Matt Strauss
Kitchener South—Hespeler, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians know a cover‑up when they hear one. That was a cover‑up. They turned the cameras off on a scheduled meeting about the $300‑million PrescribeIT scandal. They cancelled tomorrow's meeting so they can continue to cover it up.”
“The minister responded during that question period, saying she meant that she had spoken with her representative on the board, so in a follow-up question, I asked if her representative had spoken to the chairman of the board. She said she was “not going to get into who said what”. Well, why on earth not? This matters.”
“I think, honestly, that this is how organizations come to be poorly governed. This is how they come to blow $300 million on a program that did not work but that should have been billed successfully for $5 million. The minister is making a Schrödinger’s cat out of responsibility.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here so late. I am hoping that if some of the Liberals get sleepy enough, perhaps they will accidentally answer the questions and provide some light on what has gone on at PrescribeIT.”
“Mr. Speaker, I asked several very specific questions. I asked whether Canada Health Infoway is independent or not. I asked whether the Minister of Health has oversight on its funding or not. I asked whether the Minister of Health has the power to fire the CEO of Canada Health Infoway or not.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada Health Infoway blew $300 million of taxpayer money on PrescribeIT. They have blown $1 billion over 10 years with nothing tangible to show for it. For six weeks, they have failed to produce the documents the health committee has ordered them to produce.”
The complete record
Every one of 218 lines we hold for Matt Strauss, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“That is the plain-language summary but I will quote now the bill in its legalese: If there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat...the Minister may... prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to [the] specified person. Perhaps this might make sense to do in an extreme circumstance, if a person is trying to cause our satellites to crash or to jam military radar, but the clause does not use language about extreme threats of physical damage or threats to national security. It says “any threat”. As far as I can tell, given the Liberals' incautious and bombastic use of terms like “misinformation”, that being any information they do not like, or “existential threat”, for instance when the hon.”
“Before I start talking about the bill today, let me just say that it has been shocking to listen to Liberals claim to defend charter rights, when they themselves violated section 2 and section 8 of our charter when they imposed the Emergencies Act. That was determined by Justice Mosley of the federal court. All the Liberal members in the last Parliament voted to do that, and I do not want to hear any more about defending charter rights from any such member who has not apologized for that violation. As for the present bill, I am concerned by the following clauses. Clause 15.1 and clause 15.2 would give the minister the unprecedented, incredible power to kick any private Canadian citizen off the Internet, to cut off their phone line and to turn off their cell phone.”
“Mr. Speaker, my learned friend from Haldimand—Norfolk 's speech was terrific. She is a very tough act to follow. When I read the bill for the first time, my jaw hit the floor. As I have previously discussed in the House, my motivation for signing up to become a politician was the violation of basic charter rights that the Liberals perpetrated in the last Parliament. Even with that background in mind, I had thought and hoped that they had perhaps been chastened and that they would not try so hard to claim unto themselves, in the current Parliament, powers explicitly forbidden by our Constitution, but I was wrong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I fear it is not a simple question. It goes to the heart of what I was talking about in the John Stuart Mill quote and philosophical liberalism. What one person means when they say something from a different culture or a different religion can be taken differently. That is why we have to have a bias toward philosophical liberalism that I fear the government is abandoning with the present legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. I thank him for the point. Hate cannot be tolerated, no matter what justification is given by the former prime minister's former principal secretary. I hope that we all keep that in mind as we approach commentary around the present legislation. I myself was distressed when the Conservative justice shadow critic brought up this problem of church burnings and was met with laughter from the other side. I did think that this was inappropriate, so I thank the member for raising the point.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, that is exactly what I am driving at. We want concrete measures to enforce the laws that already exist. When I was listening to the member's question, I had to wonder if it is his belief that it is provincial attorneys general who are stopping violent criminals from going to jail right now. I do not think it is, and I do not think the member would dare mention a provincial attorney general who he thinks is derelict in duty in that way.”
“Why do they refuse to repeal their irresponsible bail laws that let violent psychos back on our streets again and again? I ask the questions in good faith.”
