Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, this is for the viewers at home. The Liberal government introduced a 250-page bill. It said that Bill C-39 is just what we need now so Canada can finally start building energy and transportation projects. I thank them for not scrolling for a few minutes. This speech will feature Justin Trudeau, Katy Perry and a special appearance by Doug Ford. Time flies when we are having fun. It is hard to believe, but it has been 18 months since the election. I remember my first couple of days in Ottawa. We had the election of the Speaker, I took a shuttle with my commoner friends for the ceremonial tradition of being rejected by the Senate and saw His Majesty's carriage arriving at the Senate. I also clearly remember the Prime Minister telling Canadians that all we needed to do was pass Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, in order to start building at unimaginable speeds. He said that Bill C-5 was just what we needed to get Canada building. Conservatives worked with what was then a Liberal minority, and we passed Bill C-5 in five days. I was told Bill C-5 was going to fix all of our problems and eliminate the complex regulatory regime that got in the way of building projects. Here is a pop quiz. Since the passage of Bill C-5 at the commencement of this 45th Parliament, how many new projects have been built? It is zero. How many new projects, and I emphasize the word “new”, were approved? It is zero. It is because the Liberal government is all talk, no results, and all talk, no action. The Prime Minister talks a fancy game, but when it comes to building projects, he is just like Justin. What is Justin Trudeau's new company called? It is called Hope & Hard Work. In this case, in Justin's case, it is all hope. My Liberal friends accuse me all the time of having Justin live rent-free in my head. He is living rent-free on Katy's yacht. Now, 18 months later, the Prime Minister is back from overseas and has tabled a 250-page bill and said that if we pass Bill C-39, we are going to start building. What changed? It was one word. Bill C-5 was the Building Canada Act; Bill C-39 is the building Canada strong act. To the fancy Liberal marketing consultants, how about some fresh material? Slogans do not build projects. Slogans do not build pipelines, energy corridors or transportation corridors. We should be the wealthiest country in the world because we are blessed with the greatest natural resources in the world. We have $30 trillion of proven reserves in natural resources. We have some of the world's highest proven oil reserves. We have natural gas that could satisfy the crazy demand for electricity. We have rare earth minerals that everyone is chasing. We should all be living like a Saudi prince. Instead, Canada imports oil from Saudi Arabia. We import oil from Nigeria. Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot? Why do we not get out of our own way and start building? Other petroleum producers will not stop, and they pollute the environment. Canada has some of the best environmental practices in the world. Those who are passionate about the environment should support Canadian oil because it is much cleaner and better than Middle Eastern oil. We need to free our natural resources. We do not need this bill. We need the will to build. We need to free Canada's oil and gas; that would mean more money in our pockets. This bill would not do it because the Liberals will not do it. They do not want to do it. They build nothing but bureaucracy. Since taking office, they built the Build Canada Homes agency and the Major Projects Office, the financial crimes agency is in the works, and there is the defence procurement agency. All they have built is offices inside office towers and then hired their friends. The Prime Minister is all talk, no results. What else do the Liberals claim they will build in this bill but will not build? It is transportation. For the life of me, I do not understand why we cannot build transportation in this country. Actually, I do understand. We need three levels of government and three levels of approvals, and there is always someone on vacation. I ran for provincial parliament almost a decade ago because one of my lifetime goals is to connect the Sheppard-Yonge subway station with the Sheppard West subway station. That is four kilometres of rail that would leverage line 1 and line 3, connect the north part of the city from east to west, open up York University to Scarborough students and aid in the construction of housing at Downsview Park. Instead, we have a Rogers Stadium concert venue that disturbs the neighbours. What happened? I thought we were going to build housing at Downsview Park. Now here come the Liberals saying they want to build a high-speed rail line from Toronto to Quebec City, the Alto, and it is going to cost $90 billion. Doug Ford's Ontario line is 15 stops and 15 kilometres, granted it is underground. Alto is promised to be 1,000 kilometres. A month ago we found out not only that the 15-kilometre Ontario line is half a decade behind but that the cost of construction is up to $34 billion. In the best case scenario for Doug, by the time he is done with the Ontario line, it will come in at $40 billion. It is not even like a traditional subway; it is a hybrid of hard rail and light rail. I do not think anyone told Doug. If the Ontario line from Don Mills and Eglinton to Lakeshore and Bathurst is $40 billion, is the Alto high-speed rail really going to be $90 billion? Alto will never be built, never. By the time construction stops, it is going to have cost $1 trillion. I am being reminded by my friends that I will be splitting my time with the Bloc member for Repentigny. It is so upsetting that we do not have the stomach to build serious transportation projects in this country anymore. The regulatory process, the approvals, the funding arrangements, the environmental issues and the agendas, all of those, are getting in the way of actual building. By the time we have some sort of consensus, there is a new government at one of the levels of government, and it will go in a different direction. I have watched that happen in my beloved city of Toronto time and time again. The Eglinton LRT was a debacle. Metrolinx was stuck at Yonge and Eglinton forever. Now the government has the audacity to tell us that the Alto will cost $90 billion and all we have to do is pass this 250-page bill. If there is someone who believes that, then please let me sell them the Gordie Howe bridge, or its total income after expenses. The government should scrap this Alto monstrosity and build energy projects like Canadians depend on it. For goodness' sake, can we stop buying oil from Nigeria? Why can we not supply natural gas all around the world? All day long, I hear about AI. None of this AI data centre revolution happens without electricity, not in the U.S., not in Europe and not in China. This is Canada's opportunity to supply the globe with Canadian natural gas, to supply the electricity to all of these data centres. This is how we can be part of this industrial revolution. That is how we protect our jobs. We have an option to become a commodity-based economy to power the future. The Liberals passed Bill C-5, and they will pass this bill too. What are we going to build? Nothing. It is all talk and no results, no action. We are not going to build until Conservatives come back to the federal government. What we are asking, and what all Canadians are asking, is for a little less conversation and a little more action, please.

Mr. Speaker, the U.A.E. met with the Prime Minister a couple of months ago, and it said it was going to invest $90 billion in our economy, and the Liberal government was not able to identify one single shovel-ready project for the U.A.E. to invest in. I heard about that summit in Toronto. It was a fun place. I heard there was a max plate fundraiser the night before for the Liberals. What we do not have is a single investable project ready to go. That is the fault of 11 years of Liberal governments, and the current Liberal Prime Minister is going to have the same legacy.

