Kurt Holman
London—Fanshawe, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“If the government still believes that good-faith religious expression should be protected, why remove the words that clearly protect it? This is the slippery slope. It rarely begins with the government's openly saying it wants to criminalize ordinary religious teaching.”
“Conservatives support protecting Canadians from threats, violence and intimidation, but we reject false choice between safety and freedom. Canada can enforce its laws against criminal conduct without placing peaceful religious expression under a cloud of fear and uncertainty. The Senate amendment would not restore that balance.”
“No one should have to pass through a hostile crowd to enter a place of worship, or wonder whether that place will still be standing in the morning.”
“Bill C-9 is presented as though Canada has no laws against threats, intimidation or hateful conduct. That is simply not true. Canada already has laws against threats, criminal harassment, intimidation, mischief, violence, public incitement and hate-motivated crime, so why does the government act as though Canada has no laws to deal with t…”
“Freedom of expression matters most when people strongly disagree. If the government can restrict lawful speech simply because someone finds it offensive, the line will keep moving. What is protected today may be questioned tomorrow, depending on who complains and who holds power. That is the dangerous path that Bill C-9 would put us on.”
“Finally, people stop saying lawful things because they fear what might happen. However, self-censorship is not the only danger. Driving hateful ideas underground does not make them disappear. It can allow resentment and hatred to grow where they are harder to challenge, until they emerge in more dangerous forms.”
The complete record
Every one of 251 lines we hold for Kurt Holman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague brought up concerns with regard to Bill C-26 and also the spending of $1.7 billion. My concern with this spending is the lack of accountability. Over the last 11 years, there have been various scandals provided by this Liberal government, such as the WE Charity scandal, the arrive scam scandal and the PrescribeIT scandal. With the lack of accountability, there could be opportunities for another scandal with this bill. I would like my colleague to possibly comment on that and tell us what he thinks.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the Bloc supports Bill C-26 . The key thing is that the bill would give the Liberal Minister of Finance a blank cheque to spend $1.7 billion with no guarantee of results, targets or accountability to build homes. With those concerns, why does the Bloc support the bill?”
“About 38% of Canadians face food insecurity, and 40% are losing sleep over stretching their paycheques. Diana's story is personal, but not unique. London has been the warning. Will the Liberal government finally listen?”
“Mr. Speaker, London has long been the canary in the coal mine for the hardships Canadians are feeling. When affordability worsens, unemployment rises and the Liberal recession deepens, Londoners are among the first to feel it, and our community is hit the hardest. The Canadian promise was simple: work hard, do one's part and build a stable life. This weekend, while I was going for a walk, a fellow Londoner, Diana, pulled me aside. She is 55, works in a factory and cares for a mother who is battling cancer. However, the cost of living has become so crushing that Diana now relies on her sick mother to help her buy basics like bread and milk. She asked me, “Why is this happening when I've done everything right?” She is grieving a Canadian promise that no longer feels real. It is not just happening in London.”
“Mr. Speaker, the key thing is that it is not just from clergy leaders that I am hearing concerns about Bill C-9 . It is constituents, everyday Canadians in London—Fanshawe, and also outside London—Fanshawe, who are drawing concerns with regard to Bill C-9. If Bill C-9 is passed, they are concerned that what they preach or what they practise would be deemed hate speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, the concern with Bill C-9 is this: If it is passed, what would define hate speech? There are many people from many religions who are concerned that what they used to say in person or online, which is now protected with the current laws, if Bill C-9 is passed would be deemed hate speech. With regard to their questions, they are asking about a scenario that could potentially happen with the passage of Bill C-9.”
“Mr. Speaker, to add to what I mentioned in my speech, yes, there are multiple organizations concerned about Bill C-9 , and those opposed to Bill C-9 are from civil liberties organizations; Muslim, Jewish, and Christian organizations; refugee advocates; legal groups; and parties across the political spectrum that are concerned and oppose the passing of Bill C-9.”
