Arnold Viersen

Mr. Speaker, Steve Van Raalte in my riding texted me. He is a heavy-duty mechanic who is frustrated with the price of diesel. It has been cutting into his bottom line. The Liberals are out of touch, and Canadians like Steve are out of money. There are at least two companies in Alberta that are working to develop diesel fuel out of natural gas, and this would reduce our reliance on American diesel fuel, yet because of the Liberals' lost decade, banks will not fund them, insurance companies do not insure them and there is zero support from the Liberals. Will the Liberal government adopt our Conservative action plan so Steve can finally afford diesel fuel?

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, I rose in this chamber to move a motion that would require Parliament to investigate the public health impacts of sexually explicit material on kids and adults. Thanks to the support of my colleagues, this motion passed unanimously. The following health committee study revealed what experts had been saying, that exposure to pornography is harming our youth. Exposure was increasing the risk of victimization, harming emotional and mental health, rewiring the brain and increasing support for rape culture. The number one recommendation that came out of that committee was to require porn companies to enact meaningful age verification. Today, this House will begin debate on Bill S-209, a bill that would help ensure kids are protected from exposure to sexually explicit material and predatory porn companies. I want to thank my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake and Senator Miville-Dechêne for their work on this bill. This bill passed the Senate three times. I call on my colleagues to help pass Bill S-209 once and for all. Kids deserve a childhood free from sexual exploitation.

Madam Speaker, Conservatives are winning the argument. When Stephen Harper took office as prime minister of this country, he argued that we needed to diversify our market away from the United States, so he went on a tear to sign 43 free trade agreements around the world. Now we see that the Liberal government has finally come to its senses and has started to adopt the Conservative narrative, at least, on these things. What would the member like to see done?

Mr. Speaker, the journey of this bill started back in 2015 with Motion No. 47, which came before this Parliament and was unanimously passed. That caused a health committee report that recommended exactly what the bill before us would do. It has been over a decade since that report come out. Canada was kind of a first mover back then, but efforts have kind of stalled. I wonder if the member could talk about what other countries have done in this regard.

Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-218, a bill that would repeal the coming into force of MAID for mental illness as the sole underlying cause for concern. Canada is becoming a parable. It is becoming an example of what not to do for the world. The United Kingdom recently had a discussion about introducing euthanasia or MAID to the country. It looked at Canada and said, “That is not what we want to do”, and it actually rejected it. I remember back in 2016-17 making arguments in the discussion about introducing MAID into Canada and calling it a slippery slope. I can say that I was wrong when I said it was a slippery slope. It turns out that it was a cliff. We had no idea that we were going to fall off this cliff. One-fifth of people who die in Canada die because of MAID. This is a major cause for concern. We can look to other jurisdictions that are very similar to Canada. California has demographics similar to Canada's, has similar political understandings and has a similar population, yet in the same time frame, we saw that 13,000 people in Canada used the MAID program and only 300 people used the assisted suicide program in California. Something is seriously wrong with our system. When MAID was brought into Canada, there were two criteria for it. Someone had to have a reasonably foreseeable death, something that we argued against. We said that was nebulous; we did not know what that meant. Most people's death is reasonably foreseeable. We will all die. That was one criterion for MAID, along with the fact that a condition had to be grievous and irremediable. That was then challenged in the courts. I recall that we had just passed the MAID regime through Parliament. Parliament had spoken as to what the law ought to be in Canada. Just a couple of years later, it was challenged by two people from Quebec, and it was overturned at the first level of court in Quebec. David Lametti, the justice minister at the time, refused to defend the work of Parliament. His personal opinions on MAID and the direction it should go were well known, but as the justice minister of Canada, it was his responsibility to defend what Parliament had put in place, and he refused to or was negligent and did not do that. He did not challenge the lower court decision in Quebec. Therefore, that decision stood, and that then placed an arbitrary deadline upon Parliament to come up with a solution. That is how we got the so-called track 2 MAID, and along with that came the idea, which they put in in 2026 and then extended out to 2027, that MAID for mental illness should become a thing here in Canada. There has been a committee study since then that looked at this. I tried to answer this question: Is Canada ready for MAID for mental illness? We heard over and over from people who said that if somebody is suicidal and wants to die, we cannot determine who will get better and who will not get better. There is no test for this. That is reason it was extended for one more year, because they said we had to continue to work on it. Here we are, about a year out from that, and there is still no test today. When somebody calls the suicide prevention hotline, there is no test to say that someone is going to come around, that we can put them into treatment, they will recover and have a desire to live again and we should put them into a suicide prevention program. There is no test for people to say they will send one person to the suicide prevention program and another person will be offered MAID. There is no test to say one person is going to recover and another person is not. We just do not know. The default should be that people having suicidal ideations will get better. We will give them treatment, support them and try to remove the things in their lives causing the suicidal ideation. I would point Canadians to the work by my colleague, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, and the many speeches he has given on this, saying that, if this had been the law several years ago, he would not be here today because he would have availed himself of it. Today, he is a member of Parliament and a high-functioning individual. He is laughing at that. It is a true story. I thank him for being vulnerable with us, sharing these stories over and over again, telling this story and being a champion for Bill C-218. Bill C-218 would make it so that we have suicide prevention in this country and only suicide prevention in this country. It is not for the Government of Canada to set up a program where some people get suicide prevention treatment and some people do not get suicide prevention treatment. That is not a country any of us want to live in, where we say suicide prevention is good for one person but not good for another person. We heard over and over again at committee that there is no test to determine the difference. With that, I look forward to voting on this bill. I will be voting for it. I am very hopeful this bill will pass and we will once again restore suicide prevention in this country.

