Pierre Poilievre
Battle River—Crowfoot, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, for over a century and a half, Canadians took for granted that when people came here from around the world, they left their problems behind.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot in communities like Amisk, Hardisty, Hughenden, Czar, Metiskow and Lougheed and the MDs of Wainwright, Provost and Flagstaff, who have all raised significant concerns about problems with cellphone coverage and data service, adding to already limited connectivity in…”
“Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member what we are for. We are for an affordable Canada, a Canada with growing paycheques and safer streets, which is the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister has delivered. This is his record: Count them; there have been five consecutive quarters of declining investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, do people know why the Prime Minister cannot stand to answer a question in the House of Commons? It is because he has been wrong about every single economic issue of the last decade. He was wrong to push bigger and broader carbon taxes. He was wrong to say that we should keep half our oil in the ground.”
“Mr. Speaker, no, we do not plan for a restful summer. We plan to fight all summer long against the Liberal recession, Liberal inflation, the rising Liberal cost of living and the rising Liberal crime crisis in our streets. Let us take, for example, investment. The Liberal Prime Minister promised he would increase it.”
“Mr. Speaker, at least the Liberals listened for once. I explained to them that houses are built by plumbers, electricians and carpenters, and the members stood up and said that the building trades build homes. We know who builds homes, but do we know who blocks homes? The Liberals block homes.”
The complete record
Every one of 972 lines we hold for Pierre Poilievre, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 20.
“Madam Chair, the Prime Minister famously promised during the election that he would negotiate a win with the U.S. President and get a deal by July 21. Here we are in December, months after his self-imposed deadline, and there is still no win, still no deal, still no elbows and still no jobs. Since he became Prime Minister and promised an end to U.S. tariffs, they have actually doubled on autos, aluminum and steel, and they have tripled on Canadian lumber, a subject about which the member for Cariboo—Prince George will be speaking as I split my time with him. That brings the tariff to 45% on Canadian lumber, the highest in Canadian history.”
“Citizenship in Canada must have restored value, and that value starts with respecting the safety and the security of every Canadian and the rule of law in our land.”
“They come, often fleeing violence and danger, but when they arrive here, they do not expect to be victimized by criminals who then use loopholes in order to stay in Canada and avoid penalty under the law. As Conservatives, we believe that Canada can once again be a safe place where all people feel that they live in peace and harmony, where their property and their persons are protected, where everyone is equal under the law, where people are held accountable for their behaviour and where, most of all, Canadian law becomes paramount and anyone who comes here understands that following the law is the basic responsibility that is necessary to graduate from visitor to temporary resident, permanent resident and, eventually, citizen.”
“They have the right to know that when they walk out the front door, they will not be harmed. They should also have the right to valued citizenship. We do not give away citizenship to anyone who comes here and breaks our laws. Arriving here as an immigrant means that there is a certain degree of responsibility, just as there is for those who are born here. Those responsibilities include following the laws, respecting others and protecting the safety of fellow Canadians and newcomers to this country. We believe in a system of controlled, merit-based immigration, in which we welcome people who want to join the Canadian family, work hard, succeed and build a better life. The vast majority of immigrants seek exactly that.”
“We welcome law-abiding, hard-working Canadian immigrants, people who want to come and productively build our country while following our laws. We do not welcome people who want to come here and commit crimes. That is why I am very pleased that the member for Calgary Nose Hill has introduced the bill which I rise to speak to today, Bill C-220 , an act to amend the Criminal Code, which would prohibit judges from lowering sentences or penalties on the basis of immigration status. We have one law. It should apply to every person equally. A person who does the crime should do the time, and if that makes them ineligible to stay in Canada, then they must leave, full stop. That is just the reality. Canadians have the right to live in peace and tranquility.”
“In part, this was because of his immigration status. (1850) Again, on October 2, a judge reduced the sentence of Aswin Sajeevan, who was here on a study visa, to just five and a half months in jail because a sentence of six months would have made him inadmissible to Canada on grounds of serious criminality. According to an article, the judge specifically weighed the “immigration consequences” for the former international student, who spied on his female housemates through a peephole in the bathroom wall; he made videos recording the four of them in various stages of undress over a period of six months. We see example after example in which judges are specifically lowering the sentences of non-Canadian citizens in order to allow them to stay in Canada.”
