Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I want to get something on the record here. The member for Winnipeg North was talking about the government creating jobs. The problem in Canada right now is that it is actually not up to the government to create jobs. It is up to the private sector to create jobs. The government's job is to create a regulatory environment that would allow the private sector to do that. This is the second bill that the government has tabled claiming to blow the doors off the Canadian economy, yet it has not done anything to substantively address the regulatory problems that are cited by industry regarding getting jobs created. Does my colleague have any thoughts on that?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a tremendous speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to him in this House. He is very factual as well. That is what I really appreciate about what he has to say. He brings so much substance to what he says in the House. We can contrast that with the fact that we are dealing with a bill today that is thicker than most phone books we find in this country now. I really cannot believe it. This is not the first bill the government has tabled to try to fix 10 years of disastrous governance over there. It already has Bill C-5. This is another admission that that bill does not work. Are we going to be back here again debating another bill to undo more bad Liberal laws from the government? Are Canadians expected to believe that it is going to get things right this time?

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. Canadians sent us here to deal with many problems affecting them personally and impacting the country as a whole. There is no doubt that what we are debating right now is a very serious issue facing our society. I first want to thank my colleague the member for Cloverdale—Langley City for her leadership in bringing forward the right to recover act, Bill C-218. She has already brought hope to so many people and approached such a difficult topic with the compassion and the urgency that it deserves. Not only has the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South seconded the bill, but along the way he has done a lot of work advocating for it. He had the courage to share his own personal story of battling years of severe depression and surviving suicide attempts. While telling his full story, which includes a challenging process of recovery, he shone a light on a struggle facing thousands of Canadians and their loved ones. To give us more perspective, here are some of the latest numbers from the federal public health website. Each year in Canada, there are 4,750 deaths by suicide and 20,000 hospitalizations caused by self-harm. There are 100,000 reported suicide attempts, along with 250,000 people who make suicide plans and 840,000 people with serious thoughts of suicide. That means every single day there are 250 Canadians who make reported suicide attempts, 700 who make suicide plans and 2,300 who have serious suicidal thoughts. Let us allow all of that to sink in for a minute. We often talk about having better awareness about mental health, but we also need to build on that by actively meeting people's needs and providing real protection for those who are vulnerable. With this bill, both of these MPs have moved us forward in that important goal. At the moment, we are in a situation where the current law would allow access to MAID for people who have a desire to die solely on the basis of their mental illness. If we think about it for a second, we can start to imagine how that creates an opening in the medical system where it becomes easier for a suicidal person to end their life. In other words, it is pretty clear that we are really talking about assisted suicide. As Canadians learn that this is happening, they are increasingly against the idea, but currently, if nothing changes, the Criminal Code would allow eligibility for assisted suicide on the basis of mental illness alone starting next spring. As disturbing as it is to think about, it is not too far in the future. However, Bill C-218 provides a simple solution. By a short amendment to the Criminal Code, it would stop the expansion of MAID for mental illness before it takes effect. Just recently, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying studied this exact issue and came to the same conclusion. Based on the consistent testimony of witnesses and experts, the committee's report officially recommended an amendment to the Criminal Code to exclude mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition for MAID. This recommendation reflects a consensus across party lines, and now that we have Bill C-218 in front of us, it just makes sense for us to proceed with it to achieve the final result we would like to see. Earlier this year, I had the chance to work with the special joint committee as it carried out the study. That happened because I ended up filling in for one of the regular members, the member for Cariboo—Prince George—Omineca, who was supposed to be on that committee but had to spend some time away to recover from surgery he had on his knee. I want to make a special mention of something here. It made perfect sense for him to participate in the study because he has been one of Canada's strongest advocates for mental health. He has worked tirelessly for years to make the 988 suicide prevention hotline a reality. After his motion passed unanimously in the House, it still took a few years before it finally launched, thanks in large part to his persistent efforts with introducing legislation, setting timelines and helping to keep up the pressure on the government to get the job done. It needed so much time and effort to accomplish, even though it was a project that already had broad support across parties. It was worth doing because we know that 988 has made a real difference and has been saving people's lives. We all support suicide prevention. We have a good idea of how important it is to be prepared so that we can respond with compassion and provide resources to people who are suicidal. On the other side of the equation, we also need to be extremely cautious of sending the wrong signals or messages, which could push a vulnerable group of people in a worse direction. We had a representative from 988 appear as a witness in this study on assisted suicide for mental illness. She provided data to us based on her team's experience: ...on frontline signals from 988, up to 7% of interactions on the service refer to MAID. Critically, among those who reference MAID, 74% endorsed thoughts of suicide in the past two days, compared with 48% among other contacts. In short, interactions with our national suicide crisis line that reference MAID are associated with substantially higher suicidal ideation. That's not a theoretical concern; it's a real, measurable, elevated risk among people who mentioned MAID to Canada's suicide prevention service. The same witness also went on to say: My recommendation is straightforward. Do not expand MAID to cases where the sole underlying condition is a mental disorder. This recommendation aligns with the position of the International Association for Suicide Prevention that the overlap between MAID requests and suicide makes distinguishing between them impossible. MAID for mental illness will undermine suicide prevention by positioning MAID as a viable alternative to treatment. This was one of the key concerns raised during the committee study. As this witness said, which was a point echoed by others, it is impossible to distinguish a desire for death inspired by mental illness from being suicidal. Dr. Sandip Singh Gandham expressed, “I worry that in some cases, we may not be responding to an autonomous, enduring request for assisted dying, but rather to the voice of the illness itself.” We also heard the story of Donna Duncan in B.C. Her daughter, Alicia, appeared as a witness and has been raising the alarm on her mother's case, which is directly related to the issue before us today. Donna was approved for and died by MAID in British Columbia in 2021, only hours after being released from a psychiatric unit and following a suicide attempt. Donna was clearly suicidal and facing a mental health crisis, and all her blood tests came back normal. She had no terminal condition. She should not have been a candidate for MAID, yet the system deemed her eligible for track 1 MAID because, under the influence of a mental disorder, she was starving herself. In this case, the existing safeguards failed despite the family's best efforts and despite Donna's own admission that she did not want to die. She just felt deprived of proper care. If a mistake was made in this case or any others, what is the remedy supposed to be? Death is irreversible. As the Duncan family found out, the only person authorized to access Donna's MAID assessment records is Donna herself, and Donna has died. Neither her family nor even the police can access the records, and neither the regulators nor the B.C Privacy Commissioner is prepared to override that. Realistically, then, how is anyone supposed to investigate whether the law was followed? There are also concerns about new conflicts with providing patient care in the relationship that therapists have with clients. Are Canadian care providers there to fight relentlessly for every last person who can be helped or are they there to process people according to their requests and wishes, even if they could eventually recover in the future from their mental illness? Dr. Jitender Sareen put his finger on this when he said, “This goes to the core psychiatric practice, which is grounded in assessing and treating hopelessness and preventing suicide.” Is the psychiatrist there to help prevent suicide or enable it? What does it do to a psychiatrist's ability to do the former if the patient knows all the time that all they have to do to have their life ended is refuse to co-operate on therapeutic help that might work? In that context, if MAID is available as an option, it becomes a factor on its own, which can undermine the effectiveness of therapy. Along with the general problem of recognizing suicidality for what it is, medical and psychiatric professionals also share deep concerns with the idea of irremediability and predicting patient outcomes while considering all the complexity of treatments for mental illnesses. Dr. Karin Neufeld testified about a middle-aged patient of hers who had been suffering from a major depressive illness since childhood. He was seeking a referral for MAID and would have qualified, but after undergoing treatment with this particular therapist, he has now recovered the will to live. We have heard about similar cases as well. Across Canada, people struggling with a mental illness are contemplating MAID not because they want to die, but because they are not getting proper support. They come from all walks of life. In this area, we heard about particular concerns related to indigenous communities and people with disabilities. Our approach to allowing assisted suicide for mental illness is something that medical professionals, psychiatrists, advocacy groups and the United Nations have called on us to rethink. Parliament has itself pushed the deadline back multiple times and our special committee has now recommended indefinitely suspending it. We should listen to Canadians and listen to the committee and finally reverse this expansion. Let us pass Bill C-218.

