Branden Leslie
Portage—Lisgar, Manitoba · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said affordability is the best it has been in decades, but normal, hard-working, everyday Canadians know that is simply not true. Meat Loaf famously once sang Two Out of Three Ain't Bad , but, surely, three out of four is not good.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have a new top export out of this country. It is announcements and MOUs. Not that long ago, Canadians used to dream of buying a home. Now, under the Liberal Prime Minister , many are starting GoFundMe pages just to pay for essential items for life.”
“Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the minister was not here during the last Conservative government. There are members across the way who were here, and they may recall the outrage whenever the Harper government used time allocation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. She talked about unintended consequences a lot, which was a bit strange for somebody who, just months ago, told Canadians that it was the Liberals making her communities less safe and that it was their “bail not jail” policies and legislation that favoured criminals over victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did not drive our economy into the ditch by accident. They took every wrong turn and ignored every warning sign, and now they want to blame everyone else. After more than a decade of inflationary spending, red tape and anti-development laws, Canada is now the only G20 country in a recession.”
“Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on luxury catering over 14 trips, enough to feed a family for 55 years. The Liberals can blame the mud, the road or the weather, but everybody knows that they have been behind the wheel. Canadians deserve a government that stops—”
The complete record
Every one of 272 lines we hold for Branden Leslie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Too many Canadians are tired of this revolving-door justice system. When someone is released from jail, they move into a neighbourhood full of people who have every right to expect that our justice system has done more than simply count down the days on a calendar. The bill would help change that. It says that if a judge orders an offender to take training, education or treatment, that order should not just be forgotten once the offender actually enters jail. The order should be sent to Correctional Services Canada. It should be reflected in the correctional plan. When parole is being considered, the parole board should be able to look at whether there was progress made. The bill does not pretend that every offender will change. It does not punish someone because the program is full, unavailable or delayed.”
“To the victim, it has to say something just as clearly: that what happened to them matters and that their safety should come before the offender's convenience. The legislation would give judges a new tool. When a judge sentences an offender, they would be able to order that offender to take rehabilitative measures during their time in jail. That could mean job training. It could mean apprenticeship or technical skills. It could mean education and, most importantly, it could mean treatment for drugs and alcohol addiction. Right now, too often, prison is treated like a waiting room. The offender serves their time and waits out the clock. They then return to the same streets, the same addiction, the same lack of skills, the same broken life and the same risk to public safety.”
“Prisons should also require that people do the work needed to change before they are released back into our communities. Canadians can see the problem quite plainly. The person who broke the law gets endless second chances while the victims in the community are left paying the price. Repeat offenders cycle through the system, with trauma not healed, addictions getting worse and too many people leaving prison no better prepared for life outside than the day they entered. That helps no one, not the victim, not the community and especially not the offender. A serious justice system tells the offender the truth. They caused harm. They are responsible and now they must do the work to change.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured that my colleague from Kitchener Centre asked me to speak on her legislation, Bill C-240 , the offender rehabilitation act. Before I begin, I would like to congratulate her hometown team, the Kitchener Rangers, on winning the Memorial Cup last night. Well done, lads. The hon. member's opening speech on the legislation is worth watching for anyone but especially for someone struggling with addiction right now. I commend her for her courage in telling her own personal story of recovery. The fact that she is in this place is a testament to her as a person but also highlights what can be achieved in recovery. Bill C-240 starts with a common-sense idea that I think all Canadians can rally behind. Prison should protect the public, and prisons should hold offenders accountable.”
“Mr. Speaker, immediately after the Liberals funnelled $20 million to Maritime Launch Services for no work to a nearly bankrupt company, the board chair sold previously worthless shares and pocketed $1.8 million. That is what we are against: insiders getting rich while taxpayers get fleeced. No wonder Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession. The Liberal Prime Minister has led us straight there. The Liberals are willing to burn $200 million, or over $50,000 a day, on a concrete pad, a gravel road, a hope and a dream. Will the Liberals finally come back to Earth and stop wasting taxpayers' money?”
