- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Brantford—Brant
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $129,861.80
- Government Page
- Nov/28/23 2:01:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, indigenous peoples in urban areas cannot afford to wait any longer for transitional housing. In my riding of Brantford—Brant, 28 indigenous women have gone missing and 13 have been killed, three of whom were pregnant. They were left on the streets and were living in encampments or in abusive environments.
The demand for housing for urban indigenous people in Brantford—Brant and across this country has reached a crisis, and this will continue to compound by the lack of second-stage housing for women and girls and two-spirited indigenous peoples. This alarming situation is a direct consequence of the inadequate awareness and funding extended to urban indigenous communities. Immediate action is imperative.
In recognition of Housing on the Hill, I rise today to demand that the government prioritize indigenous housing. It is time for urban indigenous communities to receive a spot at the table and the funding they urgently require.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 5:44:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good citizens and residents of my riding of Brantford—Brant.
My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon expressed his disappointment and said that it is a sad day for Canadians. It is a profoundly sad day. In terms of my involvement in this particular study, I was brought on fairly late to the game to participate in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts meeting, because its members wanted more questions asked in probing the RCMP investigation into this matter.
Before I get into the substantive part of my speech, it is important to start by reflecting on what the government telegraphed to Canadians in 2015. It telegraphed that it would be the most open, transparent and accountable government this country has ever seen.
What has happened over the last eight years? After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He and his government—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Larry Brock: Madam Speaker, my friends can laugh all they want, but this is the sad reality. These are the facts. There has been scandal after scandal. There have been ethical breaches. The Prime Minister is the only prime minister in Canadian history who has been found guilty of ethical breaches not once but twice. It is not only him but also several ministers and other members of the government. We had the WE Charity, Aga Khan and SNC-Lavalin scandals, and the list goes on.
Over a year ago, it was discovered that this app, which was so essential to the government to keep Canadians safe, was a complete joke. It was highly ineffective, it was not scientific and, to make matters worse, it cost the Canadian taxpayers $54 million. We did not hear a peep from the government or the Prime Minister with respect to that price tag until it was revealed to Canadians in this House.
What did we hear from the Prime Minister? He said he thought that cost was “highly illogical” and reflected “inefficient” practices. He, in essence, conducted his own review. The Auditor General is certainly looking into this, as well as the RCMP now. His review showed that, even given the vast size of the public service, the government could not find individuals among its own consultants to create this app. The public service increased exponentially by the Liberal government, particularly during COVID and beyond. More importantly to the current investigation by the RCMP, the app was contracted for by a very small software company in Montreal, Quebec, known as Botler.
No, the government could not do it itself. It had to hire consultants. It has been revealed that there were three such consultants. I am going to name them, because it is important for Canadians to know what the individuals of these companies have done in terms of fleecing Canadian taxpayers. The three companies are GCStrategies, Dalian Enterprises and Coradix. The latter two essentially involve the same directors and CEOs.
There are three companies with a grand total of maybe six or seven employees, and they were hired by the current massive government to do the work it should be doing itself in finding individuals to perform the work. The companies do that at a substantial premium, anywhere from 30% to 40%. When Canadian taxpayers take a look at the situation, they are saying to themselves that they are already paying their taxes for the public service. They ask why they need to waste further money to have the government find software engineers in this country.
I applaud the bravery of this small software company known as Botler, because it spoke the truth. I want to quote a couple of passages, as reported in The Globe and Mail, that said, “they understand that speaking out could mean their federal funding will dry up and they are taking a big risk without knowing how it will turn out.” One of the directors said, “the issue is wider than Botler.”
This is something that affects every single Canadian, every single taxpayer dollar that is taken from very hard-working Canadians who are already struggling financially, which is given and spent through contractors, through improper means. I think that Canadians have a right to know what is going on with their hard-earned money.
When I attended, about a week and a half ago, committee during a constituency break week, it was revealed by the Auditor General, the same Auditor General who oversees all public spending and reports to this House, that she had no clue, no idea, that the RCMP were investigating criminality with respect to the contracting of the ArriveCAN app and other such apps.
