges. My friend, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith , put it best on September 24: Right now, our biggest problem is that enforcement is not consistent. Bail is virtually automatic, and charges are often dropped. Serious charges are plead down.”
“Our institutions, whether media, bureaucratic, judicial, financial or academic, have all been subjected to radical conformity, not critical thinking. The rot of one ideology as supreme against all others has shaken the confidence of Canadians, and restoring that trust requires much more than the performance art and virtue signalling that much of Bill C-9 presents. (1610) The same Liberal members of Parliament who stood and watched as trust eroded and communities were torn apart stand here today to claim that they have solutions for the very problems they caused. They claim they have majestically changed since their new Prime Minister took office. We cannot forget the damage and division they sowed, the trust they have broken.”
“The government's announcement, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, of granting a state to the people who practise state terror as statecraft, emboldening mobs and violence upon our Jewish communities, is just the latest example. It has been a decade of waiting for the rule of law over mob rule. Christians across our country have been subjected to over 100 church bombings and attacks. Communities are divided against one another as political projects of Liberals, rather than as a country being raised on the basis of the rule of law for all its people. Truckers took to our streets to protest for their rights and freedoms, as the Prime Minister then betrayed civil liberty and sowed distrust in our financial institutions, calling those very protesters seditious. Trust is broken in this country.”
“Since 2015, when the Liberals took office, hate crimes have gone up 258%, police-reported hate crimes have increased six years in a row and anti-Semitic hate crimes are up 416%. We have a government in place that has allowed Jewish Canadians, who account for less than 1% of our population, to become the most-targeted minority in our country. Seventy per cent of all hate crimes are targeted at less than 1% of the population. It is a government that, for far too long, has decided to place political expediency over moral clarity, choosing appeasement over principle. A synagogue was fire-bombed twice in one year. Two Jewish schools were shot up. A bomb threat targeted Jewish institutions across Canada. A Jewish man was assaulted in a Montreal park. A Jewish woman was stabbed in the kosher section of an Ottawa Loblaws.”
“Voltaire defended free expression, while rejecting incitement, libel and sedition, insisting that open dialogue is the only safeguard of liberty. Taken together, Gardiner and Voltaire remind us that freedom lives in the balance in between. Without restraint, it collapses into anarchy, and without expression, into tyranny. It is against this balance that we must measure the state of our country today. Taking into account the understanding that Gardiner and Voltaire provide us with, let us chart out Canada in the last decade and provide three principal critiques of Bill C-9 . The hate crime legislation before us right now is legislation that we should have been debating several years ago. We will take no lessons from Liberals when it comes to fighting hate. Let us talk about the last decade.”
“True freedom comes with the responsibilities of restraint, rules and tolerance. Without responsibilities, liberties clash and dissolve into anarchy, where no one is free. With these responsibilities, we achieve freedom for all, including minorities. Voltaire, in his writings and satire, came to the same truth from another perspective. For him, freedom of speech was the lifeblood of progress. A society advances when ideas, even unpopular ones, can be expressed and tested. He fought censorship, knowing that suppression is always the tool of tyranny. A phrase often attributed to him, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, was in fact penned later by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-9 , an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places. I will be splitting my time with my dear friend, the member of Parliament for Bowmanville—Oshawa North . I will speak about Gardiner and Voltaire: one an English journalist and the other a French satirist. A.G. Gardiner, in his essay On the Rule of the Road , put it plainly: One's freedom ends where the other person's nose begins. One's right to swing their fist ends when it collides with another's safety. To live together, we accept this social contract, curbing certain impulses so that everyone may move freely. Gardiner used simple ideas like the limits of playing a trombone at midnight to illustrate the point.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian Authority runs a program perpetuating generational genocidal hate with penchants for terrorists who murder Jews. The PA, the PLO and Fatah all embed terrorism into their institutions. The PLO founded the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a listed terrorist entity responsible for the attacks on October 7. If recognition of statehood is to have any real meaning, will the Prime Minister designate this as a state sponsor of terrorism?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have an administrative question for the Prime Minister . I went to check the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website to see what this new state he has announced might look like. There is no map. Can we expect the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to upload a map of the borders of this so-called state? Could they identify its capital?”
“The Prime Minister has dispensed with human dignity and the rule of law. He has emboldened terror with a state, and it is evil.”