Mr. Speaker, 500 projects are available for approval right now that the Prime Minister can get going on. He does not need a 250-page bill. That is two projects that are ready to go for every page in the bill. At this time, Speaker, I would like to request a brief indulgence. Surrounded by his loved ones, Glen McFarland passed away last night. Glen McFarland was the financial agent for the York Centre EDA during the 2025 general election and was previously the financial agent for my nomination. Glen was a remarkable man. He is survived by his wife, Lisa, and their three children. He was an extraordinary accountant and a fellow with CPA Ontario. He was a managing partner of the McGovern Hurley accounting firm, which is proud of its more than 100 employees. He was such a gentleman. He passed away last night after a long fight with cancer. His family should know how much he was loved by his friends and his loved ones. He was a remarkable man. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member whose riding is west of mine was not attentive to my presentation. I love the city of Toronto. My first love is the city of Toronto. What I do not love is what we have done to Toronto's transportation. Line 5, which goes from my riding into that member's riding, was not on time or on budget. There is a streetcar on Finch Avenue. What an absurdity. The Eglinton LRT took double the time at double the budget. The St. Clair streetcar is insanity, and the Ontario line is also a debacle.

Mr. Speaker, serial rapist and killer Paul Bernardo will have a fourth chance at parole this January. The lawyer for the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French said, “It's just pure entertainment for [Bernardo].” Sadistic murderers should not have a parole hearing every two years. They traumatize their victims' families again and again. Conservatives put forward a bill to end this practice, but the Liberals voted it down. I would like a clear answer from the public safety minister. Will the Liberals finally protect these families by scrapping Liberal parole?

Mr. Speaker, on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, a shooting took place outside a Belleville synagogue. Constable Smith, who was stationed outside the synagogue, was shot and is now hospitalized in critical condition. This is a back-to-back statement in which I thank, and pray for, a police hero hit by gunfire in the line of duty. What happened to our country, so Canada's Jewish community is afraid to go to temple? I asked my colleagues on the Liberal side to save their tweets. They did nothing to protect the Jewish community, get rid of the IRGC and Hamas networks in Canada, empower the RCMP to intervene locally or stop dehumanizing Jews by accusing Israel of genocide. Civilian casualties of war are not genocide. Finally, people who promote Islamist jihad do not belong in Canada. Open your eyes. Enough is enough. On this difficult day, I wish the Jewish community G'mar chatima tova.

Mr. Speaker, part 2 of Bill C‑22 would force providers to retain the metadata of all Canadians. Liberals say the data is no different than the phone book, but the phone book did not log every phone call in every location of every Canadian for the last 12 months. There are also real concerns that foreign actors would exploit a back door to encryption. Law-abiding Canadians do not want their privacy breached, but Liberals are cutting off debate and ramming the bill through. Part 2 is not ready to be passed into law, so will the Liberals work with us to pass part 1 of Bill C‑22, but pause on part 2 to allow us to fix the bulk of this bill?

