Andrew Lawton
Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“They will claim full coverage, as we see across southwestern Ontario in particular, when everyone who lives there knows that is just a joke. I thank my colleague across the aisle from Compton—Stanstead for introducing this very important discussion. I have actually spent some time in her riding in the past, and I know it is very rural.”
“I want to see us identify ways to ensure accuracy in telecom coverage maps in rural Canada, but I also want to see us fix and expand those areas where we know the coverage is not there.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is a particular privilege to speak to a bill such as this one, which speaks directly to one of the most persistent concerns I hear from people in the rural communities in my riding, scattered across Elgin County…”
“We still have the same problem, which is that we have people looking to a new technology, but that not solving the problem, which is applicable to not just the farmers in my riding, but all the people who live in these rural communities who want to work in these communities, want to study in these communities and, as my colleague for Aval…”
“As technology evolves, we see farmers incorporating more and more technology into their work that requires cellular connectivity, especially if they are out in the field, far from the Wi-Fi routers they may have in their homes or, increasingly, in their barns.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. It is with great pride and pleasure that I present a petition on behalf of representatives of the Elgin County Drowning Prevention Coalition, including Briar McCaw, Linda King and Nathan MacIntyre of the RIP Current Information Project.”
The complete record
Every one of 676 lines we hold for Andrew Lawton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 14.
“If there is four-plus years of litigation, only to, at the end, have a declaration that maybe we were right, it did not stop the violation from taking place in the first place. In fact, even the debate we are having right now has been limited to just one single day because the Liberals did not want to hear on record the concerns I have been sharing and the concerns that have been conveyed to me by faith leaders in my riding and around the country, including Manitoba, the GTA, Newfoundland, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Many of the people who came out to our town halls were not even political. In fact, many of them said they never wanted to get involved in politics, because they believe in the idea that church and state should be separate. That is what we are actually protecting. We are protecting the church from the state.”
“That protection does not stop a government in real time from violating rights. If he wants proof of that, he need not look further than the decision made last week by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to appeal once again the decision that the use of the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional. The Federal Court ruled, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled, and now the Liberals are taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. However, when Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, he used the very same language we hear from Liberals right now to defend Bill C-9 , which is that we need not worry about our charter rights' being violated, because the charter protects our rights. Well, a load of good that does.”
“If we put all these groups in one room, they will disagree on so many things, but what they agree on is more important, which is that they all benefit from religious freedom. They all benefit from freedom of expression. If we do not protect religious freedom for every individual faith denomination and religious organization, we have not done our job as parliamentarians in upholding the charter values of freedom of expression and freedom of religion for all Canadians. Religious freedom for one is religious freedom for all. I have no doubt that we are going to hear from the Liberals that this is all a load of hooey because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of religion. I am going to give the member for Winnipeg North a bonus question, which I will answer before he even asks it.”
“(1300) We have been listening to the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, who similarly said that he has no desire to preach hate but that he can have the freedom to preach the gospel of love only if he has the freedom to decide for himself, not have the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , the Minister of Justice , the Prime Minister and not some backbenchers in the Liberal Party who have had egregious things to say about people of faith in the past, decide. The primate, members of his church and his fellow clergy should decide. There is the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Rabbinical Council of Toronto and the United Church of Canada.”
“The mechanism being used against her in Finland is very similar to what we hear from members of the Liberal Party right now, not just in the context of Bill C-9 but also in the online harms act, the legislation the Liberals have tried to pass twice in previous parliaments and have said will be coming back again. We are here today because we have been listening. We have been listening to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is a body that does not often get into matters of politics, but it felt so strongly about the removal of the religious defence that it spoke out and said that this would jeopardize religious freedoms in Canada.”
“The news reported the other day that there is a priest in Iceland named Jakob Rolland who is under police investigation for expressing in a radio interview his church's view on matters of sexuality. The police are investigating him. There is a long-running case in Finland with respect to a member of Parliament, Päivi Räsänen, who was a cabinet minister. In Finland, cabinet ministers do not try to throw people in jail for quoting holy scripture. However, this member of Parliament has now been in court case after court case for seven years over a tweet in which she quoted the Bible and affirmed what she believed is a biblical teaching.”