When I asked her if the government had notified her in advance of her learning about this particular investigation, her answer was no. She was profoundly “disappointed”, her word, in the actions of this government, in not notifying her of a very relevant and essential part of her investigation.
It is not just, perhaps, ethical issues or improper awarding of contracts. There is now a criminal element to it. I brought to her attention that, according to Botler, this was not just misconduct at the highest level of the senior bureaucracy in this government but that it involved criminality, theft, forgery and fraud.
When prosecuted, people will be going to prison for two-plus years for fraudulently fleecing the Canadian taxpayer.
This is why not only is my colleague profoundly disappointed, but I am sick over this.
This is the government that is not accountable. This is the government that is not transparent. After that damning evidence came out, what did the Liberal-NDP coalition do? It shut down the committee. This was a two-hour meeting agreed to by every member of public accounts and it shut it down.
It says the reason was that the Auditor General could not share any further information. That was the furthest from the truth. Members of the Conservative team on that committee were just getting started. We had many more probing questions.
They are hiding something and Canadians have a right to know that. That is why I am putting on the record this criminality on behalf of this government.
That is why I rose today in the House and asked the question: will this government and will this Prime Minister co-operate with the RCMP or will he continue to hide behind cabinet confidentiality?
The motion would be amended as follows, by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:
the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, March 20, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on International Trade with instruction that it amend the same to include reference to;
(a) the $54 million hard-earned Canadian tax dollars wasted on the application,
(b) the inaccurate evidence government officials provided during the committee's investigation,
(c) the serious allegations of fraudulent contract practices that are cause for grave concern,
(d) the statement made by the RCMP that they are investigating criminality in the contracts that were awarded, and
accordingly, it recommends that the Auditor General of Canada update Canadians on where the money went.
1231 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to speak to a bill on behalf of the fine residents of Brantford—Brant.
I know there are many victim advocacy groups that are watching this particular debate, not necessarily me, but certainly the debate itself. I know one such passionate group, My Voice, My Choice, would also be watching this and taking an active interest.
After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, sex-related crime has nearly doubled up to 82.5%. This so-called feminist government has dragged its heels on this issue, and this legislation may not be passed before the effective provisions expire, which is 24 days from now, on October 28, 2023. The impact of that is that sex offenders could escape registration because of the Liberal government's complete incompetence.
Canada's Conservatives are supportive of this legislation, and I will say that at the outset, that would protect the public from sexual offenders, but the bill does not go far enough. Conservatives believe that all sex offenders must be listed on the national sex offender registry, and we would amend the legislation to ensure this. We know that women and children are disproportionately victimized by sexual offenders, and this bill would make it harder for law enforcement to prevent and investigate sexual offences.
It is important that I give a brief historical overview of this particular legislation in this area. The legislation known as SOIRA was first passed by the Liberal government in 2004, with all parties supporting it. It introduced the idea that registered sex offenders were required to report annually to registration centres, as well as declare any changes of residence, travel plans or changes. However, the enrolment on the registry was at the discretion of the prosecution, and the registry's efficacy was compromised by the exclusion of nearly half of all convicted sex offenders.
As a result, the Harper government, in 2011, introduced and passed Bill S-2 with unanimous support, which made inclusion in the registry mandatory for those convicted of any sexual offence and made inclusion for life mandatory for those convicted of multiple offences.
All of this was changed by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 28, 2022, in the R. v. Ndhlovu decision, which struck down two key sections of the Criminal Code. By way of facts, the accused, the offender, was 19 when he sexually assaulted two women at a party, resulting in two separate sexual offences for which he served six months in jail. He was added to the sex offender registry for life.
Now, by a five-four split decision, the court struck down the provisions that anyone found guilty of a sexual offence would be automatically registered. By a nine-zero decision, they also struck down the mandatory registration for life for those who commit more than one such offence.
