Michael Guglielmin
Vaughan—Woodbridge, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this up. The Prime Minister says affordability is the best it has been in a decade. Then ministers in the House rise and take credit for programs they implemented to address all the damage they caused. Their promised surveillance pricing legislation to lower grocery costs will not even take effect before 2028.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that affordability is the best it has been in a decade, but full-time workers are living in RVs and trailers because they cannot afford a home. Families are spending over 120% of their income on rent and food alone. People are even skipping surgeries and other major life events just to survive.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 1952, a courageous 21-year-old woman left her small town in Treviso, Italy, with her father by her side. They boarded a train bound for Genoa. From there, alone, she stepped onto a ship and began that now famous journey across the Atlantic, arriving at Pier 21 in Halifax.”
“Around her table, with a simple tablecloth, good food, candlelight and loved ones gathered close, she showed us what truly mattered. This Italian Heritage Month, I honour all Italian-Canadian nonni , especially my Nonna Olga, whose courage, integrity and love continue to guide us.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Now the Liberals want Canadians arguing over labels: technical recession, marginal recession, full recession. Even the Prime Minister himself admitted a technical recession and a recession are the same thing.”
“Canadians have worked hard, played by the rules and done everything asked of them. They should not be falling further behind because the government cannot control its spending. Canadians need a serious plan to restore growth, protect paycheques and bring hope back to the Canadian economy.”
The complete record
Every one of 299 lines we hold for Michael Guglielmin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 6.
“We support treaty rights and reconciliation. We support self-determination and self-government for first nations, Inuit and Métis. We do not question the sincerity of indigenous partners who see the bill as a way to hold Ottawa accountable. Our concern is that Bill C-10 answers a problem of implementation with more bureaucracy and less accountability. We need accountability in the government to actually meet our treaty obligations. To understand why that matters, it is worth recalling where modern treaties come from and what they are meant to fix. Treaty rights in Canada go back to the earliest relationships between the Crown and indigenous nations, through the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the historic peace and friendship treaties, and the numbered treaties that cover much of western and northern Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in this chamber on behalf of the people of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Today, we are debating Bill C-10 , the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. The bill would create a new officer of Parliament supported by a new federal office, with a mandate to review and audit how federal departments implement modern treaties. The commissioner would examine the performance of government institutions and present findings in Parliament. The stated goal is to improve how Canada lives up to its obligations under modern treaties. The bill is presented as a measure in the federal action plan to implement UNDRIP and respond to a long-standing frustration that Canada often signs agreements and then fails to deliver on them. Those frustrations are very real. Conservatives recognize that.”
“Madam Speaker, every time the Prime Minister talks trade, it seems Brookfield comes out ahead and Canadians get left behind. He travels to Washington, and Brookfield gets an $80-billion nuclear deal. He travels to the U.K., and Brookfield gets money from the European Space Agency. He hosts Swedish royalty in Canada, and Brookfield announces an AI deal even before they land back in Stockholm. Now the Prime Minister is forcing Alberta to put money into carbon capture programs in exchange for a pipeline, and guess who has a major stake in the sector. It is Brookfield. When the Prime Minister said he would build at a scale not seen in generations, did he really mean just for Brookfield?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been pretty clear on that. We are not supporting this budget because it doubles the deficit. It adds over $320 billion to the national debt. That is money we could be paying to health care transfers. It is more money than we collect from GST. There could be more money for programs that people need. Instead, we are mortgaging away the future of our children and our grandchildren, the future of this great country, and we are running roughshod over those who came before us to set us up for success.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing hope. We hear it at the doors every single day. People are finding it harder and harder to get ahead. We see the statistics. There are 2.2 million people lining up at food banks. Can members believe that? In this great country, 2.2 million people are lining up at food banks and 700,000 of them are children. Young people cannot find jobs. They cannot afford housing. When we meet with people in industry and ask how we can attract more investment into this country, we hear the same thing over and over again: The environmental conditions for business to flourish are not there. We are overly regulated and overly taxed, and we need to repeal these measures to make Canada a more competitive country again.”
“Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns. This budget is typical of a Liberal government. It promises everything and delivers nothing. We have never seen a budget that spends so much money and delivers almost nothing for individuals, nothing tangible. Could we expect any more? We have been living this nightmare for the last 10 years. There is so much more that could have been done to create the conditions, including the environmental conditions, to see our economy prosper. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has underdelivered as it always does.”
