Roman Baber
York Centre, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, part 2 of Bill C‑22 would force providers to retain the metadata of all Canadians. Liberals say the data is no different than the phone book, but the phone book did not log every phone call in every location of every Canadian for the last 12 months.”
“They are heckling me because they cannot handle what they are doing here. I welcome their heckling. I wear it as a badge of honour. The only thing the Liberals would do is eliminate the religious defence to an allegation of hate speech, and it is all because the Bloc says a guy named Charkaoui was not charged for calling for the extermina…”
“The Liberals wanted to eliminate the Attorney General's ability to consent to prosecutions. They realized how bad an idea it was and rolled it back. They wanted to redefine the term “hatred”. It is a definition that the Supreme Court used for 40 years. I am proud of this.”
“For example, people could violate the digital safety act or the human rights code, and that may attract criminal prosecution. The Liberals are turning our democracy into a banana republic. (1155) Earlier, I heard the member for Whitby ask my colleague why she is opposed to a new hate-motivated offence.”
“It does not excuse incitement to violence. A religious defence does not apply to statements that are not spoken in good faith. Calling for the extermination of people is not good faith. This is a charade. The main operation of the bill is predicated on a lie.”
“This would be a Liberal government appointee reigning over what we do on the Internet, with unlimited powers over how we communicate and how the world's most innovative companies do business. Surely by coincidence, the same thing is now happening in England this week, and it just happened in Australia. I was trained in the common law.”
The complete record
Every one of 260 lines we hold for Roman Baber, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, part 2 of Bill C‑22 would force providers to retain the metadata of all Canadians. Liberals say the data is no different than the phone book, but the phone book did not log every phone call in every location of every Canadian for the last 12 months. There are also real concerns that foreign actors would exploit a back door to encryption. Law-abiding Canadians do not want their privacy breached, but Liberals are cutting off debate and ramming the bill through. Part 2 is not ready to be passed into law, so will the Liberals work with us to pass part 1 of Bill C‑22 , but pause on part 2 to allow us to fix the bulk of this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, nobody is mixed up. In fact, the government has eliminated and deleted the previous mischief and arson provisions for places of worship and added a much more difficult standard. By adding the fact that the act on which we could predicate one of those offences has to be wilfully promoting hate, they have actually made it tougher to convict of mischief or arson of places of worship. Mark Sandler even told them so.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was brought in as an amendment to this very bill. The member for Mount Royal wanted to amend Bill C‑9 to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, but the government would not allow him to.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is one loophole that needs to be closed. It is the wilful promotion of terrorism. My bill, Bill C‑257 , was endorsed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In fact, the contents of Bill C‑257 somehow magically made it into the member for Mount Royal 's amendments to Bill C‑9 , and then he was instructed to withdraw them. The one thing the Jewish community actually asked for was criminalizing the wilful promotion of terrorism. The Liberal member for Mount Royal wanted to bring it in, in furtherance to my bill, Bill C‑257, and he was instructed to withdraw it—”
“Excuse me. Mr. Speaker, B’nai Brith said they wanted to repeal the Attorney General's consent. What did the Liberals do? They rolled it back, because CIJA told them not to do it. CIJA told them not to criminalize civilized conduct. Did they listen to it? No. What did they do for the religious organizations? They called them last week. I saw them in the Ottawa airport lounge and told them we are going to announce a commission on anti‑Semitism. Who did the government bring in to that commission? Omar Alghabra. He lobbied to keep Hezbollah off the terrorist list. This is the same government that paid Marouf millions of dollars, knowing he was promoting anti‑Semitism. Do not do us any favours. We are not asking for this. We are asking that basic laws be honoured. Assault, intimidation, mischief—”
“That, in fact, fuels hatred against the Jewish community. The Prime Minister fuels violence and hatred against the Jews by engaging in the greatest libel of the 21st century, which is that the state of Israel is engaging in genocide. The Prime Minister recognized the state of Palestine on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. We will never forget that. It was all for electoral politics. We should all be ashamed of the government for the way it is treating the Jewish community and the way it has betrayed all of us. We will never forget it. What the Liberals are doing to usurp Canadian democracy is inexcusable. Shame on all of them.”