“This actually has a name in the U.K. They call it a non-crime hate incident. It is the arm of the state, weaponizing its power against people because of their opinions or because they wrote something that might be off-colour or that hurt someone's feelings. That does not mean it rose to the very high threshold of incitement, which is really what we are talking about when we talk about criminalizing hate. We have a balance in Canada that has worked for many years. That balance was upheld in part because the Criminal Code has the religious defence, which says that someone cannot be prosecuted for wilfully promoting hate if in good faith they were expressing a religious belief or citing a religious text.”
“There is a reason that more than 350 Muslim groups, more than 700 Christian groups and dozens of Orthodox Jewish leaders have called on the government to walk away, to backtrack on Bill C-9 , specifically the removal of the long-standing protections for religious speech. We listened to them. I have had the opportunity to go around the country and do the consultations the Liberal government never did with the people who would be directly affected by the bill. People feel hurt. They feel assaulted by a government that claims to be protecting those very people with this legislation. I would like to provide a couple of examples of what happens when this power goes unchecked. We have all seen, from the United Kingdom, images, videos and stories of police knocking on people's doors over things they have posted on social media.”
“Mr. Speaker, this has been a challenging issue, to say the least. We heard from the Liberal government as to what it claims Bill C-9 is and what it would do. Then we read the bill and looked at what the Liberals are doing and how they feel about people of faith in this country. I think about the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and comments he has shared in the House, in which he said very clearly that he believes that there are some books of holy scripture that, in his view, are clearly hateful, so much so that he thinks prosecutors should be able to criminally charge the people who utter them, criminally charge people who read from the Bible, the Torah or the Quran. This is very concerning to people in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to present a petition on behalf of the folks of Elgin, St. Thomas and London, as well as people across the country, who are calling on the Liberal government to withdraw the divisive and toxic Bill C-9 , which takes aim at religious freedom and freedom of expression. The petitioners continue to be concerned with comments made by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture that quoting certain scriptures should attract criminal prosecution, which is why they do not trust the Liberal government at this current juncture to stand up for these fundamental freedoms. The petitioners call on the government to stand firmly behind religious freedom and freedom of expression, withdraw Bill C-9 and unequivocally avow to uphold the right to share, read and pray as people of faith in this country see fit.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, who is the chair of the justice committee, for his speech, although I note that when he talks about the hours of debate on Bill C-9 , he misses the fact that we have had no opportunity to hear witnesses on the removal of the religious defence, because it was snuck in as an amendment thanks to an agreement between the Liberal and Bloc members. Once again, we have a Liberal saying that people should not worry, that their religious freedoms would not be touched because the charter protects religious freedoms. Let me ask this very pointedly. The member's predecessor as committee chair was promoted to cabinet a couple of weeks after he said that it would be, in his view, justifiable for prosecutors to charge people for quoting certain verses of scripture. Does he denounce that comment?”
“Mr. Speaker, let me say perfectly clearly what Conservatives have said since the very beginning of the Bill C-9 discussion, which is that we stand united against hate. However, we cannot protect any community from hate with legislation that infringes on their rights. That is why Bill C-9 has been denounced in whole or in part by 350 Muslim organizations this morning, by the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, by the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, by the United Church and by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Why does the member think that these concerns are unwarranted, when representatives of virtually every faith community in Canada have said that Bill C-9 will infringe on their religious liberties?”