“This is why I fear that the present bill is an abstraction and a distraction. We need concrete measures. We need the violent and hateful people who do these sorts of things, who break our laws, to go to jail and stay in jail. Conservatives have proposed such measures to put the bad guys in jail. I earnestly beg the members opposite to take us up on it. Let us do these concrete things. Those are my twin concerns. By removing the consent of the Attorney General and watering down the definition of hate, would the Liberals cast a wider net, driving cranks and loons underground, where they might become more hateful and, God forbid, more violent? Why would they cast a wider net when they are already refusing to use the smaller, more targeted net that they have?”
“In every class of violent crime, we have seen a failure of the Liberal government to keep the bad guys in jail. It is my understanding that the wilful promotion of hatred, whether with a symbol or a flag or a speech or a newspaper article, is already illegal in Canada under subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code. It is furthermore my understanding that intimidating a person who seeks to enter a place of worship or any other place is already illegal under section 423 of the Criminal Code. However, we have seen very many infractions of these already-existing laws in the targeting of religious minorities. I may go so far as to say that every religious minority is dealing with more infractions of these laws in just about every Canadian city. In fact, every Canadian is dealing with more of every sort of crime.”
“A few weeks ago, a woman was stabbed in the kosher food section of a local Ottawa grocery store. Less well known is that in the spring of 2024, a 15-year-old Israeli immigrant to Canada was attacked at school for her place of origin. In that case, I believe it took two weeks before the police even deigned to lay charges. In my own circle of physician friends, I am sorry and ashamed to report that some Jews have left Canada permanently because of the lack of safety these concrete events demonstrate. I want dearly for my Jewish friends to feel safe to return to Canada. (1830) Year after year, we have increases in violent crime in Canada. We have seen ongoing increases in every classification and every sort of violent crime. These increases, I am sorry to say, started in 2015.”
“As a sub-concern, if it is allowed to fester in these dark corners of the Internet, when it does finally burst out, is it more likely to do so in a form worse than a flag or symbol? I do not ask this question lightly, and it brings me to my second concern with the proposed legislation. In some comments I made following a speech about criminal justice, I expressed concern that the deputy government House leader seemed more concerned with abstractions rather than concrete occurrences. On this side of the House, we pride ourselves on our concern for concrete occurrences. As a Canadian, I am terribly upset, disgusted and disappointed that Jewish individuals have been harmed by criminal psychopaths because of who they are. A man was beaten up in front of his children in Montreal this summer.”
“No one in this House does, but when we do, we must take it as a solemn opportunity to perhaps not change their minds, but loudly and with facts and arguments disabuse whatever listeners they may have of the poison they utter. With the words of John Stuart Mill and the examples of the Skokie counterprotesters in mind, I ask the justice minister this admittedly counterintuitive question: By driving hate into the fetid swamps of Discord or whatever website has replaced 4chan, does it deprive our communities the opportunity to denounce it in person and to show people in the real world that their views are not welcome and that their movement has no purchase among the 99.9% of Canadians who value each other's fundamental rights and freedoms?”
“Previously, the Holocaust survivors in Skokie, he says, “were a very quiet group” who did not talk about their experiences, but he said these events “ignited a passion in them”, and they founded the Illinois Holocaust Museum & Education Center within two years of that day. The ABC News article notes that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have recognized the incredible work that museum does. In many ways, John Stuart Mill can be thought of as the founder of the Liberal tradition that gives the Liberal Party its name. This is what he had to say about false and hateful opinions: “though the silenced opinion be an error...it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” That is to say that no one wants to hear from hateful miscreants.”
“It is a very famous case, in part because the ACLU lawyer who fought for the right of those marchers to march was David Goldberger, who was a very proud Jew. Reprehensibly, the marchers chose Skokie, Illinois, because there was a high proportion of Holocaust survivors there whom they sought to terrify. On the date of the march, 20 broken and twisted individuals wearing Nazi hakenkreuzes were met by 2,000 counterprotesters shouting them down. No violence occurred, and the cowardly traitorous Nazis went home without marching. A recent ABC News article quotes the current mayor of Skokie, Illinois, saying that looking back 40 years later, many positive things came out of that day.”
