Leslyn Lewis

“I want the minister to tell me who decides if a person lives or dies when they cannot make decisions for themselves and did not leave clear instructions.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and the tone of his speech. There are so many people in Canada who are very interested in this subject. When I was a lawyer, I often had to take people’s directives, when doing a will, of what they wanted if they ended up in a situation where there was no prospect of recovery, they were on life support and their life was completely diminished. They set those standards, and it was very clear to a practitioner what those standards were. My question for the minister is, what happens when those standards are not there? Who is the arbiter of a person’s life? Who makes those decisions, whether a person can live or die at that particular time, when they do not have the capacity to do that?”

“Parents want help protecting their children online. Can we give parents those tools without government control, while still protecting people's free speech?”

“Madam Speaker, there are many parents who have reached out to a number of MPs. They are very concerned about their ability to protect their children, and they are asking for additional assistance. Does the member believe that there is a way to balance the rights of individual freedoms so that people are not unfairly targeted for lawful conduct online while parents can be given the tools to protect their children without government intervention?”

“Small businesses in rural areas already face rising costs. This bill could add more rules and costs for them. What is the government doing to stop that from happening?”

“Mr. Speaker, small businesses in rural communities, such as the one where I live in Haldimand—Norfolk, are already facing rising operating costs. The new requirements in Bill S-3 could potentially add red tape and additional costs on those businesses. What is the government putting in place to ensure that this does not happen?”

“The economy is getting weaker, prices are going up, and the Liberals are adding to the debt. Their deficit is 38 billion dollars higher than they promised. I want the government to admit that Canadians are facing an affordability crisis.”

“Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed what Canadians are feeling every day. The economy is weakening, inflation is on the rise and Liberal spending is driving up the debt. The Liberals’ projected deficit is now $38 billion higher than promised. After years of broken promises, why are the Liberals forcing Canadians to pay the price for their reckless spending with an affordability crisis? Just this week, they voted against recognizing the affordability crisis. When will the Liberals finally admit that one exists?”

“I want the government to support our motion to lower fuel costs. Life is too expensive, and families in my riding cannot afford food. Our plan would actually save people money.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are all talk and no results. Our Conservative motion would save families money. After 10 years, Canadians need relief, not another Liberal promise. Families cannot put a press release on the dinner table. In Haldimand—Norfolk, I represent farmers who produce the food and families who can no longer afford to buy it. Will the government support our motion for emergency fuel relief, or will it keep Canadians lining up at food banks just to survive?”

• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “The Liberals are all talk and no results.”

  Said 13 times by 12 members since September 21.

  Every time it was said →

“The Prime Minister is spending too much money while Canadians struggle to pay for life. Food bank visits are up 99 percent since 2019. I want him to stop defending the bad policies that cause this.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is all rhetoric and no results. The Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau’s deficit. The Prime Minister has outspent every previous government in the history of Canada combined. While he is breaking spending records, Canadians are breaking their bank accounts just to survive. Food bank visits are up 99% since 2019 and we are hearing from people who are literally in distress over the cost of living. Will the Prime Minister continue to defend these bad policies that are driving Canadian seniors—”

• Echo ×10

  A repeated line

  “The Prime Minister doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit.”

  Said 10 times by 10 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill removes protections for people who quote religious texts in good faith. They could be charged with a crime, spend money on lawyers, and face public shame before they can defend their rights. It treats people as guilty before they are proven innocent.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member across the way makes reference to the Charter of Rights, but it is not clear that for the charter to be invoked, a person has to be charged first? The removal of the good-faith clause means that people who are citing religious texts in good faith could be charged, and then they would have to go through financial expense and public shame before they could defend their rights and before the charter would be imposed. Is that not the process, and is that not the way it would work? People would be guilty before proven innocent in this case.”

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“People in my riding and across Canada are struggling to afford both heat and healthy food. Even families where both parents work are using food banks. We must do something to make life more affordable.”

“Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the economic issues in my riding are very similar to the economic issues in many ridings in the country. People are making tough decisions: Do they turn up the heat in their home, or do they make sure they put a meal on the table for their family that has sufficient nutrients in it to feed and energize their family? These are the tough decisions that people are making. Some families line up at food banks. These include families with two working parents who just cannot make ends meet. We have to do something to make life more affordable for average Canadians.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“It is Seniors Month. Modern technology and digital services are leaving seniors and rural communities behind because they do not have good internet. We must make sure everyone can still access basic services like banking.”

“Mr. Speaker, as we mark Seniors Month in Ontario, we are reminded that modernization must include everyone. As new digital systems and artificial intelligence reshape daily life, we must recognize that not every Canadian has equal access to technology. In many rural communities, reliable Internet and cell service still do not exist. Seniors tell us that they are increasingly being excluded as essential services like banking become digital by default. We cannot create a future where some Canadians are unable to participate in society. Progress is not measured by how advanced our systems become. It is measured by whether people still feel seen, valued and able to participate in society. No Canadian should lose access to society because technology has moved faster than infrastructure. Canadian seniors are not obstacles to modernization but part of Canada’s great future.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Member's statement

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“People in my riding are struggling to afford food and gas. The government should not spend $90 billion on a train line most people will not use. I want to know which Liberal insider will profit from it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from desperate Canadians who are frustrated that the Liberal government prioritizes wasteful projects over the needs of families. In Haldimand—Norfolk, people are crushed by the cost of gas and basic necessities and the price of groceries, and they are choosing to pay their bills rather than putting food on the table. Now the government wants to spend $90 billion on a rail line that most people will never use, while Canadians are lining up at food banks just to survive. Which Liberal insider stands to profit from this tax—”

