MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Jeremy Patzer

Follow by RSS

Patzer presses to remove federal taxes on diesel for grain farmers, backs Bill C-218 to stop assisted dying for mental illness alone, and asks for funding of the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project and a new softwood lumber deal. He often mocks opponents rather than answering their arguments, saying, “He is supposed to be the grandmaster economist who is going to save Canada.” He leans on figures, citing tax revenue, deficits and fentanyl seizures in detail.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
84 / 100 over 44 statements
Signal 72 / 100
Relevance 82 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Averaged over the 44 of 46 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

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 A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Says again and again

Echo

Statements 46

Private Members' Business ·

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

“I want the House to pass this bill. It requires age checks on porn sites. Watching pornography harms children's brains and leads to addiction and abuse. Stores already ban selling explicit material to kids, and we should do the same thing online.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest Saskatchewan. I want to thank my colleague from just north of me in the province, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, for sponsoring this Senate bill to address the issue of kids accessing pornography online. As a father of three, including two teenagers, I appreciate seeing all the good work she has done over the years to support children and families. She lives with the modern reality facing parents because she is a mother of young children herself. Raising children who are minors is something each of us has in common with many others in the House, from all parties. That is the most important thing we should be focusing on here today. As parents, we want the best for our kids. We try to give them everything they need to have their best start in life. Our goal is to help them become adults who can reach their full potential for health, happiness, success and good character. While they are in the process of growing up, we want to keep them away from anything that is harmful to their development. It is an important part of our job to protect them when they are most vulnerable and too young to fully understand how certain things can negatively affect them and sometimes have a permanent impact, for life. As children enter their teen years, parents have to guide them through new challenges, including relationships and sexual development. I’ll quickly quote something from a book called Every Young Man’s Battle, which is written from a faith-based perspective to help teens think about these issues. The authors say to the young reader, “One of the most difficult assignments you’ll ever have is to integrate your sexuality with the emotional, spiritual, social, and relational person you want to be.” They goes on to talk about having a healthy outlook on sexuality, which is integrated and balanced with other parts of our lives, including our emotional, relational and spiritual needs. This is a special part of how we are made. We know it is supposed to be a beautiful expression of love, which should lead us toward personal fulfillment, but instead of following that type of path, pornography easily takes a young person in the opposite direction and quickly creates some distorted impressions. Especially during early puberty, or even before it begins, the damage of exposure to pornography can cause serious problems. One of those problems that can develop at a more formative time is addiction. As time goes on, now with more than one generation growing up with online pornography, we hear from professional and popular discussions about things like porn addiction and sex addiction. Like other forms of addiction, it has negative effects on the person experiencing it, but there are also ways for other people to be harmed, not only relationally but physically as well. That is why Bill S-209 starts off by saying that its purpose is to protect public health and public safety. To do that, it would bring forward a simple solution by requiring age verification. This is really nothing new. The law already has an age limit of 18 years old for selling or distributing sexually explicit material. We do not allow minors to access these things at a physical store in the real world, and having this rule in place has helped to achieve some good in the process. In some ways, it is similar to the idea of setting an age for people to buy alcohol, but everybody knows that in practice, the situation is very different when it comes to the Internet. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has said that children as young as eight and nine years old can easily come across sexually graphic material online. In Alberta, a separate study of adolescents found that one-third had been exposed to pornography by the age of 10. There are people who will simply say that this is just boys being boys, and their curious minds will find this material regardless, but many people’s experience, and a huge amount of research, shows that it is a bigger problem than that, and I am going to explain why. The human brain is growing and not finished developing until the age of 26 or thereabouts. To put it simply, while a person’s brain is being wired and developing until they are 26, everything that happens in those first 26 years of their life goes a long way to determining who they are, because it can make a difference in how they develop at the biological level. Along with the psychological effects on mental health, we