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 8 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, I represent the Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay riding and we have one of the longest borders along the United States and, also, the most mountainous terrain. We are having difficulty, right now, getting enough RCMP officers and meeting the quota that we have right now. We are not able to meet the quota because not enough people are applying at Depot. We all know that they are not applying, so we cannot get enough for the needs we have right now. How does the member believe that we are going to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers when we cannot get what we need right now?”
“Mr. Speaker, between 2013 and 2023, federal employment surged by 36%. By contrast, the private sector grew by 13%. How big is this new bureaucracy, this new office, going to be? How many new public sector employees does the government plan to hire?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised a deal with the Americans by July 21. There is still no deal. In fact, softwood tariffs have doubled. A decade of Liberal failure has lost thousands of lumber jobs. Yesterday, the mayor of Grand Forks announced the indefinite closure of the Interfor mill because of these tariffs. That is 150 jobs lost in a small town. On behalf of these workers, why have these jobs been denied by the Prime Minister ? Why has he failed to get a deal?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Mayor of Grand Forks announced that the Interfor mill is closing indefinitely because of unjustified U.S. tariffs. To the people of Grand Forks and Boundary, this is devastating. The mill is an important employer; there are 150 jobs being lost in one small town. I say to the families affected by the mill closure that I will continue to call on the Liberal government to get a softwood lumber deal, one that is fair to our workers in our communities like Grand Forks. Current programs and 10 years of Liberal pledges are not putting a roof over families' heads, putting food on the table or creating jobs like those that have been available at the Interfor mill for generations. Grand Forks and its residents deserve more. Grand Forks families want their jobs back.”
“Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if the member does not really trust the current PBO. It is interesting that he does not believe what our current PBO has stated. It is too bad, I guess, that former PBOs are much better experts than the person who is in that role right now. I want to talk about a certain industry, the forestry industry. The member talked about how money was tagged for different industries. Let us talk about the forestry industry. I toured six mills through the summer. At each one, I asked how much money they had received from the government. They all need help; they are desperate. None of them has received a penny. Can the member tell us how much any industry has received?”
“Their paycheque buys less at the pump and at the grocery store, if they still have a paycheque. Generations of families who have worked at a certain place are losing their job. They do not want a handout; they want to keep their job. I know I have repeated that, but it seems like the Liberals do not understand. It is great to have safety nets, but let us keep businesses going by being fiscally responsible. The damage is not limited to one sector; when one industry falls in a small town, local economies suffer, small businesses suffer and the cycle deepens. Will the Liberals have the courage to reverse course on the financial crisis?”
“This year's deficit is projected to be $68 billion, far exceeding the $40-billion ceiling Justin Trudeau promised last year, but instead of reversing course, the government has committed to even more spending, and ordinary Canadians are shouldering the cost. In B.C., where my riding is, and throughout Canada, people are losing their job. Mills are closing because they are unable to secure a softwood lumber deal. People are losing their job, and I hope my colleague across the aisle will not talk about the Liberals' helping people as much as they can with services like food banks and that type of thing. That is great temporarily, but how are we going to give people their job and their dignity back in places like sawmills, where generations have worked yet they are now shutting their doors. Canadian families are falling behind.”