“Every Sunday, they try to walk down Sheppard and then make a right into Bathurst Manor or left into Clanton Park. That is intimidation. Every week, we see the arson or firebombing of a Jewish business or a store. Those are called assault or arson. Ryan Turnbull: You do not want to protect them. Roman Baber: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say I do not want to protect them, but I am pleading for help for my Jewish community. They are telling me that repealing the religious defence would do something about it. It would not, but enforcing existing laws would. That would send a message. We should do that, instead of sending another $100 million to Palestine and instead of hearing the Prime Minister accusing the state of Israel, which is engaged in a lawful, self-defence war, of engaging in genocide in Gaza.”
“It does not excuse incitement to violence. A religious defence does not apply to statements that are not spoken in good faith. Calling for the extermination of people is not good faith. This is a charade. The main operation of the bill is predicated on a lie. The more lies we get, the more we go down a rabbit hole, like we did with Bill C-9 and Bill C-22 , the digital safety act, and as we will now with the changes to the Privacy Act that would eliminate the Privacy Commissioner. Leave us alone and enforce the law. Stop trying to keep us safe. We need to be safe from the Liberal government. I am blessed to represent one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. Every Sunday, thugs come to Sheppard and Bathurst and intimidate local neighbours. They deny us the enjoyment of property. That is mischief.”
“They are heckling me because they cannot handle what they are doing here. I welcome their heckling. I wear it as a badge of honour. The only thing the Liberals would do is eliminate the religious defence to an allegation of hate speech, and it is all because the Bloc says a guy named Charkaoui was not charged for calling for the extermination of the enemies of Gaza. The Montreal police said very clearly he was not charged because “the enemies of the people of Gaza” were not a identifiable group of people so as to attract prosecution under subsection 319(1) of the Criminal Code. It is not because of the religious defence. The religious defence does not apply to incitement to violence. Everyone knows that. The Bloc knows that. The Liberals know that. The religious defence that the Liberals are looking to repeal does not apply.”
“Everything the Liberals have done to clarify any existing law is already in law. They say they will have to protect people's ability to enter synagogues and be free from obstruction. We are already free from obstruction in entering a synagogue. Nobody can obstruct me from entering a synagogue. That is called assault. How about intimidation? People should be free from intimidation when entering a school. Of course, that has not stopped the multiple school shootings that have happened in my riding. Nothing is happening about those. It is already a criminal offence to intimidate someone entering a school. It is called intimidation contrary to section 423 of the Criminal Code. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Roman Baber: Mr. Speaker, they are heckling me because they know I am right.”
“For example, people could violate the digital safety act or the human rights code, and that may attract criminal prosecution. The Liberals are turning our democracy into a banana republic. (1155) Earlier, I heard the member for Whitby ask my colleague why she is opposed to a new hate-motivated offence. Does she not want someone to be punished when they engage in hatred? First of all, hatred is already an aggravating circumstance in sentencing, so do not give us that. Second of all, if the Liberals want to introduce another offence, introduce it for criminal offences. Do not penalize civil conduct, thereby putting civil conduct at risk of criminal prosecution. The Liberals tout all of these benefits for the Jewish community, which is my own community. Let me tell the House something about what has transpired here.”
“The Liberals are at it again. We just fixed the definition in Bill C-9 , and now they have come back with a digital safety bill to regulate our conduct online and they have a different definition for hatred. Why is it “detestation or vilification”, not “detestation and vilification”, as the Supreme Court says? Where is the extreme or intense emotion that is required by the Supreme Court, like we agreed on in Bill C-9? Where is that in the digital safety act? Why do the Liberals hate freedom of speech so much? The Liberals hate it because they are afraid of the truth. The Senate was asked to fix the new stand-alone motivated offence in Bill C-9 , because this new offence that the Liberals dreamt up would not target criminal conduct only. It would target any offence under any act of Parliament.”
“The Liberals wanted to eliminate the Attorney General's ability to consent to prosecutions. They realized how bad an idea it was and rolled it back. They wanted to redefine the term “hatred”. It is a definition that the Supreme Court used for 40 years. I am proud of this. It is one of the greatest accomplishments of my career that the Liberals have accepted my amendment to keep the old definition of hatred and not dilute it. People would not have to go to jail when they offend someone. Just when I thought we were out of the woods, I saw the digital safety bill that attempts to regulate harmful conduct online. Surprise, surprise. Harmful content would include content that foments hatred. The bill states, “content that foments hatred means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group”.”
