So V ote

May/30/24 10:21:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned two important points that are missing here. One is that it was a top-down approach and there was a lack of consultation. The other is how many provincial ministers actually asked about it. One of the things the member touched on that I thought was really important is that many people in his province have very good coverage already. My question for the member is this: If it becomes a top-down approach, why does he fear the federal government would make it worse for the people who are doing good on their medication?

100 words

May/30/24 9:32:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could comment on the fact that Ontario, where I come from, does have a program. Quebec has a great program. Will the program presented by the federal government cover more or fewer medications for Quebeckers?

43 words

May/30/24 9:02:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe how easy it is to fool the NDP. We heard the NDP member stand up to talk about universal pharmacare. We have this bill in front of us, and it is covering two important things, which are contraception and medication for diabetes, but it is being promoted as universal pharmacare. What does my colleague from Edmonton think Canadians are going to think about this? Again, this is another promise that is not being fulfilled, but the way it is being presented is really deceptive. What does he think Canadians are going to think about that?

100 words

May/30/24 7:46:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Liberal friend a question. I come from Ontario, and the Conservative government has something called the Ontario drug benefit plan. It already covers diabetes and reproductive medications. To compare it to what my colleague was asking, there are a lot of people with private insurance, and they have this coverage. However, this plan may only cover certain medications that are not really specific to an individual who can tolerate different types of medications. Can the member please confirm for Canadians that nobody would lose the medication that they are used to utilizing and that they stay healthy on because of this new program?

110 words

Context: House Hansard - 317 - May/24/24

May/30/24 7:13:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mirabel for a very well-thought-out speech. I come from Ontario, and the Conservative Government of Ontario has something called the Ontario drug benefit program. The member is aware of, and quite rightly pointed out, the jurisdiction of the provinces. The pharmacare program that the government is bringing forward is not really a pharmacare program. It is like an announcement. It does not cover most of the drugs that the provincial plans cover. No Canadian, no Ontarian, wants a worse plan that would cover less. Perhaps the federal government would only cover certain medications. Could the member explain to the Liberals and the NDP a little more about the jurisdictional issues that they are dealing with, and what people on the ground in his community are really asking for?

139 words

Pharmacare

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

May/24/24 11:53:23 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. According to the 2024 poverty report, 44% of Canadians are paying more than 30% of income on housing, which is a big F for the government. The NDP-Liberal government gets an A+ only when it comes to creating disastrous policies. The member for Whitby previously stated that we “are going to have to shift our lifestyles, and that is going to be painful”. Is this the kind of pain he was talking about? How much more pain will the Liberal-NDP government intentionally inflict upon Canadians before it axes the carbon tax?

