Rachael Thomas
Lethbridge, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 summit as the one and only leader who has led his country into a recession. This is what that looks like: Two in five Canadians struggle to be able to afford to feed themselves; full-time workers are living in RVs or a Tim Hortons; and food bank use has hit an all-time high.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think what that member meant to highlight was the fact that under the Liberal government, child poverty rates have increased year after year after year for the last three. This dramatically impacts the people of my riding in Lethbridge, Alberta. It means that seniors in this country are living at Tim Hortons.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to extend congratulations to the town of Picture Butte on its 100th anniversary. For a century, Picture Butte has been shaped by the values that define rural Canada: hard work, family and community spirit.”
“Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member has chosen to spend the majority of his speech on process, I will ask him a process question. The current government, the Liberals, they are the ones who sponsored this bill; the hon. member did, from that side of the House.”
“To everyone who has built, served and strengthened this community over the past century, I wish to extend my sincere gratitude. Their legacy is one of vision, determination and generosity. As the member of Parliament for Lethbridge, I congratulate them on 100 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect, the small craft harbours do not conquer the food poverty that children across this country are experiencing, especially those in my riding of Lethbridge. With all due respect, I would ask the folks across the way what they will do for Canadians, because they are struggling. They are struggling.”
The complete record
Every one of 210 lines we hold for Rachael Thomas, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“There are dozens of these stories that come into my office almost monthly, and it keeps getting worse as time goes on. Folks have done everything right, but, for some reason, cannot get ahead. This is what happens when a government spends beyond its means. Inflation is not an abstract concept; it is a thief, and it is the result of the government. It erodes purchasing power, punishes responsibility, makes the poor poorer and shrinks the middle class, yet the Liberal government continues to insist that deficits somehow make life more affordable and somehow Canadians are going to get ahead. They are not. The truth is the opposite. Every dollar the government borrows today is a dollar that people like Joy, Susie or the hard-working couple have to pay back. It is on their backs.”
“There is nothing else to point to other than government policy. It is not the sign of a healthy economy. It is the consequence of years of reckless fiscal policy that has driven up inflation, raised interest rates and punished those who have worked hard their whole lives. This is happening not just to seniors or those with a disability but to working families too. A couple who would prefer not to be named sat down with me and shared that both of them are working full time. They have three kids and are doing their best, but, at the end of the day, they are not able to afford the things they require as a family. These people have chosen to start skipping meals in order to make sure that their kids have enough to eat and that they can continue to put a roof over their head and function as a family unit. I could go on and on.”
“My question for the government is what it would like me to tell her. What do I tell someone like Joy, who is doing all she possibly can but is not able to afford a basic roof over her head? Then there is Susie. Susie is a senior in my riding who reached out to me. She has worked hard her entire life, raised her family and contributed to the community. She pays her taxes faithfully. Now, in retirement, she finds herself unable to afford groceries and rent. She has to choose between the basic necessities of affording her rent or putting proper groceries in her fridge. Of course, the roof over her head is most important in her view, so she pays the rent, but she has turned to skipping meals in order to make it. This is Canada, one of the richest nations in the world, yet our seniors are being forced to choose between food and rent.”
“The new Prime Minister is just like the old one: more spending, more borrowing and more pain for hard-working Canadians. Behind every number is a person, a story deserving to be known. A few weeks ago, I spoke with Joy, a woman from my community who uses a wheelchair and lives on a fixed income. She called to tell me how desperate she has been in trying to find accessible housing. She has done everything she can. She is responsible, organized, determined and working hard, but as rents climb and the cost of living rises, every apartment she looks at is out of her reach. She told me she just wants a place where she can live with dignity. Is this not what most people want? These are the very basic necessities of life, and she just wants a place where she can live with dignity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Barrie South—Innisfil . When the Liberals first took office in 2015, they told Canadians that a bit of red ink would buy prosperity, that deficits would fuel growth and investment and that Canada would be better off. After nearly a decade of the record showing the opposite, we have to wonder if we should still keep going in this direction. We have had record borrowing and record spending, with record debt and hardship among Canadians. Investment per worker has fallen by more than 10%; economic growth per capita is the worst in the G7, and the current Prime Minister has caused 86,000 jobs to be lost, resulting in the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7.”
