Cheryl Gallant
Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“We see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents hiring contract killers to shoot up synagogues. We see hate marches in our streets. We see places of worship burned to the ground. Stubbornly, the Liberals still refuse to admit their mistakes on this file. They have admitted they were wrong about carbon taxes.”
“The Liberals were more than happy to deploy misinformation and disinformation around the use of a hate symbol to score cheap political points. The CBC worked hand in glove with the government to push this fake narrative.”
“Between 2021 and 2023, there were 238 recorded arson attacks on churches. There are regular hate marches through Jewish neighbourhoods. Liberals even claim their own communities are hotbeds of hatred, where white supremacist rallies are held on a regular basis.”
“However, when placed in the broader context of decades of Liberal political strategy that sought to paint all Conservative opposition as motivated by hate and the Liberals' continued desire to construct an entirely new bureaucracy to monitor Canadians' digital expression, this bill looks like a dangerous expansion of authority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the big-hearted constituents in the caring riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C‑9 , the Liberal bill to ban symbols of hate. The bill is back here because the other place has amended the legislation to include a new symbol to the Liberal hit list.”
“This example of the Liberals seeking to ban the symbol of the noose so soon after engaging in a bad-faith attack on a political opponent by claiming a lanyard was actually a noose does not stand in isolation. During the “freedom convoy” and the protests, we saw the Liberals deploy this exact same technique.”
The complete record
Every one of 290 lines we hold for Cheryl Gallant, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with my colleague from the Bloc. In fact, we want to get this bill to committee so we can examine and root out the answers to the questions, just as she asked right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, whenever a Liberal does not have a reasonable response to a fair and explanatory speech, they always call it a conspiracy theory. What we have learned with recent so-called conspiracy theories is they have all come true.”
“The Prime Minister has already failed the test he set for himself. There is no comprehensive deal with the U.S. Food prices are the highest in the G7. We do not need forward guidance to tell us the deficit is already higher than he projected six months ago. We need a prime minister who will pass the test of democracy.”
“The intent of the bill is to allow police and CSIS to do their jobs. The committee must be given the time it needs to hear from witnesses. It needs the time to provide the level of scrutiny that such a bill demands. We know that the Prime Minister is impatient. He is used to people just following orders. We have already seen how he mis-characterizes legitimate opposition as wasting time. Even the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star is allowing expressions of concern that the Prime Minister has an authoritarian streak. That is why the bill is such an important test for the ill-gotten Liberal majority. It could be an example of parties' listening to each other and to Canadians to improve the bill, or it could be that desperate Liberals grasping for accomplishments will jam it down Canadians' throats.”
“The actual list of providers can be found under schedule 1 of the bill. That page is currently blank. It would be left to cabinet to decide which companies would be covered. Cabinet would decide what measures companies would have to take to provide access to the company's information. In making these regulations, cabinet would be required to consider the cost of the regulations, the feasibility of the regulations and the impact of the regulations. However, just in case those factors ended up limiting the government, cabinet would have the power to also consider any other factor cabinet thinks is relevant. How convenient that is for the Liberal cabinet. That is just one example of one loophole in a substantive bill. This is why Conservatives support moving the bill to committee.”
“Unfortunately for the Liberals, they tabled the bill just weeks before the world learned that the AI company Anthropic had built an AI model so advanced and so dangerous that the company has limited the access to it. The danger was that this new AI model had discovered thousands of new vulnerabilities in some of the most popular code. One of the most widely used operating systems for routers had a vulnerability that had been undiscovered for 27 years. The government is asking Canadians to trust Bell, Rogers and Telus to know in advance if the government is putting our privacy at risk. I should clarify something. I do not know whether Bell, Rogers and Telus would be covered by the bill. It is a reasonable assumption, or in the language of this bill, I have a reasonable suspicion, that the big three telecoms would be included.”
“Canadians, collectively, make 100 million cellphone calls every year. Forcing companies to maintain databases containing information on over 36 billion phone calls would present a systemic privacy risk. Beyond maintaining this vast secret database for the government, the companies would also be required to maintain systems that allow government to easily search and collect this metadata. This is often referred to as a back door. The concern has always been that creating a back door for the government also creates a back door for criminals and hostile foreign states. The Liberals will tell Canadians not to worry. They will point to language in the bill that says the government would not be allowed to ask for any back doors that company officials believe would create a hacking risk.”
