Helena Konanz
Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition brought forward by a passionate group of residents in my community who remain deeply concerned that our laws continue to fail to safeguard the victims of intimate partner violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, we need to hear from the chair of the health committee as to why he cancelled tomorrow's meeting. Hundreds of millions of health care dollars remain unaccounted for in the $300‑million PrescribeIT scandal. Why? It is because Liberal MPs keep turning off the cameras at the health committee.”
“These are the national figures, but I would like to take a moment to focus on how these national trends are causing real tension in communities like mine in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.”
“Promises to build quickly and build big to fortify the Canadian economy, through measures like the major projects act, a bill that I voted for, have not come to pass. Canada has neither designated nor started a single major economic project to fast-track a year after we passed that legislation.”
“The Liberal government has overseen the worst rise in food bank use in a generation, surpassing levels during the 2008 financial crisis and the height of COVID-19, and rural Canada is really suffering.”
“She showed that promises to reduce government spending are not reflected in rising personal costs, which will also increase by billions of dollars over the next several years. She showed that the government's revenue forecasts will fall short because of expected weaker wages and slower salary growth in a worsening economy.”
The complete record
Every one of 431 lines we hold for Helena Konanz, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, first nation leaders, the Crown and everyday Canadians all need to sit at a table in order to proceed. What I do not understand is how the member can say there is not a problem. I know that I am getting calls and emails, and I am getting people knocking on our door wondering if they are still going to own their property in the next little while. I know that the member who just spoke is not from British Columbia, but this is a Canadian issue that needs to be addressed immediately.”
“(1520) No one pretends this framework is perfect, but it is our framework, built and improved by all Canadians. Few nations around the world maintain this kind of legal framework with indigenous peoples. It is a process of ever-greater improvement, but to maintain it we need all parties, such as the Crown, first nation leaders and everyday Canadians, who are extremely worried right now, to sit in a common understanding of how we will proceed and how we will recognize the rights of land, property and consultation. Let us maintain it as legislators of Canadian law. Setting aspirational goals aligned with UN resolutions in our laws does not serve anyone. Real Canadian law and real Canadian reconciliation can serve everyone fairly.”
“This should be a multi-party committee that would hold multiple meetings over the next several weeks to hear from legal experts and to develop advice to be published in an interim report by the summer, with a full report to follow later. Both sides of the House feature people of great legal talent, many of whom are indigenous and many more who are familiar with indigenous law. There is no reason they cannot provide the government with clear advice before we rise for the summer. Canada is not required in international law to pursue reconciliation. We have our own law, and our own lawmakers in the House who wish to find common ground, equal rights and shared prosperity. Section 35 of our Constitution already recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada.”
“It is that legal agreements create precedents that could cause greater problems in the decades ahead. This creation of legal grey areas is how we got to the Cowichan decision. It should not be continued in agreements like the Musqueam agreement. Legal matters are never simply aspirational. They are law. That is why we on this side of the House are also calling for the Liberal government to publish a plan within 30 days to protect property rights for Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement, and appoint a special committee with the mandate to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect property rights in Canada.”
“It simply upholds the property rights created through Canadian history, particularly in the last century of property division in British Columbia. It was our best line of defence for property rights, but the Attorney General's guidelines limited its use. The federal government itself has also created confusion on the intersection of title claims with its own Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement, which fails to say anything definitive about fee simple property rights, a dangerous precedent going into its appeal. Until the Cowichan case is resolved, it is clear that the federal government should be negotiating the defence of private property rights into its agreements with our first nations. It is not that first nations are trying to take private property. They are not.”
“Litigation guideline number 14 from “Attorney General of Canada's Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples” prevented the federal government from defending property rights in the Cowichan case, as many Canadian lawyers have pointed out. This is what the Cowichan decision itself said at paragraph 2096: “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.” What is called the “principle of extinguishment”, that the Crown's creation of fee simple title supersedes historical indigenous title, was the legal argument on which Canadian governments rested their defence of private property historically, under both Liberal and Conservative attorneys general. It does not cancel any existing treaties.”
