Tony Baldinelli

“The United States has banned Canadian alcohol, so our wine industry needs federal help. The government should renew its support program for wineries, stop raising taxes on alcohol, and pass this bill so Canadians can order drinks by mail from other provinces.”

“Madam Speaker, in a time of uncertainty and new challenges from President Trump’s latest ban on Canadian wine, beer and spirits, Canada’s wine industry needs assurance that the Government of Canada is doing everything it can to support it. Sadly, the Liberals still have not renewed the vitally important wine sector support program, which is needed now more than ever. Conservatives are also calling on the government to immediately pause the federal excise tax on alcohol and to suspend the escalator tax, which continues to increase the cost for Canadian producers and consumers. The government should also quickly adopt my Conservative colleague’s Bill C-262, which would allow Canadians to purchase Canadian beer, wine and spirits from anywhere in this country through Canada Post. It simply makes common sense. If trade barriers are going to be put up abroad, we need to be tearing them down here at home. Canadian wineries and grape growers need our federal support more than ever.”

“Under current rules, murderers can ask for parole over and over. This forces victims' families to relive their pain. Conservatives proposed a bill to stop this, but the Liberals voted against it. Why are the Liberals protecting killers instead of victims' families?”

“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government’s parole regime, a murderer can ask for freedom again and again. Each hearing forces grieving families to relive the worst trauma of their lives. Paul Bernardo’s fourth chance at parole is approaching. Once again, the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy are being forced to relive this nightmare. Victims’ families and police are calling for parole reform. Conservatives proposed legislation to make it happen. The Liberals voted no. Why are the Liberals protecting repeat parole hearings for killers instead of protecting victims’ families?”

“I oppose this bill. It gives the finance minister $1.7 billion without any clear targets, rules, or promises that homes will actually get built. Nobody can even explain how the rebate program will work.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 gives the Liberal Minister of Finance a blank cheque to spend $1.7 billion with no guarantees of results, targets or accountability to build homes. In fact, the word “housing” is in this bill only twice. My hon. colleague mentioned the rebate program, the program that was signed with the Province of Ontario, yet there is no specific program put in place through regulation on how that rebate will work. That is my understanding. I have had developers call me as late as last week. They cannot find out from the Ontario government how the rebate works. When they are told by the province to go to the CRA, the CRA is telling them it does not know how this program works. Perhaps the member can tell us how this rebate program will work.”

“The Liberals caused our crime problems with their soft laws on bail and prison rules. Now they are just trying to fix the problems they made.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member speaks about the Liberal commitment to bail reform, justice reform and listening to police and constituents. Would he not agree that we are here today because of Liberal policies that are soft on crime? We are here today because of Bill C‑75, the principle of restraint and bail reform; Bill C‑5 on mandatory minimums; and Bill C‑83, the “least restrictive environment”, which allows Paul Bernardo to be in a medium-security institution. The Liberal backbench voted against my legislation, Bill C‑232, so Paul Bernardo is allowed to stay in medium security. The Liberals talk a good game, but we know, truly, who they are. Why is the member here today dictating to us about this concern when they are actually fixing the problems they created?”

“I want the House to pass my bill. It requires dangerous offenders and people convicted of multiple first-degree murders to stay in maximum-security prisons. Moving these violent criminals to lower-security prisons hurts victims and makes people less safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the chamber today to share some final thoughts on my private member’s bill, Bill C-232, before we conclude second reading debate and proceed to an eventual vote. When I first introduced this bill in the 44th Parliament as Bill C-342, I made a promise to my constituents to see what I could do to help correct a bad policy decision made by the Liberal government in 2019, when it passed C-83. Reintroducing this bill in this Parliament is evidence of my continued commitment to fulfill that promise to my constituents. If passed, Bill C-232 would require inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first-degree murder to be assigned a security classification of “maximum” and confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary. This legislation should be seen as non-partisan and a common-sense legislative response to the concerns expressed by many of our constituents. This is about doing what is right by ensuring that criminal monsters, such as Paul Bernardo, Mark Smich, Dellen Millard and Luka Magnotta, are returned to serve their sentences in a maximum-security penitentiary where they rightly belong. Earlier in this debate, my Bloc colleague expressed concerns that the bill targets only a single case. It does not, as I demonstrated by the list of notorious criminal names I have just read into this record. My Bloc colleague also expressed concerns about CSC’s judgment and that sometimes the justice system makes mistakes. I agree with this. In fact, that is the very reason why this bill is being debated today. It was a mistake by the CSC to transfer Paul Bernardo from maximum to medium security. That needs to be corrected. Downgrading the security classification of these criminal monsters is not justice. It is an injustice to victims and their loved ones. The victims in these cases had their lives stolen, and their surviving loved ones have no choice but to endure a lifetime of pain and hurt. I also wish to take a moment to address some of the things we heard and did not hear from the Liberal members taking part in this debate. Earlier in this debate, my Liberal colleagues spent a lot of time talking about rehabilitation. I would like the Liberals to clarify if they think criminal monsters like Paul Bernardo can be rehabilitated. Let us not forget that former CSC commissioner Anne Kelly, when she appeared before the public safety committee, called Paul Bernardo a “psychopath”. This bill clearly targets the worst of the worst dangerous offenders in Canada. Do the Liberals truly believe Paul Bernardo should be or deserves to be rehabilitated? Sadly, too often in this splendid place we hear why things cannot be done and why we cannot make this type of change. Instead, let us muster our political will, courage and leadership to bring about this important change. My constituent, Marcia Penner, a victims’ rights advocate and friend of Kristen French, supports this change. She said, “As someone whose life has been forever impacted by violent crime, I know firsthand that victims and their families carry the consequences of these horrific acts every day. Canadians expect the most dangerous offenders to remain in maximum-security institutions, and Bill C-232 helps restore that common-sense principle while respecting the voices of victims.” Alicia Googoo, the founder of the victims’ rights organization Our Heart on Our Sleeve, had this to say about Bill C-232. She said, “As a survivor, I understand the lasting fear and trauma that violent offenders can leave behind. I know the dangers that can exist when society fails to take the risks posed by the most dangerous offenders seriously. Bill C-232 sends a clear message that public safety matters and that the protection of Canadians must remain a priority.” I sincerely hope my colleagues across party lines will strongly consider, and reconsider, their positions and vote in favour of Bill C-232 so that this important legislative move can be brought forward for study at committee.”

