Leslyn Lewis
Haldimand—Norfolk, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, that is all rhetoric and no results. The Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. The Prime Minister has outspent every previous government in the history of Canada combined. While he is breaking spending records, Canadians are breaking their bank accounts just to survive.”
“Mr. Speaker, we ask again: Where are the results? More families are facing financial hardship, business investments are declining and job opportunities are harder and harder to find in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today signed by 15,000 Canadians concerning the proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty and the related amended international health regulations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have one other petition to present. It is signed by 5,000 concerned Canadians regarding the proposal for a national digital identification system in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to note that in the Senate, the Senate committee studied Bill C-9 extensively, and I noted that there were witnesses from every background, whether they were from the LGBT community or from a faith community. I saw a Black pastor also.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member across the way makes reference to the Charter of Rights, but it is not clear that for the charter to be invoked, a person has to be charged first?”
The complete record
Every one of 180 lines we hold for Leslyn Lewis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister spends his time with the world elites, life at home is getting harder for Canadians, including families in Haldimand—Norfolk. The 2026 food price report is alarming. This year, it will cost $17,600 to feed a family of four, which is $1,000 more than it cost last year. The Prime Minister's industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax are driving up food prices. Will he scrap the taxes and bring down the cost of food for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is nothing imaginary about the hunger pangs that many Canadians are feeling. Many families are also financially squeezed with mortgage payments and utility bills that are rising faster than they can keep up with. These pressures have worsened under the Liberals with the rise in the industrial carbon tax, the packaging tax and the new fuel tax. All of these hidden taxes are driving up the cost of food. When will the Liberals stop their inflationary spending and cut these hidden food taxes so that Canadians can afford to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to bring down the price of groceries. In Haldimand—Norfolk, where I live, a family reached out to me in desperation. Despite a decent income, they said that they could barely afford groceries for their family and their household. When the Liberals took office in 2015, the average weekly grocery bill was $159. A decade later, it has more than doubled, to over $338. When will the Prime Minister cut the hidden food taxes so that Canadians can afford to feed their families?”
“In turbulent times, leadership is not just about expertise; leadership begins with compassion, the willingness to see the storm that others are facing and the courage to stand with them in it.”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning at a multi-party parliamentary prayer breakfast, I shared from Mark 4:35 and the moment when the disciples, caught in a violent storm, cried out to Jesus, “don't you care”. These were experienced fishermen, but even they were overwhelmed by the winds and the waves. Today, many Canadians feel the same. They see economic uncertainty, rising unemployment, social tensions, immigration pressures and new tariffs creating instability in their lives. The storms are real, and people are looking to their leaders for reassurance and results, not indifference. When the Prime Minister promises Canadians a deal on tariffs, a response of “Who cares?” is exactly what the people fear in the middle of an economic storm.”
“My concern, Madam Speaker, is with respect not only to the debt but also to how it is calculated. The fact is that the accounting system is changing, so Canadians have no real way of measuring the progress in this country. We will need some sort of independent auditing to assess whether the government is repackaging debt or whether we are actually seeing real progress in this country. Therefore, I am very concerned about the way that things such as operating expenses are now shifted over to be calculated as capital—”
“Madam Speaker, when I look at my portfolio as the critic for infrastructure, I see that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is actually receiving $10 billion more than it received before. We know of the recent scandal with respect to the $1 billion sent abroad to fund the building of ships for BC Ferries, leaving our employees in Canada without jobs. The real issue with the budget is accountability. We are not seeing the level of accountability and responsibility that should be entrusted with Canadian tax dollars.”
“Madam Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that Bill C-8 purports to be able to shut down people's Internet without a court warrant. In an era in which the government is moving toward digitization and AI controls, people could end up in digital jails. That is why it is so important to have safeguards and accountability and ensure that with the government collecting this data, we know how it is used, we know that people's civil liberties are being upheld and we know that the government is being held accountable.”