are also talking about experiences that can result in physical changes in the brain while it is still in the middle of development. Viewing pornography is obviously very different from having sex with a real person. Besides the direct experience, there is something different happening with the brain. Studies have shown that people who are addicted to pornography have a similar brain pattern to people who are addicted to cocaine. Now, take that brain pattern and place it in a preteen or teenage boy or girl, and we have a recipe for disaster. It creates an addiction and a dependency that they will continue to seek from now on, and this is happening at a crucial stage when they are forming their self-image or dealing with insecurities. At the same time, they are learning new ways to handle relationships with their peers and having their first experiences, which shape how they will handle intimate relationships when they are older. Here are some more stats. When intentionality is questioned, 44% of teens say they looked it up on purpose, but as many as 58% say they encountered porn accidentally. The rates of intentional consumption are actually higher among respondents who identify as LGBT. For that group, some studies show it was 50% higher or could even be 66% higher. We have these youth, who are already vulnerable and seeking affirmation for who they are, exposed to sexually explicit, graphic and violent material while working through deeply personal questions of identity. That higher rate of consumption actually puts them at even more risk than their peers of being victimized. Pornography also creates erratic behaviour and false expectations of what sex is. I am going to give a couple of examples of such behaviour, and what I am about to say is quite disturbing. There was a case of a 12-year-old schoolboy who raped his seven-year-old sister after watching hard-core porn with his buddies on an Xbox. After viewing this content, he wanted to try to do the things in real life that he was watching online. There was another instance in 2019 of a 14-year-old boy sexually assaulting his eight-year-old stepsister after watching pornography on a regular basis. These are both very shocking and disturbing cases, and it is a mistake to dismiss them as a couple of isolated incidents. They are alarm bells for a much larger problem. Stories like this are less surprising if we realize what is happening beneath the surface. When studies on this issue have been done, they have found that 38% of teens reported viewing porn that depicts rape, choking or deliberately causing someone pain; 21% agreed that “most people” like to be spanked, hit or slapped during sex; and the numbers get worse among those who purposely watch violent pornography. Those numbers skyrocket to 80% for teenagers who watch porn at least three times a week, yet only 30% say that some form of consent was given by the people in the videos. Pornography is destroying how healthy relationships are viewed. It is creating massively false expectations for intimate partners about what is deemed to be normal conduct in the bedroom. This is something that is hard to overcome. We could ask any cocaine addict how hard it is to overcome that addiction and then imagine what it is like dealing with this addiction. When we have expectations and ideas being influenced by violent pornography, it is not difficult to imagine how this can contribute to abusive relationships or domestic violence. All of this is why I support Bill S-209 to restrict access to pornography for young people. We can take action and require age verification. We can help to prevent and reduce early exposure among the future generations. We can take a simple step to fight some of the worst impacts of online pornography. It is impossible for government to replace the role of parents, and it should never try to do that, but it is also true that parents are looking for help to protect their kids online, and the government knows that. It says as much when it promotes Bill C-34 to restrict access to social media. I find it interesting that we are debating both of these bills at the same time. Hopefully, it helps my colleagues on the government side understand where this bill is coming from and support this one as well. There are real concerns with young people using social media, which I share as a parent, but it is also likely that the negative effects of online pornography are even substantially worse, yet Bill C-34 would do nothing to address an issue of protecting the innocence of kids and youth from material that they should never see. Parenting has always been a tough job, but it has only gotten more complicated in a digital world. The least we can do for them is to pass Bill S-209.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The government printed about 600 billion extra dollars during COVID, and that caused high inflation. The cost of living is now the worst it has been in a generation, and the government is hiding it by cooking the books. I want the member to explain how these dishonest accounting tricks hurt struggling Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was the governor of the Bank of England, he had a fancy for printing money. We know that the Trudeau government’s response to COVID was to print money. Some $600 billion of extra currency was printed in Canada. Now we are starting to see the effects of that through inflation. When we see the government trying to use creative accounting practices to cook the books in its favour, I am wondering if the member could explain a bit more the problems that it creates for Canadians, who are really struggling with the cost of living crisis, because opposite to what the government claims, affordability is the worst it has been in a generation.

