Kelly Block
Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, that was a serious question that deserved a serious answer. Buried in the Liberals' omnibus budget bill is yet another ministerial power grab. Cabinet gives itself more powers to award contracts while allowing itself to muzzle the very watchdog, the procurement ombudsman, who is meant to monitor it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest this: My hon. colleague does not need to take my word for it. She does not need to take the word of my colleagues on this side of the House. Maybe she should go back and look at the Auditor General's report or the PBO's report that was tabled last fall.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20 , an act that seeks to establish the Build Canada Homes bureaucracy, at third reading. As I mentioned during the debate at second reading, this bill is the latest attempt by the Liberals to solve a problem they created.”
“We must also acknowledge the lost potential to our economy as construction workers are laid off and home builders stop building at a time when housing starts, job creation and affordability are needed the most. Building has become complex. The regulatory burden has become expansive.”
“This would mean a departure from an “Ottawa knows best” mindset and a return to common sense, wherein young people are free to innovate, businesses are able to adapt and the market drives demand for growth.”
“As for the Canada Lands Company, its responsibility to develop federal properties and convert them into housing units will now become the responsibility of Build Canada Homes. The six projects that were announced, as my colleague pointed out earlier, had already been approved and development was well under way.”
The complete record
Every one of 219 lines we hold for Kelly Block, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Canadians deserve affordable fuel and food. Conservatives will continue to fight the cost of living crisis, restore economic growth and make life affordable again.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister continues to make big promises, Canadians continue to struggle. The truth of the matter is that he is an illusionist. Canadians are paying 35% more due to rising global oil prices, and Liberal taxes are making it even worse, forcing them to pay almost 20% more than Americans. Not only is the Prime Minister late to the game at announcing relief at the pumps, it is an illusion that he will actually deliver on affordability when he is only pausing the fuel excise tax from April 20 until Labour Day. Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the fuel excise tax, the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard for the rest of the year. It is a plan that would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre, saving a family of four $1,200 this year.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was clear in my speech that what is deeply concerning to me, and perhaps to my colleagues on this side of the House and to the individuals I represent back home in Saskatchewan, is that the government does not seem to care about the implications for our country or our citizens who want to practise their faith. This would have an impact on them that would not be easily unwound. They are censoring a censorship bill by imposing closure on this debate. I believe that speaks for itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will refer back to the comments I made in my speech on this very issue. The Supreme Court, the highest court in Canada, has recognized that the religious defence is necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional. When it made this ruling, it understood how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are. I will end by saying that we already have laws in the Criminal Code that allow people to be prosecuted for inciting others to violence on the basis of hate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would simply tell my hon. colleague to ask that question to his colleague who spoke at the justice committee and gave his opinion on what should happen in such a case as the member is speaking about. I would add that the government's motion is truly not about protecting places of worship. It is about shutting down debate to force through a controversial amendment and, which the member knows, to remove the religious defence in the Criminal Code. It is an amendment that was not in the original bill.”
“The Liberals have instead chosen to shut down debate on such a significant change to the Criminal Code in its removal of religious protections. At a time when Canada should be standing shoulder to shoulder, united, the Liberals have chosen to prioritize passing such a divisive piece of legislation.”
“While Liberals continue to insist that their new bill is needed to protect religious Canadians from hate, removing the religious freedom safeguard from the Criminal Code would not make them safer. It would not protect anyone, least among them people of faith, from hate. Instead, it would expose them to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting from their own sacred texts. I would not be speaking today if I did not feel truly concerned by the monumental change this amendment would have in Canadian society. I know it. Canadians know it. Perhaps most concerning is that the government knows it but does not appear to care. Despite all this, Conservatives asked the government to split Bill C-9 to quickly move through provisions and protections for places of worship, protections for cultural centres and offences related to intimidation.”
“The Supreme Court has recognized the religious defence as necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional. When it made this ruling, the highest court in Canada understood how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are. The good-faith religious defence protects minorities and those with sincerely held religious beliefs. Is the government signalling to Canadians that it does not believe they function in good faith? We are a nation built upon peace, order and good governance. I do not believe that as parliamentarians we have the right to ask that Canadians assume we govern in good faith, while removing provisions that protect their freedoms under the assumption that Canadians themselves do not operate in good faith.”
