Stephanie Kusie

“The Prime Minister needs to get nine European countries, including France and Poland, to approve our trade deal. Instead, he is focused on associate memberships. Approving the deal will let us sell Canadian beef and pork in Europe.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canada’s trade agreement with the EU was signed 10 years ago by the Conservatives, yet under this Liberal government, nine nations have to be ratified into the agreement, and that includes both France and Poland, two nations the Prime Minister has engaged with heavily. Why is the Prime Minister so fixated upon associate membership when he should be focusing on getting the other nine nations to ratify the agreement so we can get our Canadian beef and pork to the European market?”

In response to a question from Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

“Protecting young people is everyone's job, including parents, companies, and the government. That is the most important part of this bill. I hope the government will take on that responsibility.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is everyone’s responsibility to protect young people. I think that is probably the most important aspect of the bill. Protecting young people is up to me, as a parent, but it is also up to the government and companies. I hope the government will accept its responsibility in that regard.”

In response to a question from Ruby Sahota

“I am glad the member agrees we must hold social media companies accountable for children's safety. Parents are not sure if this government is willing to stand up to big social media companies. I take her words as an acceptance that it is the government's job to do so.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear my colleague across the aisle indicate that she believes holding social media platforms accountable for the safety of our children is important. It indicates to me that she recognizes that her role as a government member is to create this environment and enforce it with social media platforms. In this moment, I think that Canadians and parents across Canada are uncertain if the government is willing to do the difficult things and stand up to big social media regarding keeping our children safe. I will take her words and her commentary as an acceptance of the responsibility of government to hold social media companies to account.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We must protect children from online bullying and exploitation. We should hold big tech companies accountable and help parents, instead of growing the government. I want this bill sent to committee so we can check it carefully and make sure it truly keeps kids safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to rise in the House as the voice of Calgary Midnapore. I am so grateful for my citizens. Many of my citizens, including my parents, of course, and myself, are parents. When we talk about being a parent, we may have many other titles and roles in our lives. We may be a sister or a cousin. In our work, we have many roles. We may be a colleague, perhaps a subordinate or even a leader, a boss, someone who has to take the care and responsibility of others into consideration. I know that any parent, not only in Calgary Midnapore but across Canada, would agree that there is nothing more important than their role as a parent and the safety of their children. We all love our children. I cannot think of anything more dear or precious to me than my son, and I know all parents feel this way about their children. It should be known to Canadians that protecting kids online is non-negotiable for Conservatives. However, good intentions require sound mechanisms. We must be focused on holding tech giants accountable and empowering parents, not expanding government bureaucracy. As this bill moves to committee, we will scrutinize its provisions to ensure that it delivers real protection for children. As a parent, I want nothing more than that for our children and for the parents of Canada. Online harms are a real problem, and the problem is twofold. Number one, children are exposed to addictive platforms. I see this in my household, and when friends come over, all the time. There is inappropriate content, exploitation and many other harms. Secondly, parents are overwhelmed by rapidly changing technology and fighting an uphill battle against big tech. This was never more prevalent than during COVID, when all parents across the nation all of a sudden had to become IT consultants, so to speak, as they navigated schooling for their children during that difficult time. These are real problems. According to Statistics Canada, one in four children aged 12 to 17 has experienced cyber-bullying, and police reported online child sexual exploitation incidents reaching 16,905 in 2024, up 347% from 2014. Cyber-victimization is also associated with serious mental health outcomes, including suicidal ideation and attempts. Canada has experienced the devastating impacts and real-world consequences of online harms. The tragic case of Amanda Todd, who died by suicide after experiencing sextortion and