“Mr. Speaker, here is what we know that cannot be refuted. We know that Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. We know that the unemployment rate is the second highest. We know that Canadians are already struggling to put food on their tables and take care of their families. Now we know that the Prime Minister went to the United States of America and promised that he would drive another $1 trillion of investment south of the border, therefore putting Canadian families at a disadvantage, because they will not have jobs. What will the Prime Minister do to put his elbows up and stand up for them?”
“Mr. Speaker, while in Washington, the Prime Minister bragged that the Liberal government has already driven half a trillion dollars of investment south of the border over the last five years, and then he proudly vowed that he would send another $1 trillion south of the border if we get the agreement we expect to get. In other words, this is exactly what the Prime Minister wants to do. He wants to drive investment from Canada to the United States. So much for elbows up. Here are the choices: Does the Prime Minister plan to order that Canadian pension funds be invested in the United States, or does he plan to continue his anti-development initiatives—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to give that same passionate speech and those condescending talking points to the four million Canadians lined up at food banks in order to be able to feed their families. It is despicable and he should be ashamed. Since the Prime Minister came to power, food prices have only gone up. Food prices are rising twice as fast as they did under former prime minister Justin Trudeau. Food insecurity is up by 128%, and one in four Canadians cannot even provide the very basic necessities of life for themselves. Meanwhile, the member opposite rolls his eyes and shakes his head as if I am saying something that does not matter to him. Why does the government not—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he would be judged by the price of food at grocery stores as to whether or not he is successful. The data is in, and it does not look great. Due to the Liberals' hidden food taxes, Canadians are paying more than ever when they go to fill their fridge. The hidden carbon tax is applied to the production of food; the hidden plastic tax is applied to packaging, and the hidden tax known as inflation is applied to everything because of the government's out-of-control spending. All of these things add up, and Canadians are stuck with the bill. Yesterday the Liberals blocked our Conservative motion to make food more affordable by scrapping these taxes. Why are the Liberals so hell-bent on making things tough for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member says the Liberal government has “stood by and supported families”, a direct quote. I would like her to tell that to Scott. Scott is in my riding. He has children and a wife. He works hard, but he finds it very difficult to make ends meet. We recently got off the phone, and he was telling me on that call that he is struggling to feed his family. In fact, he and his wife are down to one meal a day to make sure that his kids get enough food and their bills can get paid. This is a hard-working family that is not able to make it happen for them. They are struggling. What would this member have me tell Scott and his family?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberal government, Canadians cannot afford to feed themselves. Printing money has resulted in inflation tax, which has driven up the cost of food. The Liberals' industrial carbon tax has increased the cost of farming, which has driven up the cost of food. The food packaging tax installed by the Liberal government has also driven up the cost of food. Families are struggling, and the hardest hit among them are children. In Lethbridge, food bank use among kids is up 150% in just the last four years. Enough is enough. Will the Liberals support the Conservative motion to scrap the tax on food?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that with the coming budget on November 4, we should expect to see record deficits. This is very concerning for myriad reasons, but today we are talking about the increased cost to food, the increased cost of living and the struggle Canadians are having. The government insists on spending more money that we do not have. What impact will this have on Canadians families?”
“Female journalists, politicians and public voices are being harassed and silenced through this type of abuse, yet the government's so-called online harms legislation, which it introduced in the last Parliament, failed to address these dangers and instead imposed censorship on Canadians. We hope for better in this Parliament. Conservatives believe in real solutions. We are calling for legislation that criminalizes these acts, modernizes the Criminal Code and puts victims at the very centre. Survivors need protection, support and justice, not empty promises or flawed laws. To that end, my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill has put forward a fantastic private member's bill, and I hope that we can count on the members of this place to support her.”