“On July 22, 2025, a Canadian judge hit the brakes on a guilty plea from a non-citizen linked to a homicide and facing serious criminal charges, citing discomfort with the fact that the accused would likely be deported if found guilty. Victor Bueron, a 22-year-old Filipino national, was set to plead guilty on multiple charges stemming from a high-risk takedown by Barrie Police earlier this year. He was arrested on January 17, along with several co-accused, after officers stopped a vehicle in a north end plaza and allegedly found drugs and firearms. His sentence was reduced to preserve citizenship possibility. In October 2025, Roosevelt Rush, a Jamaican national convicted of smuggling 55 grams of cocaine while already on bail, had his sentence slashed in half to just 12 months from what would have been a proportionate due sentence.”
“In 2024, a 25-year-old non-citizen, originally in Canada on a study permit and then a visitor permit, sexually assaulted an 18-year-old at a club in Calgary. Despite being found guilty, the court, led by Justice Anne Brown, took into account that he would be deported without appeal if the charge was one of sexual assault. Therefore, the court decided to discharge him and subject him to 15 months of probation. If he had been a Canadian, he would have been convicted of sexual assault and actually gone to jail, but as a privilege for being here as a non-citizen non-Canadian, he had his sentence reduced to no jail time and therefore was allowed to stay in this country.”
“In the Pham decision, a key matter was that the sentence had to be reduced in order to allow the defendant to stay in the country. In 2023, in another case, a 30-year-old man, Akashkumar Khant, tried to have sex with a 15-year-old at a Mississauga hotel for $140. He received only a conditional sentence because a stronger penalty would have hindered his and his wife's ability to obtain Canadian citizenship. On June 25, Khant was sentenced to a conditional discharge for committing an indecent act. For three months, he was placed under house arrest, during which time he was able to go shopping for three hours every Sunday, attend religious services and medical appointments, and travel to and from work, with 12 months of probation afterward. In other words, his sentence was specifically reduced so that he could stay in Canada.”
“Furthermore, our legal system now discriminates against Canadians and in favour of non-Canadian, non-citizen criminals who are here, in fact, lowering the sentences they receive for convictions in order to allow them to stay. This is an unbelievable perversion of justice that does exactly the opposite of what we should seek. It should be a stated policy of our system to get criminals out of Canada. If someone is not a citizen, not a Canadian and commits a crime, then they should be shown the door because becoming a citizen of this country requires good, law-abiding behaviour that will protect the well-being and the interests of this country. I will read through some examples of the kind of backward thinking that has pervaded our system.”
“Mr. Speaker, 10 years of radical open borders policies and mass migration have undermined confidence in what was the best system of immigration anywhere in the world. The Liberals imposed this radical approach without any care, consideration or thought for the strains it would place on our housing, health care and job market. The result is chaos in our streets. Nowhere is this problem more acute than in the area of lawlessness and criminality that the Liberals have invited through the system. They have allowed people to come to this country and get visitor visas and other permits to enter Canada without actually performing any criminal background checks. To this day, there are 400 criminals who have since been ordered deported but have not left and have vanished completely into Canadian society.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not us who questioned the loyalty of the Prime Minister . He is the one who is blocking a pipeline that would allow Canada to become energy-independent and reach markets outside of Canada, while he and his company invest in pipelines in the Middle East and Latin America. He is the one who forces Canadians to spend more on taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined, while he stashes his cash in a Bermuda tax haven above a bicycle shop. If he wants to say that he is Canada first, why does he not stand up in this House and start acting like it?”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister hides under his desk, he puts up his House leader to rant and rave and pump his fists in the air. The Prime Minister said that we faced an existential crisis requiring that we act with unimaginable speed, and here we are, eight months later, and he does not even have the courage to tell Canadians whether he supports a pipeline that would allow us to go around the American monopoly of our energy and get our product to the world. Will he finally stand up for workers, stand up in this House and answer the question: a pipeline or a pipe dream?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not respect the idea of standing in the way of Canadian energy workers and giving our oil to the Americans at a discount. What we would do is get the government out of the way and get the project built. The Prime Minister has the unique constitutional opportunity to do that. Subsection 92.10 of the BNA Act makes it exclusively a federal decision. This Prime Minister is hiding under his desk rather than answering the question. Eight months after promising that he would take unprecedented action with unimaginable speed, he has done nothing. Why does he not get out of the way?”
“Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Prime Minister . He is here in Ottawa today. He has the ability to stand up and state his position. He claimed that he was going to act with unimaginable speed. Here we are, eight months later, and he refuses to state whether he even supports a new oil pipeline and whether he would like to continue to pump oil at a discount to the United States of America while Canadians pay the price. What does it take to get a pipeline approved by the Prime Minister ? Does it have to be a Brookfield pipeline?”
“Mr. Speaker, it really is pathetic that the Prime Minister cannot stand in his place and defend his position. He is afraid to defend the fact that on Thursday, he will not sign on to a new pipeline. He will sign on to a public relations stunt while planning to hide behind the Premier of B.C. and abdicate his unique constitutional responsibilities. If he wanted a pipeline, if he no longer believed in the keep-it-in-the-ground extremist ideology he supported for 10 years, he would stand up today and say that he will approve a pipe to the Pacific. Will he—”
“Mr. Speaker, it really is embarrassing that a Prime Minister who claimed that he was the man with the plan cannot even stand up and debate me about pipelines on the floor of the House of Commons. He is afraid. The previous Conservative government approved a pipeline to tidewater, the Northern Gateway pipeline, which the Liberals then defeated and destroyed, giving massive power to the Americans to monopolize our oil. Will the Prime Minister , who promised to act with unimaginable speed eight months ago, finally stand up for Canadian workers and confirm that he will approve a pipe—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has apparently not read our Constitution, which indicates that the federal government alone has jurisdiction over pipelines that cross borders. Let me quote subsection 92(10), which says that federal jurisdiction applies to “Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other...or extending beyond the Limits of the Province”. In other words, it is exclusively the federal government's decision whether to approve a pipeline. It was the federal government that blocked the last pipeline. Can he confirm once and for all, is he deciding, unilaterally, to give veto to the NDP B.C. premier, to block a project that Canada needs?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister arrived just a few days after Brookfield's CEO, lining up with the same interests that are not Canadian interests. Speaking of Canadian interests, the Prime Minister opposed the pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific, just as his Liberal predecessor blocked that same pipeline. On Thursday, he will make one of his grand announcements, waving around a meaningless so-called memorandum of understanding. If it is anything other than a public relations ploy, why will he not say on what date the construction will begin on a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific?”
“Mr. Speaker, while Chinese, American, Indian and other tariffs have only gone up since the Prime Minister began his 28-trip journey around the world, he has not had a single, solitary win. In fact, the only wins he has had are for Brookfield. Just days after he met with the President, Trump signed on to $80 billion of nuclear purchases from Brookfield, and then he gave $500 million of our tax money to the European Space Agency, located on Brookfield's campus. Why is it that whenever the Prime Minister spends his time and our money, Canadians end up poorer and he and Brookfield end up richer?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did make a mistake. He has made many mistakes. In fact, it has been nothing but mistakes when it comes to trade. Let us look at it. The Prime Minister promised that he would negotiate a win on softwood lumber. Now he says, “Who cares?” Well, Conservatives care. Within 80 days of former prime minister Stephen Harper taking office, he managed to eliminate American tariffs on softwood lumber and get refunds for them. The current Prime Minister has now had eight months, and those tariffs have now more than tripled. The Prime Minister asks, “Who cares?” I can say, on behalf of all the MPs on this side, we care about the jobs that are being lost in lumber towns. Why does he not?”
“Mr. Speaker, before the election, the Prime Minister promised elbows up. After, it was, “Who cares?” Before the election, the Prime Minister said the tariffs were an existential crisis. Now he says they are not a burning issue. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win. After, he backed down to American tariffs. Those tariffs have now doubled on Canadian aluminum, autos and steel and tripled on Canadian lumber. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. After, he delivered the fastest-shrinking economy. Why is the Prime Minister before the election so different from the one after?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister was elected, promising to negotiate a win with the U.S., American tariffs on autos, aluminum and steel have doubled, and on Canadian lumber, they have tripled. Not a single American tariff has been reduced since he promised he would reduce them. Now he says, “Who cares?” I care about the 3,000 auto workers that I met on the picket line in Brampton who are out of a job. I care about the eight mills that have closed because the Prime Minister failed to deliver a deal. The workers on those lines, they care. Canadians care. Why does the Prime Minister not care?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his 28 trips, the Prime Minister has failed to reduce a single foreign tariff imposed on Canadians, but he has made gains for Brookfield. A few days after the Prime Minister's meeting with President Trump, the President signed an agreement to buy 80 billion dollars' worth of nuclear products from Brookfield. The Prime Minister is now spending $500 million on Europe's space program, which is located on Brookfield's campus. Every time the Prime Minister travels, Canadians get poorer and Brookfield, his company, gets richer. Why?”
