Peter Fragiskatos
London Centre, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this member spent a half hour in a video going after Tim Hortons for converting to paper lids. Paper lids are her contribution to this discussion. She talks about Liberal policies. Liberal policies are squarely focused on the economy, on jobs, on youth, on child care, on dental care and on pharmacare.”
“Mr. Speaker, more than 4,000 Canadians live with ALS, and June is ALS Awareness Month. ALS has been called a rare disease, but that does not take away from the very real impacts it has on people who are living with it.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, we heard from the Conservatives and the government. In a rare moment of unity, we expressed sympathy with what has happened. We condemned what has happened, and we continue to condemn what has happened. The hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, we continue to entrust law enforcement, in particular the men and women of the Canada Border Services Agency, to do what is necessary to keep Canadians safe. As I said before, since 2024, the IRGC has been recognized as a terrorist entity. Everything we do will be in accordance with public safety.”
“Madam Speaker, this member is doing outstanding work, first of all, on the committees for environment and for defence. He brings with him years of experience as a city councillor and as a journalist. He has been a pillar of his community.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will say what we will not do for seniors. We will not propose, as our central seniors policy, cutting pensions, for which the Leader of the Opposition fought for 20‑plus years. Housing is a very legitimate issue to talk about. We need more housing.”
The complete record
Every one of 181 lines we hold for Peter Fragiskatos, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Tonight, we will look at the matter in greater detail with the finance minister at the federal finance committee, and I look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say, all colleagues, those from our side, from the Bloc and certainly from the Conservative side. However, this is an important moment to collaborate in whatever way possible. I wonder if this will go one step further, though. Budget 2025 has not yet fully passed. I mentioned the finance committee. We are looking at the BIA, the budget implementation act, at that committee. There is so much good in there that could be done for Canadians as we prepare for the rupture that is taking place across the world and what it means for Canada. I think about, for example, infrastructure.”
“This would provide a family of four up to $1,900, once the increase goes through. I have to, first of all, say I was a bit worried on Friday when I was here during question period, listening to colleagues across the way who were throwing cold water, so to speak, on the idea. I was not sure if they were going to support it. This was after the Leader of the Opposition said that it would be supported. In the end, they made the right decision. That was encouraging to see. They gave all sorts of reasons as to why they might not support it, but in the end, they came together and did the right thing.”
“relationship, which we are seeing take place in real time, is in fact exactly that. It is a rupture for this country. It is a rupture for the world, as the Prime Minister described. What that means for members of Parliament is that we have to work together. We should always do that, but particularly in this moment. As such, I want to thank my colleagues across the way and, in particular, those who work on the federal finance committee. I will be working on that committee in the next few weeks. It is an opportunity to come together and do what is right for the country. We have challenges. As I said, our constituents certainly are faced with cost of living issues, so the introduction of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is an important step in the right direction.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address the House on this very important matter. I will say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River . This is an important debate. My colleagues might be surprised across the way, but I want to thank them for raising it. Though it is interesting how they politicize it, this is exactly the type of issue that we need to be addressing as parliamentarians: the everyday challenges of our constituents and the everyday challenges of Canadians across the land. In fact, the Prime Minister , in the noted speech that he gave in Davos just a few weeks ago, talked about a rupture. That is where I want to begin my remarks today, by focusing on what that rupture means. The upending of the Canada-U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, a fiscally responsible approach is what the government is committed to, and that is exactly what we will fulfill. I already mentioned the International Monetary Fund. I know that for colleagues across the way, multilateral organizations, not all of them but many of them, unfortunately, are not to be dealt with. These conspiracies continue to circulate on that side of the House. However, the IMF makes very clear that Canada's fiscal position is a very good position. Canada is an example for the world when it comes to finance. A deficit that is manageable in an absolutely responsible policy is what we are fulfilling.”
