Harb Gill

“The government says it is spending money to make life affordable, but families still cannot afford groceries. Between two and three million people now use food banks every month. I want the member to explain why so many people need food banks if the government is doing such a great job.”

“Mr. Speaker, the government proudly announces hundred of millions of dollars for affordability, while the family at the kitchen table keeps cutting groceries. Can the member opposite explain why over two million people line up at food banks every month, and if we include churches, synagogues and temples, that number climbs to three million people? Why are all these people going to food banks if the government’s efforts are so great?”

“Life in Canada has become too complicated and expensive. Working people pay their taxes but still cannot afford food and housing. I want the government to explain what these Canadians are doing wrong.”

“Madam Speaker, a family should not need a spreadsheet, three government programs and a prayer to make it through a month. Simply living in Canada has become complicated and expensive. If a Canadian works full time, pays taxes and still cannot afford a home, groceries and a future, can my colleague, who has spent 38 years in this House, tell that Canadian exactly what he is doing wrong such that he cannot get ahead?”

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“Canadians want to rely on their own paycheques, but in Windsor, wages do not cover basic living costs anymore. Hard-working people used to be able to afford a home, feed their families, and live in safe neighbourhoods. I want the Leader of the Opposition to explain what happened to that promise.”

“Madam Speaker, Canadians are a proud people, and they are not looking for another government cheque. Windsorites are asking why their own paycheque will not go far enough. Could the Leader of the Opposition explain what happened to the basic bargain, that if Canadians work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules, they should be able to afford a home, feed their family, get ahead and live in a safe neighbourhood? What happened to that bargain?”

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“I oppose this bill's labour rules. Workers need the right to strike so they can bargain for fair pay, safe jobs, and security. They pay taxes and deserve our respect.”

“Mr. Speaker, I received an email from an OSSTF district, from Ms. Erin Roy, who is the president of the union. She expressed serious concerns regarding the Canada Labour Code provisions that are introduced in Bill C-39. She wrote that workers and families are facing real challenges in their daily lives because of the high cost of living, and their right to strike remains as the last leverage that provides them the ability to negotiate fair wages, safe work conditions, secure employment and meaningful solutions for workplace concerns. I totally agree. This is the challenge that our friends across the aisle perhaps do not get: These workers are also taxpayers. We need to show them the respect they deserve and recognize the hard-earned dollars they contribute to the government, as well as what they do for all of us.”

In response to a question from Steeve Lavoie

“The Liberals move too slowly and do not keep their promises. I will only support this bill if they add a one-year deadline and protect workers' right to strike.”

“Mr. Speaker, we heard these promises with Bill C-5. If I were a policeman and saw the Liberal bus in front of me going at the speed the Liberals are moving rather than the speed they claimed it would move at, I would pull it over and give them a ticket for impeding traffic. The Liberals have not moved at the speeds they promised us. That is the challenge. If the Liberals amend the things that need to be amended and there is a one-year timeline or deadline, yes, we will support it, provided they also have the provisions that labour needs in order to ensure they have the right to strike when they need to. It is not something workers want to do willy-nilly. They do not want to go into a work stoppage because they feel like somebody looked at them wrong. It is their last option to gain leverage to do what they need to do.”

