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 4 of 9.
“Under the current Criminal Code, there is a narrow and carefully constructed safeguard. Section 319 allows individuals to express, in good faith, opinions on religious subjects or based on a belief in religious texts. It is for all persons of faith, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh. This safeguard is not broad. It is not a loophole and it is not a free pass. It applies only to one specific offence. It does not apply to violence. It does not apply to threats or incitement. These actions are already illegal, and they should be. There is no charter right to hate or to act hatefully. Even the Supreme Court has recognized that this safeguard is necessary to maintain the constitutionality of Canada's hate speech laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to Bill C-9 , a piece of legislation that has brought forward huge concerns for Canadians of every religious background across the country. Canadians I speak with in my community are not asking for more censorship. They are asking for safer streets, stronger communities and a government that focuses on real problems. Instead of focusing on these concerns, the Liberal government has chosen to prioritize Bill C-9 , a bill that targets some of the most fundamental charter freedoms we have as Canadians: freedom of speech and the freedom to practise our faith. That choice matters because it tells Canadians what the government values and what it is willing to put aside. Let us take a step back and clearly understand what this bill would actually do.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a discussion about unsafe injection sites, I asked the Liberal Minister of Health the easiest possible question: Is injecting fentanyl safe? Instead of giving a straight answer, the minister laughed and said that research shows continuing to inject fentanyl saves lives. Extending addiction does not save lives. I will ask it again: Does the minister believe injecting illegal fentanyl is safe?”
“Mr. Speaker, we should be negotiating with countries around the world that have the same moral compass as Canada. I will give the example of my riding. Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has one of the longest borders with the United States in the country. I think the member is asking if we should be looking elsewhere. We should, but at the same time, we need to keep this relationship with the United States. Ridings like mine, where we have six border crossings, depend on trade with the United States, so we need to keep our trade and we need to keep negotiating with Washington, D.C. during these turbulent times.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very detailed question and explanation of the situation we are in right now across the country. It seems as if, with all the travels around the world, the Prime Minister has forgotten that there are whole towns all across this country that are shutting their doors. That is what happens in the lumber and forestry industry because the industry encompasses the entire town. We are not talking about one or two retail stores closing. We are talking about small towns across this country. That needs to be remembered, and we need to have sympathy for these towns, which have survived, many of them, for 100 years or more. When we are at the negotiating table with any new partner, I ask the government to please bring up softwood lumber.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, of course we need to continue creating further trade partners, and that is a good thing. What I mentioned in my speech was that there were things we could have brought to the table that were not brought, which is going to affect many people across this country, including in my riding. One that I spoke about was the softwood lumber and lumber industry. Another was the beef industry, the cattle industry, which affects my riding. What I think we are trying to say is that this could have been a moment in time when we could have really strengthened our trade negotiations, but unfortunately, that did not happen.”
“This could have been the moment the government stood firmly for Canadian farmers and demanded the U.K. finally dismantle the non-tariff SPS barriers that block our products. It could have been the moment it stood up for seniors whose pensions have been frozen for decades. It could have been the moment Canada reminded the world that our market access is valuable and not something that is handed out for free. Instead, we are left with a bill that updates legislation, cleans up tariff schedules and confirms access the U.K. would have received anyway, all without resolving the issues that matter most. It is very disappointing.”
“I implore the Prime Minister and his government to work with forest communities, and with the MPs who represent them across all parties, to make an all-hands-on-deck effort in Washington, D.C., to end the decade-long absence of a softwood lumber agreement that has now lasted four separate presidential administrations, all on the Liberals' watch. We know this is possible. The Harper government secured a deal in only a few weeks. Families in my riding, in the Similkameen, Boundary and the Kootenays, cannot wait any longer. Is what the House is looking for in any trade agreement not ultimately Canadian-specific gains? Where is the progress on the issues that matter to our exporters? Where is evidence that the government used this moment to deliver wins for Canadians?”
