Rhonda Kirkland

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I believe in strong punishments to stop people from committing crimes before they happen. That is why I support mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes and sex crimes, which the Liberals removed. People who commit terrible crimes should face harsh penalties so we can protect our kids.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am a Conservative, so I believe in things such as preventative measures to make criminals think before they commit a crime, which is why I believe in things such as the mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes and for some sex crimes, which the Liberals took away. In juxtaposition with this, yes, if someone has committed a horrific crime, the penalty should be great in order to prevent these things from happening to our kids in the first place.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Relevance 46 of 100

  Only 5% of this statement directly addressed the matter under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“The government should have consulted the provinces before bringing forward this bill. It needs to find out what rules they already have and how this bill affects them. I want to learn who was consulted and study this bill carefully in committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is absolutely right. I do think that whenever the federal government seeks to undertake such substantial legislation as this, individual provinces should be consulted. They should be spoken to about what they already have in place and how a bill would impact their provincial legislation and how it would not. The member brings up a good question. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of who exactly was consulted and have more in-depth discussions when we potentially take a look at the bill in committee.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Braedon Clark

“We want to protect children online, but we also need to get the balance right. A committee needs to study this bill very closely first.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the member has children aged nine and six, I commend him that they are not on online platforms already, because it is a difficult task as a parent to make sure their kids are protected in that way. I would say that Conservatives, on the whole, want to make sure the balance is struck. That means the bill has to be studied in committee and be examined very closely. We want to make sure kids are protected, but we need to get the balance right.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 38 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 →

