Dave Epp
Chatham-Kent—Leamington, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago.”
“We are celebrating that in the Vineland region, where my great-grandmother is buried. That same Gerhard Neufeld who was decorated by the czar was shot dead in his bed, five days before they came to Canada. My great-grandmother left, bringing five children, and I and my mother are here because of that history.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I come today representing, especially, both the people of Ukrainian ethnicity and those of Ukrainian heritage. There is actually a difference, and I am going to come back to that in a moment.”
“Rather than serving in the army, he served in what was called the Forsteidienst , the forestry service, so he was stationed on the banks of the Black Sea at the czar's summer resort, Yalta.”
“They came to the steps of Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great to farm, to break those steppes of Ukraine, and they turned that into part of the breadbasket of Europe. That heritage is in my blood today. They were told, actually, that the territory at the time was empty.”
“As many members know, I am from a Mennonite background, and there are a number of Mennonites here in the chamber who have the honour of representing their constituencies. This year marks 100 years since all four of my grandparents came to Canada from, at the time, the steppes of Russia, which is now part of Ukraine.”
The complete record
Every one of 159 lines we hold for Dave Epp, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“It is about the Liberals deciding which thoughts are permissible and which sacred texts are hateful. I cannot help but draw parallels between the government's approach to hate speech and how it approaches firearms. It targets legally vetted and trained firearms owners and does not address the scourge of gun violence from smuggled guns. Here, the government attacks the peaceful faith community as opposed to using existing laws. The Liberal justification for Bill C-9 is that Canada needs new tools to fight hate, but that is a myth. Our Criminal Code already contains robust protections against violent acts, threats and incitements of genocide, as well as criminal harassment. The problem is not a lack of laws. It is a lack of leadership. It is a lack of political will.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. Tonight I also bring the voices of millions of Canadians who are watching the House with a growing sense of alarm. We are debating Bill C-9 , which is a piece of legislation that represents a radical assault on the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion in this country, but which the Liberal government masks in the language of safety. The Conservative Party believes that every Canadian should be safe from violence. We believe that hate-motivated crimes are a stain on our society, but as my colleague, the member for Middlesex—London so aptly stated in this chamber, we do not need more vague, subjective laws that target the peaceful. We need the enforcement of existing laws that target the violent. Bill C-9 is not about stopping crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last point my colleague across the way made. He said there were Muslims who support the bill and Muslims who do not, Christians who support it and Christians who do not, and members of the Jewish community who support it and members who do not. Would the member acknowledge that the members on this side of the House offered to split the bill into those areas that were supported and not controversial, and those areas to be set aside for further debate, the exact points that are controversial, in order to put in place the protections that I believe those members of the community who support the bill want? Would he further acknowledge that there was no consultation with Canadians after the Liberal Party's joining with the Bloc Québécois to remove the religious exemption?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions. Early in his speech, the member rightly referenced, right from our motion, that the interim program cost $211 million, and he said early on that it has gone up a bit. Now, he did come back to the numbers. It is now $896 million. Would he define “up a bit” as quadrupling in four years? The second question is regarding “interim”. Could the member define interim? Is this program going away, or does interim refer to just the period during which people are qualifying? What do they mean by interim here? Last, the member said they are going to address the cost by copay. As part of our motion, we are projecting that the cost will go to $1.5 billion by 2029-30. Does he agree with that assessment, and will—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite went to great lengths to proclaim that the subsidy will flow to the consumers or the buyers of EVs. Is it her contention that the sellers of EVs sold in Canada will not incorporate that subsidy into their selling price?”
“Mr. Speaker, in her intervention, my colleague stated some projections, and if I caught them, she said that the projected global EV sales would go to 40% globally and the plan was to have them go to 90% by 2040. What happened to projections? We had an EV mandate that I am sure also came along with projections. Obviously, that failed. They did not come about. Where is the confidence that these projections are anywhere close to something that is going to happen? Under the previous EV mandate, the domestic auto manufacturers had to ship money south to Tesla until the EV mandate was rolled back. Now we are shipping money south in a different form. Where is the confidence in the new projections?”