108 words

Poverty
Pain

May/23/24 5:27:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224

moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill S-224 be amended by restoring the long title as follows: “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)” Motion No. 2 That Bill S-224 be amended by restoring Clause 1 as follows: “Criminal Code 1 (1) Subsection 279.‍04(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following: Exploitation 279.‍04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.‍01 to 279.‍03, a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that (a) causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service; and (b) involves, in relation to any person, the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act. (2) Subsection 279.‍04(2) of the Act is repealed.” He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Oshawa to speak to Bill S-224, a non-partisan bill which aims to further solidify the concept of exploitation, for the purpose of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons and to remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals to prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse. Before arriving at the stage of consideration at committee, Bill S-224 was introduced in the Senate and eventually passed unanimously in the Senate on October 6, 2022. I then had the immense distinction as a member of Parliament to sponsor and introduce this important bill for the first time here in the House of Commons two weeks later. I would like to take a moment to thank Senator Ataullahjan for her collaborative effort and wonderful success in getting the bill through the Senate, a success I hope to share here in the House of Commons. I would also like to thank the member for Peace River—Westlock for his unwavering support throughout this process and, as well, for his unending commitment to end human trafficking. Furthermore, I want to thank the amazing community of supporters, victims, moms and dads, survivors and workers. These individuals and many more like them have shown a dedication and servitude in making a difference in the lives of the vulnerable victims in everyone's communities. These people are real heroes and they are saving lives with the work that they are undertaking and that they are accomplishing. When a member of Parliament has the opportunity to bring both Houses together for a common cause, it is truly an honour, especially with respect to a bill that represents a small change that would make a big difference in the lives of so many vulnerable people, people denied justice and people denied their human dignity. Unfortunately, when Bill S-224 was considered in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the bill experienced a fatal outcome. The vital contents within it were completely gutted, the committee leaving the bill to just one page. By leaving the bill empty, and instead of passing any improved amendments, there has been a failure to solidify the concept of exploitation for the purposes of establishing whether a person has committed the offence of trafficking in persons, as well as a failure to remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals to prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse. I would like to take a couple of minutes now to discuss an in-depth review of the importance behind the original contents of Bill S-224. This modern-day slavery initiative was first brought to my attention by Darla, a survivor friend and one of my constituents, and I would like to thank her for sharing her story with me. As a father, I was motivated by her story to look for real solutions to the problem. At its heart, Bill S-224 aims to align the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of trafficking in persons with that of the 2000 Palermo protocol. Importantly, this would remove the unfair burden placed on exploited individuals who, under the current Canadian law, must prove that there was an element of fear in their abuse in order to obtain a conviction in court. When a crime is committed, there is no debate as to whether the acts have occurred, yet under Canadian law, the victim of trafficking is required to prove fear in order for a conviction to occur. The absurdity of the situation is unmatched. An offender could be released even if there was proof of the crime but the victim was unable to prove fear. Why do we treat this particular crime so differently when it comes to exploitation in human trafficking? That is backwards. Instead, we need to make the focus on the perpetrator's actions, on the person who actually committed the crime, and not force a victim to prove an emotion, in this case fear. Something needs to change as this is not justice, and, in turn, this is not how a Canadian justice system should function. Human trafficking is a plague, mostly on vulnerable young people and their families across Canada, in my area and in others'. I was hopeful, since I first sponsored and introduced Bill S-224 in the House, that my colleagues, regardless of their political stripe, would help me secure this long-overdue change to Canada's Criminal Code. Human trafficking does not discriminate, and my goal is to ensure that our country and local communities are safer for our most vulnerable young people. Vulnerable young people often think of their abuser as their friend, thinking that their abuser cares