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 5 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, this year the Liberals will pay $300 million for the mayhem in Toronto's homeless shelters. Toronto's shelters now hand out needles and drug accessories to anyone who walks in. The shelters have now turned into injection sites, bringing more crime and chaos to the streets of Toronto. Now Olivia Chow wants the Liberals to pay for the construction of 20 more shelters inside Toronto's residential neighbourhoods. Proposed for my riding, the shelter at Keele and Wilson would be between a middle school and a day care. Torontonians do not want shelters that function like drug dens close to our schools and playgrounds. Will the Liberals say no to Olivia Chow's shelters, or will they pay for their construction, to have Toronto's children picking up used needles?”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning in the City of Toronto, the city I come from and in which I am blessed to represent one of its riding in the House, a gentleman was running away from another gentleman and was eventually shot. This is a daily occurrence. As I like to say, the Liberals turned the streets of Toronto into Grand Theft Auto, real-life edition. This is more of the same. This is disregard for the rule of law. It is not just by way of abridgement of constitutional rights; it is also failure to defend the rights of—”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, we on this side of the House want to be reasonable with the government. There are some elements of the bill we sincerely agree with, but we will not sit idly by when we believe that the Liberal government would be abridging constitutional rights without cause. We do not need to rush, seize and search when we can hold onto the evidence, secure the evidence, not worry about the evidence being lost or damaged, put it aside, maintain the chain of custody, and go ask for judicial oversight. This is something I believe every member of the House who is sworn to preserve our democracy should agree on.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not what is happening in the bill. Again, I do not understand why the member fails to comprehend that this side of the House is in agreement with the fact that there is a national crisis, one that the Liberals in fact created. They can go ahead and open my mail if a justice of the peace says so. That is the only difference. There would be no warrant requirement under the legislation, and that is what we fundamentally object to.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are not here to debate the fact that there is a lot of trafficking and distribution going through the mail. We will agree to that. The principle of search and seizure must still conform to the charter, and that means that unless there are exigent circumstances, unless there is urgency, unless the evidence can disappear or unless a police officer can get hurt, we have to seek judicial authorization. That is what the member fails to understand. We agree on the need. We disagree on the fact that we need to abridge constitutional rights to accomplish that need.”
“I wish I could bring all of them back, but the legislation would not bring any of them back, and the legislation would not change anything but amount to an assault on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can put the envelope aside and go see a justice of the peace. There is no rush. We would still be able to save Simon's life while preserving the integrity of our democracy and respecting hundreds of years of common law. If there is no urgency, no exigent circumstances, we should obtain a warrant. I ask that we please remove warrantless searches from the bill.”
“He was wrong; the loss of freedom is only one government away. Just when we think it cannot get any worse, along comes the same Liberal government, just with a new Liberal Prime Minister . It wants Parliament to pass a law that a Crown corporation can open people's letters, Christmas cards and bills without a warrant. (1345) The drug crisis is a national tragedy the Liberals created. When I was 20 years old, I lost a friend to heroin overdose. Simon Woods came back from rehab and relapsed. I am going to send a shout-out to my boys. We were his pallbearers. I met countless people throughout my career, lawyers and politicians, who struggled with addiction. I wish I could bring Simon back.”
“I do not understand what is happening to our country. I do not understand how it is that in the last few years, “freedom” has become a dirty word. The Liberals are chipping away at values that our country was founded on. The state broadcaster, the communications arm of the Liberal Party, gets $1.5 billion of our money from the Liberals. First it mocks anyone who defends basic civil rights, and then it calls them crazy, fringe or right-wing. When that does not work, it calls them dangerous. I was born in the former Soviet Union. This is precisely what the Soviet Communists did for almost 70 years: mock the opposition, call it crazy and then demonize it. Do members know how it ends? It ends with labour camps, re-education camps or prison. Ronald Reagan once said that the loss of freedom is only one generation away.”
