Kurt Holman · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“I'm confused. You say I'm a hypocrite? But our tax relief plan is longer than yours. Our plan helps Canadians more.”

“I'm saying many words about fuel costs. I want the government to lower fuel taxes and get rid of the clean fuel standard. This will help Canadians who are struggling with rising costs.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this morning millions of Canadians got in their vehicles and headed to work. They did not have the luxury of deciding whether they needed fuel because they needed it. They needed it to get to work, to get their children to school, to care for their aging parents and to make deliveries, visit clients, run businesses and earn a living. When fuel prices rise sharply, as Canadians have experienced in recent months, fuel begins to take up a larger share of the household budget. The money has to come from somewhere. The question is not whether Canadians will fill the tank, but what they will have to give up elsewhere in order to do it. Will it mean less money for groceries, for savings, for their children's activities or to be set aside for an emergency? For millions of Canadians, fuel is not a luxury, but a necessity. That is why we are having this debate today. Fuel prices are not shaped by one force alone. Global instability, energy markets, supply chains and economic uncertainty play a role. Canadians understand that. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. That simple principle is at the heart of our opposition day motion. I was reminded of that principle just a few days ago while hosting a seniors town hall in London—Fanshawe. We discussed retirement security, the problems seniors are encountering with the dental care program and government services. Once again, the cost of living dominated the conversation. Seniors spoke about the rising cost of groceries, about housing costs and about the everyday expenses that continue to rise while their incomes remained fixed. What struck me the most was not simply the concern about affordability itself. Many were not speaking only about themselves, but were worried about their children and their grandchildren. They see young families working hard and struggling just to get ahead. They see household budgets stretched thinner than ever. They worry that, despite all the speeches, promises and announcements coming from the Liberal government, things continue moving in the wrong direction. Whether it is a young family, a tradesperson, a small business owner or a senior, the concern is remarkably similar. Life is becoming more expensive. People are feeling the pressure and they want the government to stop making it worse. In London—Fanshawe, we often experience these pressures early. Our community is deeply connected to manufacturing, transportation and North American supply chains. We sit just over an hour from the United States border. We understand better than most that Canada's prosperity depends on our ability to compete. When uncertainty grows, communities like ours often feel it first. When costs rise, we feel it. When investment slows, we feel it. When businesses become hesitant about expansion, we feel it. When families begin tightening household budgets, we feel it. Today, London's unemployment rate sits at 9.2%, the highest in the country. Communities like ours often experience economic pressures before much of the country does. That is why London is the canary in the coal mine for the Canadian economy. What begins in communities like ours rarely stays there. The warning signs eventually spread. Today, those warning signs are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Businesses are increasingly looking beyond Canada for opportunities to invest and grow. Families are delaying purchases. Workers are wondering what the future holds. Because of our close economic ties to the United States, trade uncertainty is not an abstract policy decision for communities like ours. It affects investment decisions, hiring decisions and confidence. It affects whether businesses choose to expand or wait. Canadians were told that the Prime Minister was uniquely equipped to handle this challenge. They were told that he would use every tool available to strengthen Canada's position. They were told that he would secure a deal, yet today Canadian businesses are still operating under the same uncertainty. Investment decisions are still being delayed, employers are still waiting for clarity and Canadian workers are still wondering what comes next. We cannot control what President Trump says or does, no Canadian government can, but we can control how we position ourselves. We can control whether Canada is competing from a position of strength. We can control whether we are attracting investment or driving it away. We can control whether we are making it easier or harder to build, produce, transport and compete here at home. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. The government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. Canadians are paying significantly more for fuel than Americans. Families, businesses, truckers and manufacturers all notice the difference. They are all asking a simple question: Why, at a time when Canadians are already facing so much economic pressure, is the government continuing to add costs of its own? Costs imposed on fuel do not stay at the gas station. They move through the entire economy. They affect transportation, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, deliveries and food prices. Every product that must be moved, every service that requires transportation and every business that depends on fuel eventually feels the impact. The costs go somewhere. They are reflected in prices, business decisions and competitiveness. Ultimately, they are reflected in the cost of living paid by Canadian families. That is why this debate is about more than what appears on the receipt at the pump. It is about whether Canadians can get ahead. It is about whether businesses can remain competitive. It is about whether our economy is becoming stronger or weaker. It is also about whether the government understands that every additional cost imposed on necessities eventually lands on the shoulders of ordinary Canadians. The issue extends beyond what Canadians pay at the pump. It speaks to a broader philosophy that treats higher costs as somebody else's problem. Whether those costs are imposed through fuel taxes, the clean fuel standard or industrial carbon taxes, they do not disappear. They move through supply chains. They increase production costs. They increase transportation costs. They increase the cost of doing business. They ultimately make Canada less competitive. That matters for manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and industries that will shape the future economy. Countries around the world are competing for investment in advanced manufacturing, data centres and artificial intelligence. These industries require enormous amounts of affordable and reliable energy. If Canada continues making energy more expensive while our competitors work to attract investment, we should not be surprised when the investment goes elsewhere. Canadians spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis. Conservatives spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis. For years, Canadians were told not to worry. For years, they were told that the carbon tax was the answer. Eventually, after years of pressure from Canadians and years of opposition from Conservatives, the government finally backed away from its signature carbon tax. However, the lesson was larger than a single tax. Canadians were not objecting to a single line item on a bill. They were objecting to a broader approach that kept making essential parts of life more expensive. The lesson was that affordability matters. The lesson was that governments cannot continually make necessities more expensive and expect Canadians not to notice. The lesson was that when families are struggling, the government should be looking for ways to reduce the burden, not increase it. That is why temporary relief on federal taxes applied to gasoline and diesel through the remainder of the year makes sense. Canadians need relief now. People are already feeling the impact of rising fuel costs. They do not need additional taxes that make the situation worse. It is also why permanently eliminating the clean fuel standard makes sense. Temporary pressures may justify temporary relief, but structural costs require structural solutions. At a time when affordability remains one of the defining challenges facing Canadians, government should not be in the business of making energy, transportation and everyday life more expensive. Canadians are doing their part. They are working hard. They are raising families. They are building businesses. They are adapting to challenges that often lie beyond their control. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. That is exactly what this proposal seeks to accomplish. For that reason, I am pleased to support it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-05-25