“More than an assault on specific religions that have sacred texts, which some secularists might find offensive, the Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 is an assault on the idea of what it means to be a free country. Let us be clear: The right of freedom to expression and freedom of religion is connected to the freedom of what someone can think. The government has laws already in existence that would allow it to prosecute hate crimes, and blaming our laws for why politicians from the Liberal Party have left our judges and police officers without the public backing to enforce those laws that exist is wrong. Despite the government's attempt to gloss over this amendment, there is no way the amendment would be anything but a stripping away of the rights of Canadians.”
“(1250) The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and religion, as well as freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. These guarantees were enshrined in law to ensure that Canadians can live out their beliefs even when those beliefs are unpopular or run counter to cultural trends. Respecting diverse beliefs and protecting freedoms is essential to any healthy democracy, and it is something we take pride in here in Canada. The proposed change to Bill C-9 risks eroding that foundation. While it is not surprising that this amendment was put forward by the Bloc, what is shocking is that the Liberal Party of Canada has acceded to this amendment that would completely undermine the charter. Perhaps this is why so many Canadians are taken aback.”
“The religious defence has never shielded hate or incitement to violence but has served as an essential safeguard for Canadians of all religious traditions, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and others, who seek to express their sincerely held beliefs in peaceful, responsible ways. I believe that the removal of the defence would represent a serious shift in the relationship between the state and freedom of religion in Canada. Its removal would risk chilling legitimate religious expression, creating legal uncertainty for faith communities, empowering subjective or inconsistent enforcement and undermining confidence in Canada's commitment to pluralism and freedom.”
“Thank you for standing against this attempt to restrict our religious freedoms.” By removing the religious defence and removing Attorney General consent for laying a hate speech charge, the Liberals would be sending a signal to the courts, law enforcement and activist groups that religious teaching is fair game for criminal prosecution. To be clear, the issue is not whether faith leaders should be free to spread hate but rather how hate is defined and how the new law would be applied. Calls to incite hatred or violence, whether cloaked in religion or not, are already illegal and not subject to the religious defence that Bill C-9 proposes to remove.”
“As a pastor in a church of the Sask Valley, I think we should raise our voice of disapproval to the amendment that could happen very soon.” Here is another: “I am writing because I've heard the Justice Committee is reviewing Bill C-9 and may be asked to consider amending the bill to remove the good faith religious belief defense from section 319(3) of the Criminal Code. This defense isn't overused or misused. It's an important protection for minority religious communities like the one I belong to. Removing this defense would marginalize religious Canadians and send the message that their beliefs are less protected in Canada. Please don't allow Bill C-9 to be changed to remove this defense.”
“Key among constituents' concerns with the amendment is that with the new definition of hate in Bill C-9 and the removal of the religious defence, it would be easier for people to be prosecuted over religious expression. The ambiguity the bill would create about where the line should be drawn on hate speech would have a chilling effect on discussions about contentious issues. The following are just a couple of excerpts from emails I have received. Here is one: “As recently as last week and even this morning I have been hearing some troubling news about an amendment to Bill C-9 that does not seem to be good news for our community of faith or our country.”
“Using the measurement of the volume of emails that I receive on any given issue, I can attest that some issues appear to be greater than others. Whether I agree with the opinions expressed in the emails or not, I recognize that constituents have demonstrated that they are deeply passionate enough about an issue to go the extra mile to communicate their opinion to their member of Parliament. With that context, I want to put on the record that the Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 is a genuinely huge and alarming issue. My inbox has been flooded with emails from constituents, the likes of which are equal in number only to the number of emails I received when the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act in February 2022.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to first acknowledge our Jewish communities that have been victims of recent shootings in Toronto taking place at synagogues. The rise in anti-Semitism has only worsened since the attacks on October 7. These are attacks that are already illegal and that nothing in Bill C-9 would have prevented from occurring. That is why I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important discussion on Bill C-9 and, more specifically, the deal made by the Liberals and the Bloc to eliminate Criminal Code safeguards for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. They are now imposing closure on that very important debate. Over the past 17 years that I have served as a member of Parliament, there have been many issues that have caused deep concern for constituents.”
“While the Liberal government continues to tell young Canadians that solutions are on their way, that they are going to deliver and that all they need is more time, our young people are waking up each morning with less hope of making a down payment on a home, landing a career that will meet their needs or starting a family. If 10 years was not enough, just how much time do the Liberals need?”
