Marilyn Gladu
Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about affordability measures and the major ongoing projects. Could he perhaps speak to the government's responsiveness to the tariff threat that faces us in the section 232 tariff response, the aluminum tariff response, etc.?”
“Not only has our government provided relief to get them through, such as $1 billion from the BDC and another $500 million in tariff relief funds, which were responsibly brought to the table when these tariffs arrived, but we are also seeing that people can pivot into the defence industry.”
“As members may know, one of the apprentices we met actually won a gold medal in Ontario for the welding competition and is on his way to nationals, so I send a shout‑out to Ryan Beattie for that. Making sure that our young people have well‑paying jobs is just one of the things we need to do.”
“I do not know if members saw the announcement from the Prime Minister yesterday about food security and a huge investment of $3 billion to try to make sure that we can get food prices down and that we can produce more of our food supply domestically and become less dependent on others in the world.”
“This is really good news, because for a while, foreign investment was fleeing the country, so to have it returning, as well as to have the highest investment per capita, is another positive indicator. I am personally quite proud of the Prime Minister 's efforts to diversify our trade.”
“In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, we had a very tragic incident happen recently at Lambton College, where an innocent student, Dane Nisbet, was shot by someone who has been involved in crime previously, and he died. He was 20 years old. People in my community are outraged now because the perpetrator has been let out on bail.”
The complete record
Every one of 293 lines we hold for Marilyn Gladu, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, I asked a question earlier pointing out that with all the other problems in the immigration system, including 150,000 frauds, three million people who are supposed to exit the country but are here, and 33,000 criminals whom the government cannot find, the government should put its priorities somewhere else. I think the member may have something to contribute to that comment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have say to the member opposite that I am disappointed that, with all the significant changes on immigration, the immigration minister is not the one giving the speech. However, the parliamentary secretary is known for being here most of the day and for always giving a speech, so that is that. There are so many issues with immigration in the country. We have heard especially about the issue of the 150,000 fraud cases that were not properly identified and a lot of excesses, such as the three million people who are supposed to leave and have no plans to leave. Can the member expound on what the government is doing to address the concerns that have been raised?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Emergencies Act has been ruled unlawful by the courts twice. The Liberals violated the charter rights of Canadians by freezing their bank accounts when the threat of a national security threshold was never met. They have wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and now they are appealing this court decision for a third time. With an affordability crisis and a jobs crisis, will the Liberals quit wasting taxpayer monies on something that the courts have twice ruled is unlawful?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do know a bit about the automotive industry. I was part of the automotive industry when it North Americanized. I was in charge of Dow automotive's 58 plants across the globe. I have heard a lot of criticism from the Liberal benches today about our plan to create automotive job growth here in Canada, but it has been crickets about any plan on their side to create growth. Could they elaborate?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has been a devout defender of faith. Is she aware that there are current Liberal MPs sitting on the benches who think I should be in prison for quoting scriptures as a youth leader and that they have scheduled a vote during the national prayer dinner?”
“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that trade deals are important. Sometimes we do not get the benefit we think we will get because the work in the details is not done to make sure our specifications, if they are different from our trading partners', are harmonized. I am interested in the agreement that exists. Does the member have information about how much trade has increased since we got the deal and how much we expect to get as we add the U.K. and Northern Ireland to it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech. There is a very important issue, and we have an opportunity to correct this situation. U.K. citizens who receive a pension and live in Canada do not receive the annual cost-of-living increase. In the U.S. and the U.K., they receive this increase, but not here. Is there a possibility of adding that to this agreement?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. There really are a lot of agreements, but no effort has been made to harmonize the specifications. Right now, we cannot send our meat to the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom can send its meat here. That is not good. Would my colleague care to comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to Bill C-225 , an act to amend the Criminal Code. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments. A woman is killed by femicide every 48 hours in this country. The bill would go a long way to making the punishment fit the crime. We have aptly named it “Bailey's Law”, after the tragedy that happened to Bailey McCourt. I thank all members of the committee and all members of each party for supporting the bill and seeing it move forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has worked so hard on this file, for that question. I do not know how the government can deny that 30 million people of faith in this country have concerns about this when the Catholic diocese, the Anglican Church, the Evangelical Fellowship and the Muslim council wrote to the Prime Minister . Everyone wrote to the Prime Minister and expressed concern about that, and the government has turned a deaf ear to the situation, unfortunately. That is why we are here today. That is why we will continue to fight this removal of the religious exemption from the hate speech act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. [ English ] The religions we have in Canada are religions of love, not religions of hate. We do not see, for example, the Christian church trying to hate on people. We do not see the Jewish church trying to hate on people. That is not at all what it means to have faith in this country. The freedom is to have that faith, even if other people find what one says offensive. Being offended is not a charter right, but freedom of religion and freedom of expression are.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the bill was originally published, I had only two concerns about the bill. The first was the dilution of the definition of hate speech. The second was the removal of the oversight of the Attorney General over hate speech cases. That was put in place to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Fortunately, the Conservatives brought an amendment to fix that one in the bill and restore the oversight of the Attorney General. It was not until this Bloc-Liberal amendment to remove the protections on religious freedoms was talked about that everything started to fall apart for the government. If it wants to see this move forward, it needs to split the bill so that we can move forward with what we agree will actually help people.”
