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 3 of 6.
“We need to balance law enforcement tools with the privacy that Canadians entrust us with under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not merely about giving police access to isolated records. It is about creating and mandating digital surveillance infrastructure. That requires caution for two reasons. The first reason for caution is that governments must never simply be trusted to exercise broad powers perfectly. Parliament must legislate based not on ideal assumptions but on real-world experience. Many Canadians remain concerned whenever governments seek expanded powers touching on privacy and civil liberties. That does not mean such powers are never necessary. It means Parliament has a duty to ensure that they are narrowly drafted, proportionate and subject to proper oversight. The second reason for caution is technical.”
“Again, it was 1996, and even though I was an employee, I had the maturity to tell myself this information should be private, should be kept within the company and should not be shared with my neighbours, including my friends at the local high school. It was interesting, as an employee of the local Internet service provider, to walk through the halls of North Lambton Secondary School back in 1996 at age 16. I would see my friends and my peers at school, and I would know where they went on the Internet and also where their parents went on the Internet. Yes, I knew the dirty laundry of Forest, Ontario, and also of Lambton County. These are precisely the kinds of questions that must be tested carefully at committee to ensure the right balance is struck.”
“I was going to North Lambton Secondary School, and my job after high school was not working at the local grocery store stocking shelves or at the local gas station pumping gas. My first job was working at the local Internet service provider, back in 1996. As part of that role, I was in charge of web development and tech support, and I had access to all of the data for all of the customers. It was not just customers' accounts. There were times I had administrative access and I could see, in real time, where people were going on the Internet. I asked myself, what are the stipulations in protecting this information?”
“It is also worth remembering that digital identifiers do not always map neatly onto individuals. An IP address or subscriber record may identify an account holder or Internet connection but not necessarily the person behind specific content. That is one more reason Parliament must proceed carefully when expanding access to such information. When the government proposes mandatory metadata retention, expanded access powers and technical interception capabilities, Parliament must treat those powers with the seriousness they deserve. This reminds me of the time when, as a young teenager, I was hired at a local Internet service provider, when I was living in Forest, Ontario.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will continue. Part of the challenge in debating legislation like Bill C-22 is that many of the terms involved can sound deceptively benign. Words like “subscriber information” or “metadata” may sound minor, but anyone with experience in digital systems understands otherwise. Metadata can reveal a tremendous amount about an individual. It can reveal who someone communicates with, when they communicate, where they are located, what services they use and patterns of behaviour that paint a detailed portrait of their private life. In many cases, aggregated metadata can reveal far more than people assume. Over time, it can expose routine relationships, movement patterns and behavioural habits with remarkable precision, often allowing detailed inferences even without access to message content itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, 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. The trillion-dollar net capital outflow under the Liberals has taken a real toll. London's unemployment rate has climbed to 9.1%, the highest in Canada, and affordability pressures continue to rise alongside crime, addiction and growing mental health challenges. Londoners know the status quo is not working. We need to reverse the loss of capital and create a competitive environment where businesses can invest, projects get built and workers can find stable jobs. Londoners need Conservative policies that will lower costs, remove barriers and reward investment in work. We have seen the Prime Minister borrow Conservative ideas before.”
