Bob Zimmer

Mr. Speaker, as we can hear from my Quebec colleagues, obviously that was not a good answer to the member's question. Liberal government documents confirm that nearly 18% of the firearms being confiscated by the Liberal gun grab are .22-calibre rifles, often used to hunt gophers or to shoot pop cans. Why are Liberals wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on .22s, or “plinkers”, instead of millions of dollars on police officers to lock up violent criminals?

Mr. Speaker, that was another non-answer. Joseph Murdoch-Flowers, executive director of the Qajuqturvik Community Food Centre in Iqaluit, said this week that the centre has seen its daily meal count go from around 58,000 in 2022 to almost 91,000 last year. It has served 37,000 meals so far this year in a town of 7,500 people. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years, yet 58% of people in Nunavut live in food-insecure households. After 11 years, does the Prime Minister really think Nunavut has never had it so good?

Mr. Speaker, I know third party advertising and the involvement of foreign governments in our elections is a big problem. It reared its head back in 2015. I am sure the member remembers back in the day. This is a headline from 2017: “Controversial Leadnow active in B.C. politics, Vancouver city affairs”. We originally sort of brought the evidence forward that this was occurring. The article refers to “claims filed last week with Elections Canada—and reported this week by the Calgary Herald—that foreign money 'spawned' Leadnow and helped fund an elaborate campaign to oust the ruling Conservative Party.” I would ask the member to speak to this issue. It is a big deal, and we even see our colleague across the way from Toronto affected by shenanigans in elections. Maybe the member can just speak to what happened back in 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great work across this country on Bill C-9. Maybe there are some well-intentioned Liberals across the way, but we made these same arguments around medical assistance in dying. We said that there was going to be pressure on seniors to end their life and that MAID was going to be pushed on people who are affected by mental health issues, and that is exactly what has been happening. If Bill C-9 really becomes the law of the land, where does the member see this going? How could it actually affect pastors and preachers at Christian churches across Canada?