“Ultimately, I think we are going to have to have more debate on this, and if we do not have it now, then it will be part of this justice system punishment on the first person who goes to prison, and I hope it is not me. A guy in B.C. was just charged $750,000 for saying there are two genders. He has every right to express his opinion, and probably when it is appealed, after years and years, they will say that yes, absolutely, he does have that right, but the punishment and the financial penalties will chill free speech and freedom of religion in this country. Finally, in summary, the Conservatives are willing to work across the aisle. We said we would split the bill and put forward the parts that we all agree on to try to get some extra protection and some extra tools for the police.”
“I have no idea why 30 million people who are represented by faiths across the country say they do not trust the government and believe that what it is going to do is allow people to imprison folks who quote scriptures or express views that are offensive to people. We know that because Bill C-9 would dilute the definition of hate. Why would the government change the definition to make it less? That is a question that bears speaking about. People have fought in frozen trenches for years in war for the freedoms that are in our charter, and those people would be turning in their graves right now to see the government continually violating the charter rights that they gave their lives fighting for, continually eroding religious freedom and freedom of expression in the country and allowing the kinds of activities we are seeing in our country.”
“We have seen a whole list opposed to this religious exemption being removed: the Anglican Church of Canada, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Muslim Healthcare Network, the United Network for Justice and Peace in Palestine and Israel, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Canadian Council of Imams, the rabbinical council of Toronto, the Hikma Public Affairs Council, the Seventh-day Adventist church, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, ARPA Canada and the National Council of Canadian Muslims.”
“This is the amendment the Conservatives brought forward: “Nothing in this section is to be interpreted or applied so as to interfere with the freedom of expression or the freedom of religion.” The Liberals voted against that because they do intend to violate people's expression rights and religious rights. I am not just standing here talking about myself going to prison; certainly, I do not think I belong in prison. There are 30 million people of faith in this country.”
“If someone were to be charged under this hate speech law because there was no religious exemption and they quoted a scripture that offended somebody, they would have to get a lawyer. They would have to go through years in the justice system, with appeal on appeal, until finally it would get to the Supreme Court, which would say, “You're right. This violated your charter rights. And it destroyed your life, and you're bankrupt.” That would be totally unacceptable. We know that the government is not going to protect the charter rights of Canadians, and we know it for a number of reasons. We know it because we already said we would take the Liberals at their word and bring forward an amendment.”
“Multiple Liberal members serving in this Parliament have told me that they think I should be imprisoned for what I did as a youth leader in the Baptist church. Kids talked to me all the time. They wanted to know what the Bible said about sexuality. I told them. Multiple Liberals in this House have said I should have been imprisoned for that. Members will forgive me if I do not believe the Liberals when they say they are going to uphold our charter rights and freedoms and that I would not go to prison. I do not believe that for a moment. (1700) The second thing is that often in this country, we see persecution and the use of the justice system to ultimately punish people.”
“The Liberals are saying we cannot have this religious exemption because then people would incite violence with their hate speech. No. In the law, there is currently no religious exemption for hate speech leading to and inciting violence. There is not one. The fact that that exists already in the Criminal Code should be enough. It is really concerning to me that the Liberals continue to argue that nobody is going to be imprisoned for quoting from scriptures. That is what they have been saying, but that is not what the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said. He said people who quote certain scriptures from the Bible should be imprisoned. He did not walk that back. I talked to him about it, and he doubled down and agreed that was it. He is not the only one.”