“This would be a Liberal government appointee reigning over what we do on the Internet, with unlimited powers over how we communicate and how the world's most innovative companies do business. Surely by coincidence, the same thing is now happening in England this week, and it just happened in Australia. I was trained in the common law. It was the beacon of hope for any modern civilization. Anywhere the common law went, prosperity followed, but now we have these egomaniacs, career technocrats and misguided lefties who think they know better than everyone telling us how to live for our own benefit and how to keep us safe. I want to be safe from them. Bill C-9 would do nothing to protect the Jewish or Muslim communities. It would not protect any community. This entire thing has been a major Liberal failure.”
“Of course, we have to protect children, but that does not mean that we have to deny children their charter rights to access media communications, which is an explicit right, or prevent them from communicating with each other through popular apps. It is a plan that failed in Australia and that will fail everywhere else. Unless we are prepared to implement a Beijing-style, authoritarian Internet surveillance regime, this is unenforceable. Are Canadians ready for that? Obviously, they are not. In the same week, which is the last week before the legislature rises, the Liberals are introducing so-called privacy legislation, which would eliminate the Privacy Commissioner in favour of their so-called digital safety czar, who would regulate, enforce and judge all at the same time.”
“In the same week, the Liberals are ramming through Bill C-22 , a bill that would require telecoms and Internet companies to seize all Canadian metadata, including their geographic location and who they called or texted in the last year, without their having committed an offence and without a search warrant. Bill C-22 would allow the Minister of Public Safety to order Internet providers to break encryption, something that has never been done before, even though every security expert is sounding the alarm that the privacy of law-abiding Canadians would be at major risk. In the same week, the Liberals are also introducing Bill C-34 , the digital safety act.”
“Madam Speaker, it is finally sunny in Ottawa, but to me, this is one of the darkest weeks in the history of Canadian democracy. Bill C-9 is back in the House after a brief stint in the Senate that did not make a dent in the problems with the bill. Predicated on false pretenses, the repeal of the religious defence to hate speech remains. The new hatred offence would still criminalize conduct, contrary to a civil statute. Nothing that minority communities are actually worried about in terms of security would be changed by Bill C-9 . The Liberals are ramming it through at the end of the summer sitting as the government-subsidized media is already at the cottage.”
“We cannot fathom the grief of the family, friends and colleagues of Constable Pinizzotto, but we stand with them in mourning the loss of this Canadian hero. We will never forget Constable Pinizzotto, and we will pray for all of Canada's police officers, who risk their lives to keep us all safe. May Marc's soul rest in peace, and may God bless his family and our entire grieving nation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to address a tragedy that struck the Toronto Police Service and our entire nation. Early this morning, tactical officers from TPS and the RCMP executed a high-risk search warrant in North York. The search was related to a national security investigation into the March 2026 shooting at the U.S. consulate in Toronto. ETF Constable Marc Pinizzotto, age 43, a father of two from Oakville, Ontario, and an 18-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service, was shot and killed in the line of duty. When civilians run one way from danger, the men and women in blue run the other way, into danger. Every day, police officers across our country put their life on the line to protect Canadians. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the parliamentary secretary on this file for a while, and I know that she also understands fairly well the issues we are dealing with, so I would like to pose a serious hypothetical for her. Imagine a situation where someone is convicted of a third offence of driving under the influence, and that person is now mandated for, I believe, either 30 days or 90 days as a minimum term of imprisonment. If that person happens to be the only breadwinner of the family, can the member imagine a scenario where a judge would not look to use the safety valve and allow an accused, who would otherwise have to serve mandatory jail time, to escape jail time?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, at a time when Canadians are experiencing record violence from criminal enterprises, whether it makes sense to narrow or water down mandatory minimum sentences by creating the safety valve. Does the member have any concern that we are going to have many more situations in which courts do not follow the mandatory minimum sentences?”
“Mr. Speaker, in terms of improving the bill, I wonder how the member feels about a proposal that the Conservatives, in fact, it was me, brought to the justice committee in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography. Instead of going with the safety valve to potentially undermine mandatory minimum sentences, the Conservatives proposed the invocation of the notwithstanding clause to preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography. I wonder if the member could comment on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-16 would create the so-called safety valve that would allow judges to essentially ignore a mandatory minimum sentence. Is the member concerned that, by virtue of this Liberal safety valve, at a time when we are experiencing record crime, judges will ignore the mandatory minimum sentences more often and let repeat violent offenders out on the street when they should be in jail?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order, and the key to the rule of law is that the government is also under the law. This means that, when the government comes along and says it wants a sweep, it wants the private sector to hold all metadata, all of it, without a warrant, without any suspicion of a crime being committed, that would be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the party of law and order, we will defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the reason.”