“Mr. Speaker, the real concern, which was brought to my attention by constituents of London—Fanshawe, is the potential removal of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. As mentioned in my speech, constituents are concerned that they would have to always look behind their back when they do share religious texts, both in person and online. They are concerned that even protected religious text, with Bill C-9 , may be quoted as hateful speech.”
“Bill C-9 fails that test. The Senate amendment would not fix it. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Bill C-9 .”
“Conservatives support protecting Canadians from threats, violence and intimidation, but we reject false choice between safety and freedom. Canada can enforce its laws against criminal conduct without placing peaceful religious expression under a cloud of fear and uncertainty. The Senate amendment would not restore that balance. It would add a symbol, but it would not restore the religious defence. It would change a list but would not protect freedom of expression. It would do nothing to stop the slippery slope that begins when Parliament removes clear protections and tells Canadians simply to trust that government power would be used carefully. Canadians deserve clear laws, strong enforcement, and consequences that match the seriousness of the crime. They also deserve firm protection for the freedoms of peaceful, law-abiding citizens.”
“Now the bill has returned from the Senate with another symbol added to the list, while the main problems remain untouched. This is not a real fix. It is a distraction. The government would rather debate whether a noose is offensive than explain why it removed a 50-year-old protection for lawful religious expression. It would rather offer the appearance of action than provide the leadership and enforcement needed to make communities safer. Freedom of religion means very little if it protects only beliefs that no one finds objectionable. Freedom of expression means very little if it protects only speech the government approves of. That does not mean every religious statement is wise or beyond criticism. People are free to disagree, challenge it and answer it with better arguments.”
“A joint statement opposing Bill C-9 brought together civil liberty organizations; Muslim, Jewish and Christian organizations; refugee advocates; legal groups; and other community organizations, from across Canada. They do not share one ideology, one faith or one political outlook. Their agreement cannot simply be dismissed. Nor is opposition to Bill C-9 limited to Conservatives. At third reading, every participating NDP member and the leader of the Green Party joined Conservatives in voting against it. This is not simply a left versus right debate. The warning comes from across civil society and the political spectrum. The government also rejected the Conservative proposal to separate the broadly supported parts of the bill from those raising serious civil liberties concerns.”
“That is why the government must prove that these restrictions are needed, that existing law is not enough and that lawful speech will remain protected. The government has not done that. Worse, it did not allow the full debate needed to test its case. The government used a programming motion to push the bill through committee. Debate was cut short. New amendments and subamendments could not be properly considered. Even the reading of amendments being voted on was restricted. Conservative safeguards for freedom of religion and freedom of expression were rejected. A government confident in its bill should welcome questions. Instead, the government shortened the process and pushed ahead without answering them. Those concerns reach far beyond any one faith community.”
“Finally, people stop saying lawful things because they fear what might happen. However, self-censorship is not the only danger. Driving hateful ideas underground does not make them disappear. It can allow resentment and hatred to grow where they are harder to challenge, until they emerge in more dangerous forms. In a free society, bad ideas should be exposed and defeated in the open. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant. Criminal law should deal firmly with threats, violence and genuine incitement, but it should not push lawful discussion into the shadows, otherwise peaceful Canadians become afraid to speak, while real hatred is pushed out of sight instead of confronted. (1255) Rights are rarely taken away all at once. They are weakened one step at a time, with every step described as small and reasonable.”
“If the government still believes that good-faith religious expression should be protected, why remove the words that clearly protect it? This is the slippery slope. It rarely begins with the government's openly saying it wants to criminalize ordinary religious teaching. It begins with promises that the law would be used only in extreme cases. The protection then disappears, and the line becomes less clear. A complaint is made against a faith leader, a teacher or a parent. An investigation and legal costs may follow. Even without a conviction, the process can become the punishment. Clergy and teachers would begin censoring themselves because the Liberal government has chosen to remove a clear protection and replace it with uncertainty. That is how the slippery slope works. First the protection is removed. Then the line becomes unclear.”