“The members opposite can talk about having food banks and dental services available, but people just want to take care of themselves. They want to be able to afford to put food on the table themselves by keeping their job. Last month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revised Canada's economic outlook downward and delivered a warning we cannot afford to ignore. According to the PBO, our growing deficits are “alarming”, “stupefying”, “shocking” and “unsustainable”. I do not think he is making that up, and those are shocking statements. He said that while Canada has not gone over the edge, it is looking over the cliff. With the Prime Minister , the Liberals have nearly doubled the deficit spending since March.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question concerning whether the Liberals have the courage to reverse the course of the financial crisis. The member opposite talks a lot about food banks and income supports, but people, in general, do not want to have to use those things. They want to keep their paycheque, but they cannot keep their paycheque, as he mentioned, if they lose their job. Over 80,000 people have lost their job since the Prime Minister took office. The Liberals and the member opposite have been talking a lot about tax cuts for a lot of Canadians since they have been in office, but we need to remember that someone cannot receive a tax cut if they do not have a job. Over 80,000 people have lost their job.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is pertinent to this debate because it exemplifies the fact that so many important and troubling issues have occurred in the last few years concerning this deeply troubling issue in the military system, which should have been acknowledged, moved on and changed a long time ago. Unfortunately, the Liberal government chose to avoid the issues that needed to be addressed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member. It has been a long 10 years, with many people being hurt by the lack of legislation, which needed to come forward a long time ago. Survivors of sexual misconduct have been waiting for years for the Liberal government to do something about this, and they need to be heard.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting to me that the Liberals and the member seem intent on pushing this through so fast when these issues have been around for years. In fact, last year, it was filibustered and debated in committee, yet it was killed when Parliament was prorogued. The bill did not appear out of nowhere. It was in response to deeply troubling failures within our military justice system that have been going on for years. It is interesting that the member is interested in it going so quickly.”
“We will not let the government off the hook for its past failures, but work to ensure those in uniform finally get the justice and protection they deserve. To all those who have served and continue to serve, we hear them, we stand with them, and we will fight for the justice they have been denied for far too long.”
“Members of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve to know how these changes would apply to them, whether they serve here at home or are deployed abroad. They deserve a justice system that protects them in return. Let us be clear. This legislation is not a gift and it is not charity, but the bare minimum of what we owe to those who serve. It should have happened years ago. We cannot afford another decade of inaction. We cannot offer more empty promises. We certainly cannot allow the government to pat itself on the back for action it was shamed into taking. This is why Conservatives will scrutinize this bill closely. We will stand up for victims. We will demand transparency, independence and real reform.”
“Given the government's track record of interference, Canadians have every right to ask, and they are asking, if the minister and the government can be trusted with more power. Let us not forget that in 2021, the House had to censure the former Liberal defence minister for his handling of known sexual misconduct allegations in the military. We witnessed Liberal cover-ups, committee filibusters and a failure to hold top officials accountable, even when the government knew about the serious misconduct at the highest level of military command. Any expansion of ministerial authority must come with serious safeguards. The government must explain how it will prevent abuses, protect victims and guarantee independence in the military justice system. Our brave men and women in uniform make enormous sacrifices to protect us every day.”
“The culture of silence still exists. It is the result of a systemic failure to build trust. Since then, the warnings continued and have been ignored by the Liberal government in the last decade. We have seen the 2018 Auditor General's report, the 2021 Fish report, a 2021 status of women committee report, a 2021 ombudsman report and, finally, the 2022 Arbour report. It is clear it is time to transfer these cases to civilian courts, reform the system and listen to the victims. This should have happened long ago. We also need to work on the civilian courts, as we know they have their own issues. It is not like the Liberals did not have all this information for the last decade. Bill C-11 would give the current Minister of Defence increased powers over key appointments and prosecution guidelines. That is no small matter.”
“It is a condemnation of a broken system, which has been going on for years, and the numbers confirm it. According to Stats Canada's 2023 survey on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, nearly 2,000 members of the regular force, about 3.5%, reported experiencing sexual assault in connection to their service. The rates were even higher among young members and indigenous service members. It is a troubling fact for so many reasons, including that we are having such a difficult and challenging time in recruitment. (1725) We have known about these issues for more than a decade. The landmark Deschamps report in 2015, which is also mentioned here, sounded the alarm that victims feared reprisals or removal from their units and had concerns about not being believed or being stigmatized as troublemakers.”
“The bill would also modernize appointments to key military legal positions, including the provost marshal, directors of prosecutions and defence counsel services. Conservatives have been pushing for many years to strengthen safeguards against interference, improving complaint processes and enhancing independence within the military justice system. Importantly, the bill would also implement recommendations from the Arbour report, which has been mentioned quite a bit in the House today and was led by retired Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. She did not mince words when she quoted that Canadians learned that “investigations were perfunctory, the victims were not believed and often they—not the perpetrators—were punished by senior officers”. That is not just a legal critique.”