“Do the so-called Liberal MPs think provisions in the bill that would require service providers to retain all metadata for a year are justifiable? Metadata information about the file itself is contained within many computer files. Emails that Canadians send contain extensive metadata, including who sent the email, the time it was sent, the software that was used to send it, the type of hardware used to send it, the sender's IP address and every IP address that every server in an email was routed through. People's cellphone calls create metadata that includes who called, who answered and the time and duration of the call; the cell towers used during the call; and even the GPS coordinates for the caller. Telecom companies retain this data for billing purposes, but they do not keep it beyond that point.”
“The bill was tabled for the same reason we have a fentanyl czar: The Liberals thought it would appease the Trump administration. The former bureaucrat, turned Prime Minister , asked the federal bureaucracy to draft legislation to make America happy again. Before his ministers could staff their offices with the type of people who might ask what stakeholders such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association would say about the law, it was tabled. It was only the opposition's holding a majority that prevented this first rushed and flawed legislation from becoming law. Thanks to unprecedented acts of self-interest, Liberals have a hair's breadth of a majority. (1555) Will the newly empowered Liberal members use this opportunity to work collaboratively, or will they force the bill through quickly to rack up a political victory?”
“Rather than hiding on YouTube, the Prime Minister should be giving his forward guidance advice to Canadians from the floor of the House of Commons. That the Prime Minister's instincts are to hide from the House makes me think he will fail the test the bill represents, but the test falls onto the shoulders of every so-called Liberal member of Parliament. Too often, they seem to think they are Liberal members of government. During the last election, we knocked on, collectively, hundreds of thousands of doors. Not a single voter told me that their first priority was ensuring that telecoms retain a year of metadata on all their customers. I bet that is true for every Liberal member too, yet even before new MPs had a chance to find the bathrooms, the government was tabling extensive legislation to give the state vast new powers.”
“The only thing worse than a Liberal prime minister with a majority government is a Liberal prime minister who has convinced himself he is serving in a time of a unique crisis requiring new powers. Jean Chrétien nearly led us to the breakup of the country. He used that to justify emergency spending on Canadian flags in Quebec. He told himself that he did not need oversight. He was saving the country. When the pandemic finally arrived in North America, Trudeau's first instinct was to seek two years of unlimited spending power without parliamentary approval. He told himself he did not need oversight, because he was saving the country. Now we have a new Prime Minister claiming we have a new crisis. He told himself that only he could solve it by answering fewer questions than any prime minister in history.”
“Just as with the first bill, the new version is not perfect. There are troubling issues related to metadata retention and the legal thresholds for asking for Canadians' private information. It may be possible to address or correct those issues in committee. Whether or not the Liberal MPs on the committee will be willing to adopt those corrections is the test. Will this be a typical Liberal majority under a typical Liberal prime minister? How the bill is handled will provide Canadians with the answers. By the time Jean Chrétien was in his third majority, journalists were writing books with titles such as The Friendly Dictatorship . After Justin Trudeau was given a blank cheque by Jagmeet Singh's NDP to govern as if he had a majority, he illegally invoked the Emergencies Act and violated Canadians' charter rights.”
“The Liberals would have used their majority to force through Bill C-2 , which was the Liberals' first attempt at a lawful access bill. It was only because of a minority government that the Conservatives were able to prevent the Liberals from passing it. If the Liberals had gotten their way, they would have had the power to limit Canadians' use of cash. Bill C-2 would have allowed the Liberals to open people's mail without a warrant. The bill would have allowed Liberals to demand any data from any service provider, without a warrant. That would have applied to telecoms and companies, as well as to hospitals and banks. Even Canadian dry cleaners would have been subject to this law. Bill C-2 was an obvious overreach. The absence of those provisions in the new bill proves only that Conservatives were right.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of security conscious Canadians in the vigilant riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-22 , a bill respecting lawful access. The Conservatives support giving law enforcement the tools it needs to combat crime and keep communities safe. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives support sending the bill to committee for careful review. The bill represents a major test for the Prime Minister and his ill-gotten majority. Had Canadians collectively decided to actually elect a majority government last year, we would not even be debating this bill.”
“This is the inevitable and predictable result of Liberal bad policies, including free opioids and open borders with no security checks. The Liberals have spent the cupboard bare, and now they are firing public servants while handing billions to Brookfield. Canadians and the community organizations they support are being squeezed by a Liberal vice of bad policies and out-of-control spending. Now all they can come up with is this policy that would shake spare change loose from drug dealers. If the member really cared about the community, she would urge her caucus to cancel the Brookfield clean electricity investment tax credit and put the money toward drug addiction treatment. Canadians deserve better than Liberal band-aids because they do not stick.”