“The lawful access provisions now before us appeared in Bill C-2 , where they generated substantial concern among privacy advocates, experts and parliamentarians alike. The government has now separated those provisions out and returned with Bill C-22 , a narrower stand-alone version in some respects. It is an acknowledgement that the earlier approach required reconsideration, and while this version is improved in certain areas, legitimate concerns remain that warrant careful study at committee. Part of the challenge in debating legislation like this is that many of the terms involved can sound desperately benign. Words like “subscriber information” or “metadata” may sound minor, but anyone with experience in digital systems understands otherwise. Metadata can reveal a tremendous amount about an individual. It can reveal who—”
“Conservatives recognize that law enforcement must have the lawful tools necessary to investigate serious crime in the digital age. When police are pursuing child predators, human traffickers, terrorists and organized criminal networks, they should not be hindered by outdated laws built for a predigital world. That is a legitimate problem, and Parliament has a responsibility to address it. Parliament also has a responsibility to ensure that in modernizing our laws, we do not grant powers that are broader than necessary, weaker in oversight than appropriate or more intrusive than justified, because history has repeatedly shown that once a government is granted extraordinary powers, those powers rarely remain confined to their narrowest intended use unless Parliament is vigilant. The House has been down this road before.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22 , an act respecting lawful access. Before entering politics, I spent nearly three decades working in information technology, and one of the things that I learned very quickly in that field is that technology does not stand still. The systems, tools and threats of 10 years ago rarely resemble those of today. Unfortunately, criminals understand that reality just as well as anyone else. They adapt quickly. They use encrypted applications, anonymous accounts, rapidly changing digital identities and increasingly sophisticated digital tools to conceal their activities and evade law enforcement. Meanwhile, our legal framework has often struggled to keep pace. Let me be clear at the outset.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are very good at making promises and excuses, but Londoners need results. Today, global uncertainty should be a wake-up call to strengthen our competitiveness at home, so Canada has leverage abroad, yet beyond rhetoric, the government has taken no meaningful action. It has failed to unleash our energy and failed to advance pipelines or any major projects, while doubling down on anti-business taxes and regulations, like the industrial carbon tax, that drive capital out of Canada. When will the government finally take competitiveness seriously, scrap the industrial carbon tax and make Canada, including London, a place businesses want to invest in?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, London's unemployment rate has climbed to 9.1%, the highest in Canada. Meanwhile, RBC reports that more than $1 trillion in capital has left Canada since the Liberals took power in 2015. London has the workers, the talent and the potential. The Liberals promised to build like never before, but Londoners are not seeing this at all. Will the Liberals finally unleash Canada's economy, attract investments and create the conditions for businesses to grow and London to thrive?”
“Mr. Speaker, I stand proudly for the constituents of London—Fanshawe, and I feel wonderful representing them. I recently canvassed in London—Fanshawe and heard the same concerns about affordability, the cost of living and even the cost of groceries at the local grocery store. The interesting part now is that as we are debating, the Liberal government proposes suspending some of the fuel taxes until September. The opposition, we Conservatives, offers a solution of suspending all fuel taxes to the end of 2026. My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is this. If their plan goes through, what do I tell the constituents of London—Fanshawe in October when the fuel taxes return and the cost of living goes up?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that the Liberal government says it is going to exempt the taxes all the way to September, but the Conservative plan offers the full exemption of taxes all the way to the end of 2026. With this opportunity, I want my colleague to expand on how this would help the people of his riding and all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her fantastic speech. I agree with her that the Liberals should suspend the fuel taxes until the end of the year, not only to help just the people of London—Fanshawe, who I have heard from, who are concerned about the rising fuel prices, but also to help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the benefit of suspending fuel taxes until the end of the year.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister , the immigration system is more out of control than ever before. The Prime Minister claims that student numbers are down, but last year alone, under the Liberal Prime Minister, there were over 240,000 permits issued, compared to 187,000 in 2015 before the Liberals dramatically expanded Canada's immigration policies. That is not sustainable. Youth unemployment is 14% across Canada, even higher in London. Canadian youth cannot find jobs. Why will the Liberals not take accountability for their immigration failures?”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, Conservatives support the bill's going to committee to fix the glaring problems with it, such as the fact that Liberals have also demonstrated they are willing to breach people's privacy with Bill C-2 . Conservatives have repeatedly forced the government to improve major shortcomings in government legislation. Cybersecurity is too important to leave in the hands of the Liberal government with all its failures.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to threats, the Conservatives put proper limits on ministers' powers, such as raising the threshold for an action from a threat to a serious, systematic threat. With regard to that, it requires reasonable grounds for ministerial actions. As for the concern of threats, there is also stipulation that it is to include serious, systematic threats, again, to fully recognize the importance of cybersecurity as part of the national defence strategy for public and private entities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that, from a Conservative point of view, Canada's national security requires being prepared for the cyberwarfare threats we face. Conservatives fully recognize the importance of cybersecurity as part of the national defence strategy for public and private entities. The Liberal government has been slow to address cyber-threats, with no substantive legislative response for 10 years. For the amendments that went through the committee from the Conservatives, we are addressing this lack of substantive legislative response from the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the tinfoil hat community, I assure everyone that the Conservatives are not a tinfoil hat community. We are here to protect the freedoms that all Canadians enjoy, such as freedom of expression and privacy. With regard to the bill going through committee, it was the Conservatives' responsibility to respect those freedoms while balancing the cybersecurity protections that both private and public industry need.”