What does Bill S-12 do to correct this? Bill S-12 would create judicial discretion to add offenders to the registry, one, in cases where child sex offenders are sentenced to two years or more in prison where the Crown proceeded by indictment, and, two, for any repeat offender who has previously been convicted of a sexual offence. The bill would allow judges the ability to impose lifetime registration for sexual offenders who are found guilty of more than one offence at the same time, if the offender poses a risk of reoffending, but that is with judicial discretion.
The bill focuses squarely on the offence of sexual assault. It is important that I spend a little time talking about the unique challenges of this offence. Sex assault is the most unreported violent crime in Canada. People with disabilities are at greater risk of victimization and are even less likely to engage with the criminal justice system. Class, ethnicity, religion, nation of origin, community, age, sexual orientation and gender identity may make reporting more difficult.
Sex assault usually occurs in private. It is a profound invasion of its victims' physical and psychological boundaries. In most cases, the perpetrator is known to the victim. The attack often leaves no outward injury, but can devastate its victims, who may suffer in isolation and often in silence.
Sex assault complainants and victims have long felt a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system's ability to protect them and to hold offenders accountable. Conviction rates have not improved, and the fear of revictimization during the course of the prosecution remains.
Reporting rates of sexual offences to police hover around 5%, with 41% of those cases resulting in a charge being laid. Data for the last 35 years suggests that there is a significant statistical decline in conviction rates during the last 15 years. In Canada alone, that conviction rate went from 26.5% to 14%.
Another key feature of the bill relates to the rights of victims. Specifically, I am going to draw upon some material that I received from the victims advocacy group My Voice, My Choice:
Victim-complainants of sexual offences have the right to request a publication ban under section 486.4 of the [current state of the law].
The purpose of this type of publication is to encourage reporting and has the effect of providing victim complainants with protection from being publicly identified. There are considerable issues with respect to how victims and complainants are informed of their pub bans under that section and whether they are provided the necessary information about how to comply with the terms of the ban and eventually have it removed should they desire.
The material continues:
In reality, many prosecutors [, such as myself during my time as a prosecutor,] ask the judge or justice for a section 486.4 publication ban upon the first appearance of the accused in court, long before a victim-complainant is involved and participates in proceedings.
I also want to share with the House the frustration many victims have with respect to this particular provision and also the penalties they are experiencing currently because of the publication ban.
In March 2021, a victim in Kitchener–Waterloo was charged, prosecuted and convicted of breaching the terms of her publication ban for emailing a court transcript to her close supporters. The conviction was later overturned on appeal due to a technicality, but this example shows how prosecutors do not understand the purpose of a section 486.4 ban.
Here is another case. In May of 2021, a victim in Ottawa asked her Crown attorney in court to remove the ban, but the prosecutor said that she was not sure of the process or policy, or if the Crown would consent to the removal. After asking the judge directly herself while in the sentencing hearing, the complainant was told that the judge was no longer functus and could not help. When a third Crown attorney eventually applied to have the publication ban removed, the defence attorney opposed the application and was permitted to make submissions as to why the ban should not be removed. She never consented to having a publication ban.
These are just a few examples of the frustrations victims have had across this country not only when trying to get advice and information from the Crown so they can participate in the process, but also when trying to remove the ban.
Lastly, I wish to talk about the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court of Canada decision, because I think the language is really illustrative of the problem we have here. I am quoting from the dissent, which states that:
But the exercise of discretion was the very problem that prompted Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to provide for automatic registration of sex offenders...(“SOIRA”). Specifically.... The evidence is clear that even low risk sex offenders, relative to the general criminal population, pose a heightened risk to commit another sexual offence. It is also clear that it cannot be reliably predicted at the time of sentencing which offenders will reoffend. In the face of that uncertain risk, Parliament was entitled to cast a wide net.
It is in that particular wide net that we are asking for, by way of amendment, to include all those who are convicted of sex offences, particularly against children. There ought not to be a discretionary exercise by way of a justice.