“I say “much” of our history because over the course of the last decade of Liberal rule, businesses have been forced to shut their doors, companies have been forced to lay off their workers, and builders have been left unable to build because of an increase in costs and regulatory burdens. After the Liberals promised to deliver 500,000 new homes every year, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall as low as 212,000 per year by 2028. Rather than delivering on their promise to build these homes, they have decided to build yet another bureaucracy. This makes it their fourth attempt at using a bureaucracy to try to fix the housing crisis they created.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20 , which is an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, the Liberals' latest promise to solve a problem that they created. The bill would create a Crown corporation, their third that deals with housing, while our young people have watched the prospect of owning a home slip away. As rents have doubled over the last 10 years, the prices of those homes have also doubled. Inflation has soared and swallowed up their ability to save for the future. In the last election, less than a year ago, the Prime Minister promised he would build at speeds not seen in a generation and has since spent his time invoking grand speeches reminding us that for much of our proud history, Canada was able to build vital projects and the housing people needed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table two petitions on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the implications of Bill C-9 . The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that Liberal Bill C-9 is an infringement on those rights. As such, they call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals refuse to be transparent with Canadians. The Auditor General has reported these cost overruns numerous times. Their attempt at updating an outdated technology has ended up costing Canadians $5 billion more, three times more than they projected. The bottom line is this: Canadian seniors deserve better than Liberal excuses and denial. Why is it that Liberals cannot ever deliver on time or on budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, while the minister continues to deny issues with the software system Cúram, tens of thousands of Canadians have been impacted by the Liberals' botched update. Cases are backlogged, benefits are delayed and seniors are left paying the price. The program, which was set to cost less than $2 billion, has ended up costing $5 billion more. Why do Liberal programs always massively exceed their projected costs, and why are seniors forced to pay the price for Liberal incompetence?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to deny that there are any cost overruns for Cúram, even though the Auditor General herself reported four in 2025. Canadian seniors deserve better than denial. I will ask the same question, and I would like a serious answer from the minister. Why can the Liberals not stay on budget, and why are seniors being forced to pay the price for yet another Liberal failure?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Cúram software has cost Canadians $5 billion more than what was originally budgeted. To add insult to injury, hundreds of seniors have been delayed in receiving their benefits. An overdue update to an outdated technology has turned into a nightmare for Canadians, with tens of thousands of cases backlogged. Why is it that Liberal programs always massively exceed their projected costs, and why are seniors forced to pay the price for the Liberals' incompetence and yet another failed federal software system?”
“Madam Speaker, Conservatives had two objectives when introducing amendments to Bill C-12 . One was to truly fix Canada's broken asylum system, and the second was to strengthen Canada's border security. Can the member please tell us here in this place why the Liberals were so opposed to our very reasonable amendments?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that Liberal Bill C-9 would be an infringement on those rights. They therefore call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and to prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy is on life support and the country is in recession watch. Bloomberg reports that “per capita GDP is still falling, and the economy is growing at only one per cent annually.” GDP growth in November was 0%, and real GDP is expected to decline 0.1% in the fourth quarter. The news for business is bleak. Businesses are postponing their expansion plans. These numbers matter. When our economy is not growing, Canadians get poorer. The Liberals want to blame outside forces instead of taking action here at home. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but has not gotten rid of a single anti-development law or bureaucracy. He only needs to listen to our ideas and introduce a plan that gets his government's barriers and tax burdens out of the way so Canadians can build.”
“Conservatives will continue to do the work we were elected to do as the official opposition and hold the government to account for its broken promises.”
“She has been clear: The federal government does not efficiently or adequately use its spaces. Our position is clear: Sell these surplus buildings and use them for affordable housing. We are opposed to attempts to redirect the work of committees in order to distract from the government's failures in reducing and selling underused federal office buildings so they could be converted into affordable housing. Self-congratulatory motions such as this allow the Liberal government to avoid accountability for its years of inaction and failure to execute its reduction of federal office space, and allow the Liberals to get away with promising investments for the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces or for our veterans without following through on those promises.”
“The TBS sets policies and approved funding that guide how departments can acquire and use government office space. Departments are responsible for understanding and articulating their specific needs for services and the office space required to support their programs and mandates. PSPC, as the custodian, manages the government's portfolio of office spaces and works with departments to meet their space requirements. Therefore, if Veterans Affairs Canada needed more space, they would simply need to go to PSPC and make that need known. In closing, I would note that the Auditor General found that while PSPC has been slow in meeting its mandate, the department lacked up-to-date, standardized and reliable information from federal tenants on the daily use of office space.”
“Additionally, a process already exists for departments to communicate their office needs to Public Services and Procurement Canada. If Veterans Affairs Canada needed new space for veterans services, they already have an internal mechanism available without needing to invoke parliamentary motions or committee studies. That is why the third part of this motion is egregious, in that it seeks to instruct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings when one already exists. I am skeptical of the motivation, in that I believe there is a desire to control the agenda of the government operations and estimates committee by instructing an opposition-led committee to undertake this study, given the following.”
“More specifically, from the department's original plan to reduce the footprint by 50%, since 2019 they have only managed to reduce their office footprint from six million rentable square metres to 5.9 million in 2024. This plan came with a promise to save $3.9 billion over 10 years and save taxpayers nearly $1 billion annually from operating costs. Further, the Auditor General predicted that there are many savings to be made by selling federal buildings. Annual maintenance on unused federal buildings cost taxpayers $2.14 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year. Selling these buildings will generate savings of approximately $1 billion per year moving forward. Like many Liberal promises of savings, after five years it has not worked out the way they planned.”
“In 2021, the Treasury Board Secretariat created an oversight program to assist in departmental co-operation and implementation of the federal lands initiative, though in 2024, it was dissolved due to a lack of funding. At that time, budget 2024 announced $1.1 billion over 10 years, starting in 2024-25, for PSPC to reduce its office portfolio by 50% to 2.95 million rentable square metres. (1740) However, in June 2025, the Auditor General's report entitled “Current and Future Use of Federal Office Space” slammed Public Services and Procurement Canada for their slow implementation of the plan to reduce office space and for their failure to deliver affordable homes for the most vulnerable, despite more than $1 billion being allocated to PSPC for this one task.”
“Let us talk about the Liberal government's recent action on veterans' services, since the member's motion assumes they will need to be expanded, a claim that was made just months after the Liberals decided to cut $4.3 billion in funding from Veterans Affairs Canada over four years. How the Liberals claim, on one hand, they will need to expand services in the future, while cutting them at the same time, makes little sense to me. On the issue of PSPC's failure, in 2017, a report was published that stated that 50% of government office space was not being used to full capacity. Two years later, in 2019, Public Services and Procurement Canada began to identify which buildings would be suitable for housing and implement a plan to sell these properties to developers.”
“Further, without any plan to study what impacts finally meeting our NATO commitments could have on veterans' services, the motion goes on to call for the House to recognize the assumption that an increasing number of CAF service members will lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans over the next few decades. Seriously, this assumes that, after 10 years, the Liberals have solved their management of recruitment to the armed forces, which has been a disaster, and that we will need more service centres for veterans, to such a degree that Public Services and Procurement Canada should abandon its promise of reducing federal lands and selling underused office space for affordable housing.”
“One of the first things the government could do, if it truly plans on making generational investments, is to start investing in living quarters that meet basic standards for our military. It does not deserve a pat on the back for saying it is going to make historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. Conservatives will hold the government to account for its failure to adequately support the brave men and women of our armed forces. We will not let the government simply claim that it is making these historic investments when we have yet to see it act.”
“The Liberals have been in power for over 10 years. On this issue, what do they have to show for it? Simply recommitting to make progress after 10 years of inaction is a convenient way of avoiding accountability. For example, a report tabled by the Auditor General last fall revealed there are significant shortcomings in the living standards of our military. She identified that only 5% of major repairs were completed of the more than 227 high-priority repairs needed across three bases. These were not insignificant: lack of potable water, malfunctioning sanitary waste systems and deteriorating external walls. However, on this, there was no apology for or even an acknowledgement of these deplorable conditions, while the Liberals continued with their reckless spending and avoided their commitment to defence spending for a decade.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion introduced by the member for Cumberland—Colchester , Motion No. 16. While this motion appears to be related to the current and future use of federal office space, it calls upon the House to recognize, among other things, “that the government is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to meet our NATO funding targets earlier than committed”. Clearly, this is nothing more than a Liberal talking point that does not add value, nor can it be substantiated in any way. It is not clear whether there has been an increase in CAF members over the past few years, let alone in the past six months since the government announced its new spending policies. I would also ask what the member means by “historic investments”.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave an excellent speech in which he noted that higher input costs mean higher grocery bills. I am wondering if the member would speak to how these hidden taxes are contributing to the fact that we have the highest food inflation in the G7.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding. The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that the Liberal bill, Bill C-9 , is an infringement on those rights. As such, petitioners call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister delivered his speech pointing out the gaps between rhetoric and reality on the world stage, the reality here at home is that Canadians cannot eat speeches. Our food inflation is the highest in the G7, and the bill is in: Food costs are now up 6.2%, with groceries up 5% and restaurant meals up 8.5% year over year. The Prime Minister 's $78-billion deficit has turned Canada into the food inflation capital of the G7. Instead of delivering affordability, he insists on blaming tariffs from the U.S., which do not even apply to food costs in Canada. A quarter of Canadian households are considered food insecure, with over two million people visiting food banks in Canada monthly. Now it is estimated that a family of four will pay $1,000 more this year to eat. One thing is clear.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government was asked about its billion-dollar subsidy deal with Stellantis, the minister said to read the contracts and we would see job guarantees. After her officials lied and were forced to release the documents, we see exactly what the Liberals got in return for Canadians' money. The contract stated that there would be no penalties against the recipient should their aspirational target not be met. Why did the minister hand out hundreds of millions of dollars without any guarantee from Stellantis that jobs would be created?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of constituents from Hague, Osler, Warman and Rosthern, to table a petition on their behalf. The petitioners believe that Canadians who find themselves struggling with mental illness should be given support and resources to address the challenges they face. They also believe that vulnerable Canadians deserve compassion and care, and should not be offered medical assistance in dying. As such, they call on this House to support Bill C-218 .”
“Mr. Speaker, after being ordered to hand over their multi-billion dollar subsidy deal with Stellantis unredacted, the Liberals refused, with senior officials blaming the company, stating that Stellantis had outlined every redaction they had felt to be necessary and that they were, “comfortable with the redactions they proposed.” The problem is that Stellantis has now gone public, saying it never asked for the documents to be blacked out. Will the minister tell us why her officials lied to committee and Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, obviously in my speech I referenced that the Prime Minister has broken every promise he made six months ago, and he continues to break promises. He is adding the largest deficit this country has seen since COVID. Conservatives were really clear. We offered to work with the government, but even in this minority parliament, the government refuses to work with other parties. We were clear, as I said, that we wanted an affordable budget, and we asked the Prime Minister to do—”
“Madam Speaker, the short answer is that I think it is normal for the current government. We have seen this over and over again over the last 10 years, and I would say this Liberal budget lets everyone down. After promising to deliver a generational budget, the Liberals instead delivered more broken promises. Conservatives have been clear. We want an affordable budget for an affordable life for Saskatchewan. That includes those working in the forestry industry. That includes small and medium-sized businesses, which the CFIB has said the government has left behind.”
“Madam Speaker, Conservatives have always been united under a common vision of hope and restoring the promise of Canada. That is what we have been asking for over the last 10 years. This has never been more important than today. Taxes are up, housing costs have doubled, our national debt is out of control, and crime and chaos are wreaking havoc in our streets, all of which has led to the worst decline in Canadians' living standards in generations. Canadians are continuing to find it hard to make ends meet, let alone get ahead, and what did the Liberal government do? It introduced the most costly and largest budget deficit in Canadian history outside of COVID.”
“Budget 2025 ignores the challenges people in Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek are facing. It is a budget that delivers for wealthy insiders, bondholders and multinationals. It will drive up inflation, will cost Canadians more in interest on the national debt than we collect in GST or spend on health care transfers, and will saddle our children and our children's children with paying for the Liberals' “buy now and have someone else pay for it later” policies. The bottom line is the Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his promises.”
“If we bring their definition in line with international standards, they will not even deliver on their promise to balance their operational spending. Liberals refuse to get out of the way to let Canadians build, feed and house themselves. In closing, the people of Saskatchewan and all Canadians deserve a federal government that gets out of the way so they can invest in Canada's economy, build for the future and feed and house themselves. They deserve the opportunity to earn livelihoods, to engineer and create with Canadian steel, to grow Canadian food to feed Canadians and the world, and to buy a home of their choosing. They deserve a government that does not gamble away their future with large inflationary deficits and taxes on their livelihoods. They deserve affordable homes with affordable groceries in an affordable life.”
“They refuse to repeal their anti-resource development legislation, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 , and plan to continue with their clean fuel standards tax, which will cost Canadians an extra 17¢ per litre on their gas. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau claimed that he was not spending but investing, campaigning on a promise of small deficits, but he immediately broke that promise. The current Prime Minister is maintaining the Liberals' unbroken record of broken promises to Canadians, but he has gone even further by changing the way he will account for his spending. By using an overly expansive definition of capital spending, the Liberals are giving the appearance of a balanced operating budget.”