“The Liberal government offers a minuscule increase in domestic production and offers loans that will only be added to increasingly indebted lumber mills, which is why many are choosing to close instead. European lumber suppliers are trying to fill the gap in the U.S. market left by these tariffs. Potential Asian markets cannot cover this hole in the balance sheet for Canadian suppliers. A U.K. market would not fill this either. Canada's lumber industry has the supply, talent and drive to thrive for decades, but only if these communities can stay together.”
“Softwood lumber is key in my riding, as many members know. Hundreds of jobs have already been lost in my riding during these tumultuous times. This is the opposite of negotiation. We are supposed to give something to get something. Families who rely on lumber jobs in my region have now seen an entire year of the Liberal Prime Minister 's travels. He has travelled frequently to the United States and around the globe, promising deals but still not delivering for lumber. Time is not on our side in the lumber sector. At a time of unrelenting attacks from the Trump administration on our softwood lumber industry through unjustified tariffs, sawmills are closing and communities are losing hope.”
“This, too, could have been addressed at the table while the U.K. sought to join the CPTPP. Instead, there was silence, another missed opportunity. Given the Prime Minister 's frequent boasting of a close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister and with the United Kingdom as a whole, one would think that he would have talked about this. The Liberal government might have used this opportunity to advocate on behalf of our agricultural producers or the 100,000 U.K. pensioners during this cost of living and inflation crisis. This is a negotiating pattern with the government. The Liberals have a talent for walking into major trade discussions and walking out empty-handed. Whether it is softwood lumber, steel or aluminum, the result is always the same. Canada gives but gets very little back.”
“The same barriers remain. The same inequities remain. Why did the government not secure real improvements for Canadian producers? It had the leverage, it had the time and it had the opportunity. What the government did not have was the political will to fight for all Canadian interests. I would also like to mention the thousands of U.K. pensioners living in Canada, including many in British Columbia, whose pensions remain frozen with no cost-of-living increases, no indexing and no adjustments whatsoever. (1300) These are not all permanent residents. Many became the best thing a person can be: They became Canadian. Still, these seniors paid into the system. They worked in the U.K. They built lives in British Columbia and across Canada, yet they are treated unfairly compared to pensioners who seek benefits from other countries.”
“For the last decade, the government has acted as though it is unbothered by the severe trade imbalances with the U.K. British beef enters Canada duty-free and without limits. According to the Library of Parliament, Britain exported 28.3 million dollars' worth of beef and 3.6 million dollars' worth of pork to Canada in the first half of 2025 alone. Meanwhile, Canada's beef and pork are forced into tight quotas and face trade barriers. Canada exported only 122,000 dollars' worth of pork and no beef in 2025. The U.K. still refuses to accept Canada's meat hygiene system, even though it is internationally recognized and it has provided no scientific evidence against it. This was a perfect moment to fix that. The U.K. wanted CPTPP membership. Canada could have insisted on fair treatment for our beef and pork exporters. Instead, nothing changed.”
“Instead, it is another example of a government that consistently leaves Canadians with less than they deserve. Let us be clear: The United Kingdom joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is not the issue. The problem is how little the government managed to secure for Canadians during those negotiations. When a country like the United Kingdom wants to join a major trade pact with Canada, that is leverage. That is leverage to get more of our products to market and to bring more products that we cannot produce in Canada to Canadians. This point of negotiation is when responsible governments push hard for their own workers, exporters and seniors. However, once again, the Liberals have negotiated a win for someone on the other side of the table when there was much room to secure one for us.”
“Trade is the foundation of every strong economy in history, and trade with the United Kingdom is a long and deep part of Canadian history. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about this just recently when speaking to British audiences about the potential to strengthen our relationship as allies. That does not mean that we, as a nation, should ever roll over for any agreement. Ultimately, we want to ensure that free trade is reciprocal. That is to say that it is fair. If we are going to give access to Canadian markets, then we need to see access to the other nation's markets in return. Free trade and fair trade are not in conflict. They are in partnership, or they should be. Bill C-13 should have been a moment for Canada to show strength and strategic thinking on the world stage amid turmoil.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the legislation before us: Bill C-13 , an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is a long name, but the acronym is the CPTPP. Before I begin my speech, I want to make a small acknowledgement of a big win in my community. The Keremeos' Similkameen Sparks basketball team proved themselves to be the B.C. champions last weekend, among all schools province-wide. Our whole community is very proud of these amazing young athletes. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Helena Konanz: Bill C-13 comes before the House at a time of concern about global tensions in our trading relationships. Let us be clear that Canada is and always will remain a great trading nation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his really informative speech. I think we all agree we need to diversify our markets. Why does my colleague think Canadians are having trouble believing what the government says it is going to do and are questioning whether any of this is actually going to happen?”
“Mr. Speaker, when are the Liberals going to realize these programs are not working? I was recently approached by a young mom who told me how hard it has become to feed her children. It was heart-wrenching. I see her face now when I hear that child poverty rose for a third straight year in Canada. Nearly 30,000 more children have fallen below the poverty line. When will the Liberal government end the trend of child poverty getting worse every year?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to build at speeds not seen since the Second World War, when returning veterans were in desperate need of housing to start young families. Back then, we provided it in mere months. The Liberals today are proud of the billions they are spending, but the fact is, more young Canadians than ever are delaying, if not abandoning, important life goals like home ownership and starting a family. Too many end up homeless as a result. An average home in Canada costs roughly $700,000. Down payments have doubled. Housing starts are falling. Builders are not building. Tent communities are a common sight. After 10 years and billions of dollars, where are the homes?”
“Not surprisingly, she feels increasingly unsafe in her own neighbourhood amid rising crime and reports of fires. Local services are overwhelmed, and the problem of homelessness is only increasing. That is why Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to stop making promises they cannot keep and start building homes. We asked them to cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million to save families up to $65,000 and make projects viable again, to tie federal infrastructure dollars to municipal results and reward communities that are building more, and to end capital gains tax on reinvestment in housing to unlock private capital. The Liberals say their plan is working, so why are housing starts falling, sales collapsing, and young Canadians giving up on home ownership? Why are people living in tents?”
“The Liberal government's housing failures are increasingly evident. Many Liberals stood on a promise in 2021 to end chronic homelessness by 2030. Can we find a single Liberal who thinks that they will keep that promise? It will not happen, when the PBO is reporting that the number of chronic homeless people has increased 38% and unsheltered homelessness increased by 300% between 2018 and 2024. Residents in communities in my region do not need Ottawa to tell them this, though. Penticton and the regional district are buckling under the strain of homeless encampments and people living in their vehicles on forestry roads. I recently spoke with a senior in Castlegar, living across the street from a growing encampment that did not exist just a couple of years ago.”
“Government-imposed costs now account for 30% to 50% of the price of a new home. Development charges have exploded. When it costs more to get permission to build than it does to build, we do not have a market failure; we have a government failure. The Liberals will stand up and list the billions of dollars they have spent. The Liberal government has indeed created the most expensive housing program in history, but if those billions of dollars in announcements actually built homes, Canada would not be in a housing crisis. The housing accelerator fund was supposed to remove gatekeepers. Instead, cities are raising development fees after receiving federal money, while communities like mine have submitted numerous applications for the accelerator fund and have had all their proposals rejected.”
“Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal promises, housing prices have doubled, down payments have doubled, and now CMHC is projecting that housing starts will decline through 2026, 2027 and 2028. CMHC says we need nearly 500,000 homes per year to end the housing crisis. Instead we are headed toward fewer than half that. The government says 800,000 homes may be permitted over a decade. That is not a housing plan. That is a housing backslide. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the new Build Canada Homes program will build just 5,000 homes per year. That is just 1% of what the Liberals promised Canadians. Private homebuilding itself is slowing as well. New home sales are down 45% in our major cities, the lowest level in 45 years. They are down 56% in Vancouver. Permit applications are down 26% compared to last spring. Why is that?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is definitely a lack of confidence in the Liberal government. I wonder if the member could tell us again why he does not trust the government to follow through on its promises, in particular, the high-speed rail project.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a problem across the entire country. This is not focused just on one province. I know that thousands of people in my riding do not have a doctor, and we have this gateway system for health. These issues need to be addressed. As for those rejected asylum seekers and criminals who are avoiding being sent back to their country, and some of them are criminals, this should be addressed so that money is spent on Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I resent is members from the Liberal Party downplaying an issue that is very important for every Canadian. Six million Canadians are without doctors. As for my own riding, I could actually, probably, google my riding right now, because there might be another hospital closed suddenly. It happens on a regular basis. Princeton was just closed a couple of days ago. How would anyone like it if they drove up to a hospital with their child, who might have just broken their arm, and found out that the hospital is closed suddenly because of the lack of doctors and that they have to drive their child an hour and a half to the nearest hospital? We need to correct this and that is what furthering this report and supporting the motion will do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member was listening. I know that only half of my speech occurred while he was sitting here, but we are talking about rejected asylum seekers, some of them criminals. I think the worst thing is that the government has no idea actually how many there are. If he wants to learn more about this, he can go to the health committee meeting that is happening right now, or he can also look at the PBO report that states that this is going to cost us billions if it continues as it is.”