cyber-bullying, illustrates the devastating impact these harms can have on young people. In addition, I have two examples from my home province of Alberta. Dated September 25, the headline on the first article states, “After 2 youths stalked on Snapchat, review your kid’s settings, police urge”. The article reads, “Police in Alberta are urging parents to check the location settings on their children’s social media and communication apps after two youth allegedly being sexually exploited in Edmonton were followed to their homes.” This is outlining the threats. “‘The victims reported that they complied out of extreme fear for their safety and the safety of their family,’” again outlining the threats. The article continues: “The suspect allegedly tracked the victim’s location via Snapchat and travelled to their family home. ALERT said they allegedly knew both the victims’ home address and what school they attended.” This is the type of threat that exists as a result of social media. That is one example from my home province of Alberta. The headline on the second article says, “Edmonton teens, 14, charged after AI used to make sexualized images of classmates”. The article states, “Two Edmonton junior high students are facing child sexual exploitation charges for allegedly using AI to generate sexualized images of classmates. Such charges are only the tip of the iceberg in an emerging area of online child sex abuse, police say, adding it remains difficult to hold AI platforms themselves accountable.” Problems for children are many, and children spend a large portion of their lives online. For today’s youth, digital platforms are not separate from everyday life. This is where they socialize, build relationships, access information, express themselves and, increasingly, interact with AI. As a result, what happens online can have profound real-world consequences, including exposure to cyber-bullying, sexual exploitation, self-harm and eating disorder content, violence, and other harmful material. Children are vulnerable to the ways that platforms are designed. Platform features, such as recommendation algorithms, push notifications, endless scrolling and autoplay can repeatedly direct youth towards content that keeps them engaged. These design choices can amplify exposure to harmful material and make it difficult for young users to disengage. At the same time, AI chatbots and digital companions are becoming increasingly integrated into the platforms used by young people, creating new and largely untested risks. In addition to problems for children, there are problems for parents. Parents cannot solve the problem alone, and they are asking for help. They can set boundaries, monitor devices and talk to children about online safety. We have done all of this in my home, but parents cannot control how platforms and algorithms recommend content, prevent strangers from contacting their children or remove harmful material at scale. Parents need technology companies and governments to share responsibility for creating a safer online environment for children. We do not ask parents to enforce car seat standards or alcohol laws by themselves, and online safety should be no different. In fact, according to an Angus Reid survey, 75% of Canadians, and 70% of parents with children in the home, support banning social media for youth under 16. I will give an example in my province of such legislation. This legislation exists not only in Alberta but also across other provinces in the federation. On June 17, 2024, it was decreed: Parents, teachers, students and our education partners were clear that the use of personal mobile devices and social media in the classroom was of concern. We’re taking a measured approach to protect students by restricting the use of personal mobile devices during instructional time to reduce distractions and bullying, maximize learning time and support student mental health. This is one province that has taken an approach to such threats and such risks, because the threats, as I said, are very much real. We need to consider also the duties of operators, because these operators have a duty to protect our children. They should require social media services and chatbot services to implement design features respecting the protection of children, as per future regulations. They should require social media services to implement age verification estimation to prevent users who are under 16 from setting up or maintaining accounts. As well, they should require regulated services that provide access to pornographic material to implement age verification or age estimation to prevent children from getting access to these platforms. These operators have a duty to act responsibly. They should require social media services and chatbots to assess and mitigate the risks associated with several categories of harmful content. As well, they have a duty to make certain that certain content is inaccessible and require social media services to take down content that sexually victimizes children. Our Conservative principles regarding online safety are clear, and as a parent and as a mother, I ask the government to consider them.”