“While our motion today is focused on the federal government, I join with my local and provincial representatives in encouraging Victoria to engage fully with every resident and neighbour in the beautiful community of Okanagan Falls with respect to the future of the community. As for the government across from me, Conservatives are calling for a common-sense approach that keeps the federal government involved with British Columbians throughout the entire legal process. We are calling on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case at the Department of Justice. Statements by Liberal MPs in the House are not the same as the direction they have provided to their public lawyers, who argued and lost in the Cowichan decision because of that.”
“Mr. Speaker, a very real and local example of this growing uncertainty is occurring in my riding in the community of Okanagan Falls, whose narrow vote last year to incorporate as a municipality is now being re-evaluated as a whole community. From the decision-making powers of the town council to the municipality's actual name, uncertainty persists because of the title changes brought about by the B.C. government, which now risk serious consequences across the nation. When people of the community of Okanagan Falls, which is 100 years old, no longer know and are waiting to be told what the name of their community they voted to incorporate will be, that is a sign of poor consultation brought on by an error-ridden provincial government.”
“Mr. Speaker, gas prices across Canada remain higher than they need to be, not just because of the war in Iran but because of unnecessary federal taxes. The last time a barrel of oil cost $100 was in 2014 under a Conservative government, and gas prices never reached their current levels. In Penticton and Oliver, gas prices are now two dollars a litre, with communities like Castlegar, Grand Forks, Osoyoos and Princeton over $1.90 a litre. We need to offer real relief for longer. Our Conservative plan would scrap all federal gas taxes, the excise tax, GST and the fuel standard tax, for the rest of 2026. We would pay for this by ending Liberal waste, like their gun-grab program. Uncertainty abroad does not mean Canada cannot be affordable and strong at home.”
“Uncertainty will persist so long as Ottawa remains in court and Victoria remains deadlocked. A very real and local example of this uncertainty is occurring in my riding in the community of Okanagan Falls.”
“What we are not calling for today is for the government to appeal this decision, as it has already, and rightly, said it will do so. What we are asking for is that the federal government engage with British Columbians straightforwardly throughout what will likely be a long judicial process. We ask it to engage with British Columbians who are confused as to whether their private property is still theirs in full and whether their property rights, long an ancient feature of our legal traditions stretching back centuries, are still theirs. We ask it to decry those who use an error of the court to spread hate, and we seek to understand those who do not know if the home, business or property in their name will remain theirs. The decisions of the courts will not be swift.”
“property rights and found that 98% of respondents are very concerned. They are not a little concerned, but very concerned. We have already seen financing for job-created projects, including those for indigenous communities, pull back. Reconciliation remains the goal of every British Columbian I speak with, whether they have called their province home for a few years or for a few millennia. Let us not forget that our indigenous peoples own a huge swath of private property in British Columbia. They too are left in confusion by Cowichan. Our province wants to prove that the stewardship of British Columbia's many indigenous communities, both on their lands and in many projects of prosperity they are engaged in, can be a model for the nation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to an issue of great concern to every British Columbian, which is the impact of the B.C. Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada and its effect on private property rights across British Columbia. It is the first time in Canada's history that a court has declared aboriginal title over non-Crown lands, privately owned lands. There are 150 private landowners, farmers, homeowners and business owners in Richmond who discovered that their titles were now in conflict with aboriginal title designation. This is not a matter of reconciliation. It is a matter of confusion. It creates tension. It does not create a path forward. The Business Council of British Columbia conducted a survey of its members on the current uncertainty regarding B.C.”
“Mr. Speaker, what Canadians deserve is transparency. Conservatives want to get to the bottom of how $300 million of taxpayer money was wasted on this project, PrescribeIT. When Conservatives demanded that Mr. Green return to the committee to account for the millions of tax dollars that he had been paid for no results, the Liberals voted us down. When the Bloc moved to have the Liberal health minister appear within the next month to testify to her role in this scandal, Liberals ended our meeting entirely. When Conservatives moved to call on the Auditor General of Canada, a non-partisan official, to investigate, the Liberals moved to turn off the camera and seal the records of that committee for the next 30 years. My question is simple: Why did the Liberals turn off the camera and seal the records of that meeting for the next 30 years?”