“The Liberals only reached the 2% defence goal by counting Coast Guard spending as military spending, without actually giving our military what it needs. At the same time, tax revenues grew from $284 billion in 2020 to $417 billion, while deficits head toward $80 billion a year. Canadians have nothing to show for all this money except more people needing food banks.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Liberals just changed the math around a bit to make it work with their 2% commitment, such as making the Canadian Coast Guard fall under national defence so they could take credit for the money being spent on the Coast Guard. They did not actually, truly or properly reach that 2% by providing our military with the things that it needs. What I want to double down on here is that the Prime Minister became Justin Trudeau’s adviser in 2020. Again, tax revenue for the government was $284 billion. When the current Prime Minister was advising the former prime minister, it went all the way up to $417 billion. I know that number is going to continue climbing. At the same time, the government is blowing past a balanced budget. It is on a path to keep it going up to around $80 billion a year. At one point, it was projected to be sustained at $63 billion a year. The PBO said that. Canadians are still wondering what they got for this, other than more people at the food bank.

“The government claims it is spending less, but its tax revenue went up by $130 billion between 2020 and 2025. Canadians got more debt, and they do not know what they got for all that extra money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know what to begin to say about the member’s speech, but let us just look at some basic numbers here. The Government of Canada’s own data shows that, in 2020, it had $284 billion in tax revenue. In 2025, it was $417 billion in tax revenue. The government’s favourite line is to say that it is spending less so that it can invest more. However, $130 billion more in tax revenue is coming into the government than it did in 2020, yet Canadians are wondering what on earth they got for the $130 billion, plus the extra debt that is tacked on top of that.

“The government collects far more taxes now than it did five years ago, but it still spends much more than it takes in. Debt payments are so high that they will soon cost more than everything collected through the sales tax. This leaves less money for health care and the military. I want the member to explain where all that extra tax money went.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, back in 2020, government tax revenue was $284 billion. In 2025, it is $417 billion. The GST went from $32 billion to $52 billion. The amount of money the government has racked up in debt means that a lot of money is going to be spent on debt servicing charges. The GST that is currently being collected is not even enough to cover the debt servicing charges, let alone things like health care transfers to the province, military spending and things like that, which Canadians are expecting. I very simply ask the member, with the government set to blow the debt servicing charges all the way up to $83 billion in the coming years, and with all the extra tax revenue the government has been generating, where did the money go? Why is the government running such a massive deficit if it has increased tax revenue by over $130 billion in five years?

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

In response to a question from Tako Van Popta

“I support this bill because it gives Canadians short-term relief from high fuel costs. But it is only a quick fix. The government collects far more money in taxes now than it did in 2020, yet life has only gotten more expensive. We need bigger, lasting changes to fix that.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 24 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Every single time that we get up in this House, it seems that we are addressing another Liberal failure. We passed Bill C-5 quickly because the government wanted us to help it pass quickly. That was a bill to help the government get around previous bad Liberal laws. However, that was not enough. The Liberals need Bill C-39 now. Bill C-5 did not do enough, so they created Bill C-39. Now, this House is actually dealing with Bill C-39 as well to deal with other systemic Liberal failures. Bill C-38 would provide temporary relief for Canadians. It would be a short-term, welcome measure, but there is more structural, substantive relief that the government could provide to Canadians. The Liberals have increased government revenue, from 2020 to now, from about $380 billion to over $500 billion. Ask any Canadian what they have gotten for that massive increase in government revenue from these guys: nothing. They have gotten higher prices. Everything is more expensive in Canada since 2020, thanks to these guys. The Liberals are hauling in way more money, and yet they are delivering nothing for Canadians. It is shameful.

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“Gas in Canada costs 24 cents more per litre than in the United States and 31 cents more than the world average. Government policies like carbon taxes and fuel rules cause these high prices. The government needs to do more to lower fuel costs for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, if the member had truly paid attention to my speech, he would know that I said, and this was written in our previous motion, that it is 24¢ per litre higher than the United States, across the border, and 31¢ higher than the world average. The war, absolutely, has something to do with the cost of what Canadians are paying at the pump, but 31¢ a litre higher than the global average is ridiculous. That shows that there is something happening here in Canada. It is things like the industrial carbon tax. This member talked about repealing the consumer carbon tax, which people paid at the pumps and was added on to all kinds of products that people could not see. It was baked into what they paid for food and things like that. There is more that the Liberals could do. They have hidden it. They have also added the Liberal fuel standards, which are driving up the cost of diesel and driving up the cost of production in this country. Those are things that the government controls. These are things that the government could repeal. It is not going to do it. The government even has a new Liberal member from Saskatchewan and all that he has managed to deliver in his time in office is scurvy to the people in northern Saskatchewan, which is absolutely ridiculous. The current government could do more to provide relief for Canadians. I expect it to do more, and so do Canadians.