“New trade barriers will cost our economy and 185,000 jobs. The Prime Minister promised to get a trade deal with the United States. I want to know when he will keep that promise.”

“Mr. Speaker, the PBO announced the financial impacts of the Canada-U.S. trade measures, yet unfortunately, successive barriers since 2025 will result in a 1.4% GDP net loss. To make matters worse, if those barriers remain, 185,000 Canadians will lose their jobs. The Prime Minister promised to get a deal for Canadians. When will he make good on his promise and get a deal?”

• Unsupported
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Reasoning 33 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 2 of them.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“This new bill changes this role into a minister, unlike the last version. The Liberals did this to give themselves more power to act on their own without checks and balances.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the excellent work of our defence team, in addition to our associate defence minister for procurement, who has done a fantastic job in addition to the work of our shadow minister for defence. The answer is clear. I will point out the change between Bill C-31 and Bill C-40. In Bill C-31, this position was not a minister, but was made so in Bill C-40. The reasoning is clear. The Liberals want more power for themselves. They want the ability to do things unilaterally without having the checks and balances in place. It is no surprise to me at all. The good issue that my colleague has raised is a question of control.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 41 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 23 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 Kevin Lamoureux

“Albertans want to stay in Canada, but they want more independence from Ottawa. They do not trust the Liberal government, so they want to make their own choices.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the crux of the member’s question was the example of many independent Alberta organizations. I would like to point out that while Albertans did choose to stay in a federated Canada, which is the right option, I believe, they also responded in eight out of nine other questions that they want more independence from Ottawa in terms of defining their own destiny and feeling responsibility as a province because, frankly, they cannot count on Ottawa or the Liberal government to do it for them. What is really at the root of yesterday and the member’s question is that Albertans have trust within themselves. What they do not trust is the Liberal government and more Liberal governance.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 6 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 Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“I oppose this defence bill. It turns the defence agency into an independent corporation, which removes government oversight and lets ministers avoid answering for their choices. It also lets the government hand out contracts without competition, which lets Liberals reward their friends and insiders.”

“Mr. Speaker, as it is a new session, it is always an honour to recognize that I am so pleased to stay in the House for the good people of Calgary Midnapore and speak on their behalf. I cannot commence this speech without paying recognition to the tragedy that took place at CFB Wainwright. As the mother of a teenage son, I cannot imagine the pain these families are feeling right now, and I want them to know that my thoughts, my prayers and my heart are with them. I also want them to know that Shaun, Aidan, Morgan and Hayden were not just the sons of Canada, they were also the sons of Alberta. It is very poignant that this horrific event would happen on the eve of a referendum to decide Alberta’s destiny within Canada. I am very happy to say that Albertans chose to be with Canada, because I believe that is a better destiny for us as Albertans. I also believe it shows that what happens in Alberta touches all of Canada. All those who serve know what it means to take accountability, so that is what I am going to be talking about today: the implementation of Bill C-40 and the need for responsibility and accountability. Bill C-40 would transform the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation. This is good for many reasons. It would give the organization greater authority to negotiate, to manage and to fast-track projects, which we hope would result in quicker outcomes for both our armed men and women and for Canadians. However, as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility, and Bill C-40, I am afraid, would take away some of the responsibility and some of the accountability. It would do this by creating an arm’s-length organization, by creating winners and losers and an opportunity for Liberals to reward friends and insiders, and by eliminating fiscal and procurement oversight. The first way Bill C-40 would eliminate accountability is by creating yet another arm’s-length organization. There are countless times I have been told by a minister in committee that they cannot respond to that question or they cannot answer my query because it is an arm’s-length organization. They wash their hands of it, yet all of these organizations have an impact on Canadians’ lives and all of these organizations spend the Canadian taxpayer’s dollar. They should be completely accountable, both in the committee and in the House of Commons. We have seen some of the most heinous misuse of funds in the history of the 11-year Liberal government by arm’s-length organizations. For example, the Canada Infrastructure Bank has committed $18 billion since 2017, and in 10 years, despite this high expenditure, fewer than 10% of projects have been completed. Despite that, executives were given both bonuses and salaries to the tune of $8.6 million last year. We cannot forget the green slush fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The damning 2024 Auditor General report found 90 instances where directors failed to recuse themselves for a contract total of $76 million. Out of 58 projects, 10 projects were determined to be ineligible under their own rules, totalling $59 million. Another $20 million in seed projects was approved without the required screening. It was so bad that the federal government had to disband the organization, and every single board of directors member was forced to resign. The second reason Bill C-40 leaves a wanting for accountability and responsibility is that it has pieces of legislation that would create winners and losers, which would allow Liberals to reward friends and insiders. It would expand the number of categories under which the minister could carry out a