“As well, for example, there could be programmable money that can expire, designed with the goal of keeping money circulating by forcing us to spend it before it expires, and currencies that can dictate how and when Canadians spend. The digital infrastructure investment in the budget claims to be generationally transformative. However, history will judge us not by how efficiently we digitize the nation but by whether we preserve the soul of this democracy in the process. For five years, I have been monitoring and speaking about how the digitization of the economy and our infrastructures will affect our identities, and now it is here. Now, all that remains is how we choose to respond. Our task is not to reject progress but to reclaim purpose. As parliamentarians, we must insist that technology serves Canadians rather than replacing them.”
“We are witnessing the government redefining the Canadian dream of owning a home by telling gen Z to accept a future in which they will rent modular homes instead of owning property and building equity for their families. In the digital era, we must find new ways to hold government accountable. Traditional critiques of centralization no longer apply, because governments will not be acting alone. In this technocratic system, the very agile nation model that the Liberal government has been studying over the past few years has become a reality, and citizens themselves become the inputs that help the state move faster. The budget addresses problems like inflation with solutions that may limit our freedom, such as digital IDs.”
“Some in government are even speaking of the universal basic income as a solution and a way to keep people afloat when machines do the work for us. As we modernize, we must never allow people to be reduced to mere consumers at the end of a bar code or a QR code. Human beings are not data points to be managed; we are souls with a purpose, and the future we build must reflect that truth. This Parliament has a sacred duty to guard the public ledger of our nation, not only its finances but also its direct impact on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The generational shift this budget accelerates is real, and it is happening at lightning speed. We see it in Bill C-5 , which centralizes national development and infrastructure decisions.”
“If these systems are not governed by strict privacy laws and democratic oversight, they will blur the line between accountability and control. Canadians deserve an infrastructure they can trust. This means they deserve to know where the data is stored, who profits from its use and whether freely opting out of systems, including digital ID, will remain a right in the digital era, especially when it comes to accessing essential taxpayer-funded services. Without these answers, a trusted AI ecosystem becomes a polite euphemism for centralized control. As artificial intelligence transforms our economy, the budget projects that governments and industries will soon do more with fewer people. They claim that efficiency will rise, but we know that the security of work will fall.”
“People stream music, lease data and rent rights through a QR code. That is the real generational shift the budget refers to. (1305) This new system, which is built to measure outcomes, will eventually measure us. Every promise of transparency can become a tool of surveillance if not guided by the principles of freedom that we cherish. If everything of value becomes data, then every aspect of our lives can become data to be recorded and monetized. This is why we must be on guard as we see this change towards a new public system, the digital ledger, which is funded to the tune of $1 billion. We need to have safeguards. Digital infrastructure is not neutral. The same network that tracks investments can track individuals. The same AI that predicts the supply chain can predict personal behaviour.”
“The new accounting model would also change how we measure the country's wealth. Debt that was once a liability would now be treated as an investment. Intangible assets, such as AI systems, data holdings and even carbon credits would now be listed as capital. That makes the books look stronger and the GDP appear higher even if nothing has been physically built in our country. This shift would turn the economy from measuring what we produce to what we project. This means that when every deficit can be labelled as an asset, accountability is pushed to the future. We are moving from a world of tangibles to intangibles, one that is traceable. In the tangible world, the ownership was clear and the tangibles were clear. People owned their land, their car and their work. In the traceable world, ownership would be replaced by access.”
“The new system would also shift from human oversight to algorithmic control. With the budget, the government would essentially change how it keeps the nation's books. In the old system, capital spending meant building something we could see: a bridge and the day-to-day expenses that kept things running. If they spent more than they took in, there was a deficit, plain and simple. Now, more of the government spending could be called capital and put on the other side of the ledger, even when it is for such things as software, research and technology. The government would now be able to spread that cost over many years, so the deficit looks smaller. It is like buying a laptop and calling it an investment instead of a purchase; the numbers look better, but the money is still coming out of the bank.”