“This makes Canada a weaker trading partner, leading to higher prices. If the government is serious about food affordability and security, it must stop making short-sighted decisions from Ottawa and start listening to the people who actually provide our food. Canada's farmers do not need to be managed; they need to be heard.”
“Mr. Speaker, today is Canada's 10th Agriculture Day, recognizing farmers and agri-food workers. While this should be a day of celebration, the government has instead allowed Canada to lead the G7 in food inflation. This is not a failure of Canada's farmers or our agricultural sector; it is the result of short-sighted government policies. Rather than cutting costs where they actually matter, the government is piling them on. The industrial carbon tax, labelling and packaging regulations and the fuel standard tax drive up the cost of groceries. At the same time, Ottawa is cutting in the wrong places. CFIA's decision to scrap destination inspection services without industry consultation, along with ag research centre closures, undermines reliability, competitiveness and trust in Canada's food quality.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is actually along the same lines as my colleague from the Bloc's. In her speech, the member referenced lessons learned from the past, and that a consultation is part of the expropriation process. However, I read and hear, right in my office, about the farmland potentially being expropriated in Clearview Township for DND's project. Consultations occurred, but they were right in the heart of harvest season for the farmers who are so affected. How is that effective consultation? All parties support strengthening Canada's defence, but how is taking 4,000 acres of prime farmland and consulting with farmers in the middle of harvest season appropriate?”
“Their story reminds us that while the world may change at breathtaking speed, the values that truly matter, partnership, resilience and care for one another, can endure and still give us hope and optimism for what lies ahead. I ask my colleagues to please join me as I congratulate my parents on 65 years of space travel, smart phones and surviving each other.”
“Mr. Speaker, on February 4, my parents, Abe and Susan Epp, will celebrate their 65th wedding anniversary. The world has changed in extraordinary ways since 1961. Humanity has landed on the moon and has survived the Cold War, Canada adopted its flag, and global adoption of the Internet and mobile phones has transformed how people connect, work and understand the world. Daily life today would be nearly unrecognizable to the young couple who began their journey all those years ago. Changes often arrive faster than anyone expects. While technology and all facets of society have shifted, my parents built a life rooted in commitment, adaptability and love.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg North in his intervention described himself as only partially biased. He is clearly misleading the House, and I am wondering if you could address—”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean , for all the work he does on behalf of persecuted peoples from around the world with his work at the immigration committee, the public safety committee and other venues in this place. His knowledge of the bill and his effort is obviously evident from his speech. Bill C-12 arises from an original bill, Bill C-2 , which was tabled in Parliament way back when as part of a large omnibus bill. Would the member comment on how this place could operate efficiently? We are now to a point where there is some co-operation, but the ideas of reform here were initially introduced through a large omnibus bill. Does he think that is a good idea when the government had said that it would not do that?”
“These conservation, research and governance representatives will be available to discuss their work to keep these waters healthy, resilient and economically strong. Great Lakes hospitality based along Canada's fourth coast is second to none, and I encourage all members and staff to attend to see for themselves and to learn more about this amazing natural resource.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the MP for Chatham-Kent—Leamington, a riding on the shores of Lake Erie, I know how vital the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence waterways are to the economy, culture and identity of Canada and North America. My communities see every day how these waters sustain jobs, transportation, fisheries and recreation. The stewardship of this shared ecosystem is also a remarkable example of the quiet, effective co-operation between Canada and the United States that has strengthened both countries for decades. We are all better off when we work together. Later today, a delegation of organizations dedicated to protecting and sustaining these waterways will host a special event for members of Parliament, senators, officials and staff.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a short question. The member opposite listed a number of groups that supported Bill C-9 . Does that same list she recited in her speech support the amendment that was just proposed?”
“The effects fall disproportionately to the lower socio-economic levels, the very people she identified in her speech as those she wants to help.”
“Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member characterized this as a Conservative budget. While there were elements of it lifted from our election campaign, and I want to thank the government for including some of those measures, I will agree with her in that we both opposed the budget but, obviously, for varying reasons. What makes this not a Conservative budget is the fact that there is a $78.3-billion deficit. Would the member across the way not agree, with the fallout of a $78.3-billion deficit, the inflation that will surely again fall, the bills that will be in today's and future taxes on our children and our grandchildren, those effects affect the very people the member across the way is purportedly trying to help?”
