Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the government announced a supply chain office in 2023, with no results. Then last year we passed Bill C-5, which gave the Liberals extraordinary powers, with no results. Then they started a special projects office, but so far, there are no results. Now they want to build on more bureaucracy. When will the government finally get something done? There are 500 projects in the wings waiting to be approved, and so far, the government has done nothing. We have had enough of announcements. When will the Liberals actually get to work for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned at the beginning of his speech that the Liberals have a bad habit of redefining terms. One of the things they redefined at the beginning of their mandate was the fiscal anchor of “debt to GDP”, which they changed to “deficit-to-GDP ratio”. They then started the sovereign wealth fund, which is based on debt, but that is going to give them more room to borrow more money and not have it affect their deficit-to-GDP ratio. Could the member explain to us how that is just another example of the Liberals moving the goalposts midway through the game?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech highlighting some of the affordability challenges that are affecting people in her riding and across all of Canada. I would just like to read a quote from Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor. He said: ...Canada does not have a food security problem. We are one of the world’s largest agri-food exporters. Canadian farmers produce far more food than Canadians consume. Our challenge is not food availability. It is competitiveness. Do the Liberals not understand that the taxes they put on every step of the value chain when it comes to production, when it comes to processing and when it comes to retail are driving up costs for Canadians? Maybe my colleague could expand a bit on how that is affecting people in her riding.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague across the way because I know he was the Liberal finance minister in Quebec and helped that province come out of a very dire situation. I also know that we both worked on treasury boards in our respective provinces. When a government borrows money and increases the amount of money supply in the province or in the country, it is inevitably going to drive up inflation, which is also going to drive up interest rates, which makes it more difficult to borrow on bond markets. Can the member explain what the rationale is for the government to keep borrowing and borrowing, with nothing to back it up?

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear: Under the Liberals, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. A United Way survey shows that 60% of Canadians are worried about their finances, 40% of them are losing sleep over bills and food insecurity is on the rise. I hear from families that work hard and do everything right, and are still struggling to make ends meet. Some farmers, the very people who produce our food, are now having to turn to food banks. Why does the Liberal Prime Minister refuse to admit that his costly policies are driving Canadians deeper into debt, forcing more families to food banks and making life less affordable every single day?

Mr. Speaker, for 11 long years, that member has been attacking our province. Under every single measurement I can find, his riding has gotten worse. Food insecurity is worse. The cost of living has increased. Food inflation has increased. There is even a re‑emergence of scurvy. A 16th‑century disease that we thought we had banished to the history books is now in his riding. When will the government finally reverse its costly policies that are making life inhumane for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, families across Souris—Moose Mountain are feeling the pressure every single day. As farmers work through seeding and ranchers care for their cattle, the costs of fuel, fertilizer, transportation and groceries continue to rise. After 11 years of Liberal taxes and antidevelopment policies, Canadians are paying more at the pump and more at the checkout counter. In rural Saskatchewan, fuel is not a luxury. Farmers need diesel to seed their crops. Truckers need fuel to move food and goods across the country. Things have become so expensive that even some farmers, the very people who feed and produce food for this country, are now being forced to turn to food banks. Food bank usage has doubled since 2019, and more Canadians are being forced to dip into savings just to afford the basic necessities. Conservatives are calling for immediate relief by removing Liberal taxes on fuel and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard. The good people of Souris—Moose Mountain work hard. They produce the food that feeds this country, and they deserve a government that makes life more affordable, not more expensive.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I share a very keen interest in international trade. We are trying to understand by what logic the Liberals would bring forward something like this right when we are about to review CUSMA. This, as he has amply said many times, is a trade irritant at a time when we need to try to find common ground with our partners, and with another thing, Mercosur, in which they were also worried about backdooring products in from other parts of the world. At a time like this, why on earth would the government go ahead with something like this?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the current government is the least transparent government in Canadian history. We see what the Liberals have done with committees when they have shut down debate; they have gone off camera. Even yesterday, Bob Fife, whom we wish well in his retirement and thank for all the good work he has done, said that the government has done nothing but erode transparency since it was elected. What is the government so afraid of when it comes to debating the bill and giving it proper time so we can scrutinize it?

