Cheryl Gallant · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-16

“People don't trust the Liberals with this bill. I want people to think the Liberals have no integrity.”

“You Liberals have no integrity. I don't trust you to get this right based on your past actions.”

“I'm getting more mail about this bill stripping religious freedom than almost any other issue. It reminds me of the unfair gun registry in the 90s. Constituents are really upset about this one.”

“I want to blame the Liberals for promoting hate. I don't trust them to add these symbols to the bill without trapping innocent people.”

“Hate is rising under the Liberals. This bill is a small step forward, but it doesn't go far enough. The Liberals can't be trusted with this much power over expression. Their approach to combatting hate has only created more hate.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the big-hearted constituents in the caring riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C‑9, the Liberal bill to ban symbols of hate. The bill is back here because the other place has amended the legislation to include a new symbol to the Liberal hit list. The Senate used to be called the chamber of sober second thought. Unfortunately, under the democratic reforms by Justin Trudeau, that chamber has come to resemble a critical studies faculty lounge. It is less sober second thought and more quick hot takes. While the Senate had sufficient sobriety to reject one amendment on so‑called denialism, the decision to include the symbol of a noose highlights a broader problem with the Liberal approach to combatting hate. As I said during the debate at second reading, the rise in hate is real under the Liberals. The measures in this bill to protect places of worship and cultural centres and add penalties for obstructing or intimidating people from entering those places are a step forward. The removal of the safeguards around religious expression is vile. The criminalization of specific symbols would be less alarming if the Liberals were not the ones pursuing it. They have a long track record of engaging in bad‑faith attacks and outright fabrications when they see a chance to smear their political opponents. I would encourage the Canadians watching this debate at home to listen to the powerful speeches given by the member for Terrebonne and the member for Hull—Aylmer. Both spoke of the legacy of lynching in the United States and how the noose became a symbol of terror and violence. They both cited specific, well‑documented historical facts about the history of the noose in the American context, yet when it came time to speak about Canada, the specificity stopped and they moved to speak in generalities. I am in no way suggesting the members were engaged in a repeat of the outlandish claims made by the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre when she claimed crosses were burning on the lawns of Prince George residents. There have been at least three documented cases of nooses being left at workplaces since the summer of 2020 and the death of George Floyd. Prior to the summer of 2020, there had been only one documented case. All four incidents generated considerable media attention and widespread condemnation. In one of the three cases, a person was arrested and charged. Hanging a noose on someone's workplace locker is unambiguously a death threat, regardless of ethnicity. If the intent was to foment hate, then the act is already a criminal offence. If this bill becomes law, the police and the Crown prosecutors will still need to prove that the display was intended to promote hate to lay a charge under this act, yet to hear the Liberals speak, one could easily be misinformed into believing that the simple act of displaying a noose is now a hate crime. Given the Liberals' own recent history of bad‑faith claims of noose sightings, this should concern Canadians. During Justin Trudeau's 2021 superspreader election campaign, the Liberal war room found a pliable journalist to publish the Liberals' pathetic lie that I had depicted the prime minister being lynched. University professors wrote op-eds condemning the so‑called depiction of political violence, except it was a fake noose news story. There was no noose. It was a picture of Trudeau pulling on a thin red lanyard while mugging for the camera. Having had the recent experience of the Liberal Party of Canada lying about a noose and then having it reported by the Liberal‑funded media, I can speak from my own experience about how troubling it is for the Trudeau Senate to add something as vague as the word “noose” to the list of prohibited terror symbols. This example of the Liberals seeking to ban the symbol of the noose so soon after engaging in a bad-faith attack on a political opponent by claiming a lanyard was actually a noose does not stand in isolation. During the “freedom convoy” and the protests, we saw the Liberals deploy this exact same technique. Some protesters had likened the public health restrictions to Nazi‑era policies. Some had even desecrated the Canadian flag with the Nazi hooked cross as a way of illustrating their point that the Liberals were acting like Nazis. When one of those protesters walked behind a Conservative MP doing an interview with the CBC, the Liberals pounced. They accused us of supporting Nazis. Trudeau literally accused a Jewish MP of standing with people who wave swastikas. The Liberals were more than happy to deploy misinformation and disinformation around the use of a hate symbol to score cheap political points. The CBC worked hand in glove with the government to push this fake narrative. No one needs to agree with protesters' views comparing the Liberals to the Nazis, but if we want to keep our democracy, we have to protect the right to express those views. Instead, the Liberal‑funded media, in close coordination with the Liberal government, sought to discredit the protesters as hate‑mongers before a single truck had arrived in the city. Before my Liberal colleagues reach for their favourite talking point, I just want to remind them that the Liberal staffer emails to the media are all available online on the evidence page of the Public Order Emergency Commission website. These two recent examples, the fake noose and the protesters who were labelled as Nazis for calling the Liberals authoritarian, are precisely why we cannot trust the government with this much power over expression. Even last night during debate, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas engaged in a bad-faith attack on my colleague for highlighting the different history between Canada and the U.S. That member provides an example of a type of affliction common to Liberals, what we might call the progressive man's burden. They see it as their moral duty to defend those they view as weak while educating the uncivilized among us. If this bill was a one‑off viewed in isolation, a reasonable case could be made to support it. However, when placed in the broader context of decades of Liberal political strategy that sought to paint all Conservative opposition as motivated by hate and the Liberals' continued desire to construct an entirely new bureaucracy to monitor Canadians' digital expression, this bill looks like a dangerous expansion of authority. Layer that atop the Liberals' decision to support the separatist motion to eliminate the religious defence, and the expansion of state powers starts to look threatening to many Canadians. I agree with my Liberal colleagues when they say hate has grown under the Liberal government. Before the Liberals were elected, there had not been a documented case of a noose in a workplace in decades. Now the Liberals claim it is so common the symbol must be banned. Between 2021 and 2023, there were 238 recorded arson attacks on churches. There are regular hate marches through Jewish neighbourhoods. Liberals even claim their own communities are hotbeds of hatred, where white supremacist rallies are held on a regular basis. Ever since the Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights and restored voting rights to indigenous Canadians, which the Liberals had removed, this country had been on a steady march toward greater inclusion. That all changed in 2015. The decision by the Liberal government to abandon Canada's multicultural approach in favour of an imported American ideology of racial essentialism is at the root of the problem. When combined with out-of-control immigration and soft-on-bail policies, we see the inevitable result. We see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents hiring contract killers to shoot up synagogues. We see hate marches in our streets. We see places of worship burned to the ground. Stubbornly, the Liberals still refuse to admit their mistakes on this file. They have admitted they were wrong about carbon taxes. They have admitted they were wrong about the need for tougher bail. They have admitted they were wrong about the need for adult supervision of our immigration system. What will it take for them to realize their approach to combatting hate has only created more hate? The positive elements in this bill that would protect people attending religious places are completely undone by the decision to remove the religious speech defence. We have recent examples of Liberals spreading disinformation about fake nooses and Nazi supporters. They have cut off debate on this censorship bill. Now they want to create a new bureaucracy to monitor harmful content, yet they tell Canadians to trust the cabinet to determine what is and is not harmful. If Canadians did not even trust the Liberals with a majority, we definitely do not trust them with the power to decide what is and is not hate.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-15