“Mr. Speaker, despite strange denials from the Liberals, the breaking news this morning is that, thanks to the Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Due to decisions like spending $200 million on a small concrete pad and a gravel road, it is all starting to make sense. What are taxpayers getting? Insiders getting rich and the potential to maybe launch rockets in the future, but only if taxpayers continue to hand money over, hand over fist. What is worse is the private company that owns it has yet to put a single rocket into space and has lost $7 million in two years. I am no rocket scientist, but it is clear someone is getting rich. The question is, who is it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we should all be so proud. I heard the names of a few bands shouted out. However, this is not about not supporting Canadian artists. I think there is a role to play. This is about the CRTC's being handed a suite of powers by the Liberal government, saying that there is no chance, as a regulator, that it is going to overstep its boundaries, but then it went ahead and did that. The CRTC has imposed, at a terrible time, this new tax upon Canadians that is ultimately more likely going to drive away investment than create the opportunity for another Hallmark film to be made in Morden. This is about common-sense policy and making sure we are protecting the affordability of entertainment made by Canadians for Canadians.”
“As much as I want Canadians to compete on the big streaming services, I want to give every content creator across any platform who wants to educate or to offer entertainment around the world the same opportunity, and not just let the big players take advantage of a system that is so confusing for everybody who tries to deal with the CRTC.”
“Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my Bloc colleague on how bad the Liberals have been on their trade negotiations with the United States for the master negotiator to have achieved absolutely nothing so far except giving up elements of Canadian sovereignty and wealth. However, the member raised the issue of the money that the CRTC says it is going to create. Of course, that is what a tax does, but I fail to understand why it is believed in the House, or why any rational person would believe, that this is free money and that all of a sudden these big companies are just going to voluntarily not pass those costs on but say, “You know what, we should help out Canadian content. We'll just do this out of the goodness of our heart because we're a charity.” They are not charities. They are private enterprises.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is usually here, but he must have stepped out, because he has not listened to the speech I just gave. My point is that the government should not be picking winners and losers. I have absolutely no faith when it comes to the Liberal Government's efforts to previously censor what we see and say online. In fact, I would love it if my local news creators could share any of their news stories on any Meta platform, but thanks to this government's terrible legislation, they are no longer able to do that. My point is this: Let all of us, Canadian content creators of all types, the up-and-comers, not just the established creators who know how to operate the maze of CRTC rules to get special funding, have the opportunity to succeed, share our stories loudly and proudly, not just in Canada but around the world.”
“I strongly support Canadian content, and we should absolutely celebrate it, but Canadians are not children. They do not need the government hovering over the remote control. Canadian culture and Canadian wallets would be better served if government got out of the way.”
“However, what about the independent Canadian creator building an audience on YouTube, Spotify, Patreon, TikTok or a podcast? What about the Canadian filmmaker who gets global backing but does not fit neatly into the CRTC's preferred category? What about the next generation of Canadian creators who do not want to wait at the gate? They want to build, they want to publish, they want to stream, they want to sell, they want to perform, and they want to compete. There is a much easier way to support Canadian creators: Make it easier to produce content here, attract more investment, keep our taxes competitive, remove barriers, and open markets. We need to let Canadian stories reach audiences in their living room, at home and around the world. We cannot build a cultural industry by giving government more power over the Internet.”
“This lands, of course, at the worst possible time, because, as we know, we are heading into a CUSMA review. Our economy depends heavily on keeping access to the American market stable and predictable. At a time when our trade relationship with the United States is already uncertain, the CRTC has handed the American negotiators a fresh grievance to use. Why are we making Canada look more complicated, more expensive and more hostile to digital investment? The Liberal government should be trying to attract investment instead of giving reasons to scare it away. The defenders of this scheme will say it helps Canadian creators, which is partially true. Some established producers will benefit: the people who already know how to navigate the system and exactly where to line up.”