“Can the Crown prove on a balance of probabilities that the constitutional infringement is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society? The verdict is no, of course it cannot. Canada Post can hold on to the envelope, swear an affidavit and see a justice of the peace. If the justice of the peace says yes, then it can open the envelope, but until then, it should stay out of the business of Canadians. For years, I have been urging Canadians to realize that the Liberal government is engaged in an assault on our civil rights. It is a new bus just like the old bus, but maybe this one is even worse. An assault on our legal rights guaranteed by the charter is an assault on democracy. It is an assault on the House. It is an assault on the courts. Opening mail without judicial oversight is an assault on all Canadians.”
“The need to open and inspect the inside of envelopes sent by Canada Post does not amount to exigent circumstances. Losing custody of the envelope is of no concern; Canada Post holds on to an envelope. Urgency is of no concern because the damn thing is in the mail. I get mail that was sent to me a month earlier, without a labour disruption. If Canada Post wants to open my mail, it can go ahead, but it should, please, get permission. It is the custody of the envelope and the lack of urgency that precludes the Crown from proving exigent circumstances. Opening the envelope without judicial oversight cannot be constitutional. Is there a charter violation when a Crown corporation or a peace officer is invited by the Crown corporation to open the envelope? Yes, 100%. Let us move on to section 1. Can the violation survive?”
“This is not some Conservative MP saying that; this is what the Supreme Court of Canada said, three blocks away. When the Supreme Court speaks, Parliament must listen. To conduct a search, the search must be reasonable. In R v. Collins, the Supreme Court of Canada, God bless its heart, held that a search is reasonable when it is authorized by law. Unless there are exigent circumstances, section 8 requires authorization for a search. Warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable. There may be exigent circumstances where there can be a search without a warrant. For instance, if there is an emergency and it is impractical to obtain a warrant, to preserve evidence when it may disappear or when a police officer's safety is at risk.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is asking Parliament to grant Canada Post permission to open letters, mail that Canadians send one another, without a warrant, to protect us from a drug crisis of its own making. Bill C-2 would exempt Canada Post, a Crown agency, from judicial oversight. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees our right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure. In 1993, in the case R v. Plant, the Supreme Court held that such protections are required for the very functioning of our democracy, that the values underlying section 8 are integrity, dignity and autonomy, values that are most precious to humanity. The court held that section 8 protects individual autonomy, where people have the right “to be let alone”, a right “on which the state cannot intrude without permission”.”
“Madam Speaker, I reject the proposition that I, in any way, am not in favour of other non-Canadian residents obtaining Canadian citizenship. In fact, I specifically said that new Canadians contribute to our country, pay taxes, work, go to school, contribute to our culture and heritage and even get elected. I would like to preserve that privilege for future generations of Canadians instead of diluting the right to become Canadian, as the legislation seeks to do. Conservatives would offer various options at committee. We would look at asking the government to amend the act to provide for additional years. We would ask the government to provide for some consecutive terms, something that would enable the establishment of roots in the country, instead of coming and going, as the Liberals propose.”
“Devise a framework where non-Canadians can become Canadians not by virtue of doing the minimum and showing up for a couple of summer vacations but by living in Canada—”
“Madam Speaker, we absolutely feel that there is room to look. For those who were born to parents outside of Canada, to parents who are Canadian citizens but who were not born in Canada, we should certainly look at ways to let them become Canadian. The disagreement on this side of the House is with the substantial connection test and with the de minimis requirements that Bill C-3 prescribes. What I hear from my friend opposite is that the non-Canadian is now living in Canada, that his parents are living in Canada and that he is here, in fact, to help them, which is very commendable, but it sounds to me as if that particular resident has some roots in Canada, which is all we are asking for.”
“We look forward to reviewing it at committee, and we hope that our friends across the aisle will sincerely consider some serious amendments to beef up the substantial connection test. Future generations of Canadians will thank us.”