sole-source procurement. There would be 13 opportunities, in fact, with no options, no price comparisons and no comparative evaluations. It would also allow any number of future exceptions to be written into regulations, as many as they want. It would exclude the minister from the consequences of outsourcing and these can be many and can be highly impactful, from overspending and choosing projects and solutions that are out of scope, to solutions that are wrong for operational requirements. It would also allow the minister to exclude anyone without justification, without oversight and without explanation; procurement ghosting; picking winners and losers; and giving contracts to friends and insiders. We saw this no place better than in the Auditor General’s report in 2024 of McKinsey, with 10 departments being implicated and 97 professional service contracts for a total of $209 million. These rules would allow Liberals to give money to friends and insiders and they would allow the government to do what it loves to do best, and that is to play favourites. Bill C-40 would also allow the corporation to withdraw up to $1 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund, and not just once but as many times as it needed to, yet the oversight would be missing. The DIA would be under Treasury Board rules to a substantially less extent than prior to Bill C-40, Treasury Board being the body that provides the oversight for the expenditure of funds. This would mean less regulatory oversight for the spending of taxpayer dollars, something Conservatives never like to see occurring. The bill would remove the oversight of the Office of the Procurement Ombud, who audits the execution of government contracting to check for process. The procurement ombud said that he is concerned about the potential for less accountability when it comes to major defence contracts, and he has good cause for concern. In April 2024 testimony regarding the McKinsey contracting study, he stated: We are seeing consistent problems across the federal procurement landscape. If you go back even as far as a decade and further, you’ll see that many of these issues are repetitive in nature. It’s not simply one issue, but what I will say—and this is what I believe the theme for this report is—that perhaps the system has lost confidence in delivering results for the project authority. As a result, people use the system in ways that it shouldn’t be used. This is something that we are trying to avoid. In February 2024, in his testimony on ArriveCAN, the procurement ombud stated: ...the number one issue...is documentation. This is not unique to [just] these departments [that were included in this analysis and this study]. This is a struggle across the federal government. In his 2025-26 annual report, the procurement ombud stated, specific to defence procurement: Major defence procurements are high-value, high-risk, and central to Canada’s sovereignty and security [, something that is so important to Canadians at this time]. Persistent delays, fragmented accountability, and weak performance measurement carry real consequences, [as we saw this week] not only for public funds, but for operational readiness. While recent reforms demonstrate positive intent, their success will depend on clear accountability, disciplined implementation, and effective oversight throughout the [procurement processes and throughout the] lifecycle of defence contracts. In these three examples, we see the necessity for accountability. Bill C-40 would take away that accountability and that responsibility by maintaining arm’s-length organizations, putting in mechanisms to allow for winners and losers that would allow Liberals to reward their friends and insiders, and removing significant financial and procurement oversight. However, the solution is found where we begin. The procurement ombud stated, “If people aren’t accountable, it creates big gaps in the process.... You do not step away from the gap and pretend it’s not your responsibility.... When you see a gap, [you say] “I take accountability and responsibility [and I will] fill that gap.” There is no place that is more critical and more fundamental to our Canadian sovereignty and to our Canadian security than our defence procurement. The Liberals should take accountability and responsibility. Those four young men who passed away deserve that.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want to hear what my colleague thinks about how the government handles public safety and the justice system, now that he has been in the House for a year.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been a member of our Conservative team in the House for over a year now. I would love to hear his opinion on how the government is handling public safety and the justice system. I would love to hear what he thinks after a year in the House, compared to how he felt before being elected.”

“The Liberals say this bill makes Canada safer, but Calgary had four shootings in the last 10 days. Canada is not safer under this government. I want the member to explain how these Liberal laws actually keep us safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are saying that they are putting forward legislation in an attempt to make Canada safer, to be harder on criminals and to support victims of crime. However, in my own city of Calgary, in the last 10 days alone, we have had four shootings. What this is indicating to me is that Canada, under Liberal rule, is not any safer. I am really beginning to question, as I am sure many Canadians are, and I know certainly Calgarians are, if the legislation that the Liberal government has been putting forward for 10 years now is really contributing to a safer Canada. I would like to know what the member thinks about that.”

“Government spending has put Canada in a recession. Food and gas costs are up, and the debt is growing. When will the Prime Minister change his economic plan?”

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had it with the Prime Minister’s costly credit card budget. The deficit is $65.3 billion, and this year, Canadians will pay $58.7 billion on debt interest. Food inflation rose 3.8% in April, with gas prices surging 28.6% last month alone. Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession. The Prime Minister is more focused on his American stock portfolio and his friends at Brookfield than on Canadians. How many more negative quarters of growth will it take for him to change course?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Respect 72 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “more focused on his American stock portfolio and his friends at Brookfield than on Canadians”.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →