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 3 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, the Conservative members on the justice committee have been imploring the government to prioritize bail and sentencing, which Canadians so sorely deserve. Finally today, after this morning, the Prime Minister and the government House leader said that they wanted to move on with Bill C-14 . We said, “Wait a minute. The Conservatives have been asking the government to move on with Bill C-14 for about a month and a half now.” Finally today, we had consensus at the justice committee, and we are going to be prioritizing bail for the next couple of weeks. I look forward to a constructive debate and to fixing what is now a somewhat deficient bill by the Liberals.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I will say with respect to hypotheticals is that one can always come up with a hypothetical wherein the Supreme Court would deem a provision absurd. A first-year law student would be able to come up with a hypothetical that would make the situation absurd. What happens in these situations is that the police do not prosecute and the Crown attorneys do not proceed. If we have absurdity, or not just no reasonable prospect of conviction but no need in process or conviction, it will not happen. How that hypothetical had anything to do with what was before the court at that moment, which was the possession of 274 videos of little girls being raped, and how it was relevant to the court's consideration is beyond me.”
“Mr. Speaker, I specifically said that we should be fixing this bill at committee. Here is something that I really do not appreciate about the members' remarks and generally his conduct in this chamber. I stood here for the last 20 minutes making a legal argument, not a political argument. There was no bravado or nonsense. I cited the precise scenario that was contemplated by the framers of the charter. I referred to days when I used to lecture part time on constitutional law and said that if there was a time that demanded the invocation of the notwithstanding clause, it would be this situation in Senneville in order to protect children who are being sodomized by pedophiles. We have this manufactured anger from the member for Winnipeg North . It is not constructive to this debate, and I would ask him to behave himself.”
“That is why I ask my Liberal colleagues to do their jobs to safeguard the line and protect children. Let us amend Bill C-16 at committee to invoke the notwithstanding clause, to restore mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography, and to lock up these monsters who, through their actions, contribute to the rape and sodomy of more children. I am thankful for the opportunity to address this bill. Let us do away with the safety valve. Let us really stand up for children.”
“That is not the scenario we had here in Senneville, but it was close. He pleaded guilty to the possession of 300 images, mostly of girls between the ages of three and six being sexually exploited. Naud pleaded guilty to possessing 531 images and 274 videos, and in many cases the kids were subjected to rape and sodomy. I am disgusted by this. Striking down the mandatory minimum one-year sentences for either of these two counts is exactly the kind of absurdity that Chrétien had in mind. I say this as an Ontario lawyer. This is precisely and explicitly what section 33 was meant to do. These criminals are monsters, and I am proud of the Leader of the Opposition and my party for pushing this forward. We would invoke section 33 to prevent the absurdity that the Supreme Court arrived at, but the Attorney General is refusing our suggestion.”
“This is not about the kids who were already abused, raped or exploited in these pictures or videos. This is about more kids in the future who will be raped because the courts failed to punish these perverts and deter future perverts. We have to go hard here so we can kill this industry. What was the point of the notwithstanding clause? It was to prevent absurdity. When he was attorney general, Jean Chrétien used the clause to seal the deal on the charter, and he specifically used an example of absurdity that the Supreme Court could come up with. It was a hypothetical that Chrétien came up with that the Supreme Court would find possession of child pornography protected by the freedom of expression. I think people in this room, even the Liberals, would agree that such a finding would be absurd.”
“It would undermine the role of this Parliament. This body, this Parliament, sets sentencing policy, and what is worse is that because of the wearing down and the ability to disregard a mandatory minimum sentence, the principle of deterrence, which is one of the key principles of sentencing, is lost. That is very misguided. Now let us go from the bad to the ugly. Bill C-16 refuses to do what the Conservatives implored the Liberals to do, and that is in response to the Senneville decision and to the Supreme Court's striking down the mandatory minimum sentence for distribution and possession of child pornography. The Conservatives implored the Liberals to invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect the minimum sentences for the possession of child pornography.”
“(1740) In practice, that means that if a judge feels that the minimum sentence imposed by Parliament is too extreme, they can just disregard the minimum. This is outlandish. This would erode mandatory minimum sentences. It would result in lighter sentences for serious repeat offenders. The Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what Canadians have asked them to do, which is to take a bite out of crime, especially with violent repeat offenders. Previously, a constitutional argument was required; a person could not just march in. They previously had to mount an argument that the sentence was cruel and unusual, but now it would be an automatic argument every time. This is not a political argument. This is a basic legal argument. It is common sense. The safety valve is a major concession to judicial activism.”