“When we approach discussions of criminalization, it should be with humility. If I could wave a magic wand and stop anyone in this country from ever propagating any hate or committing a hate crime, I swear I would do it, but such magic is not one of the powers vested in us as elected representatives. We can only modify the criminal justice system, and we must be alive to the unintended consequences that such modifications could have. In that spirit, I would honestly like to raise with the members opposite the following concerns I have with this legislation. Number one, would it drive hate organizations underground? It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. When the justice minister introduced this legislation, my thoughts immediately turned to the famous and thankfully aborted Nazi rally in Skokie, Illinois, of 1977.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, as a preamble that really should go without saying, there is no disagreement in any corner of the House about the values that should underlie this legislation. We all value a safe Canada where every single human is free to live their lives as their fullest selves irrespective of their race, religion, ethnicity, language, physical or mental disability, etc. There is no member in this House who wants to see hate or the symbols of hate that the present legislation deals with displayed or promoted in any way in our country or in any other country. I think we remain unanimous in the House in condemning hate, hate crimes and hate propaganda. However, a careful distinction must be brought to bear between condemnation and criminalization, and we must always note this.”
“If the Liberals want the bill to be made better in committee but it has already been there and they had all summer to improve it, why did they not effect the amendments the experts from civil society organizations asked for?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague opposite that I was not in the last Parliament. I would have had a lot to say about the legislation if I had been. The members on the other side and the deputy government House leader say they want the bill to go to committee so it can be made better. The bill already went to committee. Multiple experts from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Ligue des droits et libertés, OpenMedia and the Privacy & Access Council of Canada were there. They gave their comments. They wrote an open letter, in which they said the legislation “lacks guardrails to constrain abuse”, that its “secrecy undermines accountability and due process” and that it “lacks justification”. It would not do what it says it would do.”
“Madam Speaker, I note that in 2021, the Liberal Party said it was going to combat authoritarianism worldwide. I remark, with horror, I suppose, on the authoritarianism that I detect in this document that they are proposing to get through the House, after the strenuous objections of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Does the member have any reflections on either the authoritarianism in the bill or the hypocrisy that such authoritarianism implies?”
“Madam Speaker, let me congratulate and express deep gratitude to the hon. member for that excellent speech. I too am terribly concerned by the civil liberties restrictions that this bill would impose. I note that when this bill was in the last Parliament, several civil society organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, penned an open letter saying it tramples our civil liberties. To the deputy House leader 's point, I would just like to point out that this bill has already been to committee. It has already been criticized by these civil liberties organizations. Why did the Liberals not make the amendments these civil society groups asked for?”
“Mr. Speaker, I come to the House as a physician. In medicine, if we refuse to treat the underlying cause of a problem, I promise it will get worse. It sounds to me, in the House, that the Liberals want to forever invent new and more complicated programs to treat the symptoms of this problem. The cause of this problem is a matter of first-year economics. To quote a first-year economics textbook, “Prices rise when the government prints too much money.” Do the Liberals not acknowledge that their massive deficits are the cause of the affordability crisis? If they acknowledge this truth from a first-year economics textbook, why do they refuse to treat it or even talk about it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals put $50 million away to support those who were legitimately injured by COVID vaccines. That money is all spent. The only problem is that 70% of it went to consultants rather than the people who were legitimately injured. What is worse, 1,700 people have not even had their claims processed and have not even heard back. Why is it that every time the Liberals say they are going to spend taxpayer money to support Canadians, their consultant friends end up getting rich?”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Liberals, for 10 years, have been obsessed with firearm-related violent crimes. I just looked up a Statistics Canada report from 2023. The minority of homicides in our country and the vast minority of violent crimes in our country are associated with firearms. We have seen the terrible events associated with vehicular homicide. If the Liberals' approach to violent crime is so focused on firearms, why are we seeing continued increases in homicide and firearm homicide in our country? What is not working, and what is different about the approach the member is speaking about today?”