“We must protect children online, but this bill gives too much power to a new government commission without enough oversight. Most people I surveyed in Oshawa worry this regulator will be too powerful. We need to hear from parents and legal experts in committee so we can add clear limits on its power.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, of course, as always, to rise on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa. Today I do so to speak about Bill C-34. We know that social media has fundamentally changed how young Canadians communicate, how they learn and how they interact with one another. It has created opportunities for connection, education and creativity that previous generations, such as mine, could never even have imagined, but we know it has also introduced serious risks, particularly for children and teenagers, who are still developing the judgment and experience needed to navigate an increasingly complicated online environment. It should be noted that when this legislation was first introduced, my daughter was still 15 years old. She is 16 now. I asked for her thoughts on whether we should we ban social media outright for children under age 16. She said that, yes, we could do that; it would not hurt. She said, though, that she did not have any struggles, because she knows I guided her through what she was supposed to do. This is a girl who asked me to put limits on her Instagram, so she may be a special case. Nonetheless, I think parenting is a big part of this. Cyber-bullying, online exploitation, harmful content and the growing influence of artificial intelligence are no longer distant or hypothetical concerns, though. They are real challenges affecting Canadian families, and parents should not have to live in constant fear about what their children might encounter when they open an application on their phone. Conservatives believe that children deserve to be protected, that parents deserve to have confidence in the platforms their families use and that technology companies, big tech, must be held accountable for the risks associated with their services. Those principles should and will guide our examination of Bill C-34. Protecting children also means getting the legislation right. It means ensuring that the measures Parliament adopts are effective, enforceable and consistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms Canadians expect their government to respect, because we know that good intentions alone do not make good legislation. As the member of Parliament for Oshawa, I recently asked residents in my community to share their thoughts on Bill C-34 and the government’s approach to protecting children online. The response revealed something important. Oshawa residents want children protected. There is no doubt about it, but they are deeply concerned about how we get there safely. When asked whether the federal government should ban children under the age of 16 from social media platforms, residents were actually almost evenly divided, with 48% supporting such a ban and 47% opposing it. This tells me there is no simple consensus on how government should approach this issue or how we should get there safely. Parents, grandparents, teachers and young people recognize the dangers of social media, but they also have legitimate questions about how far government intervention should go. One father in Oshawa raising two teenagers near Lakeview Park wrote to me to express his desire for stronger protections against online predators. He also urged me to urge Parliament to ensure that responsible parents would not be subjected to unnecessary government surveillance simply for supervising their children’s Internet use. A teacher in Oshawa similarly emphasized the harm that online platforms can cause young students, while raising concerns about age verification systems that could require families to surrender potentially sensitive personal information. These are all reasonable concerns, and they deserve to be taken seriously. We must ensure that efforts to protect children do not inadvertently create new risks for their own privacy and personal information. Bill C-34 proposes several measures that are intended to address online harms. It would establish new responsibilities for regulated social media platforms, including requirements to reduce exposure to harmful content, provide users with tools to report material, and introduce additional protections for our children. It would also address artificial intelligence chatbot services and establish mechanisms for dealing with intimate images shared without consent and material involving the sexual victimization of children. These are serious issues, and they absolutely deserve serious consideration. No child should have to experience online sexual exploitation. No parent should have to fight an endless battle to have exploitive material involving their child removed from the internet. No tech company should be permitted to simply look the other way when serious harm is occurring on its platform. We must ask whether the proposed measures would actually make children safer or whether they would simply create another layer of bureaucracy without delivering the protections that Canadian families are truly asking for and, frankly, need. This brings me to one of the most significant questions surrounding Bill C-34. The legislation proposes establishing a new digital safety commission of Canada with extensive regulatory and enforcement powers. While Conservatives recognize the importance of holding online platforms accountable, we have to also recognize that the powers Parliament grants to any government body must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards. Under Bill C-34, the proposed commission would have significant authority to establish certain requirements, investigate compliance, conduct hearings, issue orders and administer financial penalties. These would be substantial responsibilities for the proposed commission. Indeed, they would combine powers that in other contexts are often exercised by separate institutions. This raises an important question: Who would hold the regulator accountable? It is not simply a hypothetical question raised by members of the opposition. It is a concern being expressed by Canadians. In my recent Oshawa survey, 64% of the people who answered the question about the proposed commission said they were worried about powers being potentially excessive and the risk of creating an unaccountable Internet regulator. We have lots of questions. Only 21% of people selected the response favouring the powerful government watchdog to hold large technology companies accountable. This should give every member of the House reason to want to examine these provisions very carefully and make sure that we get it right. Canadians are not simply asking whether the government intends to protect children. They are asking whether the government can be trusted to exercise the powers responsibly. There are several provisions in the legislation that deserve much closer examination. Subclause 74(1), for example, provides that the commission would not be bound by the legal or technical rules of evidence when exercising certain powers under the act. Subclause 75(1) would permit the commission to conduct hearings in private in specific circumstances, and under the transitional provisions in part 2, clause 23, a single chairperson could temporarily exercise the powers of the commission before other members are appointed. We do have to watch for and and ask for some safeguards. Taken together, these proposed provisions raise legitimate questions on the concentration of regulatory authority and the safeguards that would govern its exercise. To be clear, the issue is not whether online platforms should be held accountable. They absolutely should be. The issue is whether the government has struck the appropriate balance in this legislation between effective enforcement and the checks and balances essential in a free and democratic society. A regulator responsible for overseeing powerful technology companies must be subject to meaningful oversight. There must, I feel, be clear standards for decision-making, appropriate procedural protections and effective opportunities to challenge decisions. Canadians should not have to choose between protecting their children and their freedoms. We are capable of doing both, and I hope that we can come to a legislation that makes both possible. We should be asking the question of whether Bill C-34 would give parents the practical tools they need to protect their children. Would it make it easier for families to understand? Conservatives want legislation with real teeth and a clear, effective enforcement mechanism, but those enforcement powers must be proportionate, transparent and accountable. We need to hear from parents, victims, survivors, privacy advocates, legal experts and people with technical expertise. We need to examine the proposed commission’s powers, the safeguards governing its decisions, and the mechanisms available to ensure accountability. Above all, we need to ensure that the legislation would remain focused on delivering meaningful protections for Canadian children. Those are the principles that should guide our examination of Bill C-34. Canadians deserve effective protections, they deserve clear answers, and above all, they deserve legislation that gets the balance right.”