“The Internet changed, as did its its viewers, its advertising and its technologies. People got used to choosing what they wanted instead of paying for a bundle of things they did not want to watch. There is also, of course, a serious trade issue with this. Companies such as Apple, Amazon and Spotify have already challenged the 5% ruling from the CRTC, and it is still before the courts. The United States has raised trade concerns regarding the decision. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has criticized the CRTC's move, arguing that the rules target American streaming services and interfere with platform operations. These are not some fringe organizations on the sidelines. This is the organized voice of major American businesses looking at the Canadian regulatory system and raising concerns.”
“The more government regulates online culture, the more it starts deciding what counts as Canadian culture in the first place. A show is treated as Canadian not simply because Canadians like it or because it is a Canadian story. It has to pass through a maze of ownership rules, spending rules, rights rules and points for approved jobs behind the scenes. The entire purpose of streaming was for people to watch what they wanted, when they wanted it, and definitely without the government's interfering in it. The government will say it is about fairness: Canadian broadcasters have had to contribute to the system for decades, so foreign streamers should contribute too. That is, frankly, the strongest argument. However, Netflix, Disney and Spotify did not break Canadian broadcasting.”
“It is the clerk saying, “Hey, you may also like this.” When government starts directing how content should be presented, promoted, searched and surfaced, it is no longer just funding Canadian creators. It is getting involved in what Canadians are nudged to watch. That should make people uncomfortable, because that should not be the job of the government. The Liberal government has already pushed through enough censorship legislation and has advocated for more control in the lives of Canadians. Nobody wants the government to further interfere in what they watch at home alone or with their family. I believe that culture is strongest when people choose it freely. It is definitely not when the government puts its thumb on the scale and then congratulates itself for creating demand.”
“That is Canadian culture in the modern world, and it does not stop at money. The CRTC is also getting involved in something called “discoverability”. Discoverability might sound harmless, but on the Internet, discoverability is everything. It is about what appears on someone's home page, what gets recommended to them, what shows up in their search, what gets suggested next, what becomes easy to find and what gets buried. When the government starts saying that certain content must be made more discoverable, the question becomes simple: Is something more discoverable because viewers asked for it, or is it more discoverable because the regulator nudged the platform into pushing it? This is no small question. On streaming platforms, the recommendation system is the store. It is the shelf. It is the front window.”
“The old broadcasting system was built around scarcity. There were only so many frequencies, channels, licences and time slots available. That is why the old system was built around quotas, licences, mandatory contributions and rules about what had to be shown. The Internet functions entirely differently, as we all know. It is built around abundance: endless shelf space, choice and competition, with millions of creators reaching audiences directly without needing permission from a broadcaster or a regulator. (1645) A small creator in Winkler with a camera can reach an audience. A musician in Portage can create a song and put it online. A podcaster in Morden can speak directly to listeners anywhere in the world. They do not need to wait for a broadcaster to discover them. That is not a loophole in Canadian culture.”
“Costs are never costs, and taxes are never taxes. It is always a framework, a contribution, a modernization or a flexible approach, but flexible for whom? It is flexible for the lobbyists who know how to work the system at the expense of citizens. It is flexible for the established players who know how to fill out the forms, meet the specific definitions, hire the right consultants and navigate the maze that is the CRTC. However, for a family watching the cost of its monthly subscriptions go up yet again, it is not that flexible at all. People are leaving and have left cable for a reason. They wanted choice. They wanted control over what they consume. They wanted a service that could bring a little bit of joy at the end of their busy days. The Internet is not cable with Wi-Fi. It is a completely different world.”
