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 4 of 6.
“We urge other parties to do the same and focus on delivering solutions that ease affordability pressures for seniors and families.”
“Mr. Speaker, across Canada, seniors are feeling the pressure of rising costs in very real ways. One of my constituents recently told me she feels like the walls are closing in, as her fixed income is stretched further each month. This is why Conservatives are focused on practical solutions that would help bring costs down and restore stability for seniors and their families. Conservatives have constantly put forward constructive ideas and reached out to work with other parties, including through opposition motions that offer real, workable solutions. The recent meeting between the leader of the official opposition and the Prime Minister underscores the urgency of this work. Canadians are looking for results, not rhetoric. Conservatives will always set aside differences to find common ground when it will lead to real results for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I am standing in the House of Commons since the tragic event that happened on Tuesday, February 10. On behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe, our thoughts and prayers go to the community of Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. I would also like to ask a question of my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Despite the Liberal government's commitment of $52 billion to an EV supply chain, most vehicles made and sold in Canada remain gas powered, so that policy would reward countries that already dominate EV production. Could my colleague please expand on this concern, which could affect many Canadians?”
“What it would do is remove an outcome that most Canadians would reasonably view as unfair. It would prevent families from facing sudden loss of support as a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control and would ensure that existing benefits would continue as originally approved. That is an appropriate role for legislation. When the application of a rule produces a result that clearly conflicts with fairness and common sense, Parliament has an obligation to intervene. Doing so does not require sweeping reform. It requires attention to detail and a willingness to correct what is not working as intended. Conservatives support this bill at second reading, and we will continue to approach it with the same focus, addressing real problems carefully, responsibly and without creating new ones.”
“When a parent pays into EI, there is a reasonable expectation that the system will operate consistently. When that parent dies while on leave, the family loses both emotional support and future income at the same time. Grief should not trigger a retroactive penalty. For that reason, Conservatives intend to work constructively to strengthen this legislation so that it responds fairly in all tragic circumstances, not just in some. Supporting a bill and seeking to improve it are not contradictory positions. They are both part of responsible law-making. Bill C-222 would move us in that direction. It addresses a specific and identifiable gap in the law and does so in a way that is limited and focused. It does not attempt to redefine the employment insurance system or expand its scope beyond what is already intended.”
“Members of our caucus have encountered cases where a family lost a parent and then faced demands from the government to repay benefits that had already been paid. In these cases, the parent had paid into the employment insurance system. The family relied on the benefits in good faith and the surviving family faced immediate financial hardship because the parent who would have returned to work was no longer there. It is difficult to justify a system that responds to such a tragedy by clawing back support. Loss in those circumstances is already overwhelming. Adding financial shock to emotional devastation does not serve the public interest. This is not about creating open-ended entitlements or expanding benefits indefinitely. It is about fairness and predictability.”
“It would recognize that there are circumstances where the rigid application of existing rules can produce outcomes that do not reflect fairness or common sense, and where modest legislative clarification can prevent unnecessary harm. There are moments when a rigid application of rules can produce outcomes that are technically correct but fundamentally wrong. The death of a child is one of those moments. In these circumstances, systems should bend toward people in crisis, not away from them. At the same time, supporting this bill would not mean ignoring the fact that another serious gap remains. While Bill C-222 would address what happens when a child dies during a benefit or leave period, it would not address the situation when a parent dies while on maternity or parental leave.”
“It is a system Canadians pay into with the understanding that it will provide stability when life takes an unexpected and difficult turn. At its core, the purpose of insurance is continuity. It is meant to create a measure of certainty in uncertain times and to ensure that people are not forced into immediate decisions at the very point when they are least able to make them. (1355) In situations of profound loss, the role of employment insurance is not to introduce new complexity, but to provide predictability and breathing room while people recover and regain their footing. Bill C-222 is ultimately about ensuring that in moments of genuine hardship the employment insurance system functions as it was intended.”
“Moments like this also remind us of the broader purpose of this place. While we will always have disagreements on policy and priorities, there are issues where our shared humanity must take precedence. When legislation speaks directly to loss, grief and compassion, it calls on all of us to respond with decency and care. Bill C-222 matters because it would remove an added burden at a moment of profound grief. It recognizes that grief does not follow administrative timelines. It recognizes that families should not be forced to make immediate employment decisions or navigate complex paperwork while they are mourning the death of a child. Employment insurance exists for moments when circumstances beyond a person's control interrupt their ability to work.”