Madam Speaker, I just want to bring up to the member across the way that his government has been in power for the last 11 years, and the Northwest Territories should be one of the powerful cylinders in our economic engine, but it is seriously misfiring. The Northwest Territories was in a recession in six of the years since the Liberals formed government: 2016, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2024 and 2025, after job-killing Liberal policies were enacted by the previous prime minister and the current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister does not seem to be wanting to fix it either. He just turned 30% of the Northwest Territories into a park. My question for the member is this: Is the Northwest Territories in recession, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on this bill that my colleague brought to the House a while ago. My colleague from Cariboo—Prince George has been stalwart in support of first responders in the Prince George community in northeastern B.C. I know the member meets with firefighters from Prince George, as I do. We hear their stories, the first-hand accounts of firefighters who signed up to fight fires but are now dealing with overdoses. That is the vast majority of what they are doing. Sadly, some of the stuff that comes along with that response to the drug side of our community is violence against them. It is really sad. It is a shame that these people who sign up to protect us and keep us safe are having to deal with violence. Maybe I will start off by saying that most Canadians expect this House to protect our first responders. For me, there are really a couple of aspects to this that I think about. It is one thing for our first responders to be assaulted while they are trying to help us. First of all, they sign up for their entire lives. They put years into university and all that training basically to serve their fellow men by providing health care. My daughter wants to be a doctor. She is studying to do that as we speak. My to-be daughter-in-law, my son's fiancée, is studying to be a nurse in the Philippines as we speak. I know this comes out of a servant heart. They really want to help their fellow Canadians, their fellow persons. The sad part is that when they do that, when they get into serving and taking care of us, that is when violence is committed against them. The expectation of most Canadians, as I was saying before, is that it is one thing for them to be assaulted, but it is another thing for us to not do anything about it. We are in opposition, and the government is across the way. Canadians are looking at us and saying the Liberal government, the former prime minister Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister, are responsible for protecting these first responders. They had the opportunity in the last Parliament to do it, and for some reason, they sort of shoved it to the corner of the desk. I saw my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George working tirelessly, putting hours and hours into this, and our first responders sitting in the gallery waiting for this to be passed, all to just be ignored. Again, what Canadians are expecting of us, and what first responders are watching for, is what they have been asking for, what this member has been working on. They have been coming to him and saying they need help, that they need help to really deal with the gap in legislation where this violence is being allowed to continue. What is worse is that these people have sacrificed everything to serve us, and the government is looking the other way. That is just not cool on our watch. I am just going to read the preamble to the bill. People hear about different bills, and they hear the titles. This is what the preamble to Bill S-233 says: Whereas there are an increasing number of incidents involving violence against persons who provide health services and first responders; Whereas assaults on persons who provide health services and first responders have both a physical and a psychological impact; And whereas persons who provide health services and first responders, who care for and protect others, deserve to feel protected and valued by the justice system; I think the most important line in the whole bill is that last line. They deserve to feel protected and valued by the justice system. That tells me that right now it is maybe a question sometimes. They are being assaulted. They are doing their duty as a doctor, nurse, ambulance worker, police officer or firefighter, and they are being assaulted in different ways. It is mentioned in the preamble too. It is not just the physical aspect of it but the psychological aspect of that kind of assault too. Again, when that assault goes on unabated, they probably start to question whether or not they are valued by this government. Again, I applaud my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for doing this. As the member of Parliament for Tumbler Ridge, I cannot say enough about the first responders and the police officers who responded. Many of the stories of how they really stepped up and helped have not even come out yet. There is the police officer who was first on scene who lifted an injured girl off the floor and brought her to the hospital to give her care. She is alive today because that first responder acted. The story is known by most people in Tumbler Ridge, but Maya is alive today because a first responder listened to a bit of advice from her classmate Addison, who I chatted with just last week. There was, of course, all the tragedy that had happened in the school. The police came, and Addison pointed out that Maya's finger had moved. He said, “Her finger just moved.” Part of the reason Maya is still alive today is that the police officer responded, picked her up and took her to be cared for. To me, that is an amazing story, but it is a first responder's story. Here was somebody who had just signed up to be an RCMP officer in a very beautiful town, the normally peaceful town of Tumbler Ridge, and in the moment that we needed him, he stepped up. Maya is alive today because of it. I will expand on that story a bit. Many people have been watching Maya's story, how she keeps improving, on social media. She has a long way to go, but I will take the time today to send our appreciation to the nurses and doctors in British Columbia who have taken Maya under their wing and are providing her with first world service. It is just incredible. Maya is still in B.C. There have been a lot of stories saying that she was going to go elsewhere, but she is in British Columbia now. She is still recovering, more on the long-term side. I cannot say enough about the immediate service that she got from the police officers and from the nurses and doctors, both in Tumbler Ridge and then at BC Children's Hospital in Vancouver. It goes without saying that these services are here. Sometimes, that is what it is, is it not? We just expect the services to be there, and we do not always appreciate the men and women who work in those services enough. This bill is meant to recognize that service. It would be a good shot in the arm to say to responders that, even though someone may not be assaulted physically or psychologically, we would recognize what they do for us in our communities. Maybe it would be the morale boost they need. Members can imagine the issues we are seeing with some first responders. Even going back to Tumbler Ridge, the long-term effects of responding to that kind of a tragedy are profound. I have another story. Even a person involved in the funeral aspects is dealing with the trauma of the situations. I remember talking to Kaylee, one of the morticians up there. I said, “Well, I guess you are used to this.” She said, “Nobody is used to this.” It is just a tough situation all along, even for the folks who deal with this on a regular basis. I wanted to have the chance to speak today, first of all, to support my colleague and what he is trying to do. I also want to say to our men and women, whether they are a firefighter, those who work in an ambulance every day, a doctor, a nurse or an RCMP officer, and I am sure I am forgetting somebody, that whoever they are, we appreciate them and we care about them. That is what Bill S-233 is about. It is to make them feel protected and valued by the justice system, just like we do on this side of the House. My hope is that the government will decide to proceed and that we will get this bill passed as soon as we can. I thank all those who listened today and, again, I give special appreciation to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. It is a great bill.

