Jeremy Patzer · TranslatePolitics.ca

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-06-11

“The Liberals caused this problem. They go easy on criminals and remove laws that would have helped. Now they introduce new laws to make up for it. My province needs more judges - the Liberals haven't delivered. They promised 1000 more police officers but haven't hired any. Drugs are pouring over the border and putting citizens at risk. That's how 17.5 pounds of fentanyl ended up on our streets.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the common theme we see with the Liberals is that they go easy on criminals, and then all of a sudden they introduce all these new laws that try to make up for their own undoing of previous laws that were in place and would have helped deal with a lot of this. There are other chronic issues that are at play here. Six out of 10 provinces have requested more judges appointed to the King's bench. There is a shortage, particularly in my province of Saskatchewan, which led to this individual with 17.5 pounds of fentanyl having their charges stayed. The Liberals made a commitment in the last election to hire 1,000 more police officers. We have yet to see them follow up on that at all. I do not think any new officers have been hired, let alone dealing with the people who are retiring. The borders continue to be a sore spot for drugs coming in. Basically zero containers are scanned coming into Canada, so all kinds of drugs and who knows what else are pouring into our country, and it is putting our citizens at risk and in danger. How else do we end up with 17.5 pounds of fentanyl getting on the streets down Highway 1?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm mad that fentanyl dealers got released. The government is soft on crime. Bill C-75 is too easy on criminals. Drug dealers keep getting let go. People are sick of this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I rose in the House previously in question period, I asked the Minister of Public Safety about charges being stayed against two fentanyl traffickers who were arrested and in court in Swift Current. Police found 17.5 pounds of fentanyl in their car, and their charges were stayed. That 17.5 pounds of fentanyl is just under four million doses. Effectively, 17.5 pounds of fentanyl could kill close to four million people. That is enough fentanyl to kill just about all of the people in Alberta and Saskatchewan combined in one traffic stop. The individuals' charges were stayed, they were released on bail and now they are out in the general public. This is getting ridiculous. It is getting out of hand. Let us look at the tone the government has set over the years with its soft-on-crime approach. Let us look at Bill C-75. The “earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions” is the main theme of what Bill C-75 has meant for people like drug traffickers. Let us take a look at a few other cases in and around Saskatchewan. On April 8, another individual was found with 51 grams of fentanyl. It is not nearly as much as 17.5 pounds, but it is deadly, nonetheless. On April 16, another person was found with 282 grams of fentanyl and 556 grams of cocaine. On May 15, 227 grams of methamphetamine was found on an individual. These are deadly amounts of drugs that people have in their possession, and these people are generally released out into the public. Just yesterday, here in Ontario, an individual who was out on bail was arrested with 30 grams of cocaine and 22 grams of fentanyl, which has a street value of about $5,200. This person was out on bail for a previous drug possession and trafficking charge for a street value of $125,000. This is getting insane. These are the kinds of things that people are seeing on the streets. Canadians are getting sick and tired of seeing people who have large amounts of fentanyl, which is a deadly drug that can kill tons of people. We have all seen the headlines. People are getting so sick and tired of this. Fentanyl is getting into our high schools and many places where it should never be. We are seeing people overdosing in parks and public spaces. The drug epidemic is getting out of hand, and people are getting so sick and tired of it. When on earth is the government going to actually do something to make sure that people trafficking 17.5 pounds of fentanyl will not be allowed back out on the streets?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-06-10

“Real criminals who terrorize people shouldn't get house arrest. Lenient sentencing shouldn't be an option. We need mandatory minimums that are actually harsh.”