“That is a decision from earlier in this session, just last fall, where the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography. What else do the Liberals do? They add a sweeping change by creating a safety valve. The valve would allow courts to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum when applying the minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment. Effectively, this would convert a mandatory minimum from a binding floor to a discretion and allow a judge to statutorily disregard the mandatory minimum. In practice, it means that mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. While jail would still be required, the duration of imprisonment would be left to a judge's discretion.”
“Now let us move on to the bad: in the mandatory minimum sentences, the so-called safety valve that the government is introducing. Under the Criminal Code, mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs, apply to a range of serious offences. These mandatory minimums are designed to set the sentencing floor, a minimum term of imprisonment that Parliament deemed necessary for denunciation, deterrence and public safety in specific categories of crimes. In recent years, though, the courts have been striking down mandatory minimums under section 12 of the charter as cruel and unusual punishment more and more. That, of course, includes the Supreme Court up the street. The Liberals frame Bill C-16 as a response to this line of jurisprudence. They are pointing to a recent decision by the Supreme Court, in Quebec v. Senneville.”
“Nor is it a reason to excuse the federal government from its failure to appoint enough judges. However, the practical reality is that provinces are breaching Jordan's principle far too often. That is not to say that the right to a speedy trial should be done away with, as it is a charter right, but the federal government is correct in stepping in to provide the system with some relief. That is not an unreasonable proposition. One thing I have often found odd is that delays incurred because of the accused or the defence team count in the total amount of delay. It never made sense. There is room for improvement of Jordan's principle, and I welcome further discussion about this at committee. I think that is it for the good.”
“It would require courts to consider alternative remedies before granting a stay of proceedings. It is important to note that Jordan's principle already sets out certain criteria under which delays by the court proceedings are justifiable, so the bill would basically expand on these criteria. In 2024, 30% of sexual assault cases across Canada breached Jordan's principle. In Ontario, that number is 39%, almost 40% in the province I come from. Four out of 10 sexual assault cases are thrown out or could be thrown out due to delay. Notably, Bill C-16 proposes procedural streamlining for sexual offence trials. This is no reason to absolve provincial governments from providing adequate resources in the courts. Too often, we read that there is not enough court staff or no courtrooms are available in the province of Ontario.”
“The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, decided that for a summary offence in the lower court, the provincial court, such time would be 18 months, and in the Superior Court for hybrid or indictable offences, when the Crown proceeds by way of an indictment, such delay cannot exceed 30 months, or the charges would be stayed. (1735) Bill C-16 includes measures to respond to a very high number of dismissals for delay. For example, it would direct courts to consider specific factors relating to the case's complexity. There are cases that are incredibly complex. I have witnessed a lot of white-collar cases that take a significant amount of time to investigate and prosecute. The bill may exclude certain time periods from the calculations that go into the total delay.”
“It would require that the time and location of relevant court proceedings be shared, giving victims an option to request and receive information with respect to a release of an offender, and it would require authorities to tell victims about their rights. This is also good. I thank the government for looking to highlight the fact that victims require greater participation in the justice process. I will now move to some of the more challenging elements of the bill. I know criminal defence attorneys who have made a career out of dismissal for delay by virtue of Jordan's principle. In the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the speedy trial provisions of the charter and required that charges be suspended, stayed, if an accused had to wait for an unreasonable amount of time to be brought to justice, to face trial.”
“However, Bill C-16 would take a few steps in the right direction. It would entitle victims of violent offences to testimonial aids. It would require that victims in court proceedings be treated with respect and compassion. By the way, it is important to note that this provision should not cut into the presumption of innocence, which probably needs a little bit of thinking, because a defence lawyer must be able to confront an alleged victim and test their credibility. Nonetheless, every witness, and especially the complaining witness, must be treated with compassion and respect. The bill would require authorities to share information with victims about the status and outcomes of an investigation. It is not unusual for a victim not to know what transpired with the charges brought against a person who offended against them.”
“This legislative change would have a significant impact on how the justice system treats violence against women. It would alter how cases are prosecuted and increase accountability for offenders. Again, I congratulate another friend, this time the shadow minister for public safety, and I thank the Attorney General for copying the Conservatives yet again. On victims' rights, the bill is also good. I am often surprised by how little standing victims have in law in Canada. They have almost no control over the criminal process. Victims are not even referred to as “victims” or the “alleged victims” during a criminal process. They are referred to as the “complaining witness”. I watched this at legal aid in law school. The Crowns are too busy, and the victims often do not understand the law or the challenges.”