“There is no enforcement. All day long, I have heard the government say, “Well, that's not our responsibility federally. That's provincial. There is nothing we can do about it.” That is absolutely not true. The federal government, the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice have a responsibility to ensure that the rule of law in Canada is enforced. If the provinces and territories do not have the resources to do it, the government is perfectly able to add to it with the RCMP or with the military, to take the measures necessary to keep Canadians safe, but the Liberals have done nothing. There has been nothing but empty words, thoughts and prayers, and condolences. None of that does anything to help the communities that are under attack. There is a misconception.”
“Everybody recognizes that we have a problem with hate crimes in Canada. In the last few years, hate crimes have increased hugely. We see, in the Jewish community, synagogues being shot up, businesses being vandalized and “death to Jews” being called in the streets, with no enforcement of existing laws. We have seen over a hundred Christian churches torched and not a word from the government. We have seen mosques desecrated. We have seen Hindus intimidated and harassed. We know there is a problem. There is no argument in the House that there is a problem with hate crimes in this country. The problem is not that we need Bill C-9 . The problem is that we are not enforcing existing laws. It is already illegal to shoot up a synagogue. It is already illegal to vandalize a business. It is already illegal to utter death threats to people.”
“The Canadian summer jobs attestation, where if someone did not agree with the Liberals and agree to sign off on their attestation, they could not get any funding. There were threats to the charitable status of faith organizations and pro-life organizations. All of these things show the Liberals' record is one of overreach and shutting down people's charter rights and freedoms. It is no wonder we are concerned that the Liberals want to shut down debate on the bill. There was no need for them to align with the Bloc to remove the religious exemption from the hate speech law. It has been in place for 50 years. There was no controversy about it. It was not in the original text of the bill. There was no reason for them to align with the Bloc and cause this political hot potato.”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion we are going to vote on today is another example of the government's overreach and tyranny and of how it always wants to shut down debate, especially when it comes to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. All day long, I have sat here and listened to the government members say, “We are the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” The government is what its record says it is, and the government violated the mobility rights of millions of Canadians during the pandemic. It violated free expression under previous bills, like Bill C-11 , Bill C-18 and Bill C-63 , and now Bill C-9 . The emergency measures act that the Liberals put in place was illegal. They froze people's bank accounts, another violation, and authorized unlawful search and seizure.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have heard all day long that our charter rights would not be violated, but the Conservatives brought an amendment to the committee that said that nothing in this section is to be interpreted or applied so as to interfere with the freedom of expression or the freedom of religion, and the Liberals voted against it. Why is that?”
“Mr. Speaker, for the last two years, there have been attacks on the Jewish community. There have been 113 Christian churches burned to the ground. There are already laws against these things, and the government has done nothing to enforce the rule of law. Being a former police officer, I wonder if my colleague could comment on what resources are available if the police are having difficulty enforcing the law.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government has a history of violating the charter rights of Canadians, from freedom of expression to freezing their bank accounts under the illegal Emergencies Act, etc. Thirty million people of faith in Canada are expressing concern about Bill C-9 and removing the religious exemption under the hate speech law. We have heard from Christian evangelists, the Catholic Church, Muslim associations and Jewish associations. They all say that this bill is going to cause them to not be able to read their religious texts, because somebody will find them offensive and they will end up in prison. Why does the minister not care what 30 million people of faith in this country think?”
“Mr. Speaker, we cannot control what happens abroad, but the Liberals do control the policies that they are imposing that make life more expensive for Canadians. Today we have the worst price inflation and the only shrinking economy in the G7. Policies like the fuel standard that adds seven cents a litre, rising to 17¢, will apply to those who bring us our food, while the industrial carbon tax raises the price on steel, aluminum, plastic and farm equipment. When will the Liberals accept responsibility for what they can control and remove their policies that make life more expensive for Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, it is already illegal to intimidate or harass people on their way to worship, or to utter death threats to Jews, but none of these laws are being enforced. In this country, 30 million people of faith have expressed concern about the amendment that the Liberals would make with the Bloc to remove the religious exemption, and they know that the amendment that the Liberals have proposed would do nothing to actually address people's ability to freely read scripture. Why does the government not care what 30 million people of faith in this country think?”