“Children are being harmed online, and parents want solutions. Big tech companies have avoided accountability for too long. Will this bill actually hold them accountable?”

“Mr. Speaker, we agree that children are being harmed, and parents, I know, are desperate for a solution. Tech giants have operated without accountability for far too long, and it is important that we hold big tech accountable. Would this bill do that?”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I hope this bill helps small businesses and consumers. But it could also hurt them in ways we do not expect. The committee needs to study every part of it carefully to make sure it gets the balance right.”

“Madam Speaker, that is my hope. My hope is that it would, in fact, benefit small businesses and consumers. However, that does not negate the questions that I had in my speech, and that it would not also negatively impact them with unintended consequences. I think that it is incumbent upon the committee members, when it comes before them, to take a look at each and every piece to make sure we find the balance necessary so that businesses can get a move on.”

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“I support updating our laws on weights and meters, but I have questions about this bill. It gives ministers and inspectors more power, and we need rules to keep that fair. We must make sure these changes do not add new costs or paperwork for small businesses, and that scales and energy meters stay accurate so shoppers are not overcharged. A committee needs to look into these details.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my neighbours, friends and family in Oshawa. Today I rise to speak to Bill S-3, which proposes changes to Canada’s laws governing weights and measures and the inspection of electricity and natural gas meters. When I look at legislation like this, I cannot help but think about the people and businesses in my community that will be affected by it. I think about the small business owner who is trying to keep the doors open, the manufacturer working to remain competitive and the family already stretching every dollar to make ends meet. This reminds me of a story my sister told me last night. Apparently, there are some videos and reels going around showing folks in grocery stores with prepackaged goods, maybe a bag of peanuts or meat. They read the weight on it, and then take it to a scale and weigh it, and it is a different weight. This brought me to thinking about why this bill is so important. I understand that, and Canadians are counting on it, for fairness especially. Let us be honest. Most Canadians are never going to read the Weights and Measures Act, and frankly, they should not have to, because they expect the rules governing our economy to be fair, reliable and sensible. It is our responsibility to make sure they are. Canadians expect businesses to be held to consistent standards, consumers to be protected and government regulations to serve a purpose rather than create unnecessary obstacles. We have seen that far too often in our economy. That is the standard against which I believe Bill S-3 should be measured. Our economy has undergone an extraordinary transformation. Technologies that would have been difficult to imagine 40 years ago are now essential to how Canadian businesses operate. From automated manufacturing processes to digital measuring equipment and increasingly sophisticated energy systems, the way we produce, purchase and consume goods has changed dramatically. However, our regulatory framework has not kept pace. In fact, I believe I was a very small child the last time the act was updated. Bill S-3 seeks to address this by updating how measures and devices are approved and inspected, allowing more flexible methods of verification and removing certain outdated regulatory requirements. There is definite merit to these objectives. As Conservatives, of course, we believe that government should create the conditions for businesses to succeed, not stand in their way. Regulations should protect Canadians while also allowing businesses to innovate, invest and create good-paying jobs. I feel that principle is especially important in my community of Oshawa. I have said many times in this House that Oshawa is a city built on hard work. I believe some of the most hard-working people in the country reside and live in my neighbourhood in Oshawa. For generations, our automotive workers and manufacturers have helped drive the whole Canadian economy. Our community knows what it means to compete, adapt and innovate in an industry that is constantly changing. Our manufacturing sector relies on precision, efficiency and the ability to adopt new technologies. Whether it is with regard to measuring materials, monitoring energy consumption or ensuring consistent production standards, accuracy is fundamental to doing business. We know this. Canadian manufacturers are also competing in an increasingly difficult economic environment. They face rising operating costs, international competition and uncertainty about the future of their industries. The last thing they need is a regulatory system that makes it harder or more expensive to invest in new technologies. This is why I believe there is value in updating outdated rules and making regulatory processes more efficient. If a business can demonstrate that its equipment meets appropriate standards, it should not face unnecessary delays simply because the law has failed to keep up with technological advancements. At the same time, modernization must deliver real improvements. It cannot simply mean replacing one set of complicated government requirements with another. We have seen too many examples of Canadian businesses being forced to spend more time navigating government paperwork and less time doing what they do best. For a large corporation, additional administrative requirements may be an inconvenience, but for a small business owner, they can mean a whole lot more, such as additional expenses that could hurt them, lost productivity and fewer resources available to hire workers or to