“I like the idea of cutting red tape so we can build things faster, but I want proof this bill will actually work. I want to know exactly when the one-year timeline starts. I also worry the rules about labour disputes might take away workers' right to strike. I will only vote for this bill if committee work proves it cuts red tape, protects workers, and gets projects built.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Windsor West. I want to start by saying something fairly simple. I am encouraged by the direction of the bill. The government is finally acknowledging something Conservatives have been saying for years: Canada has too much red tape, building takes too long, there is too much duplication, there are too many government departments involved and investors certainly do not like uncertainty. If the bill generally makes it easier to build in Canada and if it saves Canadians money, protects Canadian jobs and gets investment moving, I will support those measures. However, there is another principle I learned during my three decades of a policing career: Trust but verify. I wrote tickets for people not because I only thought they had broken the law. I checked. I looked at the evidence. I verified the facts. That is how I intend to approach Bill C-39. I am not going to oppose something just because the Liberal government has introduced it, but I am also not going to take the government’s word for it. Show me the results. There is something about the bill that should be pointed out. This is not exactly a new idea. In fact, much of what we are hearing today sounds pretty familiar. The Harper government understood that Canada had a problem with duplication and delays. It moved toward one project, one review. It introduced timelines. It reduced the number of federal organizations involved in major project reviews. The basic idea was pretty simple: Get the right people around the table, do the work, make a decision and get on with it. That is not revolutionary. That is common sense. I think Canadians would understand that. What is different today is how big the problem has become. Over the years, governments have added regulations, agencies, assessments, consultations, forms and processes. One layer gets put on top of another, and eventually we get to the point where the process becomes the problem. The government now comes forward and says it is going to coordinate all of this. It is going to establish timelines. It is going to make it easier to build. That is good. I am encouraged. However, I have a couple of questions. Why did it take so long? More importantly, will it actually work? There is a difference between making the bureaucracy easier to navigate and actually removing the bureaucracy. We can put better signs in a maze, and we can open an office to help people get through the maze, but at the end of the day, we still have a maze. That is where I have some concerns with Bill C-39. If we are serious about cutting red tape, then let us cut red tape. Bill C-39 would not repeal Bill C-69. It would not repeal Bill C-48. It would not remove every regulatory barrier that businesses and investors have been telling us for years is making it harder to build in this country. My question is pretty straightforward: Would we actually be removing obstacles, or would we simply be creating a better system for navigating them? Those are two different things, and Canadians deserve to know the answer. Let us talk about the one-year promise. One year sounds pretty good. Every Canadian understands “one year”. Here is the question I keep coming back to: one year from when? That is the important part. Would the clock start when a Canadian company says it wants to build, or would it start after the company has completed the studies, provided the information and satisfied all the requirements necessary to get the application moving? If I tell somebody that I will get back to them within a year, they reasonably expect that year to start when I tell them that. They do not expect me to say that the clock does not actually start until I have finished asking them questions. That is the concern. If someone is investing a billion dollars, they need to know when the clock starts. They need to know who is responsible. They need to know what happens when the deadline is missed. They need to know whether that one-year promise is actually a deadline or simply an aspiration. They do not want a one-year headline. They want a one-year deadline that means something. We heard a similar promise when Bill C-5 came forward. We were told that Canada was going to move at speeds not seen in generations. Eighteen months later, we are back here with another major piece of legislation. Some people are calling it the big beautiful bill from Canada again, telling