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 2 of 6.
“People are feeling the pressure and they want the government to stop making it worse. In London—Fanshawe, we often experience these pressures early. Our community is deeply connected to manufacturing, transportation and North American supply chains. We sit just over an hour from the United States border. We understand better than most that Canada's prosperity depends on our ability to compete. When uncertainty grows, communities like ours often feel it first. When costs rise, we feel it. When investment slows, we feel it. When businesses become hesitant about expansion, we feel it. When families begin tightening household budgets, we feel it. Today, London's unemployment rate sits at 9.2%, the highest in the country. Communities like ours often experience economic pressures before much of the country does.”
“Seniors spoke about the rising cost of groceries, about housing costs and about the everyday expenses that continue to rise while their incomes remained fixed. What struck me the most was not simply the concern about affordability itself. Many were not speaking only about themselves, but were worried about their children and their grandchildren. They see young families working hard and struggling just to get ahead. They see household budgets stretched thinner than ever. They worry that, despite all the speeches, promises and announcements coming from the Liberal government, things continue moving in the wrong direction. Whether it is a young family, a tradesperson, a small business owner or a senior, the concern is remarkably similar. Life is becoming more expensive.”
“That is why we are having this debate today. Fuel prices are not shaped by one force alone. Global instability, energy markets, supply chains and economic uncertainty play a role. Canadians understand that. 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 simple principle is at the heart of our opposition day motion. I was reminded of that principle just a few days ago while hosting a seniors town hall in London—Fanshawe. We discussed retirement security, the problems seniors are encountering with the dental care program and government services. Once again, the cost of living dominated the conversation.”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning millions of Canadians got in their vehicles and headed to work. They did not have the luxury of deciding whether they needed fuel because they needed it. They needed it to get to work, to get their children to school, to care for their aging parents and to make deliveries, visit clients, run businesses and earn a living. When fuel prices rise sharply, as Canadians have experienced in recent months, fuel begins to take up a larger share of the household budget. The money has to come from somewhere. The question is not whether Canadians will fill the tank, but what they will have to give up elsewhere in order to do it. Will it mean less money for groceries, for savings, for their children's activities or to be set aside for an emergency? For millions of Canadians, fuel is not a luxury, but a necessity.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned to a Conservative colleague what we should cut to help Canadians. Repeatedly, with the Trudeau government, we heard about scandal upon scandal and about the waste of taxpayers' dollars. I am concerned, even with the current Liberal government, of potentially more scandals with regard to wasting taxpayers' dollars. Is the Liberal government going to come to terms and stop wasting taxpayers' dollars on behalf of all Canadians?”
“Conservatives are calling for lower taxes, less red tape and the trade deal the Liberal Prime Minister promised. London is sounding the alarm. Londoners, especially those of London—Fanshawe, are seeing these concerns all around them. When will the Liberals finally listen?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the most recent unemployment numbers, London has climbed to 9.2%, remaining the highest in Canada. Behind these numbers are people sending out résumés and hearing nothing back, parents trying to stretch every dollar further and young people wondering whether opportunity is moving out of reach. Just an hour from the U.S. border, London is the canary in the coal mine. When things go wrong, Londoners are the first to feel it, and it hits our community the hardest, but this is not just a London issue. What we are seeing in our community is a warning sign for the rest of the country. On behalf of all Londoners who are worried about their jobs, their bills and their future, I urge the Liberals to get serious and focus on creating the conditions for Canadian businesses to compete, invest, grow, and create private sector jobs.”
“They are systematic issues with real consequences. For a family travelling on a remote road, a lack of signal can mean no access to emergency services. For a small business, it can mean lost revenue. For indigenous and northern communities, it can mean continued exclusion from the digital economy. Accurate data is the foundation of good policy. Without it, we cannot identify gaps, allocate resources effectively or hold providers accountable. Second, Bill C-268 would mandate a comprehensive review of Canada's spectrum policy framework within 18 months of the act's coming into force. This is a critical step. For too long, updates to the framework have occurred on an ad hoc basis through departmental processes without a structured, legislated requirement for review—”
“First, the bill would require the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to establish a process to verify the accuracy of mobile network coverage data submitted by telecommunications providers. This is not a minor technical adjustment; it addresses a long-standing concern that coverage maps are largely based on self-reported data from carriers. When Canadians are told that they have service, they expect that service to work, not just in theory, but in practice. Too often, that is not the case. We have all heard stories of dropped calls on major highways, lack of signal in rural communities, lack of signal in one area of someone's residence when there is signal at the other end of the residence, and unreliable connectivity in remote regions. These are not isolated inconveniences.”
