Debates of Feb. 5th, 2024

First Nations Clean Water Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I asked the hon. member to be brief and he took more than a minute to ask his brief question.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has 30 seconds to answer.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was an excellent brief question because it leads me to point out the importance of first nations self-governance. Funding is key, but it must be significant, recurring and predictable.

Let us talk about Quebec's water policy. Quebec made that policy a fundamental law. Based on my discussions with first nations back home, I would say that if the federal government wants to take meaningful action, it should allow first nations to be subject to the provincial legislation, which is already very progressive. If the government stopped encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, that might help Quebec protect water.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member did a great job. That was just one second over, which is not bad.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am privileged to represent Nunavut in the House. I am sorry I missed the Minister of Indigenous Services's speech as I was in committee. Our committee was concluding the study of the Métis self-government bill. I am glad I am able to at least find out what her statements were and to respond to them later.

I appreciate that before July 1, 1867, Inuit, first nations and, later, the Métis, governed these lands. Before Canada, they had laws regarding wildlife, marine and terrestrial environments, ecosystems and relationships with each other. Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands is a particularly important one to remind us of the existence of indigenous peoples before colonialism. Before colonialism, indigenous peoples protected water and the land, and they used the environment for sustenance, acknowledging the limits. Therefore, protecting and preventing future damage was at the core of being sustained by the environment, especially water.

I take this opportunity to remind Canadians that Canada’s colonial efforts to “remove the Indian from the child” remain active. There are more indigenous children in foster care than there were in residential schools. There are more indigenous people who are homeless, in overcrowded housing situations or living in substandard housing. First nations, Métis and Inuit have the largest infrastructure gap. Indeed, the NDP found that the first nations infrastructure gap is at $350 billion. The Liberal government made cuts to MMIWG funding.

Therefore, when this bill was introduced, I put on my oppressed lens and sought where it could be familiar to me. I found familiarity in asking these questions: Why, in this legislation, are human rights and treaty rights not on par with what other Canadians have as rights? Why does the bill not align with international human rights laws regarding water? Why does the bill provide only a guide regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Before I go deeper into this analysis, I want to share what is included in Bill C-61 according to the Government of Canada website. The key elements of the bill include the recognition and affirmation of the inherent right of first nations to self-government, including jurisdiction over water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on, in and under first nation lands; rights-based regulatory pathways to protect water and source water adjacent to first nation lands, in consultation and co-operation with first nations, other federal ministers, and provinces and territories, to help protect drinking water sources flowing onto first nation lands; and minimum national standards for the delivery of drinking water and waste water services on first nation lands, based on first nations choice.

Other key elements include a federal commitment to make best efforts to provide adequate and sustainable funding for water services on first nation lands comparable to services received in non-first nations communities; a requirement to provide funding that, as a minimum, meets the commitment expenditures set out in section 9.02(2) of the settlement agreement; a requirement for all decisions made under the proposed act to be guided by the principle of free, prior and informed consent; and a commitment for Canada to support the creation of a first nations water commission that would support first nations in exercising greater control over drinking water and waste water services on first nation lands.

To go back to my analysis of the continued lack of commitments toward first nations, as well as the impacts this continues to have on indigenous peoples, unfortunately, Bill C-61 falls short on respecting human and indigenous rights. According to an analysis by JFK Law:

Overall, Bill C-61 provides First Nations with a strong foundation to assert control over their water resources and jurisdiction over water occurring on First Nations land. However, the legislation fails to expressly recognize a human right to drinking water or a guarantee for substantive equality for access to water services on and off First Nations lands. Critically, the legislation fails to include provisions for effective source water protection, which is necessary to ensure First Nations have enough clean water flowing onto their lands and territories to meet their needs.

The Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations stated, “the first public draft released by Canada in February was developed in secret by Indigenous Services Canada without any direct input from First Nations, a fact that has been raised by the Assembly of First Nations and several regional First Nations organizations over the course of 2023”. Other first nations, such as those represented by treaties 6, 7 and 8 and Neskantaga said early on that they had been kept in the dark about the legislation and did not see it before it was tabled.

