Helena Konanz · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“I want the member to admit there's a problem. People are worried. The government should fix this now.”

“I want people in my riding to feel consulted. Local decisions are uncertain. It's the provincial government's fault. The federal government should stay involved in local decisions and protect private property. People in my riding are worried. Let's use Canadian law to protect property rights. We should study the problem more in committee. I'm filling time with a lot of complicated jargon but I basically just want the government to protect property rights and keep talking to everyone.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, a very real and local example of this growing uncertainty is occurring in my riding in the community of Okanagan Falls, whose narrow vote last year to incorporate as a municipality is now being re-evaluated as a whole community. From the decision-making powers of the town council to the municipality's actual name, uncertainty persists because of the title changes brought about by the B.C. government, which now risk serious consequences across the nation. When people of the community of Okanagan Falls, which is 100 years old, no longer know and are waiting to be told what the name of their community they voted to incorporate will be, that is a sign of poor consultation brought on by an error-ridden provincial government. While our motion today is focused on the federal government, I join with my local and provincial representatives in encouraging Victoria to engage fully with every resident and neighbour in the beautiful community of Okanagan Falls with respect to the future of the community. As for the government across from me, Conservatives are calling for a common-sense approach that keeps the federal government involved with British Columbians throughout the entire legal process. We are calling on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case at the Department of Justice. Statements by Liberal MPs in the House are not the same as the direction they have provided to their public lawyers, who argued and lost in the Cowichan decision because of that. Litigation guideline number 14 from “Attorney General of Canada's Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples” prevented the federal government from defending property rights in the Cowichan case, as many Canadian lawyers have pointed out. This is what the Cowichan decision itself said at paragraph 2096: “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.” What is called the “principle of extinguishment”, that the Crown's creation of fee simple title supersedes historical indigenous title, was the legal argument on which Canadian governments rested their defence of private property historically, under both Liberal and Conservative attorneys general. It does not cancel any existing treaties. It simply upholds the property rights created through Canadian history, particularly in the last century of property division in British Columbia. It was our best line of defence for property rights, but the Attorney General's guidelines limited its use. The federal government itself has also created confusion on the intersection of title claims with its own Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement, which fails to say anything definitive about fee simple property rights, a dangerous precedent going into its appeal. Until the Cowichan case is resolved, it is clear that the federal government should be negotiating the defence of private property rights into its agreements with our first nations. It is not that first nations are trying to take private property. They are not. It is that legal agreements create precedents that could cause greater problems in the decades ahead. This creation of legal grey areas is how we got to the Cowichan decision. It should not be continued in agreements like the Musqueam agreement. Legal matters are never simply aspirational. They are law. That is why we on this side of the House are also calling for the Liberal government to publish a plan within 30 days to protect property rights for Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement, and appoint a special committee with the mandate to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect property rights in Canada. This should be a multi-party committee that would hold multiple meetings over the next several weeks to hear from legal experts and to develop advice to be published in an interim report by the summer, with a full report to follow later. Both sides of the House feature people of great legal talent, many of whom are indigenous and many more who are familiar with indigenous law. There is no reason they cannot provide the government with clear advice before we rise for the summer. Canada is not required in international law to pursue reconciliation. We have our own law, and our own lawmakers in the House who wish to find common ground, equal rights and shared prosperity. Section 35 of our Constitution already recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada. No one pretends this framework is perfect, but it is our framework, built and improved by all Canadians. Few nations around the world maintain this kind of legal framework with indigenous peoples. It is a process of ever-greater improvement, but to maintain it we need all parties, such as the Crown, first nation leaders and everyday Canadians, who are extremely worried right now, to sit in a common understanding of how we will proceed and how we will recognize the rights of land, property and consultation. Let us maintain it as legislators of Canadian law. Setting aspirational goals aligned with UN resolutions in our laws does not serve anyone. Real Canadian law and real Canadian reconciliation can serve everyone fairly.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Fuel Taxes