Madam Speaker, it is finally sunny in Ottawa, but to me, this is one of the darkest weeks in the history of Canadian democracy. Bill C-9 is back in the House after a brief stint in the Senate that did not make a dent in the problems with the bill. Predicated on false pretenses, the repeal of the religious defence to hate speech remains. The new hatred offence would still criminalize conduct, contrary to a civil statute. Nothing that minority communities are actually worried about in terms of security would be changed by Bill C-9. The Liberals are ramming it through at the end of the summer sitting as the government-subsidized media is already at the cottage. In the same week, the Liberals are ramming through Bill C-22, a bill that would require telecoms and Internet companies to seize all Canadian metadata, including their geographic location and who they called or texted in the last year, without their having committed an offence and without a search warrant. Bill C-22 would allow the Minister of Public Safety to order Internet providers to break encryption, something that has never been done before, even though every security expert is sounding the alarm that the privacy of law-abiding Canadians would be at major risk. In the same week, the Liberals are also introducing Bill C-34, the digital safety act. Of course, we have to protect children, but that does not mean that we have to deny children their charter rights to access media communications, which is an explicit right, or prevent them from communicating with each other through popular apps. It is a plan that failed in Australia and that will fail everywhere else. Unless we are prepared to implement a Beijing-style, authoritarian Internet surveillance regime, this is unenforceable. Are Canadians ready for that? Obviously, they are not. In the same week, which is the last week before the legislature rises, the Liberals are introducing so-called privacy legislation, which would eliminate the Privacy Commissioner in favour of their so-called digital safety czar, who would regulate, enforce and judge all at the same time. This would be a Liberal government appointee reigning over what we do on the Internet, with unlimited powers over how we communicate and how the world's most innovative companies do business. Surely by coincidence, the same thing is now happening in England this week, and it just happened in Australia. I was trained in the common law. It was the beacon of hope for any modern civilization. Anywhere the common law went, prosperity followed, but now we have these egomaniacs, career technocrats and misguided lefties who think they know better than everyone telling us how to live for our own benefit and how to keep us safe. I want to be safe from them. Bill C-9 would do nothing to protect the Jewish or Muslim communities. It would not protect any community. This entire thing has been a major Liberal failure. The Liberals wanted to eliminate the Attorney General's ability to consent to prosecutions. They realized how bad an idea it was and rolled it back. They wanted to redefine the term “hatred”. It is a definition that the Supreme Court used for 40 years. I am proud of this. It is one of the greatest accomplishments of my career that the Liberals have accepted my amendment to keep the old definition of hatred and not dilute it. People would not have to go to jail when they offend someone. Just when I thought we were out of the woods, I saw the digital safety bill that attempts to regulate harmful conduct online. Surprise, surprise. Harmful content would include content that foments hatred. The bill states, “content that foments hatred means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group”. The Liberals are at it again. We just fixed the definition in Bill C-9, and now they have come back with a digital safety bill to regulate our conduct online and they have a different definition for hatred. Why is it “detestation or vilification”, not “detestation and vilification”, as the Supreme Court says? Where is the extreme or intense emotion that is required by the Supreme Court, like we agreed on in Bill C-9? Where is that in the digital safety act? Why do the Liberals hate freedom of speech so much? The Liberals hate it because they are afraid of the truth. The Senate was asked to fix the new stand-alone motivated offence in Bill C-9, because this new offence that the Liberals dreamt up would not target criminal conduct only. It would target any offence under any act of Parliament. For example, people could violate the digital safety act or the human rights code, and that may attract criminal prosecution. The Liberals are turning our democracy into a banana republic. Earlier, I heard the member for Whitby ask my colleague why she is opposed to a new hate-motivated offence. Does she not want someone to be punished when they engage in hatred? First of all, hatred is already an aggravating circumstance in sentencing, so do not give us that. Second of all, if the Liberals want to introduce another offence, introduce it for criminal offences. Do not penalize civil conduct, thereby putting civil conduct at risk of criminal prosecution. The Liberals tout all of these benefits for the Jewish community, which is my own community. Let me tell the House something about what has transpired here. Everything the Liberals have done to clarify any existing law is already in law. They say they will have to protect people's ability to enter synagogues and be free from obstruction. We are already free from obstruction in entering a synagogue. Nobody can obstruct me from entering a synagogue. That is called assault. How about intimidation? People should be free from intimidation when entering a school. Of course, that has not stopped the multiple school shootings that have happened in my riding. Nothing is happening about those. It is already a criminal offence to intimidate someone entering a school. It is called intimidation contrary to section 423 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, they are heckling me because they know I am right. They are heckling me because they cannot handle what they are doing here. I welcome their heckling. I wear it as a badge of honour. The only thing the Liberals would do is eliminate the religious defence to an allegation of hate speech, and it is all because the Bloc says a guy named Charkaoui was not charged for calling for the extermination of the enemies of Gaza. The Montreal police said very clearly he was not charged because “the enemies of the people of Gaza” were not a identifiable group of people so as to attract prosecution under subsection 319(1) of the Criminal Code. It is not because of the religious defence. The religious defence does not apply to incitement to violence. Everyone knows that. The Bloc knows that. The Liberals know that. The religious defence that the Liberals are looking to repeal does not apply. It does not excuse incitement to violence. A religious defence does not apply to statements that are not spoken in good faith. Calling for the extermination of people is not good faith. This is a charade. The main operation of the bill is predicated on a lie. The more lies we get, the more we go down a rabbit hole, like we did with Bill C-9 and Bill C-22, the digital safety act, and as we will now with the changes to the Privacy Act that would eliminate the Privacy Commissioner. Leave us alone and enforce the law. Stop trying to keep us safe. We need to be safe from the Liberal government. I am blessed to represent one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. Every Sunday, thugs come to Sheppard and Bathurst and intimidate local neighbours. They deny us the enjoyment of property. That is mischief. Every Sunday, they try to walk down Sheppard and then make a right into Bathurst Manor or left into Clanton Park. That is intimidation. Every week, we see the arson or firebombing of a Jewish business or a store. Those are called assault or arson.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say I do not want to protect them, but I am pleading for help for my Jewish community. They are telling me that repealing the religious defence would do something about it. It would not, but enforcing existing laws would. That would send a message. We should do that, instead of sending another $100 million to Palestine and instead of hearing the Prime Minister accusing the state of Israel, which is engaged in a lawful, self-defence war, of engaging in genocide in Gaza. That, in fact, fuels hatred against the Jewish community. The Prime Minister fuels violence and hatred against the Jews by engaging in the greatest libel of the 21st century, which is that the state of Israel is engaging in genocide. The Prime Minister recognized the state of Palestine on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. We will never forget that. It was all for electoral politics. We should all be ashamed of the government for the way it is treating the Jewish community and the way it has betrayed all of us. We will never forget it. What the Liberals are doing to usurp Canadian democracy is inexcusable. Shame on all of them.

Excuse me. Mr. Speaker, B’nai Brith said they wanted to repeal the Attorney General's consent. What did the Liberals do? They rolled it back, because CIJA told them not to do it. CIJA told them not to criminalize civilized conduct. Did they listen to it? No. What did they do for the religious organizations? They called them last week. I saw them in the Ottawa airport lounge and told them we are going to announce a commission on anti‑Semitism. Who did the government bring in to that commission? Omar Alghabra. He lobbied to keep Hezbollah off the terrorist list. This is the same government that paid Marouf millions of dollars, knowing he was promoting anti‑Semitism. Do not do us any favours. We are not asking for this. We are asking that basic laws be honoured. Assault, intimidation, mischief—

Mr. Speaker, there is one loophole that needs to be closed. It is the wilful promotion of terrorism. My bill, Bill C‑257, was endorsed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In fact, the contents of Bill C‑257 somehow magically made it into the member for Mount Royal's amendments to Bill C‑9, and then he was instructed to withdraw them. The one thing the Jewish community actually asked for was criminalizing the wilful promotion of terrorism. The Liberal member for Mount Royal wanted to bring it in, in furtherance to my bill, Bill C‑257, and he was instructed to withdraw it—

Mr. Speaker, nobody is mixed up. In fact, the government has eliminated and deleted the previous mischief and arson provisions for places of worship and added a much more difficult standard. By adding the fact that the act on which we could predicate one of those offences has to be wilfully promoting hate, they have actually made it tougher to convict of mischief or arson of places of worship. Mark Sandler even told them so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to address a tragedy that struck the Toronto Police Service and our entire nation. Early this morning, tactical officers from TPS and the RCMP executed a high-risk search warrant in North York. The search was related to a national security investigation into the March 2026 shooting at the U.S. consulate in Toronto. ETF Constable Marc Pinizzotto, age 43, a father of two from Oakville, Ontario, and an 18-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service, was shot and killed in the line of duty. When civilians run one way from danger, the men and women in blue run the other way, into danger. Every day, police officers across our country put their life on the line to protect Canadians. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. We cannot fathom the grief of the family, friends and colleagues of Constable Pinizzotto, but we stand with them in mourning the loss of this Canadian hero. We will never forget Constable Pinizzotto, and we will pray for all of Canada's police officers, who risk their lives to keep us all safe. May Marc's soul rest in peace, and may God bless his family and our entire grieving nation.

