Mel Arnold
Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his speech and actually admitting in his words that we are in “a bit of a challenging time for our country.” His terminology for this may be a little bit off when we have seniors having to live in their vehicles because they cannot afford rent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two more petitions. These two are on the Liberals' failing firearms confiscation program. With nearly a $1-billion price tag, barely a third of that program is going to actually compensate firearms owners, while the rest will go into bureaucracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passing of long-time city councillor, regional district director and former chair Kevin Flynn. Kevin's leadership earned him the deep respect of the community he served so passionately, yet for all his dedication to public service, Kevin's greatest joy was his family.”
“Bill C-25 would create a wide open loophole through which foreign money could still be used by third parties for partisan activity, partisan advertising and election surveying.”
“Mr. Speaker, after 11 summers in the House, it is interesting to see what happens, typically, every year in June, under this government. The Liberals cannot manage their agenda throughout the entire year, so they fall so far behind.”
“In these times of global uncertainty, Canadians need our vigilance and actions more than at any other time. As I begin speaking to this bill, Bill C-25 , the strong and free elections act, I would like to thank all of the Elections Canada workers, from the electoral district returning officers to the poll workers, the volunteers and the e…”
The complete record
Every one of 219 lines we hold for Mel Arnold, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Alvie Burden's service reminds us today of the sacrifices that members of the Canadian Armed Forces have made and continue to make on our behalf. Lest we forget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay homage to World War II veteran Alvie Burden. Alvie was a resident of Armstrong, British Columbia, and was not only Armstrong's oldest veteran but also Canada's oldest Black veteran of the Second World War. Born in Tisdale, Saskatchewan, in 1922, Alvie Burden joined the Canadian Forces at the age of 19 and was posted to the Saskatoon Light Infantry regiment. Alvie served more than 21 months in the Italian and Dutch campaigns and was the only Black member of his company. In Italy, Alvie Burden was nearly killed in action by shrapnel wounds to his head and wrists. Thankfully, Alvie made his recovery, lived on and helped younger generations understand the realities of war, until he passed on March 26 at the age of 104 years old.”
“Mr. Speaker, those amendments would be developed during the scrutiny of the bill. We can see where the language in the bill needs to be clarified, whether with respect to the definitions or how the bill is going to be interpreted. I spoke about that in my intervention. We could hear from enforcement authorities and from individuals who have been affected by not having this legislation in place so that we can improve the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Liberal side for finally being one to stand up. I think he has been the only one in the last while here to present questions. I am not going to take the liberty to talk about what amendments might be put forward at committee. We will carefully scrutinize the bill. We will listen to the witnesses who are called to committee to testify on the bill, to the stakeholders and to law enforcement, who can hopefully guide all members of the House and the members of the committee on the best way to improve this bill if it needs to be improved.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Oshawa for that really interesting question about the echo chamber. I will mimic my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola when he spoke of the echo, echo, echo chamber in here. I think it is telling that today there are no questions and no interventions coming from the Liberal side. We can only surmise why that might be, but understanding how the Liberal government operates, there are some members in this chamber at times who are the only ones to speak during the intervention process or present speeches from the government side. Its backbench members are basically muzzled. It sounds like the entire government side is muzzled today on these interventions.”
“Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at this legislation very closely, scrutinizing it closely, like we do with every piece of legislation that comes before the House, to make sure that appropriate amendments are proposed, and hopefully passed, at committee.”
“The citizens of this country often provide input and good direction for the government, but the government continues to be an echo chamber. It is high time the government took what it is being told by Canadians and addressed the crime, fraud and corruption that have become a plague in our communities.”
“Even though this bill is a government bill, the government members are not rising to speak to it, not even to ask questions of Conservative members during the questions and comments phases of today's interventions. I raise this because I fear that it is what law enforcement authorities may be perceiving while waiting for legislation so they can do their jobs. Empty echo chambers, from a government that has had over 10 years to address the crime, fraud and corruption, are increasing the impact on Canadians after 10 years of inaction, while criminals are treated more leniently than victims are supported by their own government. I revert back to how our debate today echoes with what witnesses repeatedly tell us at committees.”
“I will talk about some of the stats in British Columbia. The total number of violent crime violations was 26,062. That is up to 33,926, an increase of 30%. Extortions went from 359 to 1,592, a 343.45% increase in extortion. Just in British Columbia, we have seen how the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have led to these problems and increasing problems that continue under the Liberal government's realm. Using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence was affected by Bill C-5 . Bill C-75 rolled back the issues around bail reform. I want to step back a bit to earlier in the interventions today when my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola referred to the echo chamber that seems to be in this place today.”
