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 6 of 6.
“Notably, many individuals born between 1977 and 1981 remain without citizenship, as the first-generation limit provisions were not retroactively applied. These individuals were often raised in Canada. They attended Canadian schools, work here and started families here. They are Canadian, yet despite their strong ties to the country, they are unable to access health care, obtain passports, vote or exercise the full rights of Canadian citizens. Bill C-3 also has a provision for adopted children, which we support. Adopted children of Canadian citizens would receive the same treatment as biological children. Conservative MPs supported extending this equal treatment to adopted children born abroad to Canadian citizens during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-245 in committee.”
“Bill C-3 casts a shadow over this fundamental need for commitment, specifically with the provision of citizenship by descent. What is Bill C-3 , and why can we not support this bill in its current form? Bill C-3 is the latest attempt by the Liberal government to rewrite Canada's citizenship laws, but this bill is not new. It was originally introduced as Bill C-71 in the last Parliament after the government took over Conservative Senator Martin's bill, Bill S-245 , which was a targeted Conservative bill designed to fix a narrow gap in the law that affected a small group of what are known as lost Canadians. To clarify, lost Canadians are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it, or thought they were entitled to Canadian citizenship and never received it.”
“We believe in a Canada where citizenship is earned and respected, where newcomers embrace our shared heritage and contribute to our society, and where every Canadian takes pride in belonging to a diverse country that stands for unity, opportunity, hard work and mutual respect. Canadian citizenship should reflect a genuine connection to our country. Just like countless members of my community in Vaughan—Woodbridge, and no doubt many members of this chamber, my family understood the privilege of being Canadian when they immigrated to Canada. They understood that it came with commitment. It meant, and should always mean, that we have to wake up in the morning and contribute to the country that gave us a new life and a new home.”
“We have seen the current Prime Minister echo this theme as a self-proclaimed “elitist” and “globalist”, and he believes this is “exactly what [Canadians] need.” In contrast, Conservatives believe Canada has a strong and unique core identity. To be Canadian is to share a genuine connection to Canada, its institutions, its traditions, and most importantly, to share a commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. It holds a belief that rights are balanced with responsibilities and recognizes that citizenship comes with the responsibility to contribute to the community, to respect the laws and to uphold the values that unite us as a nation.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be back in this historic chamber to represent the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I rise today to speak to Bill C-3 , an act to amend the Citizenship Act, a bill that reopens some of the most important questions for any country in any society: Who gets to be a citizen, and what does it mean to be a citizen? There are a few schools of thought. One school of thought we heard from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. When asked about Canadian identity, we were told that Canada has “no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, and in fact, that Canada is the first postnational state.”
“He was a risk-taker who achieved his dreams, an entrepreneur of incredible accomplishment and a gentleman who carried himself throughout his life with dignity and honour. I wish a happy Italian Heritage Month to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and all Italian Canadians, like my grandfather Nico.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 1955, a 22-year-old Italian man from Treviso, Italy, got on a boat and took that courageous trip across the Atlantic Ocean to Canada. He ended up settling in Woodbridge, Ontario. When he arrived, he worked at a mushroom farm, then a steel factory, and then he started a business. He lived the Canadian dream. That man was my grandfather Nico Guglielmin, who passed away last year at the beautiful age of 95. My grandfather truly was the inspiration in my life. He was strong and strict, full of decency and integrity, and he was also kind and understanding. He never lost his temper. No one ever saw him sweat. He was accomplished and qualified. They say we can judge a person by what people say about them when they are gone. I say that Nico Guglielmin was a great man.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very factual and evidence-based speech. We have been hearing a lot of comments with respect to how the Liberals are trying to identify as a new government when, in fact, they are the same government that they have been for the last 10 years. I was wondering if the member could share his thoughts with the House regarding how the current Liberal government is, in fact, the same government that it has been here for the last 10 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about subsidies for EVs when what we are talking about here is mandating the ban of gas-powered vehicles, which would drive up costs and create more stress on the already stressed citizenry of our country. Of course, we are going to oppose the ban of oil and gas vehicle production because we stand behind Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the Conservative Party, we have the best interests of Quebeckers in mind when considering this policy choice. We are worried about the increased cost to their pocketbook. We are worried about the increased costs to their families and the jobs lost in their industry. This is why we will continue to oppose these mandates and stand up for Canadian workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, the issue with China flooding our marketplace with electric vehicle technology is that it puts our auto industry at a competitive disadvantage. From my perspective, and I think the perspective of most people connected to the auto industry, steel, oil and gas, we want to support Canadian markets and the Canadian-made technologies in those industries. However, to go back to what I was saying in my speech, the whole purpose of the opposition to this plan is that by mandating car companies to shift to the production of EVs, we would create conditions where not only jobs are lost, but cars are more expensive.”