Madam Speaker, this is yet another example of the Liberal government stifling debate. We are here to debate the bill in good faith, and unfortunately, we are in for another time allocation motion, which does not allow members to fully debate their mind. I believe that is not the way to go. I would like to ask the Attorney General a specific question. He knows that at committee, I brought a motion forward to bring a further amendment to Bill C‑16 to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography. I subsequently read in the newspaper that the Attorney General had, in fact, considered invoking the notwithstanding clause. I ask the Attorney General this question. If he refused to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography being struck down, is there a possibility that he would ever do it with respect to any legislation? Would he ever specifically invoke the notwithstanding clause, or is—

Mr. Speaker, remember how good life used to be a decade ago, before the Liberal government? We had the wealthiest middle class. Now the middle class is poor, and Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. However, the best thing we had was how safe our country used to be. My city, the beautiful city of Toronto, anywhere, anytime, day or night, any neighbourhood, was safe. After a decade of Liberals, violent crime is out of control. Residents are no longer safe. Parents are afraid for their kids to take the transit. There are robberies on the street, home invasions and extortion. It seems like every day I wake up and a person has been shot in my North York riding. Last week, there was a murder at Sheppard and Magellan, in the beautiful community of Downsview. Three men shot a man to death outside his house. What is happening? What is happening is Liberal bail and sentencing laws. Every police officer will say that. We need to close the revolving door in the courts. First, we got the Liberal failure of Bill C‑14. That was for bail. Now we are here on Bill C‑16, to deal with sentencing. Again, we have a Liberal failure. Instead of increasing mandatory minimum sentences, the Liberals do the opposite. They create what they refer to as a “safety valve”, which would allow judges to disregard mandatory minimum sentences. Under the Criminal Code, mandatory minimum penalties apply to a range of serious offences. These mandatory minimums are designed to set a sentencing floor, a minimum term of imprisonment that Parliament deemed necessary for denunciation, deterrence and public safety for specific categories of crime. In recent years, courts have been striking down mandatory minimum penalties under section 12 of the charter as cruel and unusual punishment. That, of course, includes the Supreme Court. The Liberals frame the safety valve as a response to this jurisprudence of striking down mandatory sentences. They point to recent decisions like Senneville, where the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum penalty for possession and distribution of child pornography. I will come back to this decision. What would they do with a safety valve? The valve would allow courts to impose seLiberalsntences below the mandatory minimum if a judge thinks that applying the mandatory minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment. The Liberals ironically say they would strengthen mandatory minimum sentences, but instead they do the opposite. They make them non-mandatory. Effectively, the valve would allow a judge to disregard mandatory minimum penalties, so a minimum penalty is no longer a mandatory minimum penalty. Jail time would still be required, but a judge would be free to sentence the convicted person to one day in prison. If they feel that this House, Parliament, has prescribed a sentence that is too extreme, they can just disregard what we say. This is crazy. It would result in lighter sentences for serious repeat offenders. The Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what is required. In effect, what previously required a constitutional argument would be an automatic argument every time at sentencing, that something is cruel and unusual. The safety valve is a major concession to judicial activism. It would undermine the role of this Parliament. We are the ones who set sentencing policy. Worse, the principle of deterrence is lost. I listened to some comments a short time ago from folks saying that there are empirical studies that state mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They do work, because someone cannot commit a crime if they are in prison. Many of these violent offenders who offend repeatedly, again and again, should be left in jail, away from the community that they seek to terrorize again. Therefore, we need to do the opposite. This is especially in response to the Supreme Court striking down the mandatory minimum sentence on distribution and access to child pornography. At the justice committee, I moved a motion to invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect mandatory minimum sentences on possession and distribution of child pornography, but the Liberals voted it down. Again, they failed to protect children. This is not just about kids who have already been abused and exploited in these pictures and videos. It is about kids in the future who, God forbid, could be raped because the courts have failed to punish these perverts and deter future perverts. We had to go hard here so that we could kill this awful industry, but the Liberals refused. Why? They say, “All we heard from the Attorney General was that it is a sunset clause, and in five years we would have to do this again.” Well, fine, let us do it again. What was the point of the notwithstanding clause? It was to prevent absurdity. Attorney General Jean Chrétien used the clause to seal the deal on the charter, and he specifically used an example for absurdity that the Supreme Court could potentially come up with. It was a hypothetical that Chrétien used: that the Supreme Court would find possession of child pornography protected by freedom of expression. I think everyone in this room, even the Liberals, would agree that such a finding would be absurd. Now, that is not the scenario we had in Senneville, but pretty close. Senneville pleaded guilty to possession and access to over 300 images of children, mostly girls between the ages of three and six, being sexually exploited. The co-appellant, Mathieu Naud, pleaded guilty to possessing over 500 images and almost 300 videos, most of which were of children ages five to 10, in many cases being subjected to rape and sodomy. This is disgusting. Striking down a mandatory one-year sentence for each of those two counts is precisely the type of absurdity that Attorney General Jean Chrétien had in mind. This is precisely why section 33 was explicitly inserted in the charter. We said to the Liberals at the justice committee, instead of narrowing down and diluting the mandatory minimum sentences, let us preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for the worst of the worst, and this is one of them, but the Liberals refused the amendment. I am proud of the Leader of the Opposition and my Conservative colleagues. We will invoke section 33 to protect children from these monsters and to prevent this absurdity that the Supreme Court arrived at. The Attorney General is refusing to invoke the clause, refusing to do his job, refusing to protect children and safeguard the law. Instead, the Liberals weaken sentencing laws with a safety valve. It is a shame, and it is regrettable. I spoke to a police officer in my riding. I do not want to name them, and I do not even want to name the division. He said to me, not too long ago, “Roman, you know how upsetting it is when we arrest a guy again and again. We had a situation where an officer got injured during the arrest of a guy he arrested again and again, and a couple of days later the same offender was out on bail again.” We tried to deal with bail, but the Liberals refused to remove the ladder principle, and still the courts are required to release at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive terms. We dealt with sentencing and with activist courts that refuse to impose the mandatory minimums that the House prescribed. Instead of preserving mandatory minimums, what did the Liberals do? They did what Liberals do: They weakened mandatory minimum sentences. They now tell judges to go ahead and disregard the mandatory minimum if they think the mandatory minimum is disproportional. I do not understand what it is we are doing here with Bill C-16. We need to do the opposite. We need to protect Canadians. We need to take a bite out of crime and not let criminals loose, as this bill would do.

