Scott Anderson
Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, this is one of the deepest debates in Canadian politics, between the rights and freedoms of citizens on one hand and the powers of government on the other hand. I wonder if my colleague could speculate on why the Liberals want to shut down debate like this, so pre-emptively.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the poison pill. First of all, mandatory sentences, obviously, as my other colleague pointed out much earlier, do in fact stop crime because it is very hard to commit a crime when in jail.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was trying to think of great artists in history, such Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Cicero and Plato. Some of them had private benefactors, but none of them, to my knowledge, had government support behind them. I cannot think of any artist that had government support— Some hon members: Oh, oh! Scott Anderson: Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the sovereign wealth fund, I recently asked my colleague the same question. The other day, my neighbour showed me his bank account, and it was enormous. I thought, “This is a secret”, so I maxed out my credit cards and put the money in my savings account.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to Norway's sovereign wealth fund, I decided to do the same thing as the Prime Minister , because he is a wise person. I decided that what I would do is take the bulk of the money out of my credit card, put it in my savings account and call it “Scott's retirement fund”.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has put a new face on what happened. In fact, the government has been trolling our benches, and some did slither over. The House is not reflective of Canadians' wishes. About 93% of the vote goes to the party now, by custom, and about 7% goes to the individual. By law, yes, we are elected as individuals.”
The complete record
Every one of 165 lines we hold for Scott Anderson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“Once that door is reopened, it becomes easier for future governments to go further. Today's controversial belief may become tomorrow's punishable offence. It is one thing to uphold the separation of church and state, but it is another to allow the state to define “acceptable church”. We all want a country that is safe, respectable and just, but safety cannot come at the cost of freedom. The issue is not whether we oppose hate; we all do. Bill C-9 introduces ambiguity where we need clarity. It removes protections where we need safeguards. It shifts power away from Canadians toward institutions that are not directly accountable to them.”
“However, many Canadians feel that negative change is happening gradually, bit by bit. They see rising crime, economic strain and increasing government reach into everyday life. They see their firearms being confiscated and the Emergencies Act misused. They see bank accounts frozen and their jobs disappearing. If they manage to succeed, they are demonized and called greedy. Now they feel that their deepest beliefs may be taken away. Their concern is real and should not be simply dismissed. Perhaps the most serious issue is the precedent that it sets, that the state can determine which religious beliefs are acceptable and which are criminally suspect. A government should never be in the business of judging which scripture passages are allowed or which doctrines may be taught. I thought western society was over that in the 16th century.”
“(1655) Another troubling aspect of this bill is how it would be enforced. It would rely heavily on a complaint-based system. That means investigations could be triggered not by clear violations, but by complaints, by perception. In today's world, especially online, context is easily lost and disagreement is constant. Do we really want a system where a social media post can lead to police knocking on our door? Do we want a country where people fear that what they said months ago in the heat of an argument could suddenly bring police to their door? I do not like the “frog in the pot” analogy because it tends to smack of conspiracy theory. This analogy, as we know, says that if we put a frog in a pot of cold water and turn on the heat the frog will not notice the water getting warmer until it is boiling and it is way too late.”
“They avoid difficult conversations, they stay silent rather than risk investigation or complaint, and that silence weakens democracy. If the exemption is removed, many clergy, imams, rabbis, elders and faith leaders will feel compelled to self-censor, not because they promote hatred but because the line between controversial and criminal becomes very blurred. Think of everyday faith community life: sermons, youth programs, marriage preparation classes, theological debates and small group discussions. In all of these settings, people discuss difficult moral questions. Without the exemption, these conversations could be misinterpreted or taken out of context, leading to complaints or investigation. A law that intimidates people out of participating in their own faith tradition is not protecting freedom but chilling it.”
