MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Kurt Holman

Follow by RSS

Holman seeks relief for Canadians by advocating for the removal of diesel taxes and strict national security oversight in space law. He often grounds his concerns in local experiences, noting, “I tried the simulator at the Diamond Flight Centre in London.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
85 / 100 over 41 statements
Signal 81 / 100
Relevance 78 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Loses points more than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.2.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.2 Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.8 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 41 of 51 statements graded so far.

Statements 51

Government Orders ·

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

“The economy is struggling, and London has Canada's highest unemployment rate at 9.2%. I want to know if my colleague is seeing these same economic problems in his area.”
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.

Government Orders ·

Protecting Victims Act

“Conservatives are not playing games. We work for victims of crime and for public safety. I want to know why the Liberal government got rid of mandatory minimum prison sentences, letting guilty criminals get off with just one day in jail.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 42 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier tonight, the parliamentary secretary said that we Conservatives play games. That is so far from the truth. On his side of the House, he can play tic-tack-toe or Scrabble. That is his business. Conservatives are here for the victims of crime. We work long hours on behalf of Canadians for public safety and for the justice system. As I said earlier, the parliamentary secretary accused us of playing games. Why is it that the Liberal government would remove mandatory minimums and judges could use time served or just give a criminal who is found guilty a one-day sentence? The point I am getting at is, why is the Liberal government—

“I worry this bill removes mandatory minimum prison sentences for most crimes. I want my colleague to explain how that will affect society.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives take public safety and the justice system very seriously, and there are quite the concerns with Bill C-16 regarding the removal of mandatory minimums, with the exception of murder and treason. I would like to ask my Bloc colleague, with the removal of mandatory minimums, how will that have a ripple effect on society?

Government Orders ·

Build Canada Homes Act

“Young people in my riding cannot afford to buy homes. I want my colleague to talk about the housing affordability problems young people face in her riding.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of the constituents of London—Fanshawe. I go door to door and hear from them. With regard to home ownership, there are concerns that youth are affected by the affordability crisis and the lack of opportunity to afford a home. I applaud my colleague. She and her family members are experts in the real estate and homebuilding industries. I was just wondering if she could expand on that, and tell us what issues they are experiencing with regard to the affordability crisis and young people buying homes in her riding.

“Housing has gotten less affordable over the last 11 years under the Liberals. Adult children in my riding cannot afford to move out of their parents' homes. The government is not building enough houses, and new home construction is projected to fall.”
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?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The economy is not doing well. More people are using food banks in London, and I want the member to explain that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to address what the parliamentary secretary is implying, which is that the economy here in Canada is good, I would ask him to come down to the London region. It is not just the increased food bank usage but the other organizations that support the food bank. I was talking to a representative from Urban Roots, which grows natural food to be donated to various organizations, including the local London Food Bank. The usage has increased in the last year. I would ask the member to comment on that.

“Liberal policies are hurting the London area. Our unemployment rate reached 9.2% in April, which was the highest in Canada. I want my colleague to talk more about the economic problems in her riding.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the London region, especially London—Fanshawe, has been hit hard with the Liberal policies with regard to the local economy. In March, we had a 9.1% unemployment rate. In April, we had a 9.2% unemployment rate, the highest in the country. Could my colleague elaborate on the economic issues in her riding?

Private Members' Business ·

Arab Heritage Month Act

“I support this bill to name April as Arab Heritage Month. Arab Canadians have helped build this country for generations. This month should be a real celebration of their history and contributions, not just an empty gesture. We must also fix everyday problems like housing, jobs, and safety so these families can build a good future here.”
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.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canada is in a recession, and unemployment in London is at 9.2 percent. I want the Prime Minister to admit this and change the policies that caused it.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. No matter how the Liberals spin it, this is a full-blown Liberal recession. Investment is leaving, jobs are disappearing and the economy has shrunk for two straight quarters. They can blame tariffs and global conflict, but every G7 country faces those pressures. In London, this comes as no surprise. London has been the canary in the coal mine. With unemployment at 9.2%, the worst in the country, Londoners saw the warning signs first. The Prime Minister can quote projections, but Londoners are living the reality. Will the Prime Minister stop denying this recession and reverse the Liberal policies that caused it?