“Mr. Speaker, for years now, we have been hearing that investments will equal growth, but all we have is more debt and a slower economy. Second, the government often loves to talk about net debt. The Liberals selectively use the term net debt versus growth debt measures, and they tend to ignore provincial and subnational debt. When we take those into consideration, as a lot of other countries do for health care and education expenditures, we learn that our debt is actually among the worst in the G7. I will not support a budget that adds increasingly more burdens on Canadians and straps future generations with debt.”
“I voted against this budget and will keep pressing for a direction that restores discipline, creates room for investments and gives young Canadians a reason to believe that the country's best days are ahead of it, not behind.”
“We get the new Defence Investment Agency, another organization headquartered in the capital, instead of procurement reform that would let Canadian firms deliver ships, planes and equipment on time and on budget. My greatest concern is not just what this budget does to today's economy, but what it does to tomorrow's Canadians. Future generations have no vote on this budget, but they will live with its consequences. They will inherit a country where more and more of every tax dollar goes to bureaucracy instead of hospitals, instead of homes, instead of innovation and instead of jobs. (1255) Conservatives believe in a different path, a path where government lives within its means so that Canadians can live within theirs.”
“Why did they not steal our plan to remove the GST off all home purchases under $1.3 million, not just for the first-time homebuyer? This same instinct shows up in productivity. The Bank of Canada has warned that Canada is stuck in what it calls a “vicious circle of weak productivity”, a systemic problem that makes it harder to meet today's challenges and seize tomorrow's opportunities. The deputy governor has pointed out that regulatory burden and lack of competition are key drags on growth and has urged thoughtful, systematic efforts to reduce those barriers, yet this budget responds to productivity and regulatory issues by creating even more bureaucracy. We get the new Major Projects Office, layered on top of existing departments and regulations, instead of a real fix for the broken impact assessment rules of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 .”
“During their election campaign in the spring, the Liberals promised to cut these charges in half. In the budget, that promise simply disappeared. There is no concrete plan to cut these costs, just frameworks, negotiations and more processes. On housing, the government's answer is yet another bureaucracy: Build Canada Homes. It is as if the government wants our children to be renters forever. Do the Liberals want us to forget about the Canadian ideal of actually owning a home? It sure seems that way. Instead of billions on housing measures that will not work, why do they not listen to industry? Why did they not listen to the municipalities and help support the reduction of fees and taxes that are preventing builders from building and keeping the price of homes out of reach?”
“Before the election, the government promised to build half a million homes a year. Today, we are not even close. Home starts have cratered. From January to October, we have barely seen 200,000 starts nationwide. In the GTA, new home sales have collapsed. Compared with the recent 10-year average, single-family home sales are down by more than half. Condo sales are down by far more. Developers are laying off workers, projects are being shelved and young families are stuck. Plumbers, electricians, contractors and tradespeople are all feeling the pressure. Development charges and the hidden taxes on new housing, coupled with GST and HST, can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home in the GTA. The cost of government now makes up roughly 30% to 40% of the price of a new home in the GTA.”
“Just six months ago, they were promised something completely different from the government. They were promised a $62-billion deficit, which is already high enough, not a $78-billion one. They were promised a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but it is rising, and less spending, not $90 billion more. They were promised fiscal anchors that would not be discarded in a matter of months. What people voted for and what they got are not the same thing, but is anyone surprised? They have been living this nightmare for the last decade. I would like to move into the direct impact of this budget, because the damage caused by this recklessness is not just abstract. In my community of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across the GTA, the housing crisis is the sharpest edge of these failed policies.”
“Under this budget, interest costs alone will reach more than $55 billion this year and grow toward $76 billion by the end of the decade. That will be more than we send to provinces for health care and more than we collect in GST. (1250) Fitch Ratings has already warned that the budget's massive spending increases and debt burden weaken Canada's credit profile and underscore what it calls “the erosion of the federal government’s finances.” It notes that because fiscal rules are non-binding, “federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration.” Tax expert Kim Moody described this as “a horrible budget that will cripple our future generations.” As he put it, “The good parts are minor cameos, the bad dominates the middle, and the ugly rides off with our future saddled in debt.” Canadians did not vote for this.”
“According to the PBO, if we were to use the widely accepted definition, so-called capital investment would actually be $94 billion lower and operating expenses would be higher over the next five years than what the government claims. Under that more honest definition, the operating budget never actually balances at all. Regardless of the fact the Liberals are trying to mislead Canadians to make it seem like they are competent stewards of the public treasury, debt is debt, and no matter how they cook the books, they are still adding an insane amount of money to the public debt. Creditors do not care which column the government hides it in. Every dollar the government borrows must be paid back with interest.”