Madam Speaker, before the government's summer vacation, I asked the government why it was putting trade talks with the United States in jeopardy to protect the Prime Minister's corporate friends instead of fighting modern-day slavery. The reality is that since 2021, the Canada Border Services Agency has seized only two shipments of goods that were made using forced labour: a shipment of textiles back in 2024 and a shipment of frozen seafood in 2025. Both of these shipments were subsequently released back to the companies. That is it: these two shipments suspected of slavery stopped in five years. Meanwhile, the United States' border security stopped over 7,000 shipments, valued at over $75 million, for suspected forced labour violations in just the first six months of this year. The Prime Minister and his government, including the member opposite, love to point to Bill S-211, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, as evidence of how tough Canada is. However, I would point out that this law only exists because of the hard work of former Liberal member of Parliament John McKay and Senator Miville-Dechêne, along with the support of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. In fact, the government dragged its feet for years before being forced to take action, so we had to bring in a private member's bill, Bill S-211. Then we found out last December that the government had quietly changed the directive of Bill S-211 to create an exemption not found in the original legislation, stripping reporting obligations from distributors and retailers who could be profiting from forced labour in their supply chains. Human rights advocates and anti-slavery groups are asking why. The only answer that could be is that it would benefit the Prime Minister's corporate friends. In fact, I wonder how many of these elite corporate friends were at the Prime Minister's pre-summit fundraiser last week. We also know that China has been using Canada as a transhipment hub to get its products into the United States because it knows how weak our enforcement has been and how strong the American enforcement has been when it comes to products made by forced labour. It is no wonder the United States is launching a forced labour investigation into our country. We have only stopped two shipments in the last five years. Our supply chain law is secretly watered down to benefit Liberal friends, and the Liberals have been turning a blind eye to China's use of Canada as a transhipment hub. I and many of my Conservative colleagues have been raising these concerns for years in the House, and former Liberal member of Parliament John McKay has also been urging the government to take more action to fight slavery, but we have seen no action from the government to do anything. The Prime Minister and his government ministers have insisted that Canada's measures were robust, that they were strong. Really? Then why, after years of declaring that Canada had what it needed to fight slavery in the supply chains, did the government suddenly introduce Bill C-35, an act respecting the prohibition of importing goods produced by forced labour? Perhaps, as with other issues like crime, immigration and housing, the Liberals are suddenly realizing that Conservatives have been right all along. Perhaps Canada needs to fight slavery abroad, and perhaps temporarily stopping one shipment suspected of using forced labour every two to three years is not a robust system. I do not have the time to go into the abandoned CORE office, but the government's absolute failure to tackle slavery in supply chains has put our CUSMA talks in jeopardy. Did the Prime Minister walk away from the table because the United States demanded we take real action on slavery? Did the Prime Minister walk away from the negotiations because he was not able to get supply chain exemptions to forced labour for his corporate friends? We do not know, because the Liberals will not release the deal that they rejected. What we do know is that Canadians are paying the price for the government's inaction on modern-day slavery. In my riding of Peace River—Westlock, increased software lumber tariffs are threatening entire—

Madam Speaker, I would note that there is a lot of “we will” in the response. The government has been in place for over 10 years, and I have to say that if history is any indication of trying to get forced labour out of the government, it is like pulling teeth. It is incredibly difficult. Attempts to get Bill S-211 across the line took a very long time. Then, once we had it passed, the coming into force took an eternity, never mind the office of the corps, which was a thing the government bragged a lot about, and then it took eons for it to set it all up. What assurances can this member give us that, in fact, the Liberals will take this very seriously, and will Bill C-35 be able to be implemented in the short term?