for them and loves them. Those of us not involved in human trafficking can see that this is not the case. We see the coercion, manipulation and lies. We owe the victims justice. Often the Crown's case depends on the victim's testimony, the only evidence against the trafficker. Without the victim's testimony, there is no case. In Canada, sometimes it takes years to come to court. There the victims can be victimized again and again. We have heard from experts that victims often deceive themselves and portray themselves within their own perception as not being victims. We need to take serious and effective action to ensure that victims come forward and need to guarantee that they will not be repeatedly victimized. I once again raise within this House the dispute as to whether the crime of human trafficking has occurred should only be defined by the perpetrator's actions, rather than the victim's experience. Victims should not be revictimized by a system. We owe it to victims to make this small change that would make such a huge difference. By amending the Criminal Code to reflect the international definition of trafficking in persons, as outlined in the Palermo protocol, we would enable the Crown to efficiently convict human traffickers. The Palermo protocol was adopted in November 2000 at the 55th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It has 117 signatories, including Canada. Human trafficking is defined as the act of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and receiving a person by means of coercion, abuse of power or deception for the purpose of exploitation. More than 24 years have passed, yet this small but important change is still not reflected in our Criminal Code. Let us not continue to make this another example of Canada's promises that never see concrete action. This is about protecting vulnerable Canadians from predators who exploit their victims for personal gain, and sadly, that gain is becoming greater and much more lucrative. Human trafficking generates more than $32 billion annually and abuses over 40 million victims each year. Unfortunately, it is seen as a low-risk criminal activity here in Canada with a very high reward. According to Statistics Canada, fewer than 8% of perpetrators charged with human trafficking have been prosecuted. Let us think about that and consider this: Very few perpetrators are even charged. One witness felt we no longer needed the bill, due to the Ontario provincial rulings. However, we see that even with these provincial rulings, conviction rates remain shamefully low, which is why we need to restore this bill, Bill S-224, and to pass it here in the House. We can do better, and we must do better. I stand here today for Darla from Oshawa and for countless other human trafficking survivors. I invite all members here to stand with me, and I am hoping that every member in the House still continues to support this initiative. I stand here for those who are being exploited tonight, right now, in plain sight, some right outside my office doors in downtown Oshawa. This does not end at my doorstep. Each member in the House of Commons can be sure this is happening right outside each of their doorsteps as well. My colleague from Peace River—Westlock has a statistic and saying that puts things into perspective: This crime of human trafficking is happening today, within 10 blocks or 10 minutes from one's home. Human trafficking is on the rise, and it relies on abuse, coercion and manipulation. As I have said, victims are often convinced that their traffickers are their friends or their boyfriends. Traffickers have made promises of clothes, money, work, drugs, education and even protection. Many victims truly and naively believe that their traffickers have their best interests at heart. Traffickers prey upon the most vulnerable for a reason, as they also resort to violence and threats to make them do what they are told. Traffickers seek out young people dealing with substance abuse, traumas, addictions, abuse or homelessness. Women and girls, indigenous children, new immigrants, persons living with disability, LGBTQ2+ and migrant workers are among groups most at risk. How can we continue to put so much responsibility upon these victims who have endured such unimaginable atrocities? If we do not amend the Criminal Code, these cases depend upon the victims' ability to perform on the witness stand. Remember, these are the same victims we just described as being vulnerable to gaslighting and manipulation. Some of these victims do not have the strength to fight our current system. They do not have the strength to stand up against slick lawyers and a system stacked against them. This is not justice, and it usually results in charges being dropped. We need to give victims every possible tool that is available to allow the return of both their dignity and their humanity. The goal of Bill S-224 has been to implement a simple amendment to the Criminal Code, a very small modification that would make a huge difference in the ability of the Crown to prosecute human traffickers. There is no more settling for an 8% prosecution rate. To Darla, to the moms, to the dads, to the victims and to the wonderful Canadians who have dedicated their lives to ending human trafficking, this small change can happen, and the opportunity for us to come together to end this horrendous crime must not be lost.