“Mr. Speaker, I too rise and bring forward the voices of Canadians who call on the government to present stronger measures in response to the Chinese Communist Party's engaged campaign for 26 years against the Falun Gong. Falun Gong practitioners have endured severe human rights abuses, mass arbitrary detentions, torture, killings and organ harvesting. These Canadians call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of the Falun Gong in China and their repression abroad. They call on the government to impose sanctions and pursue accountability for CCP officials and their proxies who are responsible for these human rights violations and to take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community targeted by these foreign repressions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's perspective as he identified the mismatch between what Bill C-15 , the implementation bill of the budget, tries to do and the reality of the economy we are facing right now. He is not alone. Would he comment on the fact that the PBO has identified only a 7.5% likelihood that the government is going to hit its massive $78.3-billion deficit? Could it also be that he is identifying a mismatch between what is said in the budget and the probable outcomes of it?”
“The G7 leaders have condemned transnational repression; therefore, petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of Falun Gong in China and its transnational repression abroad; continue to impose sanctions to pursue accountability for CCP officials and their proxies; and take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community targeted by foreign repression.”
“Mr. Speaker, I bring the voices of Canadians who bring the following. The Chinese Communist Party has engaged in a 26-year campaign of eradication against Falun Gong practitioners, who have suffered human rights abuses including mass arbitrary detentions. They have not only suffered that within China but have also been subjected to transnational repression, including bomb threats and shooting threats against Shen Yun, a classical Chinese dance and music performance presented globally.”
“Mr. Speaker, I guess it became the obligation in the mind of the government after the last election. The member is absolutely right. It is the role of government to seek to maintain its own survival by working with the opposition. If they choose not to—”
“The Liberals can spend more when they choose to, but it is not on the social programs we rely on because we are having to commit so much of our funding to servicing our debt.”
“Madam Speaker, there are certain things that the Liberals are spending more and more on, with higher rates of inflation, and things that they are committing to less and less. The point that I want to highlight is actually a point that was brought up by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Irrespective of the numbers that the government put in the budget, he is saying that there is about a 7.5% likelihood that they are going to hit them. That makes it a 92.5% likelihood that they are going to miss him. The 3% on health might only be 2% or 1% because of all the other spending. Certainly our debt, and not only the debt but also the cost of servicing that debt, is growing much faster.”
“Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has again illustrated that math is not the government's strong suit. The last time I checked, the Liberals are not a majority in the House. They have not shown any willingness to work with the opposition, none at all. As I said in my speech, they need to make the hard decisions, prioritize and not add further debt for ourselves now, for our children and for our children's children. That means hard choices. It absolutely does. However, that is the responsible thing to do, rather than pile on debt. Over and over again, the Liberals are expecting a different result from the same manner of acting. Inflation always follows this massive overspending, and it is going to come again. It will lead to higher interest rates, exacerbate our housing crisis and exacerbate our food prices.”
“If the Liberals ignore the practical solutions we bring forward and push forward a budget that leaves Canadians behind, then any election called as a result of this would not be the fault of the Conservatives or the opposition. It would be the consequence of a government unwilling to listen, unwilling to act responsibly and unwilling to provide a better future for Canadians. It is time for the government to work with the opposition, listen to the amendments we propose and deliver a budget that truly serves Canadians. The choice is the Liberals': to collaborate for the good of Canadians or to bear the responsibility—”
“Let us choose a Canada where food is affordable, work is rewarded and, most importantly, where government lives within its means. The Conservative Party will put forward amendments to boost take-home pay; deliver affordable homes and food; end hidden taxes, on food in particular; cut waste; open our country to opportunity; and clear away the bureaucracy that stands in the way of building the homes Canadians so desperately need. The responsibility now lies with the government. If this budget is to pass, the Liberals must work with the opposition and the Conservatives to ensure that it reflects the hard work of Canadians and the sacrifices they have already made, not ask our youth to sacrifice even more.”