Canada's Conservatives are supportive of legislation that will protect the public from sex offenders, but the bill does not go far enough. We believe all sex offenders must be listed on the registry and we would amend the legislation to ensure this. Conservatives would end the government's soft-on-crime approach and bring home safe streets for Canadians and particularly for the victims of sexual assault across this country.
1473 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:01:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, people in Brantford—Brant and across the province have come together to urge the government to address the cancellation of Via Rail Train 82 and take immediate action to reinstate this vital commuter service.
Via Rail plays a crucial role in facilitating transportation for all Canadians. The cancellation of Train 82 has left hundreds of my constituents without a reliable mode of transportation to Toronto before nine in the morning. This decision has not only disrupted the daily lives of commuters who depend on this train line for work, school and appointments, but has forced individuals to face unemployment, creating additional economic hardships for many.
For those affected by this unjustified cancellation, I encourage all to join me for a rally at the Brantford train station this Saturday, June—
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 11:33:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Carleton, the leader of His Majesty's official opposition and Canada's next great prime minister, for sharing his time with me today on such a prominent issue that our country is facing. As always, it is a privilege to speak on behalf of the residents of Brantford—Brant.
As we are all aware, the topic of foreign interference in this country has not only been at the forefront of discussions in this House for quite some time now, but it also remains a top concern for Canadians across this country. These foreign operatives pose major threats to the safety and security of our democratic institutions. The fact that this interference was able to grow this extensively on the Prime Minister's watch, and that it took this long for Beijing agents in this country to be expelled, speaks loudly to the current government's complete incompetence in fulfilling its basic duty to protect Canadians.
It is unacceptable that the government knew that MPs and their families had been targeted by the Communist regime in Beijing for almost three years. It is unacceptable that it took zero measures to inform those members of this House until these facts were exposed on the front pages of our press. If the government knew that the foreign operatives were using their diplomatic status to conduct foreign interference operations, it should have dealt with those individuals immediately and not years down the line when it was embarrassed because of inaction.
Regardless of our political colour, all members must work to fulfill our duties to represent our constituents and to honour the democratic process that brought us here in the first place. The fact that the Communist regime in Beijing was targeting the former leader of the Conservative Party not only shows that it was working to re-elect the Prime Minister's government and defeat the Conservatives but also that the responsibilities of being a democratically elected member of Parliament have absolutely no meaning to the members on that side of the House.
Today, we are debating the opposition motion moved by the NDP. The NDP is a party of Twitter warriors who care about Canadians on social media and defend the Prime Minister and his Liberal government every step of the way.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Larry Brock: Madam Speaker, they can heckle me all they want.
408 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 3:42:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Thornhill.
It is a privilege to speak in the House on behalf of the good residents of Brantford—Brant on our Conservative motion, which would essentially compel the Prime Minister’s chief of staff to appear as a witness.
Canadians have heard numerous media reports on foreign interference in our democratic processes, particularly by the Communist regime in Beijing. We, as a society, cannot allow foreign governments to manipulate our elections and influence the will of our people. Any interference tries to undermine the very foundation of our democracy and threatens our sovereignty, especially when it is plotted by authoritarian regimes.
The CSIS whistle-blower who leaked the story did so at great professional and legal risk. He or she put country over career and country over everything, which is the Canadian way. That is how our society should work. This is a serious matter that requires our full attention and immediate action. Canadians deserve the truth and nothing less.
From day one, our leader called on the government and all parties in the House to launch an open public inquiry that would answer all the questions and concerns that people have. In this case, only two people can provide us with answers: the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, Katie Telford.
As always, the Liberals decided to use their tactics of denial and deflection. Rather than explain what he knows, the Prime Minister is suggesting there should be an investigation into what he already knows. After all these years and numerous scandals, particularly those of SNC-Lavalin and WE Charity, accountability was never the goal of the Liberal government. Its goal is to prolong the scandal as much as possible until no one can remember why it matters.