grow their business. In Oshawa, our local businesses are an essential part of our community. They employ our neighbours, support local families and contribute to the local economy. Whether it is a family-owned grocery store, an independent retailer or a small manufacturing operation, these businesses need clear and predictable rules. They should not have to hire additional consultants or spend countless hours navigating complicated regulatory processes simply to remain compliant. This is why I believe one of the most important questions surrounding Bill S-3 is whether it would actually reduce the burden on Canadian businesses. I think in many cases it could. Would the changes make inspections more efficient? Would businesses have greater certainty when adopting new technologies? Would the government ensure that any new requirements were practical and affordable for all business owners across the country? These are questions that deserve clear answers, and I think some of them will be demonstrated and dug into even deeper as this bill gets into our committee. Another issue that deserves attention is the expansion of regulatory authority proposed in the legislation. Bill S-3 would provide the Minister of Industry and federal inspectors with additional powers, including greater flexibility over the approval and inspection of measuring devices. Some of these changes may be necessary to modernize the system, but Parliament has a responsibility to examine how the powers are exercised. I am always hesitant when I hear of a bill placing more power in one minister’s hands, but I certainly understand the responsibility we have to make sure that the powers are exercised appropriately. Greater flexibility for government officials must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards and transparencies. We must ensure that businesses understand the rules they are expected to follow, that decisions are made consistently and that there are meaningful opportunities to challenge decisions when disagreements arise. This brings me to another important consideration, which is the ability of Canadian businesses to seek fair and timely resolution when disputes occur. If a business disagrees with a regulatory decision, it should have access to a process that is understandable, impartial and reasonably efficient. For small businesses, a prolonged dispute with a federal regulator could create significant uncertainty and expense, and I do not think any of us in the House want that for any of our small businesses. The goal should never be to make it more difficult for them to defend their interests and have their concerns heard, so I felt it was important to bring that up. We must also consider what these changes could mean for Canadian consumers. After 11 years of Liberal government, families across the country are struggling with rising costs of everyday necessities. Consumers are struggling. People are working so hard to try to make ends meet. In Oshawa, I hear from parents who are watching their grocery bills climb and seniors who cannot even keep up with their utility payments. They are afraid they are not going to be able to keep the heat on this winter. There are workers who are finding it increasingly difficult to make their paycheques stretch until the end of the month. These Canadians are already paying more than they should have to for life’s essentials. They deserve to have the confidence that the systems used to calculate what they owe are accurate and dependable. Whether it is the scale at the grocery store, as I mentioned before, the meter measuring household energy consumption or the equipment used to calculate the price of fuel, consumers should be protected by reliable standards. Bill S-3 proposes allowing certain measuring devices to be inspected through sampling methods rather than requiring every individual device to be examined. This may improve efficiency, but it is important that these methods maintain the accuracy and, of course, the reliability that Canadians expect. The government must be able to demonstrate that greater flexibility will not weaken consumer protections, because when families are already struggling with affordability, even small inaccuracies or additional costs add up and can make a huge difference. While Bill S-3 is intended to modernize the regulatory framework, Canadians deserve to understand the financial implications of implementing it. Would businesses face new compliance expenses? Would there be additional administrative costs for government? What steps would be taken to prevent those expenses from being passed along to consumers? All these questions are particularly important for small businesses that are already operating under significant financial pressure. Modernization should make government more effective and less burdensome, not create another layer of bureaucracy that Canadian taxpayers and businesses are expected to finance. Bill S-3 includes provisions requiring periodic parliamentary reviews of the amended legislation, which is a positive step as long as those reviews actually take place, because our laws should continue to evolve as technologies and industries change. However, meaningful accountability also requires transparency through the implementation process. Canadians should be able to understand how regulatory decisions are made, how businesses are affected and whether the changes are delivering the efficiencies that have been promised. At the end of the day, the success of this legislation should not be judged by how many regulations are rewritten or how many new authorities are created. It should be judged by whether consumers are better protected, whether businesses face fewer unnecessary obstacles and whether Canada’s economy is better positioned to compete on the world stage. Our responsibility, as parliamentarians, is to ensure that the legislation delivers meaningful improvements for Canadians and businesses that would be affected by it. Canadians do not need more government for the sake of government. I think they need a government that works better, costs less and delivers results.”

“More Canadians are using food banks because food costs too much. A new report says people visited food banks over 2.3 million times in March alone. I want the Liberals to admit that their economic plan is not working.”

“Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of the Liberal government, Canadians are paying more and getting less every single time they visit the grocery store. According to today’s Food Banks Canada report, Canada had over 2.3 million food bank visits in March of 2026. That is an increase of over 200,000 visits since March of last year, yet the Liberal government continues to insist its economic plan is working. Will the Liberals finally acknowledge that relying on food banks has become a reality for too many Canadians, or are the Liberals just too out of touch to admit it?”

• Echo ×25

  A repeated line

  “After 11 years of the Liberal government.”

  Said 25 times by 19 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Sukhman Gill

“Conservatives have a plan to bring fast relief by permanently removing the industrial carbon tax. The Liberals only lowered the consumer carbon tax to zero because we pressured them to do it, and they take credit for it. They did not cancel it completely, and it could come back.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been very clear. We have an economic action plan that would bring relief immediately. One of the major parts of that plan is permanently removing the industrial carbon tax. It is funny to watch the Liberals jump up and down and say how excited and wonderful they are because they cancelled the consumer carbon tax. Meanwhile, the same group of people jumped up and down asking how we dared to suggest that they cancel the consumer carbon tax. They did it because our pressure was effective, and now they are asking, “Are we not wonderful?” It is a crazy world we live in right now in Canada where the Liberals take credit for things that Conservatives have said we must do. Hopefully they will do the same thing with the industrial carbon tax one day, but we should never forget that they did not actually cancel the consumer carbon tax. I will just wait. They have only reduced it to zero, as far as I know. They have not cancelled it completely. I suspect we will see a version of it, and we already have in some ways at the gas pump.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 41 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 →

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“I support this bill, even though it does not go far enough. Real help means letting Canadians keep their own money, not taking it in taxes and handing back a small fraction.”

“Mr. Speaker, obviously I support solid investments, but the fact of the matter is this, and I will say it again. We are constantly gaslighted that Canadians are doing just fine and that there is not an affordability crisis. We are told that we do not support measures that help Canadians because we vote against the Liberals’ so-called supports and programs, when the truth of the matter is that what helps Canadians is allowing them to keep their own money in their pockets in the first place. That is why we will support this half measure. It is not enough, but it is something that would keep money in Canadians’ pockets to begin with, rather than taking their money, giving them a pittance back and saying, “Are we not wonderful?””

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“I support this bill because it temporarily lowers fuel taxes. But it does not go far enough. Life is too expensive right now, and people in my riding are struggling to afford food and gas. The government should remove all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until summer 2027, and it should permanently cancel the carbon tax on industry.”

“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening on behalf of Oshawa to speak to Bill C-38, which is legislation that would extend temporary relief from federal fuel taxes at a time when Canadians are struggling to afford the basic necessities of life. Earlier today, the Liberal government voted against our Conservative motion to recognize two simple things: The Liberals have been in government for 11 years, and Canada is in an affordability crisis. Every opposition party voted in favour of acknowledging what Canadians are actually experiencing every day, yet the Liberals said, “No, that’s not the case.” Everyone knows that the first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is one, and the government cannot even bring itself to acknowledge the affordability crisis facing Canadian families. What makes today’s earlier vote particularly remarkable is that tonight we are now debating legislation introduced by the very same government to extend temporary relief from federal fuel taxes, because Canadians cannot afford higher costs. The reality is that the government knows Canadians are struggling, and after months of persistent Conservative pressure, the Liberals have finally been forced to back down from their planned increase of fuel taxes. I represent Oshawa, which I like to mention as often as I can, because we are a hard-working city built by generations of auto workers, manufacturers, small business owners and families who have contributed so much to Canada’s greater economy. These are Canadians who work hard and pay their taxes, and they expect that their paycheques will be enough to provide for themselves and their families. Yet, increasingly, they are finding that no matter how hard they work, they simply cannot afford life. When the price of gasoline rises, those families in Oshawa do not suddenly have the option of driving less. They need to get to work, pick up their children and purchase groceries, except now they are paying more to do those very same things. The impact of higher fuel costs does not stop, of course, at the gas pump. It is common sense that when it costs more to transport food, deliver goods, construct homes and operate businesses, those additional expenses are ultimately passed on to consumers. Families end up paying more at the grocery store, more for household essentials and more for services they rely on every day. Even the Liberals’ own legislation acknowledges that trucking, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors benefit from fuel tax relief, which raises an important question. If the government now recognizes that lower fuel taxes help make life more affordable, why has it taken months and months of Conservative pressure to get it to act, and that is if we can even call it action? Conservatives care, yet Liberals cause inflation and an affordability crisis, then throw out breadcrumbs of half measures and gaslight Canadians by saying things like “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” We remember when the Prime Minister said that. In Oshawa, we understand how important affordable fuel and transportation are to our local economy. Our community is home to General Motors Canada, automotive suppliers, skilled tradespeople and thousands of workers whose livelihoods depend on a strong manufacturing sector. Whether it is an auto worker going to the plant for his shift or a tradesperson travelling between job sites across the Durham region, a small business owner making deliveries or a truck driver transporting goods across Highway 401, these Canadians rely on affordable fuel to earn a living and support their families. For small business owners already struggling with rising operating expenses, higher fuel costs mean less money to invest in their businesses, hire employees or keep prices affordable for customers. For working families, it means even more of their hard-earned money disappearing before they have paid their rent, purchased groceries or covered their monthly bills. The figures are clear. They show that gasoline prices have increased by 25.7%, while overall energy costs have risen by 16.6%, contributing to higher transportation costs and adding further pressure to household budgets. However, Canadians do not need to see those very detailed statistics to understand the consequences of rising costs because they see them every single day in their own communities. We all can. I recently spoke about the extraordinary work being done by Simcoe Hall Settlement House in Oshawa, where Tiffany Kift shared with me the heartbreaking reality facing vulnerable families in our community. Simcoe Hall is now serving more than 3,600 people every month and has been forced to limit food bank visits to 70 households per day. Because the organization simply does not have the resources to help everyone, it is forced to turn people away every single day. Among those seeking assistance are seniors, young adults, parents and even families with two incomes who cannot afford to put food on the table. One senior, Sue, is 83 and is still working part-time to help supplement her fixed income. She told me last week that she walks down the aisle like she did in war times. It reminds her of that. She looks at the meat, checking every price, and says, “Oh, I can’t do that. No, I can’t buy that. I can’t even afford pork chops. I guess we won’t have any meat this week.” While demand for food assistance continues to grow, donations are declining at Simcoe Hall. It is down approximately 33% in financial donations, and community food drives are also bringing in only a third of what it would normally expect. When more Canadians need help while fewer Canadians can afford to give, we have a serious affordability problem, regardless of whether the Liberals are willing to acknowledge it. Honestly, I do not know how they live with themselves. This brings me back to Bill C-38. The legislation would extend the temporary suspension of federal fuel excise taxes until January 31, 2027, before restoring those taxes at half the regular rates for February and March. Conservatives obviously welcome any measure that helps Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money. That is the clear distinction. We support a measure that helps Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money, and we are proud that the persistent pressure from the Conservatives helped force the Liberal government to delay its planned fuel tax increase. However, a temporary extension is not enough. The government is effectively telling Canadians that they can have some relief today, but they should prepare to pay more again in the coming months. What exactly does the government expect to change between now and February? Will groceries suddenly become affordable? Will families in Oshawa suddenly have hundreds of extra dollars left over at the end of every month? Will small businesses no longer be struggling with the cost of keeping their doors open? Of course not, and that is precisely why Conservatives have called for more meaningful and lasting relief. Our Conservative economic action plan calls on the government to remove all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel at least until Canada Day 2027. That is not only the federal excise tax, but also the GST on fuel and the costs associated with the clean fuel regulations, all while permanently cancelling the industrial carbon tax. Together, these measures would save Canadians 25¢ per litre at the pump and provide as much as $1,000 in savings for the average family. They get to keep more money in their pockets. Obviously, we support a measure where Canadians can keep their money, not where we take it first and then give them a pittance back. Canadians should not have to depend on food banks, government rebates or temporary tax relief simply to afford the basic necessities of life. They should be able to work hard, earn a decent living and support their families. The Liberals today said that we are not in an affordability crisis. They would not admit it; there is nothing to see here. That sounds like every narcissist I have ever known gaslighting. Conservatives will continue to fight for lower taxes, more affordable fuel and food, good-paying Canadian jobs and an economy where hard-working families can get ahead. We welcome the relief contained in Bill C-38, but Canadians deserve more than another temporary Liberal half measure. They deserve meaningful, lasting relief that makes a real difference in their everyday lives. A government that refuses to admit there is an affordability crisis, as the government did today, cannot be trusted to solve it.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “Canada is officially in an affordability crisis.”

