Fraser Tolmie · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

2026-06-17

“I think the Liberal Party is bad. It changes too much. It does things I don't like. I want my friend in the Liberal Party to say if he agrees with me.”

“The person I'm talking about is funny and has heavy luggage. We drink cappuccinos together. I like her a lot and will miss her.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-08

“I don't like the government. The Liberals are bad. They didn't fix the economy 10 years ago. I think Canadians are struggling because of it. Food bank use is up in my riding. I'm mad about that.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed my root canal today. I want to talk about my colleague across the aisle's saying that he has recognized the economy. The Liberal Party has failed Canadian people for far too long. The Liberals had this opportunity 10 years ago, but they are just recognizing it now. The failures have prevented Canadians from being insulated from the challenges we are facing globally. I have just never heard such drivel in my entire life. The Liberal government has failed and has missed opportunities, and it is like a brand new thing to them. It is unbelievable. This should have been done 10 years ago. Canadians would not be in food lines. In my own riding, people are now being interviewed to go to the food bank. How has the government insulated and prevented Canadians from going through that? It is an economic mess.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

National Defence

2026-05-27

“I want the government to buy new planes faster. A propeller plane is not acceptable. It must be a jet. I am frustrated and blame Liberal delays.”

“The government spent millions on these jets, but now they're grounding them early. The companies that checked the jets say they're safe to fly. What's the real reason they want to ground them now? I want the government to explain its decision.”

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

Snowbirds

2026-05-25

“I want the Prime Minister to reverse his decision and keep the Snowbirds jet team. The Liberals are disappointing Canadians by grounding the Tutors. A replacement plane with propellers is not good enough.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on May 19, the Minister of National Defence came to Moose Jaw, home of Canada's Snowbirds. He paraded the Snowbirds team out in front of the media and used them as his backdrop. Then he announced that the team were now losing their jobs. This is one of the most un‑Canadian things the people of Canada have ever witnessed happen to our military, and Canadians are disappointed with this behaviour. The Liberals have sat on this file for over a decade. The Tutors are being grounded after $30 million was spent to keep the jets flying until 2030. Both L3Harris and Magellan Aerospace have said the Tutors are safe to fly. Now, out of nowhere, the minister has announced a replacement aircraft that has propellers but with no timeline, no number of planes, no in-service date. The Snowbirds Alumni Association calls this profoundly disappointing. So does Moose Jaw, and so does Canada. Canadians deserve a jet team. The Prime Minister can make this happen by reversing his decision.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

National Defence

2026-05-08

“You didn't answer the question about when the Snowbirds will fly. I want you to answer now. I'm saying nice things about the Snowbirds to pressure you to give a date.”

“I want the Snowbirds to perform in 2027. The minister promised Canadians would enjoy them for generations to come. Now it looks like the Liberals are canceling them. Why are the Liberals breaking their promise and canceling the Snowbirds? I want the government to keep its word and keep the Snowbirds flying.”

Oral Questions

National Defence

2026-05-07

“The Snowbirds inspire Canadians. They make me feel good. I want the Liberals to keep the Snowbirds. Why do the bad Liberals want to take my Snowbirds away?”

“I want the government to keep spending money on a program that puts on air shows in my riding. The government isn't telling me its plans for the program. I want the government to promise it will keep the program going.”

Statements by Members

Air Force Day on the Hill

2026-05-05

“I want praise for military people I used to work with. My riding has one of the best air force bases in Canada. I'm proud of the air force. You should be too.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I went to Moose Jaw the way a lot of people do, through the Royal Canadian Air Force, and I decided to plant my roots and build my life in that community. The men and women I served alongside understood something fundamental: Discipline, sacrifice and excellence are not words on a page, but daily choices. Today, we welcome the Royal Canadian Air Force to Parliament Hill for Air Force Day on the Hill. I think of the instructors, technicians, aircrews, medics and support personnel at 15 Wing who keep our proud nation alive. NATO allies have sent their pilots there because Canada's training standard is considered the best in the world. Our air force is one of Canada's most vital national institutions, and the people who serve in it are among the best this country has to offer. To everyone serving, past and present, we see them and we are grateful. Per ardua ad astra.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Report Stage

2026-05-04

“Traumatized victims need to feel safe. They want options. Liberals are ignoring them and shutting them out. We must let victims be heard.”

“I agree completely. Victims feel ignored. Liberals ignore the committee's hard work and the victims' pleas. That is wrong. We must fix this bill carefully before it passes.”

“The other member had no question. I'll give you an answer anyway. Liberals say how many apply, not how many are helped. They say nothing on the military's failure rate. They fail women who faced tragedy in the forces.”