Mr. Speaker, when I rose in the House previously in question period, I asked the Minister of Public Safety about charges being stayed against two fentanyl traffickers who were arrested and in court in Swift Current. Police found 17.5 pounds of fentanyl in their car, and their charges were stayed. That 17.5 pounds of fentanyl is just under four million doses. Effectively, 17.5 pounds of fentanyl could kill close to four million people. That is enough fentanyl to kill just about all of the people in Alberta and Saskatchewan combined in one traffic stop. The individuals' charges were stayed, they were released on bail and now they are out in the general public. This is getting ridiculous. It is getting out of hand. Let us look at the tone the government has set over the years with its soft-on-crime approach. Let us look at Bill C-75. The “earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions” is the main theme of what Bill C-75 has meant for people like drug traffickers. Let us take a look at a few other cases in and around Saskatchewan. On April 8, another individual was found with 51 grams of fentanyl. It is not nearly as much as 17.5 pounds, but it is deadly, nonetheless. On April 16, another person was found with 282 grams of fentanyl and 556 grams of cocaine. On May 15, 227 grams of methamphetamine was found on an individual. These are deadly amounts of drugs that people have in their possession, and these people are generally released out into the public. Just yesterday, here in Ontario, an individual who was out on bail was arrested with 30 grams of cocaine and 22 grams of fentanyl, which has a street value of about $5,200. This person was out on bail for a previous drug possession and trafficking charge for a street value of $125,000. This is getting insane. These are the kinds of things that people are seeing on the streets. Canadians are getting sick and tired of seeing people who have large amounts of fentanyl, which is a deadly drug that can kill tons of people. We have all seen the headlines. People are getting so sick and tired of this. Fentanyl is getting into our high schools and many places where it should never be. We are seeing people overdosing in parks and public spaces. The drug epidemic is getting out of hand, and people are getting so sick and tired of it. When on earth is the government going to actually do something to make sure that people trafficking 17.5 pounds of fentanyl will not be allowed back out on the streets?

Mr. Speaker, the common theme we see with the Liberals is that they go easy on criminals, and then all of a sudden they introduce all these new laws that try to make up for their own undoing of previous laws that were in place and would have helped deal with a lot of this. There are other chronic issues that are at play here. Six out of 10 provinces have requested more judges appointed to the King's bench. There is a shortage, particularly in my province of Saskatchewan, which led to this individual with 17.5 pounds of fentanyl having their charges stayed. The Liberals made a commitment in the last election to hire 1,000 more police officers. We have yet to see them follow up on that at all. I do not think any new officers have been hired, let alone dealing with the people who are retiring. The borders continue to be a sore spot for drugs coming in. Basically zero containers are scanned coming into Canada, so all kinds of drugs and who knows what else are pouring into our country, and it is putting our citizens at risk and in danger. How else do we end up with 17.5 pounds of fentanyl getting on the streets down Highway 1?

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan, and to be able to do so here in the month of June. We know June is the graduation season for all of the kids in elementary school who are moving up to high school. The kids who are in high school and have the whole world in front of them are graduating and looking to either start their first job or go on to university, or whatever the next step of their life is. June is an exciting time for them. There are a lot of exciting things happening in their lives. We also know that generation of people is, for many of us here in the House of Commons, why we are here and why we do what we do. I think this is also very relevant when we talk about Bill C-16, the victims bill. I want to start with a couple of things. There is a bit of a scourge happening in society. There are many people who are victims of sexual assault and violence. It is getting out of hand. I am sure that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, whom I am going to split my time with, is going to be able to elaborate on that a bit more. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Saskatchewan, in particular, has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the country per capita, for example. We know this is a scourge on society, so I applaud the government's attempts to try to take a few steps and measures that would rein some of this in and get things under control. However, at the same time, we see with this bill that the government has put forward a measure around the inclusion of clause 63, which would essentially allow mandatory minimums to be ignored. I find that to be very egregious. Here is why. I am going to read these out. I have to google them really quickly. I typed in “man caught with child sexual exploitation and assault material” and a plethora of headlines come up. Here is one from today. This one is from 47 minutes ago. It reads, “Man Arrested in Sexual Assault Investigation”. This one is from six hours ago. It reads, “Niagara Falls man accused of breaching order to stay away from children”. This one reads, “Markham Man Arrested for Using Social Media to Sexually Lure and Extort Youth”. That is from five hours ago. This one is from one day ago. It reads, “Male Arrested Following Child Luring and Sexual Exploitation Investigation in Whitby”. It goes on and on and on. An Alberta man, for example, was recently caught with over 500,000 images of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. In Quebec, 23 men had over four million files of sexual exploitation and abuse material of children. This is disgusting. It is ridiculous. The fact is that there is now a provision that would allow somebody to escape a mandatory minimum. Let me be clear. Part of the reason why the bill came forward is that the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum for child sexual abuse and exploitation material. It is absolutely disgusting that this happened as well. When we see in the news the number of files that are out there and just how many people continue to access them, and when we see that there is the ability for a soft-on-crime approach to be taken because of this clause, it is just absolutely disgusting. If we want to try to signal to people that we actually care about victims and that we are going to prioritize the needs of victims, taking some of these very heinous crimes seriously, establishing a floor and making sure that nobody, under any circumstance, will serve below that minimum would be acceptable. In the court case that was referenced with the bill, a hypothetical case was presented. That is why the mandatory minimum I am referring to was struck down. It was completely made up. It was not a story based on any evidence. It was not even the case that should have been referenced, which was very different from what was used to determine why they should strike down the mandatory minimum. If we are going to take things seriously in this country, we need to value our citizens. We need to value people who have been victimized. Allowing people to get off easy is not how we are going to deal with this. There are many other examples of this. I pulled up examples of people who were let off. Here is another one. It reads, “Calgary man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl gets reduced sentence”. I am sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing headlines like that. We do not want to see them anymore. Establishing mandatory minimums and having them in place shows that we take these kinds of crimes very seriously. The prosecution and the judges have discretion and can use leniency. They can increase a sentence if they want to, or they can go with the minimum, but establishing those minimum sentences shows that we take these things very seriously. There are many other charges that people can get away with very easily, and I am going to highlight a few more. For example, another one says a scam victim says Canadian sentences are a joke after a fraudster got house arrest. That is another one of these issues. Seniors are being victimized over and over again. In fact, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre says between 17,000 or even 20,000 direct fraud and financial abuse reports come in regularly in Canada. Also, 7.8% of the Canadian population aged 15 and over has experienced fraud in some shape or form. We know seniors are targeted. I think it comes to about $137 million annually. Seniors are being victimized when it comes to fraud. This is the kind of thing for which a person is able to get only house arrest. In the case that I referenced, this person was sentenced to only 18 months of house arrest, but there were exceptions. They were allowed to leave the house multiple times a week to go to the gym and, after six months, the conditions required them to be home only between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. If someone who is actively defrauding people is given house arrest, that means they can continue to carry out the very crimes they were committing in the comfort of their own home. Those kinds of people should be in jail. They are preying on the people who are the most vulnerable. Going back to seniors, my wife's grandpa was a victim of fraud. He sincerely thought somebody in tech support was helping him out, but they were not. He was defrauded out of thousands of dollars. He was targeted because he is a senior, and seniors generally tend to be far more trusting and tend to believe something like that, as in that particular case. Fortunately, he was able to eventually get his money back, but this happens over and over again. When these people are caught, they are given house arrest. These are the kinds of things we are seeing, and we do not want to see them happening any longer. Let me take another look at some of the other areas where mandatory minimums would be allowed to be circumvented. There is aggravated sexual assault with a gun. It is bad enough that people accessing, selling, recording and making child sexual abuse and exploitation material would be able to avoid a mandatory minimum. Aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings are the kinds of things for which mandatory minimums would be looked over and discarded because of clause 63. If we are going to have a serious discussion about dealing with the issue of crime and the fact that so many people end up with bail instead of jail, establishing and re-establishing some basic mandatory minimums in this bill would have been great. Not including a clause that would allow mandatory minimums to be completely disregarded would have been great as well. That shows we are not taking victims' concerns seriously. I get lots of emails to my constituency office and my Hill office from people wanting a tough-on-crime approach. People want to see mandatory minimums become a thing because they set the tone. They let the criminals know we take these crimes seriously and there will be a punishment if they are caught. When they find out they can get just house arrest or a reduced sentence, they are going to keep doing what they are doing. There was a case in my home community at the local courthouse, where a person's charges were stayed for fentanyl trafficking. They had enough fentanyl in their possession to kill hundreds and thousands of people. Their charges were stayed and they were released. This is ridiculous. This is the kind of stuff people are sick and tired of seeing. They do not want clause 63, which would allow mandatory minimums to be skirted, to be included. There are some good pieces in this bill that I wish the Liberals were serious about. I wish they would deal with the good parts of the bill. If they had accepted our amendments to put even some safeguards around clause 63, it would have been helpful, but they voted against every single measure proposed by the Conservatives at committee to protect victims, which is shameful.