“Also, we already have enough crime and chaos on our streets because of Liberal bail and sentencing policies. We rightfully insist that anyone with a criminal record should not be admitted to Canadian citizenship. Canadians and future generations of Canadians will thank us. I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to rise in the House to debate this very, very personal piece of legislation. I invite all of us to remember why we stood for office and why we got elected. We got elected for Canadians. We got elected to defend our country and to preserve its culture, its security, its safety, its well-being, its economic well-being. What this legislation would do is undermine all of that.”
“The Liberals propose that all one would need to do is spend three years in Canada on and off, which could be a year, could be over a decade or could be dozens of summer vacations, and that would be enough to establish a substantial connection, to pass on our precious Canadian citizenship. Someone could even have a criminal record and still be eligible for Canadian citizenship as long as one of their parents spent three years in Canada, on and off; this is with no residence, no property, no Canadian employment, no Canadian education, nothing. I submit, respectfully, that to qualify for Canadian citizenship, one must establish roots in Canada, contribute to our society, get a job, go to school, buy property, at the very least, instead of a short-term stay on and off.”
“(1305) Canadian citizenship gave rise to future generations of Canadians who helped build this country, who pay taxes and participate in civil society and national conversations, new Canadians who represent Canadians. Many of my friends in the House are new Canadians who represent Canadians in their respective constituencies. This is why I and my colleagues oppose what Bill C-3 would accomplish, in essence, which is to devalue Canadian citizenship. We already had Justin Trudeau devalue the Canadian passport, eliminating images of Terry Fox in favour of a picture of himself, presumably at Harrington Lake. We would not expect that kind of behaviour from a leader of a democratic country. Now, the current Prime Minister seeks to devalue our citizenship by offering it in perpetuity to children not born in Canada.”
“Since then, I have had every blessing this country has to offer to study, work, succeed, practice law and start a small business, and eventually to be elected to this House to represent the very constituents who welcomed me as an immigrant. I also remember the day we became Canadian citizens. It was on March 16, 2000. We went to a federal building at St. Clair and Yonge. I remember taking the oath of citizenship with my new fellow Canadians. It was a beautiful thing. It is very sad that the requirement to attend in person to take the oath has recently been diluted by the Liberals. It is shameful. I remember the judge, who smiled at me. I remember her smiling at me as we were leaving the room after my oath. It was so important to me to speak about this bill because I do not want to see this value diminished.”
“We landed at Pearson airport in Toronto and drove to North York, to Sheppard and Bathurst, inside the heart of the riding I am now blessed to represent in this House. I looked out the window and I saw Earl Bales Park and the Don Lands, and on the other side of the park was Yonge Street, with beautiful lights and towers, in the great riding of Willowdale. I was in love from day one. We did not have a cent to our name. I remember what true poverty was like. My dad initially sold ice cream off those yellow dixie bicycles. My mom was an unemployed teacher, but it did not matter because I always had a job and always had incredible joy. All we ever needed in order to succeed in Canada was to work hard and be nice to people. That was it. That was the Canadian promise, which my fellow Conservatives and our party leader seek to restore.”
“That is why I have a unique perspective on this piece of legislation, as it touches directly on one of the greatest things in the world, one of the most precious documents one could ever imagine: a Canadian passport reflecting Canadian citizenship. My story is not unique; it has been experienced by many Canadians and many members of the House. Is it the story of coming to Canada. Thirty years ago, Canada was in need of chemical engineers. My father was a chemical engineer. We applied, passed a medical check and passed a criminal background check, and within a short time, we were invited to immigrate to Canada as landed immigrants. The system worked. I remember the night we came to Canada. It was on September 5, 1995, in the middle of the night.”