“Under the new framework, intangible digital assets, algorithms, data sets and software systems would now be recorded as capital, just as bridges, hospitals and roads once were. If everything digital can be reclassified as infrastructure, the government can borrow, spend and record it as an investment, even when no tangible assets exist that Canadians can see and use. As the system evolves, it could one day be connected directly to a digital ledger, perhaps even a blockchain, which is a kind of digital accounting system. This points to a future where we ourselves would be reduced to digital assets on a government ledger. In this system, every asset, expenditure and citizen interaction is recorded in real time. Mark my words: This will be how we calculate the GDP in the future.”
“The budget would give the failed Infrastructure Bank an additional $10 billion, for a total of $45 billion in taxpayer-funded dollars. There is also a shift in accounting. In the budget, with a deficit of $78 billion, many people wonder how we would be able to pay for all of this. The reality is that the government would redefine the accounting system, primarily by changing the definition of a capital investment. The old system of assets and deficits would no longer exist because the government would move to a fully integrated digital accounting system. In this system, deficits would not matter and the carbon footprint in every transaction could be accounted for in a new transformational ledger.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Edmonton Northwest . The budget speaks of a generational shift, but few Canadians would realize how deep this shift runs. For the first time, our nation's infrastructure is not just about steel, concrete and asphalt; it is about code, computation and data. Beneath that shiny language of innovation lies a quiet transformation, one that changes not only how we build, how we measure and how we account but also how we govern. The budget would link the Canada Infrastructure Bank to new investments in artificial intelligence, what is called in the budget a trusted “Canadian AI ecosystem.” Traditionally, the bank financed retrofit water systems, power grids, etc. Now it would finance data centres and AI infrastructure.”
“Mr. Speaker, the sexual exploitation of children is one of the clearest and most horrific crimes imaginable. Recently the Supreme Court struck down the one-year mandatory sentence for possessing child sexual abuse material, yet the government refuses to use section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, to restore the minimal penalties for pedophiles. Why is the government choosing to protect the charter rights of predators over the safety and the innocence of our children?”
“Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, everything can be debated, but some moral lines should never be blurred; protecting vulnerable children must remain one of them. The Supreme Court recently struck down a one-year mandatory prison sentence for two men who possessed hundreds of sexual images of children, some as young as three years old. These are real victims of abuse and trauma. Why is the government more focused on protecting the charter rights of pedophiles than on defending the dignity of children?”
“It is time for the government to take responsibility and to show that it cares about protecting Canadians by working with Conservatives to end the Liberal bail experiment and restore safety to our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that response, but the Liberal government has been in power now for 10 years. Why is it now putting forward half measures to address the mess that Bill C-75 has caused? The government rejected Conservative proposals to strengthen bail laws and to protect our communities, yet it is now repackaging some of those same ideas as its own, showing that the Liberals care more about political credit than the real accountability for their failures. Despite the tough talk, it is just not enough. Violent criminals will continue to be released if the Liberal principle of restraint in Bill C-75 remains.”
“Canadians, including victim advocates, provincial governments and police associations, have long been calling on the government to fix what it broke. Will the Liberals finally adopt our full Conservative plan to end the scourge of violent crime, by passing the Conservative jail not bail act and repealing Bill C-75 ?”
“Because judges are constrained by Liberal laws to impose the least onerous conditions possible, this so-called principle of restraint compels the courts to release at the earliest possible opportunity and impose only reasonably necessary bail standards, even when there is a strong chance of reoffending. Instead of addressing this very real concern of mine, the parliamentary secretary ignored it entirely. When more than half of Canadians no longer feel safe in their own neighbourhoods, my constituents expect seriousness from the government, not non-answers and silence. The uncomfortable truth is that the current Liberal government has undermined safety and justice in Canada by imposing its ideology on the justice system, resulting in preventable deaths.”
“The assassination of this young police officer in the line of duty happened in Hagersville, Haldimand County, which is a community that I represent. His loss rattled the community. The outpouring of sadness, the support and the tributes for this young constable at the beginning of his career and of his life were both heartbreaking and deeply moving. Too many families are grieving with unimaginable pain because they lost a loved one to violent crime. The truth is that the same violent offenders are released back into the community, sometimes within hours of their arrest.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today on behalf of the good people of Haldimand—Norfolk to speak to a serious crisis in our country. Ten years of irresponsible Liberal crime and justice policies have led to the need for communities across Ontario and across Canada to grapple with growing violence and brazen crime in their neighbourhoods. The consequences of these policies are real. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%, firearms crime is up 130%, extortion has skyrocketed 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. When I asked the government to address its record and to commit to reversing laws such as Bill C-75 , which allowed repeat offenders back on the streets, I referenced the tragic case of 29-year-old Greg Pierzchala. He was a young constable killed by a repeat offender released on bail.”