1881 words

May/9/24 10:39:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up something extremely serious. Ford and the other automakers are having challenges because of how these mandates are being forced upon the auto companies. My big concern, as I stated in my speech, is that these battery and electric vehicle mandates are supporting the Chinese economy. With the announcements the Liberals are making, again, the batteries will not be coming out of these plants for a long period of time. Yes, I want us to have a successful auto sector. The auto action plan that we put in as a Conservative government did help that, but what is in the statement and the budget does absolutely nothing. With respect to what the member brought forward in regard to Mexico, Mexico has been investing in productivity and competitiveness. It has outstripped us. We were ahead of it in 2015. Now we are 45 points behind Mexico and 81 points behind the Americans, because the current government is not investing in productivity in Canada. That is what we need: We need to unleash Canada. Our best days are ahead of us; we just need to get rid of this tired old Liberal government.

196 words

May/9/24 10:37:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that question, because our government previously worked on a right to repair bill. We actually worked with members from the NDP to implement that. I can say that, with this moving forward, it is always a good idea that people have a choice. However, when the member brings up that her New Democratic Party is helping lower bills for Canadians, I have to say that I get people sending me their bills every single week with respect to the carbon tax. One senior, who is a wonderful 82-year-old lady from Scotland, has an apartment and just cannot afford it anymore. How is she supposed to live? This crushing of the bourgeoisie between the millstone of inflation and higher taxes has to stop. It is not what Canadians want.

139 words

May/9/24 10:35:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that our government invested in General Motors to create more jobs than these announcements will create. The sad part about it is this: If we look at the investments the Liberals are bragging about, the foreign direct investments, the numbers are true; however, the only way they could get these companies to invest in Canada was through huge subsidization. The worry that I have here, and why this budget is so bad, is that we need to become more competitive; our productivity needs to work. The member for Whitby needs to understand that, and this budget and these announcements are doing absolutely nothing to help our future competitiveness.

113 words

Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24

May/9/24 10:24:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a fiery debate this evening. It is an honour for me to rise on behalf of the constituents of Oshawa and speak about the CBC, or the communist budget of Canada. I know that when members hear “CBC”, we think of the propaganda arm of the Liberal government, but, no, that is not what we are talking about today; that is a whole other speech. Today I am actually focusing on the latest budget boondoggle from the current Liberal-NDP government. When we talk about communism these days, we have to make sure that we also acknowledge the modern terminology being used to describe the ideology that the Prime Minister said he admires. Liberals use the term “globalism”, but it is the same centralized income redistribution government that has been promoted by socialists and communists for over a century. Do members remember a few years ago when the Prime Minister was asked which country he admired the most? His response stunned many Canadians. He could have said it was Canada, the U.S., France or the U.K. Do members remember what he clearly said? He said he admired the basic dictatorship of China, because it allows for getting things done, and wow, what horrible things it has done. Do Canadians really want the same things to happen in Canada? The disastrous budget bill, the fall economic statement implementation act, would make the likes of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin truly proud. With its inflationary spending and planned higher taxes, the bill would just continues to fuel the fire of the NDP-Liberal government's soaring national debt while in turn making the lives of hard-working Canadians in my community far worse. The NDP-Liberal government's huge commitment to and enthusiasm for raising taxes, especially carbon taxes, has intentionally caused pain and suffering for Canadians. The MP for Whitby actually said here in the House that Canadians should be prepared for a painful transition to net zero. What government or oppressive ideology intentionally wants to cause pain for its population? Like I said earlier, the Liberals call it globalism, the redistribution of wealth and resources. I call it communism. I remember that Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with the never-ending spending spiral is that eventually the government runs out of other people's money. We have reached that point. The credit card is maxed out, the cupboard is bare and the effects are disastrous. The NDP-Liberal government this year will spend $54.1 billion to service the debt, which is the same amount we collect for HST. It is more than the Liberals transfer to provinces for health care. It is shameful. With the communist budget of Canada, the government continues its tradition of throwing the money of hard-working, everyday Canadians at Liberal priorities while having no actual comprehensive plan, and, of course, no plan to ever balance the budget. It has no plan for success. Here are some examples. Under the current government, the cost of rent has surged, leaving many Canadians homeless, while, in the process, also destroying the dream of younger generations of ever owning a home. In Oshawa, when I grew up, the dream of home ownership was always within reach. Most of my friends' dads worked at GM, and with one salary, my friends could afford a home, get married and have three or four kids. They always had a better car than we did, and many had a cottage to go to on the weekends. That was with one salary. Last week I spoke to a young couple. Combined, they were making around $200,000, and they were finding it hard to save for a home and get approved for a mortgage. It used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage, and now it takes 25 years to save for just a down payment. Now, sadly, young Canadians are giving up on home ownership. Rent inflation has increased 10%, and the budget would do nothing to stop it. Core inflation is up 2.9% and shelter inflation is up 6.5%. Per capita GDP shows Canada is being left behind with numbers the same as they were in 2015 when the current government took control, while the United States is up 23 points. R and D spending in Canada is at the bottom of the OECD, around 1.5%, while countries such as Israel and South Korea are at more than 5% of GDP. Our economy is predicted to be the worst-performing in the OECD until 2060. In 2015, when the Liberals took over, Canadian business investment, GDP private gross fixed capital expenditure, real, rebased, was higher than in the U.S. and in Mexico. Now, Canada is down 49 points compared to Mexico, and a staggering 81 points behind the U.S. according to Stats Can, BEA and data from Bloomberg. Mining investment is down and refining is down. There is nothing in the budget to help increase the exports of clean Canadian natural gas to a desperate world that needs it. Canada is being left out. More and more Canadians are now turning to food banks as they cannot afford the cost of groceries to feed themselves and their families. In Oshawa, our food banks, for the first time, are running out of food before noon. It has never been like that before. I was told of one household in Oshawa where 16 seniors are sharing one home. Is this what the Liberals mean when they say their policies are going to hurt, be “painful”? I guess so. However, this is not a success they should be celebrating. Conversely, Canadians are tragically having to choose. Must they force themselves to freeze since they cannot afford the cost of heating the homes they already cannot afford to own? Do they eat or do they heat? What would Lenin have said about this? Perhaps this quote makes sense if one admires basic dictatorships, “The best way to destroy the capitalist system [is] to debauch the currency.” The Liberals are doing a great job of that. In the Financial Post, Jean-François Tardif said the “Canadian dollar could sink to 50 cents” in a decade. Lenin said that about a century ago, and this generation is witnessing this policy being implemented as the NDP-Liberal government budget does nothing to return strength and confidence to our system. In addition to this, the communist budget of Canada will include nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending while forcing Canadians to spend $54.1 billion to service a debt of the NDP-Liberal government. As I said earlier, and it is worth repeating, it is more money than what the federal government currently gives to the provinces for health care. Many notably, Liberals have already spoken out against the CBC. We could talk about David Dodge, former finance minister Bill Morneau and former Liberal finance minister John Manley. He warned that this is a problem, and it is going to continue. It was the notable Communist leader Vladimir Lenin who put forward the ideas that the best “way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation”. That is exactly what this communist, globalist budget would do. The Prime Minister has constantly ignored the concerns of the budget from senior Liberals, and now continues to cause pain by crushing struggling Canadian families who cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending, which drives up the cost of everything and keeps interest rates high. In my community, the carbon tax is the big enemy, but what is their environment plan? The Prime Minister and his socialist environment minister announced an electric vehicle mandate. All sales of passenger cars, SUVs, crossovers and light trucks must be hybrid electric, and 100% of new vehicles sold would have to be electric vehicles. However, there is no detailed plan on how to make this happen. Oshawa is a great promoter of clean, green nuclear energy and there is nothing to help it in the budget. It could be a leader in the world. Our grid cannot handle the increase in demand due to EV mandates. Apartment buildings and homeowners will need to pay a fortune for retrofits. Provincial governments would be forced to handle the costs. Auto dealers and companies would face huge challenges and expenses. Who will they be competing with? I want to remind Canadians that the number one battery producer is not Canada, and the announced battery plants will not be producing Canadian batteries for many years. How difficult is it to open new mines in Canada? Our mineral exploration investment is at an all-time low this year. Whose economy does the EV mandate policy benefit the most? Members should take a guess. Yes, it is China, the country whose greenhouse gas emissions are leading the world. Why would a Canadian government implement policies that support an economy in China? Yes, I forgot. That is the system of government the Liberals are trying to aspire toward. No would-be globalist government would be complete without trampling on fundamental human rights. We will remember the lockdown. It was the destruction of small Canadian businesses and vaccine mandates, the Prime Minister gleefully and enthusiastically creating an identifiable minority group and then proceeding to dehumanize, isolate and bankrupt it. He used all government powers to restrict its participation in Canadian life. There was no travel, no restaurants and no church. We had to sign up for vaccine passports. We were told to do what he said. To close, I just want to say the budget needs to be defeated, and we have to elect a new Conservative government that will axe the tax, build more homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