“Mr. Speaker, repeatedly, the chair of the justice committee called our amendments to reintroduce and strengthen mandatory minimum sentences out of order. This is despite the fact that this is precisely what the bill seeks to do, which is supposedly to strengthen mandatory minimum sentences. Why the chair of the justice committee called them out of order and out of scope, I do not know, but ironically, something interesting happened during that process. In one specific instance, which had to do with the use of a firearm during extortion, the chair of the justice committee initially called the proposed amendment in order, contrary to the fact that every other amendment was out of order. I do not believe that the ruling was correct. We were overruled again and again.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member should stop yelling and start protecting children instead. The member believes that preserving mandatory minimum sentences is far right. The Liberal Party has gone so completely insane to the left that anybody who disagrees with it on anything is deemed to be of the far right. I am proud of the fact that the Conservative Party wants to preserve mandatory minimum sentences, and we will do so when we form Conservative government.”
“We had a situation where an officer got injured during the arrest of a guy he arrested again and again, and a couple of days later the same offender was out on bail again.” We tried to deal with bail, but the Liberals refused to remove the ladder principle, and still the courts are required to release at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive terms. We dealt with sentencing and with activist courts that refuse to impose the mandatory minimums that the House prescribed. Instead of preserving mandatory minimums, what did the Liberals do? They did what Liberals do: They weakened mandatory minimum sentences. They now tell judges to go ahead and disregard the mandatory minimum if they think the mandatory minimum is disproportional. I do not understand what it is we are doing here with Bill C-16 . We need to do the opposite.”
“We will invoke section 33 to protect children from these monsters and to prevent this absurdity that the Supreme Court arrived at. The Attorney General is refusing to invoke the clause, refusing to do his job, refusing to protect children and safeguard the law. Instead, the Liberals weaken sentencing laws with a safety valve. It is a shame, and it is regrettable. I spoke to a police officer in my riding. I do not want to name them, and I do not even want to name the division. He said to me, not too long ago, “Roman, you know how upsetting it is when we arrest a guy again and again.”
“The co-appellant, Mathieu Naud, pleaded guilty to possessing over 500 images and almost 300 videos, most of which were of children ages five to 10, in many cases being subjected to rape and sodomy. This is disgusting. Striking down a mandatory one-year sentence for each of those two counts is precisely the type of absurdity that Attorney General Jean Chrétien had in mind. This is precisely why section 33 was explicitly inserted in the charter. We said to the Liberals at the justice committee, instead of narrowing down and diluting the mandatory minimum sentences, let us preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for the worst of the worst, and this is one of them, but the Liberals refused the amendment. I am proud of the Leader of the Opposition and my Conservative colleagues.”
“Attorney General Jean Chrétien used the clause to seal the deal on the charter, and he specifically used an example for absurdity that the Supreme Court could potentially come up with. It was a hypothetical that Chrétien used: that the Supreme Court would find possession of child pornography protected by freedom of expression. I think everyone in this room, even the Liberals, would agree that such a finding would be absurd. Now, that is not the scenario we had in Senneville, but pretty close. Senneville pleaded guilty to possession and access to over 300 images of children, mostly girls between the ages of three and six, being sexually exploited.”
“At the justice committee, I moved a motion to invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect mandatory minimum sentences on possession and distribution of child pornography, but the Liberals voted it down. Again, they failed to protect children. This is not just about kids who have already been abused and exploited in these pictures and videos. It is about kids in the future who, God forbid, could be raped because the courts have failed to punish these perverts and deter future perverts. (1320) We had to go hard here so that we could kill this awful industry, but the Liberals refused. Why? They say, “All we heard from the Attorney General was that it is a sunset clause, and in five years we would have to do this again.” Well, fine, let us do it again. What was the point of the notwithstanding clause? It was to prevent absurdity.”