“Mr. Speaker, I said it already today and will repeat it: The target rate of inflation is within what the Bank of Canada gives as a guideline, which is 2.4%. On the food inflation the member points out, yes, this is admittedly a challenge for the country. The Conservatives are fond of citing reports. The problem is that they never read those reports. Dalhousie University's food price index says that climate change is primarily responsible for food inflation in this country. In the meantime, what we are doing is introducing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit with, as we heard, almost $1,900 for a family of four in his constituency, in mine and in all of ours.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a classic technique of right-wing populism to identify every problem imaginable and invent some too, and not propose serious solutions. Only a few months ago the Leader of the Opposition was calling for the firing of the Bank of Canada. On this side of the House, we take seriously what the Bank of Canada says. We are seeing, in this country, inflation within the target rate. We are seeing record foreign direct investment. Beyond Canada, the head of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, is calling the world to look at Canada as an example for the world of good fiscal policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, how about having the backs of Canadian families, the middle class and low-income Canadians who need a serious government now to respond to their everyday challenges? That is why we have put in place this particular benefit. That is why we are increasing the GST credit. Furthermore, if the Conservatives are serious about the challenges of this country, I would hope that, beyond inventing mythology about taxes, they would come to the floor of the House of Commons with serious ideas of the day. That is what Canadians deserve right now.”
“Madam Speaker, the member is or should be aware of the landmark Supreme Court decision of 2013 that says that the courts, and judges in particular, can take note of the immigration status of an individual but cannot use that to condition sentencing in a way that would avoid immigration consequences. The question is not a serious one. The point is that if we are going to do immigration policy seriously in this country, we have to make sure we allow—”
“Madam Speaker, I say this with all due respect. The member has been the immigration critic for the Conservative Party for almost 10 years. She knows very well that when new information comes in, it can lead to the cancellation of existing visas that allow individuals to be in Canada in the first place. When we understand these matters, we leave it in the hands of authorities to address those matters. On this side of the House, we continue to be seized with the importance of ensuring a sustainable, responsible immigration system that is focused on the economy from beginning to end.”
“Madam Speaker, the member knows very well that those who are not eligible to be here will face the consequences of Canadian law. We trust authorities to carry that out. As for services in this country, we understand that there has been a strain on services and that the immigration system has a part to play in that. What is also at stake is that we put policy on the table to address those issues. A sustainable, responsible immigration system is exactly what we are pursuing to address those service challenges.”
“Madam Speaker, the slogans continue on the other side. What is lacking is seriousness. They condemn a decision signed by the Premier of Alberta. Yesterday was a great day for Alberta and for Canada. The government was elected on a policy vision to ensure more jobs in this country, economic stewardship and environmental stewardship at the same time. We will maintain that vision from start to finish. I invite the member to join us.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has been an example for the world, particularly when it comes to responding to the Uyghur issue in China, among other global crises affecting fundamental human rights. We continue to look at this issue, and we continue to put in place measures, but the hon. member knows that the circumstances are very challenging indeed. When individuals come to Canada, of course, a number of checks have to be completed, and there are a number of other challenges at play as well. I invite the hon. member to have a conversation afterward, if he wishes.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member continues to cite anonymous sources on the floor of the House of Commons. The reality is that security remains always a fundamental responsibility that we take seriously. When security agencies become aware of potential threats to this country, they act accordingly, We trust them to do that. As for the point that was raised before, relating to what was discussed this week at the immigration committee, I say that the member knows better, because she knows very well that our security system is not upheld by an app, and that criminality checks and national security checks, all of these checks, are carried out before anyone is allowed in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would urge colleagues across the way to think twice about putting on the floor of the House of Commons unverified reports from anonymous sources. Security is of paramount importance in this country. That is a sacrosanct principle upheld by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. We maintain that principle from start to finish. As for the comments about the program that was talked about at the immigration committee, the member knows better.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, November 20, is World Pancreatic Cancer Day. Every year, 7,000 Canadians are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and more than 6,000 succumb to this terrible disease. One was my late aunt, Eleni Dellaporta, who passed away this past January at the young age of 58. She leaves behind two extraordinary sons, Nikos and Panagis; her beloved husband, Petros; and her soon-to-be daughters-in-law, Bernice and Koralia. All of this brings to mind the continued importance of research, awareness and making sure that early detection becomes possible. When we focus on those things, it does become possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will, I am afraid, repeat myself. Individual cases are not something I am going to address on the floor of the House of Commons. I am also not going to address the authorizations issued by particular departments. The member is able to contact the relevant departments and seek an answer that way. I invite her to do so if she wishes.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member knows the respect that I and other colleagues hold for her. Of course, she has served this country and never fails to bring up matters that are important to her and her constituents. I understand that very well. What I would say, and she knows this as well, is that individual cases, for privacy reasons, should not be brought forward on the floor of the House of Commons. She brought it forward, yes, I understand that, but with respect to the response, addressing that would not be appropriate. I will also extend that the authorization of communications relating to individual cases issued by particular departments would also be inappropriate. My advice to the member, and I say this very respectfully because she has brought up the matter before, is to engage with the relevant departments and seek an answer that way.”