“Mr. Speaker, these are the same old Liberals, just another day. No one is talking about not investing in technology or developing industry. What we are opposing here is a mandate to remove the sale of gas-powered vehicles, a mandate opposed by industry leaders and industry experts and a mandate that would be opposed by Canadians as they see their costs rise at a time when they are already struggling to make ends meet.”
“I urge all members of the House to support this motion. Let us stand up for choice, affordability, common sense and the millions of Canadians who deserve better than a government that tells them what to drive, how to live and what to think. Let us repeal the mandate, end the ban and bring home control over our cars, our choices and our lives.”
“They would trust the market. Instead, they have chosen top-down mandates, higher prices and fewer choices. The people who will be hurt the most include the single mom in Vaughan trying to afford a used Civic and the tradesman in Hamilton who hauls heavy equipment. These are the people the Liberals forgot. These are the people who we are standing up for. A Conservative government would repeal the EV mandate, scrap the industrial carbon tax, eliminate fuel standards that punish working people, and support innovation through freedom and competition, not coercion. Most importantly, we would let Canadians choose the vehicle that works best for them. If it is gas, hybrid, diesel, electric or whatever, it will be without judgment, penalties or government overreach. It is time to put Canadians back in the driver's seat.”
“Let us not forget the role of the Prime Minister , who seems to be the architect of much of this ideological shift. Back in 2021, in the Prime Minister 's book Values , he wrote that we need regulations to phase out the sale of new gas vehicles in the next decade. At the Council on Foreign Relations, he talked about using regulation to shape consumer behaviour through bans, quotas and carbon taxes. He even praised Europe's ban as the model that should be replicated right here in Canada. If Liberals truly believed in reducing emissions, they would unleash Canadian innovation. They would support hybrid options, cleaner fuels, and the development of Canadian oil and gas with lower emissions rather than dirty dictator oil to arbitrarily offset emissions. They would back nuclear. They would invest in charging networks before mandating bans.”
“Once these quotas and penalties take effect, automakers will raise their prices on gas-powered vehicles to offset the cost of compliance. This means that everyone would pay more, even those who cannot or will not buy an EV. The CAA found that electric vehicles lose up to 40% of their battery life in cold conditions, as mild as -7°C to -15°C. Yes, that is mild in this country. What does this mean for Canadians in Winnipeg, Thunder Bay or rural Alberta, where winters last half the year? EVs are not a universal solution. On the topic of the grid, our provincial grids are already strained. Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Québec and BC Hydro are warning of growing demand and rising costs. What happens when we go from 8% EVs to 100%? The Liberals have no answer. Their plan is more debt, more subsidies, more taxes and more big shiny announcements.”
“Brian Kingston of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association said, “The federal EV mandate needs to be repealed before serious damage is done to the auto industry at the worst possible time.” These are not political voices. They are industry leaders who want EVs to succeed, but who are being asked to do the impossible on an unrealistic timeline in a market that is not ready. Canadians are not buying EVs in large numbers because they cannot afford them. Right now, demand for EVs is stalling at about 8% to 10% of new car sales in Canada. They remain, on average, $15,000 more expensive than comparable gas vehicles. That is even after taxpayer-funded subsidies. Those subsidies do not come from thin air. They come from Canadians' pockets. Even if someone does not drive an EV, they are paying for someone else's. It gets worse.”
“(1605) Last week, while at the Canada Automotive Summit hosted in my hometown of Vaughan, Bev Goodman, CEO of Ford Canada, said the mandate would “have a negative impact”, including a “downward pressure on...sales, [an] upward pressure on pricing, and...real concerns for consumers and the industry”. Furthermore, Kristian Aquilina, president of GM Canada, said, “It's unrealistic to believe that the country is going to go from 5 or 6 per cent [of EV sales] to 20 per cent by model year '26”. That would force them to have to restrict the ability to sell gas-powered vehicles, and we have to think about the dealership jobs across the country and the manufacturing jobs that are reliant on those sales.”
“There would be a $20,000 tax per vehicle, which would absolutely be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher vehicle prices. It is not rocket science. This is not a climate plan. It is a tax plan, and it is a control plan, one that perfectly highlights everything that has been wrong with the Liberal government over the last decade. This mandate will have devastating consequences, not just for consumers, but for workers and the Canadian auto sector. A study published in the Canadian Journal of Economics estimates that the mandate will eliminate 38,000 jobs in the auto sector and cost the economy $138.7 billion. Even auto industry leaders, those investing in EVs, are sounding the alarm.”