2026-05-07

“Gas prices are too high. The government takes too much money. Conservatives would make gas cheaper by ending some taxes and fees. We would stop a Liberal program to pay for it. I want Canada to have low prices and be strong.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, gas prices across Canada remain higher than they need to be, not just because of the war in Iran but because of unnecessary federal taxes. The last time a barrel of oil cost $100 was in 2014 under a Conservative government, and gas prices never reached their current levels. In Penticton and Oliver, gas prices are now two dollars a litre, with communities like Castlegar, Grand Forks, Osoyoos and Princeton over $1.90 a litre. We need to offer real relief for longer. Our Conservative plan would scrap all federal gas taxes, the excise tax, GST and the fuel standard tax, for the rest of 2026. We would pay for this by ending Liberal waste, like their gun-grab program. Uncertainty abroad does not mean Canada cannot be affordable and strong at home.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“This court decision creates confusion and tension over private property rights in British Columbia. 98% of respondents are very concerned. It affects financing for projects. The federal government needs to engage with British Columbians throughout the judicial process.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to an issue of great concern to every British Columbian, which is the impact of the B.C. Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada and its effect on private property rights across British Columbia. It is the first time in Canada's history that a court has declared aboriginal title over non-Crown lands, privately owned lands. There are 150 private landowners, farmers, homeowners and business owners in Richmond who discovered that their titles were now in conflict with aboriginal title designation. This is not a matter of reconciliation. It is a matter of confusion. It creates tension. It does not create a path forward. The Business Council of British Columbia conducted a survey of its members on the current uncertainty regarding B.C. property rights and found that 98% of respondents are very concerned. They are not a little concerned, but very concerned. We have already seen financing for job-created projects, including those for indigenous communities, pull back. Reconciliation remains the goal of every British Columbian I speak with, whether they have called their province home for a few years or for a few millennia. Let us not forget that our indigenous peoples own a huge swath of private property in British Columbia. They too are left in confusion by Cowichan. Our province wants to prove that the stewardship of British Columbia's many indigenous communities, both on their lands and in many projects of prosperity they are engaged in, can be a model for the nation. What we are not calling for today is for the government to appeal this decision, as it has already, and rightly, said it will do so. What we are asking for is that the federal government engage with British Columbians straightforwardly throughout what will likely be a long judicial process. We ask it to engage with British Columbians who are confused as to whether their private property is still theirs in full and whether their property rights, long an ancient feature of our legal traditions stretching back centuries, are still theirs. We ask it to decry those who use an error of the court to spread hate, and we seek to understand those who do not know if the home, business or property in their name will remain theirs. The decisions of the courts will not be swift. Uncertainty will persist so long as Ottawa remains in court and Victoria remains deadlocked. A very real and local example of this uncertainty is occurring in my riding in the community of Okanagan Falls.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-05-06