“If Canadians truly have nothing to fear, will the Minister of Justice stand up right now and denounce the words of his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , who said it should be illegal to quote verses of the Bible that he says are inherently hateful? Will he denounce those comments right now?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice continues to misrepresent what has happened. The Liberal government was not elected with a mandate to remove long-standing protections for religious speech. When facing the millions of Canadians affected by this and their concerns, the minister said he would consult and listen to those over the winter break. When coming back, the only response he has had is to say not to worry, the bill does not say what it says. Even now, the minister says charter rights will protect Canadians, while the government has not said whether it will accept the Federal Court of Appeal finding that it violated the charter rights of Canadians with the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Canadians have every reason to be concerned with a government that does not have a record of upholding these fundamental freedoms.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of concerned Canadians in my riding of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South and across the country who are registering their incredible frustration and concern with Liberal Bill C-9 and its erosion of freedom of expression and freedom of religion, specifically with the Liberal-Bloc amendment to remove long-standing protections for religious speech. Petitioners are very much calling on the Liberal government to withdraw this divisive and toxic bill; to state firmly that it will always stand up for religious freedom, including the right to read and share sacred texts; and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith. I hope the Minister of Justice , who is in the chamber, takes heed of these concerns, which have been coming in by the tens of thousands. I submit them herewith.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciated the parliamentary secretary's reminiscing about political parties of yore, and I wonder where the Liberals who used to stand up for free speech are. The parliamentary secretary claimed that Canadians gave the Liberals a mandate for this legislation. Where did they ever say to Canadians that they would be removing long-standing protections for religious speech? Earlier on, I asked the parliamentary secretary if she agreed with the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture that prosecutors should be able to charge people for quoting certain scriptures, and she would not give an answer. Does the member agree with the minister that certain scriptures should be illegal to quote? That was not in the Liberal platform.”
“Madam Speaker, I must commend the Bloc Québécois for so successfully enlisting the Liberal government in its assault on religious freedom in this country. I know the Bloc has long tried to do what Bill C-9 would do. Good on the Bloc for getting the Liberals on board. My colleague from the Bloc Québécois has once again misrepresented the facts of the Adil Charkaoui case to justify removing the religious defence. Will he acknowledge that the religious defence does not apply, and has never applied, to Criminal Code provisions dealing with violence or the threat of violence, and acknowledge that prosecutors did not invoke the existence of the religious defence when they did not proceed with charges against Mr. Charkaoui? Will he clear the record and stop misrepresenting the record?”
“Madam Speaker, to respond, I would like to share a quote that I did not have time to include in my speech. It is from John Stuart Mill in On Liberty , who writes, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” We all, as free people, have the right to express who we are and express our values. We respond to that with other values, with debates, and we do not respond with censorship. Attitudes change over time. Indeed, slavery ended because of the religious convictions in the British Parliament of Wilberforce. It is a position that was unpopular but was morally correct, and history bears that out.”
“Madam Speaker, I will choose to appreciate and thank my colleague for her compliment. The challenge is that, while we have had some time at committee to look at Bill C-9 , the most contentious part of it, which is the removal of the religious defence, had no witness testimony and no opportunity to freely discuss it with the people who would be most affected. It is in that spirit that even our efforts to rectify this were met by denunciation from the Liberals, who on one hand claimed co-operation and collaboration, but on the other hand slapped our hand away when we offered to give them a legislative safeguard that did what they claimed they wanted Bill C-9 to do. When we, as a committee, are looking at a bill, we do not, as members of Parliament, have the moral or legal right to bargain away Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms.”
“Madam Speaker, not only do I not oppose it, but I am also very proud that it is already illegal, and nothing in Bill C-9 would change that. Perhaps the member should spend less time talking and more time reading the legislation he talks about.”
“The Liberals may wish to be the arbiters of what we say, and even what we think, but they do not have or deserve that licence.”
“Those are the ideas, the sentiments or, as some Liberal members need to be told, the scripture verses that need protection the most. When we stand up for the freedom of expression, it is not a guarantee that every voice will or should be welcomed. Instead, it is to say that no voice should be silenced because of the dictates of a state that wants to draw an arbitrary line on what constitutes hate to silence those it hates. That is, to be perfectly frank, what is at stake today. The Liberals not only want to silence in our society certain viewpoints, ideas and people, but also to silence those voices from being heard in the legislative process. I will close on this: Freedom of expression is the covenant of a free people that no idea is so dangerous it must be buried and no citizen so small that their voice may be denied the light.”
“Censorship is the confession of a society that it no longer trusts truth to win and that it no longer trusts people to be the arbiters of what should be discussed, debated and freely disseminated in society. When the state dictates what words can be uttered and what scripture verses can be read, it polices the ideas that can be shared and even what can be believed, at a fundamental level, by Canadians. In the absence of the freedom of expression, there are only official lies. A society that fears words has already begun to fear thoughts themselves. That is why the groundswell of opposition to Bill C-9 has been so robust. The freedom of expression was not enshrined in the charter to protect the easy or the popular; it is there precisely to protect the difficult and the unpopular.”