“I want to know why the government voted to let judges give lower sentences for sexual crimes against children. If judges do not have to give the lowest required punishment, then it is not truly required.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was at the same meeting the member referred to, the heart-on-our-sleeve meeting with victims. I heard their gut-wrenching stories and witnessed their bravery in sharing their stories, so I wanted to ask this question: Why did the government vote against excluding child sexual offences from the safety valve? If mandatory minimum penalties can be ignored, what exactly is mandatory about them?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  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 →

“I want the government to cancel the new tax increase on streaming services. The government is making streaming services pay 15 percent of their Canadian earnings. Families cannot afford higher costs right now, and this tax will drive away investment in our cultural industries.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have available to me, I want to say how pleased I am to speak on our Conservative motion that “the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC’s streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax.” For the Canadians who are watching, the Liberal-appointed CRTC recently ordered online streaming services to pay 15% of their annual Canadian revenues to the government. That is up from the current 5%. There are three basic reasons why we are advocating for that to be rolled back and eliminated. First, it is an affordability issue. At a time when families are struggling to afford food, gas and housing, another tax hike makes no sense, particularly now. Second, it hinders investment. It does not do anything to enhance the competitive nature of our cultural industries in Canada. In fact, it will only hinder our cultural industries. It works against what we are trying to do. Earlier, when I was talking to a colleague, I said that in 1996, the Conservative government in the province of Ontario, the government of Mike Harris, introduced an Ontario film and television tax credit, which allowed the industry to grow and thrive and supported the cultural industries and artists. That is being put at risk by an increased tax burden that will only drive those investments away.”

“Many Canadians cannot afford food right now. Conservatives want to remove all federal fuel taxes for the rest of the year. I want to know when the government will do this.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister falsely claimed to Canadians that “affordability’s the best it’s [ever] been in over a decade”. We are 11 years into the Liberal government, and one in four Canadians is living in a food-insecure household. Two million Canadians are visiting a food bank each month, and over 13,000 residents in Niagara Falls need the services of our food bank, Project Share. Conservatives have a real plan to give Canadians relief from Liberal inflation by removing all federal fuel taxes for the rest of the year. On what date will these Liberals adopt 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 →

“The new budget spends too much money and doubles the deficit. The government is spending more on debt interest than on health care, leaving future generations to pay for it. The budget also leaves out my region, Niagara, including promised funding for local arts and the wine industry.”

“Mr. Speaker, Pete Townsend of The Who wrote the song Won’t Get Fooled Again, which has these lines: Meet the new boss Same as the old boss This costly credit card budget confirms that. Can members believe that the man who claims to be the smartest person in the room has doubled Justin Trudeau’s deficit? The Liberals are spending more on their servicing of the debt than they are on health care. These debt-servicing costs will be borne by our children and grandchildren, and they are going to bankers instead of being invested into the health care system to support Canadians from coast to coast. For all the Liberals’ new spending, there was no mention of Niagara, no mention of previously promised funding for the Shaw Festival, nor was there an extension of the critically important wine sector support program. The self-proclaimed new Liberal government is just more of the same. It spends more and taxes more while Canadians get less and ultimately are simply left holding the bill. Canadians deserve so much better.”

“Liberal government spending is causing high inflation and making life too expensive. Food banks across Canada and in my riding are overwhelmed because millions of people cannot afford food.”

“Mr. Speaker, this week our local food bank held a volunteer appreciation day to thank its supporters for the role they play in helping to address and solve issues of affordability within our community. Project Share has been providing emergency food and support services to residents of Niagara Falls for more than 30 years. Sadly, more than ever, food banks in Niagara and across this country are being stretched beyond their limits by an affordability crisis caused by the Liberals. The PM likes to remind himself, and anyone who will listen, that he is the smartest person in the room, yet he doubled Justin Trudeau’s deficit and only added inflationary pressures to the economic hardship Canadians face today. On March 25, the PM told Canadians, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade”, but the more the Liberals spend, the worse inflation gets and the more Canadians struggle just to get by. If it is the best in over a decade, he should tell that to the two million Canadians who visit a food bank every month and to the 13,000 residents in Niagara Falls who have to—”