“When the government makes it more expensive to operate in Canada, there are only a few places the money can come from. It can come, which is most likely, from higher subscription services and prices. It can come from fewer services, less choice or reduced investment in Canada. The money will come from somewhere. That is the part that defenders of this scheme always seem to skip. They talk as if the government had discovered a new cultural oil well: Lower the bucket, haul up the cash and sprinkle it around, and everything is going to be fantastic. What they have really done is impose a new cost on platforms that Canadians already pay for and then pretend that the cost is never going to show up on anyone's bill any time in the future. This is the loony-tune type of rhetoric the government likes to project on taxpayers.”
“The CRTC says this is going to create far more money for Canadian content. On the surface, that sounds absolutely wonderful. Why would we not want more money flowing to Canadian content? No member of the House, including me, is against Canadian stories, artists, actors, writers, directors, musicians and all the people behind the scenes who make the industry work. We all support Canadian creators, but this is not the debate. The question is whether supporting Canadian creators requires another unnecessary and costly tax while Canadian consumers are paying more for their services. Make no mistake. As much as the government likes to claim it, this is not just free money becoming available. Streaming companies are not charities.”
“That includes the 5% payment already imposed in 2024, which several major streaming companies are still fighting in court. If the government believes , like the Conservatives do, that this ruling has perhaps gone too far, it does have options at its disposal. It can direct the CRTC to change course. It can bring forward legislation to narrow or repeal the powers that it gave the CRTC. It can stop pretending this is someone else's problem. However, what it cannot do is hand the CRTC a blank cheque over streaming and then deny responsibility when the bill is passed on to Canadians. Let us be clear about what is happening. The government is taking the old Canadian broadcast model built for cable boxes, rabbit ears, licences and cable packages and is trying to stretch it out over the entirety of the Internet.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that there are many ways to describe the latest CRTC ruling on streaming services, but I will start with the obvious one: This is wild. However, it is not all that surprising. Conservatives warned that this would happen. We warned that the Online Streaming Act was never just about making Netflix and others pay their fair share. The real issue was always much bigger. The government handed the CRTC broad new authority over the Internet and then asked Canadians to trust that the regulator would not go too far, but here we are. The CRTC has decided that streaming services such as Netflix, Disney, Amazon and others must spend or contribute 15% of their Canadian broadcasting revenues towards Canadian programming.”
“We need water systems that work, rules that are enforced, and respect for the provinces, municipalities, indigenous communities and farmers who actually know their watersheds. Conservatives support clean water, clear responsibility and real results.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the Conservative dissenting report on the study of fresh water. Let me be clear: The problem with this report is not that it takes water too seriously but that it confuses ambition with action. It recommends more federal strategies, more federal frameworks, more federal tables and even legal personhood for the St. Lawrence River. That is a dangerous legal theory that will end in disaster. Conservatives believe that freshwater policy should be grounded in results, not more government bureaucracy. Conferences do not fix pipes, global declarations do not end boil water advisories, and no farmer ever irrigated a field, drained a ditch or protected an acre with a stack of federal forms. Canada does not need a bigger bureaucracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my friend to consult a map. No, they are not driving 10 hours to Minneapolis to get gasoline. They are driving right across to Walhalla or some other closer place, where they are seeing a tangible difference between what their credit card says they pay for gasoline north of the border and what they pay south of it. People are not stupid. The member should not treat them like they are. They know what they are doing. I wish they did not have to drive to America to get more affordable gas. We can fix that today.”
“This is a huge part of it. The inflationary spending the government has undertaken over the past 11 years, combined with its irrational refusal to take common-sense decisions that are in our control, like the one we are proposing as Conservatives today, is why the government needs to go.”