“(1305) I want to take a bit of a sidestep right now to talk about some of the crime stats that have been the result of previous poorly legislated bills passed by a former Liberal government. I will talk about highlights and percentages that are increases since 2015, when the Liberal government came to power, through 2023. Total violent crime is up 49.84%. Total homicides are up 27.75%. Gang-related homicides are up 78.35%. All three levels of sexual assaults are up 74.83%, and for sexual assaults, 90% of the victims are women. This is concerning. The increase in crime is all in the realm of the past 10-plus years of Liberal governments. I am quoting stats from 2015 to 2023. Those increases resulted from bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , from the first Liberal Parliament, when I was first elected to this place.”
“Law enforcement requires the tools they need to combat crime and keep our communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will carefully review this legislation to ensure that the Liberals do not repeat the past failures. We will also ensure that we hear from experts to further evaluate and improve this legislation. There are experts in the field who know best how a bill will be interpreted, how it may be implemented and what unintended consequences may lie ahead if a poorly drafted bill is allowed to pass. We have seen incidents like that in the past.”
“Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down on Bill C-2, successfully blocking the Liberals' infringement on individuals' freedom and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash, opening mail without oversight and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Those are important pieces that have been removed from this bill because we heard from Canadians how important it is that their privacy be respected and, which I would say is the most important piece, that government overreach not be extended to the Liberal government. Now the Liberals have taken parts out of Bill C-2 and reintroduced them in Bill C-22 . Bill C-22 is void of the provisions that Conservatives opposed in parts of Bill C-2.”
“It is also an obvious indication of the inability of the Liberal government to draft legislation that is effective and properly worded in order to pass the scrutiny of this House. That is the purpose of this House: to scrutinize legislation that is being proposed by the government to make sure that it is the best we can do for Canadians. That is an honourable job we are all elected to do, and we on the Conservative side, as members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, will continue to do everything within our power to make sure legislation introduced by the government is truly the best it can be for Canadians. The Liberal government first introduced Bill C-2 . It has basically been shelved because it was so problematic. Last fall, it introduced Bill C-2, which fell short of protecting Canadians, while overreaching in other areas.”
“I want to recognize the importance of all the people who still live in the area and are descendants of employees who built that nation-building railway, which linked us from coast to coast to coast. It is an incredible piece of our history. I am so proud and honoured to represent an area that was so important in being able to complete that link. I rise today to speak to Bill C-22 . This is the third iteration of legislation introduced by the government in this 45th Parliament dealing with this issue. I raise this because it is an obvious indication of the failures of this government and former Liberal governments to recognize what is needed to bring law and order to this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise as the elected representative for the new riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and the associate shadow minister for fisheries for His Majesty's loyal opposition. Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies is a new riding that was created as of the last election, and I believe it is one of the most majestic ridings across this country, if not the most majestic one. It starts at the Great Divide at the Alberta border, where the last stretches of the CP Rail mainline were completed to connect this country from coast to coast back in 1885. I was a proud employee of CP Rail for a short time in the 1980s and got to see some of those important sections of track.”
“Mr. Speaker, I also present four more petitions today on behalf of residents of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. These citizens call on the Government of Canada to reject any amendment to Bill C-9 that removes the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, to protect Canadians' constitutional rights of freedom of religion and to ensure that legislation does not criminalize good-faith religious discourse or teachings.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the first petition from residents of Salmon Arm, British Columbia, a community I am very honoured to represent and live in. The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-218 , to exclude mental illness or disorder from MAID, and to invest resources into mental health services.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal plan is making life unaffordable. Of respondents to my recent survey to every household across Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, 94% say life has become less affordable over the past year. Rebeca replied that she works full-time at a good job but can barely afford groceries. She does not have any kids, because she cannot afford to. Why will the Liberals not provide some relief by adopting our Conservative plan to cut taxes on gas and food, and make life more affordable?”
“Mr. Speaker, after more than a decade of Liberal policies, life is unaffordable. The latest MNP consumer debt index report states that 70% of British Columbians say rising food prices and gas prices are straining their finances. The Liberals voted against reducing taxes that increase the cost of gas by 25¢ a litre. They voted against removing taxes on food that drive up the cost of groceries. Why will the Liberals not provide Canadians some relief by adopting our Conservative plan to cut taxes on gas and food, and make life more affordable for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for that attempted response, but he still has not clearly answered the question that Canadians are extremely concerned with. It is the public access and the priority access to chinook and coho salmon and the ranking that they currently have. He said that no one will have their rights to access extinguished. Being extinguished is one thing, but having someone's access reduced or losing that priority ranking is what has so many Canadians concerned. That is not just on the west coast, but it is also inland and through the prairie provinces. It extends to people in other areas who travel and spend their resources in our great province. They are looking for certainty. The minister and the parliamentary secretary have failed to deliver that certainty.”