“In a modern economy, access to reliable connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Despite its importance, Canada's spectrum policy framework has not been formally updated since 2007. Nearly two decades have passed without a legislative requirement to review, modernize or even systematically evaluate how this critical public resource is being managed. In that time, the world has changed dramatically. Technology has advanced. Data consumption has surged. Entire sectors of our economy have become digitally dependent, but our framework has not kept pace. At its core, Bill C-268 introduces three key elements: verification, accountability and transparency.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-268 , the spectrum policy framework for Canada act, first and foremost because of my previous career working in information technology. The wireless spectrum was taught to me when I took computer engineering technology at Lambton College in Sarnia, and also, from time to time, the wireless spectrum was discussed in my information technology career. However, today, this act addresses a foundational yet often overlooked pillar of Canada's digital economy: how we manage and govern the wireless spectrum. Spectrum is not an abstract concept. It is invisible infrastructure that powers our phones, enables emergency communications, connects businesses and supports the daily lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.”
“Mr. Speaker, real relief does not come from government loan programs. It comes from getting tariffs reduced or eliminated. Loans do not restore competitiveness. They saddle struggling businesses with more debt, while the underlying problem remains. At the same time, the Liberals are failing to focus on what Canada can control. Instead of strengthening our economy at home, they continue to layer on red tape, slow approvals and policies that make it harder to build, produce and compete. I wonder if the member from the Bloc could expand on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned vision. If this is the Liberal government's vision, I find quite concerning, especially as I represent the people of London—Fanshawe, but it is also concerning for the region of London. We are talking about the affordability crisis and the cost of living crisis, and London's 9.1% unemployment is the highest in Canada. That is a concern also. Also with regard to vision, especially for the people who have to utilize the food bank, what we do tell the people in the lineup of the food bank about when the Prime Minister is going to come through and solve the tariff issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, I stand today as a proud representative of London—Fanshawe, part of which has a great manufacturing sector. However, we have been hit with tariffs, and, repeatedly, the people of London—Fanshawe are having to deal with the affordability crisis and concerns about being unemployed, or they actually have been unemployed, due to various sectors' being affected by the tariffs. The Liberals have repeatedly said that they are going to solve the tariff issues, yet the Prime Minister has not negotiated with President Trump in the last seven months, so my question is this: Are we witnessing a political bait-and-switch while Canadians are still waiting for a solution?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from the Bloc for his excellent speech. This bill is about supporting the manufacturing sector. In London—Fanshawe, the manufacturing sector has brought up concerns to me regarding the tariffs. The Liberal government keeps delaying when the so-called negotiations by the Prime Minister will be finalized, the ones dealing with these tariffs between Canada and the U.S. Does the member from the Bloc agree that the Prime Minister should tell Canadians the specific date when these negotiations will be finalized?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Winnipeg North said negotiations take time. As the representative for London—Fanshawe, we have a large manufacturing base. These tariffs are hitting Canada, and especially my riding, hard. My concern is what I should tell my constituents who have to line up at the food bank and are now in the unemployment line in the manufacturing sectors, especially the auto sector, which has been hit hard by the tariffs. I wonder if my hon. colleague could expand on how the tariffs are hurting his riding as much as they are hurting London—Fanshawe.”
“Mr. Speaker, if Canada wants to deal with the United States, we need leverage. Our leverage comes from our strengths, our energy, our critical minerals and our ability to supply the inputs that North American industry depends on. Conservatives believe we should be building that strength, developing our resources, expanding our capacity and creating the conditions for investment so that Canada can negotiate from a position of power, not weakness. I know that the riding I represent, London—Fanshawe, has a manufacturing sector that has had to deal with the U.S. tariffs. Repeatedly, the Prime Minister has said that by a certain date, he would deal with U.S. tariffs, especially last July, and then on repeated dates. I am wondering if the member from the Bloc can expand on the continuing issue of the tariffs that we have to deal with today.”
“Mr. Speaker, ambition is very important. I think all Canadians have the ambition for space exploration and also for the commercialization of space. As I said earlier, all Canadians also want accountability and transparency about where their tax dollars are being spent, and that is needed in Bill C-28 .”