“This means the anchors were not actually anchors after all. Instead of fixing the problem, the government has tried to redefine it. In order to make the claim the Liberals will be balancing the operating budget, they have quietly rewritten what counts as capital spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been very clear. This new definition of capital investment is “overly expansive”, and it goes far beyond what is used in our own public accounts and beyond international practice, including the system of national accounts, an internationally agreed upon standard for compiling measures of economic activity that is used in countries like the United Kingdom. By shifting tax expenditures, investment tax credits and operating subsidies over to the capital column, the government makes day-to-day spending look smaller on paper.”
“It is roughly $10 million in new debt every hour of every day. That is not renewal. This is indeed acceleration of the worst instincts of a Liberal government that has been in power for far too long. It is a government with no actual plan to get this country back on track. The budget implementation act, which we are debating today, would lock this path in. Canadians were told there would be fiscal anchors. The Prime Minister promised to balance the operating budget within three years to ensure a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio and a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer now says there is only about a 7.5% chance of meeting even the first of those anchors. He has testified that there is a low probability the government will respect any of its own targets.”
“Canadians were then told that a new prime minister, the current Prime Minister , a former central banker, would restore stability. They were promised a steady hand, fiscal responsibility and a break from the decade of recklessness. Budget 2025 proves the opposite. The deficit that helped topple the last Liberal government has now been doubled. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects deficits averaging over $64 billion a year for the next five years. Public debt has blown past $1.3 trillion. This budget alone adds more than $320 billion in new debt over the next five years, more than twice what the previous Liberal government was on track to adding over that same period. Let me break down the outrageous debt level so that people watching at home can get a proper scope of how disastrous the government is.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I rise today to speak to budget 2025 and the choice it represents for our country: whether we return to fiscal sanity and economic hope or we keep layering new debt and new bureaucracy on top of the old problems we refuse to fix. Canadians remember how we got here. I want to take everyone back to just one year ago to the 2024 fall economic statement, which triggered a full-blown political crisis within the Liberal government. The deficit in that document was so alarming that the former finance minister walked away and resigned from cabinet and the government fell into chaos. The former finance minister found this deficit so preposterous and so outrageous that it ultimately led to the resignation of Prime Minister Trudeau.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the city of Vaughan, York Regional Police recently charged a local man with four counts of extortion. This is just one case among countless all across the country. In fact extortion is up 330% since 2015 all across the country, but despite this, the current Liberal Minister of Justice voted against our Conservative plan to end the extortion crisis last year. The Liberals could have been proactive and supported our plan a year ago, but instead they waited for the fire to get out of control. Will the Liberals apologize to the thousands of victims who had to suffer because of their inaction?”
“I wonder if the member could elaborate on why the Liberal government needs to take seriously the consideration of our amendments on the principle of restraint and why they do not need to just clarify it but to remove it altogether.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave an excellent speech. The member comes from the Vaughan area, essentially exactly where my riding is, and she knows all too well the serious consequences that we have had in our community with respect to crime. At one point we had seven shootings in just three weeks in our community. Something definitely needs to be done. I have been listening to this debate, and I keep hearing over and over again how Conservatives are apparently delaying bail reform. However, we have wanted bail reform for the last four years. Now that the bill is on the table, we want the Liberals to go the full way and get rid of the principle of restraint.”
“Madam Speaker, the only people who seem to want a Christmas election are the members of the Liberal government. Canadians do not want Liberals to force a costly election; they want an affordable budget. The Liberal government does not seem to get it. There are record Liberal deficits and a record number of people who cannot afford food, with 2.2 million people lining up at food banks, over 700,000 of them children. The more the government spends, the more Canadians pay at the grocery store. Will the Liberals present an affordable budget so families can afford to feed themselves?”
“Madam Speaker, Food Banks Canada has reported a record-smashing 2.2 million visits to the food bank in just one month, the most ever. The CEO of Food Banks Canada said she is shocked that people are stopping at the food bank on their way home from work because they cannot afford groceries. She said, “It's really shocking to see just how far people are falling behind every single [day].” After a decade of Liberal deficits and inflationary spending, people just cannot keep up. When will the Liberals realize their inflationary deficits are driving up the cost of food and driving people to the food bank?”