I note that, in addition to another bill tabled by the Liberal government, Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act on new registration requirements, Bill C-61 has been introduced on the basis of a court case. In November 2019, legal action was initiated against Canada on behalf of all members of first nations and members resident on reserves that had a drinking water advisory for at least one year since 1995. Terms of the settlement agreement were previously announced on July 30, 2021. While they have been mentioned by others in this House, I repeat that they include the following: $1.5 billion in compensation for individuals deprived of clean drinking water; the creation of a $400 million first nations economic and cultural restoration fund; a renewed commitment to Canada's action plan for the lifting of all long-term drinking water advisories; the creation of a first nations advisory committee on safe drinking water; support for first nations to develop their own safe drinking water bylaws and initiatives; a commitment of at least $6 billion to support reliable access to safe drinking water on reserves; and the planned modernization of Canada's first nations drinking water legislation.

We have heard that Bill C-61 was co-developed with first nations. While I appreciate the effort by the Minister of Indigenous Services, I know that more could have been done. The Assembly of First Nations is an important national first nations organization. However, it does not represent all first nations. There are indigenous nations in Canada that are not represented by AFN. During committee, we will need to ensure that as many first nations as wish to be heard, are heard. As parliamentarians, we must incorporate indigenous ways of working together. We must ensure that first nations people who feel ignored are afforded the opportunity to speak to this bill. In this way, we can make sure that Bill C-61 is improved and truly co-developed.

In 2018, the Assembly of First Nations held an engagement regarding safe drinking water. The concerns shared at the time included a lack of adequate, predictable and sustainable funding; a lack of recognition of indigenous rights; potential infringement of indigenous and treaty rights; a lack of protection of source water; and insufficient engagement on water issues that directly affect first nations. When Bill C-61 goes to committee, it must seek to answer all these concerns.

Bill C-61 requires scrutiny to make sure that inherent treaty rights and human rights obligations are met. As a G7 country, Canada must show that it treats the original inhabitants with the utmost respect.

We have generations of first nations that have grown up without access to tap water. They probably think it is normal to drink bottled water. We have first nations who probably think that it is normal to boil water before it is safe to drink. It is 2024, and we must ensure that first nations do not continue to think it is okay to have to do this in order to drink water.

Bill C-61 requires a lot of work. I hope that we, as parliamentarians, do this work with the lens that first nations have inherent treaty rights and human rights and that we must all do what we can to ensure that their rights are respected.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, Ontario Regional Chief Glen Hare from the Chiefs of Ontario stated, “The process of this bill is more than consultation. It reflects co-operation and true co-development, a two-way collaborative process.” Could the member comment on what he said?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, as I shared earlier, I know that the Minister of Indigenous Services has worked really hard with organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations. However, they do not represent all first nations. There are way too many first nations that were not included during this consultation process. In terms of those who were consulted, I appreciate the sentiment, but that does not extend to all first nations.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nunavut for her commitment and her speech.

I would like to ask the member a question in light of where she is from. What is the drinking water situation in her community? As I understand it, the territorial governments provide safe, clean water in communities, including first nations and Inuit communities. It is my understanding that this is basically the territory's responsibility.

Have the territories been consulted? Do they approve of the elements included in this bill? What are the needs in first nations communities?

I am wondering wether the issue of drinking water was a factor in her decision to get into politics in 2021 and her commitment to improve conditions in first nations communities.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member's question is an important one.

As an Inuk, as I said earlier, I had to really scrutinize the bill based on my experience as an indigenous person who has experienced oppressive and genocidal policies most of my life. This is why so much in the bill is familiar in terms of those kinds of oppressive policies. The reason I felt compelled to run to sit in Parliament is that this is the place where we can help make those changes. As parliamentarians, we can make sure that we are always fighting to uphold indigenous people's inherent rights. We are fighting to uphold human rights for all Canadians, including first nations, Métis and Inuit.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nunavut for the outstanding work she does on this file every day and every week.

Arguably, fresh water is our most precious resource. In Canada, we are lucky to have one of the largest reserves of fresh water anywhere in the world. Many Canadians, including me, take it for granted that, when we turn on the tap, fresh, clean drinking water comes out. However, for so many first peoples, this reality does not exist. That is a shame in a country as wealthy as Canada.

The gist of my question comes from the fact that I have sat in this House of Commons now for just over eight years, and this has, supposedly, been a very important priority for the Liberal government. However, my colleague talked about the infrastructure gap that exists and the fact that there are still boil water advisories, and it is only now that we are seeing this legislative framework come into play in debate, in the form of Bill C-61.

What would the situation be like if the Liberal government had been a little more proactive on the legislative front? If we had seen legislation like Bill C-61 introduced not in the previous Parliament, but the one before that, where might we be now and what difference might that have made for people?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I very much enjoy working with my colleague.

The reality for first nations, Métis and Inuit, as I was asked about earlier as well, has been unfair. There have been inequities, such as a lack of investments, resulting in many social issues that are beyond what we see for Canadian standards.