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot in that speech. A lot of it did not make sense. A lot of it nobody on this side could relate to or understand. The member talked a lot about the rights of his citizens, and we know the citizens in his area are suffering an affordability crisis. We know they are suffering a drug crisis, a housing crisis, an affordability crisis, a revenue crisis and an income crisis. In his speech, he even managed to disparage Christians in this country. I have a simple question for him. If he is talking about the rights of the citizens in his riding, I think it is a right of every citizen to have access to their MP. When will he open his office? We are a quarter of the way through the mandate. He has been here a year and his office is still closed.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the government, midway through its term, change the definitions of its fiscal anchors. Instead of debt-to-GDP ratio, it is debt-to-deficit ratio. One thing that I want to get a clear answer on from the member opposite is that, in the G7, Canada is the only country that does not count subnational debt when it is talking about debt-to-GDP ratios. What would the number be if Canada used the same accounting practices as all other countries?

Mr. Speaker, Canadian cattle producers are among the very best in the entire world. Our ranchers have built world-class beef genetics through generations of hard work, strict animal health standards and some of the most rigorous traceability requirements anywhere on earth. Now the Liberals are considering a Mercosur trade deal that could open the floodgates to beef imports from countries with far lower standards and production costs. Why are these Liberals willing to sacrifice our Canadian ranchers and undermine our domestic food industry? Will the minister commit today to protecting Canadian cattle producers and exempt agriculture from any Mercosur trade deal?

Mr. Speaker, Canada stands at a crossroads in the global space economy. This is no longer just about exploration or scientific curiosity. It is about sovereignty. It is about national security. It is about economic opportunity in a rapidly growing sector where other countries are moving decisively to protect their own interests. Canadians expect leadership in moments like this, leadership that is transparent, accountable and grounded in the national interest. Instead, what we have before us is Bill C-28, and it raises serious concerns about who will control Canada's future in space and who will make those decisions. Canada has a proud and remarkable history in space. Under the leadership of John Diefenbaker, our country launched Alouette I, becoming the third nation in the world to design and build a satellite. We developed world-class technology such as Canadarm, and we inspired generations through astronauts like Chris Hadfield, Roberta Bondar and Jeremy Hansen. That legacy was built on trust and accountability, and it was built for all Canadians, not for the insiders behind closed doors. Bill C-28 would move us in the wrong direction. It would give sweeping powers to the ministers, who could decide who can launch, what can be launched and under what conditions. It would do so with vague definitions, limited oversight and broad discretion. In fact, it does not even clearly define what constitutes a launch. Instead of clarity, we get ambiguity. Instead of accountability, we get the concentration of power. When power is concentrated, transparency becomes essential. I want to share something from my own life. When I was a kid growing up on the farm, we had an old coach house, a small barn, that we had to move. I remember one day working with my father and his good friend. We jacked up that building and took off the siding. We had to replate it so we could slide some telephone poles underneath to make some skids. We had those telephone poles there and put another one across the front, chained it up and pulled the building with a tractor, moving it across our farm and setting it down in its new location. What I remember is that when I looked back at where the barn had originally stood, there was nothing more than a simple concrete pad. When I look at what is being described today as a spaceport in Nova Scotia, a gravel road, two sea cans and a small concrete pad, I cannot help but think of that farmyard. What Canadians are being told is a launch facility looks, by all accounts, strikingly similar to what was left behind when we moved that barn, yet we are talking about a reported $200-million lease over 10 years, a lease that was backdated, an agreement that describes the site as being capable of supporting orbital launches. Canadians are asking a very simple question: What launch site