“We argued about this before. I asked you to investigate a failed program. I say you shut down debate and hid the evidence. I want Canadians to think you are hiding something.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians deserve is transparency. Conservatives want to get to the bottom of how $300 million of taxpayer money was wasted on this project, PrescribeIT. When Conservatives demanded that Mr. Green return to the committee to account for the millions of tax dollars that he had been paid for no results, the Liberals voted us down. When the Bloc moved to have the Liberal health minister appear within the next month to testify to her role in this scandal, Liberals ended our meeting entirely. When Conservatives moved to call on the Auditor General of Canada, a non-partisan official, to investigate, the Liberals moved to turn off the camera and seal the records of that committee for the next 30 years. My question is simple: Why did the Liberals turn off the camera and seal the records of that meeting for the next 30 years?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“$300 million for a useless program. No results to show. I want an investigation. The CEO was overpaid and now he's fired. What a waste of taxpayer money!”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about a scandal that is only growing in size, complexity and cost to taxpayers. The Liberals' PrescribeIT was launched in 2016, promising to put every prescription in Canada into a digital system, allowing our pharmacies to move off their reliance on fax machines. At least $300 million in taxpayer dollars was spent in the following decade in pursuit of this goal. The result was complete failure. This taxpayer-funded boondoggle failed to fill even 5% of all prescriptions and cannot be shown to have replaced a single fax machine. It is now being shut down entirely, with the few partners who used it now likely to have to find someone who can reinstall a fax machine in 2026. Canada did not invent e-prescription services. Health care systems and private firms around the world have upgraded their prescription systems from fax machines to serve doctors, pharmacists and patients better. We did not have to reinvent the wheel. Only in Canada and only under the Liberal government could yet another government-funded IT project create absolutely nothing of benefit to Canadians. It is another ArriveCAN, except with an even higher price tag for taxpayers. In the time that I have spent in the House and on the health committee, it has become apparent to me how much better $300 million could have been spent on our health care system. It could have gone toward health transfers to British Columbia, to hire dozens more doctors, nurses and specialists, especially for rural regions like mine that suffer constant closures of many of our emergency rooms for lack of staff. It could have gone toward treatment beds, to give people with addiction in my province a path to recovery. Instead, it was hundreds of millions handed off to a quasi-governmental agency, Canada Health Infoway, in partnership with Telus, with nothing to show for it and the vast majority of the IP created left in private hands rather than the public interest. This disastrous waste of taxpayer money on the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT deserves a full investigation but Conservative attempts to do so have been stonewalled every step of the way. When I questioned Michael Green, the CEO in charge of the agency that oversaw PrescribeIT, Canada Health Infoway, about what went wrong, he could not provide a straight answer despite having worked on the failed Liberal program for 10 years. When I asked how much he was paid, he refused to answer, saying that it was in the public record, but, as his own board chair later admitted, that was a lie. Mr. Green's compensation was not public at that time. There is a reason he wanted it that way. He was paid almost $900,000 when we include the hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses and a taxpayer-funded car. Between our first and last meetings on this topic, the board of Canada Health Infoway fired Mr. Green to prevent him from returning to answer questions. Was the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT a good use of taxpayer dollars, considering that it did not permanently eliminate a single fax machine?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Health