“For instance, the murder of a peace officer or a correctional officer would attract a first-degree murder charge, or a murder during a carjacking or hostage taking, murders committed during sexual assault, contract killing, killing during terrorist activity and more. The definition of femicide would cover murder committed against an intimate partner. Over the last seven years, there were over 1,300 female deaths in Canada by intimate partners. The need to act is apparent, but this proposal is not new either. I am proud of the Conservative member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , our public safety critic, since Bill C-16 essentially draws on Bailey's law, his Bill C-225 , which unanimously passed second reading just last month. Compliments to the government for picking up another Conservative bill.”
“Again, I congratulate my colleague the member for Calgary Nose Hill on the incorporation of her proposal in Bill C-16 . (1730) I will move on to talk about the much-needed protection of women. The bill proposes to define femicide in criminal law. Murders that meet this description would automatically qualify as first-degree murder. Those found guilty would get harsher sentences: jail with no possibility of parole for at least 25 years, rather than the 10 years for second-degree murder. This is not a new concept in our criminal law. We already prescribe first-degree murder for a number of criteria.”
“Now, the bill draws directly from a Conservative private member's bill, that of the Conservative immigration critic, the member for Calgary Nose Hill , Bill C-216 . The government is welcome to steal Conservative ideas. Technology moves fast, and the law must keep up. Between AI and virtual reality, it is hard to tell what is real or not, sometimes. This technology is out there already. It is open source, which means that anyone can basically get it off the web and access it. There is no place where this is more dangerous than in schools. Unfortunately, sometimes schoolchildren bully each other by sharing these fake images. By the time a school catches up, those images are already out there and are being picked up and distributed by predators. I welcome this provision of Bill C-16 . It is long overdue.”
“Separately, Bill C-16 would create a new offence of inviting a child to expose his or her sexual organs for a sexual purpose. I would be surprised if that type of criminal behaviour is not already criminal. It probably is, but it does not hurt to clarify that. The bill also proposes to create a new offence of recruiting a child to be a party to a crime. All of that is good; the bill would close a number of loopholes. I welcome the child protection elements of this bill. There is another component that would apply to children and adults but would likely help a lot of children. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to address non-consensual distribution of deepfake images. It would expand on the offence of prohibiting non-consensual distribution of intimate images to capture sexually explicit fakes.”
“The bill would also centralize mandatory notification to a designated law enforcement body. This is fairly important. I hope we are not going to create another bureaucracy here. We should probably do that within the RCMP. It would be good to centralize all reporting of such criminal behaviour to one body. The bill would also extend the preservation period of computer data related to child sexual abuse from 21 days to one year. That is very important. I spoke to an RCMP officer recently, and that officer told me about the chronic delays at the RCMP. While well intentioned, sometimes the RCMP does not have the resources to move on a matter quickly. The bill would require interim providers to maintain child sexual abuse materials for at least a year to allow law enforcement to catch up.”
“With the evolution of technology, and criminal elements getting more vicious and more sophisticated, the law must catch up. Bill C-16 would build on a Harper-era child protection law called the Mandatory Reporting Act. It would redefine “Internet service” to clarify that the Mandatory Reporting Act applies to all types of Internet services, including online platforms, social media and other apps, and that providers with a connection to Canada must report child sexual abuse and exploitation material to law enforcement. This is important for operators that operate outside of Canada. The bill would also require Internet service providers to include transmission data when reporting material that manifestly includes child sexual abuse in the material itself to law enforcement. That is all good.”
“It would criminalize coercive control, increase penalties for sexual assault, ensure better protection for sexual deepfakes and outline new guidelines on stays of proceedings under Jordan's principle. It would provide some new measures to assist victims. However, the bill fails on mandatory minimum penalties. Even worse, it misses a key opportunity to tell the Supreme Court that it cannot strike down a mandatory minimum penalty when it comes to possession and distribution of child pornography. I will take some time today to talk about Bill C-16 , the good, the bad and the ugly. I want to start by talking about child protection. Protecting our nation's children should be the highest order for any judicial or law enforcement officer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-16 . It is good to be back after the winter break. It certainly got colder. I welcome back all of my colleagues and wish everyone a very happy and healthy new year. On December 9, 2025, the government introduced Bill C-16 , known as the protecting victims act. The bill proposes reforms to the Criminal Code “to protect victims and survivors of sexual violence, gender-based violence, and intimate partner violence, and to keep our kids safe from predators.” That is certainly a very worthy goal. I thank the Attorney General for making an effort here. The act includes a reclassification of femicide as a first-degree crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is conformity of thought. It is like my friend from Bowmanville—Oshawa North . There is either Liberal think or no think. Like I said, in the Soviet Union, the only religion allowed was communism, which is why the holding of a religious text would have been punishable by labour camp. The Bais Chaya Mushka school for girls in my riding has been shot at three times. When we first came to Canada 30 years ago, we came to the intersection of Sheppard and Bathurst, and now, at that very intersection, every Sunday, a group of mass thugs come to incite violence against the Jews. We do not need this legislation. We need to enforce existing legislation on incitement to violence and assault.”
