Leslie Church
Toronto—St. Paul's, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, what did 13 provincial premiers and territorial premiers agree to this week? They agreed to a permanent doubling of the national school food program that will be brought into 10,000 schools across the country. Thirteen provinces and territories agreed, but this opposition cannot get on board to feed kids in our schools.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. We have worked hand in hand with organizations to ensure that these changes to this program are welcomed. We know that this program delivers important services for seniors in every single riding of every member in this House. That is something that we are going to continue.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly proud of this program. Last year alone, it supported over 2,600 projects right across Canada, helping seniors stay active and engaged and fight isolation. This year, we are increasing the value of the grants and we are making some changes to strengthen the integrity of the program.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and subsection 39(3) of the Accessible Canada Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Accessibility Commissioner of Canada for the 2025-26 fiscal year.”
“Madam Speaker, this is a government that is hard at work for all Canadians. We have a plan to build Canada strong, and on days like today we are seeing real progress with 88,000 net new jobs. The largest increase in those jobs is in construction. Youth unemployment fell by nearly a point.”
“The government knows that young Canadians deserve more opportunities. By keeping debt under control and investing in growth, we are protecting their future. The 2026 spring economic update shows a government that is meeting today's challenges while protecting tomorrow's prosperity.”
The complete record
Every one of 326 lines we hold for Leslie Church, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“Again, in another era, Conservatives would have supported incentives to encourage industry to adopt cleaner practices, to innovate new ways of doing things that would increase productivity and create a competitive advantage for our country and for our businesses, but not today. That is disappointing because Canadians want serious government and serious leaders who can diagnose real challenges and work with others to implement actual solutions. That is why I stand here, proud to fight for the actions of our government, the actions we are taking to help support Canadians. (1650) We are heading into tax season, and Canadians will see that we have cut taxes for 22 million of our friends and neighbours across this country, reducing the basic tax rate from 15% to 14%.”
“Let us recognize that we are a mature, capable country where we can work to address affordability and also work to protect a pristine environment that defines so many regions of this beautiful land. In another era, Conservatives knew this. They fought against acid rain. They fought against the depletion of our ozone. They brought in Canada's environmental assessment act and environmental protection act. However, those actions were 40 years ago. Today's opposition approach sells division, and it sells blame. It sells the environment as a villain. It is short-sighted and it is cynical. Whether it is plastics or fuel emissions, there is a reasonable path to making progress on these issues while making life a little easier for Canadians too.”
“It can also spoil perishable foods during handling and transportation. This leads to higher costs throughout supply chains. Sudden shortfalls and production risk can lead to market tightening, export bans and price volatility, but plastics policies protect places. They reduce waste. They clean up communities. When I talk to people in my riding of Toronto—St. Paul's, they want to reduce plastic waste and pollution. They know plastics are in our Great Lakes and our watersheds, in our landfills, in our own bodies, affecting us and our kids in ways that we are still learning about. Let us be serious and find a path to reduce our plastic pollution and protect the environment and human health.”
“We should be talking about transportation, about labour costs, about global supply chain shocks, about the war in Ukraine and even about price volatility in the energy sector. We should be talking about tariffs from our southern neighbour, and even about climate change. Climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather, droughts, heat waves, floods and other extreme events that damage crops and reduce agricultural yields. Climate change is a driver of food price increases, not just in Canada but also around the world. Extreme events have been directly linked to spikes in prices of potatoes in the United Kingdom, cabbage in South Korea and cocoa in West Africa. Extreme weather such as heat, drought and heavy rain disrupts processing, transportation and storage.”