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the member for London West gave a speech entirely focused on abstracts. On this side of the House, we are concerned with concrete occurrences. My wife and I have been totally under siege with terrible emotions concerning what happened in Welland, with the rape of a toddler. I tear up to think about it. Let us make things concrete. Would the member agree with me that the fact that the accused in that case got out early and reoffended so swiftly brings the administration of justice in this country under disrepute? I honestly want to know how long she thinks such a person should have spent in jail.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can merely go off the PBO report. That 115,000 people seems like quite a bolus to try to accommodate in one day with the stroke of a pen, when the government itself realizes that total immigration numbers have to go down for the sake of our housing system and our health care system. We do not even know what the deficit is in this country. We are starting to suspect that it is massive. Certainly, on the processing, before we even talk about our overwhelmed health care system, I see no way that we have the capacity to accommodate all of this without perhaps causing a sovereign debt crisis. Therefore, I think the Liberals really need to take a second look at what they are doing. It is terribly reckless and irresponsible. The job of the Conservatives on the committee is not to bail them out.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think members on this side, back in Stephen Harper's time, indeed recognized Quebec as a nation. I do as well. I think I did in my speech. I thank the member for the consideration in that question.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is the honour of my life to present my thoughts in representing the people of Kitchener South—Hespeler in this chamber. I have no interest in obstructing any legislation. It seems to me that the Liberals want the Conservatives to give them a pass on not having done their homework. They had all summer. I understand 200 people work in the Prime Minister's Office. They could have constructed a better piece of legislation. I am here. I was elected to be here by the people of Kitchener. I am going to tell the House what they have sent me to tell it.”
“Why is the government introducing a bill without these basic guarantees? Why does it refuse to defend the value of our citizenship? [ English ] In its present form, I fear this bill makes cheap what should be sacred. I beg the members in the House to pass amendments to make this a better bill. We can do this.”
“Those of us who, like my family, joined this project along the way come from all over the world. We are like branches grafted onto an old tree. We cannot change this tree the way Mr. Trudeau changes his clothes when he plays dress-up. We grow new leaves to give this tree new energy, and it brings us water from its deep roots. We give it value, and it gives us value in return. To say that Canada is postnational is like saying that a branch can grow without a tree or that a branch can be “post-tree”. I am of the opinion that the tree does indeed exist, that it is alive, and that it serves as our home. That is why we are against setting up a two-tier citizenship system. If the children of people who have left want to rejoin our nation, let them do it after paying our taxes, obeying our laws and learning our languages.”
“The Liberals are giving away tickets for a free boat ride while that boat is taking on water from a hole they have cut in the bottom. Fundamentally, they fail to understand how value is created either in the economic sense or in the citizenship sense. (1725) [ Translation ] I would like to make my final comments in French, my third language and Canada's first official language, in order to emphasize my point. Contrary to Justin Trudeau's claims, Canada is not a postnational state. Canada is and always will be a union between two peoples, the French and the English, defined by its relationships and treaties with first nations. Of course, this union and these relationships have never been perfect. However, this is still a major project, one that is unique in the world, and it continues.”
“It is also supposed to confer universal access to proper health care. (1720) How can the government write a blank cheque for all these things to individuals abroad who have never lived here, giving away citizenship when the citizens already here cannot cash their cheques and cannot access these promises? The government's citizenship account is overdrawn. Its cheques are bouncing. The parliamentary budget office estimated that Bill C-3 would immediately add 115,000 new citizens to Canada who live outside the country. I strongly doubt our immigration bureaucracy can even process all of these. Have the Liberals done any analysis at all to show how adding 115,000 citizens by the stroke of a pen might exacerbate our jobs crisis, our housing crisis and our health care crisis?”
“If the Liberals succeed in passing Bill C-3 in its present form, they will give away citizenship to the grandchildren of those who left, to the children of those who have barely visited and to individuals who do not work here, pay our taxes, follow our laws, serve in our communities and learn our languages. They will give away value. They will invest less and spend more. They will create a deficit of value. Just like their gigantic, undisclosed fiscal deficit, the Liberals inflate away the value of our citizenship after having inflated away the value of our dollar. Bill C-3 would create a terrible deficit in the public accounts of our citizenship. Canadian citizenship is supposed to confer the opportunity to have a decent job at a good wage so as to buy a nice home in a safe neighbourhood.”