are we talking about? According to detailed reporting and first-hand accounts, all that exists is a gravel road, a couple of containers and a concrete slab. Nonetheless, this same project is being presented to investors as capable of supporting more than 150 launches per year. That is not just a gap between promise and reality. That is a credibility gap. Let us look deeper. The company involved has reported losses exceeding $47 million and revenue of just $15,000. The executive compensation for that company is approaching $1 million. What makes it worse is that the land it is on is Crown land, leased for roughly $13,500 annually, yet it is being presented as a multi-million-dollar asset, $14.8 million being the book value, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly. On any farm, in any small business and in any household across the country, those numbers do not pass the smell test, yet somehow in the House they do. Why is that? The concerns go much further beyond the numbers. The residents in the area, more than a thousand people within a few kilometres, have raised serious concerns about safety, environmental impact and the economic consequences to fisheries and to local livelihoods. They have spent years filing access to information requests, reviewing thousands of pages of documents and trying to be heard. What did they find? They found an environmental assessment process that many believe is inadequate and repeated requests for federal impact assessments rejected. They found that, even after years, key requirements for the project had still not been completed, and the regulatory framework for launches was not even in place, yet approvals and funding continued anyway. Let us think about that. We would be committing hundreds of millions of dollars to a project in a sector where the regulatory framework does not even exist. That is not leadership or competence, and Canadians have the right to question it. When we look at the broader picture, a troubling pattern emerges: a company with questionable financials, a project approved through a process many consider deeply flawed, lobbying and political connections appearing at multiple levels, and a massive federal commitment to taxpayer dollars despite all of these red flags. Canadians look at this and ask whether this is about the space sector or something else. Bill C-28 would take this kind of situation and make it easier, not harder, for this to happen. It would give even more powers to ministers to make decisions behind closed doors, reduce transparency, limit oversight and increase the risk that decisions are driven not by merit, but by access. Space is strategic. It affects our Arctic sovereignty, national defence and communications, yet this bill would not provide strong safeguards against foreign interference or influence or ensure robust national security screening. At the same time, Canada has a real opportunity in this sector. We have the talent, expertise and geography, but success requires clear rules, transparent decisions and investor confidence. Bill C-28 would risk undermining all of those. Conservatives support a strong Canadian space sector, innovation, investment and defending Canada's sovereignty. We cannot support giving the government a blank cheque, legislation that concentrates power without accountability or a system that appears to reward insiders while asking taxpayers to carry all the risk. Canadians believe in ambition and building, but they also believe in common sense. When we see $200 million tied to what looks like a concrete pad at the end of a gravel road, we know something is wrong. From Alouette 1 to today, Canada's space legacy has been built on trust. Let us not replace that with secrecy, insider arrangements and unchecked power. Let us build a space future that is transparent, accountable and truly in the national interest. Conservatives will stand for a strong Canada in space, a transparent government here on earth and a future that belongs to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, they say that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. Let us go through a few examples. We will not talk about the space industry for right now, but let us talk about the oil and gas industry, for example. We passed Bill C-5 this year, which gave the government extraordinary powers to circumvent its own bills that it put in place that stopped oil and gas exploration in this country. That is another example of where projects could not get done. Nothing could happen without the government ministers hand-picking projects. We are seeing the exact same thing when it comes to this bill. We are seeing that the Liberals do not want to go through a proper process; they want the ministers to have all the power.