“Conservatives believe in free expression, open access and opportunity for all Canadians, which is why we are calling for both Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 to be repealed and for Canadians to have their freedom restored. I also have a response to another report, if members will bear with me. On behalf of my Conservative colleagues, I rise to address the urgent and growing threat of online harms. Canadians, especially women and girls, are increasingly being targeted by non-consensual intimate images and deepfake technology. These are not abstract issues, but rather forms of violence that cause real and lasting harm. The evidence is clear: 92% of adult cases of non-consensual image distribution involve women, and nearly all deepfake pornography targets women.”
“Madam Speaker, I wish to respond. We have two dissenting reports. First, we have a dissenting report with regard to the study on tech giants. On behalf of my Conservative colleagues, I rise to draw attention to the findings in that report on the use of intimidation tactics, along with excessive censorship from the Liberal government. Through Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 , the government has chosen to censor what Canadians can see, say and share online. Bill C-11 makes Ottawa bureaucrats and the government the gatekeepers of the Internet rather than allowing Canadians freedom of choice. Bill C-18 has had equally devastating consequences, taking news off many platforms, such as Instagram and Facebook, thus preventing Canadians from being able to access local media.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that after the Liberals released violent offenders and targeted law-abiding citizens of this country, such as sports shooters or hunters, gun crime has actually surged by 130% under the Liberal government. The public safety minister admits that it is simply a gun grab rather than accomplishing anything good for Canadians. He has confessed he does not know what an RPAL is, and he has sponsored a bill that undermines civil liberties. He is mired in conflict of interest concerns. Would the Prime Minister finally do the right thing and fire the incompetent minister ?”
“It is long overdue that we put victims ahead of criminals, and I hope I can count on all members of this place to agree with that. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Mr. Speaker, my point is clear that for over a decade, Liberal justice policies have increasingly favoured criminals and undermined the safety and dignity of victims and communities alike. The bill I am bringing forward today seeks to put victims ahead of criminals, which is where we need to land as a country. Liberal reforms have repeatedly prioritized repeat offenders, sending the wrong message that protecting predators matters more than protecting Canadians, and this practice is wrong and must end. My bill would amend the Criminal Code to require courts to impose consecutive sentences rather than concurrent ones for sentences for sexual offences. With my bill, each crime would carry its own penalty and each victim would receive the recognition they deserve.”
“Liberal reforms have repeatedly prioritized repeat offenders, sending the wrong message that protecting predators matters more than protecting Canadians—”
“Bill C-246. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences) . She said: Mr. Speaker, for over a decade, Liberal justice policies have increasingly favoured criminals, therefore undermining the safety and dignity of victims and communities alike. Nowhere is this more painfully evident than in the case of sexual assault. Sexual violence is one of the most devastating violations a person can suffer. It strips away their dignity, their safety and their trust, yet multiple sexual assaults are often treated as if they are one offence, therefore minimizing harm, weakening deterrence and eroding public trust. Since 2015, sexual assaults have increased nearly 75%, and offences against children by 120%.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good work the member has done in order to advocate for victims and the protection of Canadians. He certainly has done a lot of good work in that regard. It is my great pleasure to join with him in continuing the good fight to contend for Canadians, their peace of mind and the security of persons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am curious about the hon. member's purpose for the question. Nevertheless, when it comes to this bill, there are significant flaws. I have taken the time to outline some of those flaws here today, but ultimately, it comes down to this: The bill fails to secure people in the way it promises to. It fails to contend for Canadians who deserve protection. Furthermore, it is a direct infringement on people's freedoms. For example, it will grant permission to Canada Post employees to open mail without a warrant. That is crazy. Furthermore, a peace officer will be able to access a person's data, again without a warrant. That is crazy. We have warrants in place in order to make sure that people are protected from an overreach of government and authority.”
“I thank the hon. member for taking those steps. I think advocating for, in this case, his constituent's family, the loved ones who have been left behind, is really admirable. It is the right thing to do. Well done. That said, I also believe that the member stands on the side of government and therefore has the ability to urge change. I hope he is doing that. I hope he is urging cabinet with all his might, and especially the Prime Minister , to look at this very seriously and to create changes around both bail and the way we do sentencing in this country. Those two things are very much needed in order to protect the innocent and make sure that future situations like what happened to Bailey do not happen again.”