“Back then, even as a young person, I saw first-hand that privacy cannot simply be assumed. It must be actively protected. That lesson applies just as much as today, at a national level. With the powers granted in this legislation comes a responsibility, a responsibility to use those powers carefully, proportionately and with respect for the rights of Canadians. Conservatives will continue to support strong cybersecurity protections with the appropriate limits. We fought hard to include those limits in the bill, but the Liberals removed some of them. We will also continue to ensure that those protections do not come at the expense of the freedoms that define us, because in Canada, security and liberty must go hand in hand.”
“The pressure to expand government powers will only increase. That makes it even more important that we get the framework right now. As both threats and defence evolve, we must ensure that our response remains grounded in clear limits, strong safeguards and respect for the rights of Canadians. In that environment, it will be essential to hold firmly to the principles that define us as a country. We must protect our infrastructure, but we must also protect our freedoms. We must respond to threats, but we must do so with restraint and accountability. We must never lose sight of the fact that cybersecurity is not an end in itself. It is a means to protect Canadians, their privacy, their livelihoods and their way of life. I began my remarks by reflecting on my early experience in the IT field.”
“Bill C-8 is a step in that direction, but only because Conservatives forced the changes that were needed to fix it. Despite our proposing major improvements to the bill, the Liberals fought us every step of the way. At committee, Conservatives were able to get an amendment through that required judicial authorization. Before the minister could use the new powers laid out in the legislation, the Liberals found a way to remove that amendment. Just like with the Emergencies Act, there is nothing to stop them from abusing their power. This is a massive concern for me. As we move forward, we must remain vigilant. Technology will continue to evolve. Threats will become more sophisticated, and so too will the tools available to defend against them, including those powered by artificial intelligence.”
“Canadians need to trust that the government will protect them from cyber-threats, but they also need to trust that their rights will not be unnecessarily compromised in the process. That trust is fragile and, once lost, it is difficult to rebuild. That is why it is so important that legislation such as Bill C-8 gets the balance right. Now, while the bill has been approved, we also acknowledge a broader issue. For too long, the government has been slow to respond to evolving cyber-threats, yet quick to introduce legislation that requires significant correction. Cybersecurity is too important to get wrong. It is too important to treat as an afterthought. Canada needs a proactive, disciplined approach to cybersecurity that includes clear standards, strong partnerships with industry and legislation that is both effective and restrained.”
“We raised the threshold for government action from vague references to threats to a much more serious standard of serious, systematic threats. We replaced weak tests such as relevancy with stronger requirements like necessary and proportionate tests. We required reasonable grounds for ministerial action and narrowed the scope of orders to matters tied to national security, national defence or international relations. We pushed for judicial oversight and greater transparency, because powers of this magnitude should not operate without accountability. Taken together, these changes significantly improved the bill. They did not remove the need for vigilance, but they brought the legislation closer to the balance that Canadians expect. Cybersecurity is not just about technology. It is about trust.”
