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 5 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, no member of the House is arguing against reducing emissions. The question is whether driving the industrial carbon tax to $170 per tonne, while our competitors in the United States do not face the same burden, is helping the environment or simply pushing production elsewhere. If steel production moves south, emissions do not disappear; jobs disappear, investment disappears and Canadian competitiveness disappears. Meanwhile the farmer still pays more for his equipment, and the manufacturer makes fewer products. This is not a debate about caring for the environment; it is a debate about whether the policy is making life more affordable. The government has still not answered that.”
“This is the same when the government wants to use Canadian-made steel and aluminum in a Canadian-made car, a Canadian-made ship or a Canadian-made bridge. Everything the government wants to build more of in Canada is increased by the industrial carbon tax, while other markets are unaffected. The incentive for suppliers to build or fabricate elsewhere becomes higher. For example, the Liberals chose to build B.C. ferries in China instead of Canadian shipyards, which means using non-Canadian steel and no support for Canadian shipyard jobs. We cannot ignore that reality. The question is straight forward: If the industrial carbon tax increases the cost of producing the very goods we say we want to build in Canada, is that policy helping affordability or is it making the problem worse?”
“Instead, they received a temporary one-off rebate. I do not oppose this rebate, but it does not change the cost structure for farm equipment; it sends money back after the price has already gone up. If the policy increases costs at the production level and then we offer rebates to offset those higher costs, that is an admission that the burden exists. Canadians do not want a cycle of higher costs followed by temporary relief; they want structural change to make things cost less. The government speaks out about being pro-Canada and strengthening domestic supply chains. It speaks about building more here at home, but if something is produced in Canada to be used in Canada, such as steel and aluminum, it carries this industrial carbon cost.”
“Statistics Canada has confirmed that realized net farm income dropped by $3.3 billion in 2024, which is a 26% decline. At the same time, operating costs climbed to $78.5 billion and farm debt rose to 14%. Farmers are not looking for lectures about climate policy; they are trying to cover their costs and plan for the next season. Professor Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University has been clear, saying, “The industrial carbon tax...continues to erode competitiveness in the agri-foods sector.” He has pointed to the growing cost gap with producers in the United States. That gap matters when Canadian farmers are competing directly with American producers who are not operating under a $170 per tonne carbon trajectory. When Canadians say food costs are too high, they were asking for policies that bring costs down.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the government members' defence of the industrial carbon tax. They say farmers do not pay it. They say it only applies to large emitters. They say it has almost no impact on households. Let us walk through this in plain terms. When a farmer in my riding buys a new combine or replaces their tractor, that equipment is built with Canadian steel produced under a carbon price that is rising to $170 per tonne. When they purchase replacement parts, install an irrigation system, upgrade an industrial dryer or build a machine shed, those materials are made from steel and aluminum produced under the same industrial carbon cost. The government may not send the bill directly to the farmer, but the farmer receives it anyway.”
“Madam Speaker, today a family of five needs a car and decides that, because we live in a democracy and they cannot be coerced into what kind of car to buy, they are going to try an electric vehicle. What does the hon. member say to them? They also want to buy Canadian. They want to help Canadians keep their jobs. What does the hon. member say to them, a family of five, when all that is available to them today is a Dodge Charger?”
“There were many well-deserved tributes to former prime minister Stephen Harper last week. One of his accomplishments that I did not hear enough about was how, by 2015, he had reduced the federal tax burden to its lowest level in over 50 years. Canadians are no longer the beneficiaries of that sound fiscal policy. To ensure we have the transparency in our tax system that helps to set the conditions for lower taxes, I would call on all members of the House to pass Bill C-230 .”
“In the age of deficits, when the Liberals continue to insist that debt is permanent, that the budget will never be balanced and that we will always be spending more than we take in, it is even more critical to ensure that the money Ottawa is owed is collected. When we set taxes and undercollect, the pressure always pushes the government to raise more taxes to fill the gap. It is vital to ensure that the highest taxpayers do not wriggle out of their obligations, because that pressure will ultimately fall on those who can pay less to make up the shortfall. Proper tax collection is what sets the floor for reducing the tax burden on working Canadians. The record-high amounts that the Liberals have been writing off, with, again, $18 billion written off in just one year, only sets conditions for more tax hikes.”
