Kurt Holman

In response to a question from Jonathan Rowe

“We cannot control global fuel prices, but we can cut fuel taxes here at home. Removing taxes on diesel will help Canadians deal with the high cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, obviously, we cannot control the events happening overseas with regard to fluctuations in the price of diesel, gas or oil in the world economy, but with the measures that I mentioned in my speech, if we proactively planned for the fluctuation of prices or, again, prices going up, and also removed the taxes on diesel, it would help Canadians, especially my constituents in London—Fanshawe, with this affordability crisis.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“Life is too expensive for people in my riding and across Canada. We should pass this bill to cut fuel taxes as a first step to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, the affordability crisis is there. I hear about it constantly from my constituents in London—Fanshawe. This crisis is also affecting Canadians as a whole. Therefore, with regard to Bill C-38 and removing taxes on diesel, it would be the first step in dealing with this affordability crisis that is taking place right now.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jonathan Rowe

“People in my riding tell me life is getting too expensive. I hear this from both seniors and younger generations at my town halls. This cost-of-living crisis affects them and all Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, in London—Fanshawe, I hear from constituents about the rising cost of living and the affordability crisis that Canadians, including the constituents of London—Fanshawe, have been facing. As I mentioned in my speech, I have had various town hall meetings. I had a town hall meeting in the spring on seniors’ concerns. I had a recent town hall meeting on housing and affordability concerns, and yes, especially at the latest town hall meeting, I heard from multiple generations who had concerns about the cost of living and also the affordability crisis that is happening to the people of London—Fanshawe and all Canadians.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“Canadians need relief from high prices. We should pass this bill to cut taxes on fuel, especially diesel. That will lower the cost of shipping and make groceries cheaper.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are looking for relief for Canadians. There is an affordability crisis, but with regard to this bill, Canadians need relief at the pump, especially with diesel prices and the tax on diesel. Therefore, if there is relief by removing taxes on diesel, it will have a ripple effect that will affect the groceries at the grocery store and the goods that are shipped throughout Canada. Hopefully, removing these taxes on diesel would affect the bottom-line prices for Canadians and deal with the affordability crisis.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill because it pauses the fuel tax and saves people money. But this relief ends too soon. The government should extend the tax cut at least until Canada Day, remove the GST from fuel, and review other rules that make gas more expensive.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for The Eastern Peninsulas. I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. For months, Conservatives have urged the Liberal government not to raise taxes on gas and diesel while Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. This spring, we called for the federal taxes on fuel to be lifted to give Canadians some breathing room at the pump. The Liberals responded by pausing only the fuel excise tax and only until Labour Day, just as families were heading back to school and farmers were heading into harvest. We kept pressuring, and only after months of Conservative pressure have the Prime Minister and the Liberals now agreed to delay the tax once again. I am glad the Liberals have come around. Families in London—Fanshawe and across the country will have a little more room in their budgets this winter, and Conservatives are proud of the role we played in making this happen. Let me be clear about what the bill would do. It would delay the tax increase, but only briefly. Beginning February 1, in the middle of an Ontario winter, the tax would start coming back at half the rate. By April 1, Canadians would be paying the full amount again. Relief that runs out in the middle of winter is not enough. However, I will support getting the relief to Canadians, because any relief for working people is welcome. According to the government’s own figures, the extension means that Canadians would continue to save more than five dollars on a typical 50-litre fill-up. For a family that fills up once or twice a week, that is real money. It is grocery money. It is money for a child’s hockey registration. It is money toward a heating bill. However, Canadians deserve to know that under the bill, that money would be scheduled to disappear again in a few short months. There is something else in the bill worth noting. In announcing it, the Liberal government acknowledged that fuel costs are felt across the economy. It named truckers. It named agriculture, housing, construction and delivery. It recognized that when fuel costs go up, the cost of moving food, of building materials and of everyday goods goes up with them. For years, members on this side of the House made exactly that argument, and for years, we were told that fuel taxes had little real impact on affordability. However, the bill