Canadians that this time, things will be different. That is fair enough. Let us check. How many projects have actually moved? How many permits have actually been issued through the new major projects bureaucracy? What has actually been built? An announcement is not a project. A designation is not a project. A memorandum is not a project. A project is when the shovel goes in the ground. It is when the crane goes up. It is when the factory starts running. It is when a Canadian worker gets a paycheque. That is what I am interested in. I come from Windsor, and we understand this pretty well. We are an industrial city. We have manufacturers and skilled trades. We have tool and die companies. We have automotive suppliers that are tied into supply chains running across Canada, across the bridge and throughout North America. When a decision gets delayed in Ottawa, the consequences do not stay in Ottawa. They show up on the shop floor. They show up in the lunchroom. They show up at the kitchen table. For government, six months can be a line on a calendar. For a small manufacturer, six months can mean six months without an order. For a worker, it can mean six months without a job. For an investor, it can mean taking an investment somewhere else. This is why speed matters, but certainty matters just as much. I also want to make something clear. Cutting red tape does not mean throwing out every rule. Canadians expect us to protect the environment. They expect projects to be safe. They expect indigenous rights to be respected. They expect taxpayers’ money to be protected. This is reasonable. The question is not whether we have rules. The question is whether we have the right rules: rules that protect what actually needs protecting, rules that do not duplicate each other, rules that have an end point and rules that allow a responsible project to actually get built. That is what good government should do. There is one part of this bill where I think we need to slow down, and that is part 3, the labour provisions. Workers are not the problem. Workers are people who build Canada. They operate the cranes. They weld the steel. They drive the trucks. They run the machines. They build the roads. They keep our factories running. Most importantly, they are taxpayers, so we have to get this part right. The government says these provisions deal with exceptional circumstances and the national interest. Well, maybe that is true, but whenever Parliament gives government additional powers to intervene in labour disputes, we need to understand exactly what those powers mean. We have already heard these concerns. CUPE has been very clear. On September 23, its national executive board unanimously resolved that it would defy Bill C-39 if it passed unamended, arguing that the bill would limit the constitutionally protected right to strike. CUPE’s national secretary-treasurer, Candace Rennick, said, “Governments cannot legislate labour peace.” Those are CUPE’s words. I am not going to stand here and tell the House that CUPE has settled the constitutional question, because it has not, but I am not going to ignore its concern either. We should hear from the unions. We should hear from employers. We should hear from constitutional experts. We should hear from the people who actually work under the Canada Labour Code. What threshold has to be met? When can the minister intervene? What safeguards are there? How do we make sure that exceptional powers stay exceptional? These are fair questions. That is why we are continuing to review part 3. Canadians expect us to read this bill. They expect us to understand it. They expect us to ask questions. That is what we are here to do. Yes, I am encouraged by the direction of this bill. I am encouraged that the government finally recognizes that Canada has to build. I am encouraged that we are talking about reducing red tape, but I am not going to confuse a good signal with a proven result. My test is pretty simple. Does it save Canadians money and save Canadian jobs? Does it bring investment back? Does it actually remove red tape? Does it make government more accountable? Does it get projects built? If the answer is yes, I will support it, but I will not support it because somebody tells me to trust them. I will support it because we have done the work, we have read the bill, we have heard from Canadians and we have heard from workers. Canada has everything we need. We have the resources, entrepreneurs, skilled trades and manufacturers. We just need to get out of our own way, and the government should start doing that sooner rather than later. It is about time we start doing what we promised Canadians we would do for them, not just show up and gum up the works as the Liberals have done for the past 11 years.”