“I'm sad the government isn't listening to our work. I want the minister to listen to victims and the committee.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was actually going to ask my colleague a question there. I did my officer training in her riding of Saint-Jean. It is a beloved area in my life. Some of that I wanted to forget, because of the gruelling training, but I do appreciate my colleague's speech, her passion for our military and her passion for Quebec. The motto of la belle province is Je me souviens or I remember. I apologize about my French, but I am practising and I have to overcome my own fear. I will do that by speaking with my French colleagues. I want to talk about what the Minister of National Defence tabled last week, and why it matters to people who trusted the House to get it right. The minister tabled report stage amendments that would undo months not just of Conservative work but of committee work. Bloc and Conservative members of the Standing Committee on National Defence sat together, listened to witnesses and built something worth passing. The minister swept it away. Not satisfied with tabling the amendments last week, the government has now moved time allocation to limit how long the House can even discuss them. Survivors came forward twice and made themselves vulnerable twice. I have been asked to speak to the bill because of the work I have done on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In the last Parliament, ACVA undertook the largest study in its history. It held 23 meetings, with nearly 100 witnesses, with respect to the experience of women veterans. In Parliament we are studying suicide prevention, and in many meetings, MST surfaces as a driver for suicide. The two files are not separate. As part of both studies, the committee undertook dedicated work on trauma-informed practices, what trauma does to memory, to reporting and to the way survivors present themselves in institutional settings. I do not raise this to claim expertise. I raise it because I find myself wondering whether the officials who drafted these report stage amendments, or the members now standing to defend them, have spent comparable time in those rooms. Many of the women who spent months testifying before the veterans affairs committee later came before the national defence committee to speak directly to the bill. They showed up twice. They made themselves vulnerable twice. The minister's amendments are his response. The cross-party amendments to clauses 7 and 8 would give survivors the right to choose which justice system handled their case, military or civilian. That reflected what witnesses asked for directly. Donna Van Leusden told the committee: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill...survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor‑centred. She is right, and she is not alone. The provost marshal general testified that over the last five years, 270 out of 735 files stayed with the military police because victims specifically asked for them to stay there. That is more than one-third of all cases. These are real people making an informed choice. The minister's amendments would eliminate choice entirely. Regarding civilian capacity, the picture is equally concerning. Sexual assault cases exceeding the Jordan framework deadline limits rose from just over 15% in 2016-17 to more than 30% in 2022-23. Nearly half of those cases were stayed or the files withdrawn. The civilian system is struggling with its existing caseload. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police was direct in its written submission. It said that the proposed provisions would deny victims the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint is investigated. This departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing. CACP recommended maintaining concurrent jurisdiction. The people who would be executing this mandate said it would not work. The minister made his amendments anyway. It is worth noting what the minister acknowledged at committee: He has not spoken to Justice Arbour, Justice Fish or Justice Deschamps on this file. When asked how many victims his office consulted when drafting the bill, he said that he would have to get back to the committee. He had not spoken to any provincial justice ministers since taking the portfolio. Jordan framework delays were not in his briefings. He would be implementing a mandatory jurisdictional transfer into a system he has not even consulted, without the resources to support it and over the explicit objection of survivors, the director of military prosecutions and the chiefs of police. There are real consequences to getting this wrong, and they are playing out right now. A decade ago, the Canadian Armed Forces set a target of 25% women in uniform by 2026. Today, after 10 years of stated commitment, the number sits at 16.7%. The recruitment commander said last week that the target is now impossible to reach. In the past fiscal year alone, 1,070 women left the military, the highest rate in five years, despite pay increases. We cannot recruit and retain women in an institution where they know before they sign up that if something happens to them, the system will not put their choice at the centre. That is precisely what Bill C-11, as the minister has now amended it, would fail to do. The government set a target of 25% women. It could not reach a force of 67,000. What exactly is its plan for half a million? When I spoke to the bill at an earlier stage, I said that I hoped that by the time my daughters are adults, parliamentarians would not still be debating how to get this right for people assaulted in the forces in which they choose to serve. I am standing here at report stage, and nothing has changed. If anything, I am less optimistic than I was then. However, I have not stopped believing it is possible. The committee did the work. The result was something worth passing. What the minister tabled last week is not an improvement. It is the government's substituting its own preference for that of survivors. That is paternalistic. It is further disenfranchisement of the people who have already been rendered powerless once. Conservatives will continue to fight to restore the amendments. The provisions about choice must stand. Civilian capacity must be resourced before jurisdiction is transferred. Survivors who came forward twice, who trusted twice, deserve better than this. We can do better than this. As I said, I am the father of two daughters, and I hope and pray that the work we have put in to make their lives better would be heard by members on the other side of the aisle. We can do better. We owe it to the next generation. We owe it to those who want to join.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act