“Mr. Speaker, my concern is the repeated pattern of Liberal boondoggles or possible scandals. We have seen it with the Trudeau government, and we are possibly seeing it with the Liberal government. Cases in point are ArriveCAN and also PrescribeIT. With the lack of checks and balances in Bill C-28 , there could potentially be a Liberal scandal, such as possibly what is happening in Nova Scotia with $200 million spent for what is deemed a spaceport but for which so far the results have been very limited.”
“Mr. Speaker, right now there would be too much power for the minister with regard to Bill C-28 , and therefore, with regard to decisions, there would be closed doors behind the scenes. Conservatives are asking for there to be more transparency with Bill C-28 with regard to decisions for procurement of opportunities for projects related to the deep commercialization of space.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives support space. Conservatives support the commercialization of space. The concern with regard to Bill C-28 is the blank cheque or a credit card that the current Liberal government may be offering to itself. We are just asking for checks and balances as Canada furthers the commercialization of space.”
“That means that when we act, we do so in the clear interest of Canadians, not behind closed doors and not without answers. Canada should lead in space, but Canadians should never be asked to sign a blank cheque for decisions made behind closed doors.”
“Most important, the bill would put national security safeguards directly into the law, not as an afterthought or something decided later but as a core requirement from the start, because once these systems are in place, once launches begin and international actors are involved, it becomes much harder to go back to fix gaps that should have been addressed from the beginning. These are questions that must be answered and issues that must be addressed, and this is where Parliament must do its job. Canada has the opportunity to get this right. We can build something that reflects our strengths and values, but that will not happen by default. It will require scrutiny, accountability and a willingness to improve what is in front of us, because the goal is not just to participate in space but to lead in a way that Canadians can be proud of.”
“The question is whether the bill gets the framework right. In its current form, there are serious concerns. Let me be clear about what getting this right actually looks like. A serious bill would define the key terms clearly in the law so Parliament, not just cabinet, sets the rules. It would include clear criteria for approvals and rejections so decisions are not made behind closed doors without explanation. It would preserve independent review so Canadians can have confidence that decisions can be challenged when needed. It would also require full transparency around major financial commitments. If hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are involved, Canadians should be able to see the reasoning, the price and what they are getting in return.”
“Mr. Speaker, any Canadian launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions. If this bill is about sovereignty, then those protections must be written into the law, not left to chance. This is ultimately about balance. Canada can build a competitive space sector. Canada can support innovation. Canada can strengthen sovereignty. That is how previous generations succeeded. The achievements of Canada's space program were not the result of vague rules or unchecked power. They were built on clear objectives, strong oversight and public trust. That is the standard we should be applying today. As we consider Bill C-28 , the question is not whether we support Canada in space. We do.”
“Any general launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions—”
“At the end of it, Canadians are left asking what exactly they paid for. These are just a few of the many examples Canadians have become used to. (1355) From the SNC-Lavalin affair, to the WE Charity scandal and the green slush fund, there is a reason Canadians are not comfortable handing any government a blank cheque. This matters because Bill C-28 is not being introduced in a vacuum. It is being introduced in a context where trust in how large public projects are managed has been eroded. When a bill proposes to give broad power to ministers, to leave key rules for later and to move forward without clear safeguards, Canadians are right to be cautious. This is also a national security issue. Space is no longer just about exploration. It is about communication, surveillance, navigation, defence and sovereignty.”
“This is where the broader concern comes into focus, because this is not an isolated situation. We have seen this pattern before. With ArriveCAN, what began as a simple app, originally estimated at about $80,000, ballooned to nearly $60 million, which is roughly 750 times over budget. A well-connected firm benefited from a process that lacked transparency, and Canadians were left with the bill. More recently, we are seeing a $300-million e-prescribing program, PrescribeIT, come under serious scrutiny. After nearly a decade, it is used for less than 5% of prescriptions, and key questions remain about where the money went and who benefited. These are different files and different departments, but it is the same Liberal team and the same underlying problem, which is large commitments of public money, limited transparency and unclear outcomes.”