is an acknowledgement that we were right. Fuel taxes do matter. Lowering them does help reduce cost pressures throughout the economy. The Liberals originally presented this measure as temporary. They are now extending it because the economic reality has made the case for us. If suspending the tax helps Canadians today, then keeping fuel costs low should remain a priority going forward, not something with an expiry date, because the pressure Canadians are facing has not gone away. Gas prices have risen more than a quarter. Energy costs overall are up by more than 16%. Transportation costs are up nearly 8%, and grocery prices continue to climb. Diesel, which powers the tractors that grow our food and the trucks that deliver it, has risen even more sharply. The Grain Growers of Canada has estimated that fuel for a large combine could cost over $15,000 more this harvest than last. Those costs do not stay on the farm or at the gas station. They show up at the checkout counter. In my own riding of London—Fanshawe, I hear about this constantly. When I hosted a town hall for seniors this spring, the conversation kept coming back to the cost of living. Seniors on fixed incomes told me about stretching every dollar as groceries, housing and everyday expenses kept going up. Many of them were not only worried about themselves. They were worried about their children and grandchildren, with young families working hard and still finding it difficult to get ahead. Last month at my town hall on housing and affordability, we heard those same concerns from Londoners of all ages. When rent or a mortgage takes up so much of the monthly budget, everything else becomes harder to manage: groceries, utilities and the cost of filling up the car to get to work. Again, many worry about the next generation and whether the milestones their parents could plan for, like owning a home, are slipping out of reach. I have said in the House that London is the canary in the coal mine. When the economy goes wrong, Londoners are the first to feel it, and it hits our community the hardest. Fuel costs are no exception. London is closely tied to manufacturing, transportation and the North American supply chain. Our workers commute. Our businesses ship goods. Our families drive. For many people in my riding, fuel is not a choice but a necessity, and when it costs more, London feels it first. This is not a narrow concern. Canadians across this country share it. Polling this summer found that 63% of Canadians opposed bringing the fuel excise tax back in September. That included 62% of Ontarians and 72% of seniors, with clear majorities opposed in every region of the country. Canadians across generations and across provinces agree. When life is this expensive, the federal government should not be adding to the cost of getting to work, heating a home or putting food on the table. Conservatives have been making that case for months, and Canadians have been making it with us. Rather than talking about another temporary pause, I want to use the rest of my time to put forward some ideas for real, lasting relief. First is predictability. Under this bill, this tax would begin coming back in February and return in full in April. Families, farmers and small businesses plan ahead. Spring planting is right around the corner, and many businesses are setting their budgets now. At a minimum, the Prime Minister should extend this relief at least to Canada Day so that Canadians are not facing another cliff during some of the most expensive months of the year. Second, this bill deals with only one of the federal costs layered on top of fuel. The GST is charged on gas and diesel, which means that when prices rise, the federal tax rises with them. Removing the GST on fuel would put more money back in people’s pockets at precisely the moment they need it most. Likewise, the clean fuel regulations add roughly seven cents a litre today, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that cost is projected to grow. As well, the industrial carbon tax continues to feed into the price of food and goods. If the Prime Minister and the Liberals now accept that fuel costs matter to affordability, then those measures deserve the same scrutiny. Third, we should take a hard look at the long-term picture. Canadians are paying noticeably more for diesel than our American neighbours. Part of the answer is building more capacity here at home, more refining, more storage and a strategic reserve that can protect Canadians from supply disruptions beyond our borders. Global events will always affect prices, but we can make sure Canada is better prepared and less exposed when they do. Canadians are doing their part. They are working hard, raising families, running businesses and adapting to challenges that are often beyond their control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but it can avoid making them harder. This bill shows what is possible when the Liberal government responds to the concerns that Canadians and Conservatives have been raising. I am glad it has come this far, but a delay is not a solution, and Canadians need real relief that brings lower prices, not a pause with an expiry date. Conservatives are proud of our role in securing this relief, and we will continue to push for a more affordable Canada for the families, seniors, workers and businesses of London—Fanshawe and across this country.”

“People across Canada are struggling to afford things, including the tax on diesel. Can my colleague share examples of people in his riding who are dealing with this?”