“You aren't getting my point. The system is broken. Child abuse is bad. I want harsher punishments now.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that in my speech, I referenced the fact that there were 23 men in Quebec who were in possession of over four million files of child sexual assault and exploitation material. One of the reasons Bill C‑16 is here is that the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum for the possession and distribution of this type of material. If the Liberals were serious about restoring mandatory minimums, they would have restored that mandatory minimum to make sure that our children are protected. The last thing I want to see is those 23 men in Quebec being put back out on the street next week so that they can continue to create, distribute and monetize child sexual abuse and exploitation material. I do not want to see those kinds of people on the streets ever again. They belong in jail.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“That's dumb. You don't really care about crime or victims. You let criminals avoid mandatory minimums. You should support our safeguards to protect victims and keep criminals in jail. But you don't. You voted them down.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member says all kinds of ridiculous things. Referring to yesterday and the language the Speaker let him use, that was a dumb question from the member. The Speaker allowed him to use that word, so I am going to use it. That was a dumb question, and this is why. If the Liberals actually truly cared about crime and if they truly cared about victims, they would not allow people to have mandatory minimums be circumvented by clause 63. That should not have been allowed to happen. At the very least, the member should have said he supported some of the safeguards we are proposing to make sure that victims would be respected and that criminals would go to jail, but that did not happen. The Liberals voted them down.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm filling time with kind words about graduation. But actually I want harsh mandatory sentences. Longer sentences for more crimes! Judges shouldn't go below the minimum. The Liberals don't take these crimes seriously. Clause 63 would let criminals off easy. Canadians are sick of weak sentences. I want criminals to know we will punish them. But the other parts of the bill have good stuff too. The Liberals should accept my amendments.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan, and to be able to do so here in the month of June. We know June is the graduation season for all of the kids in elementary school who are moving up to high school. The kids who are in high school and have the whole world in front of them are graduating and looking to either start their first job or go on to university, or whatever the next step of their life is. June is an exciting time for them. There are a lot of exciting things happening in their lives. We also know that generation of people is, for many of us here in the House of Commons, why we are here and why we do what we do. I think this is also very relevant when we talk about Bill C-16, the victims bill. I want to start with a couple of things. There is a bit of a scourge happening in society. There are many people who are victims of sexual assault and violence. It is getting out of hand. I am sure that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, whom I am going to split my time with, is going to be able to elaborate on that a bit more. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Saskatchewan, in particular, has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the country per capita, for example. We know this is a scourge on society, so I applaud the government's attempts to try to take a few steps and measures that would rein some of this in and get things under control. However, at the same time, we see with this bill that the government has put forward a measure around the inclusion of clause 63, which would essentially allow mandatory minimums to be ignored. I find that to be very egregious. Here is why. I am going to read these out. I have to google them really quickly. I typed in “man caught with child sexual exploitation and assault material” and a plethora of headlines come up. Here is one from today. This one is from 47 minutes ago. It reads, “Man Arrested in Sexual Assault Investigation”. This one is from six hours ago. It reads, “Niagara Falls man accused of breaching order to stay away from children”. This one reads, “Markham Man Arrested for Using Social Media to Sexually Lure and Extort Youth”. That is from five hours ago. This one is from one day ago. It reads, “Male Arrested Following Child Luring and Sexual Exploitation Investigation in Whitby”. It goes on and on and on. An Alberta man, for example, was recently caught with over 500,000 images of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. In Quebec, 23 men had over four million files of sexual exploitation and abuse material of children. This is disgusting. It is ridiculous. The fact is that there is now a provision that would allow somebody to escape a mandatory minimum. Let me be clear. Part of the reason why the bill came forward is that the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum for child sexual abuse and exploitation material. It is absolutely disgusting that this happened as well. When we see in the news the number of files that are out there and just how many people continue to access them, and when we see that there is the ability for a soft-on-crime approach to be taken because of this clause, it is just absolutely disgusting. If we want to try to signal to people that we actually care