“It is not a long walk to imagine future misuse of that term. This brings us to another major issue: the definition of “hate” in this bill. The bill describes “hate” as detestation or vilification, stronger than dislike or disdain, but what does that actually mean? Who decides what qualifies as detestation? Who determines when strong disagreement becomes criminal speech? It is not voters or Parliament. It is unelected officials, police, prosecutors and courts making subjective judgments about tone, intent and interpretation. That should concern all of us, every single Canadian. Once the state begins policing subjective thresholds in speech, it creates uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to a chilling effect. People begin to self-censor.”
“Expressing a traditional religious teaching, something that has been part of faith for generations, could now be interpreted as criminal, depending on how someone else perceives it. The old adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions is not just a saying. It is on full display here. The government may mean no harm and the next government may mean no harm, but we do not know the future and what future governments may plan. What we do know is that if Bill C-9 passes, future governments will have the tools they need to legally repress Canadians by simply redefining “hate” to mean whatever they say. That does not mean they necessarily will, but it was not that long ago that the Liberal government accused anti-government protesters of hate and invoked the Emergencies Act.”
“The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not treat religion as an afterthought or something to be bargained away in committee. Freedom of religion is listed among our fundamental freedoms because that freedom to hold beliefs, to express them and to live them out is foundational to human dignity. For decades, Canadian law has reflected this through a religious exemption in hate speech provisions. That exemption ensures Canadians can cite scripture, preach, teach, debate and discuss matters of faith, even when those teachings are controversial, without fear of criminal prosecution. Bill C-9 would remove that protection. Religious expression is a charter-protected freedom. Let us think about what that means.”
“That level of concern should make all of us pause. This is not about defending hate. Hate should be condemned. Where it crosses into violence or incitement, we already have those laws, and we need to enforce them instead of making more of them. This bill would expand government power over speech, and whenever government takes more power in this area, we know it is not coming back. Intent matters, and I do not doubt for a second that the framers of this bill had good intentions. The original bill contained provisions that many of us would support, but at committee, the Liberal Party accepted a Bloc amendment to remove the religious exemption. That is a hard no from this side of the House, and I believe from many other Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I believe in a free, democratic Canada. I believe in a country where people can speak their minds, practise their faith and engage in open debate without fear of punishment from their government. That is why I am deeply concerned about Bill C-9 . I recently held a town hall in my city, with the help of my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South . Usually, these town halls see maybe 50 or 100 people. That evening, over 600 people from my riding and others showed up. These are not fringe voices. Many were religious thought leaders from established Christian and other denominations, some were officials from other levels of government and all were thoughtful, engaged citizens deeply concerned about what they see as an assault on civil liberties.”
“Mr. Speaker, we face a situation similar to the one we faced after the Second World War, with millions of people looking for homes. The solution then was quite different and quite a bit more effective. By 1947, Canada was building 80,000, 90,000 or as many as 100,000 homes per year. Not one Crown corporation was involved, though I should say there was only one, CMHC, and that was explicitly for veterans. How was it done? The private sector did it by responding to demand at the time, and the government helped by getting out of the way. I wonder if the member could explain to the Liberals how that possibly happened without a giant bureaucracy to do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, not one person has emailed me or contacted me to ask me to support this bill. In fact, I have more Liberal members emailing me asking me to cross the floor than to support this bill. On the other hand, many have phoned me to oppose it. This does not sound like a bill anybody wants. The member across the aisle claims that this is all a plot by the Conservative Party to raise funds. He has a point, because it is a great fundraiser. I actually have people phoning me to say they will donate if I can stop this bill. If it is a fundraising tool, it is a pretty good one. I cannot stop it. Only the Liberals can stop it. The Liberals keep telling us this bill is harmless, yet they also claim it is crucial. I am wondering if the member could speak a little about this.”
“Madam Speaker, recently a Canadian journalist was fined three-quarters of a million dollars for observing that there are only two genders. The reason I mention this is that it is an example of how well-meant but subjective ideas can slide sideways into something that is completely against free speech. Could my colleague elaborate on why it is so important that any changes to the system fully respect the freedoms guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the freedom of religion, and what safeguards she believes should be included to ensure those rights remain protected?”