Madam Speaker, the member says all kinds of ridiculous things. Referring to yesterday and the language the Speaker let him use, that was a dumb question from the member. The Speaker allowed him to use that word, so I am going to use it. That was a dumb question, and this is why. If the Liberals actually truly cared about crime and if they truly cared about victims, they would not allow people to have mandatory minimums be circumvented by clause 63. That should not have been allowed to happen. At the very least, the member should have said he supported some of the safeguards we are proposing to make sure that victims would be respected and that criminals would go to jail, but that did not happen. The Liberals voted them down.

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that in my speech, I referenced the fact that there were 23 men in Quebec who were in possession of over four million files of child sexual assault and exploitation material. One of the reasons Bill C‑16 is here is that the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum for the possession and distribution of this type of material. If the Liberals were serious about restoring mandatory minimums, they would have restored that mandatory minimum to make sure that our children are protected. The last thing I want to see is those 23 men in Quebec being put back out on the street next week so that they can continue to create, distribute and monetize child sexual abuse and exploitation material. I do not want to see those kinds of people on the streets ever again. They belong in jail.

Madam Speaker, again, we are seeing so many different types of crimes becoming more and more prominent in our communities and on our streets. One that I referenced in my speech, for example, is extortion with a firearm. This is the kind of thing that a person can serve house arrest for, and the mandatory minimum can be circumvented because of this bill and clause 63. People who are terrorizing our streets should not be allowed to serve house arrest. They should not be given lenient sentences. A mandatory minimum with a high threshold would make sure that those people, and their victims, get justice.

Madam Speaker, we have heard quite a bit, and rightfully so, about the problems with all the bureaucracies that the government is creating, but one thing it has not done in 11 years is negotiate a new softwood lumber agreement with the United States. In fact, the minister's own province of British Columbia has had close to 35 sawmills close in the last five years. We were reading lots of articles about sawmills closing in Quebec. The ability to produce the goods that are needed to build homes in this country is being severely limited, yet the government has done nothing about that. Is the minister going to advocate and push to try to get the sawmills open again so that Canada can produce the things that are needed, which, by doing so, would actually bring down the cost of building homes in this country?

Mr. Speaker, I heard from several farmers and local media that test plots at Canada's only federal organic research station at Swift Current were ploughed under and receded, destroying years of valuable research. The minister will probably stand up and say, “this is just a usual organics process” and “ignore the data loss,” but really, this is the Liberals' weak attempt at responding to the massive push-back from farmers and industry. The Liberal agriculture minister said that shutting federal research centres was worthwhile, but organic farming in Canada is an $11-billion industry and growing. Does the minister really want his legacy to be destroying organic research in Canada?

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. I rise today to talk about the opposition motion that we have put forward, but before I do, I just want to take a few moments here to offer our sincere condolences to the families in Pelican Narrows who were impacted by a shooting that happened up there yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are with the community and the family of the victim up there. I wanted to start off by acknowledging that. What are we doing here today? We are talking about a recession. The Prime Minister himself, in an interview with the BBC when he was over in England, said “the technical definition of a technical recession is...two [straight] quarters of flat or negative [GDP] growth”. That is it. It is pretty simple. What do we have here in Canada? Let us take a look. Real GDP fell 0.1% in Q1, and the quarter before that, it fell roughly 1%. Based on the Prime Minister's own words, that meets the definition of a technical recession, so that is what we have. The Prime Minister has been in power for a little over a year. He is supposed to be the grandmaster economist who is going to save Canada. He was bold enough to stand at the microphones and say that the United States was on track for a recession, but Canada was not. There might be some impact from what is happening in the States, but it was headed for a recession, and we were not. That is what he said. That was right around the time of the last election, so that was one of the first things he was trying to sell to Canadians. Okay, so let us look at his track record. When he was over in England, he said that Brexit was going to cause a massive recession. Well, he was wrong. I just talked about what he said about the United States. He was wrong. He said Canada was not going to enter a recession. Guess what. He was wrong, because here we are right now. The Prime Minister's very own definition has been met: two straight quarters of negative or flat growth.