  Said 8 times by 7 members since October 8.

  Every time it was said →

“Food costs keep going up, and food bank donations in Oshawa are way down. I want the government to admit we have an affordability crisis and explain why it voted against our plan to lower food prices.”

“Madam Speaker, Thanksgiving should be a time for families to gather around a full dinner table, not worry about whether they can afford to put food on it, yet Thanksgiving dinner is projected to cost an extra 10% again this year. At Simcoe Hall Settlement House in Oshawa, food donations are just one-third of normal levels. After 11 years of the Liberals, will the government finally admit that Canada is officially in an affordability crisis, and explain why they voted against our Conservative plan, which would have lowered food costs while families in Oshawa struggle to put food on the table this Thanksgiving?”

In response to a question from Marc Dalton

“Young people in Oshawa cannot find work, buy homes, or start families. The Liberal government caused this problem over the last 11 years. They need to admit they failed before they can fix it.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is true in Oshawa as well. Young people are having a harder and harder time finding work. They want the promise that they were promised. They want to work hard, earn an income, own a home and start a family, but 11 years of failures from the Liberal government and the Prime Minister, who for the last seven years was an adviser before he became Prime Minister 19 months ago, are resulting in Canadians and young people suffering. It is about time the Liberal government admitted it, because we all know the truth. If we want to fix a problem, the first step to doing that is admitting we have one, and I have yet to see the government do that.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Buy a home and start a family.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since September 22.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Mark Gerretsen

“I was not elected yet when the House voted on the school food program, so I did not vote against it. I voted against the last budget because it drives up costs. A local group told me the school food program is not working, and no schools in my area even have it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member knows well that when that was voted on, I was not elected as a member of the House. It is so interesting that he stands here and says that I voted against it. On this, I want to be clear. I voted against the last budget because it was inflationary and was going to make things worse. They know it. We know it. Canadians need to understand that as well. The other thing is this. When I spoke with folks at Simcoe Hall about the school lunch program, they said that it sounded good in theory, but clearly it is not working because we have children who are starving. They could not even identify one school in my area that has that program.”