“We have about 60,000 now. This would require a radical transformation that, especially given the Liberals' track record for getting things done, would be next to impossible to achieve in the next 10 years. We are installing fewer and fewer chargers year over year, not more and more. We would need over $600 billion in new infrastructure to support this. These are the same guys who put billions into a housing accelerator fund, only to create more government bureaucracy with no results. It gets even better. Only radical environmentalists could think of a scheme where, if automakers do not meet their quota, they would be faced with a $20,000 penalty per vehicle when they are short of their targets. Let me repeat that.”
“There is no consideration of the impact on cost and no thought of the impact on automotive manufacturers and the consequences for major automotive manufacturers and their workers. What about those who commute long distances to and from work, in the cold, when the battery life is barely half? This motion is not about opposing EVs. It is far from that. I was in an EV and drove from Vaughan to Ottawa. We had to drive 15 minutes out of the way to find a charger to charge it in the summer, and that took about 30 minutes. I can imagine, if it were -30°C outside, how many times we would have had to have stopped because of how dead our battery would have been. How about the grid and the infrastructure required to support it? We are far from being ready for that. We would need nearly 700,000 charging ports from coast to coast.”
“It bans gas-powered vehicles altogether by 2035; forces quotas on manufacturers, during a time when they are facing tariffs from our neighbour to the south; and punishes Canadians with higher prices if they dare to choose something different, during a time when most Canadians can barely afford groceries, their rent or their car insurance. Here is what is happening: Starting in 2026, automakers will be forced to ensure 20% of their sales are zero-emission vehicles. That target ramps up to 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. This is a radical government-mandated phase-out of gas-powered vehicles. It is ridiculous and ideologically driven. This mandate does not care if someone lives in an urban area like Toronto or a rural community in northern B.C.”
“It reads, “That, given that the Liberal government is banning the sale of gas powered vehicles that will force Canadians to buy electric vehicles, and this mandate will drive up the cost of vehicles by $20,000...the House call on the Liberal government to immediately end their ban on gas-powered vehicles.” This is so Canadians would be able to buy the cars that suit their needs and budget. This is not about whether someone can or should buy an electric vehicle. If someone wants one, that is great. They should buy one. What we oppose is the government taking away consumer choice. We oppose the government thinking it knows best, and we oppose a government mandate that has negative impacts on our economy and the cost of living. Make no mistake, that is what this mandate does. It does not encourage EV use.”
“At a time when Canadian auto workers are facing unjustified tariffs from our neighbours south of the border, significant job losses are happening across the country, and with unemployment the highest it has been in decades outside the pandemic, our Conservative motion is a common-sense motion that the government should adopt. It is not like it is outside of its scope to recognize and course correct when it introduces bad policy. It did that when it recognized that Conservatives had been right and repealed the consumer carbon tax, for example. For those watching at home, here is what the Conservative motion that we are debating today says.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. However, today I rise to speak on behalf of Canadians across the country who are watching their choices being stripped away by a government that feels it should exercise more and more control over their lives, who are watching the cost of living rise and who, once again, are going to be faced with even more rising costs because of the ideologically driven agenda of the Liberal government. This should not be a partisan issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, extortion is up 357% across Canada. In the GTA, 18 suspects were arrested in a major extortion bust. Firearms, ammunition and $4.2 million in assets were seized. Get this: half of the suspects were already released on bail. Just last week, the York Regional Police chief called for urgent bail reform. The Liberals voted against a Conservative bill to crack down on extortion and reintroduce mandatory minimums. Will the Prime Minister stop siding with criminals and support our plan to keep violent criminals in jail?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent synopsis of the bill that we are debating today. Any discussion around affordability and improving one's standard of living has to come with energy and resource development. Does my hon. colleague not think that the Liberals should join us in passing a real sovereignty law that gets rid of Bill C-69 , the industrial carbon tax, the shipping ban and the energy cap?”
