Kurt Holman · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund

2026-06-16

“There should be more accountability in this bill. I am concerned that without it, the government might have another scandal like WE Charity, ArriveCAN, or PrescribeIT. I want my colleague to comment on whether he thinks that could happen.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26

2026-06-16

“You're supporting a bill that hands the government $1.7 billion with no strings attached. Don't you see how this is a problem?”

Statements by Members

The Economy

2026-06-16

“A kind woman in my riding named Diana is suffering because of inflation. She did nothing wrong. She is only one person, but her story makes the government look bad. I want the government to feel guilty and spend money in my riding.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, London has long been the canary in the coal mine for the hardships Canadians are feeling. When affordability worsens, unemployment rises and the Liberal recession deepens, Londoners are among the first to feel it, and our community is hit the hardest. The Canadian promise was simple: work hard, do one's part and build a stable life. This weekend, while I was going for a walk, a fellow Londoner, Diana, pulled me aside. She is 55, works in a factory and cares for a mother who is battling cancer. However, the cost of living has become so crushing that Diana now relies on her sick mother to help her buy basics like bread and milk. She asked me, “Why is this happening when I've done everything right?” She is grieving a Canadian promise that no longer feels real. It is not just happening in London. About 38% of Canadians face food insecurity, and 40% are losing sleep over stretching their paycheques. Diana's story is personal, but not unique. London has been the warning. Will the Liberal government finally listen?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-16

“I want people to think this bill will turn everyday conversations into crimes. That plays to my base.”

“I want to look good by defending free speech. But I won't talk about how the bill actually works. I'll just throw out scary what-ifs instead.”

“Adding to my earlier points, lots of different groups oppose Bill C-9. Groups defending civil liberties and legal rights are against it. So are many faith groups - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian. Refugee advocates have concerns too. Opposition comes from all different political parties, not just my Conservatives.”

“The people who vote for me are worried this bill will take away their freedom of speech and religion. They don't want to have to look over their shoulder all the time and worry that quoting the Bible or other religious texts might get them accused of hate speech.”

“The government should enforce existing laws against hate crimes instead of changing them. I don't think we need new laws. We have laws against threats and violence already! The government wants to remove protections for religious speech. Religious speech was protected for 50 years! Now the government says 'trust us'. I don't think they should remove that protection. It's a slippery slope. First they remove protection. Then the line is unclear. People will censor themselves! We should expose and defeat bad ideas openly, not hide them. And the government ended debate early - they didn't allow full debate to test the bill. That's wrong. The Senate added a noose to the list of symbols. That's not enough! It doesn't fix the problems. The government should reject this bill.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“I want to praise my colleague before I complain. The government is talking a lot but not getting things done. I have a list of local problems I want to talk about: one bridge, and people living in RVs. I think the government should be solving this list of local problems in my area.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who represents Bowmanville—Oshawa North for his speech. I really appreciate working with him on various issues that are affecting Canadians today. Earlier, the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary, boasted about the Prime Minister and how he is solving issues on behalf of Canadians. To date, we are still waiting for the negotiations dealing with the tariffs with President Trump to be finalized. On another note, two hours southwest of London, in Windsor, we are still waiting for the Gordie Howe International Bridge to open up. It is a Canadian taxpayer-funded bridge, yet this chief negotiator cannot negotiate with the U.S. to open the bridge. A week ago, I found out that one hour east of London, in Kitchener, regarding the Canadian promise, people are now living out of Winnebagos in carpooling parking lots just off the 401. They cannot afford houses and they cannot afford rent, so they are now living in Winnebagos. Can my colleague elaborate on whether those issues are occurring in his riding as well?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm filling time by claiming everything is bad in my region. I say it affects everyone. I think it's the government's fault. I want my party to propose bills to fix everything.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saskatoon West's concerns about this economy, and I also agree with our mutual colleague the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, who put forward a private member's bill to help Canadians with regard to purchasing used vehicles. With regard to Bill C‑30 and the economic outlook, recently London and the London region have had a high unemployment rate. At one time, it was 9.1%, a high unemployment rate and the highest in Canada. Recently, it was 9.2%, the highest unemployment rate. This is affecting the London region. This is affecting Londoners. I was just wondering if my colleague from Saskatoon West is experiencing the same issues with the economy in his riding.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-09

“I don't like being accused of playing games. Liberals play games. I'm here for victims. Mandatory minimums are good. Why do Liberals want to be soft on crime?”

“I think removing mandatory minimums could cause problems. I don't like that. I'm asking my Bloc colleague to say what effects they think it will have.”

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-09

“I'm asking a yes-or-no question that lets my friend show off. She's already agreed with me. Now I want her to tell the good people a sad story about high prices hurting young people. Then maybe the voters will be impressed.”

“Housing got too expensive under Trudeau. Parents in my riding are sad because their grown children can't afford to move out. The government promised to build new houses but they aren't building enough. The government should build more houses.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the affordability issue did not happen overnight. I actually agree with him, but the key thing is that the issue has expanded for the last 11 years. Yes, that is under the Trudeau Liberal government and now under the current Liberal government. In my riding, which I am proud to represent, London—Fanshawe, I have gone door to door, connecting with constituents. The key thing is that I have talked to parents whose adult children still live in their house. They get misty-eyed and choked up because they want their children to excel, but the dilemma is that their children cannot afford a house. The Liberals promised to deliver 500 new homes every year, but according to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 by 2028. What do I tell the parents who love their children but want them to move out? What do I tell them, when they know there are not enough houses being built?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-08

“I want you to visit my riding so I can get attention. Food bank usage is up there. I think that's bad. Please answer me.”