“I support this bill because it lowers federal fuel taxes. High diesel prices are hurting farmers and making food and goods more expensive. The government should pass this bill and cut fuel taxes even more.”
  • A repeated line

    “Farmers cannot pass that cost on.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since September 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. Before I begin, I will mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Skyview. Back home in southwest and west central Saskatchewan, the harvest is, according to the Government of Saskatchewan data, about 97% to 98% complete, which basically means that people are looking to clean up the sloughs they had to leave because they are still a little too green or a few areas of their fields need to be cleaned up a bit later. By and large, the harvest is complete. I want to say thanks and send a big congratulations to all the farmers back home who have completed another harvest season. It is definitely not without its challenges. We have the diesel prices, which we we are dealing with today. We had a lovely three inches of rain in the middle of harvest that put people, in some cases as much as 10 days out of the field, having to wait for the fields to dry up so they can get back to harvesting again. We will never complain about getting rain, but that was certainly something we were not anticipating. Nevertheless, we will take rain whenever we can get it. I would give them another quick congratulations. When we look at the prairie economy, in Saskatchewan, in particular, but this would be true of Manitoba and of Alberta, the manufacturing capacity we have in Saskatchewan is largely based on agricultural manufacturing. I am from a farming community called Frontier. My parents farmed south of Frontier. We have two success stories in Frontier. The first one is Friggstad Manufacturing. Friggstad Manufacturing started off making air seeders, cultivators and various farm implements in Frontier. Olaf Friggstad was the visionary behind it. The Friggstad family, including Olaf and his brothers, some family members, his sons and his nephews, got into the family business and created a terrific company. It was eventually bought out by Flexi-Coil and relocated to Saskatoon. Then replacing that, there was a brief period of Talon Tools operating out of the plant, but then Honey Bee Manufacturing replaced it. Honey Bee Manufacturing, to this day, is still operating in Frontier. It has doubled the shop capacity it took over when it bought the plant location. It exports combine headers around the world and has done very well. There are many other successful farming operations that have become manufacturing products. Honey Bee started in a shop. The Honey brothers made a big tractor and created swathers and headers. They had the idea and started in their own shop before they moved to the plant in Frontier. When we look around the province, there are many great companies in existence. I think of companies like Schulte, Seed Hawk and Väderstad. In Swift Current, there is S3 as well, which is across multiple provinces. It even has some operations in the United States. It does very well. We have a very unique irrigation project in Saskatchewan. I mentioned Lake Diefenbaker in a question earlier. I want to talk about a smaller project. There is a water reservoir called Duncairn Dam. Out of that, they irrigate toward a little community called Rush Lake, a small town in Saskatchewan. They irrigate from Duncairn Dam. They built this a long time ago, long before we had sophisticated equipment. They are able to channel irrigation to get all the way down to Rush Lake from Duncairn. It is probably about 50 kilometres of channels to get all the way to Rush Lake from Duncairn. It is flood irrigation that happens there, and they produce at least 30,000 hay bales in a given year. There are people growing hay crops. There is a bit of grain and cereal crops in there as well. It is mostly used by ranchers to grow the hay that they need to get their crops off. The Rush Lake hay bales are definitely a local legend. Everybody knows about the Rush Lake hay flats, and that is what it is largely used for. My family has benefited from this in the past. My uncle Darcy and my grandpa Albert owned some plots in the Rush Lake hay flats. Everybody in the area knows about the Rush Lake hay bales and what that represents for the area. It is a success story of what modern prairie farming ingenuity actually entails. When we look at all of this, what is the common thread to Bill C-38, which we are debating here today? This is about the Canadian fuel affordability act, which