“The other guys waste money. You should vote for us instead. We won't waste as much money as them. We are better with money.”

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

Workers in London—Fanshawe

2026-05-25

“I want the government to make it easier for business to make jobs. My riding needs more jobs. Business could make more jobs if the government took less money and made fewer rules. I want lower taxes and less regulation. My riding's workers are suffering. It could happen in other places too. I'm warning the rest of Canada. The government should listen to my warning.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in the most recent unemployment numbers, London has climbed to 9.2%, remaining the highest in Canada. Behind these numbers are people sending out résumés and hearing nothing back, parents trying to stretch every dollar further and young people wondering whether opportunity is moving out of reach. Just an hour from the U.S. border, London is the canary in the coal mine. When things go wrong, Londoners are the first to feel it, and it hits our community the hardest, but this is not just a London issue. What we are seeing in our community is a warning sign for the rest of the country. On behalf of all Londoners who are worried about their jobs, their bills and their future, I urge the Liberals to get serious and focus on creating the conditions for Canadian businesses to compete, invest, grow, and create private sector jobs. Conservatives are calling for lower taxes, less red tape and the trade deal the Liberal Prime Minister promised. London is sounding the alarm. Londoners, especially those of London—Fanshawe, are seeing these concerns all around them. When will the Liberals finally listen?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