about victims and that we are going to prioritize the needs of victims, taking some of these very heinous crimes seriously, establishing a floor and making sure that nobody, under any circumstance, will serve below that minimum would be acceptable. In the court case that was referenced with the bill, a hypothetical case was presented. That is why the mandatory minimum I am referring to was struck down. It was completely made up. It was not a story based on any evidence. It was not even the case that should have been referenced, which was very different from what was used to determine why they should strike down the mandatory minimum. If we are going to take things seriously in this country, we need to value our citizens. We need to value people who have been victimized. Allowing people to get off easy is not how we are going to deal with this. There are many other examples of this. I pulled up examples of people who were let off. Here is another one. It reads, “Calgary man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl gets reduced sentence”. I am sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. We do not want to see them anymore. Establishing mandatory minimums and having them in place shows that we take these kinds of crimes very seriously. The prosecution and the judges have discretion and can use leniency. They can increase a sentence if they want to, or they can go with the minimum, but establishing those minimum sentences shows that we take these things very seriously. There are many other charges that people can get away with very easily, and I am going to highlight a few more. For example, another one says a scam victim says Canadian sentences are a joke after a fraudster got house arrest. That is another one of these issues. Seniors are being victimized over and over again. In fact, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre says between 17,000 or even 20,000 direct fraud and financial abuse reports come in regularly in Canada. Also, 7.8% of the Canadian population aged 15 and over has experienced fraud in some shape or form. We know seniors are targeted. I think it comes to about $137 million annually. Seniors are being victimized when it comes to fraud. This is the kind of thing for which a person is able to get only house arrest. In the case that I referenced, this person was sentenced to only 18 months of house arrest, but there were exceptions. They were allowed to leave the house multiple times a week to go to the gym and, after six months, the conditions required them to be home only between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. If someone who is actively defrauding people is given house arrest, that means they can continue to carry out the very crimes they were committing in the comfort of their own home. Those kinds of people should be in jail. They are preying on the people who are the most vulnerable. Going back to seniors, my wife's grandpa was a victim of fraud. He sincerely thought somebody in tech support was helping him out, but they were not. He was defrauded out of thousands of dollars. He was targeted because he is a senior, and seniors generally tend to be far more trusting and tend to believe something like that, as in that particular case. Fortunately, he was able to eventually get his money back, but this happens over and over again. When these people are caught, they are given house arrest. These are the kinds of things we are seeing, and we do not want to see them happening any longer. Let me take another look at some of the other areas where mandatory minimums would be allowed to be circumvented. There is aggravated sexual assault with a gun. It is bad enough that people accessing, selling, recording and making child sexual abuse and exploitation material would be able to avoid a mandatory minimum. Aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings are the kinds of things for which mandatory minimums would be looked over and discarded because of clause 63. If we are going to have a serious discussion about dealing with the issue of crime and the fact that so many people end up with bail instead of jail, establishing and re-establishing some basic mandatory minimums in this bill would have been great. Not including a clause that would allow mandatory minimums to be completely disregarded would have been great as well. That shows we are not taking victims' concerns seriously. I get lots of emails to my constituency office and my Hill office from people wanting a tough-on-crime approach. People want to see mandatory minimums become a thing because they set the tone. They let the criminals know we take these crimes seriously and there will be a punishment if they are caught. When they find out they can get just house arrest or a reduced sentence, they are going to keep doing what they are doing. There was a case in my home community at the local courthouse, where a person's charges were stayed for fentanyl trafficking. They had enough fentanyl in their possession to kill hundreds and thousands of people. Their charges were stayed and they were released. This is ridiculous. This is the kind of stuff people are sick and tired of seeing. They do not want clause 63, which would allow mandatory minimums to be skirted, to be included. There are some good pieces in this bill that I wish the Liberals were serious about. I wish they would deal with the good parts of the bill. If they had accepted our amendments to put even some safeguards around clause 63, it would have been helpful, but they voted against every single measure proposed by the Conservatives at committee to protect victims, which is shameful.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Agriculture and Agri-Food