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

“Does the minister really think more government paperwork will help our military get the equipment they need faster?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, does the minister believe that increased bureaucracy will ensure that our brave men and women in uniform get the equipment they need faster?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“Our plan will help all Canadians, including people in Quebec.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick answer for my Bloc colleague: The proposed solution, as I mentioned before, was to help all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Our plan helps Canadians more than the Liberals' plan. The Liberals only cut fuel taxes until September 1, but we want to cut them until the end of the year.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused with regard to the definition of “hypocrisy”, because the Liberal solution was tax relief on fuel all the way to September 1, yet our solution is tax relief to the end of the calendar year. With regard to that, I see the Conservative solution as helping Canadians more than what the Liberal government is doing.

In response to a question from Costas Menegakis

“I support this motion to pause federal taxes on gasoline and diesel. Life is getting too expensive for families and businesses. High fuel costs make everything else cost more, and the government should stop adding to that burden.”
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.

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

“The government wastes too much taxpayer money on scandals. I want to know when the Liberals will stop wasting public money.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned to a Conservative colleague what we should cut to help Canadians. Repeatedly, with the Trudeau government, we heard about scandal upon scandal and about the waste of taxpayers’ dollars. I am concerned, even with the current Liberal government, of potentially more scandals with regard to wasting taxpayers’ dollars. Is the Liberal government going to come to terms and stop wasting taxpayers’ dollars on behalf of all Canadians?

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS ·

Workers in London—Fanshawe

“London has the highest unemployment rate in Canada at 9.2 percent. I want the government to lower taxes, cut red tape, and make the trade deal they promised so businesses can create jobs.”
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?

Private Members' Business ·

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

“I support this bill. Canada has not updated its rules for wireless networks since 2007. The bill will make sure cell phone coverage maps are accurate and force the government to update its wireless policy.”
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—

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Government loans do not help struggling businesses, because they just add more debt. We need to lower tariffs and cut red tape so businesses can compete. I am asking the Bloc member to comment on this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, real relief does not come from government loan programs. It comes from getting tariffs reduced or eliminated. Loans do not restore competitiveness. They saddle struggling businesses with more debt, while the underlying problem remains. At the same time, the Liberals are failing to focus on what Canada can control. Instead of strengthening our economy at home, they continue to layer on red tape, slow approvals and policies that make it harder to build, produce and compete. I wonder if the member from the Bloc could expand on this.

“Life is too expensive in London, and our 9.1% unemployment rate is the highest in Canada. Many people have to use food banks. I want to know when the Prime Minister will fix the tariff problem.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 28 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned vision. If this is the Liberal government’s vision, I find quite concerning, especially as I represent the people of London—Fanshawe, but it is also concerning for the region of London. We are talking about the affordability crisis and the cost of living crisis, and London’s 9.1% unemployment is the highest in Canada. That is a concern also. Also with regard to vision, especially for the people who have to utilize the food bank, what we do tell the people in the lineup of the food bank about when the Prime Minister is going to come through and solve the tariff issue?

“Tariffs are hurting manufacturing and costing people jobs in my riding. The Prime Minister promised to fix this, but he has not negotiated with the American president in seven months. Is the government tricking Canadians while they wait for help?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I stand today as a proud representative of London—Fanshawe, part of which has a great manufacturing sector. However, we have been hit with tariffs, and, repeatedly, the people of London—Fanshawe are having to deal with the affordability crisis and concerns about being unemployed, or they actually have been unemployed, due to various sectors’ being affected by the tariffs. The Liberals have repeatedly said that they are going to solve the tariff issues, yet the Prime Minister has not negotiated with President Trump in the last seven months, so my question is this: Are we witnessing a political bait-and-switch while Canadians are still waiting for a solution?

“Local manufacturers in my riding are worried about tariffs. The Prime Minister keeps delaying trade talks with the United States. I want to know if the member agrees that the Prime Minister should tell Canadians when these talks will end.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from the Bloc for his excellent speech. This bill is about supporting the manufacturing sector. In London—Fanshawe, the manufacturing sector has brought up concerns to me regarding the tariffs. The Liberal government keeps delaying when the so-called negotiations by the Prime Minister will be finalized, the ones dealing with these tariffs between Canada and the U.S. Does the member from the Bloc agree that the Prime Minister should tell Canadians the specific date when these negotiations will be finalized?