“Who could blame them? They are not just afraid of legal outcomes. They fear career ruin, retaliation and ostracism if they step forward. In a system where justice is inconsistent, the silent message has been, “Don't speak up. It's not worth it.” We need to change that. Bill C-11 aims to address some of these long-standing issues, and among the long-awaited provisions are the transferring of sexual offence cases from military courts to civilian jurisdiction when the incidents occur in Canada. This has been a long-awaited step towards impartiality, but we need to investigate further whether sending these cases to the civilian system, as many have been since 2021, will be successful given the severe backup in our civilian justice system.”
“Survivors of sexual misconduct in our Canadian Armed Forces have been waiting, some for years, for a justice system that hears them, respects them and protects them. Instead, they faced delay, deflection and denial. For years, Parliament has been presented with irrefutable evidence, independent reviews, government reports, surveys and the voices of survivors all pointing to a military culture where not only is sexual misconduct alarmingly common but also justice is often watered down, delayed or even denied altogether. Professor Elaine Craig of Dalhousie University published a 2020 report revealing high rates of plea deals in military courts, deals that allowed perpetrators to sidestep serious convictions. Survivors seeing their cases diluted, dismissed and delayed have lost confidence not only in the process but also in the leadership.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith . I am honoured to rise today to speak on behalf of the wonderful people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-11 , legislation that proposes long overdue changes to the National Defence Act and related laws. Let us be clear, the bill did not emerge out of nowhere. The Liberals have had 10 years to tackle sexual misconduct in the military, and they chose not to. Bill C-11 is in response to deeply troubling and at times heartbreaking failures within our military justice system, failures that have been well known and well documented for far too long. I commend the Minister of National Defence for finally introducing this legislation, but I must say that it comes too late for too many.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised he would negotiate a win by July. It is October and Canadians are losing their jobs. Canada has the second-highest unemployment in the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. Mills are closing in communities throughout B.C., putting hundreds of people out of work. Why are Canadians losing their jobs? Is it because of the Prime Minister 's failed diplomacy abroad, or is it the job-killing economic policies at home?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister promised to be elbows up. Instead, he is elbows down. The Liberal statistics show that EI use among women aged 25 to 54 is up 12% in one month. Women are calling me and asking where to find a job that will cover rent or groceries. Liberal economic mismanagement is putting women out of work. When will people in the B.C. interior see more job openings, not fewer?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' latest idea for housing is a fourth bureaucracy. The Liberal Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would double homebuilding and build 500,000 homes a year, yet his new housing bureaucracy is only committing to 4,000 new homes. Too many people in my riding are teetering on the verge of homelessness. Our housing crisis is most evident in my hometown of Penticton, where a growing tent city at Highway 97 and Fairview Road has become unsafe for everyone. That tent city was not there 10 years ago. The Prime Minister promised to build homes at a record pace. Instead he is building more bureaucracy, another Liberal promise because the Prime Minister is just another Liberal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris for his eloquent words. There is something missing, a lot missing, in Bill C-2 , and I would like to know what he thinks of this. I want to ask about the member for Surrey Newton , who spoke previously. A very important thing that is missing in this bill is what the Liberals are going to do about the decriminalization of drugs in B.C. There is no mention of it, and people are dying every day. They talk about finding fentanyl; they talk about finding drugs through mail. What about decriminalizing drugs in one province to see how many people die?”
“Mr. Speaker, the value of Canadian citizenship is beyond what we are speaking about here. If we look at how many people have given their blood and toil to gain this citizenship, we know that it cannot be passed to somebody who has not had any tie to this country at all, or whose family for generations has not had ties. Again, I look forward to our parties working together in committee to make sure that we really hone down on the rules for citizenship and make sure that it is fair to all citizens of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, we need to help the lost Canadians, and we need to make sure that the wrongs done in the past are corrected, but does somebody's grandchild's grandchild's grandchild deserve to be a citizen if they have never lived in Canada and have never had anything to do with Canada? We are going to have to make sure that for those immigrants who became citizens in the past, who worked so hard to do that and have become an important part of our communities and of our country, this does not devalue how hard they have worked for Canadian citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that actually solidifies what I am talking about, in that what the member just said is so complicated. Does she deserve citizenship? She could, but I am going to have to write that down on paper and make sure. Does her grandchild's grandchild deserve citizenship? I would like to ask the member that, because this is so complicated and has not been debated properly in committee. We need to look at this clearly, and we need to make sure it is fair.”