In response to a question from Amarjeet Gill

“Police officers are not experts on whether a religious sermon is allowed, and they do not investigate them. This bill is not clear, and that confusion will cause more harm than good.”

“Mr. Speaker, Officer Pinizzotto did not die investigating a sermon. He died investigating hate crimes. He died investigating a shooting at the U.S. consulate. I can tell members from experience that, generally speaking, police officers are not out there challenging people at a religious ceremony to say whether the sermon is allowed or not allowed. Police officers are not the experts. They do not have the wherewithal to do all of those things. The challenge is that when we have unclear legislation, it causes confusion. That lack of clarity is going to cause more harm in our country, rather than solve any problems.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“That is wrong. Inciting violence against anyone is already a crime, and we already have the laws to charge people for it. We just need to enforce them.”

“That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker. The legislation already exists. If anybody, regardless of what text they use, is inciting violence against any Canadian, or non‑Canadian for that matter, that is already an offence and we have the tools necessary to lay those charges. As I said, we just need the courage to lay those charges.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“Prosecutors and judges need to be braver about doing their jobs. Frontline police officers want to do the work, but they get blamed when prosecutors and judges fail to act.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I would say that, yes, there is a lack of courage and a degree of timidity among the ranks, especially the higher ranks, not the frontline folks. They are ready to do the work they are assigned, but one has to have the courage to do what needs to be done. Courage has to be shown by prosecutors, as well as judges. When somebody drops the ball, it is not a judge who goes to a mic and answers questions, or a Crown prosecutor for that matter. The guy who is left holding the bag is the police officer, who has to explain why the judge made a certain decision or why the Crown prosecutor did not proceed. These are the challenges that our friends from the opposite side are not quite getting.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I support parts of this bill, like banning hate symbols and protecting places of worship. But we do not need most of it. We already have strong laws against hate crimes. We just need to enforce them. This bill removes protections for people who share their religious beliefs in good faith, and it will not stop violent criminals.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Windsor West. Today, I rise to speak on their behalf to Bill C-9. Before I do, I would like to take a moment to recognize two brave police officers who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving their communities. Last week, Toronto police officer Marc Pinizzotto was killed in the line of duty while taking part in the execution of search warrants connected to a series of shootings, including attacks at the U.S. consulate and a synagogue in Toronto. Just days earlier, OPP officer Tarun Bali also lost his life while serving the people of Ontario. To their families, friends, loved ones and fellow officers, I offer my sincere condolences. These losses hit close to home for me. More than 30 years ago, I began my career in public service as a police officer with the Toronto Police Service. I spent nearly seven years there before continuing my police career in the Windsor-Essex region, serving a total of 29 years in law enforcement. I still remember what it felt like to put on the uniform and head out on patrol. I remember the pride that came with it, but I also remember the risks that came with the job. Police officers leave home every day not knowing what the next radio call will bring. Their families understand that reality too. That is why the deaths of Officer Pinizzotto and Officer Bali are felt so deeply, not just by their families and colleagues, but by police officers and former police officers across this country. Their sacrifice deserves our respect and our gratitude, and their memory deserves to be honoured. One officer came from an Italian Canadian family, the other from an Indo-Canadian family. Different backgrounds, different communities, yet both wore the same uniform, took the same oath and made the same sacrifice in service to Canada. They protected everyone. That is what police officers across this country do. As I thought about these officers, I could not help but think about the debate we are having today. A police officer has lost his life while investigating violent criminals connected to attacks on places of worship and innocent people. That reality should remind all of us that hatred is not an abstract concept. It has real consequences. It destroys lives. It tears at communities. When left unchecked, it can lead to violence. A few weeks ago, many Canadians joined Rwandan communities across this country by marking Kwibuka, the remembrance of genocide against the Tutsi people in Rwanda. Kwibuka means “to remember”. It is a solemn reminder of one of the darkest chapters in modern history. Last Saturday, I had the privilege of attending such a commemoration in Windsor, where I listened to Kizito Kalima, known to many as “Big Z”, and to other members of Windsor’s Rwandan community as they shared stories of loss, resilience, reconciliation and hope. Their message was powerful. It was not a message rooted in bitterness or revenge. It was a message rooted in remembrance, healing, reconciliation and hope. That message stayed with me, and I believe it carries lessons for all Canadians. Let me be absolutely clear: Canada is not Rwanda. Our institutions are strong. Our democracy is strong. Our people are united by far more than what divides us, but history still has lessons to teach us. One of those lessons is that hatred rarely begins with violence. It begins when people stop seeing their neighbours as fellow citizens. It begins when stereotypes replace understanding and when fear replaces trust. The lesson of Rwanda is