“That is exactly why powers like this must be clearly defined, tightly constrained and subject to real accountability. (1345) Conservatives pushed back against that overreach. Through amendments at committee, we forced changes that narrowed the scope of that authority, ensuring that it could not be directed arbitrarily at individual Canadians and that stronger thresholds and clearer limits apply. That is just one example. More broadly, Conservatives worked to fix a pattern of overreach in the bill. We strengthened protections for rights and freedoms by ensuring that lawful expression, political debate and persuasion could not be treated as cybersecurity threats. We made privacy a required consideration, not an afterthought, and strengthened rules around the the collection, use and deletion of personal information.”
“If there are criminals or foreign actors who pose such a serious threat to our security that they must be cut off from essential communications, the bigger question is why they are not already in custody or removed from Canada in the first place. Cybersecurity is about protecting systems from real threats. It is not about giving government a broad and loosely defined power to decide what person keeps their connection and which one loses it. That is not a small, administrative detail. In the wrong hands, it is the kind of power that risks turning cybersecurity into overreach. The government has shown time and again that it will err on the side of overreach, including through the unlawful invocation of the Emergencies Act, for which courts found it exceeded the authority and infringed upon charter-protected freedoms.”
“This is why getting the limits right in legislation like this matters so much. One of the clearest examples of overreach in the original bill was in proposed section 15.2. As it was originally written, the bill would have allowed the minister to prohibit telecommunications providers from offering service to any specified person or direct that the service be suspended. Anyone can understand the difference between securing a network and controlling access to it. Imagine having a government official at every Internet provider, such as the one I worked at three decades ago when I was a teenager, dictating who can and cannot get Internet access. That is not the role of government.”
“They underpin our economy, basic safety systems and national defence. Ensuring their security is not optional; it is essential. Conservatives recognize this. We have constantly said that cybersecurity must be treated as a core component of Canada's national defence strategy. That is why we allowed the bill to come to committee, despite serious concerns about provisions that represented an unacceptable level of government overreach. The only responsible path was to bring it to committee and fix what needed to be fixed. It needed improvement. As originally drafted, Bill C-8 would grant sweeping powers to the government, particularly to the minister, with insufficient safeguards, unclear thresholds and inadequate protections for privacy and freedom of expression. That is not an abstract concern.”
“There is no doubt that cybersecurity is a national security issue. Canada faces increasing threats from hostile actors, including foreign states, criminal organizations and sophisticated cyber networks. These threats target our infrastructure, institutions, businesses and, increasingly, everyday Canadians. Increasingly, the cybersecurity landscape is being reshaped by artificial intelligence. AI is enabling faster, more adaptive cyber-attacks, from automated vulnerability scanning to highly convincing phishing and social engineering. At the same time, it is also strengthening our defences, improving threat detection, anomaly identification and response times across networks. The challenge before us is to ensure our policies keep pace with both sides of that reality. Our telecommunication systems are a critical infrastructure.”
“It was my first real exposure to how these systems actually function behind the scenes, and what struck me early on was how vulnerable people's information could be. There is often an assumption that our information is private by default, but in reality, privacy in digital systems has always been more fragile than people realize. Today, the scale and consequences are far greater. That realization has had a lasting impact and has instilled in me a strong sense of responsibility to treat information with care, respect the trust that people place in the systems they rely on and recognize that privacy does not happen by accident in digital systems. It has to be built in, protected and enforced. That principle has guided me throughout my career, and it is exactly the principle that should guide us today as we consider Bill C-8 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-8 , an act respecting cybersecurity and amending the Telecommunications Act. Before being elected to represent the people of London—Fanshawe, I spent nearly three decades working in the information technology field. I started young. In 1996, at age 16, while still in high school at North Lambton Secondary School in Forest, Ontario, I took my first job with a small local Internet service provider. This was the era of dial-up Internet. Many Canadians remember the sound of connecting, waiting for the signal and slowly getting online. It felt new, exciting and, for many, private. Working on the other side of that connection gave me a very different perspective.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-8 , concerns for privacy and also keeping freedom of expression, which Canadians desire, what safeguards are in place to prevent Liberal government overreach with Bill C-8?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe and also on behalf of my fellow Canadians with concerns about Bill C-9 . The concern is that Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe and the many Canadians who are concerned about Bill C-9 . Canadians are concerned with regard to the amendments to Bill C-9 , which could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.”