“Sixty-four per cent of immigrants who will be here in Canada will be here helping build up the economy. That is an increase from 59%. Researchers are going to be coming. The Conservatives have made temporary workers their only issue. Their big, bold idea is to get rid of a program that sustains, in many ways, businesses in remote communities—”
“Mr. Speaker, my friend accuses me of not answering the question, but his question was all over the place. I am not sure what exactly he was talking about. I am genuinely very interested in the youth employment plan of the Conservatives. I will look it up, but we do not know about it. Perhaps some of us do, but I think I follow things pretty closely, and I have not seen it. As far as the immigration policy of the government goes, the member is stuck in the past. He continues to talk about the Trudeau years. This will be a common refrain, I am afraid, from the Conservatives in the coming weeks, months and years: to keep talking about Justin Trudeau. We are focused on the present and the future. Yesterday's immigration levels plan speaks to that. It is immigration policy that is also economic policy at the same time.”
“I have a hard time understanding that. The Conservative Party champions itself, all of a sudden now, as a party of the working class. If we scratch the surface, we see a party that is anti-union and anti-worker. I will not say anti-youth, because I know they care about young people, but they do not have the ideas. Where are those vital ideas to help advance the cause, the needs, the interests of young people? They are not there. Finally, we are talking about young people, but we also need to talk about young families and the Canada child benefit that, since 2015, has helped to uplift no less than 650,000 kids out of poverty. The Conservative Party has not supported it a single time. I do not understand why.”
“We have a number of companies that are specifically and directly involved with providing military equipment for democracies around the world, including the Canadian government. This budget holds the potential to unleash building in that area. That is only good for the economy. Young people want to see that too. The member talks about EI. He talks about training programs. I have to say that at every opportunity, when the federal government of the past and this government now have put forward measures to help working people, to help deal with the trade issues we have, the Conservative Party has stood against that. I will give an example. We put forward EI measures to help, in a very targeted way, tariff-impacted sectors and workers. The Conservatives have either been silent or not supportive when they have spoken up.”
“Non-market housing is essential to that, whether it is non-market housing with wraparound supports on site to ensure that those who are on the street are uplifted, those who are on the street dealing with addiction and other challenges related to alcoholism. There are many examples we could give here. Wraparound supports are critical in that. Not-for-profits are ready to continue to respond to the challenge. Housing with rent geared to income is another example. Regardless of the form it takes, we can rely on skilled tradespeople, including young people, to help build those homes. On the defence sector, I come from southwestern Ontario, a crucial area when it comes to this country and its defence sector.”