“The focus of the law would be on giving Canadians more information, especially when they see the government seeking to engage in, for example, corporate welfare. It is too common for Canadians to see press releases and ribbon cuttings for public subsidies and tax dollars being used to try to pick winners in our economy, only for those projects or expansions to fall flat. We have seen this very recently with the Liberals' approach to the auto sector over the last several years, with shiny deals announced only to be followed up with the downsizing of Canadian workers. Now, if these same companies have their debts written off, there is no way for Canadians to know. The bill would shine a light through this fog.”
“Attached to each case would have to be an explanation, and this is extremely important, as to why the Canada Revenue Agency says it is not worth pursuing millions, possibly billions, in outstanding debt. We know this reasoning exists internally at the CRA. It may even be understandable, such as in bankruptcy proceedings, but the registry would make it clear and public. I know there has been some discussion about the million-dollar threshold for reporting, and I believe the author of the legislation says he is open to good-faith amendments to this. We should make it clear that the legislation would apply only to corporate entities and is set with that in mind. It is not the purpose of the legislation to shame an individual Canadian or even a family farm that might be going through a bankruptcy proceeding.”
“Sometimes they just need to talk to somebody. There are single mothers and older Canadians who do not have the means to pay what might seem like a small amount compared with these huge amounts I have been speaking about, but these people are trying their best to do the right thing, so they come into our offices. They should not have to do that. It is time for fairness and transparency at the CRA. This is a start, and that is why I support Bill C-230 . (1135) The bill would create an accessible, searchable public registry under the Treasury Board. The registry would annually publish a list of all corporate entities that have had debts owed to the government waived, forgiven or written off, if the amount exceeds $1 million.”
“In fact, just last year, the Liberals wrote off $18.4 million in outstanding taxes, and billions owed by corporations. That is not right. Ultimately, these are tax dollars lost that Ottawa would move to collect from Canadians elsewhere to make up the revenue shortfall. Residents and small businesses in my riding do not often get this type of treatment from the CRA. When their taxes are outstanding, or even just slightly off when filed, they see the letters in their mailbox, the voice mails on their phone and the emails in their inbox. They see interest charges and collection attempts. We see them in our offices regularly. Regular citizens are chased down for small amounts. Many businesses I meet with are frantic because they cannot even get a hold of someone at the CRA, let alone understand what went wrong or why they owe this amount.”
“Can Canadians know if this was a person or a corporation that benefited from public subsidies? No. When the Liberals approved $1.2 billion in 11 separate corporate tax debt writeoffs in 2024, were Canadians allowed to know which corporations were involved? No. In Canada today, corporate debt owed to the Canadian government through the Canada Revenue Agency can be written off, waived or forgiven entirely in secret. There is no requirement for the CRA to tell Canadians which corporation had these debts written off or the reasons they were written off. There is no explanation of how nearly 60,000 public employees at the CRA were unable to collect these enormous outstanding debts. There is a curtain here that disguises millions, if not billions, in lost collections owed to the government.”