Mr. Speaker, someone does not have to be that good in business to understand that there is something wrong here. The land that this launch site is on is owned by the provincial government in Nova Scotia. It was leased for $13,500 per year. That company turned around and leased it to our federal government, in its incredible business acumen, for $20 million a year. That is some pretty good business for whoever owns this launch site. It is some very poor business if we are trying to be in support of the Canadian taxpayers who are actually footing the bill for this.

Mr. Speaker, we will even take a further step back from that. There are two things that private industry or private investors want more than anything. The number one thing they want is predictability. We have a system now where the government is not following its strict processes. It is allowing the ministers to pick winners and losers. We know that something is wrong. We have a democracy and we have a country like Canada that has had such a great reputation. I have had the great privilege of working all over the world and there was an open door wherever we went because we were Canadian and others knew that our system worked. We are seeing that eroded every day by giving the ministers more power and less scrutiny. This is a terrible slide in our democracy, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Speaker, by every objective measure, the Liberal government has had more ethics violations and has been accused of more corruption than any government in Canadian history. My hon. colleague gave an excellent speech outlining some of the concerns he has in regard to what the government will do when it is given more power. Could he expand on that a little further and help Canadians understand the fear they should have when the government tries to take more power?

Mr. Speaker, back home in Souris—Moose Mountain, farmers will be in the fields soon and are in the calving barns right now, spending long days and short nights doing what they do best, producing the food that Canadians rely on. This year, like too many before it, they are doing it under the weight of rising costs that have been driven up by the Liberal government. Fuel power is everything in agriculture, in seeding, spraying, harvesting and hauling. When taxes drive up the cost of diesel, they drive up the cost of food. It is just that simple. Canadians are already paying more at the pump, and Liberal taxes are making it worse, leaving us paying far more than our American neighbours. Now Liberals are offering a temporary break on only one part of one tax for one part of one year. That is not relief; that is an illusion. Farmers cannot plan a season on temporary measures, and families cannot budget on half steps. Conservatives have a plan to remove these taxes in full, so farmers can produce and Canadians can afford to eat. When we support our farmers, we support families across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has a way of really hitting the point home. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years now, and there is a big gap between expectations they set for themselves and for Canada and the experience that Canadians feel. They also have a very long track record of making grandiose statements and of actually overreaching into the affairs of provincial governments and private citizens. I would like to ask my hon. colleague this: How does he think we should trust this government after all it has done to erode the trust of Canadians for the past 11 years?

Mr. Speaker, through this debate we have come to understand very clearly that we do not need more hate speech law. We already have mechanisms in place in Canada that protect us from hate speech. This is just a redundant matter that the Liberals keep bringing up over and over again. We do not need it. Whenever we say something the Liberals do not agree with, they go to their playbook and say we are misogynist, sexist, racist or homophobic. That seems to be their typical playbook. Could the hon. member just explain very quickly, very concisely, why we are opposed to this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for that excellent speech and for reminding us all that free speech is something we need to protect. Members on this side of the House do not believe it is a political talking point. These are deeply, truly held beliefs on this side of the House. Could my colleague explain, in very simple terms for those who are watching this today, why the Conservatives want to repeal the bill or to stop it from happening?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to blame everyone else for rising food prices, but it is their own policies here at home that are driving prices up. Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7. Instead of helping, the Liberals are now adding new fuel costs, which will rise from 7¢ to 17¢ a litre. For every new tax that increases the cost of planting, harvesting and transporting food, farmers cannot absorb them and consumers cannot afford them. Please, Mr. Prime Minister, flip-flop again. Scrap these costly policies and finally show some mercy to the hard-working Canadian families and the farmers who feed them.

Mr. Speaker, that answer shows just how out of touch these Liberals are. That member represents a riding in Saskatchewan, which is the breadbasket of Canada and the world, yet there have been 27 confirmed cases of scurvy in that member's riding. These are not people who are coming over in wooden ships across the Atlantic in the 1600s. Unfortunately, this is just another day in Liberal Canada. When will the government be morally or ethically serious and stop these crazy policies that are driving up food inflation in Canada?

Madam Speaker, the member accused the Conservatives of being cynical and of spreading misinformation and disinformation about the Liberals' religious exemption. How can he say that after the minister said at committee that pastors who cite the Bible should be charged criminally? This is exactly why the Conservatives are against this. We do not trust the Liberals to be the arbiter of our thoughts, decisions and what we believe in. How can he square that circle?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that great speech. I know him as someone who has a real heart for youth, the young people of this country, and he advocates for them regularly. When we look at the housing record of the government, by every metric, the past 10 years have been a disaster. Canadians know that. Can my colleague highlight the proud vision that the Conservatives have for housing in this country, especially when it comes to young people?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is always full of good quotes. I would just like to maybe tell her about a quote from Aristotle, who said a stable society begins with stable homes. We have seen that the Liberal government has done everything in its power to destabilize the housing market in the last 10 years. I was wondering if she could maybe highlight some of the Conservatives' vision for how housing should and could be in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we already have three bureaucracies for housing in this country, and now the Liberals are wanting to add another one. We had my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill point out very clearly what exactly was on the CMHC website, which is exactly what the Liberals are trying to do with this new bill. Is it not an admission of failure when they have three bureaucracies already in place to do a job but cannot do the job, and now they are trying to create another one? I was just wondering if my hon. colleague could comment further on that.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned a few things in his speech. One is the absolute failure of the Liberal government when it comes to the disastrous catch-and-release policy it has. He also mentioned something I would like him to elaborate a bit more on, and that is the failure of the government to address the reverse onus provision for extortion. It had the opportunity. Why on earth would it not do so?