Madam Speaker, I am just quoting the Prime Minister. I know it is hard for the member to actually grasp his own leader's words, but that is what his own leader said. I am only quoting his own leader. If he does not like it, he can take it up with the Prime Minister. Let us talk a bit more about some of the signs and the markers we have been seeing when we talk to Canadians. We have been telling the government for a couple of years now that the pressures on households are getting to be very tight. What we saw in quarter one was that over 37,000 Canadians filed for insolvency, just in Q1. That is the highest it has been since 2009, when there was an actual global recession and the housing market crashed around the globe. It has not been that high since then. That is what we have been seeing. Let us look at household debt. Canadian household debt is 103% of GDP. Canadian non‑mortgage debt is $43,300, up from $40,200 two years ago, which was already a crazy high number. Now, when we look at the snapshot for just homeowners, non-mortgage debt is $82,400, up 19% in two years. Canadians are feeling the pressure and are putting more on their credit cards. It would appear that they are following what the government has been doing. What has the government done? The government has been living off the credit card that the taxpayers basically provide it. Every single announcement the government makes is borrowed money. The government has been running on constant deficits for a very long time. We saw a bit of a recent influx in government revenues because oil prices have gone a bit higher and the government actually benefited from that. What did the Liberals do? They spent it. They blew it. The deficit for this year alone is almost $80 billion. Let us take a look at what the national debt looks like. Canada is over $1.3 trillion in debt. That number is massively rising every single day. What is the Bank of Canada telling us? Well, there is 523 billion dollars' worth of debt that has to be refinanced. That was refinanced when the former prime minister said, “Interest rates are at [all‑time] lows, Glen”: 1%. It is now being recalled at 3%, so the share for every Canadian, just on that number alone, is going from $1,500 to $1,900 because of that jump from 1% to 3%. That is going to have a massive impact, and that is just in the short term. There is longer‑term interest that is going to be up for renewal as the years go on, and those rates are going to be higher and higher. We have a continually snowballing and cascading effect that is going to rock Canadian households. Let us take another look at what is happening in the business world. Business capital investment fell 0.7% in quarter one, which was the fifth straight quarter that business investment in Canada has fallen. This comes after a 10-year run with the Liberal government when foreign direct investment of over $1 trillion left Canada. For every dollar that came in, two dollars left. That is what we are seeing here. That is the by-product of what is happening today. When we look at some of the other statistics from the Bank of Canada and a few others, they mention that government spending was down 2.5% and that is what caused a bit of a drop in GDP. The fact that it is government spending that is also driving that shows the government is the one trying to artificially prop up the economy. The private sector is struggling. We are not seeing massive private sector investment. There are a couple projects here and there, but we are just not seeing the large-scale investment that is required. Let us look at what the Liberals wanted to do. Coming out of the election, they said they wanted to build at speeds not yet seen. What did they propose to the House? It was Bill C-5. They said they needed Bill C-5 because that was going to allow them to do what? It was to override their own bad laws they had put in place, because they recognized that was the problem. They said they needed Bill C-5 so they could circumvent their own laws that they had created. We said it would be better if they just scrapped the bad laws but that we would play ball and help them out, so we worked with the government to pass Bill C-5. We put some safeguards in there to make sure the Prime Minister was not greasing the palms of his buddies at Brookfield, and we helped them pass Bill C-5. Then they put projects on the list. There are a couple of LNG projects on there. They have been on that list now for well over 250 days. We are closing in on almost a year with some of these projects listed, and there has been no movement. Nothing is happening. Germany came here and said it wanted our LNG, and the government said, “Sure, this time we'll work with you to make sure you get some LNG.” When did it say we would deliver the LNG to Germany? It was sometime in the 2030s. There is no fixed date because the government does not actually know. What did Germany do? When the former prime minister said there was no business case, Germany went home and built an import terminal in 194 days. That is a shorter amount of time than the projects have been on the Major Projects Office list with nothing being done. What have Conservatives done? Well, we proposed the Canadian sovereignty act because we wanted to help the government get out of its own way. We proposed that in the same way we are doing here today, with an opposition day motion, to give the government a template to kind of get the ball rolling, to help it advance the football down the field, per se. The Liberals voted against it. They had an opportunity to implement another one of our great plans, and they voted no. They took our advice and scrapped the consumer carbon tax. Now they are saying this is one of the greatest cost-saving moves they have ever made, and that is because Conservatives were right. It was Conservatives who put the pressure on them to do it, and eventually they relented. Maybe if they would implement the Canadian sovereignty act, which would repeal the bad laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that would get them on the right track and get them going, because Bill C-5 was supposed to be the mechanism to help them circumvent those laws. If they would implement the Canadian sovereignty act, it would get them going in the right direction. It would also get rid of the industrial carbon tax, which we know is putting massive downward pressure on investment in Canada because nowhere else around the world wants the same type of pricing mechanism that the government is going to enforce on Canadian industry. It is going to be devastating to Canadians. The Liberals should look at what Conservatives are proposing. We have had some great ideas that would help them and that probably would have helped them avoid entering this recession, which has been made by the Liberal government. If they want to work with us, we have great ideas. They have said no to many of them, and now they have to pay for that, which means Canadians have to pay for it because the government has no money. It is only because Canadians pay taxes and the government prints money against the future of Canadians that it acquires any money. At this point in time, if it wants to get the economy rolling, the government could take some of our great ideas that we have proposed, and that would actually help it avoid this recession.

Madam Speaker, that is a bit of a ridiculous question coming from that member, who spent 26 years in a provincial government and destroyed Saskatchewan. That is his track record: destroyed it. Again, he takes issue with what I said, but guess what. I was quoting the Prime Minister. If he takes issue with what I was saying, I was quoting the Prime Minister. He should talk to his boss if he does not like what I was saying, because that is who I got it from. If he wants to know what our plan is, he should just go back and look at the blues. We have it right on record. We debated it in this very House, and this member is saying he has never seen our plan. He needs to wake up and pay attention.

Yes, Madam Speaker, let us not forget about the Snowbirds. When the Snowbirds were grounded, the Secretary of State for Rural Development said it was a very, very joyous and happy day. When the Snowbirds were cancelled, that is what he said. Yes, let us take a look at some of the benefits to Saskatchewan. The Secretary of State represents the part of our province that should benefit the most because there are a lot of great resources in the north that could be developed. The industrial carbon tax is going to hammer those projects in his riding, so it is shameful that he continues to prop up that policy. He is clearly not on Saskatchewan's side. Only Conservative members are truly on Saskatchewan's side.

Madam Speaker, let us talk a little about some energy policy. It is important. I think the member would agree with me that it is actually up to the provinces to decide what path they are going to go on. I know Quebec has done a lot with hydroelectric, and it views hydrogen, for example, as a plan to go forward. In Saskatchewan, we have a lot of natural gas. There is a lot of oil extraction that goes on. That is a provincial resource. It is up to the provincial government to deal with that. The federal government, the Liberal government, has been taking a top-down approach that is forcing provinces to take one path or a different path but not the path that the provinces themselves actually want to choose. Resource extraction is up to the provinces and should be left to the provinces, and the feds should just get out of the way.

Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a Liberal government that is completely out of ideas. Here is why. We let the Liberals have Bill C‑5 because they said it was the thing they needed to get business investment and get things built at speeds we have never seen before in this country. We worked with them to pass it because we agree that Canada needs to get building and start getting things done, yet not a single project from the Major Projects Office has been approved and advanced to any next stage. The Liberals then turned around and said that is not working. What else can they try? They decided to try a sovereign wealth fund, but they do not have any money to put into it, so they are going to borrow against it. They are going to use debt to finance it. It is going to cost Canadians $750 million a year just in debt service charges for their so-called sovereign wealth fund. It is going to be a debt fund. On top of that, they figured out that that is not going to work either, so now they are going to have consultations to figure out how to speed things up. The government is clueless. It has no idea. Why does it not pass the sovereignty act that the Conservatives proposed to get projects built?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that there is so much growth in Canada, so let us take a look at the growth that I am seeing. I am seeing growth in inflation, which was up 0.5% in April, and growth in unemployment in April. Food bank usage is up massively. We are also seeing that business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, which was the fifth consecutive quarter in which business capital investment in Canada dropped. I am wondering what my colleague thinks about that and if he has any ideas about how to get the government back in line.

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Rural Development, the only Liberal MP in Saskatchewan, called the grounding of the Snowbirds and the potential loss of 80 jobs a very, very joyous and happy event. Given his track record for 26 years as an MLA, including eight as a cabinet minister for the NDP, this is not surprising. He destroyed our province for a generation, and he is living up to that record so far in his first term in Ottawa. The Snowbirds are a Canadian icon, so why are the Liberals not keeping their promise and keeping this national symbol?