would remove some of the federal tax on fuel. Diesel fuel, as I said earlier, drives the national economy, such as the machinery used to pull a Friggstad air seeder or cultivator, which I did on my farm growing up. I proudly drove our 9280 Case and pulled a Friggstad cultivator, and we had a Friggstad air drill. Our header for our combine was a Honey Bee header, so we supported the local economy that way, but the diesel fuel that powered this equipment was very important, and that is what this motion is about here today. I was talking to some of the producers in my area. Back in April, the price of diesel went from $1.38 to $1.95 for the farm bulk price in seven days. At the end of April, when farmers were planning to get their crops in the field, they were looking to purchase the fuel that they needed to get through seeding season, and the price went from $1.38 to $1.95. That is a direct hit to the bottom lines of our farmers, and that is a cost that farmers cannot pass on. Grain farmers cannot pass that cost on; they have to pay whatever the current price is. There is no relief for them. The only relief that does exist is that they can get an exemption on GST. They have to pay the GST up front, but they can get that back. That does not change the fact that they were paying $1.95 in April, right at the peak of seeding season in Saskatchewan. Let us fast-forward to September. From the middle of September to the end of September, the price for diesel was about $2.25 a litre. It kind of fluctuated from there down to about $1.90, right at the peak of harvest season. I was talking to some producers. One farmer I spoke to had used 100,000 litres of fuel to get through harvest. His combines, the tractors that he uses to pull the grain carts in the field, the semi-trucks that he uses to haul the grain from the field back to the bins or maybe to the elevator or to the local terminal all use diesel fuel. I look at $2.25 a litre in the middle of harvest; that is what our producers are having to deal with. I am talking to farmers who have had to basically budget a doubling in the price of fuel in order for them to operate their farms. When they are trying to forecast for next year, they are already looking at the price of fuel and understanding they are going to have to write an even higher number in there to get the crop in the ground in April and May this coming year. That is what our farmers are facing here today. That is why we had a motion. The government voted against it shamefully and defeated our opposition day motion that we had a few weeks ago, speaking to the diesel price. We are approximately 24¢ per litre higher than the United States on average and 31¢ per litre higher than the world average. That is what our farmers and our producers have to deal with and what they are faced with. It is not because of something extraordinary that is happening here. It is because of other federal taxes. I will applaud the government here today for this bill extending a bit of fuel tax relief to our farmers, producers and truckers, to make sure that they can have a little more cost certainty in getting things done. However, the government can go so much further. There is so much more that it can do, to provide that meaningful relief. We had that opposition day motion before the House. The government voted against it shamefully. It is ridiculous that its members would do that. Again, this is how it directly impacts the price of food: If I am going to the grocery store to buy groceries, the groceries do not just magically appear at the shelf. Everything gets to the grocery stores and everything gets to the clothing stores. Winter is coming up in Saskatchewan, so all the kids’ ski pants, jackets, toques, mitts and sports equipment get to the store. They were brought in on a truck that went down Highway 1, through my riding, to get to wherever they are going. Whether they came up from the States or came in from a port, they came in on a truck and were transported across this country. The fuel prices in Canada are skyrocketing, and there is still more that the government could do to provide that relief. The House could do those things that would actually help to bring down the cost of essentials for Canadians, whether it is food, fuel, fertilizer or kids’ winter clothes that they need to be able to get through the winter or the sports equipment that they need to be able to have a little bit of fun. Also, lots of parents drive diesel-powered vehicles, SUVs or trucks. That extra 24¢ to 31¢ a litre is impacting the ability of Canadians to just enjoy a few nice little things like playing hockey or playing volleyball.