2026-05-06

“The government spent $300 million on a program that didn't work. I want answers. The Liberals are hiding the truth from Canadians. They are shutting down cameras and preventing the minister from testifying. This is a cover-up.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“I want to talk about forestry. That industry lost many jobs. The government should do more trade. My riding depends on US trade. The government didn't spend enough time on forestry in trade talks.”

“What about the forestry sector? Jobs lost, businesses closing. What's happening with those negotiations?”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-04

“You say you'll defend property rights now, in the appeal. But you didn't argue for them the first time around. Appeals aren't a second chance to make new arguments you never made before. So how are your government lawyers going to argue what you're saying now when they didn't do that at the actual trial?”

Oral Questions

Health

2026-05-01

“You Liberals wasted $300 million on PrescribeIT. Conservatives tried to investigate. But you hid the meeting and now nobody can talk about it without breaking the rules. Is hiding what you're doing for 30 years what you call transparency?”

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-04-29

“The government's gas tax cut will end too soon. I want longer relief at the pump. Look at how other countries cut their gas taxes more than we did. I want Canada to copy them. The government should adopt my party's plan to cut gas taxes for longer.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we agree that recent gas price hikes were helped by the war in Iran, but will that be over by Labour Day, as the Liberals' policy suggests? Even if the U.S. and Iran ended the war tomorrow, the Pentagon has said it would take up to six months to fully clear sea mines from the Strait of Hormuz to restore shipping. That is not to mention the damage to oil and gas infrastructure hammered by missile attacks. Conservatives believe it is more prudent to provide Canadians with higher, longer-lasting relief at the pump, given the uncertainty abroad. Nations like Australia, Spain and Ireland all cut their taxes more than Canada has in response. On average, Americans currently pay less at the pump. Will the government take note of our Conservative plan and other plans abroad and cut the tax on gas for longer than just the summer?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Families need to drive. Gas prices are high. The government should cut gas taxes for everyone. Our plan would cut gas prices by 25 cents per liter all year. The Liberal plan only cuts prices until Labour Day. Gas prices are still very high even with the Liberal plan. High gas prices hurt rural communities most. Why won't the government cut gas taxes for longer?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address the taxes that residents in my community pay every single day, specifically gas taxes. I have requested this opportunity to speak in light of the Minister of Veteran Affairs' recent response to my question on April 14. Her response to my question on these gas taxes was as follows: British Columbians are happy to hear that...we are making a reduction in fuel costs from now until Labour Day. British Columbians are going to use that to go and enjoy our country as they can this summer. Maybe they will also combine that with the Canada Strong pass as they go and explore this wonderful country. The Liberal minister seems to be suggesting that the purpose of gas tax relief is to encourage more people to take a vacation or to go camping. As fellow British Columbians, she and I agree that our beautiful province certainly is a place families should explore, but it is not the main reason residents in my communities fill up their cars, trucks, vans or SUVs. A family in Hedley does it to get to the grocery store or a hockey practice. A senior in Rock Creek fills up to attend medical appointments or check in with friends. A forestry worker in Christina Lake needs fuel to get to work and then to get home safely. Driving is a fact of life for tens of thousands of residents in my community. That is not to mention the hauling, the transporting or the towing that empties our tanks even faster. Subways, electric buses and public bicycles, which I often hear Liberals talk about, are not available in the communities I serve. A job in the forestry, mining or agriculture sector does not just happen right down the street. It takes a lot of gas to get rural school buses going or to get essentials to rural supermarkets, not just in the spring or summer, but in the autumn and winter. That is why it is now costing a lot more. Higher gas prices truly punish rural communities. That is why Conservatives are offering a full-year gas tax relief plan with zero federal tax on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026, paid for by ending Liberal spending on the gun buyback program, consulting fees and wasteful foreign aid. Our plan would eliminate the fuel excise tax, 10¢ a litre; the clean fuel standard, seven cents; and GST, eight cents, to save every driver 25¢ a litre. This would not just be savings at the gas station as people would also save when they buy an item that has to be shipped to our shelves, where higher transport costs mean bigger receipts. The Liberal plan offers no excise tax on gas until Labour Day. Presumably, that is when Canadians will stop camping. Even now, with the Liberal plan in effect, Castanet reports that “prices at the pumps soared to their highest levels in years” today in the Okanagan, rising roughly 30¢ a litre from just the night earlier. In my home community of Penticton, every gas station today has it above $1.90 a litre. My question to the government is as follows: Given these sudden and shocking increases and the instability in the Middle East, why does the member think Canadians will not need gas tax relief past Labour Day?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Health

2026-04-27

“I want the Auditor General to investigate what happened to the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT. The Liberals are preventing Canadians from finding out where the money went.”

Private Members' Business

Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act

2026-04-24

“You said the opposite of what your own CEO just said. I want you to explain this contradiction.”

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-04-24

“Do you agree that a financial agent should only work for one party during an election? It's a big job with lots of red tape. It's hard to find agents.”

“I want our party to talk with other parties about this bill. I want to discuss whether someone needs to be a citizen to vote in nominations. I think we should vote on that.”

“I want to talk about election rules in committee. Some ridings are really big. It is harder to campaign in a big riding. Maybe we should spend more in big ridings.”

“I'm glad everyone will work together on this. Canadians are watching. Virtual voting must be very safe before we use it. It is not safe yet.”