“However, it has never occurred to me that any other nation deserves my service and loyalty, and therefore I have never applied. All of my skin is in this game. Perhaps the Prime Minister looks at citizenship differently than most Canadians. Perhaps after his years at Brookfield, he seeks to diversify his citizenship portfolio in case his investment in Canada does not quite pay off for him. Perhaps after having received a really cool appointment from the U.K. government, he is holding out for another one if being Prime Minister of Canada does not quite satiate his elitist ambitions.”
“Why would the Liberals privilege the grandchildren of someone who left to go build another country over the real, flesh-and-blood permanent residents who are in this country now working their hands to the bone to build this country? Do they not see that by letting these individuals abroad jump the queue, they effectively create a hereditary, caste-based, two-tier citizenship regime? Immediately prior to the election campaign, the Prime Minister declared himself, bizarrely, a globalist elitist. I note that he seems to collect citizenships. He has three. Most Canadians have one. They have put all their eggs in the Canada basket. I could have obtained Serbian citizenship in my twenties. Even now, I believe I can obtain Dutch citizenship by marriage.”
“That is why I cannot for the life of me understand why, in this bill, the Liberals seek to give away Canadian citizenship to the grandchildren of people who left to go build some other place. When I went door knocking in Kitchener, Ontario, I met so many wonderful people from all over the world who were so grateful for refugee status or permanent residency. They are working so hard to learn our language, to get an education, to make ends meet in a difficult economy and to pass their citizenship examinations. Many of them have fulfilled all the necessary requirements to become citizens but are still waiting months, even years, to have their applications processed by a broken and backwards immigration bureaucracy. Why?”
“Canadian citizenship is not a trinket, a bauble or a collector's item to be put on a shelf, kept in its package or sold on eBay at a profit. It is a sacred bond between those who built Canada before us and those who will inherit it after us. If we do well, if we all work our whole lives to make Canada better, perhaps we can pass it on as strong and as free as it was passed on to us, and perhaps our children will enjoy all of the peace and prosperity that we in this House did. When generations of Canadians build Canada, they build the value of Canadian citizenship. When newcomers come to Canada and follow our laws, pay our taxes, learn our languages and serve the community, they also build the value of Canadian citizenship.”
“Anytime a Canadian teacher leads a class or a Canadian nurse changes a dressing in the hospital, they are serving the nation. When people do their job, pay their taxes, follow our laws, learn our languages, shovel their neighbour's sidewalk and vote in our elections, they are serving the nation. When police officers catch a bad guy, they serve our nation. When a social worker or minister consoles victims, they serve the nation. Most importantly, those who join the armed forces serve the nation, not just in their life but sometimes in their death, and their service is sacred. All of that service, born out of gratitude, builds Canada and builds the value of Canadian citizenship. Canada is strong and free insomuch as Canadians work to make it strong and free.”
“Mr. Speaker, my speech today is not merely about Bill C-3 , an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It is, like my last speech, about Canadian values, and more particularly the Canadian value that I fear this bill undermines, the value of Canadian citizenship. I have previously described to this House that my mother came to Canada as a refugee from Yugoslavia. The freedom and opportunity that this country gave her, and by inheritance to me, are of immeasurable value. This value cannot be expressed in dollars and cents. It cannot be expressed in mere words. It can only be expressed in lifetimes. We express our gratitude for the freedom and opportunity conferred by Canadian citizenship through a lifetime of service to Canada. Every time a Canadian builds a house, plants a tree or coaches hockey, soccer or cricket, they are serving this nation.”
“Mr. Speaker, an alarming report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal shows that one in three Canadian children will be overweight or obese on their 18th birthday. This is not a cosmetic concern. Children who are obese on their 18th birthday are tragically three times less likely to live to see their 30th. Obviously, no child chooses to have this disease. Every case is a social and environmental failure. Does the Liberal government have any plan at all to remediate these policy failures for our children, in this Parliament?”