Mr. Speaker, a headline from Business in Vancouver reads, “Councillor says $100M project denied loan over Cowichan case, bank says not a factor”. The article goes on to say, “A Richmond, B.C., councillor says a company based in the city has been refused financing for what she says is a $100 million project because of uncertainty over their site due to the Cowichan Tribes aboriginal title ruling.” We are hearing conflicting things. We hear the government say it is no big deal here and other people are saying it is no big deal there, but that is what is happening and that is the reality on the ground. Despite the empty words from the Prime Minister and the minister, to the member from Vancouver Island, what are the genuine fears you are hearing about from members in your own community on the ground?

Mr. Speaker, despite his promises, the Liberal Prime Minister is all about more costs, more carbon taxes and more of the same. He said last May, “Canadians will hold us to account by their experience at the grocery store”. Everyone knows that when fuel prices go up, food costs go up. Mike Beaulieu of The North West Company said that a jug of milk now costs two to five dollars more because of higher fuel prices. Why is fuel so expensive? It is because of high Liberal taxes, including the newly renamed carbon tax. Will the Liberals scrap all gas taxes all year, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, those empty words will not fill empty stomachs. The Liberals tell us that gas prices are up because world oil prices are at $100 a barrel. Do members know when oil was also at $100 a barrel? It was in 2014, under our Conservative government. The price at the pump then was $1.38 per litre, not $1.99 for gas or $2.29 for diesel, as it is today in Fort St. John. Will the Liberal Prime Minister stop the illusion and scrap all gas taxes all year so Canadians can afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised he would negotiate a win on trade by last summer, but from his recent video, he seems to be throwing in the towel. The Council of Forest Industries said that last year softwood tariffs had tripled, to 45%, since 2022; 15,000 forestry jobs have been lost; and since 2023, 21 more mills have closed. I ask the Prime Minister how many thousands of B.C. forestry workers need to lose their jobs before he keeps his promise to negotiate a win?

Mr. Speaker, on the Wet'suwet'en issue, many Canadians were captivated by what was happening in their territory, where a pipeline was being blocked, a project was being blocked. I met Hereditary Chief Theresa Tait-Day. She came to me and said, “Bob, 80% of us in the Wet'suwet'en really support this project.” Elected chiefs and hereditary chiefs supported it, and there was a small group of hereditary chiefs who were opposed to the project. Guess which group the minister at the time from the Liberal government was sent out to negotiate with. It was only with the people who were in opposition to the project. We talk about “in good faith”. Does the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley think the Liberals really do want to work in good faith with first nations?

Mr. Speaker, when the member was part of the NDP, we had spoken. She has not really been the strongest supporter of natural resource projects in the north, specifically Nunavut. However, we know how natural resource jobs are incredibly important to residents of Nunavut. We are seeing some of these mines develop; it is a great thing for Nunavummiut and youth. Does the member believe that adding a commissioner will actually enable more natural resource development and more jobs? Does she think it is going to be a positive for the economy of Nunavut?

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of Liberals, affordability is getting worse for northerners, despite what they tell us. I quote from their own recent nutrition north report: In the Northwest Territories, 60.7% of Inuit are food-insecure. In Nunavut, 76% of Inuit experience food insecurity. Will Liberals vote for our Conservative motion to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel, so that Canadians can save 25¢ a litre for the rest of the year, or will they keep voting for half measures?