“Mr. Speaker, for my friend from the Bloc, the defence is this: if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; The section itself arises out of section 2 of the charter. It is not only an extension of it; it is effectively part and parcel of it. I have not seen a situation where this has been used to defend against the type of speech our Bloc friends are concerned about. This simply has not happened. Adil called for the killing of people is incitement to violence. No one has ever suggested that he hid behind paragraph 319(3)(b). It just has not happened, so—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has no regard for taxpayer money. The budget that was just passed proposed a $78-billion deficit, so they should not lecture me about taxpayer dollars. What these Liberals are now trying to do is shield this bill from clear sight by all Canadians who now understand that this is beyond Liberal platitudes. This is not about hate. This is not about defending the Jewish community. There are ample examples of how we can defend the Jewish community. They should set the right tone and have the Attorney General write to the provincial attorney generals and the police forces to say we have laws on the books called incitement to violence and to enforce them. The misinformation is coming from that side of the aisle, and—”
“Let us get together tonight. Let us reopen the committee and hear about bail. Let us get some work done. Toronto is turning into Gotham City, yet these Liberals have no shame. Now reality has caught up to them. Canadians across the country understand that this is a terrible bill. I implore the government to withdraw it. Let us go back to the drawing board. Do not do me any favours. I represent one of the largest Jewish constituencies in the country. This bill does nothing to protect them.”
“Finally, as if we do not read the news, the Quebec prosecutorial service came out on this in May of 2025 and explained what transpired. The reason they did not proceed against Charkaoui is not because of a religious defence, but because they said that he did not call for violence against an identifiable group of people. The enemies of Allah, according to the Quebec prosecutors, was not a defined group they could latch onto the incitement to violence provision and charge. This is a farce. I do not know why we are here. We could be debating bail right now. We have Bill C-14 , a very weak attempt to reform bail and sentencing that is presently before the justice committee. Last Tuesday, the Liberals locked us out, and they accuse us of a filibuster. Tonight, the Liberals locked us out, and they accuse us of somehow sabotaging this.”
“The Bloc is suggesting that it is because of a religious exemption that Adil Charkaoui was not charged. That is not true at all. First of all, we are talking about incitement to violence. If members read paragraph 319(3)(b), it only applies to the government. As to the second section, which is the wilful promotion of hatred in 319, it does not apply to 319(1), so I reject that argument just on legal grounds, to begin with. Second of all, the section is very clear. In order for a person to avail themself of the defence, the religious speech has to be in good faith. That means that a person cannot wish for the extermination of peoples. If they are wishing for the extermination of peoples, it is no longer in good faith and the defence does not apply.”
“Someone should be ashamed. I am proud of my Conservative colleagues. There should be shame no more. We know that we are on the right side of this one and so do the Liberals. That is why, this morning, contrary to the suggestion that they wanted to move this bill forward, they cancelled today's justice committee meeting. I was prepared to show up tonight. We were all prepared to show up at 3:30 to discuss, clause by clause, this bill, but they locked us out. Why are the Liberals saying they are bringing this religious exemption? This is very important. Supposedly, according to the Bloc, it was because of a guy named Adil Charkaoui, who, on October 28, 2024, in an Arabic speech to protesters in Montreal, denounced Zionist aggressors and called on Allah to kill the enemies of the people of Gaza, to spare none of them.”
“One of the worst things this bill would do, in addition to now supposedly looking to eliminate the religious defence, is that it would lower the threshold for what is hate speech. I had a considerable discussion with my friend about it the other week, about how we were taught that we should avoid certain topics. Certain topics were taboo. We were not allowed to discuss the west. We were not allowed to use the word “America”. We were not allowed to use the word “Israel”. We were not allowed to point out that there is no bread, jeans or eggs in the store. That was because the only religion allowed was Communism. When my friend from Bowmanville—Oshawa North talks about Liberal colonialism, that is exactly what it is. It is Liberal dictatorship of our freedom of thought. There are no other thoughts allowed, other than Liberal thought.”