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the finance minister promised Canadians he would stabilize food prices at his flashy grocery summit. Since then, prices have gone up significantly. Lettuce is up nearly 40%. Coffee is up 33%, and beef is up 27%. That is just to name a few items. Canada is now leading the G7 in food inflation at 6.2%. It is now twice as high as it was when the Prime Minister took office and twice as high as it is in the United States, and it gets worse. Canadians are now making 2.2 million visits a month to food banks. These visits have doubled under Liberal governments. Instead of working to reduce food costs, the minister is announcing yet another temporary rebate, giving some about $10 a week against grocery bills that are in the hundreds. The Liberals need to support our Conservative affordability plan, which would eliminate the industrial carbon tax and the Liberals' 17¢-a-litre standard fuel tax. It is time that the Liberals turned their rhetoric into results for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, over and over again, when we bring up the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard or the packaging tax, the Liberals say that these are imaginary taxes and they do not exist. Today, in agriculture committee, we asked directly those affected in the food processing industry, and they said that these place immense costs on their bottom line. I am wondering how the member opposite can square that circle.

Madam Speaker, there was so much wrong in that speech and so much that I found deeply offensive as a farmer and rancher, someone who raises livestock and grows crops in the beautiful coulees that lead into the Qu'Appelle Valley in Saskatchewan. In the summertime on my ranch, it is almost deafening from the sound of insects, the trees and grass moving and the beautiful nature we have that is looked after by the farmers and ranchers. There are no more environmentalists in Canada than there are agriculture producers we have, yet we have someone lecturing us who lives in downtown Toronto, probably the most man-affected place in Canada. It is cement and asphalt. There is nothing there that has to do with nature, and they are telling us how to run agriculture policy? How on earth can she square that circle of telling farmers in Canada that they have to pay tax on fertilizer and the fuel that produces food for Canadians when she is living in the middle of a concrete jungle?