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of all British Columbians who love to fish for salmon and who are also deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the salmon allocation policy that would decimate regular recreational fishing opportunities for coho and chinook in British Columbia. Changing this common property principle risks turning a shared public resource into an exclusive privilege, reducing access for many Canadians and undermining confidence in fisheries management. Petitioners note that it would be devastating to our tourism economy and the millions of dollars that flow into conservation efforts. Constituents are calling on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to leave the current salmon allocation policy alone and uphold the cultural rights and traditions of all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who brought up the pipeline. As it was planned initially many years ago, the cost was substantially lower. I believe the cost at the time was $4.9 billion, when the private sector was going to get that pipeline to tidewater. I just want the member to answer a simple question. I can answer it for him if he wishes. It was supposed to be $4.9 billion. It ended up costing quite a bit more than that. Does the member actually know what the final price tag was? It was closer to $30 billion or $40 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all those watching out there in Canada. I am glad to have them watching us tonight. Really, Motion M-15 is about the Liberal commitment to the 30 by 30 agenda, the ever-growing commitment, as it grows to 50 by 50, which is half of our land mass and waters in Canada. There is also the commitment to funding the groups that promote this agenda. This agenda threatens public access to large tracts of land and waterways that have previously been utilized for hunting, fishing and resource development. This motion would ensure more loss of public access. Despite the Liberals trying to give us the impression that this is about conservation, it is really about protection. For the audience out there, I asked a group just last week at UVIC what the difference is between protection and conservation. Conservation is the principle that we will conserve things so we can use them. An example would be some people I know very well, our salmon fishermen and fisherwomen, who go on weekends to clean up garbage along the river and the streams, all to promote those salmon spawning again. That is, again, conservation so it can be used. Protection is completely different. This group is proposing to support more protection, and it is really building fences around areas in the country and really preventing accessing from what used to be public land. I am going to quote the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who spoke on this earlier. He said that this debate is not simply about conservation policy. It is about who makes decisions over Canada's land, resources and economic future, whether those decisions are made here in Canada by elected representatives accountable to Canadians or whether they are increasingly shaped by international frameworks and targets negotiated outside this country's democratic institutions. I will speak first-hand because I have a couple of personal examples. It all really started around PNCIMA, which is the Pacific north coast integrated management area, where I was first exposed to MPAs, as they are called. Where it really hit home for me was the caribou closures that happened in my riding. It started with a meeting with the mayor and council in Chetwynd. They said that they were worried that, if these caribou closures really took hold, we would lose mills and we would possibly lose coal mines in the area. They were very concerned about what this closure would do to access to resources. Well, the closures came to fruition, despite community outcry and many community meetings saying this would be devastating for coal development, snowmobiling, hiking in the backwoods, skiing, etc. The government, despite all our recommendations, proceeded to go forward with this closure policy. We have since lost two mills in Chetwynd. We have lost access to snowmobiling in the Rocky Mountains, where people from Chetwynd go to recreate and people in the Peace region go to recreate. We saw this land closure do exactly as we had predicted with the loss of public access to previously accessible lands and waters. Another example is the bluffs of Pender, which are off Victoria. We met people who fish in Victoria and they have little boat businesses. This contributes about $1.3 billion to the provincial GDP. In this one really key area just outside of Victoria where people fish, the closure was proposed for the protection of the southern resident killer whales. Well, the southern resident killer whales are only in that particular area for five to seven days per year, yet they are going to close down the entire area for the entire year. These closures have not gotten smaller, even though the southern resident killer whale population and the other killer whale populations have done very well and are very healthy. The MPAs, or the marine protected areas, keep expanding all because of this 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda. I will speak to another example that just happened recently, and this is under the current Prime Minister's watch. It is a closure that is happening and has been implemented in Northwest Territories. I will just read the article, and this is an American article. Again, another highlight for us in this particular issue is that it is not just Canadians talking about these protections. It has actually had a lot of foreign influence, which has really shut down access to those public lands. The headline reads, “Pew and Partners Celebrate Unprecedented Indigenous-Led...”. It is not really indigenous-led. It was an initiative led by these other groups, and they got eventual buy-in from indigenous groups. I will read from the article again. It states: Pew and Partners Celebrate Unprecedented Indigenous-Led Initiative to Protect Northwest Territories WASHINGTON—.... The agreement, initially funded through an investment of CAD$375 million (approximately USD$270 million) in public and private financing.... The initiative will protect [not conserve] a vast area of intact forests, rugged mountain chains, and wetlands, lakes, and rivers, resulting in a significant contribution to Canada’s pledge to protect 30% of its lands and waters by 2030. Again, protection is putting a big fence around a large area of potentially resource-rich territory in the Northwest Territories. The article continues: Private donors will match the government on a 1-to-4 basis, contributing CAD$75 million over a 10-year period. Guess where that money is coming from? The article says it is coming from the Pew foundation, so the international donors, of which there are not many, include the Pew Charitable Trust. Here we have this foreign influence that really threatens access to the public not only to fish and hunt but also to mine. We know we are already struggling to have mining in Northwest Territories. The last mine is about to close at the end of 2026, and here we have another impediment to future development. I will just read this in terms of scale. When we say the scale of 30% and 50% and those kinds of things, what does that actually mean? This is a quote from an article in The Canadian Press about the size of 25 by 25 and then what 30 by 30 will mean in a tangible way. It states: To hit “25 by 25,” Canada must further protect more than 1.2 million square kilometres of land, or approximately the size of Manitoba and Saskatchewan added together [a massive amount of territory]. To get to 30 per cent is to add, on top of that, land almost equivalent in size to Alberta. It is massive. It continues: The federal government would need to protect another 638,000 square kilometres of marine territory and coastlines by 2025, or an area almost three times the size of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By 2030, another area the size of the gulf would need to be added. Therefore, here we are, influenced by foreign non-governmental environmental organizations about closing key areas that we could formerly access publicly to fish, hunt and develop our resources, all shut down by these groups. I met Crawford Patkotak. He is an Alaskan Inuit leader and he spoke to us about this very issue. Listen to his approach to these radical environmental groups: Environmental groups, animal rights groups, these are the same organizations that come into our communities and try to split us all apart, split all the corporations, the tribes, the governments because they have an agenda [it is called the “30 by 30” agenda] and if they had their agenda we wouldn’t be able to hunt today. If they had their agenda, we wouldn’t be able to develop the oil we have in the ground. That would cripple us economically. He said that they told these groups to get lost. I would say that is an example of an indigenous leader who knows exactly the benefit of having access to be able to fish, hunt and develop their resources. Therefore, Motion No. 15, while well-intentioned perhaps, would really set the stage to have a lot more closures and protections in Canada, and 30 by 30 is already causing Canadians to lose access to our beloved fishing, hunting, areas of recreation and other examples I have laid out tonight. That, I simply cannot support.