“Mr. Speaker, this kind of reckless spending is just breaking the backs of our children and grandchildren. For 10 years, the Liberal government promised that billions in deficit spending would lead to more growth and investment. Now the results are in. Canada has the worst per capita growth in all the G7. Billions in investments are fleeing this country every single month the Prime Minister remains in office. When will the Prime Minister tell Canadians just how much more he plans to impoverish future generations?”
“Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are tightening their belts to make ends meet, the government keeps running up record deficits. The Prime Minister 's reckless spending and record-breaking deficits delivered the worst per capita growth in the G7, and investments in workers are down by 10%. Now the Prime Minister is set to double the deficits even beyond what Trudeau planned. Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that this deficit will not go over $42 billion in the next budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question was about a police officer who was killed in the line of duty, and it was not answered. The Prime Minister promised to fix the justice system and the bail system, and every day, victims continue to die. Gun crimes are up 130% under Liberal bail laws. Lives are at stake and Canadians cannot wait another day. If Liberals are serious about bail reform, why will they not support our common-sense Conservative Bill C-242 , the jail not bail act? When will the Liberals scrap their failed bail laws or get out of the way so Conservatives can do it?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 , the Liberal soft-on-crime bill, allows violent offenders to be released on bail. These offenders are not being punished; the good people of Canada are. My community of Haldimand—Norfolk is still heartbroken by the murder of 28-year-old Greg Pierzchala, a constable at work who was killed by a violent offender released on bail. The Prime Minister promised to reverse Liberal bail laws. Will he finally keep his word or get out of the way so Conservatives can fix this crime mess?”
“Mr. Speaker, across Canada, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are under attack. Since 2021, more than 100 churches have been burned or vandalized. True democracy cannot survive without free expression, and Canada cannot flourish if Christians or other religious groups live in fear because of their faith. I stand here not just as a member of Parliament for the good people of Haldimand—Norfolk, but as a lawyer and a Christian who believes that freedom of expression is sacred. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and a freedom that protects not only what we agree with but the truth that challenges us, the convictions that make us uncomfortable and the unbreakable spirit that stands unwaveringly with those who refuse to be silent in the face of injustice.”
“Proposed sections 11, 14, 16, 18 and 19 of the bill would also infringe upon Canadians' liberties, because there is a deprivation of section 1, which includes justifiable limits in the proportionality of any legislation upon a person's freedom, even when national security is a justifiable ground under section 1. There are benefits. Security is a benefit to Canadians, but it cannot come at the expense of liberty.”
“Mr. Speaker, security is always an advantage to private citizens, but security cannot come at the expense of liberty. We have the Charter of Rights in place and it must be respected. There are a number of provisions in proposed sections 11 and 12 of Bill C-8 that would infringe upon section 7 of the charter, because there is a deprivation of our essential services without procedural fairness. Proposed sections 10 and 11 of the bill would also infringe upon section 8 of the charter, because there is a deprivation of privacy and being secure against unreasonable search and seizure.”
“Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are times when our telecommunication infrastructure is threatened. In those instances, the government must act expeditiously to minimize and curtail that threat. However, these provisions can seep over into the realm of ordinary citizens. In the example I gave of Sarah, her entire life was unravelled because of this legislation. I do not believe this should be the intent of this legislation. We really need to look at the impact of this legislation on ordinary individuals, because the average Canadian needs their telecommunications to facilitate every aspect of their life.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want all Canadians to know that cybersecurity is an extremely important thing in this digital era. It is very important for the government to take this seriously. This bill is a very important bill, but that does not mean there are not elements it that, as a legislator and a trained lawyer, I must bring to the public's attention. There are some concerns about how individual users are not properly treated in this bill, and they need to be corrected.”