“Mr. Speaker, given the Liberal track record of flagrantly misusing government power, and I cite the misuse of the Emergencies Act, the freezing of citizen bank accounts, the intrusion on provincial jurisdiction numerous times, the arbitrary firearm confiscation by executive order and the elements of the Impact Assessment Act that were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, if the government can punish speech it considers hateful now, what is stopping it from silencing any dissent tomorrow? Furthermore, if the government can do that, what about future governments? Are they going to be able to silence dissent simply by ruling it hateful?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who would like to see Bill C-9 withdrawn. Given the atrocious record of this Liberal government in overstepping its bounds, given the Emergency Act and freezing bank accounts, these Canadians are asking what exactly is preventing this government from expanding its powers under the bill, just to squash dissent. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to withdraw Bill C-9 .”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are trying to build a narrative that the Conservatives are obstructing them at every turn, despite the irony of actually doing this on a bill that we are presenting. I watched the Liberals obstruct it. Every single speech has the word “obstructionism” in it. I think even a new word was created today, “obstructionality”, by one of the speakers. I am wondering if the member, who talked about how terrible it is to work with the Conservatives, has any views on the actual bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are trying to build a narrative of obstructionism by saying we are obstructing their efforts to combat the problems that they themselves have created over the last 11 years. The irony here is that they are actually opposing a bill that would fix some of the problems they have created, which they claim they want to fix. My question for the member is why.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that the Department of National Defence is expanding rapidly right now and that the unused properties are generally World War II heritage leftovers. What would the member say about the coming expansion and how that may conflict with her bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are telling us that soaring grocery bills are caused by external factors, as if the cost of living is going up everywhere. It is not. We have higher food costs than almost anywhere else in the G7. Meanwhile, the government piles on carbon taxes and red tape that make it more expensive to grow, transport and sell food. Let us be honest. These handouts are an admission of failure and a small band-aid for large, self-inflicted wounds. When will the government stop blaming others and start scrapping the policies that are driving food inflation at the checkout?”
“Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour a family in my riding, in Lumby, British Columbia, who have endured a devastating loss. Tatjana Stefanski's loved ones carry not only the grief of her murder but also the painful knowledge that she died almost a full year before Bailey McCourt, and that nothing was done. Tatjana's husband, Jason, has worked tirelessly to bring attention to the need for real, meaningful change. Had he been heeded earlier, it is possible that Bailey might have been protected by a Tatjana's law. As a country, we must do better at protecting our vulnerable. We must enact common-sense rule of law and then enforce it. Tatjana's family has shown remarkable strength in unimaginable sorrow. We honour them and Bailey's family by turning their pain into real change that protects the vulnerable when it matters most.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Liberals numerous times that somehow the problems we find ourselves with today are Stephen Harper's fault. I wonder if my colleague could tell us if we should blame these problems on, let us say, Mackenzie King, or is this a newer problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been getting less and less buying power over the last 10 years. Food prices have doubled, but wages have not, which indicates an inflationary environment. We all understand this, but my colleagues across the aisle boast about the handouts that their poverty-inspiring policies have created in the first place. Does my colleague believe this is an intentional strategy along philosophical lines, or is it just a massive screw-up?”
“Madam Speaker, we hear that the B.C. Liberal caucus is “seething,” “anxious” and “angry” about a possible pipeline, so the Prime Minister is appeasing them by hiding behind the provincial NDP, just like Brookfield hides behind Caribbean tax laws. After nine years of Liberal energy mismanagement, Canadians want a pipeline. Will the Prime Minister do his job, stop the political games and immediately get shovels in the ground on this oil pipeline?”
“Through their stewardship, Sandon remains not just a ghost town, but a living symbol of resilience, innovation and heritage.”