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, a motion that speaks not just to economic theory but to daily life, on farms, in rural communities and at the kitchen tables of Canadian families. I speak today not as a member of the House, but as someone directly involved in agriculture. I am a farmer. I deal with input costs, fuel bills, freight invoices and the realities of producing food in this country. When we talk about food prices, I am not speaking in abstractions. I am speaking from the field, from the farmyard. In October 2023, the finance minister promised that food prices would stabilize soon. In May 2025, the Prime Minister said he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. If that is the measure, Canadians have already rendered their judgment. Food inflation remains among the highest in the G7, twice as high as when the Prime Minister took office, and roughly double the rate of the United States. Every month, there are nearly 2.2 million visits to the local food banks, and the usage has more than doubled since the government came to power. As a farmer, I see both sides: families struggling to afford groceries and farmers struggling under the rising costs to produce food. I want to share an example from my riding. Not long ago, I met a young farm family who run a mixed operation. They work long hours, help their neighbours and quietly support their community, sponsoring the local rink, donating to fundraisers and stepping up when others are in need. They are proud, stoic people who do not look for handouts, yet their input costs, such as diesel, fertilizer, machinery repairs and freight, have risen far faster than the prices they receive for their grain and livestock. Their margins are being squeezed. Today, that same farm family now relies on the local food bank to help feed their own children. It is deeply uncomfortable for them to admit that. They are being pushed to food banks not because they are unwilling to work, but because public policy has driven up the cost of production while their income has not kept pace. That is not a failure of farming; that is a failure of public policy. It is not just about grocery pricing. This is about increasing the cost of production. These policies squeeze farmers from planting to harvest to transportation and erode their bottom lines. When input costs rise faster than revenues, farmers cut back, delay investment and are pushed to the brink. When the government layers on the industrial carbon tax, higher fuel costs under the clean fuel regulations and new taxes on food packaging, it is not just raising grocery prices. It is directly hurting the viability of family farms. Food does not magically appear on store shelves. It is grown, harvested, processed, transported, packaged and distributed. Every step along that journey costs money. When government policy raises the costs, consumers pay more. The industrial carbon tax applies to farm fuel, fertilizer production, grain drying and food processing. On my farm, that means higher costs to run tractors, to dry grain and to buy fertilizer. The clean fuel regulations have already added about 7¢ per litre to diesel, and that is going to rise to 17¢. In Saskatchewan, where distances are long, that directly increases the cost of producing and delivering food. The proposed food packaging tax will add $1.3 billion in costs that will ultimately show up on grocery shelves. Members opposite say that these taxes are imaginary. Trust me that they are not. They show up on my fuel invoices, my fertilizer bills, my freight costs, my machinery parts and ultimately in food prices. In fact, in Saskatchewan, there is a line item on our natural gas bill that says “carbon tax”. We have already seen what happens when these taxes are removed. When the consumer carbon tax was lifted from home heating oil, prices responded immediately and families felt relief. This proves that these taxes are real and embedded in the cost of living, and removing them has an immediate effect. If removing one portion of the carbon tax helps families, then removing the industrial carbon tax and clean fuel regulations from food production and transportation would meaningfully help bring down the cost of grocery prices. Farmers are not asking for special treatment, just common sense: Stop taxing the production and movement of food. In fact, this morning at the agriculture committee, I asked some witnesses directly if there was an effect. Did they see a direct effect from the industrial carbon tax, from the food packaging tax and from the clean fuel standard? My goodness, they had a lot to say. It is a direct cost and it is crushing their operations. The over-regulation and the tax burden they are feeling are putting them at real risk of losing their businesses. We cannot make food more affordable by making it more expensive to produce. The second part of the motion, boosting competition in our grocery sector, is also critical. More competition would benefit both farmers and families. This motion is pro-common sense. It recognizes that federal policy sets the framework within which food is grown, moved and sold. Right now, that framework is making food more expensive. Canadians need practical policies that balance environmental goals with affordability, competitiveness and food security. We cannot decarbonize and deindustrialize agriculture. We cannot lower food prices by taxing the tools that farmers use to feed this country. This motion has a clear path forward: Remove the hidden taxes that drive up food costs and increase competition in the grocery sector. If the Prime Minister wants to be judged by the grocery prices, he should support this motion and act on it. There are so many ways that we can help reduce grocery costs in Canada. These taxes are killing farmers. We have no choice. We have to buy diesel. We have to use fertilizer. I will give an example as an agriculture producer. When the Liberals came out with the plan to reduce fertilizer use by 30%, I want them to know that there is not a direct correlation. If we reduce fertilizer use in Canada by 30%, we are not going to have only a 30% reduction in production. It does not work like that. There is a certain amount of fertilizer we need. Plants need a certain amount of nitrogen. They need a certain amount of phosphorus. If we reduce that, we are not going to have a 30% reduction. It is going to be a lot less. There is a lot of science behind this. Trust me: Farmers do not want to spend a cent more than they have to when it comes to fertilizer and when it comes to herbicide. We have tried to limit our inputs as much as we can. Margins are already very tight in Canada. It is not like we are going out and trying to use more product than we need to. The Liberal government is penalizing us every step of the way when we are trying to reduce its use. If members want to talk about the environment, as the last speaker said, I can go on for days about it. I had the pleasure of teaching sustainable grazing and carbon sequestration all over the world for 20 years in many countries. I can say that Canada leads the way on this front. There are many studies in Canada where we have producers who have changed their grazing methods, done nothing more than change the way they utilize their land, and we are now sequestering up to 12.5 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Canada is leading the way when it comes to regenerative and sustainable agriculture. Do we get any credit from the federal government for this? No, we do not. When it comes to zero till, much of that has been pioneered by a very good friend of mine, Pat Beaujot, who created a company called Seed Hawk. The company uses zero-till methods and makes minimal disturbances in the soil, keeping carbon in the soil where it needs to be instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. This is a Canadian invention, yet when it comes to the Liberals, they say we have to use the baseline of 2005, which is just after when this technology was introduced into Saskatchewan. There is so much hypocrisy on that side, where the Liberals claim they are champions for the environment, yet when it comes down to it, their only solution is taxes. That is the only thing they want to do. If not, Canadians, including farmers, families and food bank users, will draw our own conclusions. I will be proudly voting in favour of this motion, and I encourage all members to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I most definitely do not agree with that statement. For example, if the member opposite was to go on a trip and calculated all the costs of his trip, if part of the cost was fuel, he would know that there is tax on that fuel. Does that not increase the price of his trip? It is very simple math. I do not know how the Liberals can square the circle of thinking that by making food more costly to produce, it is actually going to bring down the price.