“Of those, few are ever successfully collected. There is a reason why drug dealers are more likely to live in their parents' basements: Crime does not pay. Drug pushers and human smugglers belong in jail. While the Liberals prefer that dealers and modern slave runners serve their sentences from home, they still cannot work. This bill would try to squeeze water from a rock. It is clear that the member for Sudbury has heard from many of the same types of community organizations that I hear from in Renfrew County. They are under increasing financial pressure. Homeless shelters are filled with international students who now claim to be refugees, treatment centres are overrun, our food banks are overwhelmed and businesses are forced to close public washrooms due to rampant drug use. It was not like this before the Liberals were in power.”
“This bill is like trying to put a band-aid on a machete wound, and the Liberals are the ones wielding the weapon. I do not blame the member for Sudbury for bringing forward this kind of band-aid bill. She is following the Prime Minister 's lead. The Major Projects Office is another band-aid for the Liberal impact assessment machete. The Liberals prefer band-aids over doing the hard work and announcements over results. They prefer these types of performative bills. Making criminals pay has popular appeal, but this bill is the wrong approach. As my colleagues have pointed out, Canada already has mechanisms for victims of crime to seek restitution. If a criminal burns down a safe supply clinic, the Crown attorney can seek restitution for the organization, yet only 1.6% of criminal cases involve a restitution order.”
“Again, those crimes are drug trafficking and human trafficking. We know the Liberal government is quite literally trafficking in hydromorphone. The damage the Liberals have done to our immigration and asylum system was also a boon to human traffickers. Ending the visa requirement for Mexico was essentially a two-for-one deal. The cartels would fill up their drug mules, fly them to Canada, unload the drugs and then smuggle the people across the U.S. border. After Justin's “all are welcome to Canada” tweet, the RCMP had to set up welcome centres for all humans smuggled across the border at Roxham Road. The additional costs being borne by community organizations on the front lines are directly tied to 11 long years of Liberal policies.”
“For example, when the government decided it would copy the playbook used by opioid makers and flooded our streets with narcotics, it caused harm. Giving out free hydromorphone like candy had the predictable result of creating new drug addicts. This bill would seek to help community organizations impacted by the surge in drug addiction, yet it is the government's harm production policy that is at the root of many of the problems those same organizations are experiencing. Since crime rates peaked in the 1970s, they have been on a steady, 50-year decline. The year that mandatory minimums for gun possession were repealed was the last year we saw a decline in crime. The Liberal government saw those same statistics and proceeded to knowingly repeal mandatory minimum sentences for the very crimes this bill would cover.”
“Defence attorneys would have economists and accountants on speed-dial to contest every expense. (1800) While drug traffickers are having their charges dropped because the cases take too long, the worst thing we could do is add to the delays by passing ill-considered laws. I doubt it is the intention of the member for Sudbury to add further delays to the criminal justice system, but that would be the impact. At best, this bill is useless. At worst, it will help criminals get off scot-free. As I said in the beginning, the motivations seem to be coming from a good place. The member for Sudbury wants to make criminals pay for the harms they cause. I think that is something all Canadians can get behind. There should be some way to connect the harm caused to an organization by the person or people causing the harm.”
“The organization had a long history of ignoring community concerns about the criminal activity centred around a safe consumption site. The organization acted as a magnet for traffickers. An employee of the organization fell in love with a drug trafficker and helped him hide from the police. Measures taken after the fact are not driven by the last criminal acts but are intended to avoid liability for the consequences of any subsequent criminal acts. Proving that a specific criminal act resulted in a specific marginal expense to an organization is so onerous that it likely would never be pursued. If this bill were passed and never used, that would be the best case scenario. If it were used, it could have only one result: It would lengthen the sentencing hearings and further tie up scarce resources in the courts.”
“Any security measures taken after the fact, such as installing a security camera, cannot be attributed to a specific crime. The crime has already happened. The camera cannot undo the crime. It may have been the impetus, but it is not the direct cause. The camera may reduce the likelihood of another crime, but that means it cannot reasonably be assigned to the initial crime. The criminal act would also have to be so unusual or so impactful that it resulted in a permanent degradation of the security environment. While the murder of Karolina would certainly qualify as an example, murder is not on the list of crimes covered by the bill. The South Riverdale Community Health Centre staff were well aware that drug trafficking was occurring outside.”