“Madam Speaker, it seems the only thing new about the government is the new and creative ways the members avoid answering questions and accountability. My question for my hon, colleague is, given the tariff threats and the threats to our economy, if the Liberal government is going to steal half of the Conservative policy in removing the consumer portion of the carbon tax, should they not go the whole way and remove the entire carbon tax for good?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was touching. I congratulate him on his election to the House of Commons. Could the member share some thoughts on his late mother and how she would think of his operating in the chamber and serving his country?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. It is a petition that asks for recommendations 430 and 429 to be removed and scrapped; they aim to revoke charitable status from religious organizations. These organizations in our community provide benefit for seniors, including food banks. They support newcomers, youth programs and mental health outreach. The petition calls on the government to reject recommendations 429 and 430, refrain from including these recommendations in the federal budget or any related legislation and affirm the charitable status of faith-based organizations, whose work sincerely helps the advancement of society.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Auditor General revealed that Canadians are paying more and getting less. The Liberals have poured $300 million into a housing program and missed their targets by 97%. With respect to the F-35 jets, it is nearly $30 billion and 50% over budget, with no jets flying, no pilots ready and no facilities built. To top it off, the fraudulent arrive scam contractor, GC Strategies, has siphoned $64 million from Canadian taxpayers. If Liberals cannot be trusted to manage any of these projects, how can Canadians trust them to balance a budget?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on his recent election and on his first speech in the House of Commons. Given that the Liberal government is ignoring the vote and the verdict from the House of Commons to introduce a budget, can the member speak to how his constituents responded to him over the period of the election and what they would expect the Liberal government to do with respect to spending in the country?”
“Mr. Speaker, on the very day the Prime Minister pledged a 2% spending cap, his government unveiled a bill that surges spending by 8%, shattering that promise. Consultant fees skyrocketed by 36% after the Liberals promised to cut them, costing Canadian families $1,400 in additional taxes. While households are forced to manage their budgets, the Liberal government acts unchecked, putting jobs at risk. After 10 years of Liberal failures, why does the Prime Minister think it is okay to spend even more money on government insiders and lobbyists?”
“Mr. Speaker, members will recall that during the election campaign, Pierre Poilievre talked about how to create the conditions to unleash the housing sector, rather than about adding layers of government bureaucracy that would only exemplify the issue. Our plan would be to help municipalities create the conditions for development, not add more layers of government bureaucracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, the member for King—Vaughan , we had a fantastic day in Vaughan celebrating the beginning of Italian Heritage Month yesterday with its first-ever Italian festival. Congratulations to the mayor of Vaughan and the city of Vaughan for putting on such a fantastic event. To my colleague's question, if we want to take the matters of the public treasury seriously, if we want to get serious about budgeting and serious about improving the lives of Canadians, the government must put forward a budget at its earliest convenience, that is, in this parliamentary session. The later it delays, the more things get out of hand, the worse off it will be, the higher the cost of living prices will become and the more out of control it will get.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting question. Of course, when Canadians look at their budgets for their own households, they realize they have to scrutinize each and every cost item. They have to craft and propose a budget. I always wonder why the government feels it does not have to do the same. Absolutely, if the government wants to increase spending by half a trillion dollars or, rather, wants to add half a trillion dollars' worth of spending, it should definitely put forward a budget. It is unacceptable for the government not to do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his election. What I found interesting about the proposed spending is that not even 24 hours from the time the Liberals said spending would be capped at 2%, it has already inflated to 8%. I just question the fact that the government argues it is going to be different, yet what we see is more of the same.”
“Conservatives are committed to putting Canadians first and would be willing to sit through the summer to ensure that these matters are properly addressed, prioritizing accountability over a rushed agenda. The time for bold action is now. I close with the words of John Stuart Mill: “The worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it.” Let us build the Canada where Sara's daughter feels safe, where that young man at Fortinos can afford a home and where every family in Vaughan—Woodbridge and across this country can thrive. I am here to fight for them and for all Canadians.”
“This represents an 8% increase in federal spending, with a significant portion allocated to bureaucracy, consultants and contractors. As parliamentarians, our role is to serve Canadians. The government's proposal for a new housing bureaucracy, coupled with half a trillion dollars in new spending without a formal budget, shifts focus away from the needs of Canadians and towards expanding an already massive government. With the current parliamentary session set to break for the summer in less than three weeks, there is little time left to thoroughly debate and scrutinize each significant proposal, leaving critical issues like housing and fiscal responsibility unresolved. Canadians deserve better.”
“Canada must have their back or we risk continuing our brain drain, where young talent leaves our lands for jurisdictions around the world where their money goes farther and where they can have the type of life they wish to have. We must address this issue with haste or we will all suffer in the long run. The Speech from the Throne proposes implementing a brand new bureaucracy instead of cutting the red tape that has driven up the cost of homes. Despite a new prime minister and cabinet, the plan mirrors Trudeau's $90-billion housing strategy, which doubled prices over a decade and left young Canadians priced out. Last week, it was revealed that the Prime Minister had overseen the introduction of half a trillion dollars in new government spending without a formal budget, a move not seen for decades outside the COVID period.”