Mr. Speaker, the member should stop yelling and start protecting children instead. The member believes that preserving mandatory minimum sentences is far right. The Liberal Party has gone so completely insane to the left that anybody who disagrees with it on anything is deemed to be of the far right. I am proud of the fact that the Conservative Party wants to preserve mandatory minimum sentences, and we will do so when we form Conservative government.

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly, the chair of the justice committee called our amendments to reintroduce and strengthen mandatory minimum sentences out of order. This is despite the fact that this is precisely what the bill seeks to do, which is supposedly to strengthen mandatory minimum sentences. Why the chair of the justice committee called them out of order and out of scope, I do not know, but ironically, something interesting happened during that process. In one specific instance, which had to do with the use of a firearm during extortion, the chair of the justice committee initially called the proposed amendment in order, contrary to the fact that every other amendment was out of order. I do not believe that the ruling was correct. We were overruled again and again.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order, and the key to the rule of law is that the government is also under the law. This means that, when the government comes along and says it wants a sweep, it wants the private sector to hold all metadata, all of it, without a warrant, without any suspicion of a crime being committed, that would be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the party of law and order, we will defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the reason.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of improving the bill, I wonder how the member feels about a proposal that the Conservatives, in fact, it was me, brought to the justice committee in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography. Instead of going with the safety valve to potentially undermine mandatory minimum sentences, the Conservatives proposed the invocation of the notwithstanding clause to preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the parliamentary secretary on this file for a while, and I know that she also understands fairly well the issues we are dealing with, so I would like to pose a serious hypothetical for her. Imagine a situation where someone is convicted of a third offence of driving under the influence, and that person is now mandated for, I believe, either 30 days or 90 days as a minimum term of imprisonment. If that person happens to be the only breadwinner of the family, can the member imagine a scenario where a judge would not look to use the safety valve and allow an accused, who would otherwise have to serve mandatory jail time, to escape jail time?

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think the Prime Minister is trolling us. What did he propose to protect the Jewish community? It was the Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion, with Omar Alghabra of all people. It is an insult. That is the Prime Minister's solution to synagogues being shot at and thugs harassing senior homes or marching in North York and chanting for intifada. Liberals love advisory councils. It is grade school level. Why not take some real steps? They could enforce the law, call the RCMP's integrated security enforcement team. This is a national security matter. The Liberals need to deport the 700 IRGC agents from Canada. So far, they have deported one. They could listen to the Association for the Chiefs of Police and pass my bill, Bill C-257, which would criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism. Work with us and pass my bill. To the 400,000 Jewish Canadians, I am embarrassed by the Liberal government. The Conservative leader and all of my Conservative colleagues will not tolerate this nonsense. We will always protect Canada's Jews.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Instead, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession: not a technical recession, a full-blown recession with two consecutive quarters of contraction. Since this Prime Minister took office, Canada has had three out of four quarters of contraction. While 2.2 million Canadians are at the food bank, this Prime Minister spends almost $200,000 on inflight catering on three flights. That $200,000 could feed 10 Canadian families for a whole year. Will the Prime Minister own his economic failure, get a trade deal, build a pipeline and stop spending like a Liberal?

Mr. Speaker, lights are out on the north side of the House, no more excuses. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Where is the fastest-growing economy? Instead, we have the highest household debt in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment, and insolvencies are at the highest level since 2009. All these metrics got worse under this Prime Minister, but he continues to choke Canadian energy with his net-zero fantasy. Will the Prime Minister take our advice, repeal his anti-pipeline laws, axe the industrial carbon tax and bring back Canada's economy?

Mr. Speaker, after one year, Canadians see that all the promises are broken and all the fancy speeches were just an illusion. With the Prime Minister, it is more costs, more taxes, more debt and more unemployment. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. After a decade of deficits, taxes and debt, Canada has the lowest investment per worker, the second-lowest productivity and second-highest unemployment in the G7. The Liberals will add $1 trillion of debt by the turn of this decade, but Canadians will pay this credit card through more inflation and more taxes. Why will the Liberal Prime Minister not stop swiping the national credit card so Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, the member should tell that to the 2.2 million Canadians at the food bank. The Liberals' $1 trillion of new debt means less growth and fewer jobs. In April, Canada lost 18,000 jobs. The unemployment rate is up. In the first four months of this year, Canada lost 111,000 full-time jobs. Youth unemployment is at 14.3%. Young Canadians already cannot afford rent, groceries or homes. Now they cannot even find a job. Liberal insiders are getting rich while Canadians are getting poor. Will the Liberal government stop maxing out the national credit card so Canadians can afford the basic necessities of life?