“Mr. Speaker, it really is astounding. I am not sure if the Liberals do not go to grocery stores, do not go to gas stations or do not talk to people, or all of the above. The people I represent always tell me that the cost of living is the number one issue of concern to them. They tell me that gas prices are blowing their minds. As they are watching the prices go up, they are deciding that they cannot fill up the whole tank or that they will have to skip the soccer game that afternoon. It is an absurd reality when the government forgets something is so integral as the taxes it is imposing on people, and not only the impacts those taxes have on the individual buying the fuel, but also the ripple effects across the entirety of the economy. We wonder why we have the fastest-growing inflation of food prices in the G7.”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems as though Conservatives are the only ones who will ever stand up for lower prices and more affordability for the people we are here to represent. We should proudly do that. There are things that are outside our control. We can acknowledge them, we can accept them, but we do not need to focus entirely on them. When the problem is homegrown in this nation and the cost of living crisis is due to our own policies, we should seek to address them. This is one small measure that would do just that. It would have a tangible impact on the people we are sent here to represent, and we should vote for this motion today.”
“Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal could stand up and say that a tax cut providing relief on gas and fuel that is so important to not only families but the entirety of our economy is going to be a problem. Perhaps the government has a spending problem that it refuses to address. The government is so out of control with its bloated bureaucracy, paying for consultants, paying for everything that families are meant to provide, it forgets who we are sent here to represent. I will always stand up for lower taxes of any type for my riding and for Canadians.”
“They can defend keeping all of these taxes on, or they can stand with people, who are the ones paying the bill. Nobody is saying that this motion is going to solve every challenge in the country or our world. It would not, but it would lower costs and give people some breathing room that they so badly need. It tells Canadians that their government is not completely deaf to what is happening in their lives. Let us stop pretending that everything is outside of our control. There are things in our control that we can do to make a difference in the lives of the citizens we are here to represent: suspend the federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, and give Canadians real relief, not another lecture. That is what this motion says. It would lower costs, it respects taxpayers, and it puts families first.”
“Then, when they finally removed part of their carbon tax, they bragged that it was saving families money. Well, which one is it? If removing the carbon tax saves families money right now, then it was costing families money before. The Liberals would never admit that, but both things cannot be true at the same time. For years, Conservatives said the carbon tax was making life more expensive. For years, this Liberal government denied it. Now the Liberals want credit for partially admitting what everybody else already knew intuitively. Canadians are not asking for a miracle; they are asking for relief. This House can give it to them today. If the government simply adopts our idea, it will immediately put money back into people's pockets. Every MP in this place has a choice.”
“Now, in my hometown of Portage, we have major food processors like Simplot and McCain. They are part of a food supply chain that reaches far beyond Manitoba. When fuel and diesel costs rise, their costs rise too. Those costs do not just simply vanish into thin air; they move down the line, and the consumer pays. That is why tax relief at the pump is not some narrow little measure. It is a broad measure of affordability relief for the entire economy. Let us talk about the hypocrisy of the carbon tax, but before I do, I would like to indicate I am splitting my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot . Members might recall that for years, Liberals told Canadians that the carbon tax had made them better off. They said the rebate covered it and more. They said anyone who disagreed was simply spreading misinformation.”
“When the government taxes fuel, it is not just taxing the person standing and looking at the pump, wondering when it will ever stop. It is taxing the entirety of the supply chain, and our farmers are hit especially hard. Farmers do not have the option of just parking the tractor because the price of diesel is too high. The crop has to go in, crop protection products have to be applied, and the harvest must take place. The grain then has to move, and the bills just keep coming, and this was when fertilizer prices were already sky high. Farmers have faced huge increases in input costs. Fuel, equipment, repairs, parts, interest rates, transportation and taxes are all piled on, to over $160 billion in debt, with the government continuously piling on more red tape. Every extra cost eventually shows up somewhere else.”
“Now the grocery bill looks like a car payment, the car payment looks like a mortgage, the mortgage looks like something from another planet, and we are faced with higher and higher fuel costs. These costs are baked into every product on every shelf. This is the part that the government does not seem to understand. Fuel is not just something that people buy at a gas station. Fuel is inside the price of absolutely everything we buy. It moves the seed, the fertilizer, the crop, the cattle, the potatoes, the groceries and the parts. It moves our economy. When diesel goes up, the price of food goes up. This is partly why we have the highest food inflation in the G7. When transportation goes up, the price of everything goes up.”