2026-05-05

“I want to talk about a bill for cellphone towers. I worked with computers. This bill is about cellphone towers. Towers are important for phones and businesses. The law has not changed since 2007. This bill talks about checking cellphone towers, making sure cellphone companies are accountable, and letting people see the information. The bill makes sure someone checks if cellphone companies are telling the truth about their coverage. People expect their phones to work. Sometimes phones don't work on highways or in rural areas. That can be bad if you need to call for help. Good information helps make good policy. The bill makes the government look at the cellphone tower law again. The law hasn't been looked at for a long time.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-268, the spectrum policy framework for Canada act, first and foremost because of my previous career working in information technology. The wireless spectrum was taught to me when I took computer engineering technology at Lambton College in Sarnia, and also, from time to time, the wireless spectrum was discussed in my information technology career. However, today, this act addresses a foundational yet often overlooked pillar of Canada's digital economy: how we manage and govern the wireless spectrum. Spectrum is not an abstract concept. It is invisible infrastructure that powers our phones, enables emergency communications, connects businesses and supports the daily lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In a modern economy, access to reliable connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Despite its importance, Canada's spectrum policy framework has not been formally updated since 2007. Nearly two decades have passed without a legislative requirement to review, modernize or even systematically evaluate how this critical public resource is being managed. In that time, the world has changed dramatically. Technology has advanced. Data consumption has surged. Entire sectors of our economy have become digitally dependent, but our framework has not kept pace. At its core, Bill C-268 introduces three key elements: verification, accountability and transparency. First, the bill would require the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to establish a process to verify the accuracy of mobile network coverage data submitted by telecommunications providers. This is not a minor technical adjustment; it addresses a long-standing concern that coverage maps are largely based on self-reported data from carriers. When Canadians are told that they have service, they expect that service to work, not just in theory, but in practice. Too often, that is not the case. We have all heard stories of dropped calls on major highways, lack of signal in rural communities, lack of signal in one area of someone's residence when there is signal at the other end of the residence, and unreliable connectivity in remote regions. These are not isolated inconveniences. They are systematic issues with real consequences. For a family travelling on a remote road, a lack of signal can mean no access to emergency services. For a small business, it can mean lost revenue. For indigenous and northern communities, it can mean continued exclusion from the digital economy. Accurate data is the foundation of good policy. Without it, we cannot identify gaps, allocate resources effectively or hold providers accountable. Second, Bill C-268 would mandate a comprehensive review of Canada's spectrum policy framework within 18 months of the act's coming into force. This is a critical step. For too long, updates to the framework have occurred on an ad hoc basis through departmental processes without a structured, legislated requirement for review—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“The government should quit burdening businesses with new debt and red tape. Real relief comes from cutting tariffs and making it easier to build and compete. The Liberals aren't doing that. They're just adding more rules and slowing things down.”

“You say you have a vision. I think your vision is bad. I represent London-Fanshawe. Unemployment is high there. People can't afford things. What should I tell people in line at the food bank? When will the Prime Minister fix the tariff problem?”

“I say many people in London—Fanshawe are sad because of tariffs and unemployment. The Prime Minister didn't talk to Trump for seven months. I want the government to fix tariff problems now.”

“I don't want to talk about the oil industry. Let's get back to manufacturing and tariffs. London—Fanshawe manufacturers are complaining to me about the tariffs. The Liberals aren't saying when they'll finish negotiations. Does the Bloc think the Prime Minister should give a specific end date for the tariff negotiations?”

“I don't like these tariffs. The member for Winnipeg North says negotiations take time. I need to tell my constituents something. They lost their jobs. They wait in lines at the food bank. The auto sector is hurting bad. I want my colleague to talk more about how bad it is.”