“Removing the freedom of expression takes away a vital tool Canadians have against an overzealous and authoritarian government. It is fitting that the Liberals are laying their intentions out so barely that they are prepared to censor the very debates and discussions we need to have in this chamber to justify legislation that would censor the thoughts and expressions of Canadians. The best remedy, even for offensive speech, is more speech, not enforced silence. The best antidote to someone abusing scriptures is the freedom for all Canadians to freely discuss and debate those scriptures, share their true intention, read their holy texts and demonstrate that these texts came from a place of love. This lies at the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of expression.”
“Groups representing almost every faith tradition in this country, as well as civil liberties organizations and social justice organizations, all believe that Bill C-9 would harm the very groups the Liberals claim it would protect. Why is this so fundamental? I will go back to my comments in my maiden speech that freedom of expression has always been, and will always be, my hill to die on. There is a line from James Madison that comes to mind, which is “the advancement and diffusion of knowledge...is the only Guardian of true liberty.” Put simply, if all other freedoms were stripped away except the freedoms of expression and speech, we would be able to use those fundamental liberties to fight back for all the others.”
“They have been flooding members of Parliament's inboxes, voice mailboxes and phone lines with their concerns about Bill C-9 . The denunciation of Bill C-9 has not come from some far right conspiracy, as some of the members in this chamber have alluded to today. It has come from the left and the right, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the rabbinical council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Egale Canada.”
“The Federal Court of Appeal later affirmed that was a lie. A government that claims it is protecting charter rights is not sufficient enough to actually protect those rights. This is coming from a government that has a long history of censorship bills. Now, on Bill C-9 , when Conservative members of the justice committee wanted to bring forward the testimony of people who are among the millions of Canadians of faith who would be directly affected by this change, the Liberals moved the motion before us today to shut down debate. The Liberals are censoring debate on their censorship bill. (1240) The Liberals are denying us the opportunity to read letters from imams, pastors, rabbis, civil liberties advocates and individual Canadians.”
“They do not value the role that faith plays in society. I want to give a perfect example of why the Liberals cannot be taken at their word that they will protect charter freedoms. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said before committee, “Freedom of religion is already fully protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” She said that to assuage concerns that Bill C-9 would lead to the further erosion of these freedoms. Does it sound familiar? It should because Justin Trudeau said something very similar when he was defending the invocation of the Emergencies Act. He said, “I want to reassure Canadians that when the Emergencies Act is invoked, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to protect their individual rights.” The Federal Court later determined that was a lie.”
“Of course, we have the removal of the religious defence, the removal of long-standing religious safeguards for political speech, and that decision became especially significant when we looked at a transcript of the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture 's comments. In his view, there is clear hatred living within the holy texts that millions of people across this country read, cite and pray over from a place of love. The minister said there is clear hatred and prosecutors should be able to, in his words, press charges against those who cite them. That is why all of the declarations and claims from Liberals that they will protect our charter freedoms, the freedom of expression and religious freedom ring hollow. They have been abundantly clear in their language that they do not protect those things.”
“Much of what Bill C-9 would do, such as criminalize obstruction to a house of worship or prohibit the display of hate symbols, would tread over ground that is already covered by existing laws. These laws have been unenforced for the last several years because of a failure of political leadership in the Liberals. We can then look at what Bill C-9 would do to actually change things. It would create a new definition of hate. Every witness who testified before the justice committee said that it would lower the threshold and make it easier to charge people for the words they say than it is now. The bill would remove critical safeguards for overzealous prosecution.”