“I think the election law needs to change. We need to be careful about changing it. One party should not change election laws by itself. I want the committee to study this more. I am happy the government is finally banning foreign election interference. I also want to stop the longest-ballot protest. They use a loophole to put too many protest names on the ballot. That is not fair to real voters and local volunteers counting ballots late at night. Protest candidates should be allowed but should follow the rules. The government should let all parties make changes to this law.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. Our Elections Act is among the most important laws we have as a nation, as it sets out the rules and procedures for our democracy to function. All members of the House believe in democracy, of course. It is how we all ended up here. However, any time measures are brought forward that would change our laws, this could change how we vote and whom we can vote for, and the proposed measures must be considered with a microscope. Any proposed changes to how an election would operate must be considered with strict consideration to make sure the rules of the games would not be stacked in the favour of the party in power. We only need to look around the globe to see nations where democratic decline has started because free and fair elections have been watered down by legislative majorities. Canada and many of our allies have avoided this, but the decline of democracy can come swiftly. What once started in a forum in ancient Greece largely disappeared for more than a millennium. Democracy is not a natural occurrence. It must always be reasserted, and changes made to it must be agreed to among the largest possible number of parties and citizens. Given that the House now has a Liberal majority government constructed behind closed doors instead of at the ballot box, extra consideration is needed. The proposed changes that are before us could now be passed by one party alone, changing how our elections would be conducted. I know that the minister said in a minority government that he wanted to have consensus support for legislation amending the Canada Elections Act, and he expressed an openness to entertaining supporting other parties' amendments. I hope he keeps his word on this and trusts that members on this side of the House are working in good faith to possibly make further changes. For the most part, I think the bill contains many welcome proposed changes, though many are long overdue. Other areas will require careful study by my colleagues in committee. For the people watching at home, I will explain that the legislation would make the following changes. First, the bill contains measures to counter foreign interference in our elections, as well as in nomination and leadership contests. Foreign entities would be banned from contributing to third parties at all. Foreign funding would be barred from leadership contests. Also closed would be contributions made anonymously, and funding channels such as money orders or cryptocurrency would be traced. After years of delays by the Liberal government, I am pleased that this would finally be addressed. Additionally, the bill would create several new offences and extend existing offences under the act to leadership and nomination contests. The bill would give significant new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections to undertake investigations and to enforce the act, among other measures. Last, the bill includes welcome measures to counter the disruptive and anti-democratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee. Under the act as it stands, a candidate must obtain 100 signatures from electors in a riding in order to get their name on the ballot. The longest ballot committee, however, identified that the same pool of 100 voters could sign the nomination forms of hundreds of protest candidates who were seeking to get their name on the ballot, even if few or any of them were from the riding. This is clearly an abuse of the Canada Elections Act, insofar as the purpose of that section is to require that a candidate have the support of at least 100 electors, not that the same 100 voters can flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. It is a low threshold but a threshold nonetheless. This point is of great importance because it does touch upon the issue of protests. Protests are in the blood of any democratic system. No country can call itself free if it does not allow for protests. I appreciate that the members of the longest ballot committee wish to make their case for changes to our election system. Canada has a long legal tradition that does not prescribe how these protests should be done. What one person may think is serious, another may feel is frivolous. The law does not discriminate, however. Protest candidates also have a long tradition in Canada and other democracies. British Columbians still remember the Marijuana Party of Canada. Others will remember the Rhinoceros Party of Canada, which campaigned on jokes. John Turmel is probably the most famous candidate, having run in 112 elections between 1979 and 2024, never once elected and yet never forgotten. In some ways, his persistence is a symbol of our democracy itself. However, it is not a universal right to subject other Canadians to protests. We are allowed a million ways, for example, to protest at an airport. We are even allowed to run for election to protest an airport. What we are not allowed to do is to stand on the runway and block the plane. The longest ballot committee chose to exploit a loophole in the Elections Act to fill ballots with hundreds of candidates, none of whom had any connection to the riding where an election was being held. This strikes against the principle of local representation. As a result of its actions, the metre-long ballots that were printed for voters were enormously burdensome. Other ridings chose to make ballots write-in only, which limited voters' ability to consider their candidate in the voting booth. If the longest ballot committee wishes to protest our voting system, that is fine. It is not fine to disrupt the ballots for citizens in ridings across the country with long lists of people who do not live there and do not intend to represent them. It also strikes against some of this country's strongest democracy supporters, such as the volunteers who take time every election to assist in the election process with Elections Canada. Forcing them to count enormously long ballots deep into the night is wrong. They give their time freely, with no reward, to ensure our elections are conducted fairly. They are heroes of democracy whom I know every MP in the House respects enormously. We literally cannot have elections without them. The changes that would be made here to limit the longest ballot committee are simple and fair and will leave a wide amount of space for protest candidates to continue. The amendments brought forward would require that electors sign only one candidate nomination form, as well as that an official agent act for only one candidate per riding. This is good for candidates, voters, election volunteers and even protesters. As I said previously, I look forward to seeing the bill go forward to committee for further study and possible amendments from all parties. I ask that my Liberal colleagues do not look to pass this legislation unilaterally and operate with an open mind to good ideas. Lastly, given this is on the subject of elections, it has been almost a year since I was elected myself as the member of Parliament for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. On this one-year anniversary, I would like to thank all the residents, whether they voted for me or for others, for granting me the honour of my life, to serve them in our nation's Parliament. Over the past year, I have come to know the distinct character of this vast region, from the vineyards and beaches of the Okanagan to the mountains and valleys of the Similkameen, the forests and rivers of Boundary Country and the alpine landscapes of West Kootenay. Each community is unique, with its own needs and challenges, and I will work hard to ensure those voices are heard here in Ottawa.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