“Will the minister confirm that the public would not lose ranking in priority of access to chinook and coho salmon, and that wild Pacific salmon would be maintained as a shared public resource for the use and benefit of all Canadians?”
“She stated, “A revised salmon allocation policy will not take away [anyone's] access to the resource”, but she failed to state whether anyone's access and priority of access to the resource would be increased or in fact reduced. It is easy to say that no one's access would be taken away, but this does not mean that access would not be further limited or reduced in priority ranking. Canadians deserve clarity from their government, especially cabinet ministers, on what the government has planned for their future access to Canada's shared public resources. What are the government's plans for the economics, the activities that put food on the table and that build family and heritage connections to the lands and waters we all value so highly?”
“In responding, the minister also stated that suggesting that the government would not uphold the shared public resource principle was wrong and divisive. It is ironic that the minister would issue this indictment, when it was her department that published a discussion paper that contained a proposal for the shared public resource principle to be removed from the government's salmon allocation policy. Documents produced and made public by her own government have caused concerns among Canadians. They do not know how the salmon would be managed and by whom, and what organizations would influence or control the management of wild Pacific salmon. The minister's response was also unclear on what level of access may remain for the public fisheries.”
“The minister replied, “Pacific salmon will remain a shared public resource managed by the federal government.” The minister also stated, “A revised salmon allocation policy will not take away [anyone's] access to the resource.” Despite the minister's response, many Canadians remain very concerned, because it is unclear whether Canadians would continue to be able to depend on the shared public resource principle in order to access just an opportunity to fish for salmon. Canadians remain concerned because the minister's answer did not provide any specifics detailing how the Government of Canada would continue to manage Pacific salmon for all Canadians as a shared public resource. The minister did not state how much access Canadians would have to the shared public resource of Pacific salmon.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, and as the associate shadow minister for fisheries for His Majesty's official loyal opposition. I am here today to debate the response to the question I posed to the Minister of Fisheries on March 26, 2026, when I asked if she would reaffirm a principle that is foundational to the management and control of Canada's fisheries: the principle that fisheries resources belong to the people of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the minister is tired of hearing from Canadians, but Conservatives will not stop raising their voices on their behalf. We recognize that the salmon allocation policy must be aligned with the Ahousaht decision. No one is disputing that in the policy's review, but why is the minister's department floating the proposal to go far beyond, and proposing to sink over 9,000 jobs in B.C. by gutting the public fisheries' access to chinook and coho salmon?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's fisheries resources do belong to the people of Canada. The fisheries minister confirmed this last October when I asked her at the fisheries committee. However, the minister's department has recklessly published a proposal that would eliminate this principle, and Canadians are paying the price for the uncertainty it has caused. Was the minister's statement at committee more Liberal bait and switch, or will she reaffirm that Canada's fisheries resources belong to the people of Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the other five petitions I have today are from residents of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. They are concerned about Bill C-9 , which was passed in this House but is still going through the Senate. They call upon the government to reject any amendments to Bill C-9 that remove the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, protect Canadians' constitutional rights to freedom of religion and expression and ensure that legislation does not criminalize good faith religious discourse or teaching.”
“This petition calls upon the government to keep the common property resource principle in the revised salmon allocation policy so that salmon remain a publicly managed resource, federal stewardship stays transparent and conservation-focused, and no single group is given exclusive control over access.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present multiple petitions. The first petition is on behalf of Canadians who are deeply concerned about proposed changes to the salmon allocation policy, which would decimate public fishing opportunities for chinook and coho salmon in British Columbia. Changing the common property resource principle risks turning a shared public resource into an exclusive privilege, reducing access for many Canadians and undermining confidence in fisheries management. The petitioners note that it would be devastating to our tourism economy and the millions of dollars that flow into conservation efforts.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North did point out that there are many pieces of Bill C-9 that are positive. Conservatives offered to split this bill and deal with those components expeditiously, so they could have been passed long ago. It was this ultimate censorship that the government is invoking and then ending the debate on it and not allowing members who represent Canadians across the country to continue the debate so that the reality and truth could be told.”
“Mr. Speaker, the aspect of self-censorship or censorship is really paramount to some of the discussion we are having here. We have seen how the Liberals are shutting down debate or censoring a censorship bill. I do not think there is anything that could be more troubling from a government that has always sought to have ultimate power by censoring the people. That, I believe, is what the government is truly seeking.”