“Even then, despite Gorbachev's glasnost and, arguably, perestroika, if a Soviet resident was found with a Jewish prayer book, they could potentially be looking at a labour camp for three to five years. That was one of my first memories. I have asked my dad about it subsequently. He said it was unbelievable that my grandpa had that book. (1310) I cannot believe that I am sitting in the House right now after hearing the member, who is the Canadian identity and culture minister , essentially suggest that reciting parts of the Bible could somehow be criminalized, almost like a strict liability offence. I cannot fathom that. It is as if we were back in the U.S.S.R., just like the Beatles song.”
“I am joined here by my friend from Saskatchewan. I had a couple of friends over for refreshments at my home last week. My friend asked me if I could talk to him about what it was like in the U.S.S.R. I was born and lived in the Soviet Union until I was almost nine. If I could capture it in one word, it would be fear. As an eight-year-old, one has enough intellectual presence to understand when one's family is afraid. I first realized that I was of the Jewish faith when I was four or five. It was on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. I walked into my grandparents' bedroom, as I was raised by my grandparents, and I saw my grandpa reading a Siddur, a Jewish prayer book. This would have been in 1984 or 1985.”
“Instead, what we have going on right now is folks in my riding dressing like Yahya Sinwar, the worst murderer of Jews since the Holocaust, who is being glorified and celebrated. This is why I am proud that just a few weeks ago, I brought my first private member's bill to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, terrorist activity, terrorist groups or any activity of a terrorist group, and I challenge the Liberals. If they actually want to do something about this, if they want to do something about what is happening on Canada's streets, what is happening in my riding, which is one of the most Jewish ridings in the country, they should pass my PMB, Bill C-257 , and criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, terrorist activity or terrorist groups. I would like to take a pause for a minute and speak a bit from the heart.”
“They cancelled the committee that was to consider the bill clause by clause. They are afraid because they know the bill is going nowhere and that it is a terrible bill. Therefore, we should be travelling across the country, from coast to coast to coast, so that Canadians can learn what a terrible piece of legislation this is. Almost every witness we heard from at the justice committee said that the Liberals missed the point and that what they should have done is criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism. That is what we are seeing on Canada's streets. During the previous Conservative government, we had a law that criminalized the glorification of terrorism, but Justin Trudeau and his minions, in 2017, repealed Bill C-51 .”
“The Liberals take credit for and suggest that the new intimidation and access to facilities offence changes things. At the justice committee, we had an unbiased professional witness, Mark Sandler, one of the most celebrated criminal defence attorneys in this country, who was invited both by me and the Liberals. He said that the new access and intimidation offence does not do anything that is not already criminal under the Criminal Code. It is criminal to intimidate folks trying to enter their place of worship or school. It is criminal, certainly, to behave in a threatening fashion. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Roman Baber: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind their heckles. I welcome their heckles. The Liberals did not have the courage to show up at the justice committee today.”
“We could have private prosecutions that would be instituted by vexatious litigants potentially putting free speech at risk, especially with a lower threshold. Further, the Liberals are creating a stand-alone, hate-motivated offence. What is interesting about that offence is that it does not just pertain solely to criminal conduct. Specifically, the language in the section provides that the stand-alone hatred offence can be predicated on any offence contrary to any federal statute. Therefore, one may have an offence under the Canada Labour Code or the Canada Elections Act, and if a prosecutor, perhaps a politically motivated prosecutor, believes it may have been motivated by hatred, then one could be subject to criminal prosecution for what is otherwise civil behaviour.”
“Mr. Speaker, what are the Liberals doing? To those at home who still do not understand what is happening vis-à-vis this bill, let me provide them with a quick summary. It is going to be a professional summary. The first thing the Liberals are doing is lowering the threshold for the definition of hatred. The Supreme Court has articulated the test for hatred in a case called Keegstra, 35 years ago. It was a good working definition. Now they are lowering the threshold to make it easier to convict for hate speech. Second, the Liberals are eliminating the requirement prescribed in the Criminal Code for the Attorney General's consent in order to commence hate-related prosecutions. Of course, we have articulated a number of concerns with that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the largest Jewish communities in the country, and I will not take any lessons from the Liberals on safeguarding the Jewish community. I am also tired of the other side accusing the Conservatives of slowing this down. I would like to ask the member a very clear question. Last Tuesday, the justice committee was ready to sit and listen with respect to bail or to Bill C-9 , and the Liberals cancelled the meeting. This morning, after I woke up, I was sipping on my cup of coffee and getting ready for Bill C-9 tonight, when I learned that the justice committee meeting tonight had been cancelled by the Liberal chair. If the Liberals are so determined to move forward with this terrible piece of legislation, why did they cancel tonight's justice committee meeting? I would like an answer, please.”