2026-06-09

“I want you to share my outrage about this research station. I want to pin blame on you and your party for weakening research and ignoring outcry. I want your legacy to look bad.”

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-09

“The government keeps adding new programs and red tape. But it hasn't made a trade deal to keep Canadian sawmills open. We're losing the mills we need to build homes Canadians can afford. Is the minister even going to try to stop it?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we have heard quite a bit, and rightfully so, about the problems with all the bureaucracies that the government is creating, but one thing it has not done in 11 years is negotiate a new softwood lumber agreement with the United States. In fact, the minister's own province of British Columbia has had close to 35 sawmills close in the last five years. We were reading lots of articles about sawmills closing in Quebec. The ability to produce the goods that are needed to build homes in this country is being severely limited, yet the government has done nothing about that. Is the minister going to advocate and push to try to get the sawmills open again so that Canada can produce the things that are needed, which, by doing so, would actually bring down the cost of building homes in this country?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-02

“The Liberals say things are growing in Canada. There is growth, all right. Inflation is up. Unemployment is up. Food bank usage is up. Business investment is down for the fifth quarter in a row. The government needs to fix this.”

“The Liberals are out of ideas. The Liberals said Bill C-5 would get things built. We passed it. But no projects got approved. Now the Liberals want a 'sovereign wealth fund.' But it's not a real fund. It has no money. The Liberals will borrow money and call it a 'fund.' It's a debt fund. It will cost $750 million a year just on interest. Now the Liberals want more consultations to 'speed things up.' They're clueless. Why won't they pass our sovereignty act? That would actually get projects built.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a Liberal government that is completely out of ideas. Here is why. We let the Liberals have Bill C‑5 because they said it was the thing they needed to get business investment and get things built at speeds we have never seen before in this country. We worked with them to pass it because we agree that Canada needs to get building and start getting things done, yet not a single project from the Major Projects Office has been approved and advanced to any next stage. The Liberals then turned around and said that is not working. What else can they try? They decided to try a sovereign wealth fund, but they do not have any money to put into it, so they are going to borrow against it. They are going to use debt to finance it. It is going to cost Canadians $750 million a year just in debt service charges for their so-called sovereign wealth fund. It is going to be a debt fund. On top of that, they figured out that that is not going to work either, so now they are going to have consultations to figure out how to speed things up. The government is clueless. It has no idea. Why does it not pass the sovereignty act that the Conservatives proposed to get projects built?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I think provinces should decide their own energy policy. I believe the federal government should stop forcing provinces to take a certain path. In my province of Saskatchewan, we have natural gas and oil and I want the provincial government to have control over those resources. I want the federal government to back off and let each province decide its own energy future.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, let us talk a little about some energy policy. It is important. I think the member would agree with me that it is actually up to the provinces to decide what path they are going to go on. I know Quebec has done a lot with hydroelectric, and it views hydrogen, for example, as a plan to go forward. In Saskatchewan, we have a lot of natural gas. There is a lot of oil extraction that goes on. That is a provincial resource. It is up to the provincial government to deal with that. The federal government, the Liberal government, has been taking a top-down approach that is forcing provinces to take one path or a different path but not the path that the provinces themselves actually want to choose. Resource extraction is up to the provinces and should be left to the provinces, and the feds should just get out of the way.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm piling on the attack against you. When [thing] was grounded, you said it was good. That's bad! It hurt Saskatchewan. The [tax] you support hurts the northern projects you should care about. Shame! You're not helping your voters. Only Conservatives help Saskatchewan.”

“You're attacking me to distract from your own record. I was quoting the Prime Minister exactly. You're just ignoring our plan.”