“Mr. Speaker, certainly in the time period we have just gone through, when crime has become increasingly of concern, we are witnesses to the fact that serious repeat offenders constantly out on bail are constantly committing crimes. This is not new. We hear this from police associations, victim advocacy groups, premiers and municipal governments. Clearly, we have to start with federal legislation, where the Criminal Code belongs, to set the culture and set the conditions to say that repeat violent offenders need to remain behind bars. To do so, we must get rid of the principle of restraint that was enshrined through Bill C-75 .”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives would like nothing more than bail reform and sentence reform to be passed immediately. That is why we introduced our jail not bail act. We put forward the serious amendments that are needed to the bail system to facilitate the conditions that will keep repeat violent offenders in prison. I, for one, am all for having this legislation move to committee. At committee, we hope the Liberal government and our Bloc colleagues on the committee will look very closely at our proposals and at removing the principle of restraint because we do not want to leave that loophole open for repeat offenders to end up on the streets. We want to close that loophole for good and forever.”
“The balance between those values is what defines a mature justice system. Conservatives have been calling for action for years, not because it is politically convenient, but because it is right. If we get this right, we will not only make our laws stronger; we will make our communities safer. Let us work together to strengthen this bill so we can end the cycle of violence that has plagued our streets and restore faith in the justice system for the people of this country.”
“We are not opposing it for the sake of opposing; we are offering solutions informed by experience from police, prosecutors, victims and those who have lived with the consequences of repeat violent offences. We also recognize that this legislation has broad support from law enforcement organizations, premiers and community leaders who are eager to see progress. The momentum should not be lost. If the government is willing to accept reasonable amendments, such as elevating public safety to the first consideration and closing the remaining gaps around repeat offenders, then we can together deliver the kind of reform that Canadians have been demanding for years. In a country like Canada, it should never be seen as contradictory to defend both the rights of the accused and the safety of the public.”
“These bail reforms must also be accompanied by sentencing reforms that reinforce accountability. The Liberals' Bill C-5 , passed in 2022, eliminated many mandatory minimum penalties and expanded the use of conditional sentences, even for certain firearms and violent offences. In my view and the view of many practitioners across Canada, that change weakened deterrence and contributed to the perception that serious crime is met with leniency. Restoring proportionate, consistent sentencing is essential to rebuilding trust in our justice system. Conservatives will work in good faith to ensure this bill passes as quickly as possible, with the strongest possible protections for Canadians.”
“These changes do not undermine fairness or due process; they simply ensure that the justice system exercises caution where it is warranted and that public safety is the priority of our justice system. Public confidence in the justice system depends on visible fairness, but it also depends on safety. When a young mother is murdered by a partner who was released on bail despite prior violent charges, Canadians naturally ask us how we could allow this to happen. They are not asking for vengeance; they are asking for prevention. They are asking to feel safe in their homes and their communities. Our police officers, Crown attorneys and victim service workers have been clear that the current framework too often ties their hands. Bill C-14 acknowledges that truth, but now we must complete the work.”
“It would also do the following: restore mandatory minimums for firearms, sexual assaults, kidnappings, human trafficking, robbery, extortion with a firearm, arson and other serious violent crimes; mandate consideration of full criminal history and outstanding charges; and presume detention for major offences and repeat violent offenders, not just reverse onus. There are several others, which unfortunately I do not have the time to mention in my speech. However, I encourage members opposite to look at that bill intently. I encourage them to examine it and find ways in which to strengthen Bill C-14 . They should take our ideas and let us work collaboratively for the benefit of all Canadians.”
“These are moves in the right direction, no question. However, the principle of restraint remains. The same language that tells decision-makers, judges and justices of the peace to prioritize release under the least restrictive conditions is still very much intact. I would say that means the culture of release will persist unless Parliament goes further and unless there are amendments to Bill C-14. (1635) Earlier this month, I was proud to jointly second my colleague from Oxford 's bill, Bill C-242 , the jail not bail act, which addresses many of the areas in which Bill C-14 falls short. The jail not bail act would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint by offering a new directive of public and community safety as the primary consideration in bail. This would end the default of the release culture created by Bill C-75 .”
“Section 493.1 of the Criminal Code directs that an accused be released at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions. That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it has too often meant that repeat violent offenders are released despite a clear risk to public safety. Police, prosecutors and victims have seen the consequences first-hand. Bailey McCourt was murdered by her ex-husband just hours after he was released on bail. A young mother of four, Savannah Kulla, was shot and killed at a Brampton strip mall, with her killer having been released on bail. I have heard the Liberals blame this on the Supreme Court of Canada, but the fact remains the Liberals were never told to change the law. Bill C-14 proposes tougher standards for bail in serious cases and new reverse-onus provisions for certain violent offences.”