“These are not mere political disputes or regional unrest; they are examples of calculated violence against innocent people because of their Christian faith. It represents a grave violation of human rights and basic individual dignity. Our belief in the inherent worth of every person means we must take action. Canada must stand with the people who suffer, speak out against these atrocities and press the international community to act. Freedom of worship, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are non-negotiable; these are core Canadian and universal values. Millions of people face persecution around the world, and no group more than Christians. Mr. Speaker, we ask that you recognize this genocide, stand with us today, and allow an emergency debate so that we may be the voice of the voiceless.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to seek an emergency debate on the genocide being carried out against Nigerian Christians. One of the worst mass kidnappings ever reported in Nigeria occurred on Friday, in which more than 300 schoolchildren were abducted from St. Mary's Private Catholic Secondary School after an attack by armed men. Since Boko Haram launched its insurgency in 2009, the impact on Christian communities has been devastating. Millions of people have been driven from their homes, hundreds have lost their lives in targeted violence, entire villages have been wiped out, families have been torn apart, children have been forced to abandon their faith, and communities have been left in ruin. Terrorist groups like Boko Haram, Fulani militias and ISWAP continue to carry out these brutal attacks with alarming precision.”
“Mr. Speaker, he said, “and negotiate a deal with the United States.” He repeats the same promise that the Prime Minister has been breaking for the last eight months. He said he would have a deal by July 21; there is no deal. He said he would negotiate a win; there is no win. He said he would not back down; all he has done is back down. He said he would be elbows up; his elbows are missing. Now when he is asked about the fate of the thousands of jobs that rely on him keeping his word, he says, “Who cares?” Is it not clear by now that just days after he met the President, only Brookfield got the $80-billion deal? Is that what he meant when he promised he would negotiate a win? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who said, “Who cares?” when he was asked over the weekend about the failure to keep his promises on trade. Since he took office, not only has he failed to get the promised deal, but American tariffs on aluminum, autos and steel have doubled. On forestry communities, they have tripled. The Prime Minister says, “Who cares?” All of us on this side of the House care about the communities that are being emptied out, like those in forestry and the steelworkers in Hamilton who do not have jobs to pay their mortgages. We care about those people. Why does he not?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister already apologized to President Trump. It was one of the many areas where he backed down and capitulated after claiming that he would be elbows up. He promised he would have a deal by July 21; there was no deal. He promised to negotiate a win; there were no wins. He promised elbows up; elbows are gone. Now when he is asked about the state of the talks, he says, “Who cares?” Why should he care? Days after he met with the President, Brookfield got an $80-billion contract with the White House. Is that really what he cares about? Does he not care about the hard-working Canadians who are counting on him to keep his promise?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed during the last election that U.S. tariffs were an existential crisis requiring that he immediately be elected to negotiate a win and get a deal by July 21. Well, a few days ago, he was asked about the state of those negotiations, and he said there are no issues of importance to discuss. In fact, he said, “Who cares?” We care. We care about the workers who have lost their jobs and do not have paycheques to make their mortgage payments. Why does he not care?”
“Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Prime Minister . Yesterday, he was asked a question about workers' jobs in the forestry, aluminum, steel and other sectors. These workers are suffering because of the Prime Minister's failures at the bargaining table and his broken promises. He replied: [ English ] “Who cares?” [ Translation ] Why does the Prime Minister not care that people in Beauce, Saguenay and elsewhere in Canada are losing their jobs because of his failures? Why did he say: [ English ] “Who cares?””
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister got elected by claiming that the U.S. tariffs were an existential threat for Canada. However, this weekend, journalists asked him whether talks were ongoing. He said that there are no issues of importance to discuss. In fact, he said, “Who cares?” He does not care. He does not care about aluminum workers and forestry workers. Is that really his message to the workers in Quebec hit hard by the tariffs: who cares?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are hoping the Prime Minister will announce he was wrong and that the Liberal government was wrong to kill the northern gateway pipeline that had been approved back in 2014. Nine years have since been lost after the Liberal government blocked it. However, it also put in a ban on shipping Canadian energy off the northwest coast of B.C., so if there is a pipeline while the Liberal ban remains in place, it would have to be a pipeline to nowhere. Will the Prime Minister admit the Liberal government was wrong to ban Canadian energy shipping, and will he scrap the ban so we can pipe our product over to Asia?”