Mr. Speaker, nobody thought it was possible to outspend Justin Trudeau, but the Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin's deficit. He is putting the nation's bills on a credit card. Canadians will be paying off his debts for generations. I thought he was an economist. Deficit spending leads to inflation. A quarter of Canadians are skipping meals. Will the Liberal Prime Minister stop swiping the nation's credit card so Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, the only people doing well are people connected to Brookfield. Imagine that, instead of leaving kids with an inheritance, people leave them enough to pay their debts. That is what this Liberal Prime Minister is doing to generations of Canadians. In his first year, operating spending is up 9%. It is enough already. We cannot handle the taxes, we cannot handle the inflation and we cannot continue to borrow like this. Will the Prime Minister stop maxing out our nation's credit card?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee. To the viewers at home, the Liberals are coming to regulate the Internet. This is a very serious moment. The Liberals have introduced a piece of legislation that looks to police activity on the Internet and prosecute crime using the Internet. Obviously, this is going to give rise to a lot of questions about privacy, law and execution. I propose to have a professional discussion about how the Liberals are going to police the Internet while preserving basic charter rights, because we all agree that we must preserve charter rights. Conservatives support giving law enforcement the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will always continue to stand for individual freedom, privacy and safety. Let us begin by talking about some laws. The Liberals want to know if Jane Doe is a customer of Telus. They want law enforcement to have the right to call up an Internet service provider and simply ask if Jane Smith is its customer, without a warrant. I must say that I do not object to that. It is probably public information, and in the interest of security, providers could probably move their privacy policy in a direction where that would be allowable. I see that my friend from Winnipeg North agrees. I am happy. I would like to put another proposition to him. Telus or Rogers knows that Jane Smith is a customer, and the police want to seize additional records on Jane Smith, some basic information such as IP address, location, etc. Now we are talking about personal information contained within the records of the company. Like my friend from Winnipeg North says, they are going to go see a judge, hallelujah. The problem is that, to obtain a warrant, typically a police officer would have to swear to a reasonable belief that criminal activity may have occurred. “Reasonable belief” is an important technical term because it commits the police officer to an affidavit, to a subjective belief that he must swear to. However, in this bill, the Liberals are proposing to lower that threshold to reasonable suspicion. If a police officer says that they reasonably suspect a crime has occurred, then that would be enough to satisfy the conditions of the warrant and disclose Jane Smith's additional information. We will think about this at committee, and I will want to hear some testimony, but I am not sure that it is prudent to be lowering the threshold of search and seizure, so this is a very problematic provision. Second, the Liberals are asking Internet service providers to co-operate with them in creating various systems that will help them prosecute crime and find offenders. I do not disagree that that is a noble and necessary goal. They are asking Internet service providers to create systems for the retention of data, back doors where the government would be able to enter encrypted communications and other means to help law enforcement. What is important is that those companies would not be asked by virtue of a court warrant, because a crime has been committed, to say that they now need to create a system. It would be done by a ministerial order, signed off by the commissioner of intelligence pre-emptively. In other words, while we would not be alleging that any crime has been committed, the minister would now come to the private sector and say that they want it to create a system. That is fine, but even if that were to happen, the problem is the definition of an electronic service provider, because this order may be very wide. According to the legislation, an electronic service provider “means a person that, individually or as part of a group, provides an electronic service, including for the purpose of enabling communications, and that...provides the service to persons in Canada [and] carries on...its business...in Canada.‍” If it is Telus, Sprint and Rogers, I understand, but I say to my friend from Winnipeg and to my friend from Mount Royal, who just spoke to this, that I would like to understand very clearly whether this could this also apply to a law firm. Could it apply to an accounting firm? Could it apply to an educational institution? All these folks meet the definition of an electronic service provider as presently articulated by the legislation. That is a concern on my part. I ask that we study it very carefully at committee. I am sure that even members on the other side of the aisle who lean to the left agree that we have to set some reasonable limits, that we cannot be coming to a law firm and saying that a minister, without a court order, would secretly order them to create a retention system and a back door to look at their clients, with no court order, no judge and no right of appeal. Please, let us be very careful with this. That brings me to the final point on what is difficult about the bill, and that is the fact that the public safety minister would order the retention of metadata, of all the data, essentially, that goes through an electronic service provider's infrastructure, and they would be mandated to keep it for 365 days. That engages an interesting question about section 8, on arbitrary search and seizure, because the Internet service provider would be ordered by the minister, not by the court, to keep all our data for 365 days, without a warrant. A person may not have committed any offence, but the minister would want the Internet service provider to keep the data in the event that they have committed an offence. That is not how our legal system works. People will say that it would not be the government seizing the data. That does not matter. If the government were to order another institution, in this case an Internet service provider, to seize it, that Internet service provider would become an agent of the government. The effect is the same, which is a breach of section 8 in that it would be an arbitrary seizure. We need to think about this very carefully. I think I have made a prima facie case that this would violate the charter. It is important to distinguish this from Snowden. I want to talk about Snowden a little bit. He blew the lid off this in 2013 and said that the government was collecting all sorts of metadata. It was collecting all of it. In order to collect that metadata, one had to go to the FISA court. Even though there are some questions about the FISA court and its efficacy, there was still a court. According to the bill, there would be no court. We would just seize it all. In fairness to my friends the Liberals, the government would not be able to see the information seized without a court order, without a warrant. The Internet service provider would hold on to all this stuff. If the government wants it, it would get a court order. Nonetheless, the seizure would still happen. That brings me to my last point: security. It is very clear. According to The Globe and Mail, we are not prepared. We do not have the systems in place to order this sort of metadata catch-all and to create back doors. The article says, “experts are warning that the lawful access regime could allow hackers to exploit architecture inserted into electronic systems”. That is exactly what happened to the United States. The Salt Typhoon hackers out of China, who allegedly have been working for the Chinese state, exploited lawful intercept infrastructure that the U.S. telecoms were required by law to build. They were actually able to breach the White House. Their systems are considerably more advanced than Canadian systems. We understand the need for lawful access, but we need to make sure we draw the appropriate lines and safeguard civil liberties. The government has a problem with civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg is exactly wrong on the privacy issue. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner was not brought into the legislation. Ministerial orders require approval only by intelligence commissioners, and the absence of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada from any oversight role suggests that privacy is at best a second consideration. The Privacy Commissioner is not contemplated within this regime, and the criminal law system that is contemplated in it would override any privacy concerns. It is very concerning that the legislation was, effectively, drafted without any input from the Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, obviously I have very little confidence, but I would like to provide a legal answer as opposed to a political answer. We are still bound and graced by and availed of the presumption of innocence. It is a presumption that the government must overcome. It is important that we do not create a regime that would undermine some of our basic civil liberties. Of course, in the quest of pursuing criminals and defending children, it is not uncommon for police or prosecutors to want to overreach. We cannot have that situation here if we want to preserve our democracy. We always treat the state with suspicion. It comes from a very basic premise: The state has the power, the legislature, the police, the crown and the lab workers. All there is on the other side is—

Mr. Speaker, I am actually very worried that we are not going to have a lot of opportunity to fix this by way of regulation. I would point out to my hon. colleague that the most worrisome thing, the greatest expansion of rights and what scares me about part two, is the definition of electronic service provider. The way it reads now, basically anybody who uses email for work would be an electronic service provider if they facilitate communications in Canada. That would include corporations, trusts, partnerships, joint ventures, unincorporated associations, etc. I am very concerned that we would have ministerial orders without judicial oversight targeted at private corporations—

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the necessity of protecting children online, especially from predators who access unlawful and criminal material. I am wondering if my friend could tell me why she believes the Liberals refused to adopt the Conservative suggestion and, in response to the Senneville decision that struck down mandatory minimum sentencing for access and possession to materials that violate children, the Liberals decided they will have none of it.