“He has been a great colleague to me, and I know he is widely respected across this entire chamber. This legislation addresses one of the most important aspects of governance: transparency in our taxes. Now, while there has always been disagreement across the House on how tax dollars should be spent, there has been an agreement among all parties that we should always be able to see where they are spent. This is what makes this legislation so important. It seeks to cast transparency on potentially billions of dollars lost every year with no window for the public to understand why. Just a few years ago, a Conservative colleague of mine discovered that the Canada Revenue Agency had written off $133 million in taxes owed by just one taxpayer. Was this a person? Was this a corporation? The CRA would not say. The CRA did not have to say.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-230 , an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. Before I begin my speech, I would like to very briefly address a tragedy in my community. I recently met with a grieving mother in Penticton who lost her son when he was swarmed, assaulted and beaten until he died. That horrifying event occurred four and a half years ago, yet it has still not gone to trial. Justice delayed is justice denied to the family and friends of victims and to this mother. A full and fair day in court should not take almost half a decade. Returning to the legislation, I want to thank my esteemed colleague the member for Simcoe North for bringing this important legislation forward.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent. I learn a lot from him every time he stands up in the House. As a new member, I was not surprised about the virtual voting, as I knew that existed, but I was surprised by how often some members use it; some are not in their seat very often, and they vote from abroad. Does the member think there should be limitations on virtual voting?”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberal finance minister failed to stabilize grocery prices as he promised to do three years ago. His new one-off rebate will not reduce the cost of a single item on the shelf, and food bank lines in my region will not shrink, yet the Liberals voted against our motion to reduce transport and packaging costs for farmers. Food inflation must come down. When will the Liberals work with us to cut taxes to bring down the cost of food?”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concern. I wonder why it has taken over 10 years. We still do not have an agreement with the United States, through many presidents, so we cannot blame everything on President Trump. Energy workers want to see a pipeline. Forestry workers want to see some kind of deal with the Americans. My particular riding crawls along the United States, so it is important that we keep those. We actually have six border crossings, and that is one of the reasons we need to make the deal with the United States. However, I do want to say I will send the member the letter that I sent to the Prime Minister in the last couple of weeks. These mitigation plans for Princeton were promised since—”
“The government says it wants to be a government of action and not words, yet too often, words on paper are its approach to our natural resources. When will the government show—”
“The Similkameen, however, has seen the basic infrastructure that Copper Mountain relies on, the roads and bridges, damaged and closed because of greater risks of flooding. The Liberal government promised it would help our region build back after the damaging floods in 2021, but instead of working with the region, it refused. It refused the community's mitigation plan and provided nothing in return. We have gone years without proper mitigation infrastructure being installed. If left undone, this will challenge our ability to mine our critical minerals. Last month, I wrote to the Prime Minister and several of his ministers about this, calling for him to approve the plan presented by the town of Princeton. I have still received no reply.”
“European lumber suppliers operating at lower tariff rates are already trying to seal the supply chain, which for decades has been the lifeblood of lumber communities across Canada and British Columbia. I also wish to discuss the importance of mining in my riding. Copper Mountain in the Similkameen valley is a vital operation for the region, producing the copper, gold and silver required to build the self-reliant and greener Canada we need. Without these precious metals, electronics and sustainable technologies simply could not function. It is clear that for us to have a prosperous and richer Canada, our critical minerals are essential, but for them to be used they must reach the market.”
“Thousands of jobs have been lost just recently. Just last month, we saw the permanent closure of mills in Crofton and 100 Mile House, B.C. Similarly, mills in northern Alberta and northern Ontario have recently closed as well. These are not just jobs but entire communities being lost. The Liberal government lacks the clear vision and real, immediate focus on where Canada's lumber market needs to be, which is restoring access to the U.S. market. Promises of loans, domestic building and memorandums of understanding in Asian markets are all welcome, but they will not help if our sawmills shut before these opportunities turn real. The U.S. represents well over half the market for Canada. Restoring access there needs to be a priority. It should have been a priority for the Liberals when our last deal expired a decade ago.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on the importance of Canada's bountiful natural resources, specifically the industries vital to my home province of British Columbia. Our forestry industry gainfully employs many men and women across my riding. It has put food on the table and a roof over the heads of Canadians for decades and has the potential to do so for decades more, but Canada's lack of a softwood lumber agreement like we had under the Harper government has left our industry at the mercy of tariffs across four presidential administrations now, all under the Liberal government's watch. The most recent lumber tariffs have caused deep concern in my riding, especially in Grand Forks, where the Interfor mill is now operating at reduced capacity, and that is more than some other mill communities in western Canada can say.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc mentioned that there is talk of a distrust in government. I am hearing that a lot too. What happened in Mirabel is terrible. There are issues with private property across the country right now that are not being addressed, even in my province of British Columbia. Why do you think the people of Canada, or residents, have a distrust in the current government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the heartfelt comments of my colleague. It is terrible what happened in Mirabel and what is happening now. The subject of private property is coming up a lot lately throughout the country, as well as the right to ownership of land and the security of owning our land and our families continuing to own our land in the future. Why does my colleague think that there is possibly distrust right now in the current government on whether people throughout the country, not just in Quebec and Mirabel, might not be able to continue to own their land?”