“These are not children born to Canadian-born Canadians living abroad, which is already law, but children whose parents are Canadian but were not born in Canada, and their children and their children's children, in perpetuity, if they meet the substantial connection test. If a Canadian not born in Canada demonstrates that they were present in Canada for only three years in total, not consecutively, their non-Canadian children would also be eligible for Canadian citizenship. My fear is that Bill C-3 seeks to diminish and devalue the value of Canadian citizenship. It is an irresponsible position. Last week, along with my family, I celebrated our 30th “Canada-versary”, 30 years of blissful existence in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate this proposed legislation for the first time in the House of Commons. What makes this debate even more special to me is that it is about citizenship. Like many of us in this House, I am a citizen of Canada who did not acquire Canadian citizenship by virtue of birth; I gained it later in life, when I was almost 20. Gaining Canadian citizenship is like winning the lottery, and even though I do not recognize our country after 10 years of the Liberals, I still believe that Canada is the best country in the world. Holding Canadian citizenship is a remarkable privilege that should not be afforded loosely to anyone who was not born in Canada. The bill would confer Canadian citizenship on children of Canadian citizens who were not born in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the violent revolution of 1979, the barbaric ayatollahs took over the prosperous and peaceful nation of Iran. They oppressed the great Persian people for almost 50 years. They murdered countless Jews and, recently, 58 Canadians. They are the world's largest state sponsor of terror. The difference is simple: If given a chance, Iran would kill 10 million Israelis, but if it were up to Israel, the regime would fall and the new government would not beat women or hang gays. On June 13, the state of Israel lawfully defended itself and gave a gift to the world by ensuring that the psychos in Tehran do not get a nuclear weapon. Now is the time for the great Persian people to reclaim their country, peacefully. Let the voices of the people rise. To my Persian friends, I say, "Do not be afraid." Let us work and pray for a free Iran.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to contribute to the discussion of this bill, and I thank the shadow minister. I am an immigrant to Canada. We immigrated in 1995 as landed immigrants. In the year 2000, I was blessed with the gift of Canadian citizenship. I remember that day, when my entire family went to St. Clair and Yonge and we took our oath of citizenship before a judge. This is something I find to be so incredibly valuable, such a gift to so many Canadians. Now, what we see from the Liberal government is an attempt to essentially devalue, dilute Canadian citizenship. Would the shadow minister be so kind as to explain to folks at home how this bill actually dilutes and devalues Canadian citizenship?”
“Mr. Speaker, after a decade of the Liberal government, crime in Toronto is out of control. Last night in North York, what began as an armed carjacking at the Shops of Don Mills turned into a police pursuit and a man jumping off the Gardiner Expressway. The Liberals have turned Toronto into Grand Theft Auto, real-life edition. Liberal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 let criminals out on bail instead of locking them up and keeping us safe. When will the Liberals repeal their soft-on-bail regime and start protecting Canadians from violent criminals?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that we see, again, an example of legislation coming out of the Liberal government that runs a real risk of abridging constitutional rights. Specifically, we know that the Supreme Court prescribed the duty to consult. We do see reference to that in the legislation. However, any consultation has to be meaningful, yet the piece of legislation would prescribe a foregone conclusion. If the office of major projects is interested in a piece of legislation, it would be gone and it would be done, so what is the point of any consultation if the minister is going to override any objections of first nations people?”