“Madam Speaker, nestled deep in the mountains of my riding lies the historic town of Sandon, British Columbia. It was once a thriving silver mining hub and was the first community in our province where every citizen had access to electricity. At its heart stands the Silversmith Power and Light plant, commissioned in 1897, which is still humming along today using equipment made when horses were still our primary mode of transportation. Now in its 128th year of continuous operation, it remains Canada's oldest hydroelectric facility, producing clean, renewable energy that can power almost 500 homes. For decades, Hal Wright and his family have dedicated their lives to preserving this extraordinary piece of Canadian history.”
“Mr. Chair, we keep hearing about Donald Trump. Donald Trump has been in power for five years; the Liberal government has been in power for 10 years. Somehow, five years just slipped through the cracks, but I think my colleague already addressed that. When we heard earlier from the Liberals, I could barely believe it when it came out that the food price problem was a matter of climate change. I am wondering if the member thinks climate change is causing the softwood problem.”
“Madam Chair, when the Liberals were elected, they were elected to save us from Donald Trump and his tariffs. Apparently, lately that does not matter; it is who cares whether he wants to talk about it or not. We have now heard that it is a long-term problem. Can my colleague say whether it is a problem of Donald Trump and his tariffs or of long-term Liberal neglect?”
“Mr. Speaker, do members remember when the Liberal government told us the budget would balance itself? For 10 years, the government has promised to spend less, while throwing money in every direction. Having finally blown up the economy, the Liberals' brilliant solution is to spend twice as much but change the name of spending to “investment”. Even the PBO, the budget watchdog and Fitch Ratings are pulling their hair out. How many more fiscal watchdog reports is it going to take for the Prime Minister to rein in his costly credit card spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is looking at a mountain and talking about a rock at the foot of it. It has a cumulative effect when this Liberal government continually piles on Canadians, and then it adds insult to injury by over-regulating them on top of it.”
“Mr. Speaker, they would be able to feed their own kids, for one thing. They would be able to afford the basic necessities of life that they can no longer afford. We would reduce inflation, and we would make their dollars have more spending power. We have had decades of prosperity in Canada and we had it right up until 2015 when the government took charge.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to be missing the point, like so many Liberals. It would be lovely for every citizen of Canada to go to Disneyland once a year, but the trouble is that it costs money, so we have to be a little careful about what we do. Sure, we can do that. If I give someone $90 and then send them an invoice for over $5,000, does that make any sense? Is that economically viable? I would suggest to the member that it is not economically viable and we have to be a bit more careful about where we are sending our trillions of dollars.”
“Bill C-4 does not deliver that. It is time for the government to stop managing decline and start building prosperity for the forestry workers in Lumby, for the families lining up at food banks in Vernon and for every Canadian who still believes that hard work should pay off.”
“It increased the size of the public service by nearly 40% since 2015, yet federal services have never been slower. Passports, veteran benefits, EI claims and everything else takes longer and costs more, and the staff back in my riding can attest to that. Canadians deserve better than this endless cycle of spending, taxing and gaslighting. They deserve leadership that believes in the strength of our workers, the promise of our industries and the common sense of the Canadian people. Do we believe in empowering Canadians to build, grow and thrive, or do we believe that Ottawa always knows best? My constituents have made their answer clear. They want a government that gets out of the way, lets them work and lets them keep more of what they earn. They want affordable food, secure jobs and a future worth staying here in Canada for.”
“Bill C-4 was presented as a step toward making life more affordable, but, buried beneath the talking points, what we actually find is yet another expansion of government control, yet another layer of Ottawa intervention that would do nothing to lower grocery bills or pay the rent. (1625) Instead of addressing the real drivers of inflation, which are overspending, overtaxation and over-regulation, the government keeps pretending it can spend its way out of the crisis it created by overspending in the first place. Let us remember that inflation did not just happen in Canada; it was made in Canada. It was made by a government that printed and borrowed half a trillion dollars, and then denied that it would cause inflation. While ordinary Canadians tightened their belts, the government expanded its own.”