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that question. It is a little absurd for the Liberals to come in here today and say that repealing the clean fuel standard would just benefit the rich and that the people at the bottom of the income scale would benefit the least from it. I remember not very long ago putting $20 into my gas tank and it used to get me through a week. This is when I was working prior to getting married, when I was dating my wife. Being able to put $20 in my vehicle meant a lot, because it was able to get me a long ways. Now $20 gets us nowhere. Being able to put $20 in their gas tank feels like a luxury for a lot of people right now. For a lot of people, that is a necessity, not a luxury. Would the member agree that people at the bottom end of the income scale actually stand to benefit the most, because when they only have $20 to put in their gas tank, it will actually get them somewhere?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for providing a very common-sense approach to deal with the cost of living crisis. The Liberals keep saying that one of the reasons they cannot axe this tax is that it will disproportionately benefit the rich, and that the people who have a low income will not benefit nearly as much from axing the taxes we are talking about in this motion today. I am wondering if the leader could explain to the Liberal Party how axing these taxes would actually benefit low-income earners and do well for them with respect to the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, May is MS Awareness Month, and Canada has some of the highest rates of MS in the world, with 12 people diagnosed every single day in Canada. This year focuses on the invisible symptoms of MS, which often lead to misunderstandings and barriers. For people who are living with MS, such as my wife Kyla, a lot of this has to do with severe fatigue. This is connected with sensory issues, chronic pain such as the MS hug, and mental or emotional symptoms. This all goes hand in hand with MS being unpredictable and inconsistent. As an episodic disability, it has a range of symptoms that fluctuate, with relapses and flare-ups. Despite these special challenges, the MS community continues to move forward. This month brings an important opportunity to raise awareness and show support for an important cause, with the May 50K fundraiser. Members can find more information on the MS Canada website. I also want to highlight MS Canada's call for the disability tax credit to be modernized, including updates for the eligibility criteria to better reflect episodic illnesses. Not all disabilities are visible, and just because we cannot see them, they are no less worthy of our support.

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions, the Prime Minister is just another Liberal with more taxes, more costs, more debt and more crime. Crime is a major problem everywhere. Mayors and citizens are raising the alarm because almost every RCMP detachment back home and across Saskatchewan is operating at a shortage. Last year, these Liberals promised to hire 1,000 new police officers, yet we see no plan and no new officers to fill the shortages. With the same old Liberals in power, how could Canadians trust them when all they do is break their promises?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this really simple for the government. They are running a $66‑billion deficit this year. That means there is no extra wealth or surplus to put into a fund to be able to invest in anything. What they are doing is the equivalent of taking a credit card and then using the credit card to buy into, for example, a child's registered education savings plan or something to that effect. It is taking on more debt to put money away. Could my colleague explain a little further why their terrible finance record is making this impossible to actually work properly?

Mr. Speaker, building on the point that my colleague was making, over the last couple of years, Maritime Launch Services lobbied the government 158 times, and most of that was in 2025, right before it got the $200-million payout. If we look at some of the stock activity going on, it was valued at five cents and it jumped to over 60¢. If we look at the incredible value that people who knew what was happening would have gotten because of that, we can clearly see the conflicts and the shenanigans that are going on here behind the scenes. I am wondering what my colleague thinks about that.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. Spring is finally on the horizon. We have been battling a bit of winter wanting to stick around. Of course, until the May long weekend comes and goes, we are never fully out of it, but I know the farmers are feeling the itch, and they are ready to get going and get the spring planting in place so they can start growing the crops for the 2026 season. I want to take a few moments to discuss the follow-up to the question I asked the Minister of Natural Resources about any future pipeline developments here in Canada. The last pipeline that was built is now running at almost 100% capacity, and people in the oil and gas industry are wondering and waiting to know when the next export pipeline is going to be built in Canada. Now, the government has taken the step of signing an MOU with the Province of Alberta, suggesting the Liberals are going to try to iron out the details of how they will build another pipeline, possibly, maybe. We are still waiting to find out what is going to happen with that. The MOU was signed a while ago. We have not heard of any recent developments, so we know it is going to be another substantive amount of time before we will see any movement on that. I want to talk about how the House of Commons has actually been working together. Conservatives worked collaboratively with the government to pass Bill C-5. Bill C-5 was a bill that the Prime Minister said was needed to develop and build things at a speed not seen in a generation, those were his words, and so Conservatives thought we would play ball. We want to see major projects get built, and we want to see that happen in a timely manner. We agree. We did not think Bill C-5 went far enough, because it did not actually repeal any of the regulations that have crippled resource development in Canada for the last 10 years or longer. What it did do was attempt to give the government the ability to circumvent a lot of those regulations to try to get projects done. It is kind of a weird way of the government admitting that it was wrong for the last 10 years. The Liberals do not want to fully admit it just yet, but they want to give themselves a workaround anyway. When I look at the Major Projects Office list, I notice there are a lot of projects on the list, but most of those projects already had a final business decision made. Their investment was already finalized and sourced, it was in there, and they already had prior approvals. The government just dumped a bunch of projects in there to make it look like it was doing something. I will note that several of these projects, including the one I asked the minister about before, are still sitting with the status of “referred to MPO”. Not a single project on the list says it has been advanced to the next stage. They are all just sitting there, referred and still waiting. I want to read a quote from Frances Donald of the Royal Bank of Canada: “This is an entire sector that has repeatedly been pushed into a position where it could not grow”. The article continues: Donald said industries—including oil and gas—need consistency for an extended period to be confident enough to invest. “It is not one person, but it is a change of culture within a country.... We cannot expect that to come in one year with one policy or one pipeline.” ...“Everybody wants to hear there’s one thing we can do that could change the story...But that’s not a holistic way to expect business confidence to shift after over a decade of having moved the pendulum in the (other) direction.” Here is another quote, from Cenovus Energy: “It will be difficult for the industry to grow production without 'fundamental' changes to government policies and regulations”. With these kinds of quotes from the biggest bank in Canada and one of the biggest oil and energy producers in Canada, we have not seen any movement from the government to recognize that its policies and regulations are getting in the way. The Major Projects Office is not actually advancing projects at a rate that the Liberals said it would. When is the government finally going to admit that it was wrong and pass the sovereignty act that the Conservative Party put forward so we can work collaboratively to get rid of the regulations that are hampering our industry?