“We are the ones who set sentencing policy. Worse, the principle of deterrence is lost. I listened to some comments a short time ago from folks saying that there are empirical studies that state mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They do work, because someone cannot commit a crime if they are in prison. Many of these violent offenders who offend repeatedly, again and again, should be left in jail, away from the community that they seek to terrorize again. Therefore, we need to do the opposite. This is especially in response to the Supreme Court striking down the mandatory minimum sentence on distribution and access to child pornography.”
“They make them non-mandatory. Effectively, the valve would allow a judge to disregard mandatory minimum penalties, so a minimum penalty is no longer a mandatory minimum penalty. Jail time would still be required, but a judge would be free to sentence the convicted person to one day in prison. If they feel that this House, Parliament, has prescribed a sentence that is too extreme, they can just disregard what we say. This is crazy. It would result in lighter sentences for serious repeat offenders. The Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what is required. In effect, what previously required a constitutional argument would be an automatic argument every time at sentencing, that something is cruel and unusual. The safety valve is a major concession to judicial activism. It would undermine the role of this Parliament.”
“In recent years, courts have been striking down mandatory minimum penalties under section 12 of the charter as cruel and unusual punishment. That, of course, includes the Supreme Court. The Liberals frame the safety valve as a response to this jurisprudence of striking down mandatory sentences. They point to recent decisions like Senneville, where the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum penalty for possession and distribution of child pornography. I will come back to this decision. What would they do with a safety valve? The valve would allow courts to impose seLiberalsntences below the mandatory minimum if a judge thinks that applying the mandatory minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment. The Liberals ironically say they would strengthen mandatory minimum sentences, but instead they do the opposite.”
“What is happening is Liberal bail and sentencing laws. Every police officer will say that. We need to close the revolving door in the courts. First, we got the Liberal failure of Bill C‑14 . That was for bail. Now we are here on Bill C‑16 , to deal with sentencing. Again, we have a Liberal failure. Instead of increasing mandatory minimum sentences, the Liberals do the opposite. They create what they refer to as a “safety valve”, which would allow judges to disregard mandatory minimum sentences. Under the Criminal Code, mandatory minimum penalties apply to a range of serious offences. These mandatory minimums are designed to set a sentencing floor, a minimum term of imprisonment that Parliament deemed necessary for denunciation, deterrence and public safety for specific categories of crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, remember how good life used to be a decade ago, before the Liberal government? We had the wealthiest middle class. Now the middle class is poor, and Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. However, the best thing we had was how safe our country used to be. My city, the beautiful city of Toronto, anywhere, anytime, day or night, any neighbourhood, was safe. After a decade of Liberals, violent crime is out of control. Residents are no longer safe. Parents are afraid for their kids to take the transit. There are robberies on the street, home invasions and extortion. It seems like every day I wake up and a person has been shot in my North York riding. Last week, there was a murder at Sheppard and Magellan, in the beautiful community of Downsview. Three men shot a man to death outside his house. What is happening?”
“If he refused to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography being struck down, is there a possibility that he would ever do it with respect to any legislation? Would he ever specifically invoke the notwithstanding clause, or is—”
“Madam Speaker, this is yet another example of the Liberal government stifling debate. We are here to debate the bill in good faith, and unfortunately, we are in for another time allocation motion, which does not allow members to fully debate their mind. I believe that is not the way to go. I would like to ask the Attorney General a specific question. He knows that at committee, I brought a motion forward to bring a further amendment to Bill C‑16 to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography. I subsequently read in the newspaper that the Attorney General had, in fact, considered invoking the notwithstanding clause. I ask the Attorney General this question.”
“Work with us and pass my bill. To the 400,000 Jewish Canadians, I am embarrassed by the Liberal government. The Conservative leader and all of my Conservative colleagues will not tolerate this nonsense. We will always protect Canada's Jews.”
“Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think the Prime Minister is trolling us. What did he propose to protect the Jewish community? It was the Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion, with Omar Alghabra of all people. It is an insult. That is the Prime Minister's solution to synagogues being shot at and thugs harassing senior homes or marching in North York and chanting for intifada. Liberals love advisory councils. It is grade school level. Why not take some real steps? They could enforce the law, call the RCMP's integrated security enforcement team. This is a national security matter. The Liberals need to deport the 700 IRGC agents from Canada. So far, they have deported one. They could listen to the Association for the Chiefs of Police and pass my bill, Bill C-257 , which would criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism.”