2026-04-30

“I want to fix a real problem. But this new regulation won't help. It adds more rules and costs to businesses that are already struggling. We need real action, not just more talk and process.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, you are looking well and it is great to have you in the chair. I want to talk about a principle most Canadians would consider common sense: If someone owns something, they should be able to fix it. Canada has already done meaningful work on this file. Bill C-244 and Bill C-294 removed copyright barriers that were being used to block repairs on digital devices. The member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, a close friend of mine, introduced Bill C-294 specifically because he understood what those restrictions were doing to agriculture, mining, construction and forestry industries in Saskatchewan. He named them explicitly. Those bills were real, they targeted action and they deserve credit. I want to thank the member for Bourassa for bringing this bill forward. He has identified a genuine problem and put in the work to bring it here. The frustration behind this bill is legitimate. Canadians should have better options when the products they own break down, but this bill is not the right answer and I will explain why. When governments get the right to repair right, they act where the need is greatest. They create actual rights, not frameworks and not consultation processes, but rights. In 2023, Colorado became the first American state to pass an agricultural right to repair law, the Consumer Right to Repair Agricultural Equipment Act. It guaranteed farmers and independent mechanics access to the software and repair materials needed to fix tractors and other agricultural equipment. That was a law. It created real rights in one day. The Federal Trade Commission then filed an antitrust lawsuit against John Deere in January 2025, alleging the company had monopolized the repair market by withholding diagnostic tools. Earlier this month, a class action lawsuit against John Deere settled for $99 million, with a 10-year commitment to make diagnostic tools available to farmers and independent shops. There are now 16 states that have active agricultural right to repair legislation. American farmers running John Deere equipment now have legal tools their Canadian counterparts do not. This is a competitive disadvantage baked into the regulatory gap. Prairie producers are already carrying cost pressures their American competitors do not face in the same way: industrial carbon pricing, fertilizer costs, higher fuel costs and input costs that cannot be passed down to a buyer who sets the price on global commodity markets. Canadian farmers are price-takers. They absorb every additional cost at the farm gate. This is one more structural disadvantage stacking up. My riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan is bigger than Switzerland. It is five square kilometres bigger than Switzerland, with 41,290 square kilometres of agricultural land, rural communities and some of the most productive grain and canola in Canada. Across the entire riding, there are three authorized John Deere service locations. Colorado figured out how to give its farmers real options. This bill would not give the farmers in my riding any. I want to be clear this is not a criticism of equipment dealers. They serve their customers well and are part of the communities I represent. They play a vital role. The problem is the software lock. A farmer near Craik or Tugaske cannot hand their local mechanic the diagnostic tool they need because the manufacturer controls access to it. If someone has the right software, the repair takes an afternoon. Without it, they wait for the one authorized technician who has the key. In Saskatchewan, harvest windows are measured in days, not weeks. A two-day repair delay is not an inconvenience; it can be a crop. The agriculture sector made exactly this case during the government's own right-to-repair consultations in 2024. The National Cattle Feeders' Association told ISED directly that farmers face an uncompetitive scenario and are forced to accept the costs and repair schedules of manufacturers. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture called for legislation compelling manufacturers to provide access. Alberta Grains, representing over 18,000 wheat and barley farmers, submitted that producers were so frustrated with repair monopolies that some would rather operate less advanced equipment they could actually fix. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada held its own targeted round tables specifically on farm equipment and interoperability. The sector showed up. The government ran dedicated round tables on the exact gap this bill would leave open, and the bill before the House today does not contain the word “agriculture”. The bill before us has two problems. The first is what the bill fails to do and the second is what the bill would do. On the first point, the bill's scope is explicitly for electronic products and essential home appliances, defined as devices intended for regular household use. That definition closes the door entirely on agricultural equipment. A framework covering dishwashers and smart phones but not combines is not a right-to-repair framework for the producers who feed this country. On the second point, this bill would not just address repairability. It would establish minimum durability standards and a federal regulatory framework over consumer product design and manufacturing. I understand the consumer appeal of that. Canadians are right to be frustrated when products are built to fail, but we need to be honest about what this bill would be. It would be a new federal regulatory layer over a broad category of consumer products on top of provincial consumer protection regimes that are already moving on this file. Quebec's Bill 29 is active. Ontario is advancing its own legislation. The provinces are acting. Ottawa adding a parallel federal durability standards framework on top of that provincial action is not simplification. It is duplication. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business just released its report entitled “Canada's Entrepreneurial Drought”. Canada is in a sustained period where business exits outpace new entries every single quarter. In Saskatchewan specifically, net business creation has been negative for most of the past decade. Regulatory compliance costs Canadian businesses $51.5 billion annually, with nearly $18 billion of that attributed to pure red tape. About 87% of small business owners say that excessive regulation significantly reduces their ability to grow. This week, leading Canadian industry groups told the Financial Times that federal red tape is costing the country more than Trump's tariffs. Nutrien, headquartered in Saskatchewan, chose to build a $1-billion port in Washington state over Canada's west coast, citing Canadian regulation as a key factor in that decision. This is not the moment to add another federal framework to the pile. I cannot support this bill. It is not because the right to repair is wrong, as it is not. It is not because the member for Bourassa's concern is misplaced, as it is not. I oppose this bill because it would deliver a new regulatory framework when the provinces are already at work.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-04-28

“The government is spending too much. This spending is not an investment, it's just to keep things running. Canadians are struggling with high prices and going to food banks. The Prime Minister should spend less so Canadians can afford to live.”

Government Orders

2026-04-23

“You say you're helping but it won't work. You're sending people to overloaded courts. You aren't doing enough. Do something real.”