“They are making choices that no senior should have to make in our advanced first world country, in our beautiful nation of Canada. (1235) Do they fill the tank, or do they fill the fridge? Do they go to that appointment, or do they save the money on gas? Do they buy the healthier food, or do they just buy what is cheapest? Do they risk the perceived pain to their pride in asking their family for help if they need it, or do they visit a food bank for the first time? That is not dignity. That is not the Canadian promise. It certainly matters for parents. Every parent knows the feeling. The kids are growing, eating everything in sight, and the clothes they were hoping they could wear one or two more times simply do not fit anymore.”
“They have to absorb it, and they have to cut somewhere else. That is why our Conservative team will continue to push on this issue. I think about the seniors who are on fixed incomes who have worked hard their entire lives. They have paid their taxes. They have raised their families. They have built our communities. They did what was asked of them and tried to follow the promise of Canada. I had the chance to speak with so many of them over the last couple of weeks back home in the riding, and a staggering number told me just how hard things are right now, that they are struggling to get by, that they cannot absorb yet another increase in the cost of living. They are looking at the price of meats. They are looking at the price of fruits and vegetables.”
“The government has layered taxes, regulations, costs and waste upon everything else, and then, when people ask for relief, the Liberals just shrug it off and say they have already done their part. I represent a whole bunch of good, honest, hard-working folks who call rural Manitoba home. In rural Manitoba, driving is not optional. There is no subway from Winkler to Morden. There is no LRT from Carman to Portage. There is no magic electric bus that takes a farmer to the parts counter when he needs something, a nurse to a night shift or a senior living on an acreage to the nearest grocery store. For rural Canadians, the vehicle is not a luxury. It is simply how life works. When gas goes up, rural people do not have the option of just driving a little less. They have to eat the cost.”
“That is about 22¢ more per litre on average. Many folks from my region, from the southern part of my riding, regularly head across the border to save those dollars and fill up their tanks, but they wish they did not have to. Life is simply so expensive that it is worth committing the extra time to travel internationally to fuel up. Gas now costs 50¢ more per litre than it did when the global oil prices were at the exact same levels in 2014. That is the point. It is not just global oil markets. It is not just events happening half a world away. It is about deliberate choices made right here at home by a government that kept adding costs and kept ignoring the consequences.”
“This is something that is happening in every corner of our country, and now the price at the pump is pouring fuel on that fire. What did the Minister of Finance have to say about it? He said, “We have already acted.” Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I am surprised he did not tell my constituents to go and eat cake while he was at it. I can assure him that the family filling up their minivan does not think that the federal government has acted enough on this issue, and it will come as news to the farmer who needs diesel to seed, to spray, to harvest and to haul everything. Canadians do not fill their tanks with Liberal excuses, but boy, I bet they wish they could. The government says it has acted already, but Canadians are still paying more. Gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than in the United States.”
“A nation is judged not by whether it can prevent every storm abroad but by how wisely it prepares for and adapts to the storms that it cannot prevent. As the great Stoic philosopher Epictetus stated, “Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens.” The government can and should do more to help. It can stop taxing people every time they fill up their vehicles, and it can stop making a bad situation worse. Families were already in a cost of living crisis before this latest spike at the pump. Groceries were already too expensive. Rent and mortgages were already too high. Utility bills were already eating up more and more of the family budget. Food banks had countless people walking through their doors for the first time.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the constituents of Portage—Lisgar. I rise today in support of our Conservative opposition day motion, which calls on the government to give immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST. The motion is very straightforward. For the millions who are being squeezed at the pump, at the grocery store, on the farm or simply when buying the essentials of everyday life, it is badly needed. Let us start with the fact that Canada cannot control everything happening around the world. We cannot control instability in the Middle East or just snap our fingers and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but that does not mean we are powerless.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the claims of facts. I can assure the member that when I was in my riding, gas was more like $1.83 and rising. It was fluctuating, but rising. Over this last two-week period back in our ridings, a number of seniors came up to me and said, “I can't keep doing this. I thought I did everything right; I worked hard, raised my family and gave to my community. Now I can't afford to live. Gas prices are making me choose between whether I go to an appointment or put food in my fridge.” Did the member have any experiences like that in his riding?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would come to my riding to talk to the people who are sick and tired of the government overreaching and spending more money than it has year over year. The reality is that the Prime Minister is just the same, except he is a sequel. We all know what sequels are; they are worse than the first. This year, Canadians will spend over $58 billion just to pay interest on our national debt. That is more than the GST brings in and more than the federal government transfers to provinces to deliver health care. When will the Liberal Prime Minister stop making excuses for higher bills, stop the government bloat and stop driving up the cost of living for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians were told the Prime Minister was a financial mastermind, but it turns out he is just more of the same. He is simply Justin Trudeau with a better LinkedIn account. He found the government credit card and treated it like a hotel mini-bar, grabbing whatever he wanted and sticking Canadians with the bill. The Prime Minister acts like the government can spend endlessly without consequence, but it is clear that families are paying the price through higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest costs and higher prices for gas, groceries and housing. When will the Liberal Prime Minister stop running up the tab so Canadians can afford to live again?”
“The framework did not suddenly become outdated just last week. People have been raising these concerns for a long time. The bill opens the door to greater scrutiny. The question now is whether Parliament will do more than wring its hands, because in 2026, nobody should have to wonder whether their phone will work when they pick it up to use it and need it most.”
“Those are the questions I believe this committee should examine. At second reading, we are voting on the principle of the bill. We believe that coverage data should be accurate and rural and remote connectivity should be taken seriously. That does not mean every word in the bill, as I see it, is perfect. It means the issue is real enough, serious enough and urgent enough that it deserves proper study. We can support sending this bill to committee so members can hear from the people closest to the problem, test the evidence, ask the hard questions and make sure the focus stays where it belongs: on better service, accountability, more competition and public safety. We will also be clear that the government has had years to deal with these problems. Rural dead zones did not appear yesterday.”
“A serious spectrum policy should help to get service built where it is needed, not simply where it is easiest. Does it make better use of a public resource? Spectrum belongs to the public and should not be treated like private property for companies to hoard, because communities will continue to go without the service. If public airwaves are licensed out, people should expect public benefit in return. Finally, does it recognize that rural Canada cannot be treated as an afterthought? Rural people pay many of the bills for this country. They run businesses. They grow our food. They move the goods we all need across this country. They volunteer in fire halls. They drive long distances, they face tough weather, and they keep our rural communities going and our nation going. They should not be expected to accept second-class service.”
“People are tired of being told to be grateful for whatever service the few companies decide to provide us. Competition is supposed to mean more choice, better prices, better service and a real reason for service providers to have to fight for their customers. If spectrum policy lets the big players sit comfortably on public airwaves while new entrants struggle to gain a foothold, then the system is not working. Does it encourage investment in our country? At the end of the day, speeches do not build cellphone towers, and press releases do not expand coverage. People need this infrastructure. The rules should reward deployment, reduce unnecessary delays and create confidence for companies willing to build, especially in places where the business case is harder.”
“The last thing we need is another taxpayer-funded paperweight. A spectrum policy that only works on paper does not work, at least for the people I represent. A coverage claim that falls apart the moment someone leaves town is not good enough. For Conservatives, the test is simple. Does federal spectrum policy help get service to people who need it, yes or no? That should be the starting point of this conversation, not whether the consultation process checks every box or whether the department can point to another strategy, another target or another dashboard on some website. The question is whether the person on the rural road, the farmer in his field or his yard, the family at the lake and the small business owner heading through bad weather can connect when it matters most to them. Does it support competition?”