For the past several weeks, the Liberals have been unnecessarily fighting attempts to have Telford appear before committee to testify. They have delayed votes, given long speeches to run out the clock and even refused to show up for meetings, all in an attempt to block Telford from appearing. Almost 24 hours of committee work has been wasted for this single cause.
Hearing from Katie is vital to any investigation into the Global News story because she would have been the top advisor who CSIS would have advised in 2019 in providing a brief on concerns about the Liberal candidate and his ties to the Chinese foreign interference network. She has been chief of staff since 2015, and she has the top secret clearance needed to be briefed.
The Prime Minister rightly said that voters, not intelligence services, get to pick who represents them, but if those intelligence services believe a candidate is compromised by a foreign government, voters should know that before casting their ballots. Having Telford come before the committee to tell MPs what the government did with the intelligence, if anything, is a necessary step in restoring confidence in our democracy. The fact that the Liberals refuse to allow this to happen may tell us a lot. Probably what she has to say would shake what is left over of that confidence even more.
It is time to end the Katie cover-up. The New Democrats have a choice to make: Will they vote for transparency and answers on Beijing’s interference in our elections, or will they again prop up the Prime Minister? We insist that Canadians must hear from Katie Telford and learn what the Prime Minister knew, when he first knew about it and what he did or failed to do.
Katie is the highest ranking political staffer in the Prime Minister’s Office. She supports not only the Prime Minister but also his entire cabinet. It is a powerful, yet largely behind-the-scenes role. Unlike other public servants, her job is a political one. She works not only for the PMO, but also for the Liberal Party during elections. Calling political staff, current or former, to testify is not something extraordinary. She testified before the finance committee on the WE scandal and on the sexual misconduct in the military in 2021. Last year, she testified before the Rouleau commission.
Any international attempts to interfere in our elections should be a non-partisan issue. The fact that the Liberals are making it one and trying to stop investigations should make everyone question their motives, and today we call on all parties in the House to support our motion and stop the endless filibustering by Liberal members, who are deliberately blocking the Prime Minister’s chief of staff from testifying
While the Prime Minister claims that his approach to the issue is “grounded in facts and independent decision making,” he is the one who is playing the partisan games in the hope of delaying any serious investigation or discussion about interference. As revelation after revelation reveals, the Liberal government knew about China’s election interference. It had four years. It did not inform the public. It did not recall any diplomatic staff. It did not pursue any legal remedies.
Poll after poll shows that the majority of Canadians are concerned about China's attempts to meddle in our elections. A recent Abacus Data poll showed that 67% of Canadians support a public inquiry into that issue, and in fact, 70% of Liberals support it.
It is irresponsible to silence a matter of a foreign government attempting to corrupt our election by pressuring members of the Chinese diaspora. If that does not qualify for the fullest and most public examination, then one must ask oneself this question: What will?
There are lots of questions the Prime Minister does not want to answer. Number one, were the Liberals briefed by national security officials that at least one Liberal candidate in 2019 was allegedly part of the interference network from Beijing? Two, did they wilfully ignore that warning because it was to their advantage? Three, did they know that 11 candidates in that election, nine of whom were Liberals, were favoured by Beijing? Four, were Trudeau and his advisors also briefed about China working to defeat Conservative candidates in 2021—
1035 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/9/23 2:05:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in the House today to share some very exciting news: The Hamilton Bulldogs, the OHL 2018 and 2022 champions, are coming to my hometown and will become the Brantford Bulldogs.
I stand before members proudly wearing their new jersey to recognize and commend Mayor Kevin Davis, Brantford council and city staff. Their enthusiasm and quick response made this possible. I thank the Bulldogs organization for choosing “hockey town”, the home of the great one, as its home away from home.
New memories are waiting to be made for all of us. Join me in making the Brantford Bulldogs' fan base even larger than it is. Season ticket deposit sales have gone through the roof, with over 2,400 seats sold to date. To avoid missing the chance to join the growing number of hockey fans, one can visit the Bulldogs' website for more information or to become a season ticket holder.