“Out of passion, I have run out of time, but I think I have hit my mark. Ultimately, it is the people who matter most. They are the ones who sent me here. They are the ones I am contending for, and I would ask that my colleagues do the same.”
“They have not even been acknowledged. This summer, it felt like every other hour I was opening up my phone and reading an article with regard to a crime committed against another human being. There was another life lost or another person assaulted. It should not be that way. Those in this House have the power, we have the power, to make a difference. We have the power to change the laws of this country and to instruct our law enforcement agents and the courts to act differently. We have the ability to contend for victims, to protect those who are innocent, and to truly provide security of person. When we talk about Bill C-2 , there is a whole lot missed there. I said originally that I was going to talk about security of person, and I was going to talk about the violation of human liberty that is also exposed in this bill.”
“It is also worth noting that our system allows for violent offenders to actually receive house arrest rather than be put in prison where they belong. How does that protect society? How does that protect those who are just trying to go to work, take their kids to sports or a music lesson, and live life in a safe, law-abiding manner? Why are we not standing up for those folks? Colleagues, we need tougher, more consistent sentencing that reflects the gravity of the crime committed. Canadians deserve this. When we talk about the security of a person, these are the things that must come to the table. Under Bill C-2 , none of this is considered. In fact, in the six or seven months that the government has now been in place under the new Prime Minister , the topics I am bringing up today have not even been addressed.”
“We have to confront the fact that our sentencing laws in this country are very broken. In Canada today, the maximum penalty for a third robbery offence is higher than the penalty for a sexual offence. I am going to say that again. Right now in this country, the maximum penalty for a third robbery offence is actually more than for a sexual assault offence. I want us to think about that for a moment. Physical property in this country is actually given more weight, more value, than a person's dignity. Most often, it is women who are sexually assaulted. It is women who are put in that vulnerable place, that place of having to pull themselves together and heal from what was robbed: their very dignity and their very being.”
“This man, a very dangerous offender who was known to police, went out and took the life of his ex-wife, leaving two young children without a mom, and a family grieving. We have put forward a bill called the jail not bail act, and it calls for the repeal of Bill C-75 , which forces judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the lightest conditions. That should not be the case in this country. The bill we are proposing would instead require judges to consider an accused's full criminal history, deny bail to repeat major offenders and toughen risk assessments, which would do a lot of good for victims and innocent Canadians. It would certainly do a lot of good to put criminals where they belong. The other reform that we could bring forward is sentence reform.”
“Folks, if our justice system were stronger, if it stood for victims and did not side with criminals, these things would be prevented. These tragedies expose a massive weakness in our justice system, and it is one that desperately needs to be addressed. The government has not only the opportunity but, I would dare say, the responsibility. (1850) There are solutions, and I want to outline two of them. We have dozens that we can offer, but these are two of them. One would be bail reform. There are cases like that of Bailey, who was the mother murdered by her ex. He should not have been allowed out on bail. It highlights a massive problem with our bail system, the fact that a criminal can be put in jail and then let out before the ink on the police report even dries. That is what happened here.”
“A little girl should be able to go to sleep at night with confidence that she is going to be kept safe, that she is going to wake up in the morning without her sleep being disrupted in any way. Unfortunately, because of our weak policies in this country, that three-year-old woke up having been forever changed, and she now has to work through the scarring that has taken place, not only to her physical body but to that little three-year-old heart. That is because of the failed policies of this place. Folks, more can and should be done in order to make sure that a person is secure. Yes, sure, put more border patrol in place, but at the end of the day, there is so much more. In Kelowna, B.C., Bailey McCourt, a 32-year-old mother of two, was beaten by her ex with a hammer after he got released on $500 bail. That did not have to happen.”
“That same failed experiment actually resulted in the death of more people due to drug overdose than died during World War II. Let that sink in for a moment: More people died because of the government's failed drug experiment than the number of people who died in World War II. That is a big deal. Meanwhile, we also have to look at catch-and-release policies and what they have done, because they have sown great chaos across the country. My own riding of Lethbridge has one of the highest property and violent crime rates in Canada, and we are certainly not alone. It is something being experienced in communities from coast to coast. In Welland, Ontario, just a few weeks ago, a three-year-old girl was violently sexually assaulted in her own bed.”