“We should be focused on the present and the future. In the 1990s, I was in elementary school. I am not sure my colleague was even born yet, and I say that as a compliment. The point is, if he has ideas to put on the floor of the House of Commons, he should do so. I would be interested, and I say that very sincerely. What I see, though, and this relates to outcomes, of course, is a Conservative Party that, faced with a budget that happens to hold the potential to transform this country for the better, is going to oppose it. This is a budget that helps to, among other things, build up the country in terms of infrastructure and more homebuilding. We need more non-market housing, in particular. We will rely on the private sector to get those homes built, but in a way that matches with the needs of the moment.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to engage in debate, particularly with this member, whom I have now known for the better part of 10 years. I respect his passion, and I say that sincerely. I know he is a student of many, and Milton Friedman would be counted on that list. I say that because he said that intention does not matter, outcome matters. That is what Milton Friedman had argued. I would go for that. I am not particularly partial to the arguments of Milton Friedman, although he had some very interesting points to make from time to time. I think Keynes is more interesting, for example, but I digress. The member talks about outcomes being especially important. Okay, that is fine, but ideas matter too. The colleague spent his entire speech talking about the 1990s, talking about the past.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling, but I digress. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Peter Fragiskatos: Mr. Speaker, he said, “Supreme Court”. In any case, what is required is a law that is consistent with the charter. The cumulative test provides a substantial connection that meets the requirement set out by the court. As for the Westminster system, I am glad the member has served on the student council at Queen's University. I congratulate him on that, but this is the House of Commons, and what is required is respect for the House of Commons. Report stage, yesterday, showed how this place actually works.”
“As I said in question period a few days ago, the politicization of citizenship and immigration matters has no place in this country. We need reform, but we do not need games.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague of almost 10 years, who devotes herself every day to the needs, interests and concerns of the people of Waterloo. I will focus on this: Ultimately, this is a bill relating to citizenship and, yes, immigration. My colleague mentioned the Leader of the Opposition , who never fails to play games on issues of immigration. Just a few years ago, he was talking about Canada needing more immigration. He was visiting cultural centres and promising to stay the deportation of those who were found to be ineligible to be in Canada. This is the kind of so-called leadership we find across the aisle. Now he is singing a different tune. It might have something to do with a leadership review that is coming up in January. This is not an acceptable approach.”
“Mr. Speaker, I might have missed something, but at no point have I ever heard this, whether in the press or from advocates. I would say that this is the first Conservative talking about conscription, in my experience. Brad Vis: I spoke about this the other day. Peter Fragiskatos: Mr. Speaker, he apparently has spoken about it before. I do not know if there has been another Conservative talking about conscription. We can raise all sorts of hypotheticals. The key is that, as we said before, citizenship law in Canada has to be consistent. It cannot be two-tiered. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice said that it is two-tiered and that we have to act to rectify this.”
“Mr. Speaker, our country is a bilingual country. We are very proud of that. My colleague talked about the work done in committee. A few amendments were adopted in committee, but the House of Commons is sovereign. I mentioned that in my speech. [ English ] Parliament and, in this case, the House decide. We saw that yesterday. That is a sacrosanct principle.”
“Mr. Speaker, our colleague, as he so often does, points to a number of critical things. First of all, on his question about what would happen if this bill does not pass, we would have a citizenship law that is not consistent with the requirements of the Charter of Rights, especially the equality provisions. If citizenship laws are to mean anything in Canada, as I mentioned here today and on previous occasions, we have to ensure they abide by the charter and its equality requirements. My colleague also points to the differences between citizenship by birth and naturalization. There are a number of nuances and differences. We have a bill that seeks to put in place a requirement that helps bring to life the citizenship requirements in terms of birth.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was a prorogation during the time of the previous government. That is a practice available to parliaments in Canada and elsewhere. This is the Westminster tradition. We should focus on the present, and especially the future. The court is asking us to do exactly that. If members across the way want to continue to dwell on the Trudeau years, they can do that. It seems they have an obsession with Justin Trudeau. They keep talking about him. There is a new Prime Minister . There is a new government, which is, among other things, trying to put forward legislation that is entirely consistent with the Charter of Rights. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has said there is an inconsistency, and we needed to rectify it in a way that would allow us to uphold vital democratic principles.”
“However, a cumulative requirement is what the government has gone with, for reasons I have talked about today and in my previous speech, and it is entirely justified. Again, November 20 is the court deadline. We have an opportunity now to move forward with this bill. I hope colleagues get behind it. I am still struggling to understand exactly what the issue is, although I am sure that my colleagues will raise that in the comments and questions. We have an opportunity to abide by the deadline. Yes, amendments were made, but the House of Commons' procedures allow for those amendments to be overturned, and they were. I am thankful for the time, and I look forward to questions.”