“Rather than raise the level of debate to how we can work together to tackle the complex and very real challenges facing Canadians, we are instead treated to repetitive claims of hidden and imaginary taxes, and the demonization of regulation aimed at a healthier environment and competitive industries. Once upon a time, a healthier environment and competitive industries were objectives shared by Conservatives. Blaming food prices on the actions we are taking to reduce plastic waste might be easier than explaining global inflation or climate change or Canada's long, beautiful and glistening winters, but it is not accurate. Our actions to reduce plastic waste and pollution are not the reason that food affordability is under pressure. We should be talking about fertilizer prices.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to this opposition motion. It is a motion that reflects what we have been hearing, frankly, from the opposition for several months now. Food affordability and bringing down the cost of living generally are worthy priorities. In fact, food affordability is a key priority for this side of the House, which I will come to in a moment. What continues to disturb me about this motion, and indeed about the approach taken by the Conservatives, is how when we scratch even a little bit below the surface, we discover that the opposition does not stand for affordability at all, that they block it at every turn.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are helping young people face real challenges at every stage of their lives. When they want to go to school, we are making post-secondary education more affordable. When they are in school, we are helping them gain the skills they need for the jobs of the future. When they are ready to buy a home, we are cutting taxes for first-time homebuyers and building affordable housing fast. That is what investing in young people looks like. The Conservatives have voted against it every step of the way.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would direct the member opposite to the announcement we made this week. The government has a serious plan to make life more affordable for Canadians. We are addressing one of the things the member opposite talked about. We are going to be increasing competition in the market. We are going to introduce unit price labelling. This is part of our plan to bring down prices for Canadians and to make their lives more affordable. Part of the plan will see them have almost $1,900 in their pockets for the groceries and essentials they need. It is time for the Conservatives to join team Canada, put their money where their mouth is in co-operating with the government and help us get things done.”
“Mr. Speaker, not only are we taking actual, concrete steps to make life more affordable for Canadians, but we are also investing in the kinds of supports that help families across the board, from early learning and child care to a national school food program, a Canada child benefit that is tied to inflation, and a dental care program. These are the kinds of programs Canadians depend on but that the Conservatives continually vote against. The Conservatives should get on board. They should join team Canada. They should be on that side of the House fighting for Canadians in their own constituencies.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to have a look at the government's announcement this week. The new benefit that we have just announced is going to help 12 million Canadians. It is going to provide up to $1,890 this year for a family of four. This is a measure that food banks and Food Banks Canada have called for, and it is part of a broader plan that is going to see us actually improve our supply chains, improve competition in the sector and benefit families like the one the member opposite is talking about. We are a serious government doing serious work, and Canadians know this.”
“This is why awareness, research and compassionate care matter now more than ever. To everyone living with Alzheimer's and to the caregivers and advocates beside them, I say that we see them, we value them and we will keep working to support them.”
“Mr. Speaker, for many families across Canada, Alzheimer's is not an abstract illness; it is a daily reality, lived in small moments and carried by loved ones who show up with patience and care. January is Alzheimer's Awareness Month, a time to wear the forget-me-not as a symbol of hope, and a time to recognize the more than 750,000 Canadians living with dementia and the millions of family members and caregivers who walk alongside them every day. Alzheimer's affects far more than memory; it touches relationships, independence and dignity. I want to praise the vital work of the Alzheimer's societies across Canada that provide support, education and advocacy for people living with dementia and for those who care for them. As our population ages, this issue will touch more families.”
“Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 set out to make life more affordable for Canadians. The member voted against the very programs that are going to support families in her community. Budget 2025 cuts taxes for 22 million Canadians, makes the national school food program permanent, delivers automatic tax filing for over 5.5 million Canadians, makes generational investments in housing and infrastructure and supports important programs like the Canada disability benefit. These are exactly the programs that are going to help families and make life more affordable for them and their kids.”