Mr. Speaker, one in four Canadians is skipping meals. MNP says that one in three Canadians cannot pay their bills. The Conservatives offered a real solution: cut all federal gas taxes to give Canadians a break at the pumps. It would cost about a third of what the Liberals spend on foreign aid. However, now the Liberals claim to be fiscally prudent. The Prime Minister offered us a lesson on deficits. That is after doubling Trudeau's deficit to almost $80 billion. Why do the Liberals not admit that Canadians are suffering and axe the GST and the clean fuel regulations on gasoline?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals should tell that to the one in 10 Torontonians lining up at food banks. MNP found that almost half of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency. How is it that, in a country that is so rich in natural resources, more than one in five children go hungry? It is because of the Liberal tax-and-spend policies. It is because the Liberals suffocate our oil and gas and give away our money to their friends and to foreigners. Why do they not steal another Conservative idea and cut all federal taxes on gas so Canadians can afford to eat?

Mr. Speaker, Olivia Chow and Toronto city council are building an injection site between a day care and a middle school in our beautiful neighbourhood of Downsview. It will be another Toronto homeless shelter that hands out pipes and needles. It will have a safe room where non-residents can get in, get a needle, inject themselves, leave and roam the neighbourhood. Toronto's homeless shelters have morphed into drug injection sites. Now Olivia Chow wants $700 million from the Liberal government to pay for the construction of 20 more of these shelters all around Toronto. Join me for a visit at Jane and Wilson near the Toronto Plaza shelter. It is an epicentre for drugs, crime and chaos. There are needles everywhere, drug trade and solicitation. The intersection is dead. Olivia wants to turn Jane and Wilson into Keele and Wilson using federal money, but we do not want Olivia's shelter harming our children and we do not want the Liberal government to fund the construction of these drug dens that bring crime and chaos to Toronto streets. Downsview residents do not consent to this shelter, and we will fight it tooth and nail.

Mr. Speaker, last week, three synagogues were shot at in Toronto. The war abroad is spilling onto our streets, while hundreds of Iranian agents are operating in Canada. The Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to table a plan within a week to enforce the deportation of Iranian officials, to disrupt Iranian efforts to launder money and to re-evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level. Will the Liberals stop the Iranian regime here at home, or will Canada remain a playground for the revolutionary guard?

Mr. Speaker, shooting at synagogues is already illegal. Just like the Prime Minister, the justice minister is all talk and no action. Now an Iranian dissident is missing, and police fear that he has been murdered. Meanwhile, some Canadians actually recognized an Iranian official at the gym. The Conservatives are asking the Liberals to table a plan within a week to re-evaluate Canada's terrorism threat level, to identify gaps in our national security and to rid our country of the IRGC. When will the Liberal government start protecting Canadians and finally deport those who are connected to the Iranian regime?

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Jewish community, from one of the largest Jewish communities in the country, I do not believe that Bill C-9 will do anything to accomplish the protection of the Jewish community, but I would like to ask the minister a professional, legal question. The Liberals flaunt the new obstruction and intimidation offence, but it is already criminal to obstruct someone from entering a synagogue or a school. It is called assault. It is already criminal to intimidate someone from doing something they have a lawful right to do, because that is contrary to the Criminal Code section 423. It is called intimidation. The minister does not have to listen to me. He should listen to Mark Sandler, a lawyer who understands this better than anyone. He testified before our committee at the invitation of the Liberals and said that the “proposed intimidation or obstruction sections don't make criminal conduct that is not already criminal.” Why is the minister representing that the new intimidation and obstruction offence will do anything, when in reality such conduct is already contrary to the Criminal Code?

Mr. Speaker, I am Jewish and I represent one of the largest Jewish communities in Canada. I am disgusted by the Liberal government and how it pretends that the Jewish community wants Bill C-9 passed, which is nonsense. The Liberals are saying that while adding fuel to the fire of Jew hatred in Canada. When the Prime Minister says on the campaign trail that he knows there is genocide in Gaza, he fuels Jew hatred. When Liberals engage in the greatest blood libel of the 21st century, that the Jewish state is using starvation as a weapon of war, they fuel Jew hatred. When they sanction Israel to stop the Gaza war for Hamas to survive, they encourage terrorists in the Middle East and here at home to keep up the jihad. When the Prime Minister recognized the Palestinian state, he rewarded the brutality of Hamas, and he did so on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. We will never forget that. Why do the Liberals not call for the enforcement of existing laws? Masked thugs chant for intifada every Sunday at Sheppard and Bathurst. Did anyone say, “Stop. It is incitement to violence so arrest them”? When they march on residential streets frightening neighbours, did anyone say, “What is wrong with you, Olivia Chow?” Did anyone say, “What is wrong with you, Chief of Police Demkiw? It is mischief so arrest them”? Please save your tweets and platitudes. Three synagogues were shot at last week in the city of Toronto. Bill C-9 would do nothing to stop that. With respect to the bill, the Liberals flaunt the new obstruction and intimidation offence, but it is already criminal to obstruct someone from entering a synagogue. It is called assault. It is already criminal to intimidate someone from doing something they have a lawful right to do. That is intimidation and contrary to section 423 of the Criminal Code. However, do not listen to me. Listen to Mark Sandler, a lawyer who understands this better than anyone in the country and who was invited to testify at the justice committee by both me and the Liberals. He said, “proposed intimidation or obstruction sections don't make criminal conduct that is not already criminal.” There is nothing new here. With respect to the new hate-motivated offence, it already effectively exists through sentencing. If an offence is motivated by hate, that is an aggravating factor upon sentencing. However, the new hate-motivated offence in Bill C-9 would not just criminalize criminal conduct. It would also criminalize any hate offence that is tacked onto a civil offence, so non-criminal conduct could now become criminal. This is very dangerous, and the threshold to convict for hatred would be lowered from a good test established by the Supreme Court 40 years ago. I am telling the Jewish community that Bill C-9 would do nothing to protect us. In fact, I believe that Bill C-9 would be weaponized against us. However, this is what we can do to protect Canada's Jewish community. First, no one is talking about law enforcement. This is now beyond a local police problem. We need the RCMP in North York. We need the RCMP in Thornhill. We have RCMP units called integrated national security enforcement teams, which work with the CBSA and local police to counter terrorism. One needs to be empowered locally to protect the Jewish community. Second, there are about 700 IRGC agents in Canada, and according to Global News, there are 450 members linked to Hamas. Why are the Liberals allowing this? Let us investigate these networks and expel these individuals from Canada. Third is to put political pressure on mayors and police to stop the Jew hatred on our streets that is already criminal. Stop the calls for intifada, which is incitement to violence and is already illegal and criminalized in the U.K. End the intimidation of Jewish-owned businesses. Conservatives will defend the Jewish community, but Bill C-9 is a Trojan horse to limit free speech. Shame on the Liberals for Bill C-9. Shame on the Liberals for using the Jewish community as a prop. Shame on you for this motion closing debate.