The indication that the Liberal government is not showing a true commitment to reconciliation can be seen in this bill. If this bill sought to have true reconciliation with indigenous peoples, it would have shown a willingness to uphold indigenous human rights, international human rights and access to water. It would have included provisions to uphold first nations treaty rights, for example, by making sure that first nations have authority for source water protection and providing an absolute guarantee that funding is sustainable and consistent, so first nations have ongoing access to safe drinking water.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member expressed some concerns with regard to people she feels were not consulted and should have had more direct input. I know the department has put a great deal of effort into reaching out. The bill will go to committee, and I would encourage the member to look at the potential for changes to the legislation and to work with others at committee.

Could the member provide her thoughts on the importance of the committee itself?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, as I said during my speech, it is very important to get the bill to committee. The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs consists of very committed MPs, who are trying to make sure that we do better for all indigenous peoples. The committee just completed a study on another bill that required members to think about how we can be united in ensuring that we respect all indigenous peoples, whether first nations, Métis or Inuit.

Getting the bill to committee will be important, as the committee can hear from all first nations and others to make sure we do better for first nations, especially in the area of safe drinking water.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again thank my colleague from Nunavut for her intervention.

Of course, first nations themselves will have to invest considerable sums of money as a result of this bill. We have found that, since 2015, the government has invested about a third or a quarter of the sums needed, so there is a cost to investing.

I wonder if my colleague can talk about the cost of not investing enough. What are the consequences for people living in communities and first nations without access to drinking water? What are the real consequences for people who do not have access to drinking water?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I thank the member for his very important question on what the costs of not getting this done will be.

I think some of the bigger costs could include Canada's being seen as not upholding international human rights laws regarding water and as not upholding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

At the community and ground level, first nations will continue to have to boil their water before they brush their teeth. They will have to continue to make sure they are given funds to buy bottled water.

We will continue to see first nations struggling to provide source water, as we have seen in Neskantaga, which is experiencing a 30-year boil advisory and may not get the resources it needs to no longer receive boil water advisories.

The Liberal government promised to make sure that boil water advisories would be eliminated, but we still have far too many, and they are causing everyday consequences for indigenous people. We suffer with the highest suicide rates. We suffer the highest rate of mental health issues. There are too many who are addicted and engaging in substance abuse.

We need to do better at ensuring that first nations, Métis and Inuit can have access to water. It is at the core of doing better for first nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to such an important piece of legislation. Earlier today, in the form of a question, I talked about important legislation that this legislature deals with, and I cited two pieces. One is the one that is up for debate right now, Bill C-61 and the issue of water; and later this afternoon we are going to be debating in third reading the issue of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. As we go through the coming days and the weeks ahead, we are going to be debating substantial pieces of legislation that will have a profound impact in all the different regions of our country. We would hope that the Conservatives in particular will look at the legislation for what it is and ultimately, whether they vote in favour of it or against it, at least allow for that debate to occur.

When I posed a specific question about Bill C-61 to the Conservative critic, he said that it was the government that sets the agenda, as he tried to pass the buck. The member is correct that we do bring forward the legislation, but we are very dependent on opposition members to work with the government in trying to get it out of second reading in order to get things to a debate. The Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is a good example of that.

As I said, I look forward to that debate, but the reason I asked the question in regard to Bill C-61 is that I would also like to see the Conservative Party take a proactive approach to seeing this substantive legislation ultimately pass. It is really important for us to recognize that there is a very limited amount of time in which we can actually debate on the floor of the House of Commons, and we would like to see that this legislation actually gets to committee.

It is important to recognize that it is codeveloped. This is something on which a great deal of consultation and work with the first nations communities was done in order to be able to have what I believe is and what the minister refers to as codeveloped legislation. It would have a very real and tangible impact in terms of water supply.

I have had, if not directly first-hand, an indirect first-hand experience in terms of dealing with the issue of water, and that is with Shoal Lake. With respect to the history of Shoal Lake and how Winnipeg ultimately came to receive the water we receive today, which is virtually untreated, that water comes from Shoal Lake. The Ojibway were protecting that water and had accessed and resourced that water for thousands of years. The City of Winnipeg is actually responsible for ensuring now that we are able to get water, and we turn to Shoal Lake. First Nation No. 40 provides us some of the best water in the world out of Shoal Lake, and at the same time, indigenous people, in particular the Ojibway and others, were at times under a water advisory.