“Mr. Speaker, when will the Conservatives recognize what farmers already know, which is that the industrial carbon price has zero impact on food prices? We have heard this from experts in the House. Let us talk about what is going to benefit all Canadians, which are good jobs and a strong economy. Today, Statistics Canada says we are doing both. We have created over 54,000 net new jobs in this past month. Unemployment is down. GDP is up. Wages are up. Rents are down. That is delivering for Canadians right across this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, instead of harping on about imaginary taxes that the Conservatives know are not real and are not affecting the price of food, they should think about their own conduct in the House. They should think about their votes. When it comes to our budget, our budget does some key things. It improves access to the Canada disability benefit. It strengthens EI to protect workers. It increases investments in social and affordable housing. It makes the national school food program permanent. Do we know who considers those four things a priority? The Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto says that those are the four things we should be doing to help Canadians with the price of food. That is what we are doing. The—”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we announced a new child care agreement with Ontario that is going to save families up to $10,400 per year, but do not take my word for it. Kristina Medow is an Ontario mom here in Ottawa, and she says that early learning and child care has changed her family's future. She says, “Having access to high quality affordable childcare is the biggest piece of mind that you can ever have as a parent, so we are...happy about the announcement today”. This is delivering for families, delivering for kids. Why will the Conservatives not support affordable child care?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is jobs and a strong economy will benefit every family in this country, which is why it is significant that, just this morning, Statistics Canada confirmed that we have created over 54,000 net new jobs this past month. When jobs are there for families, families benefit, but it does not stop there. Just yesterday, we announced a new early learning and child care deal in Ontario. Parents are going to be saving over $10,000 a year on child care. These are the kinds of real actions that help Canadian families, and these Conservatives vote against them.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is good jobs and a strong economy that are going to benefit all Canadians. Statistics Canada this morning announced that we created 54,000 net new jobs, with 50,000 for young people alone. We stood up in the House last week, last Friday, and talked about how our GDP is growing. Today, we are telling members that wages are up, rents are down, unemployment is down and youth unemployment has dropped by almost two points in two months. That is no accident. That is a plan that is working, and that is a plan that these Conservatives continue to vote against.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I talk to seniors in my riding, they talk to me about the Canadian dental care program. They say that it is life-changing, that it is getting them dental care they have not had for years or for the first time. They talk to me about the New Horizons program and how we are supporting projects that improve their quality of life. They talk to me about the $5 billion that budget 2025 is putting into new hospital infrastructure for urgent care. The member opposite is spewing nonsense. If she wants to stand up for seniors, she should have voted for the budget when she had the chance.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have a national school food program that is going to save parents up to $800 a year, a dental care program, a tax cut for 22 million Canadians, early learning and child care and a Canada child benefit. The Leader of the Opposition stood up in the House today and called them “costly promises”. Members opposite called them “photo ops”. They called them “garbage”. They called them “socialist programs”. This is a case of saying the quiet part out loud. When someone tells us who they are, believe them. Canadians know who is fighting for them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I too have had the experience of working during COVID, when there were protests outside hospitals and vaccine clinics. As a government, we took the same steps. We protected doctors and nurses doing their jobs. We protected Canadians wanting to get vaccines. The same things are happening in Canada today; we need to protect places of worship, community centres and other places where communities gather, because the same fear and intimidation are—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Conservative bench to stand up and vote in favour of this bill, because I have yet to see evidence that they would support this bill and protect Canadians from hate and intimidation. In the two years since October 7, I have yet to hear a Conservative stand up in favour of safe access zones, for example, in municipalities across this country. We know exactly where the Conservatives stand. We have heard their debates on this bill in Parliament and at committee. Canadians should know they are all talk when it comes to supporting communities and protecting them from hate. They will not put their votes behind supporting this legislation because they are divided as a caucus on the very measures this bill seeks to promote: protecting Canadians from hate and placing legitimate, lawful boundaries on hate speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Christian. I am a proud Canadian. I believe in the tenets of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I believe deeply in our freedom of expression, but I am also a lawyer, and I understand that there is a boundary. When speech crosses a high threshold into hate, inciting fear, inciting violence and calling for the death or extermination of our fellow citizens, it is simply wrong. Nothing should keep people from being accountable for that type of interpretation and those types of hurtful statements. Everyone is a contributing part of Canadian democracy. We need to uphold it. This is what these laws seek to protect.”
“Mr. Speaker, it would have been great if the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had been able to hear more witnesses, but because of the Conservatives' filibustering, those on the witness list were not able to appear in front of the committee. The Conservatives were too busy talking about their family pets and filibustering the work that needed to be done.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is selfish, and the Conservatives should be ashamed of their behaviour in stalling this bill. I have to tell members that I speak to constituents in my riding all the time who are affected by the hate on their streets and in their communities. They are scared of dropping their children off at day care or their young students going to university, going on campus or going to downtown Toronto to work, and having to walk through a protest. This is more than words; this is violence. Our laws are intended to prevent this and protect Canadians from experiencing that fear and intimidation in their day-to-day lives. This is what the combatting hate act seeks to address, and the Conservatives need to stand up and get behind this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, the Minister of Justice is open to considering good faith amendments to this bill. The government does not hold a monopoly on great legislation. Let us move that legislation forward. Let us have those debates in good faith. Let us talk critically about the state of the law and what it actually is, not what the Conservatives want people online to believe it is. Let us look at what the Supreme Court has said about hate and how the law is intended to protect freedoms in our democracy. When we recognize the scourge of hate, we allow people to live freer lives because they are free of hate, fear and intimidation. That is the purpose of the hate laws that we have had in this country for decades.”