“For more than 50 years, Canadian law protected a person who, in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on belief in a religious text. The protection was narrow. It did not protect threats, violence, advocating genocide or encouraging a crime. It applied to one hate speech offence and protected good-faith religious discussion while allowing the law to deal with real hatred. The government and the Bloc chose to remove that protection. They now tell Canadians not to worry. They tell faith leaders to trust prosecutors. They tell religious teachers to trust the courts, and they tell parents and clergy that lawful expression would probably remain lawful. However, if this protection were not needed, why was it kept in the Criminal Code for more than half a century?”
“Bill C-9 is presented as though Canada has no laws against threats, intimidation or hateful conduct. That is simply not true. Canada already has laws against threats, criminal harassment, intimidation, mischief, violence, public incitement and hate-motivated crime, so why does the government act as though Canada has no laws to deal with these offences? Why expand criminal law instead of enforcing the laws we have, while removing protections for lawful religious expression. What has been missing is political leadership, consistent enforcement and consequences that reflect the seriousness of these crimes. More laws do not make up for weak leadership, and unclear laws around speech do not make communities safer. The clearest example is the proposed removal of the religious defence from section 319 of the Criminal Code.”
“Freedom of expression matters most when people strongly disagree. If the government can restrict lawful speech simply because someone finds it offensive, the line will keep moving. What is protected today may be questioned tomorrow, depending on who complains and who holds power. That is the dangerous path that Bill C-9 would put us on. The narrow Senate amendment now before us would do nothing to address the broader danger. It would simply add the noose to the bill's list of prohibited symbols. The noose carries a horrifying history as an instrument of murder and terror, but adding one more symbol would not fix the bill. It would not restore the long-standing protection for good-faith religious expression or answer the concerns raised across the country. The Senate has changed the list but has not fixed the bill.”
“No one should have to pass through a hostile crowd to enter a place of worship, or wonder whether that place will still be standing in the morning. Conservatives believe that the people responsible for threats, violence, intimidation, criminal harassment and vandalism must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and face consequences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes. Canada already has laws to deal with this conduct. The government should make sure that they are enforced and that the people who terrorize communities are held fully accountable. Instead, the government is using the real fears of vulnerable communities to justify a bill that would blur the line between crime and lawful speech that may be unpopular or controversial. In a free country, the right to speak cannot depend on whether everyone agrees.”
“Mr. Speaker, hatred is real. Jewish Canadians have faced ongoing intimidation, including gunfire, firebombings and repeated threats against synagogues, schools and community institutions. Muslim Canadians have seen the tragic consequences when hatred turns deadly. Just a week ago, I joined Londoners in remembering the Afzaal family, four members of which were murdered five years ago because they were Muslim. Churches across the country have been vandalized, desecrated and, in far too many cases, burned to the ground. Members of other communities have also faced hatred, threats and intimidation because of their identity, beliefs or background. No Canadian should be threatened because of who they are, what they believe or where they worship.”
“A week ago, I found out that one hour east of London, in Kitchener, regarding the Canadian promise, people are now living out of Winnebagos in carpooling parking lots just off the 401. They cannot afford houses and they cannot afford rent, so they are now living in Winnebagos. Can my colleague elaborate on whether those issues are occurring in his riding as well?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who represents Bowmanville—Oshawa North for his speech. I really appreciate working with him on various issues that are affecting Canadians today. Earlier, the member for Winnipeg North , the parliamentary secretary, boasted about the Prime Minister and how he is solving issues on behalf of Canadians. To date, we are still waiting for the negotiations dealing with the tariffs with President Trump to be finalized. On another note, two hours southwest of London, in Windsor, we are still waiting for the Gordie Howe International Bridge to open up. It is a Canadian taxpayer-funded bridge, yet this chief negotiator cannot negotiate with the U.S. to open the bridge.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saskatoon West's concerns about this economy, and I also agree with our mutual colleague the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South , who put forward a private member's bill to help Canadians with regard to purchasing used vehicles. With regard to Bill C‑30 and the economic outlook, recently London and the London region have had a high unemployment rate. At one time, it was 9.1%, a high unemployment rate and the highest in Canada. Recently, it was 9.2%, the highest unemployment rate. This is affecting the London region. This is affecting Londoners. I was just wondering if my colleague from Saskatoon West is experiencing the same issues with the economy in his riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier tonight, the parliamentary secretary said that we Conservatives play games. That is so far from the truth. On his side of the House, he can play tic-tack-toe or Scrabble. That is his business. Conservatives are here for the victims of crime. We work long hours on behalf of Canadians for public safety and for the justice system. As I said earlier, the parliamentary secretary accused us of playing games. Why is it that the Liberal government would remove mandatory minimums and judges could use time served or just give a criminal who is found guilty a one-day sentence? The point I am getting at is, why is the Liberal government—”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives take public safety and the justice system very seriously, and there are quite the concerns with Bill C-16 regarding the removal of mandatory minimums, with the exception of murder and treason. I would like to ask my Bloc colleague, with the removal of mandatory minimums, how will that have a ripple effect on society?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of the constituents of London—Fanshawe. I go door to door and hear from them. With regard to home ownership, there are concerns that youth are affected by the affordability crisis and the lack of opportunity to afford a home. I applaud my colleague. She and her family members are experts in the real estate and homebuilding industries. I was just wondering if she could expand on that, and tell us what issues they are experiencing with regard to the affordability crisis and young people buying homes in her riding.”
“What do I tell the parents who love their children but want them to move out? What do I tell them, when they know there are not enough houses being built?”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the affordability issue did not happen overnight. I actually agree with him, but the key thing is that the issue has expanded for the last 11 years. Yes, that is under the Trudeau Liberal government and now under the current Liberal government. In my riding, which I am proud to represent, London—Fanshawe, I have gone door to door, connecting with constituents. The key thing is that I have talked to parents whose adult children still live in their house. They get misty-eyed and choked up because they want their children to excel, but the dilemma is that their children cannot afford a house. The Liberals promised to deliver 500 new homes every year, but according to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 by 2028.”
“Mr. Speaker, to address what the parliamentary secretary is implying, which is that the economy here in Canada is good, I would ask him to come down to the London region. It is not just the increased food bank usage but the other organizations that support the food bank. I was talking to a representative from Urban Roots, which grows natural food to be donated to various organizations, including the local London Food Bank. The usage has increased in the last year. I would ask the member to comment on that.”
“Madam Speaker, the London region, especially London—Fanshawe, has been hit hard with the Liberal policies with regard to the local economy. In March, we had a 9.1% unemployment rate. In April, we had a 9.2% unemployment rate, the highest in the country. Could my colleague elaborate on the economic issues in her riding?”
“Their families, their businesses, their service, their faith communities, their culture, their stories and their dreams for the next generation are part of Canada. This bill would recognize that.”
“They want Canada to be a country where freedom is protected and where people are united by shared responsibility. That is a vision worth defending. That is also why this bill, while modest, can still matter. It can help ensure that every April, Canadians are invited to learn more about Arab heritage and Arab Canadian contributions. It can help communities mark that heritage with pride. It can help young Arab Canadians know that their story is part of Canada's story. It can help remind Parliament that the people we serve are not abstractions but families with histories, hopes, challenges and dreams. I want to conclude by speaking directly to the Arab Canadians in London—Fanshawe and across Canada. Their history and their heritage matter. Their contributions matter.”
“This is because heritage is not only about the past but also about whether families can build a future. That is where Parliament has a responsibility that goes beyond symbolic recognition. We should celebrate Arab Canadians, yes. We should also work to make Canada a country where every family, including Arab Canadian families, can afford a home, find meaningful work, start a business, raise children safely and live with dignity. One of the things I hear again and again from families in my community is that they do not want special treatment. They want a fair chance. They want hard work to mean something again. They want their children to have opportunities. They want government to get the basics right. They want safe streets and a strong economy. They want schools, workplaces and public services that treat people with respect.”
“It should not be a symbolic check mark. It should be a genuine recognition of a community that has helped build this country. (1740) It should encourage Canadians to learn about Arab Canadian history, including the early families who came here in the late 19th century, the communities that grew over the decades, the businesses that were built, the community institutions that became anchors and the younger generations now serving in every field imaginable. It should encourage us to celebrate Arab Canadian food, literature, music, art and entrepreneurship. It should also encourage us to listen to the real concerns of Arab Canadian families today, concerns about affordability, jobs, housing, safety and whether their children will have the same opportunities that brought so many families here to Canada.”
“Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the rule of law and respect for the dignity of every person matter. Commemorative months can serve a useful purpose when they help Canadians learn, reflect and build respect. They can open doors for schools, community groups, museums, libraries and families to tell stories that might otherwise be overlooked. They can help young people see themselves in Canada's history. They can help neighbours better understand one another. However, we should also be honest. Commemorative months must not become empty gestures. They should not become virtue signalling or tokenism. They should point to something real like respect, opportunity, equal treatment and safe communities in a country where hard work is rewarded. That same seriousness should guide how we approach Arab heritage month.”
“It includes people whose families have been in Canada for generations and people who arrived only recently. It includes literature, music, food, fashion, scholarship, architecture, poetry, science, business and public service. It includes people who have preserved their heritage while also embracing Canada and contributing to our shared national life. In Canada, people do not have to forget where they came from in order to belong. They can bring the best of their heritage, their work ethic, their family values, their traditions, their faith, their creativity and their love of community, while helping build one country together. That is the Canadian balance: pride in one's heritage, loyalty to Canada and a shared commitment to the values that keep this country free. Those values matter. Equality before the law matters. Democracy matters.”
“In my own community of London—Fanshawe, we know how much Arab Canadians contribute. We see it in our small businesses. We see it in our restaurants, our community organizations, our charities, our classrooms, our workplaces and our neighbourhoods. We see families who are deeply committed to education. We see entrepreneurs who take risks, create jobs and serve their communities. We see newcomers who arrive with courage and hope and who work incredibly hard to build a life in Canada. We see young people who are proud of their heritage and proud to be Canadian. That is something worth celebrating. Arab heritage is not one single story. It is rich, diverse and complex. It includes many countries, traditions, faiths, dialects and histories.”
“They are small business owners, doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, tradespeople, artists, writers, public servants, faith leaders, community volunteers, students, parents and grandparents. They are neighbours. They are friends. They are people who came to Canada for freedom, opportunity, peace, dignity and a better future for their children. Some came from places where basic freedoms cannot always be taken for granted. Others came for opportunity, education, family, safety or the chance to shape their own futures. Whatever their path, they came here because Canada promised something better: a place where people could work hard, own a home, raise a family, worship freely, build a life with the person they love, start a business, speak their mind and contribute to the common good. That is the Canadian promise, and it is worth protecting.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill S-227 , an act respecting Arab heritage month. This bill is straightforward. It would designate the month of April each year as Arab heritage month in Canada. It is a simple bill, but it speaks to something meaningful. It gives Parliament an opportunity to recognize the history, culture, work, sacrifice, entrepreneurship, faith, family values and civic contributions of Arab Canadians across this country. Arab Canadians have been part of Canada's story for generations. From the earliest Arab immigrants in the late 19th century to the communities that have grown across the country today, Arab Canadians have contributed to the Canada we share. Today, Arab Canadians are found in every part of Canadian life.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 27 signatories in London—Fanshawe concerning the reduction in Canada Post services. Whereas Canada Post and the Liberals are taking an axe to long-treasured postal services, eliminating good jobs, eliminating door-to-door deliveries, lowering mail delivery standards and possibly closing post offices, and whereas Canada Post offers a public service that needs to be protected, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop and reverse decisions on the cuts to the postal service.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. No matter how the Liberals spin it, this is a full-blown Liberal recession. Investment is leaving, jobs are disappearing and the economy has shrunk for two straight quarters. They can blame tariffs and global conflict, but every G7 country faces those pressures. In London, this comes as no surprise. London has been the canary in the coal mine. With unemployment at 9.2%, the worst in the country, Londoners saw the warning signs first. The Prime Minister can quote projections, but Londoners are living the reality. Will the Prime Minister stop denying this recession and reverse the Liberal policies that caused it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused with regard to the definition of “hypocrisy”, because the Liberal solution was tax relief on fuel all the way to September 1, yet our solution is tax relief to the end of the calendar year. With regard to that, I see the Conservative solution as helping Canadians more than what the Liberal government is doing.”
“There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. That is exactly what this proposal seeks to accomplish. For that reason, I am pleased to support it.”
“That is why temporary relief on federal taxes applied to gasoline and diesel through the remainder of the year makes sense. Canadians need relief now. People are already feeling the impact of rising fuel costs. They do not need additional taxes that make the situation worse. It is also why permanently eliminating the clean fuel standard makes sense. Temporary pressures may justify temporary relief, but structural costs require structural solutions. At a time when affordability remains one of the defining challenges facing Canadians, government should not be in the business of making energy, transportation and everyday life more expensive. Canadians are doing their part. They are working hard. They are raising families. They are building businesses. They are adapting to challenges that often lie beyond their control.”
“For years, Canadians were told not to worry. For years, they were told that the carbon tax was the answer. Eventually, after years of pressure from Canadians and years of opposition from Conservatives, the government finally backed away from its signature carbon tax. However, the lesson was larger than a single tax. Canadians were not objecting to a single line item on a bill. They were objecting to a broader approach that kept making essential parts of life more expensive. The lesson was that affordability matters. The lesson was that governments cannot continually make necessities more expensive and expect Canadians not to notice. The lesson was that when families are struggling, the government should be looking for ways to reduce the burden, not increase it.”
“They move through supply chains. They increase production costs. They increase transportation costs. They increase the cost of doing business. They ultimately make Canada less competitive. That matters for manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and industries that will shape the future economy. Countries around the world are competing for investment in advanced manufacturing, data centres and artificial intelligence. These industries require enormous amounts of affordable and reliable energy. If Canada continues making energy more expensive while our competitors work to attract investment, we should not be surprised when the investment goes elsewhere. Canadians spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis. Conservatives spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis.”
“They are reflected in prices, business decisions and competitiveness. Ultimately, they are reflected in the cost of living paid by Canadian families. That is why this debate is about more than what appears on the receipt at the pump. It is about whether Canadians can get ahead. It is about whether businesses can remain competitive. It is about whether our economy is becoming stronger or weaker. It is also about whether the government understands that every additional cost imposed on necessities eventually lands on the shoulders of ordinary Canadians. The issue extends beyond what Canadians pay at the pump. It speaks to a broader philosophy that treats higher costs as somebody else's problem. Whether those costs are imposed through fuel taxes, the clean fuel standard or industrial carbon taxes, they do not disappear.”
“The government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. Canadians are paying significantly more for fuel than Americans. Families, businesses, truckers and manufacturers all notice the difference. They are all asking a simple question: Why, at a time when Canadians are already facing so much economic pressure, is the government continuing to add costs of its own? Costs imposed on fuel do not stay at the gas station. They move through the entire economy. They affect transportation, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, deliveries and food prices. Every product that must be moved, every service that requires transportation and every business that depends on fuel eventually feels the impact. The costs go somewhere.”
“They were told that he would secure a deal, yet today Canadian businesses are still operating under the same uncertainty. Investment decisions are still being delayed, employers are still waiting for clarity and Canadian workers are still wondering what comes next. We cannot control what President Trump says or does, no Canadian government can, but we can control how we position ourselves. We can control whether Canada is competing from a position of strength. We can control whether we are attracting investment or driving it away. We can control whether we are making it easier or harder to build, produce, transport and compete here at home. (1720) There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control.”
“That is why London is the canary in the coal mine for the Canadian economy. What begins in communities like ours rarely stays there. The warning signs eventually spread. Today, those warning signs are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Businesses are increasingly looking beyond Canada for opportunities to invest and grow. Families are delaying purchases. Workers are wondering what the future holds. Because of our close economic ties to the United States, trade uncertainty is not an abstract policy decision for communities like ours. It affects investment decisions, hiring decisions and confidence. It affects whether businesses choose to expand or wait. Canadians were told that the Prime Minister was uniquely equipped to handle this challenge. They were told that he would use every tool available to strengthen Canada's position.”