Madam Speaker, it is just common sense. When you have more tax and more regulation, the price of everything goes up. The primary producers in Canada are some of the best in the world. We find it so offensive when the Liberals, who have no connection to agriculture whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, tell us how we should manage our farms. They tell us we should be thinking about the environment, when we can find no one more concerned about the environment than the people who make their living from it. In fact, in the Prairies we call ourselves green Conservatives, not blue Conservatives, because we are so concerned with the health of our land, the health of our soil and the health of our grasslands.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives worked with the government to pass Bill C-5, giving the Prime Minister the ability to fast-track major projects. We did that because Canada cannot grow, export or become more affordable if nothing gets built, but after nearly a year, that fast-track authority has delivered zero results. There were no projects approved, and no pipelines. Barriers remain. My question is simple: When will the Prime Minister stop talking and start building?

Mr. Speaker, across Saskatchewan, families are being crushed by soaring grocery prices. I recently spoke with a farm family, people who feed this country and the world. After paying their bills, they now rely on a local food bank to get by. This should never happen in a country like Canada. The Liberal government should be ashamed that there are now 27 cases of scurvy in Saskatchewan because people cannot afford healthy food after 10 years of Liberal inflation and higher taxes. How does the government defend its record when farm families need food banks and when Canadians are now being diagnosed with scurvy?

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague comes from oil country in the northwest part of Saskatchewan. I am from the southeast, where we also have a lot of oil. Their area is heavy in the SAGD, while mine is more conventional. However, one thing we do know is that we support this pipeline because we know that it would take pressure off of the rail lines that are now causing a problem where other commodities, like potash and wheat, are not able to be shipped to the coast. Can she maybe comment on that and why she thinks the Liberals are so stubborn when it comes to building pipelines?