“Sadly, Canadians have been truly, not figuratively, paying for those mistakes with their lives. We are told the border is secure, yet the CBSA has lost track of nearly 30,000 people with deportation orders. That is not security; that is negligence. In Falkland, B.C., authorities uncovered the largest, most sophisticated drug superlab in Canadian history in just the last couple of years. In the same province, the RCMP arrested individuals tied to a transnational organized crime group connected to Mexican drug cartels. This is the state of our country. These are not isolated incidents. They are the product of years of border mismanagement and reckless drug policy experiments that have been done, especially in the province of British Columbia, which the government not only stamped with approval but also funded.”
“I would say that it would neither make our communities safer nor protect our freedoms, and it would actually deepen the failures of the current government from the past decade. There are two things. The bill claims to enhance security, but it would actually leave glaring holes in our justice system untouched, therefore leaving a person feeling less secure than ever. I will expand on that. The second thing I would like to discuss is the fact that it would infringe on the fundamental freedoms of Canadians in ways that should alarm each and every one of us in this place. With regard to security of person and the justice system, let us be clear: Bill C-2 is the Liberals' half-hearted attempt to patch over the chaos that many of their policies have actually created.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have always stood for the principle of security and the principle of freedom, and we have managed to do so simultaneously. These are the two pillars of a safe and prosperous society. Sadly, though, after a decade of Liberal governance, Canadians are living with less of both: less freedom and less security. The Liberals would like to move past their disastrous record on these topics, but Canadians are still paying the price and therefore very much paying attention and have some significant concerns. Today, with Bill C-2 , the government is claiming yet again to secure Canada. The Liberals have said that this is the intent of the bill. I would like to explore that a bit, because there are two problems that I see with the bill.”
“As we grapple with our personal response to this, may we be honourable in our actions, may we fiercely defend the right of our opponents to speak freely, and may we join our hearts with Charlie's family, his wife Erika and his two young children. May he rest in peace.”
“Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a free society. It means we will hear ideas that we disagree with and express views that may be offensive. This freedom can make us uncomfortable or even hurt, but silencing voices, whether for a moment or forever, is never the answer. We must protect a society where people can hold beliefs and share opinions without fear of losing their jobs, being censored or worse. Charlie Kirk was an outspoken advocate for faith, family and freedom. Many disagreed with him; some were offended. Tragically, on September 10 he was assassinated in an attempt to silence his voice. When has political violence ever been the solution? It destroys dialogue, it undermines democracy, and it breeds fear instead of understanding. True progress comes from persuasion, not intimidation.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal government is truly going to stand with auto workers, then it should stop making the very vehicles they are producing illegal. In my community of Lethbridge, a farmer cannot drive an EV to pick up seed or drive an EV to harvest their crop. Families in my community need choice when it comes to the vehicle they drive. Will the Liberals stand with Canadians and relinquish their ban on gas-powered cars?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The Liberals over here do not believe in the freedom of choice that Canadians should have when it comes to the vehicle they drive. Right now, they have a mandate in place that makes it so Canadians will have to buy EVs. They will have to, but that does not fit the needs of Canadian families. Especially at this time when Canadian families are struggling to make ends meet, they cannot afford the additional $20,000 that this mandate would add to their bill when they go to purchase a new car. Right now, the government has an option, and that is to vote with Conservatives to relinquish the ban on gas-powered vehicles. Will they vote with us?”