“If the government refuses to accept amendments that protect the integrity of our laws and the value of our citizenship, then we have no choice but to oppose this legislation. Canadians deserve better. They expect their lawmakers to defend the value of being Canadian. Canadian citizenship must remain something to strive for, to earn and to cherish, not something to inherit without connection or without commitment. We will fight for that. We will defend that, because we believe in Canada. I believe in Canada and the value of being Canadian.”
“For example, Sergio Karas, who is a leading voice in the field, warned, “This requirement [for a substantial connection to Canada] could create a significant administrative burden [to Canada]”, and, “The subjective and...manipulable nature of proving a...connection could lead to inconsistencies and legal challenges”. Canadian citizenship is the cornerstone of our national identity, and if we dilute it, we weaken the very fabric of our society. Our communities are hurting in so many ways as we speak. Conservatives are ready to do the hard work. We are prepared to collaborate in committee. We support the necessary parts of this legislation, the fair redress of those previously wronged and the recognition of adopted children as equals in citizenship laws, but we will not support a bill that weakens the very meaning of Canadian citizenship.”
“In fact, the judge clearly stated that Parliament retains authority to establish a genuine test of substantial connection, but instead the Liberals chose a definition so weak it could be met by a few childhood summer vacations. I contrast us with our allies, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, all of which enforce much stricter requirements, including criminal record checks, for the transmission of citizenship. A criminal record check before receiving citizenship is necessary for the safety of the people who are living here in this country now. This bill does not even include this most basic safeguard. Legal experts in immigration law are sounding the alarm.”
“This change in citizenship was nowhere in the Liberals' 2025 election platform, so Canadians were never consulted until now, as MPs, we are debating this issue, and now this government wants to quietly reshape the future of Canadian citizenship without asking whether we as a nation are prepared for the consequences of how this would affect our health care system and our housing crisis. The committee work is going to need to be intense. The government chose to accept the opinion of a single Ontario judge without appeal, without review and without even asking the Supreme Court for clarity. The ruling did not demand the changes we see in this bill.”
“We support restoring citizenship to those who were unjustly stripped of it in the past, the lost Canadians. We backed legislation led by Senator Yonah Martin to do exactly that. We also continue to support equal treatment for adoptive children born abroad. That is a long-standing Conservative principle and one that we have consistently defended as a party, but let me be absolutely clear: We will not support a government attempting to rewrite the rules of citizenship behind closed doors, without public debate and without a mandate from voters.”
“It is an identity rooted in belonging, responsibility and, most importantly, participation in Canadian life, yet the bill would risk stripping citizenship of that meaning, reducing it to a piece of paper available to those with the thinnest links to our country. There is a possibility, although we do not know for sure, that this could add 150,000 more immigrants to our shores. It could cost $25 million or not, maybe more. Enough study has not been done. Could this buckle our health care system, our pension system and our immigration system, which is already struggling, as every member in the House will attest to through their office work? (1750) Conservatives have always stood for citizenship that is fair, principled and deeply meaningful.”
“Is that really what we want when we are looking for a Canadian citizen? She has never lived here before. Under this bill, someone could be born here, leave at age three, live the rest of their life abroad and still pass on citizenship to their grandchild, despite never having any ties to Canada after all those years. Is that really the standard we want, in terms of what it means to be Canadian? Canadian citizenship should not be considered a fallback plan. It is not a souvenir from a visit and not a privilege to be passed down indefinitely, without connection, contribution or commitment. It should be earned and lived and shared. It is a legal status, of course, but also so much more.”
