MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Arnold Viersen

Follow by RSS

Viersen pushes to remove taxes from diesel fuel, build pipelines to get Canadian energy to new markets, and enforce laws against forced labour in supply chains, arguing the border has stopped only two shipments in five years. He leans on constituents and figures to make his case, asking, “Will the Liberals commit to removing their Liberal clean fuel standard?” He also campaigns for age verification to protect children from pornography.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
83 / 100 over 33 statements
Signal 80 / 100
Relevance 75 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 98 / 100
Averaged over the 33 of 44 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

A story that illustrates instead of making a point.1.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.6

Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 44

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

“The Liberals want to change how Canada buys military equipment. Can the member explain the history of buying the F-35 fighter jets, and does she think the Liberals did a good job with it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been talking about reform to the acquisition method in Canada. I am wondering if the member could give us a history of the acquisition of the F-35s and whether she thinks the Liberals have done a good job of that or not.

“The Liberals claim they are spending more on defence than the Conservatives did, but they are just using tricky accounting. They counted the Coast Guard as part of the military to make their numbers look bigger. Our military is not doing any better than it was under Stephen Harper. I want the member to comment on this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member’s speech, and I listened to the Liberals’ questions about this, and the Liberals keep touting the fact that they are spending more money than we did when we were in power. A couple of things are the case. First is the Liberals’ fancy accounting when it comes to what they are spending money on in the military. I would point out that they moved the Coast Guard from being a civilian organization to being a military organization. Second, the Canadian Armed Forces’ capabilities have not been improved. Nobody thinks the Canadian Army is in better shape today than it was under Stephen Harper, so I am just wondering if the hon. member has any comments about that.

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

“The government did not answer my question about the high cost of living. Government spending has lowered the value of our dollar and made life unaffordable. I want the government to drop its clean fuel standard and remove all taxes on diesel fuel.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful the member found the right answer to read tonight on the right topic, but he never addressed what I asked him, which is what he had to say to Steve about the realities of living life in Canada. The member is new here, but I want to bring him back to nearly a decade ago when the Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar. We could afford to buy groceries for our kids. We did not need a school program to feed our kids. The government continues to do things that lower the value of our money, and that is one of the major reasons that everything costs so much more. Pouring more money into the system only inflates costs. We have talked about this endlessly. We have called for all taxes to be removed from diesel fuel. Will the Liberals commit to removing their Liberal clean fuel standard?

“Diesel prices are up over 80 percent, and workers in my riding cannot afford it. Liberal taxes and energy rules are driving fuel makers out of Canada. I want the government to support our plan to cut diesel taxes, remove the industrial carbon tax, and build more pipelines and refineries.”
  • A repeated line

    “We would get rid of the industrial carbon tax.”