not that hatred suddenly appeared. The lesson is that too many leaders ignored the warning signs for far too long. Fortunately, Canada is not facing those circumstances, but that does not mean we should ignore our responsibility to build trust, strengthen communities and unite Canadians. General Dallaire has spent decades reminding Canadians that the lessons of Rwanda are not simply about one country at one moment in history. They are lessons about humanity. They are lessons about leadership. They are lessons about the responsibility we all share to confront hatred before it turns to violence. That is why this debate matters. Racism is real. Anti-Semitism is real. Islamophobia is real. Hinduphobia is real. Every one of us has a responsibility to challenge those things wherever they appear. However, laws alone cannot solve them. No Criminal Code amendment can teach respect, build trust or replace leadership. The words spoken by elected officials matter. The examples set by government matter. The way we speak about one another matters. Good intentions matter too, but good intentions alone are not enough. What ultimately matters is the results of government policies. We are living in unprecedented times. Many Canadians are carrying real burdens. Some are worried about paying their bills. Some are worried about finding a home for their family. Some are worried about crime in their communities. Some are worried about discrimination and hatred. Some are worried about the future their children will inherit. When people are worried, frustrated or uncertain, the tone of public discussion can change. That does not excuse hatred, racism, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, and it certainly does not excuse violence. However, it should remind us that leadership matters. The responsibility of leaders is to lower the temperature, build trust and bring people together around our common values. That is how strong societies remain strong. That is how diverse societies remain united. The question before us is not whether hate is wrong. The question is whether Bill C-9 is necessary and whether it will achieve what the government says it will achieve. There are provisions in this legislation that deserve support. Every Canadian should be able to attend a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, gurdwara, community centre or school without fear of intimidation or violence. I also support the Senate amendment adding the noose as a prohibited symbol of anti-Black hate. As a former police officer, I understand the historical weight that symbol carries and the fear it is intended to create. There is value in providing clarity to police officers and prosecutors dealing with such cases. After spending nearly three decades in policing, I tend to look at legislation through a very specific lens. I look at it and ask two questions. First, is it enforceable? Second, will it make Canadians safer without stepping on their rights and freedoms? Those are the questions all police officers ask. Those are the questions Parliament should be asking as well. The government speaks as though Canada has no laws to deal with hate crimes. That is simply not true. We already have laws against the public incitement of hatred. We already have laws against the wilful promotion of hatred. We already have laws against threats, intimidation, harassment, vandalism and violence directed at people because of their religion, race, ethnicity or background. Judges can already impose tougher sentences when crimes are motivated by hate. These tools already exist. The problem is not that we lack laws. The problem is having the courage to enforce the laws. This is where I believe the government is missing the point, unfortunately. Canadians are increasingly concerned about public safety. They are concerned about violent repeat offenders. They are concerned about organized crime, gang violence, extortion and human trafficking. They are concerned about the lack of consequences for repeat offenders. These concerns are real. They are being discussed around kitchen tables and at coffee shops across this country. After 10 years of policies that have weakened confidence in our justice system, Canadians are asking whether Parliament is focused on the right priorities. Removing a long-standing protection for good-faith expression will not stop a gang shooting, a human trafficker or an extortion ring. It will not stop repeat violent offenders or the transnational gangs that continue to terrorize communities across Canada. Officer Pinizzotto was not investigating a sermon; he was investigating violent criminal activity. That is where the danger is, and that is where Canadians expect their government to be focused. As lawmakers, we should always ask whether a proposed law addresses the problem it claims to solve. In this case, I am not convinced it does. One of the most significant concerns with this legislation involves the government’s decision to remove long-standing protections in the Criminal Code for good-faith expression of religious beliefs. For decades, Canadian law has struck a careful balance. It protected vulnerable communities from genuine hatred while protecting good-faith expression of religious beliefs. That balance was not preventing police from investigating crimes or prosecutors from laying charges. It certainly did not stop courts from handing out convictions. These distinctions matter. Acts of hatred, intimidation and vandalism should be investigated, prosecuted and punished. No one disputes that. However, the way we do it matters. At the end of the day, we have to understand that Canada’s strength comes from our ability to live together despite our differences. It comes from our ability to disagree without being disagreeable. It comes from our willingness to remember that before we are Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, Bloc members or Greens, we are Canadians. As we remember Officer Pinizzotto and Officer Bali, let us remember what they were doing. They were protecting innocent people. They were protecting communities of every faith and every background. They were confronting violent criminals and standing up against those who would use fear, intimidation and violence to divide us. That is the Canada they served.”