“If they ignore that reality, the debt grows and so does the burden on Canadians, and that is exactly what the government is doing to our country. There is hope. Canada can change course. We can build a country of bigger paycheques and lower costs, where work once again pays and families can once again save. We can cut wasteful spending. Where? We can focus government on what matters the most: empowering Canadians themselves and not focusing on increasing government reliance. What we need to do is get the government out of the way. Even the Value Chain Management International's report calls for a government that becomes a “facilitator of competitiveness” so that food and essentials stay affordable. Let us take that advice. Let us reward those who produce, who build and who seek to rebuild the foundation of an affordable Canada.”
“As the saying goes, every dollar the government spends is a dollar from our pockets. There is no such thing as government money; it is only the people's money. I know, and I can hear it already, that the Liberals are going to accuse me and accuse Conservatives of not supporting Canadians simply because we critiqued the budget. I expect to be asked why I do not support this program or why I do not support that program, but governments, like families, have to make choices. A family who loves their children might want to send them to hockey, dance, baseball, taekwondo or, of course, music lessons, but if they try to do everything, they cannot pay off the credit card at month's end. That does not mean any of those things I listed are bad; it means they cannot afford them all right now.”
“Sylvain Charlebois told the agriculture committee this past month that Canada is the only G7 country that has seen four consecutive months of food inflation increases and that Canadians may have to deal with more bad news on the price of food in 2026. Inflation does not just empty wallets; it erodes dignity, and it always hurts those at the lower socio-economic levels far more than those with assets. Wages never rise as fast as costs do during periods of high inflation, so when Ottawa spends without restraint, it piles costs onto Canadians through higher prices, higher taxes and fewer opportunities. Because of that, the social programs that Canadians rely on and value so much are put at risk. When interest payments eat up more of the budget than our core services do, it is, again, Canadians who lose out.”
“According to Value Chain Management International's report on food inflation in Canada, released on October 16 of this year, the average retail food basket in Canada rose by 34% between 2019 and 2025. That means food prices have risen nearly twice as fast as everything else, hitting families where it hurts the most: at the dinner table. In June of this past year, Abacus Data highlighted the growing financial strain felt by Canadians, as 61% said they lacked confidence in their ability to afford groceries six months from now. That report came out five months ago, yet these concerns are here with us today. Furthermore, Dr.”
“The Liberal government's deficits have found their way back to Canadians' kitchen tables through inflation, higher prices and higher taxes. Inflation is the cruellest tax of all, in that no one Canadian ever voted for it. When everything costs more, their paycheques buy less. If one could spend oneself into economic prosperity, Canada would be the most prosperous nation on this earth, with no one standing in line at a food bank, but after 10 years and a doubling of our nation's debt, we have more than doubled our food bank lines. (1705) What is this supposed new government's plan? It is more spending and a doubling down on deficits. How long do the food bank lines have to become? History has told us the same story every time. When governments overspend, inflation follows, and food inflation is the clearest example.”
“When the government spends more than it brings in, it borrows money in our names. The federal debt now carries over $55 billion a year in interest payments alone. That is more than we transfer to the provinces in health care, at $54.7 billion, and more than the government receives in GST revenue, at $54.3 billion. These are big numbers. What does that mean to us? Each month, households across this country are effectively sending $421 to Ottawa per month, over $5,000 per year, in either today's or tomorrow's taxes, not for defence, hospitals or other social programs, but just to cover the interest on federal borrowing. Imagine people doing that for their own households, paying down someone else's credit card while their grocery bills keep climbing. That is the weight of overspending.”
“When an independent budget officer has to recommend the implementation of an independent referee because the government keeps moving the goalposts, it is a sign of serious fiscal credibility problems. Canadians in charge of a business or household know that they must work within their means and operate with a fiscal anchor. The PBO has clearly stated that the government has abandoned its previous fiscal anchor, which was to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, a commitment made during the 2024 fall economic statement. It was a key metric “not only for fiscal sustainability, but also to preserve Canada's AAA credit rating, which helps maintain investors' confidence and keeps Canada's borrowing costs as low as possible.” Now the Liberals have put Canada's international credit rating in jeopardy.”