“It is a bond of loyalty that I will never take for granted, as it is for everyone in the House. It is the most valuable passport in the world. That is why I oppose Bill C-3 in its current form. At the core of the bill is what the government calls a substantial connection requirement for passing on citizenship to children who are born abroad. That sounds sensible until we read the fine print. This requirement is just 1,095 non-consecutive days spent in Canada at any point in a parent's life, even in childhood. Let me be honest. That is not substantial. It is symbolic at best, a loophole at worst. It is not a serious test of one's connection to Canada. It is a back door to citizenship through convenience. I have an acquaintance who lives in another country and currently has four passports. I believe this would allow her to have her fifth.”
“This bill proposes to change the very definition of Canadian citizenship, and that should concern every one of us. At a time when our national identity, our core values and even our sovereignty are being tested, we must be vigilant. This legislation touches the heart of what it means to be Canadian and, unfortunately, it misses the mark. Bill C-3 , in this form, cheapens the value of Canadian citizenship, which so many people have worked so hard for. As someone who has had the privilege of becoming a Canadian citizen more than 25 years ago, I do not speak of citizenship lightly. I speak from a place of gratitude and a deep personal commitment to the country. Canadian citizenship is not just a part of who I am; it is an honour that my family and I carry every day.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to extend my deepest thanks to the people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. Over the summer, I had the honour of connecting with so many of my constituents. I want to thank them in person, over the phone, through social media and by email. I represent one of the most beautiful places in Canada. From Castlegar to Princeton, Grand Forks to Oliver, Midway to Penticton and all the communities in between, I heard our stories, our concerns and, most of all, I heard the pride we have for our country. I carry that with me every time I rise in the House. Today is no exception. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-3 , an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This is not a routine adjustment to our laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the police on their good job. I believe there are many problems with the bill, and one of them is that nothing is explained. The Liberals talk about hiring more border guards, but where are they going to get these people? They also talk about hiring 1,000 more RCMP members. If we talk to municipalities across the country, they are waiting for RCMP officers, but there is a lack of people applying for the job. Nobody is applying at Depot. There is a lack of RCMP officers, and they are expensive for communities. I wonder where the Liberal government plans to get 1,000 RCMP officers.”
“Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the bill is being pushed through at such a rapid rate that Canadians do not trust what is happening. They do not trust the Liberals. So many times in the last 10 years, the Liberals have promised something and nothing has happened or something else has come through. The bill has not been explained properly to the Canadian people. I am not making up that what I am hearing from my constituents, which we are all hearing from our constituents, is that they do not trust the Liberals with the bill. They are afraid they are going to lose their civil liberties if it is passed.”
“As my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola asked earlier this month, is it even charter compliant? Canadians expect Parliament to make strong laws to protect them, but they also expect that their basic liberties and privacy will be respected. Several sections of the legislation have raised concerns among privacy experts and civil liberty organizations. Their concerns must be respected. The balance of security and liberty is also at the heart of western democracy. Therefore, any government seeking to grant further powers to intervene in the everyday lives of Canadians deserves the greatest level of scrutiny. Conservatives will continue to scrutinize the legislation ahead of the next vote while continuing to argue for the proper enforcement of our border and ports, with appropriate punishments for criminals.”
“Our border with the United States is just under 8,900 kilometres. It is unlikely that two helicopters could cover it in a month, let alone doing daily monitoring operations to look for smugglers. Even for the hundreds of kilometres of border that my riding encompasses, having two helicopters cover that large distance, even if both are in operation, stretches credibility. It is a joke. Last, I wish to touch on an issue many Canadians have raised with the legislation regarding civil liberties, specifically the section of the bill that would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. Bill C-2 broadens the government's ability to open our mail. Canadians expect that personal, private correspondence would be beyond government intervention. The Liberals must provide a more comprehensive response as to what circumstances would justify this.”