“They are going to pass them on, and that drives up the price of food. The reality is that the government's emissions continue to go up, so it is not even working. What is the government going to do to make food, housing and heating more affordable, so that women in Canada can afford to live?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy the parliamentary secretary for industry showed up, but I am very disappointed that the Minister of Women and Gender Equality , to whom I addressed my original question, did not take the time to prioritize answering these questions that are so important for women in Canada. The parliamentary secretary talked about climate change being the cause of all this. Well, that is not true, because food inflation is twice as high here as in the States, and the climate is not that different in our two countries. We know that the climate actions that the government is taking, in terms of industrial carbon taxes and the clean fuel tax, all get passed on to the consumer eventually. It is not that organizations and businesses are going to be charitable and just suck up those costs themselves.”
“I think it is becoming of everyone in the House to bring forward corrections to the policies that have led us to this place and to make sure that we can make life more affordable, that we can bring food prices down, that we can take the taxes off gas and home heating and that we can make sure we have a housing supply that brings the housing costs down so that mothers can afford to feed their children, single seniors are not forced to eat cat food, and we can have a better country. I am counting on the minister to answer my question. What is she going to do to address the affordability crisis that is facing women in Canada? What policies will the government reverse in order to bring the costs down so that women in this country can afford to eat, heat and house themselves?”
“It so disproportionately affects those who can least afford it, like single mothers and single seniors. The government has a responsibility. I know the status of women minister , of whom I originally asked this question. I have worked with her. I know she cares about the women in Canada. I am the chair of the status of women committee. I care about the status of women in Canada. We are addressing issues that are important, like femicide and intimate partner violence. However, when people cannot afford to live and put a roof over their heads, then we are not really hitting all the priorities.”
“It is the fuel standard tax. It is the fertilizer tariffs, the fertilizer regulations and the new packaging requirements that are driving costs up. We then see that when it comes to heating our homes or driving our cars to take our kids to soccer, the fuel standard has driven things up 7¢ a litre. That is just piling on to an already unaffordable life. Housing is difficult as well. The disastrous immigration policies of the government have let millions of people come in without keeping up with the housing supply. I heard the member before me talk about how we have to build 500,000 homes a year, every year, for a number of years, to get out of this housing crisis. What that has done is double the price of housing. It has doubled the price of rent. People who are working hard cannot afford to live.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak about the issue of affordability. Women in Canada are only half of the population, but they are really struggling. We are talking single mothers. We are talking single seniors. These are some of the poorest people in our country. They cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves. It is the disastrous policies of the Liberal government over the last 10 years that have led us here. If we look at food, we know that food inflation is the highest in the G7. It is double what it is in the U.S.A. There are specific items. Lettuce is up 40%. Coffee is up 33%. Beef is up 27%, and baby formula is up 50%. All of these things are making it difficult for people to survive in this country, especially women. The reason for the food inflation is clear. It is the industrial carbon tax.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week the Prime Minister stated that he had the immigration system under control. Well, let us review the facts: 86% of rejected asylum claimants stay in Canada, 25,000 have been let in without security screening, some of them from the most dangerous countries in the world, and right now, the CBSA has 33,000 non-citizens listed as wanted criminals in Canada. At the end of this year, three million temporary residents will have their visas expire, but the government has no plan to remove them, and of the 1.5 million temporary residents whose permits expired last year, the Liberals assume they left, but they do not know. This is not a system under control. It is a system out of control, because the Liberals destroyed the fair, compassionate and secure system that the Conservatives created, which was the envy of the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the volume of the member opposite's speech. With respect to the budget, one of the things I am hearing in my riding that people did not like was that the government put the Canada pension plan in the budget as an asset of the government. That is not an asset of the government. That is money that people and their employers have paid into it, which they are expecting to get back. They are worried that the government is going to do with it what it does with everything else, which is spread the money all over the world except where Canadians need it the most. Why did the government do that when it is against Canadian accounting principles?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there are refugees who were not legitimate and who have had their claims rejected. When they get a letter from the government saying they are going to be deported, they evaporate into the ether. There are maybe 500,000 of them, but the government is pretending there is not a problem. Why does the member think the Liberals are so naive about the disaster they created with immigration?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member has a fundamental misunderstanding about our motion. Everyone knows that we have a duty of care for legitimate refugees, but what we are talking about in the motion is people who have had it ruled that they are not eligible to be here in Canada and in fact should be deported, yet there is $1 billion being spent on their health care, and they are getting superior health care to what Canadians who are paying their taxes get. The NDP is always arguing for more benefits in the health care system for Canadians. Does the member not think that $1 billion would be better spent on Canadians instead of on people who should be deported?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start by correcting a mis-characterization by the member, who suggested that somehow Conservatives are opposed to EVs. Many Conservative members actually own EVs, and that is fine. What Conservatives believe in is the freedom to choose what kind of vehicle they want to buy and not have the Liberal government force them to buy an EV through their tailpipe emissions standard they are putting in place. The other thing Conservatives believe in is creating jobs for Canadians. Why does the member support sending subsidies to foreign countries that are producing vehicles, instead of making jobs here in Canada?”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has cancelled the mandate to have 100% electric vehicles by 2035, but it has replaced it with a tailpipe emissions requirement that only EVs can meet. That is really the same thing. Is the member aware that the Liberal government has no plan to create the infrastructure across the country that would be needed to achieve that target? There is also no plan to put enough electricity in the grid to achieve the target.”