“It is clear that the government has blurred the line between capital and operating spending for political convenience. In fact, to quote the PBO, “PBO maintains its view that the Government's definition of capital investments is overly expansive.” Based on the PBO's definition, capital investments would actually be approximately 30%, or $94 billion, lower compared to what budget 2025 has to say. Because to this, the PBO warns, “Given the subjectivity involved in defining federal capital investments and their role in guiding fiscal policy decisions...the PBO recommends that the Government establish an independent expert body to determine which federal spending categories and measures qualify as capital investment”.”
“It is late, but Canadians cannot afford to wait, because every month of delay means higher bills, higher grocery prices and higher costs for families already struggling to get by due to the government debt incurred by the Liberals' overspending. It is confirmed, on page 245 of the budget, that the government is projecting public debt charges will amount to $55.6 billion in 2025-26. This is going to grow to $76.1 billion in four years. The Prime Minister 's accounting tricks are apparent to me and anyone who has been in the position of operating a business before. Business owners know the difference between capital and operating debt and that both incur interest charges. We also know the difference between investing and spending. This past Friday, November 14, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the PBO, tabled his report on the 2025 budget.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. Today, I rise to speak to the federal budget that was tabled on October 35. I realize there is no such date in our calendar, but perhaps there is one in the Liberal calendar, where deadlines are flexible and keeping promises is optional. I was looking for one thing in this budget: hope. I was looking forward to the banker this country elected bringing sound fiscal management to government finances, which would in turn lead to affordable living for Canadians. However, once again, the Liberal government's budget is not affordable.”
“Conservatives put forward a plan to lower food prices by cutting the industrial carbon tax, the food packaging tax and the costly fuel standard, and by ending inflationary deficits, but the Liberals voted it down. Canadians deserve better. Conservatives will fight for an affordable budget for an affordable life for all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the long-awaited federal budget was tabled, and while a new Liberal leader was supposed to mean a new direction, this budget proves it is the same government with the same wasteful spending and the same pain for Canadians. Families are cutting back on groceries, young people cannot afford homes and retirees are watching their savings shrink. Under the new Liberal leader , nothing has changed. Actually, that is not true. Things are getting worse. Yesterday, Statistics Canada confirmed that food inflation is rising again. Canada is the only G7 country to see four straight months of rising food inflation. Between March and September, food inflation jumped sharply across everyday staples. Coffee and tea prices rose 15% and beef and berries are up 25%. These are not luxury goods; they are essentials.”
“Mr. Speaker, the following is not imaginary: The food professor said, “The gap between wholesale prices in Canada versus the U.S., food wholesale prices, has [widened], and...one factor driving that is the [industrial] carbon tax.” Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Dave Epp: Go ahead, mock. Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that has had four consecutive months of food inflation increases. Farmers, manufacturers and builders across the country are paying more for fertilizer, steel and concrete, costs that end up on Canadians' plates. While other G7 countries are lowering costs, the Prime Minister is ignoring the experts, increasing the carbon tax and making food more expensive. Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pocket of Canadians, and the more they spend, the more things cost. The Liberals just had a chance to lower food prices by scrapping the industrial carbon tax. Instead, they chose to make food more expensive by hiking the industrial carbon tax, which makes food, fuel and farm equipment more expensive. These costs are passed directly on to Canadians at the grocery store. Why is the Prime Minister not scrapping the carbon tax and making food less expensive?”
“There are fewer of us who have had the chance to speak in the chamber than there are people who have played professional hockey in our country's history. That is how special the opportunity is that we have as parliamentarians to represent our fellow citizens. Let us cherish that. When there are moments when we can come together, when we can join our voices to make life better for Canadians, let us be thankful for that opportunity.”
“I have had the chance to introduce my two granddaughters to this chamber. How many people in Canada get to do that? I want to give a shout-out to the House of Commons orientation staff who oriented me six years ago. They impressed upon those of us going through that process the unique opportunity we have as members to represent Canadians. (1425) Boys and girls today dream of potentially becoming NHL and, maybe now, baseball players. A truly Canadian dream is to become an NHL player or PWHL player. As we walk the tunnel between the welcome centre and the temporary home of the House of Commons, we see the plaques from the first Parliament to the 43rd. I have served in the 44th and we are now in the 45th Parliament. We see the names of all parliamentarians who have had the chance to serve.”