“Mr. Speaker, lights are out on the north side of the House, no more excuses. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Where is the fastest-growing economy? Instead, we have the highest household debt in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment, and insolvencies are at the highest level since 2009. All these metrics got worse under this Prime Minister , but he continues to choke Canadian energy with his net-zero fantasy. Will the Prime Minister take our advice, repeal his anti-pipeline laws, axe the industrial carbon tax and bring back Canada's economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Instead, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession: not a technical recession, a full-blown recession with two consecutive quarters of contraction. Since this Prime Minister took office, Canada has had three out of four quarters of contraction. While 2.2 million Canadians are at the food bank, this Prime Minister spends almost $200,000 on inflight catering on three flights. That $200,000 could feed 10 Canadian families for a whole year. Will the Prime Minister own his economic failure, get a trade deal, build a pipeline and stop spending like a Liberal?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member should tell that to the 2.2 million Canadians at the food bank. The Liberals' $1 trillion of new debt means less growth and fewer jobs. In April, Canada lost 18,000 jobs. The unemployment rate is up. In the first four months of this year, Canada lost 111,000 full-time jobs. Youth unemployment is at 14.3%. Young Canadians already cannot afford rent, groceries or homes. Now they cannot even find a job. Liberal insiders are getting rich while Canadians are getting poor. Will the Liberal government stop maxing out the national credit card so Canadians can afford the basic necessities of life?”
“Mr. Speaker, after one year, Canadians see that all the promises are broken and all the fancy speeches were just an illusion. With the Prime Minister , it is more costs, more taxes, more debt and more unemployment. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. After a decade of deficits, taxes and debt, Canada has the lowest investment per worker, the second-lowest productivity and second-highest unemployment in the G7. The Liberals will add $1 trillion of debt by the turn of this decade, but Canadians will pay this credit card through more inflation and more taxes. Why will the Liberal Prime Minister not stop swiping the national credit card so Canadians can afford to live?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only people doing well are people connected to Brookfield. Imagine that, instead of leaving kids with an inheritance, people leave them enough to pay their debts. That is what this Liberal Prime Minister is doing to generations of Canadians. In his first year, operating spending is up 9%. It is enough already. We cannot handle the taxes, we cannot handle the inflation and we cannot continue to borrow like this. Will the Prime Minister stop maxing out our nation's credit card?”
“Mr. Speaker, nobody thought it was possible to outspend Justin Trudeau, but the Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin's deficit. He is putting the nation's bills on a credit card. Canadians will be paying off his debts for generations. I thought he was an economist. Deficit spending leads to inflation. A quarter of Canadians are skipping meals. Will the Liberal Prime Minister stop swiping the nation's credit card so Canadians can afford to live?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am actually very worried that we are not going to have a lot of opportunity to fix this by way of regulation. I would point out to my hon. colleague that the most worrisome thing, the greatest expansion of rights and what scares me about part two, is the definition of electronic service provider. The way it reads now, basically anybody who uses email for work would be an electronic service provider if they facilitate communications in Canada. That would include corporations, trusts, partnerships, joint ventures, unincorporated associations, etc. I am very concerned that we would have ministerial orders without judicial oversight targeted at private corporations—”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously I have very little confidence, but I would like to provide a legal answer as opposed to a political answer. We are still bound and graced by and availed of the presumption of innocence. It is a presumption that the government must overcome. It is important that we do not create a regime that would undermine some of our basic civil liberties. Of course, in the quest of pursuing criminals and defending children, it is not uncommon for police or prosecutors to want to overreach. We cannot have that situation here if we want to preserve our democracy. We always treat the state with suspicion. It comes from a very basic premise: The state has the power, the legislature, the police, the crown and the lab workers. All there is on the other side is—”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg is exactly wrong on the privacy issue. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner was not brought into the legislation. Ministerial orders require approval only by intelligence commissioners, and the absence of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada from any oversight role suggests that privacy is at best a second consideration. The Privacy Commissioner is not contemplated within this regime, and the criminal law system that is contemplated in it would override any privacy concerns. It is very concerning that the legislation was, effectively, drafted without any input from the Privacy Commissioner.”
“(1715) We understand the need for lawful access, but we need to make sure we draw the appropriate lines and safeguard civil liberties. The government has a problem with civil liberties.”