“Mr. Speaker, contrary to that member's remarks, on my phone right now, I am reading Canada's electric vehicle availability standard, regulated targets for zero-emission vehicles. It is on the government's website. It is regulating and mandating this, while Canadians are not choosing to buy EVs. EV sales are down 45% in our country right now, and that is okay. Living in a liberal democracy means different people make different choices for their families based on their different needs, as they see fit. Why will the Liberals not respect the right of Canadians to choose the vehicle that serves their family best?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that overview of the bill. He mentioned several times health care workers such as myself and how this bill would allow them to go between provinces with greater ease. At other points in his speech, he talked about federally regulated workers. From my reading of this bill, this would not make it any easier for myself as a physician or for nurses to go and practise where practice is needed. Could the minister go on the record right now and explain how this would actually affect health care workers in Ontario and other provinces today?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is my first full day of House duty and listening to eight hours of similar talking points. I am so happy about the goal of making Canada the strongest economy in the G7. However, I am worried that it is a bit of a platitude. Could the member tell us what that actually means and by which date I may hold him to that definition?”
“Mr. Speaker, the arrive scam contractors made off with 64 million taxpayer dollars. Multiple software developers in Waterloo region have told me that a couple of them could have created the app over a weekend. The contractors did not write any code; their only job was to make sure the actual code writers had the proper security clearances, but today the Auditor General tells us that they did not manage to do even that. Meanwhile, the F-35 program is 50% over budget. That is $14 billion over budget, and we still do not have any jets. Could the Prime Minister perhaps produce a budget accounting for all of this? Could that budget perhaps include less fraud and waste?”
“Mr. Speaker, a news report today details how the residents of Chicopee Terrace, an apartment complex in Kitchener, are banding together to patrol their parking lot as the Liberal crime wave intensifies. Jason Sousa, the leader of the group, says that he and his neighbours have had the catalytic converters stolen out of their cars. Not only are car thefts up, but now thieves are stealing the parts out of the cars they do not take. This is not the Kitchener I grew up in. I have a very simple question: Why not go back to how it was? Why does the Liberal justice minister not simply repeal his soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-75 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by assuring the member for Waterloo that I consider her a friend. She is my parents' representative in the House now, as they have moved up to Waterloo, and she does a good job at it. I listened to the throne speech. I read the throne speech. I found it platitudinous. The goals that are in there are great, but I saw no details on how to get there. Most of all, there is no budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I heard such things. My best friend's dad is from Czechoslovakia. He escaped during the Prague Spring. He told us that he felt bad for us, that he never experienced anything under the Soviet Union like he did under the Liberal government during the pandemic. Those are his words, not mine. Likewise, while I was door knocking in my community, I met a Romanian woman who was literally packing her bags to go back to Romania because of these infringements on her basic freedoms.”
“Mr. Speaker, this would take more than 30 seconds to discuss. The worst health care system in the OECD is, in fact, the American health care system. I am sorry to say that the Canadian health care system is a close second. If we look at France, Germany, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand, all across the world other developed nations are able to blend the free market and public insurance, which I favour, in ways that are more appropriate than in our system.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a common misapprehension that the federal government has no role to play in health care. Of course it does. The Canada Health Act is a federal document. The Public Health Agency of Canada is, of course, a federal agency. When we see similar problems from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland, it tends to be the case that there is a single explanation under it all, and in this case it is indeed the federal government.”
“I will be happy to go back to being a physician and professor once I can practise in truth and freedom again and once we can all live in truth and freedom again. May God keep our land glorious and free.”
“They came here for freedom, and not just any freedom but our specific, embodied Canadian freedoms. These freedoms are ours, but they are not merely ours, and they are certainly not ours to discard. They were fought for at Runnymede and encoded in the Magna Carta. They were fought for in the English Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution and enshrined in the Declaration of Rights. They were fought for in the world wars and enacted in Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights. They were fought for by both my grandfathers, by all of our grandparents, and embodied in all of us here. The answer to the question of why I came here is that I am here to speak truth to power on behalf of the people of Kitchener South—Hespeler.”