“The Bloc seems to suggest that it is on the basis of this exception that charges were not instituted, but the prosecutorial service in Quebec said that is not the case; it is because it was not an identifiable group of people against whom he incited violence—”
“Mr. Speaker, I hear my friend, the Bloc member, and I enjoy working with him at committee. I would like to understand if he has any knowledge of what is actually happening at the justice committee. He just referred to the Bloc having an agreement in the past tense. The meeting was cancelled last Tuesday and tonight's meeting has been cancelled. We have major pieces of legislation between us, but it appears as though the Liberals do not want us to convene. I would like to follow up on something. My friend appears to suggest that the rationale for the amendment is the case of Adil Charkaoui in Montreal, who called for the extermination of the enemies of Allah.”
“Mr. Speaker, over 35,000 families fled the GTA last year because they could not afford a home. CTV News followed a Toronto woman who could not buy a house with a $200,000 income. The Liberals pretend that the impact of the industrial carbon tax on a new house is imaginary, but clearly the industrial carbon tax increases the cost of cement, the cost of steel and the cost of all materials that go into new homes. Last month, only 25 new condos were sold in Toronto, a city of three million people. When families are fleeing the GTA, why did the Liberals make housing even more expensive by increasing the industrial carbon tax? Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, “Who cares?” answered the Prime Minister , when asked about contact with the U.S. President on a trade deal. Everyday Canadians care, everyday Canadians who are going broke or who are losing their jobs because of this trade uncertainty. In my city of Toronto, investment, commerce and real estate have been frozen. Only 25 new condos were sold last month in a city of three million. Other than Brookfield, nobody can make a decision because of the uncertainty caused by the Prime Minister 's failure to get a trade deal. Instead of being dismissive and derisive, why does the Prime Minister not keep his word and finally get a trade deal?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member with respect to housing and the housing plan the Liberals put forward, so I have a few very specific questions for him. First, why did the Prime Minister have to create a whole new office, the Build Canada Homes agency, instead of running this program from the Ministry of Housing? Second, the total budget for this program is apparently $13 billion, and the estimate is roughly 4,000 homes. Why does it take three quarters of a million dollars to build a 600-foot shoebox when we factor in the cost of the bureaucracy? Finally, there is some relationship, from what I understand, between the company doing the modular homes and Brookfield. What is that relationship and how much will Brookfield benefit from this arrangement?”
“The bill would protect charter rights by creating the defences of religion, truth or public interest discussions, because the purpose is not to abridge speech, but criminalize the glorification and normalization of terrorism before terrorism ensues. I am proud of my Conservative colleagues for standing with Canada's Jewish community and supporting my bill to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C-257. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of terrorist activity or group) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill that would amend the Criminal Code. The bill would create a new criminal offence against the wilful promotion of terrorism, a terrorist group or terrorist activity, with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Canada already criminalizes participation in and the aiding of terrorism, but there is no criminal offence targeting the advocacy for or promotion of terrorism. This gap allows extremists and recruiters to promote terrorism on our streets and online. My bill would amend the Criminal Code by making it criminal to promote terrorist activity or a terrorist group.”
“I am proud of our Conservative team for standing with me and for standing with Canada's Jewish community in a time of need, and I am proud that, this afternoon, I will be introducing a bill to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism.”
“Mr. Speaker, intifada is violent resistance. It must be criminal to call for intifada on Canada's streets. It must be criminal to celebrate Hamas monsters by glorifying their death. That is why we need a bill to amend the Criminal Code, to criminalize the promotion of terrorist groups or terrorist activity. Canada already criminalizes participation and aiding of terrorism, but there is no offence targeting the advocacy or promotion of terrorism. This gap allows extremists and recruiters to promote terrorism on the streets and online. Colleagues, we need a bill to make it criminal to promote terrorist groups or terrorist activities while preserving the charter right to free speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my political career. I am proud of my career in the provincial legislature of Ontario. I am proud for standing up for millions of Canadians who did not have a voice, and I am proud of the Leader of the Opposition for welcoming me into this party and Parliament and also of the people of York Centre for bringing me back to represent them.”