“You Liberals just want to look like you're doing something about hate. The laws we have are fine. You just won't enforce them. You'd rather pass a new bill and pat yourselves on the back than actually do the hard work of keeping our Jewish community safe.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen such public upheaval over legislation since the gun registry was introduced in the late 1990s. The fact of the matter is that we have had anti-hate legislation on the books since the 1970s, and under former justice minister Vic Toews it was more clearly defined; that has been in place. The real problem is that the government does not want to enforce this and law enforcement is not enforcing what already exists. When we see protests, right outside this building, with people screaming at the top of their lungs that they want to see our Jewish population annihilated, there is a refusal to act on that, even on the grounds of the House of Commons. Is this bill not really about trying to make it look like the Liberals are doing something about combatting hate instead of really doing it and having it enforced?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

National Defence

2026-06-10

“I don't like how the government is treating our troops. They're giving a pay raise with one hand but taking away housing benefits with the other. Our military families are losing thousands of dollars a year because of these changes. The defence minister needs to fix this now.”

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-09

“The current government's housing plans are too slow. You will take 1,000 years to finish! Housing should be a provincial job, not federal. Special government housing groups really help private interests, not everyday people. The government should cut taxes and get out of the way instead. That will build homes faster.”

Oral Questions

Employment

2026-06-08

“I heard from a constituent named Bill who doesn't have much work. His business is slow. Food prices are high. The Prime Minister should admit there's a recession. I don't want the government to dodge the question by talking about technical definitions of recession.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“Why don't you explain how much steel Europe and China will buy from us instead of just saying we should do more business with them?”