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned folks who drive Hummers, and I would just point out to him that the new Hummer is actually an EV, so he might actually be in favour of people who drive Hummers. I want to congratulate the Liberal government on implementing the Conservative agenda, albeit maybe at half speed or a dollar late and a day short. Nonetheless, this has been something that we as Conservatives have been calling for, and this is just part of a growing trend of the Liberal government adopting our agenda and promoting it. Would the member not agree that the Liberal government is, although it may be at half speed, definitely implementing the Conservative agenda?

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Liberals have been implementing the Conservative agenda, maybe at half speed, but this particular bill was definitely our idea. We are glad to see that maybe a year later after the fact, they are actually doing it. I am just wondering what other great ideas the Conservatives have had that the Liberals will be implementing soon.

Madam Speaker, Conservatives have been pointing out all day that the new Prime Minister has been implementing the Conservative agenda, at perhaps about half speed. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague has any comments about that.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member could reflect a little bit on the history of how we got to this place today and perhaps on the fact that the Liberals seem to be taking our good ideas and running with them. This particular bill would be another example of that. I am wondering if she could talk a little bit about the history of this idea of reducing the gas tax over the last couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, this has been quite a debate this evening. I know that over the last number of years, we have watched the Liberals lay burden after burden upon Canadians, particularly with the deficit spending. We now see a reversal of a whole number of these things, whether it is this idea or some of the major project announcements that we have heard. I am just wondering if the member has seen a change in the rhetoric. I am just wondering if the member is seeing a change on the ground back home.

Mr. Speaker, this feels like déjà vu. It was not that long ago that we were here debating nearly the exact same issue as we are today. Today, we have in front of us a bill. As opposition members, we get to propose ideas through opposition day motions, which are not necessarily binding upon the House or the government. Back in April, we were debating virtually the exact same thing. I would point out that the Liberals voted back in April against removing the tax on gas and diesel fuel. I reluctantly must compliment the Liberals on this bill. Another thing about this bill is that it is quite brief, which is amazing for the Liberals. Generally, the Liberals say they are doing one thing, then come out with a bill that does three to five things; some of the things we like and some of the things we do not like. They have made it very easy to support this bill. Perhaps the bill is a day late and a dollar short, but nonetheless, it is a good bill. This bill would remove the gas tax going forward past January. I think that is something that we have been calling for for a long time. This is an idea that the Conservatives put forward. What is becoming a trend in this Parliament is that we have the good ideas and the Liberal government steals those ideas, plagiarizes those ideas and implements those ideas. We will continue to do that. We will continue to propose good ideas that the government can then take and run with. I just want to talk a bit about what this means for people who live in northern Alberta. The further away from Edmonton someone lives, the more their average driving per year happens to be. The average person in Enilda, which is a couple of hours north of where I live and about three and a half hours north of Edmonton, drives probably 28,000 kilometres a year. If someone lives in Keg River, which is about three hours south of the Northwest Territories border, they are driving 38,000 kilometres a year on average. If someone lives in Edmonton, they are driving about 14,000 kilometres a year on average. If someone lives in Vancouver, they are driving about 10,000 kilometres a year. I say that to show that when people live outside major city centres, they are generally driving significantly more. This is why we have been proposing this type of legislation. This is something that would definitely help those folks. The savings may be modest, but they would impact those at the bottom much more. When they save $500 a year on fuel, that is 10 tanks of gas, essentially. For someone from Keg River or from Peace River, that neck of the woods, it could translate to approximately $500 a year in savings with these fuel reductions. I argued back in April about the fact that we are coming into harvest season, and the farmers use a lot of diesel fuel when they are bringing in their crops. That is the reality. Diesel fuel makes our economy work. Diesel fuel makes it so that the farmers can take the food off the field. It makes it so they can truck it to a terminal. It makes it so they can take it from the terminal to the processing facility. If it is flour, that flour is then trucked to a bakery, which is then baked into bread. Often, that bread is then trucked to a grocery store. Every step along the way takes diesel fuel. When the diesel fuel price is reduced just marginally, it can have a big effect because of all those steps along the way, and it makes a big difference. That is one of the cases that we have been making and we will continue to make. The other thing that we want to talk about in this session is about putting Canada first. We want to make sure that we have a government that takes care of Canadians first. Some of the ways to do this are around changing the tax structure, and we support this particular bill. However, other things are just around ensuring that Canadian industry and business have the tools and that they have a government that is ensuring that Canadian businesses are taken care of. We have seen just recently in the United States, Donald Trump has put tariffs on our Canadian honey producers. This is a major challenge, particularly for western Canada and Alberta, as 70% to 90% of our honey, depending on the year, will cross the border and go to the United States. What is very interesting about that is that we import more honey into Canada than we export into the United States. This tariff is just driving the cost of our honey up, as a 50% tariff as it crosses the border going into the United States makes it kind of unaffordable for Americans to buy our honey. We are bringing in honey from around the world, and we are bringing in more of that than we send to the United States. We could perhaps displace that foreign honey with our own honey, provided we were to protect the border a bit more. People would say, “We have free trade agreements and that would allow for the importation of honey from other parts of the world” and that is all true. The challenge that the honey producers have in Canada right now is that there is stuff called adulterated honey or fake honey. It is stuff that just says “honey” on it but actually is not honey. It is made from corn syrup, rice syrup or a different sugar product and it is made to look like honey. In the past, we discovered this was happening. We would test the product that would say “honey” on the bottle and it would turn out that there was no pollen in this product. That was a pretty easy test. We could just test for the presence of pollen. If there is no pollen in honey, it obviously was not made by a bee because bees collect pollen and they tend to accidentally drop it in the honey, generally. Based on that pollen, they can actually tell where in the world that honey came from. There was this product sitting on the shelves here in Canada that said “honey” on the bottle, and there was zero pollen in it so we knew that it was not honey. Honey producers in Canada said this was a problem, so we started to test for that. Lo and behold, pretty soon, this stuff had pollen in it. It turned out that players around the world were buying pollen from Canada, dumping that pollen into the sugar water, essentially, and shipping it back, calling it honey. I tell this entire story to say that there are mechanisms in place, things that we can do, to help our honey producers to ensure that our honey is consumed here in Canada. If we work hard on protecting our consumers from this adulterated honey, if we work to control the border around this adulterated honey, that will reduce the competition of our honey producers against stuff that is not honey. We have been calling for this for a very long time, but now it seems like there is a big opportunity to fix this problem. I am looking forward to seeing some action from the government on this topic, particularly because our honey producers are being disproportionately penalized by the 50% tariff that the United States has placed on honey. We have put a countertariff on the honey from the United States, and I anticipate that will have some effect. Instead of 80% to 90% of our product heading across the border down to the United States it will be diverted left and right across this country to other provinces. I am sure some of the honey was coming from the United States and different places. Honeybees in Canada are extremely important. Approximately one-third of our food production relies on the bees to do their pollination, so it is incredibly important that our beekeepers remain viable in this country so that we have a stable food supply.