“I want Canada to have more power. We should expand our resources and manufacturing. That way we can be stronger when we negotiate with the U.S. I don't like how the Prime Minister is handling the U.S. tariffs. I think we should deal with those tariffs.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if Canada wants to deal with the United States, we need leverage. Our leverage comes from our strengths, our energy, our critical minerals and our ability to supply the inputs that North American industry depends on. Conservatives believe we should be building that strength, developing our resources, expanding our capacity and creating the conditions for investment so that Canada can negotiate from a position of power, not weakness. I know that the riding I represent, London—Fanshawe, has a manufacturing sector that has had to deal with the U.S. tariffs. Repeatedly, the Prime Minister has said that by a certain date, he would deal with U.S. tariffs, especially last July, and then on repeated dates. I am wondering if the member from the Bloc can expand on the continuing issue of the tariffs that we have to deal with today.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Canadian Space Launch Act

2026-04-28

“Canadians want space and space money. But they also want to know what we're spending. The bill needs to show that.”

“I want you to think the government is bad with money and full of scandals. This space bill might let them waste more money like they did before.”

“I agree. This bill gives too much power to one minister. Decisions would be made in secret. We want more open decisions on space projects.”

“I want to say I support space too. But I don't want to give the government a blank cheque. I want some checks and balances on how they spend the money.”