“It means fighting to end the softwood lumber tariffs once and for all, through strong, principled diplomacy backed by a government that actually defends Canadian workers. It means repealing the hidden industrial carbon tax that drives up prices on everything every single step of the way. In the end, the debate is not about partisanship. It is about priorities. In Lumby, one father told me that he has been working two jobs since his forestry layoff but still cannot afford groceries and rent in the same month. This is the absurd cycle of Liberal economic policy: tax more, regulate more and make life more expensive for those who can least afford it, then add insult to injury by boasting about its handouts.”
“Canadians deserve a government that stands up for forestry families in the North Okanagan and not one that leaves them behind. They deserve a government that protects our farmers and food producers, not one that taxes them into insolvency and treats their property like its own. Canadians deserve a government that recognizes that affordability is not just an abstract policy. It is about whether a mother can afford milk for her kids, whether a senior can keep the heat on or whether a young couple can ever hope to buy a home. The answer is not another bill that expands government reach. The answer is to restore economic discipline, to stop wasteful spending and to remove barriers to growth in every region of the country.”
“They are shutting down because of a lack of economical fibre and because regulatory policy has made it nearly impossible to compete. The situation is made worse by the softwood lumber tariffs still imposed by the United States, tariffs that the Liberal government has utterly failed to resolve. Those illegal tariffs have cost Canadian producers more than $8 billion in duty since 2017. This money could have gone to keeping mills open, workers employed and the community stable. Instead, it has been siphoned away by an apparently unsolvable trade dispute that the government treats as an afterthought. To make matters worse, the folks who were laid off continue to be penalized by higher prices on the food they can no longer afford, prices that are directly attributable to Liberal actions.”
“It has tripled the carbon tax, which adds cost to every stage of the food supply chain, from the fertilizer on the farm to the fuel in the trucks and the power in the grocery store. The result is higher prices on every item in the shopping cart. With Bill C-4 , the government wants to expand bureaucracy and regulatory oversight at a time when Canadians are begging for economic relief, not more red tape. Let us be clear about what this means for real families in my riding. In Armstrong, dozens of workers at Tolko Armstrong lumber and White Valley veneer were recently laid off. These are hard-working men and women, millwrights and forklift operators, all dedicated to a proud local industry. Tolko's statement was clear. They are not shutting down because of a lack of markets.”
“For the first time ever, food banks in our communities are reporting record numbers of working families, people with jobs needing help just to get by. This is not the Canada they were promised. The data is as stark as it is shameful. Food inflation in Canada is rising faster than in nearly every other G7 nation. While the United States, France and Germany have all seen food price growth start to level off, Canadian families are still paying more every single month. According to Statistics Canada, grocery prices have risen more than 20% since 2020. That is hundreds of dollars a month for the average family, yet the government continues to tax the very farmers and truckers who bring food to our table.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4 and to the growing affordability crisis gripping Canadians from coast to coast. Nowhere is it felt more sharply than in my own riding of Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee. The bill fails to meet the moment, as so many introduced by the Liberal government do. It offers slogans instead of solutions and bureaucracy instead of hope. While Ottawa debates, Canadian families are being forced to make choices that no one in a country as rich in resources as Canada should ever have to make, choices between heating their home and feeding their children. In the Okanagan, Lumby, Nakusp and the Slocan Valley, I have spoken with parents who quietly started skipping meals so that their kids can eat. Seniors who worked their entire lives are now relying on food banks.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct one thing the member said. It is not that Conservatives do not believe in the school lunch program; it is that we do not believe in driving parents into penury so that they have no choice but to use it. The Liberals keep talking about a tax break for 22 million Canadians, but at the same time, they kept the industrial carbon tax, which effectively penalizes 40 million Canadians. If the member is serious about tax breaks, why would the Liberals not take off the industrial tax?”