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper, back in 2007, pursued an agenda of decoupling us from the United States because, he said, we were good friends with the United States at that time, but it was a great risk to Canada that 90% of our commerce went to the United States. He worked on signing 42 free trade agreements around the world. He worked very hard to diversify our markets for our energy, given that we are an energy superpower. We had 14 pipeline projects on the books. We had several LNG projects on the books. All of these things came to a grinding halt when the Liberals came to power over a decade ago. The Prime Minister now has kind of taken up that torch, albeit in a different fashion, but when he is willing to take our good ideas and willing to follow the mantra of Stephen Harper, we will continue to support that.

Mr. Speaker, Steve Van Raalte texted me just the other day. He is a heavy-duty mechanic. He is on the road often, driving from one job to the other. He was complaining to me about how the cost of fuel was really affecting his bottom line. He lives in a competitive environment and has to set his rate based on the other mechanics in the area. He lives kind of far from town and therefore is stuck paying this diesel price. He was saying that it was affecting his ability to make a living because he is on the road a lot with his mobile mechanic service.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member knows this, but northern Alberta produces about a quarter of Canada's honey. Alberta produces about half of Canada's honey, and northern Alberta produces about half of that, so about a quarter of Canada's honey comes from northern Alberta. I always say that my riding is the promised land. It is literally flowing with milk and honey. Particular places in the world are of concern when it comes to this adulterated honey. One of the things we could do is block the border to some of these products coming in. There is a biohazard risk with some of the mites that may come in with the product. Also, some players have been bad actors in the space. We could just say that the door is shut to those places, particularly right now.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague immensely. I was just surprised that he did not mention anything about the defence relationship that the Prime Minister seems to be pursuing with China. I was just wondering if he had any comments on that.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the 10 years that Stephen Harper was the prime minister of this country are finally looked back on as a golden age in Canada, and I know that the Liberals have been taking our good ideas and running with them. Perhaps the Prime Minister will continue that legacy of Stephen Harper of signing free trade deals around the world, moving our economy away from the United States, building pipelines to both coasts and building LNG projects so we can feed the world the energy that it needs. If the Liberal government continues to do those kinds of things, will we support those kinds of efforts?

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax happened during the election, but in this Parliament we are at a really explicit point in time where the Liberals are taking our ideas and running with them. Now, I just want to bring us back a couple of decades to where Stephen Harper started an ambitious agenda of making it so we were not so reliant on the United States. He probably started that back in 2007 or maybe prior to that. I am wondering if the member can just reflect on some of those great ideas that Stephen Harper had, and if we can push the Liberal government to pursue some of those great ideas.