“I want the House to pass this bill to make forced sterilization a crime. Canada has a long history of medical abuses against Indigenous people, including nutritional experiments on children and sterilizing women without their consent. Sterilizing someone without their permission is aggravated assault, and our laws must clearly ban it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George, who gave up his time today so we could debate this very important issue. Forced sterilization is a clear violation of human dignity. It is not simply a failure of policy by a nation. It is not a mere error in judgment. It is an assertion of control over someone else’s ability to procreate in the future. When we examine the history of this country, we have to be honest about systemic violations of this nature and recognize that these violations, as they relate to indigenous people, have not occurred in isolation. They exist within a broader and deeper troubling pattern, a pattern of dehumanization of indigenous women. The international community has already recognized the importance of informed consent, and so I want to highlight that principle and how it relates to what we are speaking about today in the House. In the aftermath of the Second World War, during the Nuremberg trials, the world was forced to reckon with medical experimentation carried out on human beings without their agreement or consent. Out of that reckoning came the Nuremberg Code, which established a principle that has long shaped modern medical ethics. This code recognized that the voluntary and informed consent of an individual is essential. This principle is not just theoretical in nature. It was drawn from real abuses in the international era, where human beings were treated as objects rather than as persons. It established a boundary that no government, no institution and no professional should ever cross, yet we are here today debating a very similar issue, even after standards were set. We must confront the reality that similar violations occurred within our very country. In the 1940s and 1950s, the federal government, through the then department of Indian affairs and in collaboration with leading researchers, conducted a series of nutritional experiments on indigenous children in residential schools. These studies were overseen in part by a doctor, the superintendent of Indian affairs, medical services and prominent pediatricians known for developing infant nutritional products. I raise this issue to show that forced sterilization is not in isolation from policies that have been advanced in this nation and so we can understand the seriousness of having to legislate against such issues and natures of experiment. These nutritional experiments were not designed to heal. They were designed to observe, and the observation of these indigenous children was done almost as would be done in experiments watching lab rats. I hate to use that analogy, but this is what was done within our very country. These children were among the most vulnerable, at the time. They were already removed from their families and in residential schools. They were deliberately studied to see how children would react to malnutrition. In these starvation human experiments, essential nutrients were withheld from these precious, innocent children. In some cases, schools were divided into test groups versus control groups. Critical dental care was also intentionally denied, not because it was unavailable, but because researchers wanted to see how this study of nutritional deficiency would impact dental disease over time. These were not isolated oversights. These experiments were organized and documented and funded by the Canadian government. Historical records later brought this to light through archival research by scholars. It was shown that officials were aware of the conditions, and yet they still proceeded nonetheless. There was no meaningful consent. Just like we see with the sterilization cases, parents were not informed and children were not given a voice. They were not treated as individuals. They were treated as if they lacked inherent dignity and were subject to experimentation. This is not simply a tragedy in the chapter of our past. It reveals a pattern in which indigenous people were treated as objects of policy rather than as human beings deserving of care, protection and the same respect that all Canadians receive. That same pattern is reflected in the history of forced and coerced sterilization in Canada. For decades, provinces like Alberta and British Columbia operated under this eugenics legislation. The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta authorized sterilization of thousands of individuals, many without full understanding and meaningful consent. Those disproportionately targeted included indigenous women, girls and marginalized populations. Even after those laws were repealed, the practice did not end. In recent years, indigenous women have come forth with accounts of being sterilized without full and informed consent. Some were approached during childbirth at moments of extreme vulnerability. Some were pressured into signing forms that they did not fully understand, often at their most vulnerable moment. Others reported that procedures were performed without their knowledge. This is not health care. It is not care at all. It is control over a woman’s ability to decide in the future that she may want children. Under Canadian law, it constitutes bodily harm. In any other context, we would recognize this as an aggravated assault. We must understand that this issue sits within the broader systemic context. We heard about this context in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. That inquiry concluded that violence against indigenous women was not random. It was systemic and rooted in generational marginalization, dispossession and erosion of dignity. Forced sterilization must be understood within this continuum. It reflects a history in which decisions about indigenous women’s bodies were made by others and without respect for their autonomy, dignity and humanity. Bill S-228 is necessary. It would affirm clearly that forced and coerced sterilization is a criminal act. It would reinforce that non-consensual sterilization meets the threshold of aggravated assault under the Criminal Code and draws a clear line that no authority, medical institution or government has the right to override when a person can decide to have a child in the future. If we are to move forward with dignity, we must confront history fully. We must recognize that policies, once justified under the language of progress, caused real and lasting harm. We must ensure that our laws reflect a different standard rooted in dignity. This bill is a step toward that standard, and for that reason, it deserves to be supported.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 6 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals want to borrow $25 billion for a new fund, but that just creates more debt and government waste. They need to admit they are only hiding their overspending.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals are just creating new packaging to hide the same old spending and record deficits. Now, they want to borrow $25 billion to create another bureaucracy that Canadians never asked for. Their so-called wealth fund has no wealth. It is borrowed money, built on the same failed Infrastructure Bank policies that lost money and rewarded only Liberal insiders. Why will the Liberals not admit that they are simply hiding their reckless spending with more deficit—”