We will see them at the arena. Go, Bulldogs, go.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/22 2:00:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the youth in Brantford—Brant are keen, motivated and eager to have a say in the future of our country.
Last month, I asked students in my riding to come up with ideas to reduce crime in our community. From increasing community engagement, outreach and resources, to ways to deter incidents of dangerous driving and increasing opportunities for young people, the ideas they came up with were both innovative and creative.
I would like to congratulate Katrina Davis, recipient of the essay contest award, and finalists Tanner Dickie, Giulia Di Lollo and Owen Portelli. These students will be the first members of my youth advisory council, set to begin in the fall, when I begin to look forward to getting their non-partisan advice on a variety of pressing issues.
Our young people are our future, and I can confidently say that our future is bright. They provide invaluable knowledge, and I am excited to continue to engage and hear their opinions and perspective.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/22 2:18:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, recently the justice committee heard the testimony from Robert Davis, Chief of the Brantford Police Service. During his testimony, and I am quoting from the blues, Chief Davis said, “With Bill C-5 and the proposed changes now we are going to see sentencing become a joke”. He then continued, “with...turning sentences into conditional sentences...the justice system...is being brought into disrepute. People will operate with impunity, the victims' rights are going to be given away for the rights of the criminal.” He also said, “Victims of communities will live in fear of gun violence, fearful of retaliation by armed criminals and people will continue to overdose”.
Chief Davis is a proud Mohawk from the Six Nations of the Grand River territory in my riding of Brantford—Brant. He has been policing since 1990 and is the only indigenous leader on a municipal police service in Ontario. His first-hand experience debunks the ideologically driven narrative the Liberal members are selling.
Despite this, sadly and dangerously, the NDP-Liberal government does not want to listen to the warnings of Chief Davis. My message is simple: The Minister of Justice must withdraw this soft-on-crime bill now.
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 2:09:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it gives me immense pride to announce that the City of Brantford is twinning with Kamianets-Podilskyi in Ukraine. This is a symbolic gesture that will initiate much-needed practical support for it. Since the Russian invasion, the city has been host to thousands of refugees, has helped displaced single moms with kids and the elderly who were pressured to leave their homes, and has organized efforts to provide support for the Ukrainian army.
This wonderful idea was proposed by my constituent Andy Straisfeld and was unanimously supported by Mayor Kevin Davis and city council. I would like to thank Ukrainian MPs Georgiy Mazurashu and Ihor Marchuk, and the mayor of that city, Mykhailo Positko. I am also proud of the role that my team played to make this agreement a reality.
I encourage my colleagues in the House to work with their municipalities and find their sister cities in Ukraine. Canada can help in so many ways.
Glory to Canada. Slava Ukraini.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 2:12:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the cost of living continues to be a gut punch to my constituents in Brantford—Brant and all hard-working Canadians. Food costs are up 7.4% and gasoline 32.3% in just one year. The housing affordability crisis has become even worse with the biggest month over month hike since April of 1983. To add insult to injury, the new NDP-Liberal government is pushing ahead with several tax hikes, including the carbon tax.
What does the NDP Prime Minister have to say to the elderly, young parents and many other members of my riding? They do not want to hear the old speaking points about Canada's recovery and our credit rating. They need immediate relief now. Instead, Canadians can expect new, unprecedented expenses from the NDP-Liberal government that will drive inflation even higher. What nonsense and how irresponsible is that?
It is time for the NDP Prime Minister to stop punishing hard-working families and start making decisions with fiscal responsibility.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:08:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with more than 1.3 million unemployed Canadians, 200,000 jobs were lost in January alone. At the same time, our businesses are struggling to fill almost one million jobs. Canada's economic recovery is in jeopardy. Canada has the fifth-worst job recovery in the G7.
Hard-working people of Brantford—Brant are asking this: When will the Prime Minister stop putting his ideological agenda above prudent economic decisions?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