1656 words

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

May/2/24 5:45:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for such a timely bill. What I am hearing about in my community is the concern about escalation. Some people think that this is really a victimless crime. However, in Toronto, it is getting so violent that police are even saying to just put the keys on the dashboard and let it go. Why is it so important that we have a deterrent and that the House move forward as quickly as possible with passing this bill?

85 words

Context: House Hansard - 286 - Feb/27/24

Apr/8/24 2:01:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to recognize the 100th anniversary of the City of Oshawa. As we reflect on a century of growth, resilience and community spirit, we are proud of the tapestry of achievements and shared experiences that have shaped our city. Oshawa, a name first chosen to represent the original settlement near Harmony Creek, received city status on March 8, 1924. We are the proud home of automotive prowess and pioneering spirit. From the assembly lines of General Motors to our vibrant cultural scene, Oshawa has continued to thrive, fuelled by the passion and dedication of its residents, the true architects of our success. It has been an honour to serve as Oshawa's member of Parliament since 2004, and I look forward to sharing representation of our city with the new Conservative member for Durham. Let us continue to nurture the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that has defined Oshawa for generations, fostering a dynamic environment where dreams can take flight and possibilities are limitless.

168 words

Context: House Hansard - 286 - Feb/27/24

Feb/27/24 6:25:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

Context: House Hansard - 286 - Feb/27/24

Feb/27/24 6:20:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I feel quite humbled and quite happy to be standing here this evening. We have heard the speeches in the House and the comments from members in regard to this bill. We have actually had an opportunity, instead of talking about some of these crimes, to talk about victims and their families. I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the victims and their families for their strength and for their advocacy. In particular, we have heard the name of Lisa Freeman a few times. She is a constituent of mine, who, with incredible tenacity and stubbornness, has helped make getting this bill through the House a reality. As my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk said, “Knowledge is power.” This legislation would make a very simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to the disclosure of information to victims. It would provide and give greater respect and transparency to families and victims. This is a change, and I will agree that it is a small change, but we are in a situation in which we have heard examples of where criminals are now getting more support from the system than the victims. This needs to be reversed. Criminals' rights should never trump victims' rights, but it seems to happen every single time. It is our job to protect victims' rights. It should never be a family's job. These families, when their loved ones are murdered, get a life sentence. There is the mental trauma and cost, and it never goes away. The least we can do is be more transparent about how the criminals who changed their lives forever are being managed. As we have heard in some of the speeches, we are not going to fix all these serious matters with this one bill, but I think we can all agree that the system needs to be recalibrated. The rights of victims have to be made equal to, or rather they should always be made better than the rights of their offenders. Here we have it, colleagues. A killer could be released into a community where his victims live, at the whim of his case management team, with no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made or when the release will take place, until after the fact. I know all members will agree that this is unconscionable. It should not be a fight that victims have to take on year after year, just to keep the most callous of murderers where they belong. Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime often must stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which, as most victims of crime find, are nothing more than a mockery of the justice system and basic common sense. Throughout this debate, we have been able to give victims' families a voice. I just want to add a more recent example, because it is very important that we pass this bill right away, as soon as we can. We heard, just last week, that Robert Pickton is now eligible to seek day parole, a murderer charged with killing 26 women and convicted of the deaths of six. I want to read some of the coverage from the families. A cousin of one of Robert Pickton's victims stated, “The fact that he can actually apply is horrific.” This is what Ms. Williams said Wednesday, ahead of the candlelight vigil taking place by Pickton's old farm. She went on, “That threw me right off. I didn't know and the other families that I'm close to didn't know.” It is extremely unlikely that Pickton would ever be released, but Ms. Williams, a fierce advocate for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, said that the mere fact that he can apply is disgusting. She also stated, “Our justice system is horrific. It's racist and puts Indigenous women's lives in danger...It makes me sick to my stomach.” She said that no one involved in the justice system informed victims' families that Pickton's day parole eligibility date was approaching, and she found out only after talking with a lawyer she knows. This has to stop. I want to thank colleagues in the House for their unanimous support, because it is an opportunity for us to do something that is right, and we can do it now.

765 words

Context: House Hansard - 280 - Feb/12/24

Feb/27/24 1:11:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I must say how offended I am by this member's speech when he says that this is a stunt today. We can try to win a debate by using partisan rhetoric, but the purpose of the debate today is to recognize that a horrible thing happened and we want to prevent it in the future. We look back to arrive scam and how it started in 2021 during the election, and we see it was used to say to Canadians that unvaccinated Canadians were a danger to vaccinated Canadians. It was the demonization of millions of Canadians. In the summer of 2021, we knew of the Delta variant and the Omicron, and that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people could get and spread the disease. Our own public officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada did not have the science to support the policy, so the government initiated a study with a guy named David Fisman at the University of Toronto. This study was so bad that there is a book called Fisman's Fraud: The Rise of Canadian Hate Science. I just want to know how much money the Liberals spent on these studies to support this arrive scam when they knew that they did not have the science to even support it from day one.

220 words

Context: House Hansard - 279 - Feb/9/24

Feb/12/24 5:13:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on this very important bill. In my colleague's speech, he said how important it is for all people to be engaged. I agree with him, so my question is why the Liberals are excluding the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. This group was founded in 1971. It is the largest group representing aboriginal peoples in Canada who live off reserve, and as of 2011, over 70% of aboriginal people lived off reserve. If we really believe all people need to be engaged, why would they not allow such a large group to be participating in this? Will that affect the legitimacy? Could he please explain why this extremely large groups was left out?

123 words

Context: House Hansard - 279 - Feb/9/24

Feb/9/24 1:51:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We do need to do more. This is a small change, but it would make a big difference. I thank the member for his kind words and support.

35 words