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points on that. What the member failed to mention is that there are no brand new projects at the Major Projects Office. Like I said, these are all projects that were already in existence and were already well advanced in the process of trying to get to the point where they would be starting to build the projects. It is not like they are new projects. The Liberals just want to take credit for work that they never did. When it comes to the 34% increase in oil production, that is riding the coattails of all the work that happened during the years under the Harper government. There were no less than 16 major pipelines that were built or approved in those time frames, and there were many other smaller projects that were built. When I go on the Government of Saskatchewan website and look at the well activity over the last number of years, for years now, there has only been a small handful of drilling rigs out in the field trying to drill new wells. Because of the crippling regulations the government has put on those industries, the breadwinner of the entire economy is not able to actually do the things that it does best, and the government is solely responsible for that.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked in his speech about needing new laws and new rules. We have already had good questions from many of my colleagues, who have spoken about how representatives of the biggest police forces in this country have already said they do not need more laws and rules to have to try to enforce. What they need is that when somebody is to be prosecuted, charges would be pressed and placed on these folks. Police officers do not need another tool like this. I want to hear from the member here today whether, if this bill becomes law, he can guarantee that there will no longer be shootings at synagogues, shootings at Jewish schools and shootings at hospitals. There have been over 120 churches burned in the last five years. Can he guarantee that will all end? Can the member commit that all these crazy crimes, which have all been committed because of the lack of interest by the current government to do something, will end once this bill passes?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague another question. The largest public sector union, PSAC, has come out and said that it wants this bill not just amended but scrapped entirely. It does not support anything inside this bill. I am wondering if the member has met with PSAC and whether he is willing to take its concerns or if he would tell PSAC that it is wrong and that this bill needs to be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member from the Green Party is opposed to the government's bill. We know that our faith-based communities are at the heart of what it means to be Canadian. In a lot of our small towns in particular, the faith-based groups and churches make sure that many events and community-led initiatives go ahead. They raise the funds, and they provide the volunteers and buildings to hold and host a whole variety of things, whether faith-based or not, in their own buildings. The government dislikes faith-based communities because of these kind of things; they are able to do things that the government is not able to do, such as take care of and look after Canadians. The government has previously tried to remove charitable status from religious groups. I am wondering if the member shares any concerns with the overall tone that the government has against religious communities.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. Before I begin though, I just want to give a quick shout-out to my daughter's U13 girls' hockey team. The Colts had a great series against the girls from the Big River First Nation Rangers. My daughter's team was victorious this time, two games to one. I want to commend all the parents and all the fans who came down from Big River for game three on Sunday as well. It is a very long trek from there, so I do appreciate them putting the effort to come on in and support their team. It is a great team. We look forward to a series against Moose Jaw, just down the highway, to find out who are the consolation bracket winners of the U13 girls' hockey league in Saskatchewan. We are not playing for the championship, but it does not matter. There are games to be played, and we hope they win. Today, we are debating yet another Liberal censorship bill, Bill C-9. Sadly, this is not the first time we have had to fight against censorship from government overreach by these Liberals. Considering that this new threat of censorship is directed against religious groups, it means we are getting to something that deeply affects people's lives. We need to be clear about what we have in mind if there are going to be changes to the law removing protection for people's views of religion or spirituality. Faith shapes the world view and conscience of both individuals and communities that seek to live their lives accordingly. In this way, faith is more than an accessory or disposable part of people's lives. Too often, that is how some people who might be non-religious and do not have personal experience in this area try to reduce it down. There is a lot more involved than outward participation in social activities, cultural practices or celebrating holidays. For the believer, faith is an essential part of living their life publicly and privately, and it is a matter of personal integrity. This seems to be what the government is trampling over. It is bringing in a censorship bill, and while doing so, it is shutting down our debate to rush it through. Even though the government is trying to silence Canadians and stop debate, I am honoured to be able to speak to Bill C-9 and bring a voice to the many people who have reached out to my office to express their deep concerns and frustrations with the Liberal government and its continued efforts to divide the Canadian public and achieve its political goal, which is ultimately to rule over every group and institution of this vast country. I would like to go back to the foundations of this very country. Sir Samuel Tilley, who was one of the founding fathers of the Confederation, was reading his Bible back in 1864. He was reading from Psalm 72, which is known for verse 8, which states, “May he rule from sea to sea, [and] the river to the ends of the earth.” This passage, of course, is the inspiration for the inscription on the Peace Tower, which says, “He shall have dominion...from sea to sea.” This is not written about the Prime Minister having dominion as much as he would like it to be. No, it is about King David who wrote it about his son Solomon, who was the incoming king, but it is widely regarded as being written about God's kingdom on earth. This is about recognizing that God has dominion over Canada. It is God who blesses this country. It is God who appoints rulers and leaders, and yes, even Liberal ones. If we uphold this idea, we will realize that this means there is a higher source of truth and goodness standing above human governments that frequently go astray. Otherwise, we are left alone to suffer under those who are powerful on earth, trying to abuse their power to control, exploit and impose their agenda on vulnerable people. Psalm 72 ends with verses 18 and 19, which say: Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who alone does wondrous things. Blessed be his glorious name forever; may his glory fill the whole earth. Amen and Amen. The prayers of David, son of Jesse are ended. When Canada created its own coat of arms in 1921, there are Latin words that are inscribed on the bottom of it. I am not going to try to cite them because I will say it very wrong. I do not want to do that. Those Latin words mean dominion from sea to sea, which is a tip of the cap to Psalm 72 once again. Along with our motto, government documents officially refer to our country as the dominion of Canada, making a clear connection with the original verse from scripture, but the Liberals started to neglect this title. Eventually, the first Trudeau made a point of erasing it after changing the Constitution. The founders and builders of Canada recognized that our nation would be built on biblical values and that God would be the cornerstone of our nation. John Diefenbaker, the great former prime minister from Saskatchewan, famously said: I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I [think is] wrong, free to choose those who [shall] govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind. He made that statement, and he passed the Canadian Bill of Rights long before the charter came along. He clearly understood the close relationship between freedom and faith, which helps us understand that God is the source of our human dignity and rights. It is because of that that we know there are moral absolutes and we have learned how to clearly choose right from wrong. Even people who are not from a faith background recognize that respecting human rights does not depend on human opinions or the views of dictators and tyrants. Following Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson's preferred flag for Canada had two blue bars on either side of the red maple leaf. These blue bars also represented from sea to sea, which would have been a public display and recognition, once again, that God has dominion from sea to sea. Even though the sidebars are red, I would argue that it still stands for the dominion of God from sea to sea over Canada. The charter that the Liberals love to pretend to support begins: Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Do colleagues know who worked to create that document and whose signature is down at the bottom? It was none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau, yet with the way things are going today, he probably would not be Liberal enough for the current government, which has somehow become even more radical than the government was back then. Since the Liberal government has been in power, it has done everything to erase and eliminate its founding principles. Colleagues who do not agree with me should just look at its track record. One of the more famous anti-Christian policies that was put in place was for organizations to affirm the radical left Liberal viewpoint with the Canada summer job attestation. It was a values test, and it was an attack on many summer camps, food banks and other community organizations because they might happen to have a different moral value set than the Liberal government. Despite the uproar and push back from many organizations and groups, this ridiculous policy, which has no benefit to hiring summer students, remained. The government's treatment of faith-based organizations under its far left, death cult MAID regime forced a hospice to close. A place taking care of elderly people on their deathbeds was forced to close because it chose to uphold the dignity and value of life, in accordance with the very values that this country was founded on, rather than offer death. Then there are the constant threats of the Liberals to revoke the charitable status of faith-based organizations. There are many organizations that work to provide clothing, food, diapers and supplies to vulnerable mothers who are pregnant or have newborn babies, yet the Liberals have repeatedly campaigned on an ideological crusade to shut these places down because of their religious or moral beliefs. They work to attack parental rights when they pass a law with an overly broad definition that would criminalize conversations with their children or raising their family according to their religious values. There are many other examples from the government that have led to an erosion of trust by Canadians. Worse yet, it has given social licence for thugs and anti-Semitic people to terrorize places of worship, day cares and schools for simply being Jewish organizations. Then there are the church burnings. Over 120 churches have been burned in the last five years without a single objection from the government. The Liberals' anti-faith agenda has spilled over to the police not pressing charges and prosecution not proceeding. Clearly, they have never been serious about fighting crimes like this or dealing with the riots. Instead, they are trying to score points with problematic bills, such as Bill C-9. It was the former chair of the justice committee, before he was put back in cabinet, who made some troubling remarks about the Bible. While working to remove an exemption for good-faith religious belief, he said: I don't understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing [and] somehow [say that] in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. Ironically, he expressed his own interpretation of the Bible and apparently wants to have that worked into the law. He clearly does not understand that people who follow biblical teaching are not hateful and that they actually believe in loving everyone. Besides that, how else are we supposed to understand that? Clearly, in this case, he suggested that what Christians believe is hateful and should be something that should be legally prosecuted. Despite the strong concerns of many churches, as well as other religious groups, are we really supposed to leave it to the Minister of Justice's assurances that we should just trust him? That would mean ignoring what his fellow minister said about the Bible, and that is not a responsible way to write laws in what is supposed to be a free country. With another Liberal censorship bill, Bill C-11 we saw a previous heritage minister flip-flop on whether the government would require licensing for media and journalists. Canadians cannot trust the Liberal government to get this right, and that is why we stand opposed to this bill here today.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate some of the amendments to the bill. We are not debating the actual short title. I just want to get that clear. I have received many emails from my constituents, just like the member has, and every single email I have received has said to please vote against this terrible piece of legislation. They have made it abundantly clear that is what they want to do, and so I am happy to be able to stand hopefully later today and later this week to vote against this bill. I thank the member for standing up and having somebody other than the member for Winnipeg North asking a question. I appreciate her bringing something different to this debate today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate any of the language that was added through the committee phase to try to make this terrible bill less bad. I am appreciative of that amendment. The problem still remains that we have a government that continues to attack faith-based communities. When we see legislation like this, as I alluded to in my speech, it gives social licence to thugs to target synagogues, churches and schools. We just saw in the newspaper yesterday that another church was burned to the ground, and nothing is being done about this. Conservatives have tried to move other motions and introduce bills to try to protect those churches, but we see the government vote against them. It is about the signal that the government is sending to people, and that is why people are united in their opposition of what the government is trying to do with Bill C-9.

Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely. Overwhelmingly, the people of Canada are opposed to what the government is trying to do with this. People recognize that it historically has been the case, and today it still continues to be the case, that churches provide a lot of the much-needed social assistance for people. Anything that the government is going to do to make life more difficult for those churches is going to be very problematic. Any faith-based organization that might be criminalized because of something they might say or because of a belief they hold, because of the text in the Bible or of any other religious text, is going to restrict their ability to offer services to people, which is going to be problematic. It is going to be Canadians, particularly vulnerable Canadians, who are going to lose out from that. This is on top of all the racket, rioting and violence we are seeing on the streets that nothing is being done about because these guys over here on the other side of the aisle just do not seem to care about getting things right.

Mr. Speaker, it is a different point of order. The member opposite earlier today was calling a member on this side a grifter. He did not apologize for it. He was told he was not allowed to make those comments. He did not apologize for defaming a member in the House. He should not be allowed to stand up and ask another question until he apologizes for his disgraceful and disrespectful comments. I want to see that happen.

Mr. Speaker, last year the RCMP seized eight kilograms of fentanyl near Swift Current. This dangerous drug was caught moving through my community. While the police did a great job catching criminals behind the opioid crisis, their heroic efforts have been undermined by Liberal catch-and-release. One year later, federal Crown prosecutors said they are staying charges against two traffickers because they are following their federal policy playbook. My question is this: What federal policy could possibly justify this decision?