“The Canadian economy runs on diesel. Our diesel prices are higher than world prices, and the government could lower them to help Canadians. Why will the Liberals not do that?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the Canadian economy runs on diesel. Highway 1 runs through my riding. I suspect it is not terribly far away from the member’s riding. When I drive down Highway 1, it takes two hours each and every time I go to the airport to fly out to Ottawa. The majority of the traffic is semi-trucks, which run on diesel. The previous motion we had before the House would have cut the price down, because we are about 24¢ to 31¢ higher than the world price on diesel. There is more the government could do to provide relief to Canadians and lower that price even further. Why will the Liberals not do it?

“The member was not talking about the bill. He talked about growing food instead. If the government wants to help with that, it should fund the irrigation project at Lake Diefenbaker. It promised to pay for this project in several elections, but it has done nothing. I want a yes-or-no answer on whether the government will fund it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 5 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 86 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the member spends a lot of time filling this chamber with hot air, talking about basically nothing.”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member spends a lot of time filling this chamber with hot air, talking about basically nothing. What he was talking about had nothing to do with the actual text of the bill dealing with fuel affordability, but I will bite. He was talking about growing more fresh produce in Canada. One way that could happened would be by creating the ability to have more greenhouses. I will talk about one particular area in Saskatchewan, right around Lake Diefenbaker. The government promised to fund the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project, which is probably a $6-billion to $8-billion project. The provincial government of Saskatchewan has said it is one of the big focuses of our province, yet the government has done absolutely nothing. Adding the member for northern Saskatchewan to the Liberal caucus has done nothing to advance that project in Saskatchewan. Will this member sit here today and say that the government is going to do what it promised in multiple campaigns and failed to do? In fact, it is a legacy project for Ralph Goodale. Will the member stand up in the House and say that the government will follow up on its commitment to fund the Lake Diefenbaker project in Saskatchewan, yes or no?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“We want the government to admit that life is too expensive for people right now. You cannot fix a problem until you admit it exists. The government has done nothing to make life cheaper. People do not want government cheques. They want their own paycheques to go further.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are trying to do here today is give the government an opportunity to admit that there is an affordability crisis. It is actually pretty simple. We cannot fix something if we are not willing to admit that there is a problem, so we are giving the government a chance to show some humility and understand and admit that there is an affordability problem. The chief whip for the government got up and was talking about this bill that was passed, which is supposedly their big affordability measure, yet the government has actually done nothing to improve affordability for Canadians. Canadians do not want food stamps and cheques from the government. They want the ability for their own cheques to go further. I was wondering whether my colleague shares those same thoughts and concerns.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Rural people in Saskatchewan have to drive long distances to cities, which supports our local economy. I want the government to pass this motion on fuel tax relief to help them.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague’s speech. One thing we both do is represent Saskatchewan and people who live in rural areas. A lot of people from rural communities drive into the city of Regina, and they support the rural economy that exists in Saskatchewan. Could the member explain to the Liberal government, and particularly the member for Winnipeg North, how important it is to pass this motion to support the rural economy in Saskatchewan?

“The environment minister's website says she is strongly against growing the oil sands. How can the member say he supports an oil pipeline when his own minister opposes expanding oil production?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the Pacific link pipeline and some of the other projects that the federal government has undertaken, but I want to read a quote from the environment minister’s website, which says that she has “taken a strong stance against oil sands expansion, and has promoted the critical need for a transition from fossil fuels to a low-carbon economy” and that “She has shared the priorities of local environmental groups with her colleagues in Ottawa.” With the environment minister’s actively telling people that she is against oil sands expansion, how can the member actually stand up and support a pipeline that increases oil production in the oil sands to get out to the west coast?

Oral Questions ·

Taxation

“High diesel costs are hurting farmers, who cannot pass these costs on to customers. The Liberals should vote for our motion to remove all federal taxes on diesel.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, last week I met with Kelly, a grain farmer from back home. His diesel bill jumped over $26,000 this year from last year. That is $26,000 that he cannot use to buy groceries for his family or put toward next year’s crops. He has no choice but to absorb this cost because grain farmers cannot pass it on, and he has to plant and harvest his crops no matter the price. The Liberals could offer real relief on his fuel bill for next growing season by voting for a motion to remove all federal taxes on diesel. Will the Liberals do the right thing and support our emergency fuel relief plan to save Canadians like Kelly some money?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“High diesel prices are hurting small family farms the most. One farmer expects his fuel costs to go up by $50,000 next year, and he cannot pass that cost on. How does the member expect him to pay for that?”
  • A repeated line

    “Farmers cannot pass that cost on.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since September 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is from the Prairies, and so am I. He knows that the backbone of the prairie economy is the family farm. Family farms tend to be a little smaller than the bigger commercial farms out there, but small family farms are probably being hit the hardest when it comes to skyrocketing diesel prices, because the margins they are operating with are very tight. One farmer talked to me about the price from last year and what he is planning for for next year, and he said he is looking at a difference of between $40,000 and $50,000 on his small family farm just in the cost of diesel for him to put the crop in the ground and get the harvest off. He has to plan ahead, and he is penciling in a difference from last year to next year of $50,000. What does the member think this farmer is going to do? He cannot pass that cost on. He has to absorb that cost. That is why we have this motion today. What does the member have to say about that?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Warren Steinley

“The government talks a lot but does not get results. The environment minister opposes oil and gas development. Her choices hurt Canadian industry, harm the economy, and divide the country. We need a prime minister who brings people together.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 95 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “She hates the oil sands”.