“I want the bill to have clear rules and strong oversight. I don't want decisions made behind closed doors without explanation. I want Canadians to see the reasoning and cost for major financial commitments. I want national security safeguards in the law from the start, not added later. The goal is for Canada to lead in space in a way Canadians can be proud of, not without answers and not behind closed doors.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, any Canadian launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions. If this bill is about sovereignty, then those protections must be written into the law, not left to chance. This is ultimately about balance. Canada can build a competitive space sector. Canada can support innovation. Canada can strengthen sovereignty. That is how previous generations succeeded. The achievements of Canada's space program were not the result of vague rules or unchecked power. They were built on clear objectives, strong oversight and public trust. That is the standard we should be applying today. As we consider Bill C-28, the question is not whether we support Canada in space. We do. The question is whether the bill gets the framework right. In its current form, there are serious concerns. Let me be clear about what getting this right actually looks like. A serious bill would define the key terms clearly in the law so Parliament, not just cabinet, sets the rules. It would include clear criteria for approvals and rejections so decisions are not made behind closed doors without explanation. It would preserve independent review so Canadians can have confidence that decisions can be challenged when needed. It would also require full transparency around major financial commitments. If hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are involved, Canadians should be able to see the reasoning, the price and what they are getting in return. Most important, the bill would put national security safeguards directly into the law, not as an afterthought or something decided later but as a core requirement from the start, because once these systems are in place, once launches begin and international actors are involved, it becomes much harder to go back to fix gaps that should have been addressed from the beginning. These are questions that must be answered and issues that must be addressed, and this is where Parliament must do its job. Canada has the opportunity to get this right. We can build something that reflects our strengths and values, but that will not happen by default. It will require scrutiny, accountability and a willingness to improve what is in front of us, because the goal is not just to participate in space but to lead in a way that Canadians can be proud of. That means that when we act, we do so in the clear interest of Canadians, not behind closed doors and not without answers. Canada should lead in space, but Canadians should never be asked to sign a blank cheque for decisions made behind closed doors.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want Canada to be a leader in space. This bill could help. But it has problems. It gives the minister too much power. It doesn't have clear rules. It's a blank cheque. Canadians are asking how a gravel lot turned into a $200 million agreement. The bill needs more safeguards and transparency. This isn't the first time the Liberals have wasted money. Canadians shouldn't trust them with a blank cheque.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my Conservative colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. Canada should be a leader in space. I will admit that this is something that has fascinated me since I was a kid. Like many Canadians, I grew up watching Star Trek and imagining what the future could look like beyond our planet. That sense of wonder is shared by many Canadians and has helped drive what we have achieved in space. In 1962, under former Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker, Alouette I made Canada the third country in the world to design and build its own satellite. Since then, Canadians have built on that legacy. Astronauts such as Roberta Bondar and Chris Hadfield have carried our flag into orbit. Canadian innovation gave the world the Canadarm. More recently, Canada played a key role in the Artemis II mission, with Jeremy Hansen taking part in the historic journey of circling the moon and returning to earth. It is a powerful example of what we can achieve through partnership, while also reminding us why strengthening our own capabilities matters. Let me be clear that Conservatives support building Canada's space capabilities. We support sovereignty. We support protecting Canada's national security. We support Canadian workers, engineers and innovators competing in a growing global space economy. Bill C-28 speaks to a real opportunity. Canada is the only G7 country without domestic launch capability. That is a gap and a chance to lead. If done properly, this could strengthen our economy, reinforce our sovereignty and position Canada as a serious player in the next generation of space activity. One day, I would love to see places like the London International Airport play a role in that future. We have strong infrastructure and a skilled workforce. That may be further down the road, but it reflects the kind of ambition we should have as a country. However, ambition alone is not strong enough, because the question before us is not whether Canada should participate in space, but whether this bill would set us up to do it in the right way. That is where the concerns arise, because as it stands, Bill C-28 would put too much power in the hands of the minister without leaving key rules and safeguards to be worked out later. In plain language, it asks Canadians to accept the framework first and trust the rules, which will come later. That is not how we build durable policy. It is how we create a system that functions like a blank cheque. This bill would not even clearly define what a launch is. Instead, it would push those basic rules off to be decided later. At the same time, it would give the minister broad control over who gets approved, who gets denied and what conditions apply. It would allow the minister to change the financial rules and protect companies from liability. In some cases, it would limit the ways decisions could be appealed or reviewed independently. What we are left with is a framework that would be flexible where it should be firm and discretionary where it should be accountable. That would be concerning on its own, but Canadians are already asking a more immediate question: How is it that, what is, today, little more than a gravel lot and a concrete pad on Crown land, which was leased for $13,500 a year, adds up to a $200-million federal agreement before Parliament has even been asked to approve the framework governing it? At its core, this is a question about whether Parliament sets the rules or whether those rules are written later behind closed doors. Who set that price? What valuation was used? Was there a competitive process? What exactly are taxpayers receiving in return? Who carries the risk if this project does not deliver? Canadians are not funding a finished asset. They are funding a project still under development in a market that remains uncertain. That makes getting this right even more important. This is where the broader concern comes into focus, because this is not an isolated situation. We have seen this pattern before. With ArriveCAN, what began as a simple app, originally estimated at about $80,000, ballooned to nearly $60 million, which is roughly 750 times over budget. A well-connected firm benefited from a process that lacked transparency, and Canadians were left with the bill. More recently, we are seeing a $300-million e-prescribing program, PrescribeIT, come under serious scrutiny. After nearly a decade, it is used for less than 5% of prescriptions, and key questions remain about where the money went and who benefited. These are different files and different departments, but it is the same Liberal team and the same underlying problem, which is large commitments of public money, limited transparency and unclear outcomes. At the end of it, Canadians are left asking what exactly they paid for. These are just a few of the many examples Canadians have become used to. From the SNC-Lavalin affair, to the WE Charity scandal and the green slush fund, there is a reason Canadians are not comfortable handing any government a blank cheque. This matters because Bill C-28 is not being introduced in a vacuum. It is being introduced in a context where trust in how large public projects are managed has been eroded. When a bill proposes to give broad power to ministers, to leave key rules for later and to move forward without clear safeguards, Canadians are right to be cautious. This is also a national security issue. Space is no longer just about exploration. It is about communication, surveillance, navigation, defence and sovereignty. Any general launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Regulatory capture is a risk. The minister might want to give money to his friends. The minister wants power to reward friends without oversight.”

“Why should we pass this bill when the government already spent $200 million on one spaceport project? It looks like a blank check for Liberal friends. Taxpayers could be on the hook for unlimited costs. The government spent way too much on land for this.”

“The old government protected our security in space. The new bill doesn't have a real security test. Why should we trust the government's discretion instead of putting a real law in place? I want to stop hostile foreign actors from launching satellites over our Arctic.”