“He did not mention the shootings at synagogues that have happened over the past number of months. He did not mention the extortion that has taken place because Liberals have unleashed crime and hatred on the streets like we have never seen in Canadian history.”
“Mr. Speaker, just to clarify for anyone who has tuned in to the recent diatribe back and forth about conduct in the House, I do not believe any of it was directed at me because I had been conducting myself in a manner appropriate to the House. The Speaker's comments, I think, were directed at others. However, it has been so long since the member asked the question, I have forgotten the name of his riding. However, I would just like to remind him that he has forgotten to mention a few things while he was up and had an opportunity to speak. He did not mention the crime and chaos that has been unleashed on Canada's streets since the Liberals took power over 10 years ago. He did not mention the burning of churches. Over 100 churches have been burned, and the Liberals have been silent on that.”
“I can only caution Canadians, and especially the Liberal government, against trying to limit the freedoms of Canadians. That is what our veterans fought for, our freedoms in this country, and I urge all Canadians to do all we can to maintain the freedoms that we have here in Canada.”
“If there is one thing I have learned in my 10-plus years in the House, it is that when the Liberals say to trust them, it is time to take a closer look at what they are saying. They have repeatedly shut down debate and even gone as far as shutting down Parliament when they were caught pushing ideological agendas that were not in the best interests of Canadians. I mentioned earlier the time when the country was united by a railway and a vision of leadership. Unfortunately, over the past 10 years, now going on 11, we are seeing a country that is divided by Liberal ideologies and a lack of hope for what the country could be. We do see them picking up some of the best Conservative policies and platform ideas, but too often those policies and platform ideas are watered down to the point of irrelevance or blocked by existing Liberal laws.”
“The Supreme Court has recognized the religious defence as necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional, because of how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are. The Liberals have tried to restrict what people can say through numerous pieces of legislation, including the online harms act, Bill C-63 in the previous Parliament, which they have committed to reintroducing in this Parliament. We have seen, for over 10 years, that they simply cannot be trusted to draft legislation that is in the best interests of Canadian freedoms. In fact, they are still not accepting the court ruling that they actually broke the law when they invoked the Emergencies Act.”
“Religious communities, including the Jewish community, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, hold a vast range of beliefs on religion, morality, sexuality, politics and culture. Though some may find these beliefs objectionable, old-fashioned or even hateful, a free country does not criminalize expression of sincere religious beliefs. What is also really troubling in the bill is that the former justice committee chair said in committee on October 31 that there was “clear hatred” in some books of the Bible and Torah, singling out Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans. The minister said: Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke...or be a defence. He said that prosecutors should be able to press charges. He meant pressing charges for someone quoting sacred text.”
“They are about how hate is defined and how the law is applied. On December 9, 2025, at the justice committee, the Liberals and the Bloc voted to remove Criminal Code paragraphs 319(3)(b) and paragraph 319(3.1)(b), which say that individuals cannot be prosecuted for wilful promotion of hatred if they are expressing “in good faith....an argument or opinion on a religious subject or...based on a belief in a religious text”. (1750) This is the troublesome part of this version of Bill C-9 , which the Liberals are now pushing through with their programming motion. 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 now removes.”
“As Conservatives, we believe that hate is real and must be addressed, but it has festered under the current Liberal government. The divisions in Canada have never before reached the point where they are now, after 10 years and more of Liberal government and the divisive policies of the current government. Canada already has bans on hate symbols and for obstructing access to a house of worship, making parts of Bill C-9 redundant. In fact, Conservative members offered to split Bill C-9 into two parts to swiftly pass the uncontentious sections of the legislation, but the Liberals rejected this. They took the easy way out by teaming up with the Bloc to attack freedom of expression and religious freedom. This bill and this debate are not about whether faith leaders should be free to spread hate; no one should be allowed to do that.”
“They have used their parliamentary strong arm to shut down debate with respect to Bill C-9 , shutting down our voices as members of this House representing the voices of millions of Canadians of faith who have sent letters and submitted countless petitions all against what the Liberals would do in Bill C-9 and calling on the government to reject Bill C-9. Prior to the amendments put forward by the Bloc and supported by the Liberals, clergy were exempted from being charged with hate speech for simply quoting texts in holy books. Changes in Bill C-9 , such as the removal of the religious defence for wilfully promoting hate, would make it easier for people to be prosecuted for expressing sincerely held religious and political views, and would create ambiguity in a law where clarity is needed now more than ever.”