“That would be concerning on its own, but Canadians are already asking a more immediate question: How is it that, what is, today, little more than a gravel lot and a concrete pad on Crown land, which was leased for $13,500 a year, adds up to a $200-million federal agreement before Parliament has even been asked to approve the framework governing it? At its core, this is a question about whether Parliament sets the rules or whether those rules are written later behind closed doors. Who set that price? What valuation was used? Was there a competitive process? What exactly are taxpayers receiving in return? Who carries the risk if this project does not deliver? Canadians are not funding a finished asset. They are funding a project still under development in a market that remains uncertain. That makes getting this right even more important.”
“In plain language, it asks Canadians to accept the framework first and trust the rules, which will come later. That is not how we build durable policy. It is how we create a system that functions like a blank cheque. This bill would not even clearly define what a launch is. Instead, it would push those basic rules off to be decided later. At the same time, it would give the minister broad control over who gets approved, who gets denied and what conditions apply. It would allow the minister to change the financial rules and protect companies from liability. In some cases, it would limit the ways decisions could be appealed or reviewed independently. What we are left with is a framework that would be flexible where it should be firm and discretionary where it should be accountable.”
“If done properly, this could strengthen our economy, reinforce our sovereignty and position Canada as a serious player in the next generation of space activity. One day, I would love to see places like the London International Airport play a role in that future. We have strong infrastructure and a skilled workforce. That may be further down the road, but it reflects the kind of ambition we should have as a country. However, ambition alone is not strong enough, because the question before us is not whether Canada should participate in space, but whether this bill would set us up to do it in the right way. That is where the concerns arise, because as it stands, Bill C-28 would put too much power in the hands of the minister without leaving key rules and safeguards to be worked out later.”
“More recently, Canada played a key role in the Artemis II mission, with Jeremy Hansen taking part in the historic journey of circling the moon and returning to earth. It is a powerful example of what we can achieve through partnership, while also reminding us why strengthening our own capabilities matters. Let me be clear that Conservatives support building Canada's space capabilities. We support sovereignty. We support protecting Canada's national security. We support Canadian workers, engineers and innovators competing in a growing global space economy. Bill C-28 speaks to a real opportunity. Canada is the only G7 country without domestic launch capability. That is a gap and a chance to lead.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my Conservative colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain . Canada should be a leader in space. I will admit that this is something that has fascinated me since I was a kid. Like many Canadians, I grew up watching Star Trek and imagining what the future could look like beyond our planet. That sense of wonder is shared by many Canadians and has helped drive what we have achieved in space. In 1962, under former Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker, Alouette I made Canada the third country in the world to design and build its own satellite. Since then, Canadians have built on that legacy. Astronauts such as Roberta Bondar and Chris Hadfield have carried our flag into orbit. Canadian innovation gave the world the Canadarm.”
“Mr. Speaker, in a specialized industry like space, the risk of regulatory capture is high. Why are the criteria for approval and indemnity not written in law? Is it because the minister wants the power to reward well-connected firms behind closed doors, without a single second of parliamentary oversight?”
“Mr. Speaker, why is the government asking Parliament to approve a discretionary regulatory framework after it has already handed $200 million to a specific spaceport project on subleased land that could have been bought for a fraction of the cost? Is the principle of Bill C-28 really just about writing a blank cheque to Liberal insiders, while leaving taxpayers to cover the unlimited liability?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier that, in 2014, the Harper government released a framework that put Canadian sovereignty and national security at the forefront of space policy. Under the Liberal government, we have a bill that does not include a single explicit national security test for launches. The Liberal government is asking us to trust its discretion instead of putting a law in place to stop hostile foreign actors from launching satellites over our Arctic. Could my hon. colleague expand on the concerns about this?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe. There is a small indigenous population living in London—Fanshawe. Regarding Bill C-21 , there are jurisdiction concerns that the treaty lacks clear geographic limits. Would the member opposite please explain how this will affect other first nations throughout Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe. There is a small indigenous population that lives in London—Fanshawe. Regarding Bill C-21 , how would this treaty affect land or resource rights?”