“When I asked how much he was paid, he refused to answer, saying that it was in the public record, but, as his own board chair later admitted, that was a lie. Mr. Green's compensation was not public at that time. There is a reason he wanted it that way. He was paid almost $900,000 when we include the hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses and a taxpayer-funded car. Between our first and last meetings on this topic, the board of Canada Health Infoway fired Mr. Green to prevent him from returning to answer questions. Was the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT a good use of taxpayer dollars, considering that it did not permanently eliminate a single fax machine?”
“It could have gone toward treatment beds, to give people with addiction in my province a path to recovery. Instead, it was hundreds of millions handed off to a quasi-governmental agency, Canada Health Infoway, in partnership with Telus, with nothing to show for it and the vast majority of the IP created left in private hands rather than the public interest. This disastrous waste of taxpayer money on the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT deserves a full investigation but Conservative attempts to do so have been stonewalled every step of the way. When I questioned Michael Green, the CEO in charge of the agency that oversaw PrescribeIT, Canada Health Infoway, about what went wrong, he could not provide a straight answer despite having worked on the failed Liberal program for 10 years.”
“Health care systems and private firms around the world have upgraded their prescription systems from fax machines to serve doctors, pharmacists and patients better. We did not have to reinvent the wheel. Only in Canada and only under the Liberal government could yet another government-funded IT project create absolutely nothing of benefit to Canadians. It is another ArriveCAN, except with an even higher price tag for taxpayers. In the time that I have spent in the House and on the health committee, it has become apparent to me how much better $300 million could have been spent on our health care system. It could have gone toward health transfers to British Columbia, to hire dozens more doctors, nurses and specialists, especially for rural regions like mine that suffer constant closures of many of our emergency rooms for lack of staff.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about a scandal that is only growing in size, complexity and cost to taxpayers. The Liberals' PrescribeIT was launched in 2016, promising to put every prescription in Canada into a digital system, allowing our pharmacies to move off their reliance on fax machines. At least $300 million in taxpayer dollars was spent in the following decade in pursuit of this goal. The result was complete failure. This taxpayer-funded boondoggle failed to fill even 5% of all prescriptions and cannot be shown to have replaced a single fax machine. It is now being shut down entirely, with the few partners who used it now likely to have to find someone who can reinstall a fax machine in 2026. Canada did not invent e-prescription services.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians need answers on how the Liberals burned $300 million on their failed PrescribeIT program, money that could have been spent on other health care needs. Just last week, the Liberals moved to shut off the cameras at the health committee, sealing the records of that meeting for 30 years. Yesterday, the Liberals shut down the health committee to prevent the minister from testifying. Why is the Liberals' $300‑million PrescribeIT failure being hidden from Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to focus a bit here on the forestry industry, which is not talked about a lot. Obviously, we have lost thousands of jobs in that sector. The government talked about expanding opportunities in trade as something we definitely need to do. The Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay riding that I represent has six border crossings we depend on and have used historically for trade with the United States. With respect to the industries that are dependent on that cross-border trade, like the forest industry, what does the member think about the very little time spent in negotiations for this sector?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but what does he think about the forestry sector? Thousands of jobs have been lost and businesses are closing. What is the status of the negotiations for the forestry sector?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan decision has left many residents across our communities concerned about their private property rights. The Liberals are now talking about how they will defend property rights in court, but they never made this argument in Cowichan before. Appeals are not do overs. They cannot raise new arguments they never argued before. How will government lawyers argue what Liberals MPs are arguing here when they did not do so at trial?”
“Madam Speaker, at a recent health committee, Conservatives moved a motion calling for a full investigation into the Liberals' wasteful, $300-million PrescribeIT boondoggle. The Liberals immediately responded by moving that meeting behind closed doors. As a result, under House rules, I am forbidden from telling Canadians what happened in that meeting for the next 30 years. Does silencing MPs on committee work for 30 years show transparency from this majority Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, we agree that recent gas price hikes were helped by the war in Iran, but will that be over by Labour Day, as the Liberals' policy suggests? Even if the U.S. and Iran ended the war tomorrow, the Pentagon has said it would take up to six months to fully clear sea mines from the Strait of Hormuz to restore shipping. That is not to mention the damage to oil and gas infrastructure hammered by missile attacks. Conservatives believe it is more prudent to provide Canadians with higher, longer-lasting relief at the pump, given the uncertainty abroad. Nations like Australia, Spain and Ireland all cut their taxes more than Canada has in response. On average, Americans currently pay less at the pump. Will the government take note of our Conservative plan and other plans abroad and cut the tax on gas for longer than just the summer?”