“I represent a region with high unemployment. Liberal policies are bad for the local economy. I want my colleague to talk more about this problem.”

Private Members' Business

Arab Heritage Month Act

2026-06-02

“I want Canadians to celebrate Arab heritage month in April. There are many successful Arab Canadians. We should set aside a month to acknowledge their contributions and learn more about their culture and history. This is a simple bill but it's meaningful. Let's celebrate Arab heritage month whoever we are and wherever we are from.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill S-227, an act respecting Arab heritage month. This bill is straightforward. It would designate the month of April each year as Arab heritage month in Canada. It is a simple bill, but it speaks to something meaningful. It gives Parliament an opportunity to recognize the history, culture, work, sacrifice, entrepreneurship, faith, family values and civic contributions of Arab Canadians across this country. Arab Canadians have been part of Canada's story for generations. From the earliest Arab immigrants in the late 19th century to the communities that have grown across the country today, Arab Canadians have contributed to the Canada we share. Today, Arab Canadians are found in every part of Canadian life. They are small business owners, doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, tradespeople, artists, writers, public servants, faith leaders, community volunteers, students, parents and grandparents. They are neighbours. They are friends. They are people who came to Canada for freedom, opportunity, peace, dignity and a better future for their children. Some came from places where basic freedoms cannot always be taken for granted. Others came for opportunity, education, family, safety or the chance to shape their own futures. Whatever their path, they came here because Canada promised something better: a place where people could work hard, own a home, raise a family, worship freely, build a life with the person they love, start a business, speak their mind and contribute to the common good. That is the Canadian promise, and it is worth protecting. In my own community of London—Fanshawe, we know how much Arab Canadians contribute. We see it in our small businesses. We see it in our restaurants, our community organizations, our charities, our classrooms, our workplaces and our neighbourhoods. We see families who are deeply committed to education. We see entrepreneurs who take risks, create jobs and serve their communities. We see newcomers who arrive with courage and hope and who work incredibly hard to build a life in Canada. We see young people who are proud of their heritage and proud to be Canadian. That is something worth celebrating. Arab heritage is not one single story. It is rich, diverse and complex. It includes many countries, traditions, faiths, dialects and histories. It includes people whose families have been in Canada for generations and people who arrived only recently. It includes literature, music, food, fashion, scholarship, architecture, poetry, science, business and public service. It includes people who have preserved their heritage while also embracing Canada and contributing to our shared national life. In Canada, people do not have to forget where they came from in order to belong. They can bring the best of their heritage, their work ethic, their family values, their traditions, their faith, their creativity and their love of community, while helping build one country together. That is the Canadian balance: pride in one's heritage, loyalty to Canada and a shared commitment to the values that keep this country free. Those values matter. Equality before the law matters. Democracy matters. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the rule of law and respect for the dignity of every person matter. Commemorative months can serve a useful purpose when they help Canadians learn, reflect and build respect. They can open doors for schools, community groups, museums, libraries and families to tell stories that might otherwise be overlooked. They can help young people see themselves in Canada's history. They can help neighbours better understand one another. However, we should also be honest. Commemorative months must not become empty gestures. They should not become virtue signalling or tokenism. They should point to something real like respect, opportunity, equal treatment and safe communities in a country where hard work is rewarded. That same seriousness should guide how we approach Arab heritage month. It should not be a symbolic check mark. It should be a genuine recognition of a community that has helped build this country. It should encourage Canadians to learn about Arab Canadian history, including the early families who came here in the late 19th century, the communities that grew over the decades, the businesses that were built, the community institutions that became anchors and the younger generations now serving in every field imaginable. It should encourage us to celebrate Arab Canadian food, literature, music, art and entrepreneurship. It should also encourage us to listen to the real concerns of Arab Canadian families today, concerns about affordability, jobs, housing, safety and whether their children will have the same opportunities that brought so many families here to Canada. This is because heritage is not only about the past but also about whether families can build a future. That is where Parliament has a responsibility that goes beyond symbolic recognition. We should celebrate Arab Canadians, yes. We should also work to make Canada a country where every family, including Arab Canadian families, can afford a home, find meaningful work, start a business, raise children safely and live with dignity. One of the things I hear again and again from families in my community is that they do not want special treatment. They want a fair chance. They want hard work to mean something again. They want their children to have opportunities. They want government to get the basics right. They want safe streets and a strong economy. They want schools, workplaces and public services that treat people with respect. They want Canada to be a country where freedom is protected and where people are united by shared responsibility. That is a vision worth defending. That is also why this bill, while modest, can still matter. It can help ensure that every April, Canadians are invited to learn more about Arab heritage and Arab Canadian contributions. It can help communities mark that heritage with pride. It can help young Arab Canadians know that their story is part of Canada's story. It can help remind Parliament that the people we serve are not abstractions but families with histories, hopes, challenges and dreams. I want to conclude by speaking directly to the Arab Canadians in London—Fanshawe and across Canada. Their history and their heritage matter. Their contributions matter. Their families, their businesses, their service, their faith communities, their culture, their stories and their dreams for the next generation are part of Canada. This bill would recognize that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-01

“The economy is shrinking and people are losing jobs in my city. The government should admit there's a recession and stop whatever it's doing wrong.”

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-06-01

“Government always says more spending will solve the problem. I don't think growing the bureaucracy helps our troops get equipment any faster.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“It doesn't matter what you say. The government should spend money to help everyone.”