“Mr. Speaker, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay is not just home to the most beautiful rivers, lakes and valleys in all of Canada. It is also home to world-class athletes. First, I want to congratulate my local hockey team, the Penticton Vees. The Vees have a long history of hockey in Penticton. In 1955, they won the world championships; in 2012, they won the national championships; and now, in their first season in the WHL, they just completed a 14-game winning streak. Go, Vees, go! Then there are siblings Jasmine and Rémi Drolet from Rossland, who will be going for gold at the Winter Olympics this month in cross-country skiing. I thank them for their hard work. The whole community will be cheering them on. No one will stop Canada when we go for the gold.”
“Madam Speaker, without mandatory minimums there is really no way that crime can be specifically addressed in our communities. Right now, municipalities are buckling under the responsibilities and the downloading they have had to take on because of the crime that has hit. It used to be just cities, but now our rural communities are being hit hard. There is no safe place to go, and mandatory minimums need to be brought forward with this bill.”
“Madam Speaker, mandatory minimums are extremely important. When a crime is committed, such as the one that was presented to me by a mother whose child, a young person, was beaten in a playground, or extortion or the crimes that have been happening especially of late, they need to have mandatory minimums. That is what we will be pushing for in committee.”
“Madam Speaker, yes, I do appreciate that criminalizing deepfakes is in the bill and that there will be things we will work on in committee, things we agree on, but why has it taken this long to address crime when our communities have been crying for help for years? This is a move in the right direction, but why did it take a decade to get here?”
“Doing so would allow us to quickly implement positive changes to the Criminal Code while taking these ill-conceived sentencing proposals for fuller debate and study at the committee level. After a decade of catch-and-release Liberal bail, repealing mandatory minimums and increasing violent crimes, Canadians want better from their government. They want their taxes and their government to deliver safer communities, to prioritize them and their families over criminals and to prioritize justice. Let us work quickly to meet the expectations that our communities are demanding.”
“Someone who is convicted of a drive-by shooting or armed extortion deserves to be jailed with a clear sentence set by a democratic body of the House representing the desires of all Canadians. In practice, this bill, as drafted, means that mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. That is unacceptable to me. Too many residents, families, seniors and small businesses in my riding and throughout Canada have been victimized and do not feel safe. Canadians have had enough. I do not come to the House to say “no”, but to offer a better way forward. I hope that, across parties, we can recognize the positive measures that I have highlighted and split them into their own legislation that stands apart from these sentencing measures.”
“Bill C-16 would amend the principles for sentencing, imposing on judges and courts the requirement to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum sentence, as adopted by Parliament as law, where applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. This change would enable a path to lower sentences than mandatory minimums require, even for crimes such as human trafficking, weapons trafficking and offences committed with firearms, such as extortion or drive-by shootings. Mandatory minimum sentences for violent offenders are not cruel or unusual punishments. A violent crime itself is a cruel and unusual punishment to its victims, their families and the entire community. This cannot be forgotten.”
“I spoke about the importance of considering coercive control in the House just yesterday in my speech on Bill C-223 , and I welcome it here as well, but the Liberals have also undermined key policies that matter for public safety and for public confidence that justice will be served, like mandatory minimum sentences. This is a policy that the public, historically this Parliament and the Conservatives have been supporting. In my recent survey to my constituents, almost everyone who responded said they wanted violent criminals held responsible for their actions and wanted them to serve mandatory time. Instead, to appeal to soft-on-crime supporters, mandatory minimums in sentencing are undermined again in Bill C-16 .”