“This is nothing new. More money for container scanning is welcome, but once again, the details are completely lacking. Canadians cannot be protected by a press release. The Liberals are offering no timeline for when the investment in upgrading and expanding our scanning tools will be made or even when these resources might reach the border. It is a broken record in Canada of Liberal funding announcements being made and then the minister sitting back and assuming that changes, even positive changes, will magically appear before us all. A decade of a Liberal government has shown an addiction to taking credit for announcing measures instead of enacting or even considering them. Canadians were not impressed by the last-minute election commitment to purchase two Black Hawk helicopters to patrol the entire Canada-U.S. border.”
“(1715) There is no question that the legislation contains some measures the members of this House would probably support. However, it is such a sweeping piece of legislation that it leaves us hard pressed as members to see what the ultimate consequences of some of these changes might be, whether the measures included will actually address the problems the Liberals seek to solve or, worse, whether these measures are in direct conflict with our civil liberties. A clear example is that the Liberals have promised to invest more money into border investigations and scanners, after years of calls to do so from my Conservative colleagues. Official statistics show that only 1% of shipping containers are inspected when coming into our country. This represents a wide-open opportunity for criminals to push drugs and guns through the other 99%.”
“Gun-related crime is up 116%, with 85% of gun offences committed using illegal firearms originating from the United States. In terms of Bill C-2 , Liberal MPs have spent the last several weeks proclaiming that the new Government of Canada will set new priorities, calling it the stronger borders act. However, upon closer examination, Bill C-2 goes well beyond the issue of borders. Conservatives, in the election, were very clear that we would strengthen the border. The Liberals have packaged a range of measures into the legislation that were not discussed, let alone mentioned anywhere in the Liberal platform. Measures irrelevant to the management of the border or the combatting of illegal drug trafficking are rife in the stronger borders act.”
“The Penticton Shooting Sports Association, situated on federally managed land for more than 40 years, recently saw its lease cancelled by the government without explanation. That is 40 years that they have been there. This is happening despite their facilities offering vital training resources to the RCMP, border guards, cadets and the public. The club's services include hunter education, firearms safety instruction, youth and cadet firearms training, and a family-friendly environment for competitive shooting sports. I cannot emphasize enough that this is a vital training facility and club that needs to stay open. In the meantime, illegal firearms stream across the border, where CBSA agents, already understaffed, are stretched thin, trying to slow the flow.”
“Canadian security services have identified 350 organized crime rings operating within our borders. For years, the Liberals, knowing we had severe problems at our border with the United States, dragged their feet on addressing any of these issues related to illegal firearms. Instead, they started targeting law-abiding firearms owners and treated them as if they were a source of rising firearms violence that needed to be dealt with. Hunters and sport shooters, who are vital to our tourism, are now often turned around at the border. Even if they go through extensive paperwork, checking every box, they often have their property wrongfully seized, and it takes them weeks, if not months, to get it back. Even in my riding, we have seen the Liberal government go after my local sport shooters and archers.”
“Even before my time here in the House, my Conservative colleagues highlighted the threat to our communities that is the drug running happening across the U.S.-Canada border, which had little to no response from the government during the lost Liberal decade. We have long called for concrete actions to strengthen our borders while the Trudeau Liberal government chose to look the other way. Since they were first elected, there has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada. This directly results from the government's failure to enforce effective border security. The Liberals have allowed this crisis to fester and grow, and it is putting Canadians at risk. Many of those crossings were to traffic illegal firearms into Canada for use by criminal gangs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I once again rise on behalf of the good people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a riding that has six border crossings, to speak to the legislation before us, Bill C-2 . We know that the bill is much more than a border bill. My riding and province have very much been on the front lines of an addiction crisis that has persisted for far too long. In fact, drug overdose is now the leading cause of death among B.C. youth aged 10 to 18. Too many families in our communities have lost their children to drug addiction. Too many drug kingpins, who fuel this crisis, have not been put behind bars.”
“Mr. Speaker, my constituents are contacting me. They are extremely worried about the bill's allowing their mail to be opened. Some of the other speakers said there are checklists to prevent that. Could the member explain who is going to decide who can or cannot open my mail?”