“Mr. Speaker, all that adds up to not a single tariff reduced in the Prime Minister 's eight months of travelling the globe. Now let us move on to his costly agenda on pipelines. In June 2014, the Conservative government approved a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific. On November 29, 2016, the Liberal government cancelled that pipeline, ordering the energy board to dismiss it. On March 27, 2021, the current Liberal Prime Minister said that he supported cancelling the pipeline. Will the Prime Minister admit he was wrong, that his Liberal government was wrong and that Conservatives were right? We need a pipe to the Pacific now.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is beginning another costly photo op tour. It is time to start asking for the results of the more than 20 international trips and the 150,000 kilometres, which are enough to circle the globe four times. It would be great if he were actually getting something done. When he met with the Americans, they doubled tariffs on our products. He met with the Chinese and they hit us with new tariffs on our farmers and fish harvesters. He met with the Indians and they hit us with new tariffs on Canadian peas. The British are still blocking our beef. Can the Prime Minister give us even one example of a tariff his international meetings have succeeded in reducing?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying the price for the Prime Minister through record-high grocery and housing cost inflation, but he wants them to pay even more. He has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. It is the biggest deficit in Canadian history outside of COVID and $16 billion bigger than he promised. He shattered his other promise to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. The bureaucracy is taking the lion's share, which is 80% more costly than when the Liberals took office. The Liberal House leader said just yesterday there will be only minimal reductions in the bureaucracy. Why must starving Canadians pay to feed the bureaucracy, rather than to feed their families?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is beginning another photo op tour. It is time to start asking for the results of his more than 20 international trips, covering 150,000 kilometres, enough to circle the globe four times. What happened during all those meetings? U.S. tariffs have doubled. India has imposed tariffs on our peas. China has imposed tariffs on the products of our farmers and fishers. It would be better for our economy if the Prime Minister hid under a rock instead of attending another meeting. Can the minister give us even one example of a tariff that the Prime Minister has succeeded in reducing?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying the price for this Prime Minister through record-high grocery and housing prices, but he wants them to pay even more. He has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, the biggest deficit in Canadian history outside of the pandemic years. It is $16 billion bigger than he promised during the election campaign. Why? It is to fund a bureaucracy that has grown by 80% since the Liberals took office. Now, the government House leader is saying that there will be only minimal reductions in the bureaucracy. Why must Canadians pay to feed the bureaucracy, rather than feeding their families?”
“Mr. Speaker, with the Prime Minister billing millions of dollars for his high-flying trips around the world, 28 trips and 150,000 kilometres, now is the time for a scorecard. The Americans have increased tariffs on Canadian autos, aluminum, steel and lumber. The Indians have increased tariffs on our peas. The Chinese increased them on our farmers and our fish harvesters. Now, allow me to introduce a comprehensive list of all the tariffs the Prime Minister has successfully had reduced on Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, what are Canadians getting for the 28 trips, the 150,000 kilometres, which is enough to circle the world four times, that the Prime Minister has billed back to Canadians? He met with the Americans, and they doubled tariffs on our steel, aluminum and autos, and tripled them on our forestry. He met with the Chinese, who increased tariffs on our farmers and fish harvesters. He met with the Indians, and they increased tariffs on Canadian peas. He met with the Brits, and they are keeping their blockade on our beef. Why is it that whenever the Prime Minister gets on a plane, Canadians end up paying more tariffs abroad?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody has been able to cram that many slogans into one answer, and this is coming from me. Let us take housing. The minister says they are spending billions of dollars more on housing. The results are out today, and housing starts are down 17% year over year. Where we need the most, in Toronto, they are down 42% year over year. In Vancouver they are down 36% year over year. In Ontario they are down 35%, and in B.C. they are down 22%. Why is it that the more the Liberals spend, the less we can build?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are cash-strapped and needed a break. Instead, the Prime Minister gave them the costliest budget in Canadian history and put it all on the national credit card. The Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the Prime Minister doubled Trudeau's deficits, added $16 billion more to the debt than he promised and is increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio, breaking another promise. The $78 billion of additional debt works out to about five grand for every single cash-strapped family in this country. How does the Prime Minister expect single moms, seniors and small business people who cannot pay their bills to pay another five grand for his inflation?”