    Said 5 times by 5 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet a number of times today. I am pleased to talk about something I asked the government about a while back as to whether the government would adopt our Conservative action plan to fix diesel prices in this country. I mentioned in my question that a guy named Steve Van Raalte from my riding was having trouble paying for fuel. He is a heavy-duty mechanic, and he has to drive around from job site to job site. This was really cutting into his bottom line. I pointed out that there are at least two companies in Alberta that are interested in developing and are working on developing a process to make diesel fuel out of natural gas. This is a pretty cool technology. I will just talk a little bit about Shell’s Pennzoil. Shell developed the ability to make engine oil out of natural gas and brought it to market commercially in 2011, so it is entirely possible. The reality is that the companies that are developing this cool technology will probably never set up in Alberta. They are developing the technology in Alberta, but they will probably set up in another jurisdiction because of the industrial carbon tax. There is no way to pay for it when they have to pay the industrial carbon tax. The other challenge they face is that the banks will not fund them, and insurance companies are not interested in funding them, because of the policies and the rhetoric that have come out of the Liberal government over the last 10 years. Interestingly, when I asked this question the week before last, I got a response from the parliamentary secretary to the housing minister, addressing housing. I did not get an answer at all about diesel prices and the things I was concerned about. The answer was shockingly out of touch. I am hoping that tonight we will actually get an answer to my question about whether the government will get out of the way and remove all the taxes on diesel fuel. Diesel prices have risen by over 80%. I would point out that the last time the price of oil was at $100 a barrel, we were paying about $1.40 a litre for diesel fuel. Today we are paying $2.44. A whole bunch of Liberal policies have been put in place that are causing this, from our money’s not being worth as much as it used to be, to our not having developed our own resources in Canada because of the stifling, leave-it-in-the-ground Liberals. We have put forward our emergency fuel plan. We want to provide emergency remittance and tax relief to companies. We want to get rid of the industrial carbon tax. We want to make sure we can get the refineries and the pipelines built. We want to be able to make sure that the energy we produce here in Canada can be used in all parts of Canada. It is crazy to every Albertan that we are the energy superpower of the world yet cannot get our energy to the east coast. We also want to make sure that we have a reserve so we can have a buffer in the price shocks that happen. I am wondering if the Liberal member can answer me. Will the Liberals be supporting our plan to get diesel prices down so guys like Steve can make enough money to put food on the table for their kids?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“This law is the reason no major projects get built in Canada. Nine pipelines were built under the previous government, and 14 gas projects were ready to go. They all disappeared under the Liberals. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am truly thankful for my colleague’s comments tonight on Bill C-69. We have not heard one Liberal in this place talk about it. It is fundamentally the problem and the reason there are no projects being built in this country. I want to remind the House that under Stephen Harper, we built nine major pipeline projects. We had 14 LNG projects ready to be built in this country, and after the Liberals came to power, all of those projects disappeared. I wonder what my colleague has to say about that.

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“The government talks about good feelings instead of results. Its major projects office has not approved a single new project.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, “The feels are good” is generally the message from the Liberal Party, that it has a lot of good feelings and a lot of goodwill. The fact of the matter is that the Major Projects Office has failed to approve one single new project.

In response to a question from Cheryl Gallant

“Albertans are frustrated because the government keeps announcing pipelines instead of building them. Other countries want our energy, so we need to actually build several pipelines in every direction to reach them.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has put her finger exactly on the problem we face in this country. Coming from Alberta, I know that the frustration Albertans are feeling with the rest of the country is not particularly about Ottawa. It is with the fact that the rest of the country thinks that we already have the pipeline. Canadians have heard so much about this pipeline that they figure it is operational. The fact of the matter is that the pipeline has been announced and announced, but we want to see it built. In fact, we do not want just one pipeline. We want several pipelines going in every direction so that we can get our products to market, because the Germans, the Japanese, the Polish and the Hungarians are all coming here pleading for Canadian energy.

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“I am worried about this bill because it gives too much power to the minister instead of having clear rules. It forces people to hire lobbyists and pay insiders just to get projects approved.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I too am concerned about it, but probably for an entirely different reason. The Liberals, over the last 10 years, have made the Canadian government a lobbyist playground rather than having a clear set of outlined rules. The Liberals are basically saying that if someone is going to build a fence, the fence has to be a certain height and colour, and then they can build the fence. No, they have to get approval from the minister. They have to hire a lobbyist, have them work, pay the right people and make things happen. That is what I am more concerned about when I read these bills. People would need to get the approval of the minister, hire the right lobbyist and pay money to the right people, and then the project would be approved.

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“The Prime Minister did not sign new free trade deals because Canada already has them. Stephen Harper signed 43 trade deals that covered most of the world's economy. The Prime Minister only brought back a list of goals, and we want to see those things actually happen.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the Liberals insinuations of things that are not true. The Prime Minister did not sign any free trade deals because we already have free trade deals. Stephen Harper signed 43 free trade deals, with 60% of the world’s GDP. The Prime Minister came back with an MOU saying that we are going to do some things. We would like to see those things get done.