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-05-04

“I want to say the Liberals are bad. We Conservatives are different. I'm patriotic. Conservatives are better for Canada.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from this old Liberal response that the Liberals are incapable of rising to the occasion. They have become a broken record of vapid slogans. The Liberals are spending more, leaving Canadians to invest less. They are growing the economy from the heart out, the elbows up, the eyes down, but always against the fight for freedom. If one dares to question them, they suggest that person is mentally ill or, like the national “spend more” minister, will accuse them of hating their country. This illustrates the choice Canadians have: They can choose the nationalism of the Liberal Party, which treats criticism as treason, or choose the patriotism of the Conservatives, who seek to repair what is being broken in the country we love. That is the choice. We choose patriotism over nationalism. We choose humility over arrogance. We choose Canada strong and free.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government should spend less. Government should not choose who wins or loses. Let everyone compete on equal terms. Liberal men attack women who question them.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the answer-seeking Canadians in the riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. Last week, I asked the government if it would end the corporate welfare spending spree and balance the budget. The response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was a misogynistic personal attack. This has become a recurring talking point from the Liberal bro caucus. The Liberals cannot defend their terrible policy, so they resort to invoking the “hysterical woman” trope. This sexist pattern comes straight from the top. The Prime Minister does not like to be questioned by women. He gets chippy and condescending when pressed. He even deployed a classic gaslighting technique when he told Rosemary Barton to look inside herself when she asked about his conflicts of interest. Let us be clear. I am not raising a question of privilege. This is no place for a thin skin. I am happy to throw partisan haymakers, and I can appreciate a sharp, devastating rejoinder. The secretary's ad hominem attack was just blunt and boring. It was less Cicero in the forum and more Archie Bunker in the La-Z-Boy chair. After 11 years of failure, all the Liberals have left are tired, worn-out personal attacks. This should not be a surprise, considering their policies are just as tired and worn out. The Liberal sovereign debt fund is just repeating the failure of the clean growth fund. The clean growth fund is just repeating the failure of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. The Infrastructure Bank is just repeating the failure of the supercluster strategy. The supercluster strategy was just the Liberals' doubling down on the failure of the cluster strategy. The Liberals continue to fail over and over again yet never learn a fundamental lesson: One cannot beat the market. It does not matter if one has a Ph.D. in economics from Oxford. No one is smarter than the collective decision-making of 40 million Canadians. Unfortunately, while no one person can outsmart the market, someone can outsmart a government. Call this the Enron-Brookfield business model. Rather than compete in the market, they lobby the government to regulate a market into existence and to then regulate out the competition. They do not need a secret cabal to execute this strategy. They just need to put the word “sovereign” before our business pitch and watch the CBC lobby for them. They can rebrand their concrete slab into a sovereign spaceport and wait for the government to give them a 10-year exclusive, sole-source contract. Unlike the arrogant Liberal approach, our Conservative economic plan is based in humility. We cannot know the future, so we let a thousand flowers bloom. We create the conditions where anyone with a sound business plan has a chance to build a successful venture. We do not pick and choose who gets special political exemptions from Liberal red tape. We will cut the Liberal red tape and lower taxes for everyone equally. This is the same approach millions of Canadians take to investing. They do not try to pick individual stocks. They purchase exchange-traded funds to buy the market. This agnostic approach to economic growth has proven to be superior to the Liberals' faith-based approach. Unfortunately, Canadians are stuck living in the church of climate socialism for the next three years. This is a choice Canadians will face next time: our Conservative approach, rooted in reality and humility, or the Liberal approach, based on economic arrogance defensible only through personal insults.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-04-28

“The government is spending and borrowing too much! It's not helping real families. Stop picking winners and losers and driving up costs so high.”

Statements by Members

Finance

2026-04-28

“I don't like the Prime Minister's plan. It will spend more money we don't have. Debt is bad. He helps his friends with our money. This has failed before. Energy bills go up. More waste and higher costs. Who will he appoint this time?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister is taking a page from President Trump's playbook. It is not enough for him to sign fake executive orders or hype a memo and call it a trade deal. Now he is importing an American-style sovereign debt fund to enrich his friends. Norway and Kuwait use their national oil revenues to fuel a sovereign wealth fund. Unless the Liberals plan to steal resource revenues from the provinces, the only thing feeding this fund is more debt. Another Crown corporation just means more bureaucracy. This is the same failed approach we saw with the Infrastructure Bank and the Trudeau growth fund. They give corporate welfare to well-connected Liberals to build solar panels, while Canadians' energy bills go up. Under the Brookfield government, corporations can claim an investment tax credit for spending a government grant. Which former colleague or friend will the Prime Minister appoint this time?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

2026-04-27

“The government already has too much power. They stripped out amendments that the committee agreed on unanimously. What else will the government control about committees now? Will they stop us from scrutinizing bills too?”

Government Orders

2026-04-23

“I don't like how the Liberals ignore some crimes. Tell them details about crimes they excuse. I want the government to punish all crimes.”

“I want to bring up a past scandal about the other party's leader to make them look bad.”

“You said cases are being transferred to civilian courts. How many? How many are actually being heard? How many are just waiting? What happens to the ones that don’t make the cut for civilian court?”

“I'm saying the civilian courts are too busy. Sexual assault cases are not being heard. Too much time passes. The criminal goes free.”

“I think the military should handle these cases. Some recommendations don't match what victims said. It's not fair to accuse people from a snitch line. Going to court might not work out for anyone.”