“Mr. Speaker, this discussion regarding Bill C-38 and the tax relief on diesel is one example showing that the affordability crisis is happening all over Canada. I am wondering if my colleague could mention any examples from his riding of constituents who are affected by the affordability crisis.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I am worried about this bill because it is not clear what counts as hate speech. Religious people are afraid that things they are legally allowed to say now could become illegal.”

“Mr. Speaker, the concern with Bill C-9 is this: If it is passed, what would define hate speech? There are many people from many religions who are concerned that what they used to say in person or online, which is now protected with the current laws, if Bill C-9 is passed would be deemed hate speech. With regard to their questions, they are asking about a scenario that could potentially happen with the passage of Bill C-9.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kelly McCauley

“Many groups oppose this bill. Civil rights groups, religious groups, legal experts, and people from different political parties are all worried about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, to add to what I mentioned in my speech, yes, there are multiple organizations concerned about Bill C-9, and those opposed to Bill C-9 are from civil liberties organizations; Muslim, Jewish, and Christian organizations; refugee advocates; legal groups; and parties across the political spectrum that are concerned and oppose the passing of Bill C-9.”

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“People in my riding worry this bill will hurt free speech and freedom of religion. They are afraid they could be accused of hate speech just for sharing religious texts.”

“Mr. Speaker, the real concern, which was brought to my attention by constituents of London—Fanshawe, is the potential removal of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. As mentioned in my speech, constituents are concerned that they would have to always look behind their back when they do share religious texts, both in person and online. They are concerned that even protected religious text, with Bill C-9, may be quoted as hateful speech.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. We already have laws against threats, violence, and hate crimes. The government should enforce those laws instead of creating new ones that threaten free speech and take away legal protections for religious discussions.”