Mr. Speaker, last week a Christian family of eight was killed in Nigeria. Two weeks ago, on Palm Sunday, an attack on a mostly Christian Nigerian town left 28 dead. Since 2009, Boko Haram and others have waged a brutal campaign attacking Christians in Nigeria. Millions have been displaced, villages destroyed, churches burned and entire families murdered. Reports indicate that over 7,000 Christians were massacred in 2025 alone. Three churches on average are being destroyed every day, with over 18,000 churches destroyed since 2009. These attacks are not just political disputes; they are violent attacks against innocent people just because they are Christians. Canada must speak out and stand up for the persecuted Christians and push the international community to act. Freedom of worship and freedom of conscience are core Canadian values that we cannot ignore. To our brothers and sisters in Nigeria, we have not forgotten about them. Stay strong and keep the faith.

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of Christian groups. I am a Christian myself, and Christians across the country are concerned about this overreach, as the member just said. We have seen recent examples of government overreach as recently as four years ago, when the government invoked the Emergencies Act. I do not believe we can trust the current government with respect to restraining its authority, especially when a sitting minister says that biblical texts could possibly be implicated in this legislation. I just would ask the member a simple question. We have the Bible here in its entirety for a reason. We believe in it. Does the member believe the Bible in its entirety or the interpretation by the current minister for Canadian heritage?