“After a decade in office, finally, the Liberals have acted. (1225) I give credit to my Conservative colleagues for their work throughout these years to finally get the Liberals to sit up and listen. I am glad to see the Liberals take up the proposal of my Conservative colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , which would make the murder of an intimate partner automatically a first-degree offence. After the horrific murder of Bailey McCourt last summer, this is a proposal that I know the people of my riding and all of Canada can get behind. I also see that a new Criminal Code offence has been put forth, prohibiting engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner.”
“I urge the courts to provide full and fair proceedings to this horrific case. Sadly, it is not the only one. Why? What has changed in this decade? I suggest it is reflecting a chronic, years-long failure to uphold public safety, the first responsibility of any government. It is reflecting a failure to demonstrate consequences, a failure to provide a swift and fair application of justice for the accused, a failure to provide closure for victims of crime, a failure exasperated by a sluggish court system, and a failure to address a broken bail system. I appreciate that Bill C-16 tries to find solutions, finally. How does Bill C-16 address this? It is by taking on many of the ideas that the Conservatives have called for, for years. These measures are long overdue in our criminal justice system.”
“In a place like Penticton, residents no longer feel safe to take a summer night stroll on our iconic Lakeshore Drive. The business associations there are clear that “crime is what we are hearing about, every single day.” Just this month, I had a conversation with a mother who lost her son in Penticton to violence. This young man was swarmed, assaulted and beaten until he died. Many residents of Penticton will remember this vicious murder, but what they might not realize is that we are mere months away from a statute of limitations issue. Delays in getting this complex case to court could mean this case, like many others in Canada, is never going to be properly heard, and the victim's family and friends and our small town will never have proper closure or see justice. This is not just justice delayed; it is no justice at all.”
“These are things we never used to see before, especially in rural towns. Residents have good reason to be concerned. There is a growing and fundamental issue of violent crime in this country that has gone unaddressed by the Liberals for years, but I am not telling the House anything new. The time for change is long overdue. Bill C-16 , I hope, can do some good here, but some concerns remain. When I first joined municipal politics, people in the community were concerned about many issues, but crime was not top of the list. They worried mostly about parks, about job security and about taxes. In a decade, things have changed drastically. Now, it is a regular occurrence for people to say they are concerned, cautious or even afraid.”
“Madam Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford . I am speaking today on Bill C-16 , the government's proposal to address the serious issue of rising violent crime and the growing lack of public safety. Residents in communities across Canada and my riding, including those in Penticton, Oliver, Princeton and Castlegar, tell me things do not feel as safe as they used to. I am hearing this constantly. While our region is the most beautiful in Canada and a place I feel proud to call home, many do not feel safe walking our streets, shopping in our downtowns, visiting our hospitals or clinics, or even at night in their homes. Within just the last few months, we have had a firebombing in Castlegar, an attempted break-and-enter with a shotgun in Osoyoos and a shootout in Princeton.”
“Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present this petition from concerned Canadians who are worried about the Bloc and Liberal amendments to Bill C-9 . They are urging the government to protect free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Canadians, and Canadian municipalities in particular, have been crying for help from the Liberals for years. They have been burdened with crime and criminals walking the streets. Why does the member think this is suddenly such an important issue for the Liberals? They have finally put it on the agenda, as if it were something brand new they had never heard of before.”
“Her intentions are good, and I respect the work she has put into this bill, but good intentions alone cannot form the basis of sound legislation. As debate continues, I look forward to hearing from colleagues across the House. Should the bill proceed to committee, I believe it will require careful study and thoughtful amendment, informed by expert testimony. Our goal must be to craft legislation that truly protects children and supports families through some of the most difficult moments of their lives.”
“I would draw the House’s attention to a detailed critique published in Law360 by two distinguished scholars: Nicholas Bala, a professor of law at Queen’s University, and Rachel Birnbaum, a social worker and professor at King’s University College, Western University. They raise many of the same concerns I have outlined, particularly regarding the risks of prohibiting judges from considering parental alienation altogether. They also reference rigorous scientific and legal research supporting the validity of parental alienation, including studies published in Developmental Psychology and the University of New Brunswick Law Journal. I want to close by acknowledging the member’s sincere commitment to improving the safety and well-being of children.”