“Mr. Speaker, hatred is real. Jewish Canadians have faced ongoing intimidation, including gunfire, firebombings and repeated threats against synagogues, schools and community institutions. Muslim Canadians have seen the tragic consequences when hatred turns deadly. Just a week ago, I joined Londoners in remembering the Afzaal family, four members of which were murdered five years ago because they were Muslim. Churches across the country have been vandalized, desecrated and, in far too many cases, burned to the ground. Members of other communities have also faced hatred, threats and intimidation because of their identity, beliefs or background. No Canadian should be threatened because of who they are, what they believe or where they worship. No one should have to pass through a hostile crowd to enter a place of worship, or wonder whether that place will still be standing in the morning. Conservatives believe that the people responsible for threats, violence, intimidation, criminal harassment and vandalism must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and face consequences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes. Canada already has laws to deal with this conduct. The government should make sure that they are enforced and that the people who terrorize communities are held fully accountable. Instead, the government is using the real fears of vulnerable communities to justify a bill that would blur the line between crime and lawful speech that may be unpopular or controversial. In a free country, the right to speak cannot depend on whether everyone agrees. Freedom of expression matters most when people strongly disagree. If the government can restrict lawful speech simply because someone finds it offensive, the line will keep moving. What is protected today may be questioned tomorrow, depending on who complains and who holds power. That is the dangerous path that Bill C-9 would put us on. The narrow Senate amendment now before us would do nothing to address the broader danger. It would simply add the noose to the bill’s list of prohibited symbols. The noose carries a horrifying history as an instrument of murder and terror, but adding one more symbol would not fix the bill. It would not restore the long-standing protection for good-faith religious expression or answer the concerns raised across the country. The Senate has changed the list but has not fixed the bill. Bill C-9 is presented as though Canada has no laws against threats, intimidation or hateful conduct. That is simply not true. Canada already has laws against threats, criminal harassment, intimidation, mischief, violence, public incitement and hate-motivated crime, so why does the government act as though Canada has no laws to deal with these offences? Why expand criminal law instead of enforcing the laws we have, while removing protections for lawful religious expression. What has been missing is political leadership, consistent enforcement and consequences that reflect the seriousness of these crimes. More laws do not make up for weak leadership, and unclear laws around speech do not make communities safer. The clearest example is the proposed removal of the religious defence from section 319 of the Criminal Code. For more than 50 years, Canadian law protected a person who, in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on belief in a religious text. The protection was narrow. It did not protect threats, violence, advocating genocide or encouraging a crime. It applied to one hate speech offence and protected good-faith religious discussion while allowing the law to deal with real hatred. The government and the Bloc chose to remove that protection. They now tell Canadians not to worry. They tell faith leaders to trust prosecutors. They tell religious teachers to trust the courts, and they tell parents and clergy that lawful expression would probably remain lawful. However, if this protection were not needed, why was it kept in the Criminal Code for more than half a century? If the government still believes that good-faith religious expression should be protected, why remove the words that clearly protect it? This is the slippery slope. It rarely begins with the government’s openly saying it wants to criminalize ordinary religious teaching. It begins with promises that the law would be used only in extreme cases. The protection then disappears, and the line becomes less clear. A complaint is made against a faith leader, a teacher or a parent. An investigation and legal costs may follow. Even without a conviction, the process can become the punishment. Clergy and teachers would begin censoring themselves because the Liberal government has chosen to remove a clear protection and replace it with uncertainty. That is how the slippery slope works. First the protection is removed. Then the line becomes unclear. Finally, people stop saying lawful things because they fear what might happen. However, self-censorship is not the only danger. Driving hateful ideas underground does not make them disappear. It can allow resentment and hatred to grow where they are harder to challenge, until they emerge in more dangerous forms. In a free society, bad ideas should be exposed and defeated in the open. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant. Criminal law should deal firmly with threats, violence and genuine incitement, but it should not push lawful discussion into the shadows, otherwise peaceful Canadians become afraid to speak, while real hatred is pushed out of sight instead of confronted. Rights are rarely taken away all at once. They are weakened one step at a time, with every step described as small and reasonable. That is why the government must prove that these restrictions are needed, that existing law is not enough and that lawful speech will remain protected. The government has not done that. Worse, it did not allow the full debate needed to test its case. The government used a programming motion to push the bill through committee. Debate was cut short. New amendments and subamendments could not be properly considered. Even the reading of amendments being voted on was restricted. Conservative safeguards for freedom of religion and freedom of expression were rejected. A government confident in its bill should welcome questions. Instead, the government shortened the process and pushed ahead without answering them. Those concerns reach far beyond any one faith community. A joint statement opposing Bill C-9 brought together civil liberty organizations; Muslim, Jewish and Christian organizations; refugee advocates; legal groups; and other community organizations, from across Canada. They do not share one ideology, one faith or one political outlook. Their agreement cannot simply be dismissed. Nor is opposition to Bill C-9 limited to Conservatives. At third reading, every participating NDP member and the leader of the Green Party joined Conservatives in voting against it. This is not simply a left versus right debate. The warning comes from across civil society and the political spectrum. The government also rejected the Conservative proposal to separate the broadly supported parts of the bill from those raising serious civil liberties concerns. Now the bill has returned from the Senate with another symbol added to the list, while the main problems remain untouched. This is not a real fix. It is a distraction. The government would rather debate whether a noose is offensive than explain why it removed a 50-year-old protection for lawful religious expression. It would rather offer the appearance of action than provide the leadership and enforcement needed to make communities safer. Freedom of religion means very little if it protects only beliefs that no one finds objectionable. Freedom of expression means very little if it protects only speech the government approves of. That does not mean every religious statement is wise or beyond criticism. People are free to disagree, challenge it and answer it with better arguments. Conservatives support protecting Canadians from threats, violence and intimidation, but we reject false choice between safety and freedom. Canada can enforce its laws against criminal conduct without placing peaceful religious expression under a cloud of fear and uncertainty. The Senate amendment would not restore that balance. It would add a symbol, but it would not restore the religious defence. It would change a list but would not protect freedom of expression. It would do nothing to stop the slippery slope that begins when Parliament removes clear protections and tells Canadians simply to trust that government power would be used carefully. Canadians deserve clear laws, strong enforcement, and consequences that match the seriousness of the crime. They also deserve firm protection for the freedoms of peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Bill C-9 fails that test. The Senate amendment would not fix it. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Bill C-9.”