    See full analysis
  • 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, with the Liberal government, it continues to be all rhetoric with no results. Again, getting back to taking bold action, the government has done nothing when it comes to bold action. In fact, the environment minister herself is an active ally for the movement to try to end any development in the oil sands. She hates the oil sands. It is even on her own website that she does not want to see any more development in the oil sands. She is very much anti-oil and anti-gas. The Liberal government still has the same anti-energy activists in the government, in cabinet, still forcing some of these decisions. That is what is leading a lot of the destruction of Canadian industry and the Canadian economy. That is why a lot of the divides continue to exist in this country. This country needs a unifying prime minister. and it is certainly not the one who is sitting over there.

In response to a question from Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

“I want the House to pass this bill. The government is using environmental rules to hurt rural communities and the industries that run our economy. Canada already has strong environmental rules. The government must stop attacking our way of life.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 19 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the passion that the hon. member brings to the House. It is the next generation that really motivates me. I have three kids of my own. I know the opportunities I had growing up in small-town rural Saskatchewan. The very lifestyle I had growing up, that way of life, is under attack by the Liberal government. The Liberals have actually used the environmental lens to try to punish and destroy the rural way of life. They have zero clue. They have no understanding of what it means and what it is like to be from rural Canada and to have to suffer under the policies that they have put in place. That needs to end. The government needs to quit using the environment as a way to destroy and punish the main industries and sectors that drive and fuel the Canadian economy. Yes, we need to have proper environmental protections. We have the strongest regime in the world. If the rest of the world adopted Canadian environmental standards, all the issues the Bloc talks about would start to slowly go away.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“This government has not taken bold action to get things done. If the member truly wants bold action, he should speak out against the prime minister's bad policies that he supported.”
Official Hansard

Bold action, Mr. Speaker? The member has been in the House a lot longer than I have. He has enjoyed a very long political career that stems back to his time in the provincial legislature in Manitoba. He has seen many governments come and go. He knows this government has done nothing when it comes to actually taking bold, substantive action to get things done in this country. If he wants to take bold action, he should stand up in this place and denounce all the disastrous policies of Justin Trudeau’s time that he supported. That would be a step in the right direction. That would be bold, and I would welcome him to do that.