“Mr. Speaker, from the other side of the House, we often hear the Conservatives being criticized all the way back to the Harper government. However, in dealing with indigenous treaties, the Harper government did not need a commissioner. Why is it that the Liberal government needs to add bureaucracy and costs such as the implementation of this new commissioner? Why is this commissioner needed?”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-10 , the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act, there is a concern about creating a new office. It is an extra layer of bureaucracy and cost, not a guarantee of meaningful change. With this concern, I was wondering if the Bloc Québécois have similar concerns about how the Liberal government will add bureaucracy and costs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise because a recently released statistic shows London as having a high unemployment rate of 9.1%, the highest in Canada. Because of this, Londoners and some of my constituents would obviously think of a career change. What does my colleague think about the Liberal government's implying with these cuts that education at a career college is less valuable than education at other institutions?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal parliamentary secretary brought up games. Let us have a reality check. We have an affordability crisis right now. We have a cost of living crisis right now that is affecting all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including young people. With regard to this motion, these are cuts to student grants for career college students, and I have had stakeholders of career colleges approach me in London—Fanshawe about this. Does the government believe that education at career colleges is less valuable than education at other institutions?”
“Mr. Speaker. I rise today just to add clarification to a question I asked earlier regarding Bill C-22 . Outside the concerns with regard to the tools used by law enforcement, and also balancing privacy that Canadians feel is important with regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, another concern is the collection of data. Part of Bill C-22 is the collection of metadata over one year. Large Internet service providers might be able to take the cost of storing metadata, but for medium to small Internet service providers, it might be a hindrance to their operations. There are also new Internet providers that want to be part of the Internet provider economy. Thus, it might limit competition. This is a concern. Does the member opposite feel a similar concern?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the members of the government are not asking questions, because this bill is very important, especially with respect to the balancing of law enforcement with civil liberties. Another reason this bill is important is the economic impact. Yes, maybe large Internet service providers can absorb the cost of the request within this bill of storing metadata for one year, but it would also affect the economy of Internet service providers because the ability of small and medium-sized Internet service providers or new Internet service providers to offer competition to the Internet industry would be hindered by this—”
“Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill should go back to committee, based on my technical expertise and my concerns about metadata, storing information on where someone has been on the Internet, location services, etc. I am not including messaging, just metadata itself. There is some concern because, again, it is a balancing act: tools that would be utilized by law enforcement, even with a warrant, and privacy that Canadians cherish under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for the question, and yes, I think there is some failure still here. Bill C-22 should go back to committee to balance the tools that law enforcement needs. Conservatives support law enforcement, but we also have to balance it with the privacy that Canadians expect under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“If Parliament imposes overly onerous technical requirements, it risks creating barriers to entry, discouraging innovation and entrenching the very largest incumbents at the expense of competition in Canada's digital economy. These potential impacts should be carefully considered as this bill moves through committee. None of these concerns mean that lawful access reform should not proceed, only that it must proceed carefully. Conservatives believe police should have modern tools.”
“These are complex, technical considerations, and Parliament should take the time to fully examine them before finalizing this framework. There is also an economic and innovation dimension to this bill. Canada has already seen how digital regulation can produce unintended consequences when burdens are poorly calibrated. Following the passage of the previous Parliament's Bill C-18 , Meta chose to block Canadian news content on its platforms rather than comply with the framework Parliament imposed. That is a reminder that large digital firms can and do make strategic decisions about whether operating under Canadian rules is worth the cost. Even more importantly, while dominant, multinational firms may have the leverage and resources to absorb significant compliance burdens, smaller Internet providers and emerging competitors often do not.”
“Artificial intelligence is dramatically accelerating offensive cyber-capabilities. Anthropic recently declined to publicly release one of its most advanced models after reportedly concluding that its ability to identify and exploit software vulnerabilities posed serious security concerns. Parliament cannot ignore the reality that the tools available to malicious actors are becoming more powerful at an unprecedented pace, so it must ask itself if it is prudent to mandate the creation of more retained data, more interception infrastructure and more potential vulnerabilities if not absolutely necessary. In trying to improve lawful access for investigators, we must be careful not to weaken the broader security of the systems Canadians rely upon.”
“Bill C-22 would require certain providers to build and maintain technical interception capabilities and retain metadata for up to one year. Every additional repository of retained data creates a target. Every additional access mechanism creates a vulnerability. In cybersecurity, one of the most basic principles is to minimize unnecessary access pathways. Systems are generally made more secure by reducing points of entry, not by multiplying them. Parliament must be cautious whenever legislation proposes to move in the opposite direction. (1220) Those of us with experience in cybersecurity understand a simple reality: Every access point created for lawful use is also a potential attack surface for unlawful exploitation. That concern is becoming more urgent, not less.”