Let us think of that: Shoal Lake provides healthy, clean water to the city of Winnipeg, but people who are living around Shoal Lake were at times under water advisories. For decades, they had attempted to get infrastructure built. I was so pleased when we as a government, a few years ago, committed to Freedom Road, making a connection that ultimately assisted a first nation community.

In terms of this legislation, the issue of reconciliation should not be lost. Never before, at least in the last many years, have we seen a prime minister who is so committed to reconciliation that it is not just words; it is tangible dollars and substantial legislation.

We can talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars and the building up of infrastructure and supporting of infrastructure development, whether it is the social infrastructure of health care, schools and education, or whether it is streets and bridges and roads. As a national government under this Prime Minister, we have had genuine, sincere, tangible investments going into the hundreds of millions of dollars, to support indigenous leaders and their communities. The leadership is there; it is very real and it is making a difference. It is making Canada a healthier nation. We are working with first nations in order to be able to achieve that.

What I like about Bill C-61, as I pointed out in the form of a question, is that for me, personally, it does a couple of things. One, it deals with one of those life ingredients, if I can put it that way, that being water, in a very tangible way, whereby it can be regulated and it can be protected going into the future. It is first nations who are going to be leading Canada on that particular file, I would suggest.

We need to support that. That is why, for the first time, we actually have legislation to deal with that. Unlike previous governments, this is a government that has literally worked in such a way that this is being said to be co-operative or co-sponsored legislation, if I can use that term.

The impact that the AFN and others, whether directly or indirectly, have had on this legislation is considerable. It would not be what it is today if that consultation, if that working together, had not occurred.

As I said in my question to the member who just spoke, there are always going to be concerns. We recognize that. That is one of the reasons I indicated, at the beginning of my comments, that we want to see this legislation ultimately be allowed to go to committee. The sooner it can go to committee, the better.

In good part, it is going to be the Conservative Party that has to work with the government and the opposition to allow this legislation to go to committee, so that we can hear from all of the different stakeholders. In particular, and I would not classify them as a stakeholder but as a partner, we want indigenous first nations to be able to provide their ongoing thoughts and, where they can, provide their support for many of the things that are incorporated in many aspects of the legislation, which are there because, in fact, they requested that they be put into the legislation.

That is the reason I think it is really important, when we take a look at the legislation as a whole, that we recognize that this is something that has, in fact, been worked on for five-plus years. What we need to do is take it to the next step.

We have heard from all opposition critics. We have heard from the minister, and we have heard the explanation. There is the opportunity, hopefully sooner as opposed to later, to actually see the debate conclude and allow the legislation to ultimately pass to the committee stage—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is time for Statements by Members.

Conservative Party of Canada

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, while we have been fighting to give Canadians more choices in the grocery aisles and fairer prices at the checkout counter, Conservatives have tried to block all of our attempts to help Canadians.

Between Jenni Byrne’s current affiliations with Loblaws and the deputy leader of the Conservative Party's past lobbying for Walmart, it is no wonder the Conservatives are ragging the puck on our competition legislation, why they went so soft on Galen Weston at committee, or why they refuse to fight for Canadian families. Their leader has been getting his marching orders from corporate CEOs.

The Leader of the Opposition will cut child care and dental care, but not grocery bills. Conservatives are not in it for Canadians, they are in it for themselves and their corporate buddies.

Marina Larouche

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am rising to pay tribute to Marina Larouche, who passed away in January at the age of 88.

This woman led a very impressive life. As the mother of nine children, she was balancing work and family well before that concept became popular. After being involved in minor hockey for many years, she worked as a city councillor for 28 years. One of the highlights of her career was heading up the Accès Bleuets campaign, which led to the construction of a four-lane divided highway through the Laurentides wildlife sanctuary. That gave us a safer, less congested highway that benefits everyone.

What is more, in 2002, she received the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal, and in 2015, the Chicoutimi-Nord arena was renamed the Marina Larouche arena in her honour.

In short, Ms. Larouche was a model woman, mother and politician.

Conservative Party of Canada

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want concrete action on making their grocery bills affordable.

While we come up with solutions, Conservative members are out cross-country skiing and dragging their feet. This is no surprise. Given that the Conservative leader's right-hand woman is affiliated with Loblaws and the Conservative Party's deputy leader used to be a lobbyist for Walmart, the Conservative leader is clearly getting his orders from big corporate CEOs.

We now know that the Conservative Party is not sincere about adopting a grocery code of conduct. That is why it opposes stronger competition laws.