“This would not just be savings at the gas station as people would also save when they buy an item that has to be shipped to our shelves, where higher transport costs mean bigger receipts. The Liberal plan offers no excise tax on gas until Labour Day. Presumably, that is when Canadians will stop camping. Even now, with the Liberal plan in effect, Castanet reports that “prices at the pumps soared to their highest levels in years” today in the Okanagan, rising roughly 30¢ a litre from just the night earlier. In my home community of Penticton, every gas station today has it above $1.90 a litre. My question to the government is as follows: Given these sudden and shocking increases and the instability in the Middle East, why does the member think Canadians will not need gas tax relief past Labour Day?”
“A job in the forestry, mining or agriculture sector does not just happen right down the street. It takes a lot of gas to get rural school buses going or to get essentials to rural supermarkets, not just in the spring or summer, but in the autumn and winter. That is why it is now costing a lot more. Higher gas prices truly punish rural communities. That is why Conservatives are offering a full-year gas tax relief plan with zero federal tax on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026, paid for by ending Liberal spending on the gun buyback program, consulting fees and wasteful foreign aid. Our plan would eliminate the fuel excise tax, 10¢ a litre; the clean fuel standard, seven cents; and GST, eight cents, to save every driver 25¢ a litre.”
“As fellow British Columbians, she and I agree that our beautiful province certainly is a place families should explore, but it is not the main reason residents in my communities fill up their cars, trucks, vans or SUVs. A family in Hedley does it to get to the grocery store or a hockey practice. A senior in Rock Creek fills up to attend medical appointments or check in with friends. A forestry worker in Christina Lake needs fuel to get to work and then to get home safely. Driving is a fact of life for tens of thousands of residents in my community. That is not to mention the hauling, the transporting or the towing that empties our tanks even faster. Subways, electric buses and public bicycles, which I often hear Liberals talk about, are not available in the communities I serve.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address the taxes that residents in my community pay every single day, specifically gas taxes. I have requested this opportunity to speak in light of the Minister of Veteran Affairs ' recent response to my question on April 14. Her response to my question on these gas taxes was as follows: British Columbians are happy to hear that...we are making a reduction in fuel costs from now until Labour Day. British Columbians are going to use that to go and enjoy our country as they can this summer. Maybe they will also combine that with the Canada Strong pass as they go and explore this wonderful country. The Liberal minister seems to be suggesting that the purpose of gas tax relief is to encourage more people to take a vacation or to go camping.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve accountability, as $300 million was spent on PrescribeIT to replace pharmacy fax machines, with nothing to show for it. Liberal obstruction at committee has prevented Canadians from finding out where the money went. That is enough. We need a full investigation. Will the Minister of Health agree to our call for the non-partisan Auditor General of Canada to investigate this $300-million boondoggle?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period today, in response to my question on the $300 million the government spent on PrescribeIT, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health stated, “our new government has decided to end the program.” However, just three days ago, Canada Health Infoway's CEO was asked directly in—”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a really important subject. One thing the member touched on, and I just wanted to ask his opinion on this further, is that we are considering changes so that during an election a financial agent could only work for one party at a time. I want to know what he thought about that. It is getting tougher to find financial agents because of the red tape and the complications. It is a really big job to volunteer for. Does the member agree that during an election a financial agent should only work for one party?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think quite a bit needs to be discussed at the committee level, and I look forward to our party collaborating with all parties on this. I think there should be a discussion, and not everyone agrees with me on this, of course, on whether someone needs to be a citizen to vote in the nomination process. I think it is a really interesting and important issue that should be discussed, and voted on also, because obviously, it does affect elections.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of issues we need to talk about in committee concerning elections and making sure they are safe, and donations. There are ridings like mine that are massive. I am given a certain amount to service my communities and the residents, and also for the election, and in donations, but I will say that smaller ridings have it a lot easier. We have to remember that there are many ridings in Canada where the amount we are allowed to spend is pretty difficult when we look at how big some of them are. I think we should discuss this at committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that my colleague and the rest of the cohort here are going to be working on this collaboratively. It is very important. Canadians are watching right now. On virtual voting, we would need to make sure that it is fail-safe and that Canadians feel it could not be tampered with. Are we at that point, where they would feel secure with virtual voting? I do not think we are at that point, but I am sure someday soon we will be.”