“Bill C-8 risks turning ordinary Canadians into prisoners of secrecy, silenced without cause and stripped of their most basic rights. We can secure a network without the risk of trapping innocent citizens in a digital prison and without stripping them of the ability to defend themselves. This can be done. We can provide clear exemptions in the legislation for individual users, which should be part of what we discuss in committee. These are practical, reasonable measures that governments could adopt. We owe it to all Canadians to do everything in our power to elect leaders who will not be silenced, who will protect their security and who will guard their freedoms, because freedom without security is a cage. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler .”
“We must rely on what the text explicitly sets out in the law; otherwise, the law intended to protect telecommunications infrastructure could easily be weaponized by any government against ordinary citizens. Citizens most at risk are people like me. They are those who publicly and loudly express dissent, challenge orthodoxy or raise uncomfortable truths. These citizens most active in civil society are most at risk of being cut off, penalized and isolated without ever knowing why. For these reasons, Bill C-8 undermines the principles of fundamental justice in the charter as it stands. Security in this context can be a pretext for control while transparency and liberty are sacrificed. Sarah's story is not just a hypothetical; it is a warning.”
“Eventually, she finds out the government is behind this, so she attempts to challenge the order, only to hear that any judicial review may involve secret evidence that she cannot see. The provider has the information but, under Bill C-8, is not allowed to share it. Every attempt to assert her rights is blocked. She is not merely inconvenienced; she is entirely cut off with no meaningful recourse. This scenario is conceivable and would be legal under Bill C-8 as it stands. It illustrates why Bill C-8's secrecy and non-disclosure provisions are so dangerous to individuals. People may say this would never happen. The government will, no doubt, insist that the intent of the bill is clear, but why should Canadians trust it? We must take the bill at face value.”
“If the provider were to explain, it could face penalties and even jail. The next morning, Sarah is shocked to find that she cannot access her email, bank account or work portal. Her social media accounts are frozen. She cannot contact her friends, family or colleagues. She has been cut off entirely from the digital world and she has no idea why. This is a system of double secrecy. The government order is hidden and the provider is prohibited from telling her anything. Sarah cannot see the evidence against her or ask questions, and she has no way of defending herself. She is effectively trapped in a digital prison. She is isolated, powerless and silenced. Over the following days, the impact deepens. Sarah cannot pay her bills, participate in remote work, access health care portals or communicate with anyone.”
“Let us not trade the rights of Canadians for a false sense of protection. (1030) Let me give a concrete example of how Bill C-8 could affect an ordinary Canadian. Imagine Sarah, a citizen frustrated with a government program she believes was mismanaged and corrupt. In her frustration, she posts online, threatening to expose government corruption. She threatens to reveal secret information she has collected about the program. The government views her post as a threat to the telecommunications system, so it quietly issues an order under Bill C-8. Her Internet provider receives direction to shut down her Internet and phone services, all without a court warrant or court order. The same provider is legally forbidden from disclosing the reason why Sarah's Internet was suspended.”
“This combination of secret orders and the lack of disclosure creates a scenario where Canadians' privacy and liberty are deeply at risk. Even if national security is invoked, section 1 of the charter requires that limitations on rights be proportionate, necessary and minimally impairing. Secret orders, broad powers and no avenues for defence fail this test. Canadians should not have to surrender their rights to remain secure. Security and freedom can coexist. The government can both defend our telecommunications networks and protect the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. Bill C-8 might secure networks, but as it stands, it risks imprisoning citizens digitally and denying them fundamental justice. In so doing, it would undermine the very freedoms we seek to protect. Let us not mistake security for liberty.”
“Section 7 of the charter guarantees the following: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Fundamental justice includes someone knowing the case against them and having a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Bill C-8 , as it stands, would allow the government to deprive individuals of essential services without ever seeing the evidence, which is a profound breach of these principles. Section 8 of the charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, would also be engaged. The bill would allow the government to collect private information without consent and with minimal safeguards.”