“Whether I am chatting with construction workers, visiting Vici Bakery or Sweet Boutique, or am randomly stopped at a local grocery store like Longo's, the message is the same: Life is too expensive, and people, especially our youth, feel they cannot get ahead. During the campaign, a 17-year-old at Fortinos approached me. He said that he cannot vote but that his future is in my hands. All he wants to do is get married, buy a home and have a family. This not a radical dream; it is the Canadian promise, yet for far too many young people, it feels like a fantasy. The aspirational ideals of home ownership and raising a family should not invoke feelings of frustration and hopelessness, for they are foundational to the social contract in a great country like Canada. Our youth are our future, and for far too long they have been ignored.”
“In Vaughan—Woodbridge, there have been countless examples of car thefts, home invasions and break-and-enters. Business owners and their staff have been held at gunpoint, and there are women like Sara, whom I met in Sonoma Heights and who told me that her daughter constantly feels uneasy about going out at night alone. Our York Region Police officers do an exceptional job and work tirelessly, but the House must give them the tools to keep criminals behind bars. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so, for safe communities are the foundation of a strong Canada (1235) A key priority for my constituents is the crippling cost of living facing our country.”
“On this front, the Speech from the Throne leaves much to be desired. One of the major issues that is top of mind for my constituents is the increase in crime. Vaughan—Woodbridge is a place where families raise their children, neighbours know each other by name and community pride runs deep. The rising crime, fuelled by the government's soft-on-crime policies, is eroding the sense of security that families in Vaughan—Woodbridge and communities across our very country deserve. In the throne speech, the government could have easily said that it was going to get serious on crime and address the issue by getting rid of failed legislation like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 . It could have committed to introducing mandatory minimums for serious crimes and prioritizing victims over criminals, but it did not.”
“These principles are not abstract but are the foundation of a society where every Canadian can flourish, free from government overreach and empowered to shape their own destiny. As a former executive in the steel industry, I have seen first-hand how bureaucracy strangles workers and small businesses. I am here to fight for them, cutting red tape, slashing unfair taxes and making government work for people, not against them. The true role of government is to create the conditions to ignite the spark of the Canadian dream, empowering every Canadian to chase after their aspirations, not stifle them with heavy-handed, centralised control of sectors of our economy and with bureaucratic overreach. My constituents have been clear: They expect their government to deliver results, not rhetoric.”
“They chose Canada, a land of opportunity where one could dare to dream. They worked hard and made this country their own. I am very proud of my Italian heritage. To every single volunteer of my campaign team, I would like to express my deepest gratitude for their monumental effort and commitment to the principles of our party, a commitment that helped deliver a very decisive victory. Those principles teach us that government's role is not to burden but to enable, yet for nearly a decade, excessive regulation, wasteful spending and punitive taxes have stifled economic opportunity and freedom. I am guided by the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and the rule of law.”
“I am committed to being their champion and giving life to their hopes inside the chamber. I would like to recognize the most important person in my life, my wife, Maria. Her love and strength hold our family together, raising our beautiful daughters, Abigail and Hanna, and our newborn son, James. As members of the House are well aware, our spouses play a critical role in our work as parliamentarians. They bear an unseen burden of public life, and Maria does so with grace. I would like to thank my parents, Debbie and Bruno, for their example of always being the adults in the room and for teaching me the importance of responsibility. I would also like to thank my late grandfather Nico for his hard work and persistence, and for teaching me to always be self-reliant. My grandparents immigrated from Treviso, Italy, in the 1950s.”
“I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge for entrusting me to be their representative in the chamber. This seat in the House belongs to them. Our community is a vibrant riding, where nearly half our residents proudly claim Italian heritage, making our community one of the largest Italian hubs in the nation. Our riding is also made up of growing populations of Vietnamese, Punjabi, Chinese and many others; it is a truly diverse community. From the thriving small businesses on Woodbridge Avenue and Weston Downs to the quiet streets of Islington Woods, and from the growing neighbourhoods of Vellore to the cultural vibrant festivals that light up our summers, Vaughan—Woodbridge is a testament to the enduring Canadian values of faith, family, community and hard work.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand today for the first time in this historic chamber as the member of Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge. As I am sure was the case for members on all sides, I was in awe when I first took my seat here, a symbol that is at the core of our democracy. The House has echoed with the debates that have shaped our nation, from the early debates around national policy to the conscription crisis of 1917, and from the debates surrounding pipelines in 1956 to the Canadian flag and free trade. I am sure I am not alone in saying that the feeling of awe is instantly met with an understanding of the responsibility that members have to the constituents in the communities they represent.”
“Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, my constituents expressed deep concern about the rising crime in our community. Did the Bloc Québécois see anything in the throne speech that would address this serious issue facing our country and our communities?”