“Lastly, given this is on the subject of elections, it has been almost a year since I was elected myself as the member of Parliament for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. On this one-year anniversary, I would like to thank all the residents, whether they voted for me or for others, for granting me the honour of my life, to serve them in our nation's Parliament. Over the past year, I have come to know the distinct character of this vast region, from the vineyards and beaches of the Okanagan to the mountains and valleys of the Similkameen, the forests and rivers of Boundary Country and the alpine landscapes of West Kootenay. Each community is unique, with its own needs and challenges, and I will work hard to ensure those voices are heard here in Ottawa.”
“The changes that would be made here to limit the longest ballot committee are simple and fair and will leave a wide amount of space for protest candidates to continue. The amendments brought forward would require that electors sign only one candidate nomination form, as well as that an official agent act for only one candidate per riding. This is good for candidates, voters, election volunteers and even protesters. As I said previously, I look forward to seeing the bill go forward to committee for further study and possible amendments from all parties. I ask that my Liberal colleagues do not look to pass this legislation unilaterally and operate with an open mind to good ideas.”
“If the longest ballot committee wishes to protest our voting system, that is fine. It is not fine to disrupt the ballots for citizens in ridings across the country with long lists of people who do not live there and do not intend to represent them. It also strikes against some of this country's strongest democracy supporters, such as the volunteers who take time every election to assist in the election process with Elections Canada. Forcing them to count enormously long ballots deep into the night is wrong. They give their time freely, with no reward, to ensure our elections are conducted fairly. They are heroes of democracy whom I know every MP in the House respects enormously. We literally cannot have elections without them.”
“However, it is not a universal right to subject other Canadians to protests. We are allowed a million ways, for example, to protest at an airport. We are even allowed to run for election to protest an airport. What we are not allowed to do is to stand on the runway and block the plane. The longest ballot committee chose to exploit a loophole in the Elections Act to fill ballots with hundreds of candidates, none of whom had any connection to the riding where an election was being held. This strikes against the principle of local representation. As a result of its actions, the metre-long ballots that were printed for voters were enormously burdensome. Other ridings chose to make ballots write-in only, which limited voters' ability to consider their candidate in the voting booth.”
“No country can call itself free if it does not allow for protests. I appreciate that the members of the longest ballot committee wish to make their case for changes to our election system. Canada has a long legal tradition that does not prescribe how these protests should be done. What one person may think is serious, another may feel is frivolous. The law does not discriminate, however. (1250) Protest candidates also have a long tradition in Canada and other democracies. British Columbians still remember the Marijuana Party of Canada. Others will remember the Rhinoceros Party of Canada, which campaigned on jokes. John Turmel is probably the most famous candidate, having run in 112 elections between 1979 and 2024, never once elected and yet never forgotten. In some ways, his persistence is a symbol of our democracy itself.”
“Under the act as it stands, a candidate must obtain 100 signatures from electors in a riding in order to get their name on the ballot. The longest ballot committee, however, identified that the same pool of 100 voters could sign the nomination forms of hundreds of protest candidates who were seeking to get their name on the ballot, even if few or any of them were from the riding. This is clearly an abuse of the Canada Elections Act, insofar as the purpose of that section is to require that a candidate have the support of at least 100 electors, not that the same 100 voters can flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. It is a low threshold but a threshold nonetheless. This point is of great importance because it does touch upon the issue of protests. Protests are in the blood of any democratic system.”