“We could follow the lead of the Supreme Court and create a hypothetical case to highlight the absurdity, or we could look at the tragic events surrounding the death of Karolina Huebner-Makurat, a 44-year-old mother of two who was killed by a stray bullet on July 7, 2023, while walking near the South Riverdale Community Health Centre in Toronto. The shooting occurred during a fight between drug dealers outside the supervised consumption site located within the health centre. An employee of the health centre aided one of the drug dealers in fleeing the police. If this bill had been law, and if the Crown had brought additional trafficking charges against the killers, the health centre would have been allowed to seek restitution for any strengthened security measures.”
“Given the nature of the work that many of these organizations do, it just might be impossible to disentangle the routine expenses from the marginal expenses resulting from a criminal offence. The bill lists the types of expenses an organization could claim. Not included on the list is the cost of accountants to ascertain the eligible expenses. One example of an expense perfectly highlights the problem with the bill: “expenses to implement or strengthen security measures, including expenses for security services and equipment”. This expense makes no sense, especially since the bill would limit restitution to cases of drug trafficking and human smuggling.”
“Either it would never be used because the legal hurdles are too high, or it would be used but the accumulated costs would outweigh the benefits. My colleagues with actual lived experience in courtrooms explained how the wording of the bill makes it unlikely the bill would be of any use. First, the expenses incurred would have to be directly linked to the criminal offence. A convicted drug trafficker cannot be ordered to pay for all overdose costs. The organization would need to show that the specific individual who overdosed purchased a specific dose from a specific trafficker. Second, the organization would have to prove the marginal cost to treat that overdose. Most organizations get naloxone kits from the provinces for free.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the law-abiding Canadians in the compassionate riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke and speak to Bill C-238 . This private member's bill proposes to allow community organizations to seek restitution for drug crimes or human trafficking crimes. Making criminals pay for the consequences of their crimes has an undeniably popular appeal. The member for Sudbury 's intentions with the bill may be honourable, but they are certainly misguided. It is an overused cliché to say that all good intentions lead to the fiery pits of damnation. Sometimes good intentions just lead to an endless bureaucratic maze. At other times those good intentions lead nowhere at all. Those two options are juxtaposed in the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, during the last election, the member who just spoke accused his Conservative opponent of threatening to cut the public service should his opponent, who is also the leader of the Conservative Party, get elected. The fanner of joyless news actually has more cuts in his riding than would have ever been anticipated any other way. Could he let us know how many more of his constituents are going to be cut from the public service?”
“Mr. Speaker, the pervasiveness of foreign interference is having a profound impact on our elections. It may even be affecting the ultimate outcomes. My question is whether or not it would be considered foreign interference or fraud if individuals who are not citizens of Canada were to cast a ballot. If the member knows, would that be grounds for not granting citizenship or denying it?”
“Now they will reap a gas tax windfall, but Canadians will not see a dime. The bill for these bad Liberal policies will come due, but it is Canadians who will pay the price.”
“Mr. Speaker, higher prices are the official policy of the Liberal Party. The results speak for themselves: 100,000 jobs lost this year, a shrinking economy, the second-highest unemployment in the G7, the highest household debt and the highest food inflation. Canadians cannot eat empty Liberal slogans. Broken promises do not put a roof over Canadians' heads. Spending is out of control. The Brookfield government has already broken its deficit target. The Prime Minister can hide overseas for only so long. Canadians are waking up to the consequences of 11 long years of bad Liberal policy. The government's only solution is more of the same: more corporate welfare for well-connected insiders, more new bureaucracies to slow development, and more recycled announcements and reused talking points.”
“Mr. Speaker, given all the plant closures, not only those that have happened but those to come, the massive layoffs and the anxiety and hardship that go along with that, all the Liberals have to say is, “Well, let them do something else. Let them manufacture defence vehicles.” Even if we could find the companies, even if we could re-skill the workers and retool the plants, I would like to ask the member from Windsor, how realistic is it to have these workers and plants just do something else?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by the law-abiding property owners of Carleton, Kanata, Nepean, Nipissing—Timiskaming and my great riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. The petitioners are raising awareness about the lack of legal protections homeowners and landowners have when they must protect themselves, their property and their families against violent criminals emboldened by a decade of Liberal soft-on-crime policies. They support the Conservatives' stand on guard act, Bill C-270 , which would clarify the legal standards around self-defence and defence of property so that those who are the target of crime would not be punished for fighting back to protect those they cherish.”
“Mr. Speaker, right now, the streets are full of murderers, rapists, thieves, extortionists and gang violence. How would this bill fight what is currently the scourge on our streets? Could the Liberals have not spent this time on jail, not bail, instead of wasting our time by blocking freedom of speech?”
“Mr. Speaker, the questions and the comments from the opposition clearly illustrate why we are opposed to this bill. People who disagree with what we say or our point of view want us to be accused of committing a hate crime. Just saying what we think, even though it is counter to what they think, does not necessarily mean it is an act of hate. We were here when the original hate law was put into place. We were very careful about how we constructed that. The problem is not with the definition of hate. The problem is the enforcement of what is already on the books.”
“Mr. Speaker, there again we heard from someone who does not agree with my seeing a certain bill as overly secular. Instead of just debating the point, the member equated me to the President of the United States.”
“Mr. Speaker, that question illustrated my point. I have a point of view that the member disagrees with, so what does he do? He calls me out as a racist and somebody who is fomenting hate, alleging that we are the ones introducing all these different cultures into Canada.”
“As long as the per capita GDP declines and the government sends an explicit message that access to support or employment is determined by skin colour, we will see more hate. The fact that the minister who broke our immigration system is now in charge of our justice system is scary. He turned our country into a tinderbox and now, with this bill, he wants to play with matches. He claims to care about social cohesion while passing a bill that acts like a solvent. He is pouring turpentine on the glue that holds the country together and the thread that binds us, which is that every Canadian is equal under the law.”
“All that is left is to remove the very safeguards that make any hate speech law workable under the charter. By removing these safeguards, all it might take is an overzealous Crown attorney to bring a case so egregious that the entire hate speech law is deemed unconstitutional. This is not something anyone should want. We want a robust culture of free speech and debate. We can draw the line at Klan burning rallies, tiki torch goose-stepping marches and Hamas rallies in Jewish communities. By taking away the safeguards which allow us to distinguish clear-cut cases of hate from overwrought claims by woke warriors, the Liberals risk our ability to make those distinctions. For them, it might not be a bug, but a feature. As long as it serves their political interest to equate any opposition to Liberal rule with hate, we will see more hate.”
“As the minister who flip-flopped on spending time with his family when the polls improved, I think we can place him in the ideologically free camp. This is how he could cut a deal with the radical secularists who want an independent Quebec, free of anyone wearing a crucifix or a hijab. He is cutting this deal while asking the Supreme Court to kill Quebec's secularism law by editing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include an asterisk beside section 35. He has twisted any principles he had into a pretzel to pass this bill, and for what? The bill duplicates existing law. It is already a criminal offence to disrupt or obstruct a religious service. Giving a concurrent sentence for a hate-motivated crime is literally just a virtue signal. Nobody will spend an extra day in prison.”
“This is why granola-crunching, Birkenstock-wearing, anti-vax hippies were rebranded as far right insurgents. This is why any criticism of the World Economic Forum gets one labelled an anti-Semite. This is why they will fine people $750,000 for not believing a man in a dress is actually a woman. That is why Bill C-9 now removes the religious text defence. The new race socialists cannot win the debate using facts or logic, so they seek to silence all opposition. I mentioned two types of Liberals. There are those who are cowed into silently supporting an illiberal agenda, and then there are the ideologically free mercenaries. Earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Justice why hate crimes surged under the Liberal government. His only answer was to claim it was outrageous to hold a government accountable for its policies.”
“Rapists and hit men are walking out of court scot-free, but Liberals want preachers and rabbis to watch what they say. This is not some hypothetical concern. Earlier, I spoke about how the Liberals used tax dollars to build an activist network. One group funded by this network is the anti-Canadian hate network. These activists mix reporting on dangerous neo-Nazi groups with reporting on a pro-life group in my riding. They do not even pretend to report on anything that is hate-related. Their last post targeting my constituents was about a board of directors' dispute. This is a government-funded attempt to shut down the scope of debate. The goal is to expand the list of topics that are off limits for debate in a tolerant, small “l” liberal democracy. This is why they equate opposition to socialist climate policies with Holocaust denialism.”
“If we check the official record, we will see they only started calling us evil, immoral supervillains once they brought a self-described “proud socialist” into their caucus. This type of rhetoric has just one purpose: to spread hate against their political opponents. Now they want to team up with the separatists to further tear Canada apart by scaring people into silence. Removing the religious text exemption to the hate laws has just one purpose: to instill fear. (1610) This narrow legal defence has never been used. It is not the obstacle to enforcing the hate laws. The only reason to remove it is to make it even easier for the radical socialists to attack and silence those Canadians they see as enemies standing in the way of their utopian fantasy.”
“The first is, “The opposition party has no plan other than to let the planet burn.” The second is, “Their only answer to climate change is to ignore it and to let the planet burn. This is immoral.” The third is, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” The fourth is, “They are going to let the planet burn, and they are going to force us to pay for it.” The fifth is, “They can enjoy their 10 hours in the car and let the planet burn.” Four of those quotes are from the mouths of Liberal members in the last Parliament. One is from a Batman movie. It is not enough for the Liberals to say they disagree with our approach to lowering emissions globally by exporting more natural gas to replace coal. No. They have to paint us as supervillains from a comic book, bent on global destruction.”
“The Crowns claim they cannot bring cases which do not have a reasonable chance of conviction. The reason they cannot get a judge to convict a masked thug marching with the Hamas flag is that the Liberals have spent 10 years appointing judges who are committed only to upholding the racial, socialist ideology that treats criminals as marginalized victims of a racist society. The Liberals thought they could exploit the woke, but once they brought this ideology inside, it spread throughout their party. It has changed them. Under Chrétien and Martin, the Liberals were divided between red and blue, left and centre, and then Trudeau swept in and kicked out the old guard. The character of the Liberal Party changed. It adopted a pinko hue. We need only look at the rhetoric of the Liberals over the last decade. Here are five quotes.”
“They would fund this ideology to build an activist network they could harness and attack their political opponents with. They hired these activists to build ideological enforcement units throughout the public service. That is how we ended up with a lunatic and anti-Semite getting a federal contract to provide diversity training. Now they are being hoisted on their own racist petard. They have lost the ability to condemn and call out regular hate marches through neighbourhoods where Jewish Canadians live. They claim this bill is intended to stop the hate marches. We already have the laws we need to do that. Ontario's minister of justice wrote to the police and told them to enforce the law. The police responded by saying when they do, the Crown prosecutors drop the charges.”
“Hate became less common in Canada, and then 10 years ago, a radical ideology broke free from the confines of socialist echo chambers and spread across the Internet like a virus. This ideology has worn many labels, such as wokeness, cultural Marxism and American critical race theory. The most accurate description is illiberal progressivism. Really, it is just another form of socialism that devalues the individual and valorizes a social group. This ideology demands that we treat people differently under the law, based on their race, gender or religion. Its adherents hijacked our culture's aversion to intolerance and declared that anyone who disagreed with the ideology was a racist and a hateful bigot. This cowed many progressive Liberals into silence. For the more ideologically free mercenaries in the Liberal Party, this was an opportunity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the kind-hearted, loving people who cannot be censored from Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-9 , an act to fuel hate. The Liberals claim that their motivation is to combat hate. The hate Canadians have witnessed in our streets is real. The Liberal commitment to fighting it is fake. Canada was stitched together by people of different faiths, speaking different languages. We have been a country of diversity and inclusion ever since Sir John A. Macdonald began the decolonization of British North America. Our forebears did this with a single thread that ties us together: Every person is equal under the law. That promise was not realized immediately for everyone, but over time, we strengthened our social fabric to protect everyone's right to be treated equally under the law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by the freedom-loving Canadians from my riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. They are concerned over the Liberal government's decision to sign Canada on to the WHO's pandemic agreement that was agreed upon last May, right after Canadians voted in the last election. This legally binding treaty will give unprecedented powers to the unaccountable, unelected UN bureaucrats controlled by Communist China over the authorities and laws passed by our Parliament, elected by Canadians. The health-conscious petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to immediately and unilaterally withdraw from the WHO's pandemic agreement.”
“Madam Speaker, getting back to trade agreements, one of the trade agreements that we are looking at now is with the trans-Pacific one, but what concerns Canadians is the strategic partnership with China and allowing Chinese-owned companies to export 49,000 electric vehicles to start. There is a reason Canadians, and especially government workers, are concerned about TikTok. A Chinese-owned electric vehicle has far more security concerns than even TikTok. The Liberals should wake up. Does the Prime Minister not have his security clearance so he can get the NSA advisories?”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the question, although I am very disappointed in the member across the way, and he knows why. However, he can make it up to me by taking me to lunch at Odi's Kingburger in Renfrew, where we do not have to ask, “Where's the beef?”, like we do in Bill C-13 .”