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister was not paying attention to the question I just asked. Fentanyl is a dangerous and lethal drug. Eight kilograms means potentially millions of doses. Millions of doses means that Canadians will be murdered by this drug and its dealers. What happened in Swift Current is one example among too many of the radical left's pathetic views on crime. Families are being torn apart, loved ones are being lost and those criminals should be behind bars. If the Liberals were serious, they would adopt our plan to give life sentences to people trafficking enough fentanyl to kill thousands of Canadians. Why will they not do it?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been in office for a year already and, like a good old Liberal, has only re-announced projects that were already approved. There have been no new energy projects proposed, let alone built. The Major Projects Office has been reviewing the Kitimat project for 180 days already. Meanwhile, Germany built an entire LNG terminal in only 194 days. Conservatives wanted shovels in the ground this week. We previously tried to pass the Canadian sovereignty act to make us stronger at home and support our allies, but the Liberals voted against that. Why will they not cancel their anti-development policies and get things done?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been running the country for close to a year, and so far he is turning out to be another Liberal disaster, just like Justin Trudeau. First, his ag minister promised an emergency use for strychnine, to control gopher infestations. With spring on the horizon, the time to act is now, before the land gets destroyed. Instead, the Liberals ignored science and common sense and denied the emergency use application. It does not stop there. Then came the ridiculous traceability regulations that no producer wants and no trading partner has asked for. Ranchers are rightfully outraged. The last thing they need is added uncertainty while CFIA waits for a new chance to impose more costs and red tape. It does not stop there, either, because the same ag minister is shutting down research centres that are vital to the future of the industry. They brought high returns for a century, and their loss will jeopardize the next generation of farmers. The Prime Minister is just another politician in a long line of Liberals who fail to understand the west and respect the hard-working farmers driving our national economy. The buck stops with the Prime Minister, and Canadians deserve better than Justin Trudeau 2.0.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west-central Saskatchewan. I will start my speech off today by acknowledging that the Saskatchewan Winter Games took place at the same time as the Olympics. I want to give a quick shout-out to all the kids who went up to Meadow Lake and to the Flying Dust First Nation to compete in those games. I say congratulations to those who won medals, but I also want to thank the kids who put in the hard work and tremendous effort to be able to compete in those games, and the parents who took time out of their busy schedules and lives to take their kids up there and spend some time up in the northern part of our province, which is a beautiful part of Saskatchewan. I congratulate all the athletes who competed. I would also like to mention that I had the opportunity this week to meet with members of Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, or APAS. Its young leaders were out in Ottawa this week. I had the distinct privilege of meeting with them, and I really appreciated the opportunity to hear what they had to say. I can say that the future of agriculture in Saskatchewan and across Canada is in very good hands. They have brilliant minds and are putting in tremendous work. They have a skill set and a talent level that is befitting of what the next generation of agriculture is truly all about, which kind of gets at the basis of the speech I want to give today in regard to the direction the government is going and the way it is treating agriculture. Over this last break week, I had a couple of meetings in regard to the government's plan to slash funding and lay off workers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research stations all across Canada. Some of that is affecting locations in my riding, as well as other locations in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and other places across Canada. It is really tragic that this is where the Liberals are choosing to make cuts. The return on investment in agriculture is massive. Agriculture is the largest exporting element of the Canadian economy, particularly the Saskatchewan economy, and it plays such a key role in supporting our small towns, cities, communities and various organizations because of the strength of that industry. When we look at the tone the government is choosing to set by cutting funding in agriculture, it is really backwards to the direction this country should be going. To take that at another level, we are going through the comprehensive expenditure reviews, and we are seeing department after department come back to the federal government saying that they will be able to lay off and make cuts with no impact to service delivery. However, I would say that the Department of Agriculture is the one department that is going to notice a substantial impact to the services that are being delivered to Canadians and Canadian farmers, but also to producers around the world. We know that the research that happens in Saskatchewan and across the country not only benefits farmers here. It benefits farmers here first, but we are then able to export what we learn to the rest of the world. One such practice would be zero-till or low-till farming practices, which is something we changed on our farm when I was growing up. I jokingly say that it was something that put me out of a job on my parents' farm, because I used to do a lot of the cultivating and disking that we needed to do at that time. However, what we learned, which was aided by the research stations, was the value of doing continuous cropping to restore nutrients to the soil. It also helped build and maintain topsoil quality and moisture retention. It showed that we did not need to be plowing up our fields nearly as much as we used to. There are jurisdictions around the world that are still using that practice, and they could learn a lot from Canadian agriculture. A lot of the research in that farming technique happened at the research stations across Canada. It was in partnership with some other regions in North America, but a lot of it was done at the research stations. However, that is just one firm example of some of the benefits we have seen from the research stations. Also, various crop varieties have been developed there, which have been cutting edge for being able to continue to grow crops in one of the most difficult places to grow crops in the world. The area I represent is smack dab in the middle of what is called the Palliser triangle, which was designated by the explorer as an area unfit for humankind to live in, yet we are able to be the largest exporting area in the world of pulses. We grow a lot of grain, canola, other oilseeds and lots of cereal crops. We basically feed the world from an area that was deemed to be unfit for humans, so it is pretty remarkable what has happened. However, it is because of the things that have happened at the research stations. They are strategically placed because of the various different soil types that exist in Canada, particularly Saskatchewan. My area is very sandy, very hilly and very rocky. A lot of it probably should have been left as native prairie grass, but it has now been turned into agriculture-producing land for crops. The research stations have been very key to making sure we have the crop varieties and also the right timing as to when we want to grow our crops in order to make sure we can maximize their output value. Things like research into fertilizer usage, pesticide applications and weed control are all done at these research stations, and they are put into the various different soil zones that exist in Saskatchewan and across the country. That is some of the most valuable research that has happened at these research stations. To be fair, I know the government is trying to save money because it has been blowing the doors off the vault with the amount of money it is spending out there, so I want to show a few areas where the government would be able to save money. The government was looking, over the next three years, to cut 665 staff and find about 15% in budgetary savings through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Over the next 10 years, it will total roughly $150 million in cuts. We are currently also going through the supplementary phase of the budget, and in the supps we see one line item, alone, that would actually pay to keep the research stations open and staffed. There is $150 million for the modernization of the CBC. That is on top of their almost $2-billion budget, and they now need another $150 million for modernization. It is quite ridiculous how much money the government continues to pump needlessly into the CBC, but it also shows where the government's priorities are and how it has no clue what actually runs the largest exporting portion of the Canadian economy. On top of that, there is the Liberals' boondoggle of the tree planting plan they had. They were going to plant two billion trees. They spent about $267 million to barely put a dent in that number. Now they have abandoned the plan, and they spent $200 million just to end the two-billion tree program. It was going to be one of the cornerstone environmental commitments of the government, and it basically wasted close to half a billion dollars on that entire program. Back in the eighties, Saskatchewan farmers had a tree planting program. They would have planted as many or more trees than that program did, and they would have done it for a fraction of the cost. When we look at the debt charges, for example, just the debt charges alone are over $1,300 per Canadian per year as of last year, and that is in total $53.7 billion more than all revenue collected through GST. We know there are other areas where the government can find savings. It spent between $17 billion and $19 billion on external consultants, because it basically admitted that even though it has massively bloated the public service, its employees are not even able to do the work that they were supposedly hired to do in the first place. There are many places that the government would have been able to find savings. We know through the comprehensive expenditure reviews that there are many departments that can find savings without impacting service delivery, but we know that the research that is happening at these research stations is invaluable. It cannot be replaced, and the fact that the government wants to do away with that is absolutely shameful. I have met with a lot of the producer groups over the last week. They have two very simple requests right now. If the government is not going to back away from these cuts, at the very least they are asking if the government can at least let the 2026 crop year and research year be completed before any of these cuts are rolled out and also if it could slow down the pace at which it is looking to sell off the equipment that the research stations have. There are very specific and very specialized pieces of machinery at those research stations. If there is any chance we could save the research stations, that equipment needs to be there. The producers' request would be that the government would back off on selling that equipment at this point in time. I look forward to questions from the government.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a terrific point about how the government is making it harder for parliamentarians to get access to the information we need to be able to do our jobs. He is right. We did have to compel departments to release information on the CER, not only so we could do our jobs, but also so the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer could properly do his job. It is disgraceful, the way the Liberals are treating Canadians. We then see, on the other side of it, that they are funding, in some cases, illegal and criminal activity abroad. It is absolutely appalling. If they were truly focused on building Canada strong, they would focus on projects and initiatives that are happening in Canada, they would listen to what is happening in Canada, and they would prioritize those kinds of initiatives instead of groups that are funding ISIS.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers know that the government has been in place for 10, going on 11 years now. They know it is not a new government. They know that when they look at the benches, they see many of the same faces that have been there for the last 10 years. It was Stephen Harper and the hon. Ed Fast who did a tremendous amount of work on securing trade deals around the world. In fact, we are going to be working, during the next sitting week, on the CPTPP, which was negotiated and signed by Ed Fast. It took the government a long time to actually ratify it. There is an amendment coming forward to that deal. Conservatives have long been the ones who have championed this, because of the legacy of great Conservative prime ministers like Stephen Harper and members like Ed Fast, who have done a tremendous job on trade. That is a legacy I am proud of.

Mr. Speaker, the general strategy of the government has been to pick all kinds of radical DEI projects around the world to fund, but it has also had those same policies in place here domestically. The Liberals left a $500-million maintenance backlog at the research stations, which has made those research stations vulnerable. The infrastructure is kind of crumbling around people while they are trying to do their work. In the meantime, to fill rabid DEI requirements, the Liberals went about a hiring spree. If we look at what the Liberals are funding internationally, it just further cements where their priorities are. Rather than actually working for producers here in Canada, they are focused more on these international pet projects that have no benefit to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has admitted that a country that cannot feed itself has few options. However, the Liberal government is closing seven agriculture research facilities. Their research and development has a 35:1 return on investment for taxpayers. It is also crucial for growing crops to feed Canada and the rest of the world, despite our harsh climate. With 2.2 million Canadians lining up at food banks every month, does the Prime Minister seriously think that it is a good idea to cut valuable research into how we can grow more food here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the cost of groceries continues to rise quite rapidly. When we go to the grocery store, it is quite alarming how expensive just one bag of groceries is. Conservatives certainly support the concept of helping people be able to buy those groceries, but the bill would not actually lower the cost of groceries. The Liberals would be borrowing money to give to Canadians to help them buy groceries. With the way the benefit works, it would basically work out to an additional $10 a week for Canadians. We know that $10 does not buy much of anything at the grocery stores these days. Would the member not agree that trying to lower the cost and the price of groceries would be a better idea than borrowing money to give to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the highest food price inflation in the G7. That is the Liberal record on full display for the whole world to see. Instead of fixing it, the Prime Minister raises taxes on fertilizer, manufacturing and transportation, all of which lead to higher food prices. Reversing Liberal policies that punish Canadian agriculture would be a good start, but we could also grow even more food here at home. Saskatchewan is already the breadbasket of the world, but there is still room for us to grow and expand the available farmland. Right now, there are shovel-ready irrigation projects waiting for approvals, like the ones around Lake Diefenbaker. The Westside irrigation rehabilitation project alone would open up 100,000 acres of irrigated land to grow more food and specialty crops. Studies show this project will add $13 billion to our GDP, create 80,000 jobs and generate over $1 billion in tax revenue. The Liberals have so much to learn from rural Canada. This is one of many promising and resourceful projects we want to build in Saskatchewan. All the government needs to do is let our farmers and industry do what they have always done best and lead the way forward.