“Foreign entities would be banned from contributing to third parties at all. Foreign funding would be barred from leadership contests. Also closed would be contributions made anonymously, and funding channels such as money orders or cryptocurrency would be traced. After years of delays by the Liberal government, I am pleased that this would finally be addressed. Additionally, the bill would create several new offences and extend existing offences under the act to leadership and nomination contests. The bill would give significant new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections to undertake investigations and to enforce the act, among other measures. Last, the bill includes welcome measures to counter the disruptive and anti-democratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee.”
“I know that the minister said in a minority government that he wanted to have consensus support for legislation amending the Canada Elections Act, and he expressed an openness to entertaining supporting other parties' amendments. I hope he keeps his word on this and trusts that members on this side of the House are working in good faith to possibly make further changes. For the most part, I think the bill contains many welcome proposed changes, though many are long overdue. Other areas will require careful study by my colleagues in committee. For the people watching at home, I will explain that the legislation would make the following changes. First, the bill contains measures to counter foreign interference in our elections, as well as in nomination and leadership contests.”
“We only need to look around the globe to see nations where democratic decline has started because free and fair elections have been watered down by legislative majorities. Canada and many of our allies have avoided this, but the decline of democracy can come swiftly. What once started in a forum in ancient Greece largely disappeared for more than a millennium. Democracy is not a natural occurrence. It must always be reasserted, and changes made to it must be agreed to among the largest possible number of parties and citizens. Given that the House now has a Liberal majority government constructed behind closed doors instead of at the ballot box, extra consideration is needed. The proposed changes that are before us could now be passed by one party alone, changing how our elections would be conducted.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-25 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. Our Elections Act is among the most important laws we have as a nation, as it sets out the rules and procedures for our democracy to function. All members of the House believe in democracy, of course. It is how we all ended up here. However, any time measures are brought forward that would change our laws, this could change how we vote and whom we can vote for, and the proposed measures must be considered with a microscope. Any proposed changes to how an election would operate must be considered with strict consideration to make sure the rules of the games would not be stacked in the favour of the party in power.”
“Mr. Speaker, if a private sector staff employee wasted $300 million, they would be fired, but the Liberals have fired no one for their PrescribeIT disaster. I questioned the CEO responsible. He would not say where things went wrong. He even refused to say how much taxpayers paid him. Why is the minister hiding the truth on this $300-million boondoggle?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government spent almost $300 million on a national prescribing software that filled less than 5% of all prescriptions. Now it has cancelled it entirely, yet 85% of the technology used is in the private hands of Telus Health. That is the definition of wasteful spending of tax dollars. Will the health minister explain to Canadians how she wasted $300 million on PrescribeIT?”
“We are reliant on the United States, and given that the Prime Minister called these kinds of ties a weakness, can the member opposite explain what this means for local communities in my riding, like Grand Forks, and the 2.6 million Canadian jobs that depend on U.S. trade?”
“Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the member did not listen to my question. It is about entrepreneurs leaving Canada because they cannot seem to make it here. All members of the House find the behaviour of the President of the United States insulting. Our sovereignty is non-negotiable, and we will not be held to ransom. At the same time, though, our reliance on the United States is imperative at this point, especially in a riding like mine that has six border crossings. For example, in communities like Grand Forks, north-to-south trade is embedded in the rail line that goes directly from the Interfor mill to U.S. customs.”
“With my time remaining, I ask my colleague this: Given the support for the Liberals' economic plan, by what year will these cross-border gaps in real income and net emigration shrink instead of grow?”
“Canadians are founding new companies in these sectors, but they are founding them south of the border. Statistics Canada shows that net emigration, those who are leaving Canada, just hit an all-time peak. Canadian emigrants are predominantly young professionals, with 67% aged 20 to 44. According to the Leaders Fund, nearly half of Canadian founders or entrepreneurs who raised $1 million in 2024 were based in the United States, versus one-third who were based in Canada, including other nations. Nearly 70% of Canadian founders are starting companies elsewhere. A decade ago, 70% of Canadian founders were founding companies in Canada. Canadians with ambition are seeing their future horizons narrowed here at home.”