Madam Speaker, I do not know what the secretary of state is talking about. I was at the press conference at Shaarei Shomayim three days ago, next to the public safety minister, who was not able to say anything. With respect to concrete solutions, if the secretary of state had listened to my speech, I proposed three concrete solutions at the very least. Number one is to get the RCMP involved. We have a special unit within the RCMP to deal with this. It is now beyond local police. Number two, we have 700 IRGC-connected individuals in Canada, and maybe 450 individuals connected to Hamas according to Global News. How about we investigate those networks and expel those individuals? Number three, why do you not do something and call for law enforcement of existing laws? It is illegal to call for incitement to violence. It is illegal to call for intifada, which is a violent revolt, and it is illegal to intimidate Jewish businesses. Do something about it.

Madam Speaker, I actually want to specify that, specifically with respect to the Jewish community, since the election of the Liberal government 10 years ago, hate crimes against the Jewish community have more than quadrupled. Shame on them for that. With respect to the specific question that the member is asking, I would like to clarify for the benefit of the House that this is not politics; this is law. We had Mark Sandler saying that the bill would do nothing new with respect to intimidation and obstruction. If someone intimidates me from entering a synagogue or an educational institution, that is intimidation contrary to section 423. If someone is obstructing my entrance physically, that is an assault. This is all common sense. With respect to the hate-motivated offence, in sentencing, the hate-motivated offence is already factored in. If it is hate motivated, it will be caught in sentencing, but what the bill's hate-motivated offence would do is criminalize hatred with respect to any civil offence contrary to any act of Parliament. They would make non-criminal conduct criminal. This would be a huge error.

Madam Speaker, the “guillotine” or the “hammer” is generally how these motions are referred to when the government shuts down debate. It is shutting down speech, ironically, on a bill that deals with speech and the issue of free speech. The Liberals are saying there has been enough debate on Bill C-9. Yes, there has been a lot of talk between politicians on it, but the Liberals are refusing to hear from witnesses and from Canadians. I want to tell Canadians not just about Bill C-9, but about what the Liberals did to shove this terrible piece of legislation down our throats to the point that today they have to drop a nuclear bomb to stop me from doing my job at the justice committee. We have heard from a handful of witnesses on one of the most consequential pieces of legislation this Parliament will take up. We were supposed to hear from B’nai Brith and Simon Wiesenthal. They were scheduled to testify, but the former head of the committee suspended witness hearings before they were able to testify and ordered the committee to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. I had witnesses calling me personally. Canadian Women Against Antisemitism called me. I had Imam Tawhidi call me to ask why he was not permitted to testify on this piece of legislation. The former committee chair, the same committee chair who asked how certain scriptures could not be hate speech, is the same committee chair who refused to hear from multiple witnesses who wanted to make submissions on this piece of legislation even before the amendments. We proceeded to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9. I was there and had a front row seat for all of it. We were working in good faith. I worked with my Liberal colleague from Mount Royal. We agreed to fix the definition of “hate speech”. My concern with respect to the removal of the consent of the Attorney General was also dealt with. Even better, I was surprised to see in the proposed amendments that my private member's bill, Bill C-257, against the wilful promotion of terrorism, in one form or another, made it into the proposed amendments by the Liberals. That was one of the best days of my career. We could have potentially fixed this bill. Then I learned about the Bloc's amendment from the news media. The Liberals did not have the courage to tell us what they were doing. They had agreed to the Bloc's amendment to remove the religious defence to hate speech from the Criminal Code. The entire exercise had been a fiasco. However, the amendment that the Bloc passed with its Liberal friends is predicated on false pretenses. By moving this amendment, the Bloc is saying that people should not be able to hide behind a religious exemption to hate speech. As we know, it is because an imam in Montreal named Charkaoui called for the extermination of the enemies of Gaza. The Bloc is saying that because he was not prosecuted, we need to remove this religious exemption. That is just not true. To avail oneself of the religious exemption, the words one utters need to be in good faith. When one calls for the extermination of people, that is not in good faith. If we look at the law, the religious defence does not apply to incitement. It applies to the second category of hate speech, which is the wilful promotion of hatred. One cannot hide behind the religious defence when one is inciting violence as incitement is not protected. I read a statement at committee from the Quebec prosecutors that said that they did not lay charges against Charkaoui not because of the religious defence, but because the “enemies of Gaza” was not an identifiable group of people. Apparently, one can call for their extermination, according to the Quebec prosecution, but this had nothing to do with the amendment or the religious defence. The Bloc knows this. The Liberals know this. This is a charade. I will be splitting my time.

Mr. Speaker, last week three different synagogues were shot at in the Toronto area. There was always conflict abroad, but it never spilled onto Canada's streets like it has under this Liberal government. The Liberals politicize the Middle East; add to that their soft-on-crime agenda, and it is no longer safe for Canada's Jewish community. They can, please, save the tweets, the empty platitudes and Bill C-9, which will do nothing for the Jewish community, and instead deal with the terrorists in our streets and enforce existing laws. Now an Iranian activist is missing, and police fear that he was murdered. Hundreds of IRGC agents safely reside in Canada. That is because Liberal immigration minister after Liberal immigration minister fails to protect our borders, and Liberal public safety minister after Liberal public safety minister fails to deport them. When will this Liberal government start protecting Canadians and finally deport those who are connected to the Iranian regime?