“Mr. Speaker, with many issues like this, it behooves the members opposite to stand up and actually read the Criminal Code and its definition of hate. Their approach to these issues is to fearmonger and to shed light on situations that are unlikely to see the light of day in a court of law. The Criminal Code defines hate as: communicating statements in any public place, [inciting] hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace We also have Criminal Code provisions preventing the “wilful promotion of hatred”. This bill would give clarity to the definition of hate. In this country, we should not stand up and permit hate. Those who spread hate need to be accountable for it, and law enforcement needs a tool to police it.”
“It cannot distract us from the important issues that have plagued this country. This bill is an important, overdue step forward in combatting hate in the country. This will be a proud part of our Canadian history and the lawful boundaries on freedom of expression when it crosses into a territory that is intimidating and causes Canadians to be fearful in their streets and their neighbourhoods. That is the scourge of hate. Let us put an end to this. Let us vote down this motion. I encourage the members opposite to put their money where their mouth is, get behind their principles and support a bill that combats hate in Canada.”
“It is not to improve it, not to strengthen it, not to protect Canadians and not to address the rising tide of hate and anti-Semitism we see in the country, but to stop it cold in its tracks and put it off, so that they do not have to face the division in their caucus, take a vote on it and get behind a bill that organizations and communities across this country support. We will not allow that. We will not stand behind that. Canadians want protection from hate. Conservatives want excuses to stall. Canadians want laws that keep them safe. Conservatives want a trip across the country with flights, hotels and theatrics that they will manufacture. (1240) We will defeat this motion and this stunt, and we will do everything in our power to pass the combatting hate act despite this stunt. It is noise on that side of the House.”
“Every single delay to the bill right now, including this motion for instruction before the House today, is a delay that belongs to the Conservative Party. Conservatives talked for two hours about cats and dogs instead of starting the clause-by-clause review of the bill. They challenged the chair. They tried repeatedly to pull the committee off the bill. When clause-by-clause finally started, they dropped this motion to try to shut it down. This motion has one purpose and one purpose only. It is to push the combatting hate act into the deep-freeze.”
“Do the members opposite think it is okay to wave a terrorist flag in public and call for the extermination of women and racialized Canadians? Of course not. That is why we need to get behind this bill. That is the type of egregious, hateful conduct that the bill targets. When the opposition screams about censorship, the real question is this: Which form of hate are they trying to protect? Only Conservatives would call the bill censorship, while all of the following groups stand behind it. We have the Edmonton Police Service, B’nai Brith Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Hindu alliance and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is no surprise that this latest outrage comes from the same political wing that has previously minimized real-world violence and spread reckless rhetoric.”
“It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition has a divided caucus on the bill. It is clear that he does not want this to go to a vote before his leadership review next month. I ask the members opposite directly why they are more interested in saving the Leader of the Opposition's job than in saving the lives of Canadians who are being targeted by hate and intimidation. Why will they not move the bill forward? We are hearing something even more reckless from the opposition. They are calling the combatting hate bill a censorship bill. Let me ask them plainly. Do the members opposite think it is okay to see synagogues firebombed? Do the members opposite think it is okay to threaten and target LGBTQ people because of whom they love?”
“From day one, the Minister of Justice has said clearly that we remain open to constructive improvements to the bill in good faith. What we will not accept is bad-faith sabotage and delay dressed up as consultation, which is what we are getting from the other side of the House. Canadians are not asking for a road show; they are demanding results. They are demanding that we not delay and that we pass the bill with expediency. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA, wrote publicly to the Conservative leader , urging him to work with the government to pass Bill C-9 in the spirit of collaboration. Police services, municipal leaders, religious communities and human rights organizations all want the bill passed now. Let us be honest about what is really going on here.”
“(1235) When a terrorist entity in the country is listed by the government and by Parliament, Parliament should prohibit the spreading of hate through the display of its symbols. The public display of these symbols is often done with the explicit intent, more often than not, of scaring people and spreading hate, leading to violence. Criminalizing the wilful public use of these symbols should be an opinion on which there is consensus in the House. We introduced the combatting hate act alongside the bail and sentencing reform act to respond directly to what communities across Canada are demanding. They are demanding stronger protections against hate. They are demanding stronger consequences for intimidation. They are demanding stronger tools for law enforcement.”