“If the members opposite would like the policies they say will fix this mess to be studied thoroughly by our Parliamentary Budget Officer, might I suggest they join me at the health committee when I am done here this afternoon to tell their own Liberal colleagues to end the filibustering they have been up to for the last couple of weeks so that we can look into this, find out the truth and make our health system and our immigration system better.”
“First, it is that I oppose assisting people in need, and that is completely false. I want our nation to be the welcoming nation it has always been, one that welcomes someone like me and the many of us in this room who came from all across the world. What I oppose is people who file false asylum claims being rewarded with specialty health care, benefits like physiotherapy, which too many Canadians cannot access. I am not opposed to someone being saved in an ER. I am opposed to them getting free eyeglasses after they commit extortion.”
“Another reason this federal program has increased in cost from the tens of millions to the soon-to-be billions is the recurring issue we heard about at the committee from witnesses of specialist doctors who are providing these services overcharging the immigration department due to a lack of oversight of billing. According to Dr. Arun Anand, physicians who provide services to claimants are charging the federal government more. He said, “because it is uninsured and there's less accountability, physicians are more aggressive with their billing practices. They charge premiums on these programs and services” and “because services are not covered by provincial plans, physicians can bill up to five times more for their physician fees in these programs”. I know what the members opposite will tell me.”
“Today, it stands at around 600,000 beneficiaries, more than two-thirds of whom are asylum claimants, with a much smaller number than before being refugees. It is important to note that when these are refugee cases, approval does not mean staying on this program indefinitely but seeing only to some temporary medical issues. At the same time, they are transferred into provincial health programs so they can then potentially work and pay back into our system. Asylum claimants remain on the program entirely through the long and winding Liberal backlog.”
“Mr. Speaker, rejected asylum seekers quickly realize they can create near-endless extensions for years with access to specialty medical care they do not have in their home countries. It swiftly adds to the backlog, which in turn adds to the cost. By the end of this fiscal year, the annual cost will be $986 million. By the end of this decade, the annual cost will be $1.5 billion. Those are not my figures; they are the Parliamentary Budget Officer's figures. Anyone who doubts these can ask him in person. His report also shows that in the early days of the Trudeau government, the number of interim federal health program beneficiaries was around 100,000 and was split evenly between asylum claims and refugee cases.”
“(1355) What Canadians have come to oppose is the bent shape that our refugee system exists in today. A complete failure by the Liberal government to properly manage the admission of temporary foreign workers and international students into non-essential jobs and fake universities has led to this crisis. Guests to our country quickly realize they can create nearly endless extensions, with access to special medical care that they do not have in their own home countries, by filing asylum claims that everyone knows do not meet any standard of refugee. I do not blame these people for doing this. It is the government's fault for allowing the loophole to exist in the—”
“That is the interim federal health program as it exists today, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed when his office appeared before the health committee just a couple of weeks ago. Canadians have increasingly lost confidence in the immigration and refugee system under the Liberal government, and it is easy to see why. No governing party in this House has ever opposed the admission of real refugees from Syria, Ukraine or Afghanistan. No governing party has ever opposed the interim federal health program. Canada is a generous nation to those who need our generosity. If someone comes to Canada blinded by acid, without a limb, from a war-torn country, no one is advocating leaving them in the street instead of ensuring they have rehabilitative care.”