“Mr. Speaker, when nearly one-third of the cost of a new home now comes from government taxes and regulatory costs and those costs have increased by more than 700% over 25 years, we cannot ignore the structural drivers of unaffordability. Reducing the GST on new homes, aligning infrastructure funding with approvals and removing policy-driven barriers would allow builders to build at scale. We want more homes. We want to make it easier and more affordable to build them. That is how we restore affordability for young families in London and across Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite's family celebrating the win in Quebec. With regard to the bill, the government absolutely has a role. The government sets tax policy, controls immigration levels, transfers infrastructure funding and sets regulatory frameworks. The question is not whether the government acts. It is whether the government acts in ways that remove barriers or add new layers. We believe a government should remove obstacles to building, not compete with builders.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that I feel that wanting housing built and supporting this bill are also two different things. This bill would expand the federal government into the role of a national developer. It would not reduce development charges. It would not speed up approvals. It would not align immigration with housing capacity. It would not lower the tax burden on new homes. If the problem is cost and supply, expanding government control does not fix what is broken. We are ready to work with real supply reforms. This bill is not that.”
“Let us deliver results, not just rhetoric, because families in London deserve more than another expansion of federal control over housing. They deserve a home.”
“When families face rising daily expenses driven by punishing policies such as the industrial carbon tax, it becomes harder and harder to put money aside for a down payment. High energy, transportation and input costs ripple through the economy and the cost of building as well. Restoring affordability means tackling both sides of the equation, increasing supply and lowering the policy-driven costs that make homes and everyday life more expensive. Housing is too important for structural experiments that do not confront the underlying drivers of unaffordability. The young couple in London does not care which department holds the file. They care about whether they can put down roots, plan for the future and raise their children in the city they love. Let us fix what is actually broken. Let us remove the barriers holding back supply.”
“Infrastructure funding can be tied to measurable increases in housing approval so that municipalities are encouraged to speed up permitting and reduce unnecessary obstacles. Development charges and other local levies that are driving up final sale prices must be addressed. That goal should be simple. When more houses are approved and barriers come down, communities see tangible benefits. At the federal level, tax policy also matters. Reducing the GST on new homes would directly lower the cost to buyers and improve project viability for builders. Unlocking private capital and removing disincentives to reinvest in housing would allow the market to respond at scale. Affordability is not only about the price of a home but also about the ability to save for one.”
“One needs to troubleshoot what is broken, remove the bottlenecks, correct the misalignment and then rebuild it so that it works. That mindset is why I entered public service. What fixes the problem starts with identifying what is actually broken and then fixing it. Conservatives want to work with anyone in the House to restore affordability, but that has to start with an honest look into why young Canadians have been priced out of home ownership. That begins with first principles. If housing is unaffordable because supply is constrained and costs are inflated by policy, then the solution must be to remove those constraints and reduce those costs. Federal tools should be used to align incentives with results.”
“The central question is this: Will expanding the federal government's role as a developer lower the cost of building homes in London and increase supply at the scale we need? (1655) The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that Build Canada Homes will add roughly 5,000 homes per year. The minister has confirmed there are no top-line production targets set. Meanwhile, the government's own outlook projects that housing starts will decline over the next several years. There is a gap between rhetoric and results. When something is not working, adding another layer does not fix the underlying problem. After nearly three decades working in information technology, something I learned first-hand is that when a system fails, it is not solved by adding more complexity.”