Mr. Speaker, whether someone lives in Toronto or a small town in southeast Saskatchewan, every dollar that Ottawa spends beyond its means ultimately comes out of the pockets of Canadians, either through taxes today or inflation tomorrow. Families in my riding tell me the same thing over and over: They are working harder than ever and somehow falling further behind. I have spoken with farm families, the people who feed this country and the world, who have found themselves relying on the food bank for the first time. It is not because they are not working hard; they are. It is because the cost of running a farm, including fuel, fertilizer, insurance and machinery, has outpaced the market and the market's return. In fact, farm receipts have fallen by 26% according to FCC. This budget only worsens that reality by maintaining the industrial carbon tax, which hikes the cost of food production and transport; increasing the regulatory burden on resource development, making energy more expensive; and adding new layers of bureaucracy instead of reducing costs for families and businesses. A government that claims affordability is its priority cannot pass a budget that consistently pushes Canadians toward the breaking point. It is a real missed opportunity to strengthen Canada's resource economy. Bill C-15 continues a troubling pattern of policies that undermine the industries that have historically built and funded Canada's prosperity. In Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Newfoundland and Labrador, energy and mining are not abstract concepts. They are paycheques, municipal tax bases and the economic backbone of entire regions. These industries want to innovate, reduce emissions and expand opportunity, but they cannot do that when the federal government treats them as something to be managed rather than partners in national prosperity. The budget implementation act does nothing to reverse the damaging emissions cap on oil and gas; create certainty for pipeline and export projects; provide competitive incentives for Canadian potash, uranium, helium and rare earths; or help provinces build the infrastructure needed for the next generation of small nuclear reactors. This is not a regional argument. A strong resource economy is a national benefit. Every hospital, school and road in this country has been financed in part by the power of the resource-producing provinces. When the federal government undermines these industries, the entire country loses. As someone who has served at the provincial level, I have a deep respect for the constitutional division of powers. Provinces understand their communities, industries and local needs far better than Ottawa ever can. However, Bill C-15 accelerates a trend of federal expansion into areas that were never intended to be directed from the capital. Whether it is intrusion into natural resource development, agriculture, labour markets or local infrastructure priorities, this budget assumes Ottawa always knows best. Local governments, provincial and municipal, need flexibility, not a one-size-fits-all directive buried in a 600-page document. Conservatives believe in restoring respect for the federation. We believe in partnership, not paternalism. One of the most troubling parts of the budget is how much of the new spending goes not to frontline services but to expanding bureaucracy. Canadians do not need more gatekeepers. They need timely, reliable, efficient service from the government they fund. However, we have seen longer passport delays, slower immigration processing, inconsistent service from EI and CPP call centres, and growing regulatory backlogs at CFIA and PMRA that hurt farmers, processors and exporters. Despite record spending, Canadians are getting worse results. Bill C-15 does nothing to correct this. Having spent years doing business internationally, I can say with certainty that countries that succeed over the long term do two things really well. They create stable conditions for investment, and they foster a regulatory environment that rewards productivity, innovation and growth. Canada is falling behind in both. Meanwhile, our trading partners, notably the United States, are attracting investment at a pace we are not matching. That has direct consequences on jobs, wages and long-term prosperity. This budget should have been an opportunity to signal to the world that Canada is open for business again. Instead, it signals that Canada is doubling down on complexity, cost and uncertainty. For over two decades, I lived and worked in countries transitioning from centralized control to open markets. Those experiences taught me this simple truth: The more government tries to control every aspect of the economy, the more productivity fails, the more investment dries up and the more ordinary people struggle. I see the echoes of those systems in the growing federal bureaucracy, in the layering of regulation upon regulation, and in Ottawa's insistence that central planners know better than workers, farmers, entrepreneurs or provinces. The lesson from overseas is clear: Prosperity grows from the bottom up, not the top down. That is a principle Conservatives embrace and that this budget ignores. Canadians deserve a budget that reflects their priorities, not Ottawa's priorities. Conservatives will bring forward a plan grounded in three core commitments: restore affordability and lower the cost of living by axing the carbon tax and reducing unnecessary regulation and costs, strengthening competition to lower grocery and housing prices, and stopping inflationary deficits that erode household spending power; unleash the private sector by removing the barriers to resource development, accelerating approvals for energy, mining and agricultural innovation, and supporting interprovincial trade and labour mobility through initiatives like blue seal licensing and shovel-ready zones; and respect provincial and municipal authority by empowering local governments rather than micromanaging them from Ottawa, reforming federal departments to deliver timely, efficient service, and investing in national infrastructure only in partnership with provinces, which know their priorities best. This is the path to a more confident, prosperous and united Canada. Canadians are experiencing one of the most challenging economic periods in recent memory. They needed a budget that recognized the hardship they are facing, respected the federation, supported the industries that sustain our country and restored conditions for economic growth. Bill C-15 does none of that. Instead, it doubles down on overspending, overreach and policies that undermine affordability and competitiveness. That is why Conservatives will oppose this bill and continue to stand up for families, workers, farmers and businesses who need a government that is on their side. Canada has unlimited potential. What we need now is leadership that trusts Canadians, empowers provinces, respects taxpayers and unleashes the strength of our private sector. Those are my remarks on Bill C-15.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my previous answer, the Liberal government has a track record of making things more difficult for industry and private business, and more difficult and more expensive for Canadians. However, instead of fixing the problems that they created with their previous legislation, the Liberals create new legislation that is a workaround. This is nothing more than a way for the Prime Minister and his cabinet to hand-pick projects that they wish to go ahead, yet we have not even seen any of them go ahead. I have to agree with my colleague from the Bloc that this is a very thin legislative project from the government.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that excellent question because it gets to the heart of the matter in Canada right now, a lot of which has to do with affordability. Affordability comes down to being able to afford things like groceries and rent. However, what we see in Canada right now are record-high prices for housing and record-high prices for groceries and for supplies that people need. Business owners are struggling under a ridiculous amount of taxes in this country. There are many things the government could do right now, like reducing or scrapping the industrial carbon tax or reining in its ridiculous deficit spending, but the government seems unwilling to do any of it.

Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with that question, actually. We could be doing so much more in Canada when it comes to value added on our products. We are known for our world-class commodities, but when it comes to things like rare earth minerals, we see there is a new refining facility in Saskatoon. When we look at canola, for example, canola crush is becoming a huge thing in Canada, which is increasing our value added.