Tony Baldinelli · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26

2026-06-16

“The bill gives a blank cheque to spend $1.7 billion with no guarantees. We don't know how the rebate program will work. I want the member to tell us how it will work.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

2026-06-12

“You claim you're tough on crime, but your party's policies caused these problems. Your bail reforms made it too easy to avoid jail. Your sentencing changes let serial killers move to easier prisons. You blocked my bill to stop that. You're cleaning up your own mess.”

Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

2026-06-09

“I want dangerous criminals kept in maximum security. The previous government didn't. My bill will fix that mistake. Some say it targets one case. It doesn't; it targets the worst offenders. The other parties should support this bill.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-06-03

“I want the government to admit it's going soft on child sex crimes. The victims deserve better than this weak response.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“I want the Cabinet to cancel the CRTC's streaming tax increase. Families are struggling. We can't afford more taxes. This tax won't help Canadian culture. It will only drive away investment.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You say you want to support Canadian culture. But this big new tax will hurt the industry. It will make Canada less competitive. Companies might go film in the US instead. The tax will make it too expensive to film here and tell Canadian stories.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. Does he think that the tripling of this tax by the CRTC will not hurt the cultural industries and artists we seek to support? I worked for the provincial government back in 1996 when the Ontario government passed the Ontario film and television tax credit. Back then it was Mike Harris's government, and the industry thrived. It grew tremendously. We are putting that at risk, making the industry more uncompetitive, by tripling a tax on them, so companies will not reinvest in Canada. They will make the decision to invest in productions in the United States, not here in Canada, supporting Canadian industries, supporting Canadian artists and telling Canadian stories.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government is helping the film industry with tax credits. But more regulation and taxes from the CRTC will hurt that same industry. Companies might leave Canada. Then we lose jobs and talent.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her description of the excellence, the talent and the workforce that have been created. I had the pleasure of working for the Ontario government in 1995 when we came forward with the Ontario film and tax credit. We have generous tax credits provincially and federally, which have allowed the excellence of that industry to grow. However, does the member not think that the ruling from the CRTC, the penalizing of the revenues up to 15% and the tax that will flow because of it, lead to penalizing the industry and to the loss of jobs and expertise? It is a competitive business. Production companies are being told to go to the United States. Would we lose because of this move?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Taxation

2026-05-26

“Too many Canadians need food banks. Too many are struggling. I want us to remove some fuel taxes to help people. My party's plan is good. Liberals should pass it.”

Statements by Members

Finance

2026-04-29

“I want to complain about spending and debt. I don't like that the current government is spending a lot of money. It's too much like the old government! The new budget will make our children pay for debt instead of spending on healthcare. My local area didn't get money for a wine program or a festival.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Food Security

2026-04-24

“I want to talk about my local food bank. Food banks are having a hard time. The government is spending too much money and it's making everything cost more. I don't like the Prime Minister. He thinks he's really smart but he's wrong. He says affordability is fine but lots of people still need food banks. That's bad.”

Official Hansard

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—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