“I want to pause briefly to acknowledge the work that has been done on this issue by Conservative colleagues in previous Parliaments. In particular, the member for Airdrie—Cochrane brought forward work that helped prompt serious examination of how employment insurance and related federal programs respond when families experience the loss of a child, including through committee study and parliamentary debate. I also want to recognize the contributions of the member for Calgary Shepard , whose voice on this issue has carried a depth and gravity that speaks to real experience, and whose work has constantly stood with families facing devastating loss. Those efforts helped move this issue forward and contributed meaningfully to bringing it to the point where Parliament is now in a position to act.”
“It would simply allow families to continue under the framework already in place, without being forced into sudden decisions or administrative hurdles during a period of grief. That is the reasonable and compassionate approach, one that deserves the support of the House. Conservatives support Bill C-222 at second reading. At this stage, the House is being asked to agree with the principle of the bill, not to resolve every detail. We believe grieving families should not face unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles. We believe the employment insurance system should operate predictably and fairly. We believe committee study provides the appropriate forum to ensure that the legislation is as clear, workable and compassionate as possible.”
“That outcome is not compassionate, reasonable or what Canadians expect from a system that is meant to support families during times of hardship. The bill before us provides a straightforward and humane response. It would allow parents who are already receiving EI, or maternity or parental benefits, to continue receiving those benefits for the remainder of the approved period, even after their child dies. It would also ensure that maternity or parental leave under the Canada Labour Code is not abruptly terminated in those circumstances. This legislation would not create new benefits. It would not extend leave beyond existing limits. It would not expand eligibility or introduce new categories of support.”
“Under the current rules, parents who are receiving employment insurance, or maternity or parental benefits, can lose access to those benefits if their child dies during the benefit period. In some cases, they are required to return to work immediately. In other cases, families are required to navigate a transition to a different benefit altogether with new eligibility criteria, new documentation requirements and new timelines. That can mean completing forms, meeting deadlines and learning unfamiliar rules, all while dealing with the immediate aftermath of a loss. This issue is about not only the loss of support but also timing. These administrative demands arise at precisely the moment when families are least equipped to respond to them.”
“Madam Speaker, Bill C-222 deals with one of the most devastating experiences a family can face. The death of a child is a moment that reshapes everything for parents and families. It is a moment of shock, grief and profound loss, and it is not something that follows a schedule or fits neatly into administrative categories. In moments like those, the role of Parliament should be clear. Our systems should provide stability rather than uncertainty, compassion rather than pressure, and clarity rather than confusion. When families are at their most vulnerable, government should not become another burden they are forced to carry. Bill C-222 responds to a real and long-standing gap in federal law.”
“Mr. Speaker, food inflation in Canada is now 6.2%, the highest in the G7. The 2026 food price report shows that it now costs over $17,000 a year, $1,000 more, to feed a family of four. Those costs do not appear by accident. Their industrial carbon tax, fuel standard tax and food packaging tax all work to increase the cost to grow, ship and sell food. Conservatives are ready to fast-track proposals to reverse inflation. Will the Liberals immediately introduce legislation to scrap these taxes, boost grocery competition and cut the red tape for farmers?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians to judge him by their experience at the grocery store. Well, eight months later, that judgment is clear and devastating. When the Liberals took office in 2015, the weekly grocery bill was $159. Today it has more than doubled to $338, over $17,500 a year, and the 2026 food price report released yesterday confirms that Canadians will pay another $1,000 next year, the largest increase in years. In London the impact is severe. Nearly 10,000 people in the region have turned to food banks, totalling more than 45,000 visits. Across Ontario, food bank use continues to climb, and for the first time, nearly one in four food bank users is employed. Having a job no longer guarantees food security in Canada. Canadians are hungry, and they cannot afford the Liberal government anymore.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing from the constituents in London—Fanshawe is that people are not asking for more Ottawa spin. They are asking why, after a decade of record spending, it is harder than ever to buy a home, pay the rent or afford groceries. When I speak to the families, I hear exhaustion. I hear people telling me they have cut every corner they can and still cannot keep up. That is why I am focused on the cost of living and the impact of this budget implementation bill on real families, not on the polished narratives the Liberal government reads into the record.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his response to the budget, I think it is actually quite concerning that there are some issues that he sees with the proposed budget, but I am here on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe. It is my responsibility to the people who cannot afford another round of government experiments. They are not asking for more bureaucracy or more glossy announcements. They are asking for a plan that makes life affordable again. The bottom line of this bill is higher debt, higher interest costs and higher prices.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate Bill C-15 , the budget implementation act. I am the member of Parliament for London—Fanshawe and part of the official opposition. The democratic process is to openly debate proposed legislation on behalf of all Canadians. I am here to repeat what I hear from my constituents. They see a $70-billion deficit, rising debt servicing costs and an industrial carbon tax that makes everything more expensive. They see neighbours being forced to go to food banks and young people giving up on home ownership. They do not feel the government's so-called historic investments; they feel higher bills, higher taxes and higher anxiety about the future. That is the reality I am bringing to the House.”
“We believe that Canadians deserve a hopeful future, one where young people can own a home, where seniors can live with dignity and where every person who works hard can get ahead. This budget implementation bill would not deliver that future. It would deliver higher costs, higher debt and a heavier burden on the next generation. Conservatives will continue fighting for an affordable life and a hopeful future for every person in this country.”
“This budget also falls short on the most basic measure of public policy: Does it make life more affordable? The answer is no. Food bank usage is at record highs. Housing costs are the highest in the G7. Investment is collapsing. Families are doing everything right by working, saving and budgeting, yet they are somehow falling behind. This budget was supposed to help; instead it pours fuel on the fire. Conservatives are not here simply to say no. We offered a constructive alternative. During second reading, our caucus introduced a reasoned amendment that would move Canada toward an affordable life by ending the industrial carbon tax, cutting wasteful spending, bringing down debt and inflation, unlocking our energy potential and clearing away the red tape slowing homebuilding across this country.”
“Families still pay the costs through higher grocery bills, higher homebuilding costs and higher prices on nearly everything they need. It is carbon tax 2.0 dressed up as a responsible policy, and it continues to punish the very people who can least afford it. This budget does not fix that. It keeps the industrial tax on construction materials, making homes more expensive to build. It backs away from the government's own promise to help municipalities cut development charges, even though those charges can add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home. If a government wants more housing built, it should not make building it more expensive, and if a government wants to restore the Canadian promise of home ownership, it should not raise costs at every step of the process.”
“He works hard, he saves what he can and he still feels like he is running up a down escalator. That is what a decade of rising prices and falling opportunity has done to an entire generation. This budget does not fix that. It keeps the industrial carbon tax in place, the very tax that makes construction materials more expensive and drives up the cost of building homes across this country. For years the Liberal government championed the failed consumer carbon tax. Canadians rejected it; they made it clear they wanted nothing to do with it. The new Prime Minister arrived, promising change, but instead of listening, his status quo government simply shifted the same costs out of sight. They call it industrial pricing, but it is the same agenda of making everything more expensive, only hidden further up the supply chain.”
“The Prime Minister has nearly doubled the deficit left by his predecessor. (1555) Nothing in this budget suggests that the government has learned from its mistakes or intends to take long-term economic stability seriously. The consequences of that failure will not be paid by the people making these decisions today but by young Canadians who will carry this weight for years to come. Families in London—Fanshawe cannot absorb any more of these costs, and they should not have to. Not long ago, a young man told me something that stayed with me. He said that he has stopped thinking about buying a home in the usual way. Instead of planning, saving and building toward that goal, he now feels that his only realistic path to home ownership is to one day inherit his parents' house. He said it not out of impatience but out of genuine discouragement.”
“It does not account for the future spending pressures the government continues to create with out-of-control budgets like the current one. With no credible plan to rein in costs or restore discipline, there is every indication that this number will keep growing year after year. The debt load Canadians are carrying today is only the beginning. Without a change in direction, it will continue to rise, pushing more of every tax dollar away from the services Canadians rely on and into interest payments on past decisions. This is not fiscal responsibility; it is the cost of a decade of overspending: a decade of pushing the envelope further and further rather than showing restraint, and a decade of ignoring long-term consequences while digging future generations deeper into debt.”
“Its previous fiscal anchor is gone. Its new one, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has only a 7.5% chance of being met. That is not a plan; it is wishful thinking backed by borrowed money, and borrowed money has consequences. This year's deficit is $78 billion, $16 billion more than the government promised, and double what its predecessor delivered. Next year, interest on the debt will hit $55.6 billion. That is more than the government will transfer to provinces for health care, and it is comparable to all the GST revenue Canadians pay. Every dollar of GST essentially goes to servicing debt, not to supporting Canadians or providing essential services. The massive debt burden reflects only what has already been spent and accumulated in the past.”
“We are also hearing these concerns from leaders in the Canadian tech sector. Tobi Lütke, founder and CEO of Shopify, one of Canada's most successful technology companies, recently warned that taxpayer-funded subsidies for foreign branch offices do not strengthen Canada's economy at all. He says that these subsidies lower the cost basis for foreign firms and are “toxic” to our tech economy because the “fruits of the subsidized labour will accrue to the wealth of other countries and not Canada.” When the government pours money into subsidies that distort markets instead of strengthening our own economic foundations, Canadians pay twice, once through their taxes and again through lost opportunity. It gets worse. Even with those redefined numbers, the government will not balance its operating budget over the next five years.”
“When fiscal anchors are abandoned or quietly replaced, the result is not an academic debate; it is higher debt, higher interest costs and higher prices for the families I represent. These details matter because they help explain why life keeps getting more expensive for people in communities like London—Fanshawe. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer exposed what the government tried to hide: By expanding the definition of capital spending far beyond international standards, the government counted corporate subsidies and tax breaks as investment. However, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer applied the proper definition, the supposed capital investment dropped by $94 billion. That is not a small discrepancy; it is a massive credibility gap, and it tells Canadians that the government is not being straight with them.”
“They are also talking about the reality facing young people in our region, where youth unemployment is at levels that have not been seen in years. Families worry that their kids will not have the opportunities they had, and young people worry that they are starting behind and falling further behind every month. This is where the budget lands, right in the middle of family budgets already stretched to the breaking point. The government would like Canadians to believe its accounting changes are just technical adjustments, but they are not. The government redefined capital spending, but not because it discovered a new economic insight; it redefined it by dressing up spending as an investment, and when budgets are dressed up instead of disciplined, Canadians end up paying more.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe to speak to Bill C-15 . The budget implementation bill seeks to carry out a narrowly passed budget that the Liberal government tried to sell as a generational investment bill. In reality it is a generational debt that will leave young people with higher costs, fewer opportunities and a heavier financial burden for years to come. In my community, people are not talking about capital classification or fiscal modelling; they are talking about everyday life. They are talking about how hard it has become to make a paycheque last. They are talking about standing in the grocery aisle hoping that the total stays below what is left in their account and trying to decide what has to go back on the shelf.”
“Workers pay for it twice: once through higher taxes and again through the hidden inflation tax that follows the massive deficits and drives up the cost of everything. Families in London deserve better than a system rigged for insiders. Conservatives will fight for fairness.”
“Madam Speaker, Canadians pay their taxes and expect fairness, but surprise, surprise, the Prime Minister 's budget did nothing to inconvenience powerful corporations like Brookfield and prevent them from enjoying Canada's two-tier tax system. Canadians cannot ignore that not long before taking office, the Prime Minister served as the chair of Brookfield, a senior position of a company now known for pushing tax avoidance to the max. During an ethics committee meeting, we heard that Brookfield is the most aggressive tax-avoider in the country, shifting profits into offshore havens and dodging $6.5 billion in Canadian taxes. While the government protects these loopholes, it saddles Canadians with the biggest budget in our history.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's costly credit card budget piles today's reckless spending onto tomorrow's taxpayers. After 10 years of Liberal budgets' failing to balance themselves, Canadians now put nearly 50% more of their expenses on credit cards. Fitch warns that federal finances are at high risk of further deterioration because the government keeps blowing past its own fiscal anchors, and the fiscal watchdog says there is less than a 10% chance the government will keep to its spending promises. It is no wonder the Prime Minister wants to fire him. How many more fiscal watchdog reports will it take for the Prime Minister to finally rein in his credit card spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the member opposite; I am not familiar with the Jordan bill, and I was not here during the 44th Parliament. Regarding Bill C-14 , I do want to mention that police chiefs and stakeholders were consulted widely, but these consultations are not the same as action. Police chiefs have been calling for real bail reform for years. Communities have been saying the same thing. The government is only now agreeing that Bill C-75 created serious problems. Bill C-14 picks up a few pieces, but it does not address the core issue. The principle of restraint is still there, but an automatic release is still the culture. Listening means action and acting on time, not years later.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, I do agree that with the Conservatives' proposal, we would have gotten a lot further dealing with the issues at hand, which are courtesy of the Liberals' Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 . I also want to expand on what I was discussing earlier. Bill C-14 would expand reverse onus for violent offences. Expanding reverse onus is better than doing nothing. The issue is that reverse onus still operates inside the same framework the Liberals created with Bill C-75 , where release is still the normal outcome. For people with long, violent histories and repeated breaches, the starting point should be public safety. Bill C-14 does not make that shift, and that is why Conservatives want a real presumption of detention for serious repeat violent offenders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I feel personally offended with regard to making this a partisan issue. Canadian safety is what is being discussed here, especially with regard to the justice system. What I want to add, though, is that Bill C-14 does not go far enough, but it has support, because London—Fanshawe cannot afford more delays while Parliament debates the perfect solution. I am supporting Bill C-14 at second reading because people like me are asking for change right now, but supporting a bill to move forward does not mean pretending it fixes the core problems created by Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 . It simply means I want the bill to reach committee, where it can be strengthened. Londoners want real safety, not half measures, and I will be pushing for real improvements. To add to that, Bill C-14 expands reverse onus for violent offences.”
“Bill C-14 does not go far enough, but we will work to strengthen that. We will work to rebuild safety and trust in our communities. We will stand up for victims, families and every person who deserves to feel safe in the place they call home.”
“Conservatives will support Bill C-14 at second reading because it moves in the right direction, but we will work to make it stronger. We will push to repeal the principle of restraint. We will push to restore public safety as the main consideration. We will push to bring back mandatory minimums for serious violent crimes. We will push to expand ineligibility for house arrest. We will push to create a real presumption of detention for repeat violent offenders. We will push to ensure that judges must consider full criminal histories and outstanding charges. People in London—Fanshawe want to feel safe. They want to know that violent repeat offenders will not be released without meaningful safeguards. They want a justice system that protects them, supports victims and holds dangerous individuals accountable.”
“Under this plan, violent offenders face a presumption of detention instead of release. People who reportedly break conditions do not get an endless sequence of chances. Serious crimes like sexual offences, robbery, human trafficking, kidnapping, arson and major firearms offences cannot be handled through conditional sentences or house arrest; judges must consider full criminal history every time. People with serious criminal records cannot act as guarantors, non-residents who may flee must surrender passports, and consequences for breaking bail conditions must be automatic. These reforms reflect what people expect from a justice system that protects them. They line up with what Londoners tell me they want, they match what police officers across the country say they need, and they reflect a simple principle: Safety must come first.”
“Bill C-14 says restraint does not guarantee release, but it leaves the same framework in place. It keeps public safety as an afterthought, rather than the starting point. It does not create a true presumption of detention for violent or repeat offenders. It does not restore mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent crimes. It does not require judges to treat a long record of violence as the serious risk it is. It does not address the concerns raised by police services, including those raised in London, that the system continues to function as an open door for offenders who pose real danger. This is exactly why Conservatives have put forward a practical solution through our jail, not bail plan, a plan built to close that open door and put public safety back at the centre of bail decisions.”
“The bill would introduce a few measures that move in the right direction: It would expand some reverse onus rules, add new aggravating factors and make limited adjustments to sentencing. (1615) Police services appreciate any help they can get, but these steps alone do not solve the underlying problems. The core issues remain untouched. Bill C-14 does not repeal the principle of restraint introduced in Bill C-75 . That principle directs judges that if they choose to release someone, they must impose the least strict conditions possible. The instruction sits at the heart of the entire catch-and-release system. It remains embedded in the culture of bail decisions across Canada, and it continues to shape outcomes in a way that leaves communities exposed to unnecessary risk.”
“The chief of police has called for urgent bail reform and tougher penalties for people who commit serious violent offences, making it clear that the status quo is failing the very people it is supposed to protect. He has insisted that it is time to move toward a jail not bail approach that reflects the reality officers and communities are facing every single day. The warnings did not begin this year; they have been raised constantly by police chiefs, frontline officers, survivors of crime, mayors and community leaders. For 10 years, my Conservative colleagues have been raising these same concerns in the House, calling for stronger bail reform, while the Liberals ignored everyone sounding the alarm. Now, with Bill C-14 , the government is finally acknowledging that the system it created through legislation like Bill C-75 has failed.”
“Neighbours who once left their doors unlocked now obsessively check them throughout the day. These experiences are real, and they weigh heavily on people who simply want to feel safe in their own community. London's chief of police has spoken clearly about this. He has said that the current system is broken and that violent repeat crime is a symptom of a much larger problem in our justice system. He has stressed that communities are being put at risk when individuals with serious histories are released without meaningful safeguards and that Londoners are paying the price for decisions that fail to account for real patterns of violent behaviour.”
“Officers tell me about the frustration of seeing the same individuals arrested on a Monday, released on the Tuesday and back in custody by the end of the week for another violent offence. This is not a theoretical problem; it is a day-to-day reality for the people tasked with keeping our communities safe, and they are asking Parliament to finally give them a system that works. In London, the effects are clear. Communities that once felt predictable and safe now report rising incidents of property damage, violent behaviour and threatening encounters. Residents describe feeling uneasy on evening walks that used to feel routine. Families talk about being more cautious about where their children go after school. People who finish work late tell me they feel anxious waiting for transit or walking through parking lots.”
“Community groups, victims' advocates and frontline workers have pleaded for change because they see first-hand what happens when warnings are ignored. These voices deserve to be heard. They deserve a justice system that supports them instead of leaving them to pick up the pieces. For nearly a decade, Canada's bail and sentencing laws have been shaped by Liberal Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 . These bills weakened deterrence, reduced meaningful consequences for serious crimes and told judges to prioritize release. They created a system that made it easier for repeat violent offenders to walk free. Police services across the country have been dealing with the consequences ever since. When I speak with frontline officers, they describe the same pattern: a number of prolific offenders cycling through the system without meaningful consequences.”
“In recent weeks, I have attended town hall meetings alongside colleagues in nearby communities, and I am hearing the same stories and frustrations all around London and beyond. People everywhere are dealing with the same patterns, the same risks and the same reality: Repeat offenders are being pushed through a system that releases them by default. When we look at Canada-wide data, we see that these concerns reflect a national trend that has been growing for years. Across Canada, we have seen the consequences of a system that defaults to release. We have seen heartbreaking cases where individuals with a long history of violence were released, only to commit another serious offence days or even hours later. Families across the country have endured tragedies that should never have happened.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-14 on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe. Every week when I speak with residents across my riding, I hear concerns about how crime is affecting their daily life. People tell me that they no longer feel the same comfort and predictability they once felt in their own neighbourhood. They talk about rising incidents of crime in their community and about a justice system that feels too quick to release the same offenders again and again. People ask why the consequences for serious and repeat violent crimes seem weaker than ever. These concerns are felt especially in the east end of London, in the community I represent. However, it is no longer just an east London problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve straight answers about how their money is being spent. The public accounts list more than $173,000 in expenses over just nine days by the Liberal member for London West during her brief time as the government House leader, and Parliament was not even sitting. That is $19,000 a day, even though her publicly documented activities were routine ceremonial stops or partisan events in London, not House leader work in Ottawa. Will the Liberals table a full breakdown for these charges to allow Canadians to understand how this is even possible?”
“Conservatives stand for an affordable budget and an affordable life. Londoners deserve hope, homes and a future they can afford.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberal government released its 10th budget, the costliest deficit outside COVID and double what the Prime Minister ’s predecessor left behind. The Prime Minister broke every promise he made. He promised to keep the deficit at $62 billion, a level the Parliamentary Budget Officer had already called “unsustainable”, yet it has now ballooned to $80 billion. He said that he would lower the debt-to-GDP ratio, but both debt and inflation are rising. He promised to spend less, but he added $90 billion more; that is $5,400 in extra inflationary spending per household. Families in London are paying the price. Groceries, gas, rent and mortgages keep climbing while paycheques fall further behind. Canadians already spend more on debt interest than on health care. The budget at this time is simply irresponsible.”