“The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, using IRCC data, shows that this backlog will only grow for the rest of the decade. Even when these bogus refugee claimants are denied at every stage, and the fraudulent visitors lose all rights to remain in Canada and are told they must leave, until and if they are physically walked out of the country, they can still walk down the street and receive vision care or physiotherapy, things that the average Canadian does not have access to. Here is the worst thing about these departures. The IRCC cannot even tell parliamentarians how many are actually departing. I guess it expects these fraudulent cases to walk out the door on their own and leave behind free health care.”
“Our amendments would have prevented non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from filing bogus asylum claims in an attempt to escape deportation. Still, the Liberals voted against this common-sense change to our laws. I know the Liberals will say we should let the process play out. However, even when clearly fraudulent claims filed by violent suspected criminals are rightly thrown out by our refugee board, these people still do not lose access to free specialty health programs. In contrast, they file an appeal, which may take years to be heard due to backlogs averaging up to four years. Even with a budget of nearly $350 million and 2,500 employees, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is growing its backlog year after year.”
“It is a fact that residents in my riding must wait months, if not years, to see the specialists they need, sometimes driving on treacherous winter roads to reach them. It is also a fact that if someone is, for example, a non-Canadian arrested in Surrey in connection with extortion, or in connection with arson in Ontario, a shooting in Edmonton, or auto theft in the Lower Mainland, they can immediately file a refugee claim for asylum and be granted access to the interim federal health program. For Conservatives, this is not hypothetical. It is a real case, in which these individuals made real claims. Even our premier, David Eby, thought it was outrageous. Conservatives tried to amend Liberal legislation in the committee to fix this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to our Conservative motion regarding serious inefficiencies in the federal health care and immigration systems. For those unaware, let us look at the cold, hard facts that were uncovered by the work of my colleagues and me at the parliamentary health committee last fall regarding the serious effects Canada's dysfunctional immigration system is having on our health care system, especially the effects of the interim federal health program. It is a fact that thousands of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of British Columbians have no family doctor. It is a fact that residents in my riding often discover their emergency rooms are suddenly closing for hours, if not whole days, because of a chronic shortage of health care workers. It happened just this past weekend in Princeton.”
“Mr. Speaker, what the member did not mention is that Liberals at the health committee are currently filibustering any attempt to even study this program. That does not sound like they are trying to fix anything. They want a cover-up. Conservatives are clear on the solution: no more physio or vision care for rejected asylum claimants. Will the Liberals support our motion and ensure that rejected asylum claimants do not get health care benefits that are superior to those of Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, thousands of people in B.C. cannot see a family doctor, yet the Liberals now provide deluxe health care benefits to rejected asylum claimants at taxpayers' expense. The PBO has shown that the interim federal health program has skyrocketed in costs to almost $1 billion. Will the Liberals support our motion and ensure that rejected asylum claimants do not get better health care than Canadians?”
“It means coordinating across federal, provincial, municipal and first nations governments, instead of burying communities in red tape. I am looking forward to the amendments that will come forward concerning this bill, because the issue is extremely important. Conservatives are ready to work towards practical, accountable and results-driven solutions, ones that would truly protect our coasts, our lakes and our environment for generations to come.”
“Vessels are being used now as makeshift housing, but these are boats that were never designed to be lived in. Many lack proper sanitation or waste disposal, creating serious risks of pollution. Others pose fire hazards, safety risks and concerns related to criminal activity. A housing crisis has now spilled into our waterways, turning a social crisis into an environmental one. That is not compassionate policy. That is a result of years of federal mismanagement. Conservatives believe in caring for our waters and the people who depend on them. That means ensuring the polluter pays principle can actually be enforced. It means fixing the vessel registration system, so ownership is clear and accountability is real.”