“For years, all major stakeholders were largely ignored by the Liberal government, and many of its members still sit in this House today. Premiers, mayors, police chiefs and victims were all ignored for years. Why? Why has it taken so long for the Liberals to act? I am happy that the Liberals have woken up and have taken many of our ideas, but they need to go further. I implore them to take all of our ideas, please, because behind these numbers are heartbreaking stories of families shattered, communities shaken and victims left wondering why individuals known to be violent were released back on their streets. How did we get here? It stems largely from legislative and cultural shifts following the introduction of the principle of restraint in Bill C-75 in 2019.”
“I, for one, am happy that the Liberal government has finally highlighted the fact that the best way to examine the trend of increasing crime is not to pick one short period for the purposes of political messaging, but to look at it over a long period of time, to recognize the trend and course correct. As I have stated before time after time in this House, people in Vaughan—Woodbridge do not feel safe in their homes and in their own community. Our community was never like this before, and it would not be like this today had the Liberal government chosen to act sooner. In York Region, in 2025, as of September 30, there have been 60 shootings. This is more than double the occurrences to date from 2021, 2022 and 2023.”
“I am also pleased to see that the government has admitted, in its own news release regarding the bill just last Thursday, that there is a direct correlation between the rise in crime and the Liberal government taking office. The news release stated that while crime was down between 1998 and 2014, it went up between 2014 and 2024. This admission comes after years of Liberal politician after Liberal politician claiming that crime is in fact going down. There have been mailers sent out by Liberal MPs, who for years have been trying to convince the public that rising crime is in their heads. Some former members of this House would cherry-pick certain periods to suggest to their constituents that crime is not actually the problem they think it is.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-14 , an act that proposes long-awaited reforms to Canada's bail and sentencing framework. At the outset, let me just say that Conservatives welcome this legislation. We have been calling for meaningful bail reform for years at this point. We have stood alongside police associations, provincial governments and victims' advocates to push for stricter bail legislation and stricter sentencing laws. The government's decision to bring this bail law forward is in many ways an acknowledgement that the system is not working as it should and that public safety should once again become the paramount guiding principle of our justice system. While we welcome this step, and it is a step in the right direction, we also recognize that it does not go far enough.”
“Mr. Speaker, if their policies worked, why are over 700,000 children lining up at food banks? The Prime Minister promised that he would be judged by the costs at the grocery store. Well, the verdict is in. Food inflation is up 4%. We now have 2.2 million people visiting food banks in a single month, and by the federal government's own analysis, a $1.3-billion food packaging tax is baked right into the cost of every meal. While Canadians are skipping meals, the Liberals are feasting on new taxes. Will the Prime Minister stop cooking up new hidden costs and scrap his food packaging tax so that Canadians can afford to live?”
“Mr. Speaker, frankly, what I find irresponsible is that the other day when we heard the Prime Minister 's announcement on crime, there was no attention paid to removing the principle of restraint, which was endemic to Bill C-75 , the very principle that is allowing for catch and release to continue. I would ask the members opposite to put some forethought into this to make sure this principle is removed so we can keep criminals off the streets.”
“Mr. Speaker, it comes down to a lack of attention to the problem, in my view. We have been sounding the alarm for a while now that having drug consumption sites next to schools and day cares is completely unacceptable. It is an infringement on the morals we hold deep in this country to keep drugs and crime away from children. We know these areas are riddled with drugs and criminal activity. We hope the Liberals do the right thing and decide to remove drug sites around schools, day cares and the presence of children because it is the right thing to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern and disbelief, frankly, because what we have seen over and over again with the Liberals is they say one thing and do nothing. As we know, so far no new border agents have been hired, and we certainly support the hiring of more border service agents to ensure we have widespread security across our border.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the Supreme Court's decision in R v. Lloyd, the Supreme Court ruled that the government should narrow its scope for mandatory minimum sentencing, and that is exactly what I spoke about in my speech. We should narrow the scope and target it toward people who are trafficking, importing and producing fentanyl. We should target it toward organized crime and, as we said before, have the harshest mandatory minimums for people who produce and traffic in excess of 45 milligrams, which is a lethal dose. That is very targeted and specific and fits the scope.”