“One colleague from Ontario shared that in more than one-third of proven alienation cases, mothers were the alienated parent, often targeted by the abusive former partner. An absolute prohibition on considering this evidence seems, at best, misguided. (1820) I understand that the bill’s sponsor has worked closely with organizations, such as the National Association of Women and the Law. Its contributions are undoubtedly thoughtful. However, its characterization of parental alienation as junk science is not universally shared. As a lawmaker, not a lawyer, I have reviewed the research, and it is clear that many respected voices in both law and social science disagree with that assessment.”
“As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate the bill's efforts to broaden the types of evidence courts can consider, especially regarding children's testimony and family violence. Family law cases are complex and emotional, and they often require expert input, yet the bill would prevent judges from considering parental alienation, even when supported by expert analysis. The bill would allow judges to consider coercive control, often based on expert opinion. I see no reason why judges should not also be permitted to consider parental alienation under the same conditions. Colleagues with legal experience have noted that parental alienation is already recognized in Canadian case law.”
“The bill also proposes requiring legal advisers to assess risks of family violence and to develop safety plans, and it would strengthen the ability of courts to consider coercive control and its impact on parent-child relationships. It would further introduce safeguards around the use of direct testimony from children. If the bill were limited to these reforms, I expect members would still raise questions about implementation, particularly around the new responsibilities placed on courts and legal professionals. This would be expensive, but it is important. Overall, these are constructive steps. However, I do have concerns with one aspect of the bill: the provision that would prohibit judges from considering evidence of parental alienation in family law cases.”
“In addition, despite children being at the centre of these cases, children's voices are still not heard consistently. Alongside this is the very real and very serious issue of parental alienation. There is much in the bill that I believe members across the House can support. One provision I am particularly glad to see is the explicit direction to courts not to dismiss allegations of family violence simply because there is no police report or no visible injury, or because parties continue to live together. This is a meaningful change, one that resonates with me personally. Many years ago, a friend confided in me that she would be better off if he had hit her. She was living in a coercive, abusive situation that left no bruises but caused deep harm. Her experience was a reminder that violence is not always physical but is no less real.”
“For people who may not be familiar with the the bill, I will say that it proposes a number of reforms to the Divorce Act, the first since 2021. Although I was not yet a member of the House at that time, it is clear that those earlier reforms were significant and that many advocates have continued to call for further improvements. From speaking with people in the communities I represent, people who have been through the family court system, it is evident that inconsistencies in how cases proceed can undermine fairness. Experts have also highlighted how difficult it can be for the courts to properly assess coercive control and psychological abuse, both because of limited resources and because these forms of harm are not always easily defined in law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise for the first time this year to speak to Bill C-223 . Before I begin, I want to extend my warmest wishes for a happy new year to all the residents of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. Over the holidays, many of them took the time to write, call or speak to me directly. I want them to know how much I value those conversations. Hearing from them is essential to my work, and I am truly honoured to represent them in Ottawa in 2026. The legislation before us, Bill C-223 , an act to amend the Divorce Act, addresses an issue that touches families in a deeply personal way. The proposed changes to the Divorce Act are the first in several years, and I appreciate the member opposite for using her private member's bill to focus on such an important area of the law.”
“Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. Petitioners are saying that they have a right to free speech and a right to religion and freedom of expression. They are concerned that the amendments to Bill C-9 presented by the Liberals and the Bloc would be used to criminalize passages from the Torah, the Quran and the Bible. They are asking the government to uphold the right to read and share these sacred texts.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked by their grocery bills. That is because Canada is seeing the worst food inflation in the G7. Paycheques cannot keep up with the prices, yet the Liberals are burdening our farms with fuel taxes and red tape. We need affordability from farm to table. Conservatives are ready to fast-track any bill that would reverse the highest inflation in the G7. Will the Liberals immediately introduce legislation that would cut red tape and taxes for farmers?”