“We still live in a democracy, despite the Liberals' best efforts, and Canadians deserve to know what our government is up to and why.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court ruling yesterday removed the last chance these decades-old ostriches had, and I sympathize with the tens of thousands of Canadians who have been caught up in the drama unfolding on a farm in Edgewood, B.C. For the past 10 months, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency operation has disrupted life in the peaceful town of Edgewood, B.C., driven the farm deep into debt and cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars in police overtime and agency costs. Perhaps most chilling has been the silence of both the Liberal Minister of Health and the Liberal Minister of Agriculture . They allowed this to drag out for far too long, keeping Canadians in the dark and even laughing at the plight of these people. This is not how the government should treat our citizens.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree, if we were delivering quality health care. We did a study not long ago, about 10 years ago, in which we found that Interior Health, which is my region's health authority, had a manager for every six workers on the front lines. The management burden at the top has to come down. I think we can do more with less. I believe that we owe a responsibility to the provinces—”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to that report. I have not read it. What I can tell the hon. member is that we do not need an economics degree to understand that being taxed at every step along the line of food production is going to add costs. We can parse those numbers, look at them and mitigate them with other numbers. The fact still remains that when we tax the economy, food prices are going to go up. That just makes sense.”
“Mr. Speaker, I once ran myself into credit card debt very badly. I found myself paying hundreds of dollars in interest every single month, with no benefit. If I had not used my credit card, I would have been able to put that money away in savings. It is not a good feeling to be simply throwing money out the door or giving it to bankers, especially if they are involved with our money in other countries. I share my colleague's deep concern over the deficit. We are never going to end the deficit if we do not smarten up and have logical budgets in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I obviously reject the characterization by the member opposite. I would ask the member whether he believes it is logical for parents to have to rely on the state after they have been driven into bankruptcy by the policies of the government and whether it is logical for them to want to be wards of state.”
“Where is the logic in a government that taxes work, punishes success and calls dependency progress? Where is the logic in driving businesses to the brink of insolvency, and then bragging about new programs for the unemployed? Where is the logic in claiming to fight for the middle class while making it impossible for the middle class to even exist? The Conservatives will continue to fight for real affordability, for policies that empower Canadians to feed their own kids, build their own businesses and stand proudly self-sufficient in a country that rewards work, not dependency.”
“They want to own a home someday, like their parents, once they have good jobs and can build an affordable life. They want to know that if they work hard, they can afford to buy a home, start a business and feed their families without waiting for a government cheque. Conservatives are offering a better path forward: an affordable budget for an affordable life. That means ending hidden taxes that quietly drain household budgets, cutting wasteful government spending and removing the bureaucratic roadblocks that prevent homes from being built. By opening the country to opportunity and rewarding hard work, we can restore hope to families barely getting by. It is time to turn away from generational debt and toward common sense. Let me return to the question a Liberal MP mockingly asked last week: Where is the logic?”
“The Liberals and their friends, the NDP, blame high prices on corporate greed, but in reality, businesses are simply passing on government greed. When things cost more to make and transport, they cost more at the checkout stand. This is called inflation, and it is caused in part by the industrial gas tax and other hidden taxes like it. It is made worse by the explosion of the expensive bureaucracy the Liberals have embarked on. Every time the government pats itself on the back for protecting workers but drives employers out of business, it is not helping labour; it is destroying jobs, futures and, in many cases, families. Canadians do not want to be wards of the state. They want the dignity of earning their own way. Young people do not want a low-wage rental economy.”
“That means the price increases every step of the way until it reaches the ridiculous price we consumers are used to paying at the checkout stand, or trying to. While our neighbours to the south embark on aggressive tax restructuring to become competitive, the Liberals are dragging on our economy with hidden taxes and stifling red tape. While the Americans are rapidly reindustrializing, the Liberals are still chasing industries out of Canada with punitive taxation, onerous red tape and accusations of greed whenever a company does manage to succeed in this hostile environment. While the world is changing before our eyes and other countries are quickly adapting, the Liberal government seems to be stuck in 2015, leisurely taking half-steps and clinging to old ideologies. This budget is just more evidence of the same thing.”