“While we have serious concerns about how the government first approached matters in Bill C-2 , we also acknowledge that Bill C-12 represents a step in the right direction. This very step came because Canadians raised their voices and the Conservatives did our job: We were listening, we pushed back and we demanded better on behalf of the citizens of this country. Our work here is not done. We will support moving Bill C-12 to committee, where it will be scrutinized carefully, and we will work to improve it even further.”
“Canada's border must be secure to protect Canadians from criminals and illegal activities, including fentanyl trafficking and gun smuggling. Canadians deserve better from their government, one that respects their privacy, does not overreach with warrantless surveillance powers and is serious about fighting fentanyl by imposing real consequences on traffickers. Canadians deserve a government that protects our borders, enforces immigration laws fairly and firmly and supports law enforcement in combatting organized crime, and a government that does not leave foreign criminals at large in our communities. Canadians are looking to this House for leadership, not partisanship, on critical issues like public safety and immigration.”
“That is why we demand mandatory, harsh prison sentences for those who manufacture, import, export and traffic fentanyl. Those who profit from addiction must face swift and serious consequences. The government's unwillingness to adopt these common-sense measures sends a clear message: Criminals can operate with impunity while Canadians suffer. The failures do not end there. The Liberals also refuse to acknowledge their abject failure on border security, another critical element that Bill C-12 purportedly aims to address. Earlier this year, the Canada Border Services Agency revealed that 600 foreign criminals were scheduled for deportation, but now they have gone missing in custody. This is completely unacceptable and represents a grave threat to public safety.”
“The Liberals continue to refuse to close the loopholes that allow catch-and-release bail for fentanyl dealers and firearms traffickers, loopholes that criminal gangs exploit to terrorize our communities. The Liberal government has had ample opportunity to address the seriousness of crime affecting our country. Since they have taken power, violent crime is up 50% and violent firearms offences are up 116%, increasing for nine straight years. Auto theft, which is a huge issue in Vaughan, is up 46% nationally. Everyone in my community knows someone who knows someone who has had their vehicle either stolen or attempted to be stolen. Gang related homicides are also up 78%. The Conservatives unequivocally believe that trafficking lethal fentanyl is the moral equivalent of murder.”
“Bill C-12 fails to implement mandatory minimum sentencing for fentanyl traffickers, the very criminals who are poisoning our streets and fuelling the opioid epidemic. The Liberals continue to resist measures that would ensure traffickers face serious consequences for flooding our streets with this extremely lethal poison. The Liberal government claims to be tough on crime. We have heard the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime say this very thing, yet people of my riding of Vaughan-Woodbridge and across this country see it very differently. They see a much different reality, one marked by rising shootings, brazen bank robberies and increasing violent crime.”
“Health Canada reports that fentanyl was involved in 79% of opioid-related deaths in the first half of 2024, a staggering increase over previous years. Despite this crisis, the Liberals continue to push for drug consumption sites near schools. At the health committee, the Conservatives called for the Liberals to shut down fentanyl consumption sites next to children, but the health minister refused to rule out approving more of these consumption sites next to schools and day cares. (1705) Canadian police have uncovered and dismantled superlabs manufacturing kilograms of this lethal drug within our borders, fuelling a national emergency that the government continues to downplay.”
“That is the duty of a principled opposition: to safeguard Canadians' freedoms and hold the government accountable. While Bill C-12 is an improvement and is something that the Conservatives plan to support and send to committee for further study, it does remain incomplete. One glaring failure of Bill C-12 is that the Liberal government still refuses to take seriously the fentanyl crisis, a crisis ravaging Canadian families, devastating communities and destroying lives across this country. Let me remind the House of the Prime Minister 's own words earlier this year, when he dismissed the fentanyl crisis as merely a “challenge” in Canada, while calling it a “crisis” in the United States. Such minimization is not only out of touch, but deeply irresponsible.”
“Matt Hatfield, the executive director of the advocacy group OpenMedia, said, per The Globe and Mail: ...the proposal could compel a large range of electronic service providers, including social media platforms, e-mail and messaging services, gaming platforms, telecoms and cloud storage companies, to disclose information about their subscribers including the province and local area where they use their services without judicial oversight. This is not the Canada that Canadians expect. Law-abiding citizens deserve privacy protections, not to be treated as collateral damage in a government's quest to expand its control. Again, the Conservatives have been proud to stand firm and force the government to remove these unjustified intrusions from Bill C-12 .”