Steven Bonk

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, the government has done everything it can to make food more expensive in Canada. When it comes to the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standards, do they not realize that these taxes add costs to every step of the value chain when it comes to food production? Are the Liberals not embarrassed that they had to create a program in Canada to help Canadians afford to eat?

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.