“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will take no lessons from them. We will stand up for Canadians' freedom of choice: the choice to drive the vehicle that suits their needs and the choice to drive the vehicle they need for their family. That is what this side of the House will stand for. We are— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“The government does not trust Canadians. They do not trust Canadians to think independently, to speak freely or to make their own choices, but Conservatives on this side of the House will always protect free speech, always protect open debate and always stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We are here to continue—”
“Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression is the foundation of every other freedom. Without it, we cannot challenge bad ideas, question authority or hold governments to account. We cannot protect truth. Freedom of expression is the oxygen of democracy. When governments decide to censor speech, they begin to control thought itself. This path does not lead to safety. Instead, it leads to silence, fear and eventually oppression. In the last Parliament, the Liberals pushed Canada down that path. Bill C-18 banned news from social media. Bill C-11 manipulated what Canadians can see and say online, and Bill C-63 , a bloated censorship regime, threatened to put in place an Internet czar and sweeping new powers to police speech. The Liberals claim that they have changed, that this is a “new government”, but Canadians know better.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing is that this is the same old government, which is absolutely hell-bent on continuing to censor what Canadians can see and say online. My question is with regard to Bill C-63 going forward. Bill C-63 does not just target predators. It targets opinions, freedom of thought and discourse within the online sphere. It institutes the thought police, for crying out loud. It is a Trojan Horse for further government control. I will ask this again: In any future legislation going forward, will the Liberal government commit to respecting Canadians and making sure that it does not censor them?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, the Liberals forced through one piece of censorship legislation after another: Bill C-18 , which stops the spread of news on social media outlets; Bill C-11 , which controls what Canadians can see and say online; and then Bill C-63 , which is bloated censorship legislation that brought in an Internet czar and controls freedom of speech. The Liberals claim that this is a “new government”. My curiosity is for whoever is in charge over there: Will the Liberals commit to respecting Canadians and, of course, stop censoring them?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is the type of non-answer that we have become accustomed to from the Liberals. Grand gestures, meetings and press conferences will not things done, even though the Prime Minister seems to believe that is the case. What would move things forward, of course, is a plan, such as a plan to scrap Bill C-69 , the no new pipelines act; a plan to scrap Bill C-48 ; or a plan to scrap the job-killing oil and gas cap, which exists. On the industrial carbon tax, let us get rid of that as well. Is the Prime Minister simply turning a blind eye to these things, or does he just not know how to get things done?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said there would only be pipelines if there was consensus. As it turns out, the Premier of B.C. has said no. Several Liberal MPs are opposed. Even within the Prime Minister's own head, there seems to be opposition, because on the one hand he says, “Yes, we are going to go ahead and become the energy superpower,” but on the other hand he says, “No, oil needs to stay in the ground.” The Prime Minister clearly has no plan to get things done. Why is he putting his elbows down and making us beholden to the United States of America?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I outlined in my speech, that is exactly it. The government makes lofty promises and is really great at its talking points, but when it comes to actions of substance, when it comes down to actually making a meaningful difference for Canadians, unfortunately the government has not delivered in 10 years. Unfortunately, I do not believe it will deliver in this session either.”
“We have an opportunity to be the supplier in those markets, thereby taking away demand from places such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, which do it very poorly, both in terms of the environment and of course in terms of respect for human rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, quite simply, I would say to the member's children that if they want a planet that is sustainable into the future, they should get behind Canada's energy sector and its development, because no other place on this planet does it better. In the way we have installed environmental protections, in the way we pay workers and respect them and in the way we produce this commodity and get it to market, nobody does it in a more responsible manner. In fact, we would have an opportunity to make a real difference if we could get our commodities to places such as China, India, South Korea and Japan.”
“Mr. Speaker, in this country we have two official languages, French and English. I respect that. I believe that our country should continue with that, but to equate the existence of the CBC with the existence of a bilingual nation seems a little odd. We do not need the CBC in order to remain a respected bilingual country. We can have two respected languages, two official languages, in this country, and we can respect speakers of both languages. We do not need the CBC. The vast majority of Canadians would agree.”
“We believe in keeping Canadians safe, not appeasing criminals. Above all, we are committed to fighting for hope: hope that a family can afford groceries again, hope that a young couple can buy their first home, hope that our streets can in fact once again be safe, and hope that every single Canadian, no matter where they live or what they do, can reach greater heights, go further and build a life of dignity and purpose. In this session, my Conservative colleagues and I will be fighting for these things, because we believe in the Canadian people.”