The Conservative leader will cut back the services that Canadians depend on, but he will certainly not cut down their grocery bills. The Conservatives are not there for Canadians; they are there for themselves and their cronies.

When Conservative members get up on the other side of the House to shout about affordability, they remind me of chihuahuas: all bark and no bite.

Dany Laferrière

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Dany Laferrière is a master of both pen and nuance, so much so that he was honoured with the Grand Prix des Ambassadeurs francophones de France in Paris on February 1. Mr. Laferrière received this prestigious literary award for his book Petit traité sur le racisme. It is about racism, a thorny and slippery subject, but one that Laferrière handles in his own inimitable way. He deploys words intuitively, evocatively and thoughtfully, asking questions, but not dictating the answers. His novels and non-fiction writing enable us to enjoy all the charm and fun of different experiences without having to endure the attendant suffering.

I saw Dany Laferrière in Paris in October. He was staying at an artists' residence, where he doled out bon mots and a stream of laughter in his honeyed accent, dazzling those who feel deeply and seek nothing more than to be a part of the crowd.

For all of these reasons, I am honoured to share the news of this prestigious award, which is an honour for Quebec and Haiti too.

Aurora Black Community Gala

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the privilege of attending the Aurora Black Community gala to celebrate Black History Month.

This wonderful sold-out evening featured the talents and achievements of the local Black community. Our Prime Minister sent a personal message to Phiona Durrant, the indomitable president of ABC, which I had the pleasure of presenting to her.

The Hon. Jean Augustine, the force behind Black History Month was present as a guest of honour. Our Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities joined us to underscore the importance of this month.

As allies we join together in these meaningful celebrations, but we must also continue the important work alongside organizations, such as ABC, to support Black communities, combat systemic racism and ensure that every Canadian has equal opportunities to benefit from all Canada has to offer.

Our government has made significant investments to support Black communities and will continue to do so. ABC's theme this year is “forward together, forward for all”, and that is exactly what we must do: move Canada forward, together, for all.

Liberal Party of Canada

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon know the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

From his NDP-Liberal government's own 2023 northern housing report, after eight years housing starts in Yukon are down 19.3%. Housing starts are down 21.2% in Northwest Territories. Fewer than 20% of families can afford to purchase a home in Nunavut, and if someone is lucky enough to have a house in Nunavut, their mortgage payment went from $2,000 a month to $3,200 a month in just one year.

Northerners have a choice in the next election: the costly coalition NDP-Liberal government and its quadrupling of the carbon tax, its northern housing crisis, its wasteful spending, its 30-year high murder rates or our common-sense plan to axe the tax, build homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

It is time to bring it home.

Conservative Party of Canada

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians and Liberals are very much concerned about the price of groceries, a very serious issue. It is one of the reasons we brought in the Competition Act.

Let me talk about a lady by the name of Jennie Byrne. Jennie Byrne was the leadership campaign manager for the leader of the Conservative Party. Did members know that she still is the senior adviser to the leader of the Conservative Party? She is also an active adviser to Loblaws. She is the one who is telling Loblaws, which is making billions of dollars, what it should be doing.

Not to be outdone, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, and I cannot make this up, is the former advocate for Walmart. We can talk about conflict. How dare the Conservatives try to say that they are on the side of Canadians, when it comes to grocery prices? That is just not true.

Royal Canadian Legion Branch 251

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 251, proudly celebrated on January 27. I congratulate them. They make us proud, and we are honoured to count on the strength and service the legion offers to our constituents.

For 60 years, the members of branch 251, in the riding of Vimy, have nurtured the values of dedication, sacrifice and community spirit. In Laval, we are proud to attend the annual Armistice Day parade.

Because of their local initiatives, their caring treatment of veterans, the inspiration they provide to our cadet corps, and their role as stewards of our heritage, they are now and forever woven into the fabric of our community.

I thank them for encouraging the commemoration of our fallen heroes and for sharing the principles that bind us as Canadians.

Liberal Party of Canada

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, Canadians know the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Rural Canadians in particular no longer have a government that works for them. No government has failed to represent rural Canadians more than the current Liberal-NDP coalition. The Prime Minister has neglected, divided and punished rural Canadians for simply living their rural way of life.

The good news is that Canadians will have a clear choice in the next election, a choice between a costly Liberal-NDP coalition that would raise their taxes, double their housing costs and allow crime and chaos in their communities, or Conservatives who would restore hope for all Canadians. The common-sense Conservative plan is straightforward: axe the carbon tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Only Conservatives would help rural Canada and all Canadians.