“That substantial connection needs to be understood, and it is understood and respected in this bill. It would be cumulative, not consecutive. What does that mean? Think of a diplomat who was born in another country, like Germany or France. They would have the opportunity, as a diplomat, to spend time in Canada, but perhaps be stationed or assigned to different postings abroad. A consecutive stay in Canada is therefore not always possible, but a cumulative requirement in the bill would allow for that diplomat to still maintain that connection to Canada. It would allow that diplomat, under the provisions of the bill, to meet the requirement so that citizenship could be passed down. Colleagues have raised this concern about the consecutive requirement that they hoped would be in the bill.”
“I would urge colleagues to think about being as expeditious as possible in getting the bill out of the House of Commons and over to the Senate so that senators can look at it and it can ultimately receive royal assent. This is of paramount importance. Think about what is at stake. (1010) Canadian identity and citizenship can mean many things, but I go back to the example of a Canadian born abroad who also has children born abroad. They would certainly feel very close to Canada and feel a real tie to Canada. They could have served Canada as a diplomat or a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, or by participating in non-government organizations. A substantial connection builds through experiences like these. We could think of many other examples as well.”
“At committee, the Conservatives worked with the Bloc on a number of amendments, which were passed at committee but defeated here, as we saw yesterday. Colleagues in the House have raised concerns about that, but I would remind them that, ultimately, it is the House of Commons that decides. The House of Commons has various committees, and amendments can be passed there, but we have report stage for a reason. I thank the NDP for working with us to restore the bill, in essence, to its original form. The bill is justified and needed, and it speaks to the needs of the moment. We have to respond to this court ruling. November 20 is the date by which we have been asked to respond.”
“It would all Canadians who were born abroad and have children born abroad to pass down their citizenship. That would address the Ontario court decision of December 2023, which said the fact that this right does not currently exist and is not currently available stands as an inconsistency. It goes against the equality provisions under the charter. There is a very important condition, though, that the government has added, which is that there must be a substantial connection to Canada that is upheld over a cumulative period of three years. That is required. This is a very important condition that allows for citizenship to be meaningful, and it is something that advocates have called for for a long time. I know colleagues across the aisle will point to other ways of achieving this goal.”
“In our case, as Canadians, citizenship and the rights it entails, such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and all of the freedoms we hold dear, are codified in our charter. A perfect example of that is when citizenship entails living up to the expression of rights, which, without that document, cannot be held in high regard at all. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in December 2023 that citizenship law in Canada is not consistent. In fact, it is two-tiered. It came to that decision because Canadians who obtain their citizenship either through birth or through naturalization can pass down that citizenship to their children, but this is not true of Canadians who are born abroad. Bill C-3 seeks to rectify that. How would it do so?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House once again to speak to Bill C-3 . It is a very important bill that seeks to respond to an important court challenge calling into question citizenship law in Canada. It would do so by pointing to an inconsistency in citizenship law that has to be rectified in order for it to be what it should always be: equal and applicable to all. In my previous speech on Bill C-3 , I began by talking about the philosopher Hannah Arendt, who famously said that citizenship is “the right to have rights”. Without citizenship, we cannot even speak about democracy. The bill would codify into law what we all know, which is that all of us, as individuals, have certain inalienable rights. If democracy is to mean anything and stand for anything at all, citizenship matters.”
“Madam Speaker, from the moment she was elected, that member has committed herself to matters of fundamental justice, and that is exactly what is at stake with Bill C-3 . In December 2023, as colleagues will know, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that there is an inconsistency in Canadian citizenship law, so Bill C-3 would rectify that inconsistency. Whereas Canadians who were born here or naturalized here can of course pass down their citizenship to their children, that same right is not available to Canadians who were born abroad with children who were also born abroad. I urge colleagues to get behind Bill C-3 . I thank the NDP for its support. This is the measure that would improve Canadian citizenship law in conforming with the Charter.”