“It would serve to explicitly denounce all criminal conduct motivated by hate. Fourth, a new hate propaganda offence would prohibit the display of certain symbols associated with the Nazi party, such as the hakenkreuz and the Nazi SS bolts, as well as any symbols associated with a listed terrorist group, such as the flags of Hamas, Hezbollah or the Proud Boys. Importantly, this is an offence against the spreading of hate. It is not criminalizing symbols in an academic setting such as a text book. Our laws are sophisticated; they can distinguish between these things. For many communities, these symbols are deeply traumatic, and the public display of them is not only offensive, but also dehumanizing and terrorizing.”
“It can happen anywhere, as we learned in the hate-motivated stabbing of a Jewish woman in a grocery store right here in Ottawa. Second, the intimidation offence in this bill would criminalize conduct that is done with the intent to intimidate. Speech in a vacuum is often innocuous, but recently we have seen groups of protesters, who are masked, yelling violent insults and hate at members of a targeted community. This is not free expression in a civil society. This is intimidation, pure and simple. Our laws are intended to prevent this. It must be stopped. Police must be empowered to intervene and make arrests before this hateful rhetoric turns into violence. Third, this bill would create a new hate crime offence, one that could be applied against every offence in the Criminal Code or any other federal law.”
“To this end, our bill on combatting hate proposes to create new offences that would target exactly the sort of expression that is meant to terrorize a community rather than express policy or political disagreements, which are healthy in a democracy. First, the obstruction offence would specifically go after behaviour that harasses users of community spaces belonging to identifiable groups. Blocking access to places where communities gather, such as schools, houses of worship and community centres, is not a form of free expression; it is bullying with the intent of terrifying a community into agreeing with one's views. As I heard during a round table with community leaders that I hosted in my riding, hate is not limited to the steps outside a local school or synagogue.”
“In a free society such as our own, where the privilege of speech can induce ideas that may change the very order itself, there is a bias weighted heavily in favour of the maximum of rhetoric whatever the cost and consequences. But that bias stops this side of injury to the community itself and to individual members or identifiable groups innocently caught in verbal cross-fire that goes beyond legitimate debate. When harm is done and injury occurs or violence ensues, we have an obligation to act on behalf of all citizens. The bill in front of the House and in front of the Standing Committee on Justice is a blueprint for action. We have heard from communities, from law enforcement and from Crown corporations that first we need clarity in our law surrounding hate and speed with how it is enforced.”
“Canadian law has long distinguished between protected speech and wilful harm. It was under the leadership of our 14th prime minister, Lester Pearson, my favourite, that the government of the day struck a special committee to review hate propaganda in Canada. That committee, which included a little known associate professor of law from the university of Montreal, subsequently our 15th prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, set out in its unanimous report a passage that our Supreme Court has cited: This Report is a study in the power of words to maim, and what it is that a civilized society can do about it.... every society from time to time draws lines at the point where the intolerable and the impermissible coincide.”
“I firmly believe that the legislation we are debating, which we should be debating and moving forward, will be a critical first step in that direction. Where does that lead us? We are overdue for a conversation in this country about the legitimate boundaries of free expression. (1230) We have seen protests turn more violent and hateful in recent years. We have seen this in Sikh and Hindu temples. We have seen it on the streets with people protesting on Israel and Palestine. We have seen it during COVID with the trucker protests and protests outside hospitals and vaccine clinics. We are grappling with an explosion of hate online that is moving off-line onto our streets and into our communities. Our right to free expression as Canadians is never, nor should it ever be, a shield against accountability.”
“That is what the committee should be working on, ensuring that we get the bill back into Parliament to pass it so we can increase public safety for Canadians. Hate is not an issue that is felt by a single community. Jewish Canadians, Muslim Canadians, the LGBTQ community, women and many other communities have all been subject to this rising tide of hate and bigotry, but particularly over the last two years, the Jewish community has felt this acutely and disproportionately, especially in Toronto—St. Paul's and other major cities. Religiously motivated hate crimes are the most reported category of hate crime in Toronto. Of those, 81% were committed against Jewish Canadians last year. Taking action against this rise in hate was a central promise that I made to the people of Toronto—St. Paul's in the recent election.”
“I think about the reasons behind Bill C-9 to combat hate, and why this was one of the first bills the government brought forward in this parliamentary session. It is because of the imperative of addressing hate in Canada. I have heard from people across my community about the importance of this issue and about how hate is on the rise. We have seen 5,000 hate crimes reported in 2024, almost double the number from 2018. Those numbers are probably under-reported compared with the number of Canadians who are actually facing hate crimes in this country. Why are these crimes going under-reported? It is because Canadians believe that the criminal justice system is not currently equipped to deal with the type of hate crimes we are seeing in this country. That is what the bill seeks to address.”
“While Canadians are being targeted by hate, Conservatives are entertaining themselves in gumming up the work of this committee and stalling the progress of this bill. They should be ashamed of themselves. Now that this procedural stalling has finally failed, Conservatives are trying a new tactic. They want Parliament to authorize a nationwide tour with flights, hotels and staff entourages, with no timeline to return to the bill and full authority to shut down the clause-by-clause analysis. Let us call this what it is. It is not consultation. It is not accountability. This is instead a taxpayer-funded Conservative road show that is designed to kill the bill through delay. Canadians have asked us for protection from hate and intimidation. Conservatives have answered with a travel itinerary and an invoice.”
“This motion is that emergency brake. Canadians deserve to know exactly what has been happening at the justice committee. For weeks, members opposite have used every trick in the procedural playbook to stall this bill, including points of order, challenges to the chair and attempts to reopen settled motions, which were efforts to drag the committee backward every time it tried to move forward. They were wasting time to block participation by witnesses, who wanted to testify to this bill. When the very first committee meeting on this bill was scheduled, when Canadians expected serious debate, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South shamelessly filibustered for hours, talking for two hours about dogs and cats, not about hate crimes, not about anti-Semitism, not about attacks on LGBTQ Canadians and not about threats against women.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak very forcefully against Motion No. 219, which was brought forward by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South , that seeks to instruct the justice committee to drop its work on the combatting hate act, Bill C-9 , and instead launch a taxpayer-funded, cross-country tour as a means of delaying the committee's work. Let us be clear from the start that this motion is not about hearing from Canadians. This motion is about delaying justice. It is about freezing the combatting hate act. After weeks of Conservative obstruction, after hours of procedural games, after filibusters, points of order and challenges to the chair, when clause-by-clause analysis of the combatting hate act finally began, Conservatives panicked and pulled the emergency brake on this study and the committees work.”
“Today let us celebrate progress and pledge to continue the work needed to remove barriers: to make employment meaningful, available and accessible, built to welcome people of all abilities; and to make inclusion feel like belonging, not an accommodation but a right. With determination and partnership, nothing about us without us, we can build Canada, and all of our communities, strong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Reflecting on this year's United Nations' theme, “fostering disability inclusive societies for advancing social progress”, we are reminded that inclusion is not just an aspiration; it is a responsibility. This year our government launched the Canada disability benefit, a vital new addition to our social safety net that is already helping over 232,000 Canadians. Budget 2025 ensures that the benefit is tax-free, and it also proposes a $150 payment to help cover the cost of applying for the disability tax credit.”
“Madam Speaker, let me remind the member, who comes from the same province that I do, that we are helping invest in the new Darlington nuclear project in Bowmanville. It is a project that is going to build four new small nuclear reactors, the first of its kind in the G7. It is going to provide clean, reliable electricity to power 1.2 million homes. It is going to reduce our carbon emissions. It is going to create 18,000 good-paying, quality jobs for the people of Ontario. Why do the members opposite not get on board and support a plan that is actually growing our economy 2.6% this year?”
“Mr. Speaker, it really seems to me like the member opposite missed her chance to vote for a tax cut to benefit 22 million Canadians, including constituents in her riding. The member spoke about engineers. Just this morning, I met with the International Union of Operating Engineers. There are 18,000 here in Ontario. We talked about the importance of early learning and child care, because they need that not only to recruit and train new engineers but also to benefit the families who depend on it for affordable child care so they can go to work.”
“Mr. Speaker, this government is investing in infants and children of all ages. Not only did we create the Canada child benefit, but families received it last week. We also committed to $10-a-day child care spaces across the country. Parents in my riding are saving over $10,000 a year for their kids. However, members should not take my word for it. Let me tell the House about what a parent said at Andrew Fleck Children's Services: “We've been able to have healthier meals at home and start saving for post-secondary education with early learning and child care. Without this extra funding, it would have been impossible to survive and live in our current house”. This is the difference—”