“This bill does not fix the real problems. The government created these problems itself by passing laws that block pipelines and major energy projects. If the government really wants to get things built, it must repeal those bad project laws and get rid of the industrial carbon tax.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today on behalf of the good people of Peace River—Westlock to discuss Bill C-39. This bill comes on the heels of Bill C-5, which was passed over a year ago and, in my opinion, proposed to do something very similar. I do question why we are here to do this if Bill C-5 was the solution to all of these problems. Why are we back again, passing another piece of legislation around this? I want to go back a little, back to about 2005, 2006, 2007, when a gentleman named Stephen Harper featured large in Canadian politics. He was making the case back then that we sold 90% of our product to the United States. While this relationship was a good one, it was a major risk to Canada in the event that, should something happen to that relationship, we would be then held ransom, essentially, by the Americans. He also pointed out that we often sold our energy products at a dramatic discount to the United States because they were our only customer. We were basically a captive market, so we were stuck selling those products to them for whatever we could get, which was often at a $10 to $18 discount per barrel. Stephen Harper pursued an ambitious agenda, which seems to now have been adopted by the Liberals, to turn Canada into an energy superpower. He tried to streamline the approvals of major projects in general across the country. He worked hard to build free trade agreements around the world. We will often hear the Liberals tell us about the agreements the Prime Minister has now signed with other countries for X, Y or Z products. However, those are essentially just really nice photo ops, because we already have free trade agreements with 60% of the world’s GDP because of the work of Stephen Harper, which he started way back in the mid-2000s. He signed 43 free trade agreements, and did that because he said we needed to diversify our markets from only selling to the United States to selling to others around the world. The two notable ones he never got across the finish line were CETA and the TPP, but shortly after Justin Trudeau took power, those two were signed. Those were not the only things he did. Stephen Harper also worked to solidify our money, to make sure our money was worth something. I remember particularly the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011, when our dollar was actually worth more than the American dollar, because Stephen Harper had worked hard to ensure we worked towards a balanced budget. He was making sure our fiscal house was in order and that we were not robbing our old people and the labourers in this country by making their money worth less and less each year, unlike the current government. The other thing he did was flatten the taxes. He worked hard to make sure that the harder we worked, the more of our money we got to take home, not the other way around. He worked on the tax rate. The tax rate is fundamental to getting things built in this country. The other thing about our money and making the money worth something was that the interest rate went down. When the interest rate went down, that spurred economic activity. I have a story about a cousin of mine. He builds houses in Edmonton, and he was telling me about how, during COVID, when the interest rates hit about zero, they built 400 units in Edmonton that year. He said that was entirely a function of the interest rate. He said that this year, they built 75 houses, and that is only because they could not carry any more houses than that because of the interest rate. He said he discovered what his company is capable of building at zero interest rate. We have the capacity in terms of manpower, skills and logistics to build 400 houses a year, but because of the higher interest rate, we are only capable of building 75 houses since we cannot carry that amount of debt over the year. An interesting thing to think about is how interest rates affect building things in this country. When builders are building things, they are often paying interest on the materials they put into a product they are building for the period of time between when they build the product, invoice it and get paid for the thing they built. That is an interesting thing. As to the tax rate, we have been talking about building and Canada becoming an energy superpower. The Liberals have adopted Conservative language on this. They are sounding like the Conservatives, but they are not doing the things it takes to make sure things happen. One thing that affects the tax rate is around what we have talked a lot about today: the price of diesel fuel. We talked about how we need to make sure we get our products to market, but also about how we need to be able to refine our own product here in Canada. The reality is that no company is going to come to Canada to refine because of the industrial carbon tax. Fertilizer companies have already complained to me bitterly about the fact that they are paying a tax that no other jurisdiction in the world has to pay. They have to compete with fertilizer coming in from out of the country that does not have these taxes. They said they are under water every month because of the industrial carbon tax. If that is what our fertilizer producers are saying, no companies are going to come to Canada to build refineries, only to lose money. That is why the government needs to incentivize companies to come here by removing the industrial carbon tax. The Liberals sound like us. We battled against the carbon tax for 10 years, and the Liberals finally came to their senses after the Canadian population was about to punish them severely over the carbon tax. They removed the consumer carbon tax, but we are not going to be an energy superpower, with all the great projects the Liberals keep talking about and insinuating will happen in Canada, without addressing that. The other thing I want to talk about is Bill C-69 and the approvals process. With Bill C-5 and now this bill, the Liberals are trying to build a workaround to Bill C-69. We have been saying for years that they are not going to get pipeline projects, major energy infrastructure and railways, all of those kinds of things, built. The big projects that everybody thinks they are going to build are not going to get built while Bill C-69 is in place. I have not heard one member of the Liberal Party mention Bill C-69 tonight. They have not said anything about the barriers that have been put in place by the Liberal government. It is super frustrating for me to see the Liberals stand here as if they are the heroes of their own story, as if they are solving the problems of Canada, while they are the ones who created those problems. Bill C-48 killed the northern gateway pipeline. I remember driving across northern British Columbia and seeing excavators on the ground. The pipe was laying in a field ready to be put in for the northern gateway pipeline. Then the Liberals dropped Bill C-48, saying people could not take petroleum product off the shore of B.C. and put it on a boat. People could build the pipeline, the Liberals said. People were welcome to build the pipeline, but they were not to take the product that was in that pipeline and put it on a boat. That was what Bill C-48 did, and when the Liberals did that, it ended the pipeline. Those two bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, have to be repealed. We have to do that to match the rhetoric that we are hearing from the Liberal side. The Liberals need to work on that. Under Stephen Harper, we built six major pipelines across this country. In 2014, we had 14 LNG projects proposed. I want to remind Canadians that these projects were entirely proposed by private industry. They were going to be tax-generating projects. Canadian public coffers were going to be filled with the revenues generated by these projects. The Canadian taxpayer would not have had to pay for them. The Trans Mountain pipeline was going to be a $6-billion project. By the time the government was done building it, it was a $36-billion project. This bill is, I am afraid, another smoke and mirrors thing. I am looking forward to hearing what the Liberals have to say about it.