“Madam Speaker, here is an interesting fact. In the last 20 years, 80% of the vehicles Canadians bought were manufactured in Canada. There is no reason we cannot return to that. I see that the Conservatives have planned to cut taxes on vehicles and invest here. Does the member agree we should also be making more vehicles here in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from residents of Canada about Bill C-9 , a bill that would remove the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-9 would allow the government to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts and to prosecute those who express deeply held religious beliefs with a punishment of up to two years in prison. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be protected, so the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 , protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into faith.”
“Madam Speaker, where is the urgency? There were 67,000 jobs lost in Ontario last month. Young people cannot find work. Canadians are worried about paying their mortgage and affording groceries. Will the Prime Minister do what he promised, which is to build at scales we have not seen in generations and work with Conservatives to restore our sovereignty in the face of these American threats?”
“Madam Speaker, Canada has lost over 5,000 automotive jobs and 32 paper mills have shut down. In my riding, three facilities are shutting down. As well, 51,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the year since the Prime Minister took charge. He said he was going to “build, baby, build” but the only thing he has built is the highest unemployment rate for youth we have seen in a generation. Will the Prime Minister do what he promised, build at a scale we have not seen in generations and work with Conservatives to restore Canada's sovereignty in the face of American threats?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Liberals refuse to apologize. Historically, they have always ended up apologizing when there was a scandal. What does my colleague think about that? Why will the Liberals not say that they are sorry?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government has indeed expropriated people's lands. In my riding, people are concerned about the Cowichan decision. Perhaps it is not just the federal government that wants the right to take away land. What does my colleague think about these things, which are happening again and again?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised stable food prices, but Canadians got the opposite. Lettuce is up 40%. Coffee is up 33%. Beef is up 27%. Canada now leads the G7 in food inflation, which has doubled under the current government and is twice the U.S. rate. The Liberals' grocery summit did not work. Their rebates will not cut prices. Their taxes drive costs up. There are 2.2 million Canadians relying on food banks. Will the Liberals support our food affordability plan to scrap the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax, and to boost competition?”
“Mr. Speaker, the disastrous policies of the Liberals have driven the cost of food up over $6,000 in the last five years. Yes, the Liberals removed the consumer carbon tax, but then they introduced the industrial carbon tax, which is being charged back to consumers, and then they added on the fuel standard tax, which is increasing the price of gas and the price of food. Why does the government not recognize the damage it is doing to the price of groceries and to affordability in this country?”
“Above all, our family law system must remain grounded in evidence and guided by a single clear principle: keeping the child safe. Obviously, there are issues of provincial jurisdiction, since it is provincial courts that typically administer the Divorce Act. The training of all the people involved and ensuring that it is properly executed will be very important. That means listening carefully and doing our best to make decisions that protect children from harm. This bill is looking at keeping children safe. There has been a lot of work done to keep women safe. I think also there is work to be done to make sure that men are safe. I do support this bill.”
“When the system works properly, it protects children and gives families the stability they need to move forward. As this bill moves forward, it deserves careful and thoughtful study. We must ensure it genuinely strengthens child safety, respects due process and avoids unintended consequences. Family law decisions are among the most consequential decisions a court will make. They shape a child's sense of security, stability and trust for years to come. When families are at their most vulnerable, our law must not make things worse. It must not create incentives or discourage legitimate safety concerns from being raised. Instead, courts must help examine the evidence and focus on patterns of behaviour and the lived experience of the child.”