“Let me say, first and foremost, that hate is real. It is a scourge in society. I have seen the brazen anti-Semitism unleashed on Canadian streets since October 7. London is a part of my riding. We saw, five years ago, the brutal slaying of the Afzaal family, a Muslim family targeted by a man who had hate and evil in his heart purely because of their faith. We have also seen 123 Christian churches burned or vandalized in the last five years. When Justin Trudeau, the former Liberal prime minister, was asked about these actions, he said they were “understandable”. Hate is real, and sometimes it can come from a political leader, but Bill C-9 is not an antidote to hate, which is a problem that was allowed to fester on the Liberal government's watch.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a privilege, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I said in my maiden speech in this chamber that I came to Ottawa with the goal of making Canada a freer place. Indeed, one of the motivations I had for getting into politics was seeing our fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression, under threat. This has been done largely by the policies and decisions taken by the Liberal government over the last few years. It was in that spirit that I rose to the task of combatting this very dangerous bill, Bill C-9 , from the get-go. When the Liberals put this bill forward, I read in the text of the bill language that would not be used to protect marginalized communities but would actually inflict harm on the very people the Liberals claim it would protect.”
“Madam Speaker, I noticed in the earlier intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada that there was a lot of historical revisionism on what actually happened at the justice committee, specifically regarding the Bloc's amendment to remove the long-standing protections for religious speech. She indicated that there had been robust debate and that the committee heard what was at stake there. I wonder if my colleague, who is the vice-chair of the justice committee, could speak to his recollection of how much the Liberal members intervened and how much testimony we got to hear from witnesses on it.”
“Madam Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said before the justice committee that there is “clear hatred” in some verses of the Bible and Torah, and that quoting these scriptures should invite “discretion for prosecutors to press charges”. Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice agree or disagree?”
“Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciated my colleague's observation on the omnibus nature of this bill. We saw that the Liberals concealed some measures in Bill C‑15 that were not in the budget. One example is the regulatory sandbox. That would have allowed cabinet ministers to exempt companies or individuals from almost any federal law or regulation in Canada. I am thankful that we were able to correct this harmful measure in committee. Still, I want to know what my colleague thinks of the fact that the Liberals tried to sneak in this measure in the first place.”
“At the end of the day, we need to get serious about it, and we need to understand that when Canada is seeing food inflation at twice what is being seen in the U.S., we need to find solutions rather than just blaming global factors. This is a productivity and competitiveness problem in Canada, and the government has to provide a solution to it.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was an old improv game on Whose Line Is It Anyway? where a question was answered with a question. I was hoping my question would be met with an answer. I am sitting here in opposition. The member opposite is part of the government. They are the ones who have to meet this problem with a solution. As Conservatives, we will continue to put forward more solutions in hopes they will take these ideas: driving down and removing the industrial carbon tax and driving down and removing the fuel standard tax. Another idea I did not get to in the initial question was removing some of the packaging and plastics regulations and taxes, all of which are part of this.”
“We have talked about the importance of getting rid of the fuel standard, a 17¢-a-litre tax which cannot but drive up the cost of shipping food and drive up the cost of agriculture. We have talked about supports for our farmers. The fact that the 7.3% food inflation rate is what Canadians are dealing with is especially important because it is a made-in-Canada problem. That is double the inflation rate for food we are seeing in the United States. It is the highest among G7 countries. Where is the government's solution to truly bring down the price of food? That is my question.”
“I am calling on the government in my question tonight, and our Conservative team has been calling on the government for quite some time, to put forward a real food affordability plan that does not just offer Canadians some temporary support but actually deals with the cost drivers. I understand food prices are complex. There is no one single input to food inflation, which is why I believe the federal government and all levels of government must pull every lever available to them. I do not just come with a problem; I come with solutions. We have put forward repeatedly the idea of removing the industrial carbon tax, which makes it more costly for producers, manufacturers and shippers.”