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. Talking about a recession is bad. The Prime Minister is wrong. Our opposition motion wants them to do more. Canada's debt is high because they spend too much. Business investment fell for many quarters. Liberals should listen to our ideas. They should pass our bills. Conservatives are right.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. I rise today to talk about the opposition motion that we have put forward, but before I do, I just want to take a few moments here to offer our sincere condolences to the families in Pelican Narrows who were impacted by a shooting that happened up there yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are with the community and the family of the victim up there. I wanted to start off by acknowledging that. What are we doing here today? We are talking about a recession. The Prime Minister himself, in an interview with the BBC when he was over in England, said “the technical definition of a technical recession is...two [straight] quarters of flat or negative [GDP] growth”. That is it. It is pretty simple. What do we have here in Canada? Let us take a look. Real GDP fell 0.1% in Q1, and the quarter before that, it fell roughly 1%. Based on the Prime Minister's own words, that meets the definition of a technical recession, so that is what we have. The Prime Minister has been in power for a little over a year. He is supposed to be the grandmaster economist who is going to save Canada. He was bold enough to stand at the microphones and say that the United States was on track for a recession, but Canada was not. There might be some impact from what is happening in the States, but it was headed for a recession, and we were not. That is what he said. That was right around the time of the last election, so that was one of the first things he was trying to sell to Canadians. Okay, so let us look at his track record. When he was over in England, he said that Brexit was going to cause a massive recession. Well, he was wrong. I just talked about what he said about the United States. He was wrong. He said Canada was not going to enter a recession. Guess what. He was wrong, because here we are right now. The Prime Minister's very own definition has been met: two straight quarters of negative or flat growth. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Jeremy Patzer: Madam Speaker, I am just quoting the Prime Minister. I know it is hard for the member to actually grasp his own leader's words, but that is what his own leader said. I am only quoting his own leader. If he does not like it, he can take it up with the Prime Minister. Let us talk a bit more about some of the signs and the markers we have been seeing when we talk to Canadians. We have been telling the government for a couple of years now that the pressures on households are getting to be very tight. What we saw in quarter one was that over 37,000 Canadians filed for insolvency, just in Q1. That is the highest it has been since 2009, when there was an actual global recession and the housing market crashed around the globe. It has not been that high since then. That is what we have been seeing. Let us look at household debt. Canadian household debt is 103% of GDP. Canadian non‑mortgage debt is $43,300, up from $40,200 two years ago, which was already a crazy high number. Now, when we look at the snapshot for just homeowners, non-mortgage debt is $82,400, up 19% in two years. Canadians are feeling the pressure and are putting more on their credit cards. It would appear that they are following what the government has been doing. What has the government done? The government has been living off the credit card that the taxpayers basically provide it. Every single announcement the government makes is borrowed money. The government has been running on constant deficits for a very long time. We saw a bit of a recent influx in government revenues because oil prices have gone a bit higher and the government actually benefited from that. What did the Liberals do? They spent it. They blew it. The deficit for this year alone is almost $80 billion. Let us take a look at what the national debt looks like. Canada is over $1.3 trillion in debt. That number is massively rising every single day. What is the Bank of Canada telling us? Well, there is 523 billion dollars' worth of debt that has to be refinanced. That was refinanced when the former prime minister said, “Interest rates are at [all‑time] lows, Glen”: 1%. It is now being recalled at 3%, so the share for every Canadian, just on that number alone, is going from $1,500 to $1,900 because of that jump from 1% to 3%. That is going to have a massive impact, and that is just in the short term. There is longer‑term interest that is going to be up for renewal as the years go on, and those rates are going to be higher and higher. We have a continually snowballing and cascading effect that is going to rock Canadian households. Let us take another look at what is happening in the business world. Business capital investment fell 0.7% in quarter one, which was the fifth straight quarter that business investment in Canada has fallen. This comes after a 10-year run with the Liberal government when foreign direct investment of over $1 trillion left Canada. For every dollar that came in, two dollars left. That is what we are seeing here. That is the by-product of what is happening today. When we look at some of the other statistics from the Bank of Canada and a few others, they mention that government spending was down 2.5% and that is what caused a bit of a drop in GDP. The fact that it is government spending that is also driving that shows the government is the one trying to artificially prop up the economy. The private sector is struggling. We are not seeing massive private sector investment. There are a couple projects here and there, but we are just not seeing the large-scale investment that is required. Let us look at what the Liberals wanted to do. Coming out of the election, they said they wanted to build at speeds not yet seen. What did they propose to the House? It was Bill C-5. They said they needed Bill C-5 because that was going to allow them to do what? It was to override their own bad laws they had put in place, because they recognized that was the problem. They said they needed Bill C-5 so they could circumvent their own laws that they had created. We said it would be better if they just scrapped the bad laws but that we would play ball and help them out, so we worked with the government to pass Bill C-5. We put some safeguards in there to make sure the Prime Minister was not greasing the palms of his buddies at Brookfield, and we helped them pass Bill C-5. Then they put projects on the list. There are a couple of LNG projects on there. They have been on that list now for well over 250 days. We are closing in on almost a year with some of these projects listed, and there has been no movement. Nothing is happening. Germany came here and said it wanted our LNG, and the government said, “Sure, this time we'll work with you to make sure you get some LNG.” When did it say we would deliver the LNG to Germany? It was sometime in the 2030s. There is no fixed date because the government does not actually know. What did Germany do? When the former prime minister said there was no business case, Germany went home and built an import terminal in 194 days. That is a shorter amount of time than the projects have been on the Major Projects Office list with nothing being done. What have Conservatives done? Well, we proposed the Canadian sovereignty act because we wanted to help the government get out of its own way. We proposed that in the same way we are doing here today, with an opposition day motion, to give the government a template to kind of get the ball rolling, to help it advance the football down the field, per se. The Liberals voted against it. They had an opportunity to implement another one of our great plans, and they voted no. They took our advice and scrapped the consumer carbon tax. Now they are saying this is one of the greatest cost-saving moves they have ever made, and that is because Conservatives were right. It was Conservatives who put the pressure on them to do it, and eventually they relented. Maybe if they would implement the Canadian sovereignty act, which would repeal the bad laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that would get them on the right track and get them going, because Bill C-5 was supposed to be the mechanism to help them circumvent those laws. If they would implement the Canadian sovereignty act, it would get them going in the right direction. It would also get rid of the industrial carbon tax, which we know is putting massive downward pressure on investment in Canada because nowhere else around the world wants the same type of pricing mechanism that the government is going to enforce on Canadian industry. It is going to be devastating to Canadians. The Liberals should look at what Conservatives are proposing. We have had some great ideas that would help them and that probably would have helped them avoid entering this recession, which has been made by the Liberal government. If they want to work with us, we have great ideas. They have said no to many of them, and now they have to pay for that, which means Canadians have to pay for it because the government has no money. It is only because Canadians pay taxes and the government prints money against the future of Canadians that it acquires any money. At this point in time, if it wants to get the economy rolling, the government could take some of our great ideas that we have proposed, and that would actually help it avoid this recession.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