“Mr. Speaker, ignoring the massacre of eight Canadians on October 7, siding with their killers and dehumanizing their families, the hostages still held and over 1,200 stolen souls is evil. Granting a state to those who practise state terror as statecraft and pay pensions for murdering Jews is evil. Not requiring the state to even recognize Israel's right to exist is evil. None of their conditions were met. There was no election, no release of all hostages and no demilitarization of Hamas. Lying about these intentions is evil. Doing this on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, and emboldening mobs and violence upon our Jewish communities, is evil. The fascism once buried in the last world war has risen again as modern terrorism. This is not diplomacy. It is appeasement. It is betrayal.”
“Tell that to the Hamiltonians who survived 80 rounds, to the three-year-old girl and her broken-hearted family in Welland, to the family of Abdul Aleem Farooqi in Vaughan, to the Jewish woman stabbed in the kosher section of an Ottawa Loblaws and to the communities of Calgary, Surrey and Halifax. It is time to stop the broken promises. It is time to stop the bait and switch. It is time for the Prime Minister to do his job.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Tell that to every out-of-work young couple living in the worst unemployment and immigration crisis Canada has known. He said that Canadians could judge him by grocery prices. Tell that to Robin in Calgary, who is watching food costs rise faster than when the Prime Minister took office six months ago. The Prime Minister promised to cap and control spending. Tell that to the taxpayers expected to pay for him doubling the deficit. He promised nation-building projects. Tell that to any resource worker or project builder still waiting for a single permit. The Prime Minister promised safe communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, if their math is like their promises, we are in serious trouble. They promised to put more money in Canadians' pockets. It is not $800 a year; it is seven dollars a month: broken. They promised to rein in government spending. We have $26 billion in consultants and $1,400 in taxes for every Canadian household: broken. The Prime Minister has promised to rein in inflation. Beef is up 34%, baby formula is up 9% and apples are up 18%: broken. Was the Prime Minister misleading us in the campaign, is he misleading us now or is it both?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's four weeks in Parliament were filled with broken Liberal promises: broken promises on spending, broken promises on the tax cut, broken promises on defence and broken promises on elbows up with the United States. The Prime Minister promised $800 in savings, a savings bonanza. Instead, the average Canadian only gets $90 this year. Did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians during the election, is he misleading them now or is it both?”
“A Sanskrit scholar and educator, she taught students, including my father, in Rangoon before the turbulence of Burma's military junta, in Delhi amid India's fight for freedom and later in Kolkata, a city pulsing with a cultural rebirth. Her strong will and Hindu heart defined her. She lived life on her own terms. Om Shanti .”
“Mr. Speaker, this is nearly a century in a minute. I rise today with a heavy yet grateful heart to honour my didu, Mrs. Sati Rani Kaur, who passed away peacefully at 94 on January 11 in Kolkata. Predeceased by my dadu, Mr. S. C. Kaur, she leaves behind three daughters; three sons-in-law; three grandchildren, including me; and three great-grandchildren. She was my last surviving grandparent, now with my father's parents, Hirenda Lal Majumdar and Sobhya Majumdar. Didu's life was a tapestry woven through 94 years across British India and through decades of partition, liberation and decolonization. Raised in Bangladesh, she carried the resilience of a land shaped by struggle and independence.”
“Mr. Speaker, these are completely divergent positions held by the minister of environment over the last decade and into today. The quotes I have been referring to are from the Prime Minister himself. The minister says that there is a consensus, but there is clearly no consensus at the cabinet table, so what exactly does consensus look like?”
“Mr. Speaker, I care deeply about traditional and transitional energy resource needs. The mix needs to be diverse. I represent a part of the country that provides the world with massive oil and gas potential. Let me ask about another quote: “half of [proven] oil reserves...need to stay in the ground”. Does the minister agree with that perspective?”
“Mr. Speaker, these are two very different positions. Let me ask another question. The minister's predecessor stated, “we can't help Europe with oil.” Does the minister still agree with that view today?”
“Mr. Speaker, that was the Prime Minister in a CTV interview on May 14, 2025. To the contrary, the minister's predecessor stated in 2019 that, “The atmosphere and our climate certainly don't need [pipelines].” The minister is somebody who has served Parliament for a long time. Does the minister still support that view?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a choice: break from Justin Trudeau's legacy or double down. He can get rid of the pipeline ban today, the shipping ban today and the production cap today. Let me ask again: Will the radical former environment minister, the Greenpeace activist who was once arrested in my riding and is now the Minister of Canadian Identity , stop attacking the very identity of Canada itself?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister committed to more rhetoric, more lofty words and no actual pipeline or energy infrastructure project. Alberta has heard all this before. We do not need headlines. We need results: Get our resources to market. Repeal the tanker ban. Repeal the pipeline ban. End the job-killing production cap. Will every Liberal member of Parliament commit to doing this today?”