“The Corner Cupboard Food Bank in Aylmer is on a very similar trajectory, and the London Food Bank is very similar. On one hand, I am so grateful that the community has risen to look out for those who are dealing with food insecurity. There is a tremendous success story in my riding, in St. Thomas, called Harvest Hands, which is a service that rescues surplus food from farms, distributors and manufacturers and makes sure it goes to places in need, such as food banks. Last week, I took a tour of the Ronald McDonald House in London, which feeds families that are dealing with children in hospital, in part because of contributions from the community and other partners, including Harvest Hands. However, the community's willingness and ability to meet this need is still because this need is there.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I asked in the House a few short weeks ago about an issue that has become a massive one, not just across the country, but in particular in the communities I represent across Elgin County, St. Thomas and London South, and that is the issue of food affordability. This is a global issue, when we talk about inflation, but it is one that has a disproportionate effect in Canada. The figure of 7.3% is the one that came out between when I initially asked my question and now. That is the year-over-year inflation on just food products that Canadians are facing. We have seen record demand in the food banks across my riding. The St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank has had, I believe, three straight years of increases, feeding 30,000 mouths last year.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, but that was incredibly unparliamentary and disrespectful language that a great many Canadians would be incredibly offended was uttered in the House. I would ask the member to apologize and withdraw that comment.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the investments, as he calls them, that the Liberal government has put into health care. There is a Somali woman who was in a polygamous marriage and lied to get into Canada. She won another chance to stay. There is Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi, a father who, along with his son, was granted refugee status. They will stand trial on terrorism charges for an alleged Toronto plot. An admitted Mexican hit man who fled the U.S. for Canada made a refugee claim. There are also 14 extortion subjects who have claimed refugee status. Of the investments the Liberals say they are making in health care, exactly how much should go towards health care for these individuals?”
“Mr. Speaker, a British Columbia school board trustee was fined $750,000 for the egregious crime of saying there are two genders. These are the same kangaroo courts that the Liberals' online harms act would empower. It is the same regulation of emotion that Liberal Bill C-9 would supercharge. The Liberals claim they will uphold freedom of expression, but they still have not said whether they will acknowledge and accept the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that they violated the constitutional rights of Canadians by invoking the Emergencies Act. Will the Liberals commit now to giving up on their censorship agenda and letting Canadians live their lives and speak their minds?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only things the Liberals are building are false hope and bureaucracy. Liberal house flippers and penthouse dwellers profit while young Canadians pay the price. On this side of the House, we listen to the experts. The London Home Builders' Association told me this week that builders have to spend tens of thousands of dollars per home just on red tape and regulations. Every dollar spent on bureaucracy pushes homes further out of reach for young Canadians. Ontario lost 10,000 homebuilding jobs last year, because no one is able to build. When will the Liberals reverse course, cut the red tape and scrap the GST on homes for families?”
“Mr. Speaker, the dream of home ownership is now a fantasy for more and more young Canadians, of whom 93% are saying that they are concerned about the state of housing. Nearly half of them believe they will have to leave their own communities because they cannot afford to live there. The government's own housing agency says homebuilding will drop over the next three years and prices will go up even more, but I have good news for the Liberals. We have a solution. A Conservative government would remove the GST on new homes under $1.3 million to make them more affordable. Why will the Liberals not do that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am used to a lot in the member's diatribes, but I know that he accuses anyone who does not support government mandates on vehicle purchases of being far right. How far left does one have to be to think that government involvement and intervention is the only way industry can operate in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise with tremendous pride to celebrate two remarkable athletes from my riding who are carrying our proud Canadian flag on the world stage. This year, our Olympic and Paralympic hockey teams will feature two hometown heroes whose talent and determination embody the very best of Elgin County and of Canada. From Rodney, the great Bo Horvat will don the maple leaf with our Olympic team for the first time, and from Wallacetown, James Dunn returns as a star on our para ice hockey team. Their dedication, resilience and unwavering commitment to their sport inspire us all back home. Bo and James's achievements reflect the strength of our communities and the spirit of every young athlete who dreams big. All of Elgin County, and I think I can say all Canadians, will be cheering them on every step of the way.”
“Will she say right now that she knows better than all of these people who have lined up to denounce Bill C-9 in whole or in part, particularly the removal of long-standing protections for religious speech?”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not know there was a secretary of state for revisionism, but here we are. From the party of the charter that was just found a couple of weeks ago by the Federal Court of Appeal to have trampled on the civil liberties of Canadians, I find that a little rich. When the parliamentary secretary dismisses the concerns about Bill C-9 's attack on religious freedoms, she is actually saying that the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, the Canadian Council of Imams and the National Council of Canadian Muslims all know less about religious freedom, their values and their ability to uphold and preach these values than the Liberal government does.”