“I want the member to explain how this bill is different from the one we passed last year. That law promised fast approvals, but over 500 projects are still waiting. Past government laws also cancelled 14 gas projects and nine pipelines.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in knowing from the member what the differences are between this bill and Bill C-5. We passed Bill C-5 a year ago, and we were expecting projects to be built with lightning speed. I know there are over 500 projects on the list now that have not been approved. I am wondering what the difference is. I am also wondering if the member has any comments about Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Those bills had the effect of cancelling 14 LNG projects in the country and nine pipelines.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Farmers cannot set their own prices, but the government does control the costs of doing business. I want my colleague to explain why beef prices have gone up so much over the last 20 years.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech. A lot of his speech was about farmers. Farmers are generally bound by the price they can sell their products for, because of the market. The cost of doing business is something that we, as the Canadian government, can control. Can my colleague explain a bit about what has happened over the last 20 years in the beef industry that now causes beef prices to be so high?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Diesel fuel costs too much for workers in my riding. Alberta companies want to make cheaper diesel from natural gas, but the government does not support them. I want the government to adopt the Conservative plan so diesel is affordable.”
Official Hansard

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

Private Members' Business ·

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“Parliament supported this idea ten years ago, but nothing has happened since. I want the member to explain what other countries have done to keep kids away from online porn.”
Official Hansard

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

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“Conservatives were right about trading with more countries instead of just the United States. Stephen Harper signed 43 trade deals to do that, and now the Liberals finally agree with our ideas. I want to know what the member thinks we should do next.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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

Statements by Members ·

Exposure to Pornography

“I want the House to pass this bill. It protects kids by forcing online porn companies to verify users' ages. Studies show that seeing pornography harms young people's brains, mental health, and safety.”
Official Hansard

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

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

“The government has been in power for ten years and always takes too long to act on forced labour. I want to know how they will prove they are taking this seriously and when this new bill will actually be put in place.”
Official Hansard

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

“Canada is doing a terrible job stopping goods made with forced labour. We have only stopped two shipments in five years, while the United States has stopped thousands. The government also weakened our forced-labour law to help its corporate friends. This weak enforcement hurts our trade talks with the United States. The government must take real action to ban goods made with slavery.”
  • Speech in the House

    Respect 91 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “it would benefit the Prime Minister's corporate friends”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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

Private Members' Business ·

Criminal Code

“I will vote for this bill. It stops medical assistance in dying for people whose only condition is mental illness. We cannot know which suicidal people will recover and which will not, so we should try to save everyone instead of helping some people end their lives.”
Official Hansard

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

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

“The Liberals are using Conservative ideas. Years ago, Stephen Harper had great plans to make Canada less dependent on the United States. I want the member to reflect on those ideas so we can push the government to use them.”
Official Hansard

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