“It can prevent someone from working, learning, paying bills, accessing health care and participating in civic life. It is, in essence, a digital prison. The gravest concern about Bill C-8 is that it contains provisions of secrecy and non-disclosure. A person whose Internet is cut off may not know why their service was terminated. They may not know the evidence against them. They may not have a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. A Canadian could be trapped in a digital prison with no way to challenge it. Bill C-8 therefore breaches fundamental guarantees under the Charter of Rights. This strikes at the heart of our Constitution.”
“It would allow the Minister of Industry, with direction from cabinet, to order telecommunications service providers like Rogers, Telus and Bell to act, refrain from action, remove equipment, prohibit certain services and, in extreme cases, suspend or terminate services to individual users. While Bill C-8's intention is to focus on service providers, it indirectly encroaches on the fundamental freedoms of Canadians by failing to carve out an exemption for individual Canadians who rely on the Internet and telecommunications to work, travel, communicate, engage in commerce and banking and connect in their virtual communities. Consider what that means in practical terms. In today's world, losing access to telecommunications or the Internet is not just a minor inconvenience; it is a form of isolation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today with heavy concerns about Bill C-8 , a proposed law presented as a measure to secure Canada's telecommunications and critical infrastructure. I think we can all agree that cybersecurity is very important. Our information networks are the lifeblood of our economy, education, health systems and daily lives. Protecting this critical infrastructure is essential, but without liberty, there can be no security. As such, my speech today will focus on how Bill C-8 would impact the individual liberties of average Canadians. Bill C-8 would grant the federal government sweeping powers.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important, when dealing with religious freedoms, that every issue should be on the table and that we should have the capacity to sit down and have meaningful discussions about things that we disagree on. That is the essence of freedom of expression, that we should be able to have discussions from all over the country. That is why the Attorney General's consent for charges of hate speech is so important. It allows geographical input from different provinces, which is channelled through the Attorney General. That is why it is very egregious that Bill C-9 would consider the removal of the Attorney General's consent.”
“Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, we listened to an impassioned speech by the member for Toronto Centre , who is a person of Jewish heritage and faith. It became very clear that the bill was not designed to protect that community. Right now, people of the Jewish faith cannot even shop in grocery stores in a kosher aisle without being assaulted, yet we have crimes on the book that are not being enforced. People are charged and then the charges are dismissed. We need to uphold the rule of law. We need to uphold the laws in the Criminal Code that currently exist, rather than creating a fake law that makes people feel good but allows the government to weaponize dissent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I stand with members of all communities that are subject to hate. We know the current Criminal Code has, already contained within it, sections that deal with hate. The proposed law is not about that. The law is about the concentration of government power so that it can be weaponized against dissenters. We have section 319(2), which protects against hate symbols; section 423 is about intimidation, and section 430 is related to mischief of religious groups. These things are already in the Criminal Code. The Liberals need to enforce the law.”
“We do not confront hate by stripping away safeguards, criminalizing emotions and centralizing power in Ottawa. The true test of our democracy is not how we treat speech that we agree with, but how we protect the freedom of those with whom we profoundly disagree. Bill C-9 fails that test. It risks turning the coercive apparatus of the state into a weapon of dissent. I stand here not just as a member of Parliament for the good people of Haldimand—Norfolk, nor as a lawyer, but as a Canadian and a Christian who believes that freedom of expression is sacred. We already have the laws to punish genuine hatred. We must now guard against a government that uses the language of protection as a cloak for control.”
“Once charged with hate speech, a person's life can be ruined long before a verdict, with careers lost, reputations destroyed and families fractured. Bill C-9 amounts to cancel culture that is enforced by government power. Laws that protect against hatred toward Christians, Jews, Muslims or any faith group must be enforced under existing laws contained in sections 318 and 319. Bill C-9 would not create new protections; it would create a fake law. It pretends to fight hate while really concentrating power in Ottawa. By removing the Attorney General’s oversight and inserting a vague new definition of hatred, this bill would give the government a tool to harass dissenters and weaponize the law for political gain. Hate is real, and it must always be confronted, but we do not confront hate by weakening democracy.”