“In 2019, the committee that is responsible for labour matters and benefits, the HUMA committee, spoke about the need to go in this direction. If we respect Parliament, as we do, and if we respect the House and its procedures, as we do, we will give life to and go forward with this particular change. I thank everyone who has spoken today. It is a day I will not forget.”
“I would point to the bill, a private member's bill that our colleague has put forward, a private member's bill that seems to have unanimous consent, to say the least, to go forward. This needs to go forward. I hope a royal recommendation is given, because no less than 1,600 families a year are affected by the loss of a child. The sponsor of the bill, in his initial speech on the subject, made clear that there is an elegant solution here, as he put it. This would not require extra spending or anything like that. EI parental benefits and EI sickness benefits are almost equal. Removing the bureaucracy from the process and ensuring that we have a compassionate approach put forward is absolutely vital. It is something that we can unite on here today. It would make clear that we also respect the House of Commons' process.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have always considered the hon. colleague opposite to be an excellent parliamentarian, but I now put him in the category of an outstanding human being. The courage that he has shown today on the floor of the House of Commons, to share such a personal story and to relate it to a bill is indescribable. I do not think I have seen it in all my years, 10 years now, of serving as a member of Parliament. I truly commend him for that. We have an opportunity. We have seen it today, with the spirit in the House. This is politics, and politics is naturally partisan. That is not always a terrible thing, but sometimes it prevents us from doing the work we need to do as parliamentarians to benefit the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, we understand that there are pressures in the Canadian economy and in Canadian society because of, among other factors, ensuring that we have a sustainable immigration system. That is exactly what the government is doing. In a few weeks' time, as the member knows because she is the critic for the Conservative party on immigration, there is a level of plan that will be presented. It will be sustainable. It will ensure that talent attraction is at the heart of the strategy. I implore my colleagues, instead of politicizing questions of immigration, to put serious ideas on the floor that are, and I emphasize this, constitutional.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course those who break the law face the consequences of Canadian law, and we trust law enforcement to carry out its responsibilities. I will reiterate that, in this country, we have an absolute opportunity to ensure that immigration policy is put on a solid footing. That is why the government is seized with ensuing sustainability in the immigration system and seized with ensuring that immigration policy is always about economic policy. We centre ourselves on Canadian values. The Conservatives can play games with immigration for political purposes and support the Leader of the Opposition as he leads into the leadership review in January.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives never miss an opportunity to disrespect law enforcement, we will allow law enforcement members to do their job. We trust them to execute Canadian law, and we leave that matter in their hands. We also will not politicize, from start to finish, immigration policy in this country. In the lead up to the last election, the Conservative leader said we needed more immigration. In the lead up to the last election, he promised those who had expiring student permits that he would prevent them from being deported. That is irresponsible policy, but that is the Conservative way.”
“I invite the community to attend the special retrospective that has been planned, where memories of the past 40 years will be shared by all those at Hangar9. We are in their absolute debt. They have done such a great thing. I wish them all the very best going forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour the incredible contributions of Jo-Ann Fisher, who, in the early 1980s, opened a small women’s fashion boutique that has become Hangar9, a name and store that is synonymous with quality in our community. It is a clothing store that has catered to the community for all of these years. She has since operated that store with her daughters, Lisa, Denise and Rachael. On the 40th anniversary of Hangar9, I salute their efforts. Entrepreneurship is a great thing. We are so valued to have entrepreneurs in my community of London, and throughout the country, in fact, who continue to make a contribution. Small business is the backbone of our economy, and Hangar9 is a testament to that.”
“They are tremendous people and a testament to the power of entrepreneurship in our community. We wish Roland, Myra and David nothing but the best.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Colour by Schubert, an extraordinary London business in place since 1982, carrying out custom image framing, restoring trusted images and doing incredible high-quality prints for decades. The photography world has changed, as we know, but what has never been unwavering is its commitment to its customers and to our community. This is an extraordinary business, and as Roland, Myra and David move towards retirement from the business, I want to thank them for serving our community. I speak from some experience. Our family has had work done by Colour by Schubert. It has always been the best. I cannot say more about an outstanding business like this. The owners have supported organizations as well throughout the community over these years.”