“Mr. Speaker, I articulated a concern earlier today, because it appears that the legislation is playing fast and loose with the charter. Specifically, we know the legislation proposes that projects of national importance are effectively a foregone conclusion. We also know that the Supreme Court has been very clear time and time again about the duty to consult indigenous peoples. That duty specifically requires good faith. How can we have good faith when the government comes to the table with a project that is already a foregone conclusion? I am hoping the member can speak to that and about whether he believes the bill will meet constitutional scrutiny.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the minister sincerely believes the bill will meet constitutional scrutiny. We know the bill prescribes that projects of national importance will, essentially, be treated as a forgone conclusion. We also know the duty to consult, identified by the Supreme Court, has repeatedly held that the government has to consult in good faith. How can the government have consultation in good faith when it comes with a forgone conclusion? Does the minister truly believe the bill will meet constitutional scrutiny?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be able to debate my friend from Kingston and the Islands in his non-Twitter persona. I am wondering what it is that the Liberal government is hiding. Why will it not present a budget? Is it hiding the fact that it was counting on all this tariff revenue, and that is not coming? Is it hiding the fact that, last year, it was planning on various capital gains-related revenues, and that revenue is not coming? Of course, the government turned on that as well, because it was a horrible idea. Is it something else altogether, such as wanting to rewrite the books to make the deficit seem like something it is not? Why is the Liberal government failing to present a budget? What is it hiding?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Housing said he does not want to bring down prices for Canadians, but Toronto residents cannot afford a roof over their head. When I knocked on doors this spring, voters would tell me that they cannot afford their mortgages or, in apartments, would tell me they cannot afford their rent. It is heartbreaking. Liberal immigration policies are forcing Torontonians to spend more of their income on housing than anyone else on planet earth, but the Prime Minister is failing Canadians and refuses to listen to this House. When will the Prime Minister deliver a budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, after a lost decade of the Liberal government, housing in Toronto is unaffordable. Last week, we learned that new home sales are at a record low. According to Oxford Economics, as a result of high immigration, residents of Toronto “spend more of their income on housing than residents of nearly every other city in the world.” One would think that would prompt the Liberals to present a serious plan. Instead, they want to break for the summer without a plan. Will the Prime Minister respect the will of this House and pass a budget before his summer vacation?”
“Mr. Chair, first of all, it is $20 million, not $95 million, and that is for all institutions in all communities. On day one on the job, the Prime Minister gave Gaza $100 million. The Liberals gave Gaza more money on day one than for the security of all communities and all institutions. Is that not correct?”
“Mr. Chair, empty words are the only thing we hear from the government. I cannot point to a single thing the Liberals have done. Firebombings of Jewish businesses and synagogues are now routine. Instead of standing up for the Jewish community and protecting us, the government has been thanked by Hamas twice. Why is the minister failing to protect the Jewish community?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister would not even acknowledge that intifada is a call to violence. Does he agree that when the Prime Minister accuses Israel of genocide on the campaign trail, he endangers the Jewish community?”
“Mr. Chair, it is outrageous that the Liberal government, the minister standing here, would not even acknowledge that for 18 months the chant “intifada” has been chanted on Canada's streets and that he would not recognize the basic definition of what intifada is. I will give you one more opportunity. Is the word “intifada” an incitement to violence or not, from one professional to another?”
“Mr. Chair, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is an armed rebellion. Does the minister understand that when someone in Canada is chanting to globalize the intifada, they are calling for violence? Does he understand that or not?”
“Mr. Chair, this is the estimates. This is committee of the whole. We are not here to talk about the bill. This is the minister in charge of public safety, and I am here to talk about the public safety of the Jewish community.”
“Mr. Speaker, last night in North Toronto, a man was shot to death and at least five others were wounded. Three masked men opened gun fire, steps away from the Yorkdale mall. It is not clear if, or how many, bystanders were hit. The Liberal record on crime is no accident. Liberal bills, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , put repeat criminals back on the streets, unleashing crime and chaos on the streets of Toronto. Gun crimes more than doubled under the Liberals. The solution is simple: Repeal soft-on-crime Liberal laws. When will the Liberals get serious about deadly shootings in Toronto and across Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, my north Toronto constituents cannot afford a home. After 10 years of the Liberals, house prices doubled, down payments doubled, mortgage payments doubled and rents doubled. New home sales in Toronto are at a record low, lower than they were during the housing crash of the 1990s, but the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure is on record saying that he does not want to lower the price of housing. Why does the minister think that young people should not be able to afford a home in the city of Toronto?