“What would be more concerning than a Liberal government promoting a bill that would remove the exemption that ensures that clergy of any faith would not be found guilty for quoting religious books like the Bible, the Torah or the Quran? What is more concerning is the Liberal government's introducing this programming motion that would limit the debate in this House and limit the ability for Canadians to have influence on how and what legislation gets passed that would continue and control their futures. The Liberals have abused their powers to limit debate, limiting word changes and limiting amendments. Even reading of amendments being voted on was not permitted at committee. This has amounted to the Liberals' censoring debate of a censorship bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, a part of this country that is known for its significant place and time in Canadian history. Craigellachie in the middle of the Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies is the place where in 1885 the last spike was driven on the Canadian Pacific Railway, uniting this country from coast to coast to coast. I mention this because it was a time when Canadians were united across this country because of a vision of a Conservative leader and a willing private sector. It was a time of great building and of great accomplishments, not a time of division. I want to put this question to all Canadians who are listening out there.”
“Mr. Speaker, the February “no jobs” report shows the Liberal policies are not working for Canadians. There were 108,000 full-time jobs lost, the largest one-month decline in full-time employment since 2020. Youth unemployment shot up to 14%. We have the only shrinking economy in the G7, and now we have the second-highest unemployment. Canadians are not working because Liberal policies are not working. When will the Liberals accept Conservative proposals, including our youth jobs plan, and remove taxes and bureaucracies that are killing Canadian jobs?”
“Clause 205 of the government's bill, Bill C-16 , contains coordinating amendments that anticipate the possibility of my bill passing before Bill C-16 does. I appreciate the government acknowledging this possibility and drafting those coordinating amendments in the event that my bill passes before the government's bill does. Now is the time for us, as legislators, to do our part and pass these amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the changes that Lisa Freeman and other victims of crime deserve. I ask all parliamentarians to support victims of crime across Canada by swiftly passing Bill C-221 .”
“Colin Carrie, who tabled Bill C-320 in the 44th Parliament. I thank them all for their efforts to improve Canadian law. It is good to see that the government has formally acknowledged the merit and necessity of the bill's proposals and included them in the government's bill, Bill C-16 . These measures supporting victims of crime need to be passed as soon as possible. Canadians count on parliamentarians to make Parliament work, and I invite all parliamentarians to join me in moving my private member's bill toward completion, because the outcome of Bill C-16 remains uncertain in a minority government and these changes are worth pursuing through all possible avenues. These measures could have and should have been passed years ago, and they were very close to being passed just over a year ago.”
“When the burden of losing her father to a violent murderer was compounded by the frustration of dealing with government bureaucracies, Lisa resolved to advocate for legislative measures to alleviate the burdens and frustrations that victims of crime carry. I send my heartfelt thanks to Lisa Freeman. I thank Lisa for her courage, her determination and the hard work that has moved this legislation forward. The proposals of this private member's bill have been introduced in four consecutive Parliaments, spanning six and a half years. I also thank those who have worked with Ms. Freeman in previous Parliaments to move those proposals forward. I would like to thank the Hon. Lisa Raitt, who tabled Bill C-466 in the 42nd Parliament; Senator Boisvenu, who tabled Bill S-219 in the 43rd Parliament; and Dr.”
“It would lighten the burdens they carry by providing them explanations about how parole and release dates have been calculated in relation to the offenders who victimized them. Debates of this bill, and of a previous bill that proposed the same measures, have reflected how these measures are supported by victims of crime and those who support them and advocate for their rights. As I have articulated in previous debates, the proposals in this bill were brought to Parliament by Lisa Freeman of Oshawa, Ontario. Ms. Freeman's personal experience of losing her father and spending years navigating Canada's corrections and parole systems in dealing with her father's killer were excruciating for her.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all members who spoke to the bill today and those who spoke during the first hour of second reading on November 18, 2025. Their contributions and support are sincerely appreciated, not just by me but by all victims of crime and those who have worked on this bill. When Canadians are victimized by crime, they often carry psychological and emotional burdens for life. This private member's bill proposes common-sense, realistic measures aimed at reducing the stress victims experience in dealing with the parole and release process of those who have victimized them. The legislation before us today deserves to be passed because it would deliver relief for victims of crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies have made child poverty worse. The child and family poverty report card shows child poverty rising for a third straight year. Nearly 30,000 more children are falling below the poverty line, and almost one in five children under age six is now living in poverty. The number of children in severely food-insecure households doubled between 2019 and 2023. When will the Liberal government stop making child poverty worse, start caring about family food affordability and create a working economy so Canadians can afford to live?”