“They are beautiful. They do only have five fingers on each hand. My wife is adopted, but because of her last name, we went through some processes before we had them, given the experience we had with our son Brenton. Sometimes people ask me about them. I am the father of four daughters, as members can see by the colour of my hair. I am immensely proud, as my wife Charlene is, of their accomplishments. I have shared this experience with many other families that have asked me how many children I have, and whether I answer with four or five depends on how much time I have in the conversation. Today is my opportunity to acknowledge my son, because the circumstances of the day have afforded me the time to bring his name to this chamber. It is an august responsibility that we have as members to speak. It is a privilege.”
“We worked our way through it that morning. The morning of my son's funeral, we were working through a government process. I do not fault or cast aspersions on the bureaucracy that made those calls. They were following through with their due diligence. However, if there are ways we can streamline our government processes to show compassion and show respect for taxpayer dollars, which is everything that this bill would do, why do we not do that? I am very heartened by the support around this chamber. It has taken a while, but I am glad the government and all opposition parties are bringing their compassion to this chamber and addressing the opportunity to make life better for Canadians in their most heartfelt and difficult times. I have lived those times, so I want to say thanks. We subsequently had four daughters. I mentioned them.”
“It was obviously a difficult night because we lost him that night. I said my wife is a twin. Her twin was flying from Alberta, and we picked her up at the airport that morning. She was coming for a dedication; she came for a funeral. We prepared for that, and still to this day, I am immensely thankful for the friends and family who supported us. How does this relate to government bureaucratic processes and compassion? The morning of his funeral, we received a call from a government agency that said we had made a mistake in his birth certificate application. We did not know how to fill out the baby's mother's maiden name. We filled it out as “Epp” and “Epp”, of course, and obviously we had made a mistake. There are many Epps in Canada, as there are many Smiths, McDonalds, etc., from many heritage streams, but that was the call we received.”
“He lived 31 days. As members can hear in my voice, I have lived experience with what this bill attempts to address. (1420) My son underwent an emergency colostomy at two days old, which he survived. He then began to turn blue and actually went through open heart surgery at two weeks old, when doctors grafted his left subclavian vein. For those of us from the medical community, they grafted the vein around his aorta where the blockage was, and he survived. I am still grateful to the many friends who drove me up the “bore-01” to see my wife and child every evening, as I harvested during the daytime and saw them at night. There was only one night that I did not make that trip. We were advised that we could take him home in two days' time, so I stayed at home and slept until 2 a.m., when I received that call to “come now”.”
“We anticipated that he would be born with insufficiently developed lungs. That was the diagnosis because the scans had revealed intestines in his chest. When he was born, with two surgical teams waiting, the first thing he did was scream, which was not anticipated. That gave us hope. He screamed; he lived. I had been preparing myself, throughout the last two-thirds of my wife's pregnancy, to lose him. The member for Burlington spoke of how people grieve differently. I did a lot of my grieving prior to my son Brenton's birth to be there depending on the outcome. In the 37 years that have followed, my wife and I continue to grieve differently. I went back to work. We were in the middle of tomato season. He was born in 9230 season, that is a Heinz variety that we were harvesting on August 13, 1988, and he died in 6203 season, September 13.”
“An adopted identical twin, she grew up in Calgary, went to elementary school in Calgary, went to high school in Rosthern, Saskatchewan, and then went to university in Winnipeg, where we met. She says that she must retire in Quebec, la belle province, and retire or die in Newfoundland as she works her way across this beautiful country. We met, married and, in 1988, we were anticipating our first child. We knew from early on in that pregnancy that there would be issues, so we began the process of driving up what I now affectionately call the “bore-01”, up and down highway 401, which I have travelled innumerable times in my various capacities over my professional career. Then, it was as a young to-be father, as my wife spent a lot of time in St. Joseph's, the London hospital, preparing for the birth of a challenged child.”