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her election. I listened to her speech very carefully. I also lost a grandfather a couple of years ago. He was like my father, and I very much sympathize with what she told the House today. I am also well familiar with Peterborough and the very many families she represents, who sound much like the member's family. The member recognized the affordability crisis her constituents are going through right now. Given that, is a tax cut worth $20 a month going to make any material difference in their lives? Should it not be a greater tax cut to help her constituents?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will always support all tax cuts, as I am sure all of my friends will on this side of the House. Shame on the Liberal government for actually increasing the alcohol tax during the worst crisis of affordability in our nation's history. Conservatives and myself are in favour of all tax cuts, and I would not exclude the excise tax as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree that all Canadians should get back as much of their own money as possible. Right now, the Liberal government is offering a $240 tax cut, roughly, per person. That is $20 a month. That is nothing. It is breadcrumbs. The finance minister stands in the House every day and says that 22 million Canadians are going to be getting a $20 tax cut. Of course, Conservatives support all tax cuts, but we urge the government to do more, because all across Canada, including in Quebec, Canadians cannot afford this government anymore. We need more tax relief for all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in my remarks, all one had to do to succeed in Canada was work hard and be nice to people, and if one did that, they would be assured a pretty good standard of living, but after 10 years of the Liberal government, a quarter of Canadians are worried about affording food. Over two million people are using the food bank. It is shameful. That is why we were elected. That is why we are here, to help Pierre Poilievre restore the Canadian promise that no matter where people come from, they can afford food and live in a safe neighbourhood. It does not matter where we are from; dreams do come true, because Canada is the best country in the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with my municipal counterpart for introducing that legislation. We will see if it survives charter scrutiny. What I do not appreciate is that the Liberal government, in 2017, repealed a Stephen Harper law, Bill C-51 , that made it illegal and contrary to the Criminal Code to promote terrorism. The Liberals repealed the provision that would help to address many of the things we are seeing right now on the streets of Toronto and across the nation. Promoting terrorism should not be lawful on Canada's streets.”
“My mother was an unemployed teacher, but Canada has given me every opportunity to study, to work and to succeed, because all one ever needed to do to succeed in Canada was work hard and be nice to people. That is it. Now I am elected to the House of Commons by the same community that welcomed me as an immigrant. Dreams come true, but not in this Canada. Before the Liberals, dreams came true all the time for many Canadians. Now a quarter of Canadians cannot afford food. It is shameful. That is why I am here, and that is why our Conservative team is here to help Pierre Poilievre—”
“That is the historical perspective I bring to this Parliament. Wait, I have another historical perspective. It is Canada. I am exhibit A for the Canadian promise. We landed at Pearson when I was 15, on September 5, 1995. We came directly to Sheppard and Bathurst in the heart of York Centre. I remember it like it was yesterday. It was in the middle of the night. I looked out the window and I saw Earl Bales Park. Across the park, on the other side, I saw Yonge Street lights and towers. It was beautiful. I was in love from day one. (1340) We did not have a cent to our name. I remember what true poverty was like. My father sold ice cream on those yellow bicycles.”
“I am back to the future, again. I am here to alert my fellow Canadians and everyone in this room, beware of the intifada, beware of jihad coming to Canada. There is no Zionist occupation in Syria, but more than a million people were killed in a civil war. In Yemen, in the last decade, almost half a million people were murdered. In Rwanda and Sudan, millions of Muslims were murdered, with no Zionists in sight. An offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood is murdering Black Muslims in Sudan right now. It is a real genocide, and not a word from the Liberals. That is why many Muslims come to Canada, to escape jihad, to escape that hell. It is shameful that the word “intifada” is now chanted in Canada, even though I am a free speech guy. Jihad is incitement to violence and it is dangerous. Beware of jihad picking up steam in Canada.”
“The Prime Minister should be honest about his government's failure and fess up to the gazillion-shmuzzillion dollar deficit. He should not cook Canada's books because, mark my words, it will undermine confidence in our country and it will bankrupt our nation. Please, do not cook Canada's books. After the Soviet Union, I lived in Israel until age 15. I lived in the Holy Land during the first intifada. Now I apologize, colleagues, but this is important. When a Hamas terrorist assembles a suicide vest, they pack it with as many nails as possible, and this is true, so when the suicide vest goes off, it blinds as many people as possible and cuts as many limbs as possible. I watched Tel Aviv bus No. 5 blow up on TV every other week. That was the first intifada. Now they chant “Viva viva intifada” in my riding in north Toronto.”