“After seeing first-hand how overwhelmed and inefficient parts of the federal system can be, I can tell members that this faith is misplaced. Since I took office, our constituency office has helped thousands of residents navigate basic federal services, many of whom come to us as a last resort after being unable to get timely answers or assistance through the system itself. That experience has made one thing clear: Expanding the size of government does not improve its performance. Canadians do not need government-run grocery chains, and they certainly do not need government acting as a national housing developer. Canadians need conditions that allow supply to increase, competition to work and costs to come down.”
“Now we are presented with Bill C-20 . At its core, this legislation would significantly expand the role of the federal government by turning it into a direct participant in the housing market, acting much like a national developer with broad authority to finance, acquire and manage housing projects. Instead of focusing on removing barriers so that builders can build, it places the government deeper into the business of building itself. This approach is not unique. We are hearing similar arguments from voices within the NDP leadership race, suggesting that government should enter other sectors as well, whether that is grocery stores, banking or telecommunications. It reflects a growing faith that whenever a market struggles, the answer is for government to take over.”
“Builders are telling us clearly that current cost pressures and regulatory burdens are making it harder, not easier, to bring new homes to market. Housing starts are projected to decline in the coming years, and the share of homes intended for ownership has fallen. For years, Conservatives warned that the housing market was heading in the wrong direction. When the Liberals finally acknowledged that there was a housing crisis, their default response, under the previous prime minister and with the support of the NDP, was the same response we have seen time and again when challenges arise. It was to expand the role of government, with more programs, more spending and more federal control. However, affordability declined, home ownership fell and confidence was eroded. Canadians do not need more announcements; they need more homes.”
“Any economist will tell us that what happens when demand rises while supply lags behind is that prices go up. On top of that, the cost of building has risen sharply across the country. According to the Canadian Home Builders' Association, government taxes and regulatory costs now make up nearly one-third of the price of a new home. That was not always the case. Over the last 25 years, those taxes and regulatory costs have increased by more than 700%. Development charges, fees and regulatory levies are not marginal add-ons. In many communities, they represent a substantial portion of the final sale price before a family ever receives the keys. Layer upon layer of government-imposed costs and approval delays are built directly into what buyers are forced to pay.”
“That is the reality facing families in London, and that is what this bill must address. The housing crisis did not happen because the Liberal government failed to expand its role in housing enough. It happened because housing supply did not keep pace with the surge in demand created by government policy. Over the last decade, the government dramatically increased immigration levels without ensuring that the housing supply could keep up. The result was predictable: Demand surged, supply lagged and prices were pushed beyond the reach of young Canadians. Housing capacity was never aligned with immigration policy. This is a supply and demand problem driven by inadequate housing construction and immigration levels that were never aligned with housing capacity.”
“Mr. Speaker, a couple in their thirties here in London both work hard. They did what they were told to do. They saved. They planned. They imagined buying a home and starting a family in the city where they grew up. However, over the past several years, home prices surged far beyond what they could realistically keep up with. The down payment required moved further and further out of reach. The life they pictured for themselves, a home, stability and children growing up near grandparents, began to feel uncertain. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair shot. The government's own housing agency, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in its latest housing market outlook, projects that prices are expected to continue rising in the years ahead because we are not building enough homes to meet demand.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect, despite government announcements and staged photo ops, the data clearly shows that we are not building enough homes to meet Canada's needs. An insufficient supply of new homes is why CMHC expects prices to keep rising. Just this week I also met with London members of the Canadian Home Builders' Association, and they informed me that taxes and regulatory costs have risen 700% over 25 years and now make up 30% of the price of a new home. At what point will the government acknowledge these burdens and adopt our plan to remove GST on new homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dream of home ownership is fading for young Canadians. CMHC now warns that homebuilding will fall over the next three years, with 2028 housing starts projected to be down 18% compared to 2025, even as prices continue to rise. At the same time, nearly half of young Canadians say they are being forced to leave the communities they were raised in because they cannot afford to live there. When will the government adopt our plan to remove the GST on all new homes and restore the dream of home ownership for young Canadians?”