“What happens in online auctions, which are increasingly common? What about cross-border sales? How long does the liability follow the seller after the sale has occurred? These unanswered questions create legal uncertainty and risk punishing Canadians who are acting in good faith. Instead of clarity, this amendment risks adding confusion, litigation and unintended consequences, especially when existing regulations are already not being enforced. Unfortunately, Canadians are now abandoning vessels simply because they cannot afford repairs, moorage or disposal. Even more troubling, many Canadians are being forced to live aboard old, unsafe boats because they have nowhere else to go. We see this constantly in Okanagan Lake and throughout the interior.”
“Vessels are sold, resold and resold again, often without ownership transfers being properly reported. When a vessel becomes abandoned or hazardous, officials cannot identify who is responsible and the polluter does not pay; the taxpayer does. The problem is that Bill C-244 attempts to address this issue but would not fix the root cause. (1330) Clause 3 proposes to prohibit the transfer of ownership if the seller knows that the buyer is reckless or lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain the vessel properly. That would be impossible to know. While the intention may be to prevent pollution, the language is vague and raises serious concerns. How is a seller expected to determine a buyer's intent or financial capability? Are sellers supposed to demand financial statements, conduct interviews or predict future behaviour?”
“During testimony before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, witnesses, including government officials, made it is clear that federal departments are not working effectively together. Even basic functions, such as managing private buoy regulations, have fallen through the cracks after being transferred between departments. These bureaucratic breakdowns delay assessments, slow removals and leave communities waiting year after year for actions that never come. Municipalities want action, including municipalities in my riding that have been asking for this for years, while Ottawa continues to get in the way of being a partner. Another major failure is the vessel registration system itself. Without reliable ownership records, enforcement is impossible.”
“An example can be seen through the oceans protection plan, where over $300 million has been allocated to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels. Since 2016, that spending has resulted in the removal of just 791 vessels. That is an average cost of more than $379,000 per vessel. Meanwhile, 1,355 derelict vessels remain on the Canadian Coast Guard's inventory list. At this pace, taxpayers could be forced to spend more than half a billion dollars just to clear the existing backlog. That is not value for money. It is not effective environmental policy, and it is certainly not responsible stewardship of public funds. The problem is not a lack of legislation. The problem is a lack of enforcement, coordination and accountability.”
“Vessels have sunk at docks, leaked fuel into water or sat for years because no one could determine ownership or responsibility. In many cases, communities are left to manage the environmental and safety risks of these vessels without the resources or authority to act. For small communities, whether coastal or lakefront, the cost is overwhelming. They are often forced to choose between letting a vessel sit and pollute or diverting scarce funds away from housing, infrastructure or essential services just to deal with a problem that should never have existed in the first place. After nearly a decade in government, the Liberal response has been more spending and more bureaucracy, with very little to show for it.”
“These vessels pollute our waters, endanger marine life, block navigational routes, pose real safety risks to workers, first responders and entire communities, and affect tourism. Conservatives believe in protecting Canadian waterways and conserving our marine environment. We believe government has a responsibility to ensure the rules meant to protect our oceans and lakes are actually enforced. When vessels operate in Canadian waters, whether they are local, commercial or foreign, they must meet strong standards that keep Canadians safe and protect the environment. Leaving abandoned vessels to rot and pollute our coasts and beautiful lakes is not an option. We have seen this over and over again in my riding and in the Okanagan Valley.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-244 , an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. I want to thank sponsor of the bill for bringing forward an issue that coastal, river and lakeside communities across Canada have been raising for years. It is definitely on the right path. This is a huge problem throughout Canada and the interior of British Columbia, which I represent, and also in our beautiful lakes such as Okanagan Lake, where abandoned vessels have caused environmental chaos. Abandoned and derelict vessels, which are commonly referred to as DAVs, are a growing and serious threat to our ecosystems, our fisheries, our aquatic habitats and the Canadians who depend on them.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government's own housing agency shows fewer homes being built over the next three years, while home prices will only rise. A third of homebuilders are building less because they are forced to lay off workers. Young men and women in B.C. are seeing the dream of home ownership fading. Years of Liberal homebuilding programs have not delivered. Will the Liberals adopt our plan to remove the GST on all new homes to help builders build and young Canadians buy?”