“Mr. Speaker, what are Canadians getting for the 150,000 kilometres this Prime Minister has travelled? That is the equivalent of circling the globe four times. He met with the Americans, and they doubled tariffs on our steel, aluminum and vehicles. He met with Indian officials, and they increased tariffs on our peas. He met with the Chinese, and they also increased tariffs on our farmers and fish harvesters. Why is it that whenever the Prime Minister gets on a plane to meet with foreign leaders, Canadians have to pay even higher tariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians needed an affordable budget for an affordable life. They can no longer pay their bills or buy groceries, yet the Prime Minister 's latest budget has saddled them with more inflation. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this is the largest deficit in the country's history other than during the pandemic. It is twice as big as Justin Trudeau's deficit. It is $16 billion more than the Prime Minister promised during the election. He broke his promise to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. The deficit is $78 billion, which is $5,000, plus inflation, for every single family. How are families supposed to pay another $5,000 for a costly budget?”
“We need mandatory jail time to lock extortionists up and throw away the key; stronger borders to keep and kick extortionists out of our country; and a clear self-defence law so that people can protect themselves in their homes when invaded by extortionists or other burglars. This is an emergency. We have the answer. Let us restore safety, tranquility and peace to our streets.”
“If we look at these facts and look at the numbers, we have no choice but to conclude that we have a Liberal extortion emergency in this country. People are living in terror, and it is a shame that the Liberals have allowed this crisis to form and grow. It is a shame that the very communities that have vested support in the Liberal Party are now the ones paying the biggest price for the violence and carnage that Liberal policies have unleashed. We as Conservatives will state clearly that extortion is a crisis after 10 years of the Liberals. We need an emergency debate to address this extortion crisis, and we must enact a serious plan to end extortion so Canadian small business owners can go back to living their lives, creating jobs, serving customers and making life affordable again for this country. Our plan is very clear.”
“They lie awake at night wondering if a bullet will fly through their children's front window or if they will be gunned down when they walk out the door. This crisis was entirely avoidable, but Liberal policies have provoked it. The Liberals have released extortionists onto the streets with lower prison sentences. They have brought foreign gangsters and criminals to our shores by granting visitor visas and opening up our country to terror. After much pressure from Conservatives, they finally agreed to ban the Bishnoi group, but it was too late. They let the Bishnoi gangsters into this country in the first place because they do not protect our borders, and their radical policies on immigration have endangered many of the very people who came here lawfully and legitimately.”
“Catch-and-release laws passed by the Liberal government under Bill C-5 , which lowered the jail sentence for extortion with a gun, have caused an extortion crisis across this country. To put it in perspective, since the Liberal government took office, extortion is up 330%. In British Columbia, it is up 400%. In the Lower Mainland, it is up 500%. Countless families have received threatening phone calls. Just the other day, I met with the sons of a lifelong successful businessman who was mercilessly killed by gangsters without any provocation. People are living in terror in places like Surrey, northeast Calgary, parts of Edmonton, Brampton, Windsor and elsewhere. Over the weekend, I attended events at numerous businesses where literally dozens of people told me they have personally received threatening phone calls.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us say someone mortgaged their house and took risks. They stayed up late wondering how they would pay the bills. Finally, after all that, they have success: a wonderful business with 30 to 50 people that is growing every day. Then suddenly the phone rings, and on the other end of the line, someone is threatening that if they do not pay millions of dollars to a gang, their house will be burned down, their children's bedroom will be shot up in the middle of the night or their employees may be killed. That sounds like an extreme case, but it has now become the norm. Radical open door and open border policies by the Liberals have allowed gangsters to visit this country and gain visitor visas, which are granted to them without any criminal background checks.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was right by Surrey the other day, handing out tax dollars and doughnuts in a photo op, but he refused to take questions on the 330% increase in extortion that Liberals caused with soft-on-crime laws and open border policies. They have allowed extortionists out of prison by eliminating mandatory prison sentences, and they have allowed foreign gangsters to have visitor visas and kill our people in the streets. Why is it that the Prime Minister had time, when he was near Surrey, to hand out doughnuts but not to stand up and protect Canadians against extortion?”