National Defence

2026-05-27

“A politician I don't like said something heartless I can use to attack him. I want to blame him for as much as possible. My real topic is Snowbirds jobs. The government should spend money to keep those jobs.”

“I'm just saying what someone else said. I won't add anything new.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“This makes people sad. The government should cancel the clean fuel rules that hurt single moms and seniors.”

“You're not answering my leader's point. I want you, my leader, to explain again why cutting taxes is good for poor people too. That way maybe the Liberals will have to shut up about it helping the rich.”

“I want to reverse that last point. Rich people aren't the only ones who benefit if we repeal this fuel standard. Poor people need to drive too! If they only have $20 to put in their gas tank, that relief would help them a lot. This isn't just a luxury.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that question. It is a little absurd for the Liberals to come in here today and say that repealing the clean fuel standard would just benefit the rich and that the people at the bottom of the income scale would benefit the least from it. I remember not very long ago putting $20 into my gas tank and it used to get me through a week. This is when I was working prior to getting married, when I was dating my wife. Being able to put $20 in my vehicle meant a lot, because it was able to get me a long ways. Now $20 gets us nowhere. Being able to put $20 in their gas tank feels like a luxury for a lot of people right now. For a lot of people, that is a necessity, not a luxury. Would the member agree that people at the bottom end of the income scale actually stand to benefit the most, because when they only have $20 to put in their gas tank, it will actually get them somewhere?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month

2026-05-06

“I want to promote MS Awareness Month. My wife has MS. MS is a serious disease with many symptoms. The government should change the tax credit for disabilities. MS is a cause that people should support.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, May is MS Awareness Month, and Canada has some of the highest rates of MS in the world, with 12 people diagnosed every single day in Canada. This year focuses on the invisible symptoms of MS, which often lead to misunderstandings and barriers. For people who are living with MS, such as my wife Kyla, a lot of this has to do with severe fatigue. This is connected with sensory issues, chronic pain such as the MS hug, and mental or emotional symptoms. This all goes hand in hand with MS being unpredictable and inconsistent. As an episodic disability, it has a range of symptoms that fluctuate, with relapses and flare-ups. Despite these special challenges, the MS community continues to move forward. This month brings an important opportunity to raise awareness and show support for an important cause, with the May 50K fundraiser. Members can find more information on the MS Canada website. I also want to highlight MS Canada's call for the disability tax credit to be modernized, including updates for the eligibility criteria to better reflect episodic illnesses. Not all disabilities are visible, and just because we cannot see them, they are no less worthy of our support.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