“I do not support this bill. It makes only small changes instead of fixing our broken review system for major projects. Companies will still face long delays, and the government can still pick which projects win and lose. It also does nothing to fix our ports and railways so farmers can move their grain to market.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west-central Saskatchewan. I want to start off my speech by saying a big thanks to all the farmers across Saskatchewan and back home for all the work they have put in this year through seeding, through summer and now through harvest. Quite a few farmers are done for the season, but there are still some who have a little way to go thanks to the late rains we had. We will never say no to rain. We will always take more of it. It would have been nice if it had come earlier in the year. Nevertheless, we will take it whenever we get it. It did cause a bit of a delay, but I want to say, again, a big thanks to the farmers for all the hard work they do. That provides a bit of context to the bill we have here today. We have heard the government talk about how it would improve trade corridors. The Liberals talk about how the bill would improve labour relations. Especially in the spirit of the harvest happening and it wrapping up back home, I am hearing that people are concerned that the bill would anger the people who are responsible for making sure that our farmers get their product out to the coast and to market. If the government was truly trying to do something to help our farmers, it could have chosen to use the bill as a means to improve port infrastructure. For example, the Liberals could have had covered grain loading or expanded rail capacity to make sure we could get more railcars out to the ports in a timely manner. That way, farmers would not have to face the merge and issues with boats waiting in water, things that are completely out of their control but that they have to pay for, causing headaches for them. A lot of people are skeptical about what the bill would do for the labour side of things. The government calls this omnibus legislation the building Canada strong act, and I forgive people for wondering if they have heard this before, because the Liberals have used it in their campaign slogans. They have used it for Liberal Party fundraising. I see it on TV in the Government of Canada ads that are going on. In fact, the government also used it in last year’s budget. It also had the Building Canada Act, Bill C-5, which was one of the first government bills introduced. The budget was a year ago, and Bill C-5 was passed a year and a half ago, and here we are again with yet another bill with basically the same name trying to accomplish the same thing. Canadians are left wondering what exactly the bill would do. Canadians are starting to wonder and rightly ask the question, “What have the Liberals built and what are they going to get built?” Without seeing results, it seems more and more like the government keeps making empty promises to Canadians that they either cannot keep or do not even bother trying to keep. As I said, we have already had the Building Canada Act and now we have the building Canada strong act. As time goes on, it has started to sound like we are going back to square one. The Liberals have another slogan that they love to use, and that is, “We are just getting started.” It has been 11 years of just getting started, with nothing happening except for the destruction of industry. What do we have to show for fast-tracking Bill C-5 in the first place? This was the bill the government said it needed, with urgency, to get things going. It was introduced last year. It was supposed to be a quick fix, by creating a new bureaucracy for major projects to circumvent the laws the Liberals had put in place previously. At the time, Conservatives questioned how effective it would turn out to be, and we pointed out that instead they needed to do a lot more to repeal many of the disastrous policies from under Justin Trudeau. However, they were unwilling to go that far and admit that they needed to deal with the deeper issues they had created. Here we are, close to the end of 2026, and nothing has been built. Construction has not started. Instead, we see the government bring forward yet another bill with its favourite slogan: “build Canada strong”. No matter who is prime minister, it is the same Liberal Party running the government, and Liberals always love to play political games. They did not stop playing games after Justin Trudeau left, but they are playing a different game now. For a long time, the Liberals decided to use Canadian oil and gas as a political scapegoat. They were constantly looking for ways to treat development as a wedge issue for electoral gain. All of this caused deep division between different regions of Canada, but things have gotten so bad that the government cannot get away with doing that anymore. Now the Liberals see public opinion and tell people what they want to hear. They are saying some of the right things and pretending the last decade never happened. Meanwhile, Canadians know that we desperately need to rebuild our economy, and they strongly support building major projects. This means they expect new projects to actually get started if they have not been built already. After losing an entire decade, there is no time left to waste, but the Liberals did not understand that before, and apparently they still do not understand it now. As our debate continues on Bill C-39, it will become pretty clear that this bill is overhyped. The Liberals are caught in a bind because they have to to deal with the consequences of the regulatory mess they created, but they are only willing to make some small tweaks to their own flawed system rather than do what is necessary to deliver substantive and structural change that would benefit every Canadian business. Despite the Liberal attempts to phase it out, our Canadian oil and gas sector has always been a leading contributor to our national economy as a whole. More than anything, regulatory uncertainty has been absolutely devastating for the energy sector and for all Canadian resource industries. Uncertainty has chased away billions of investment dollars, and over time, it has significantly worsened Canada’s business reputation around the world. One of the worst examples of this has been the Impact Assessment Act. We saw death by delay with cases like Teck Frontier or the Trans Mountain pipeline, where the project’s proponent in the private sector eventually gave up and walked away because the review process was too slow and inconsistent. Proponents had to follow required processes, but the bureaucracy did not have the same pressure with meeting deadlines and it had further options for dragging out the process. There has been a broad consensus for years that we cannot move forward until the government overhauls the impact assessment process. Major reforms are long overdue. Conservatives have been demanding it forever, and I have lost count how many times my colleagues and I have stood in this place and called for change. The Liberals have refused to repair their broken system, and even now with Bill C-39, they continue to pursue mostly performative changes. All their big talk about one project, one review, one year is mainly stuck at the surface level. Of course streamlining the project approval process is helpful, but there are so many other things that need to go along with doing that. Once again, Bill C-39 would fail to do the fundamental work of creating the strongest possible regulatory environment built on consistency and certainty. The one-year timeline would apply to completed applications, but proponents for new projects would also be dealing with an open-ended preparatory phase without a hard deadline. That would cost millions and millions of dollars. I will give the example of Teck Frontier again. It had a writedown of $1.13 billion while it waited for the government to make an approval, and that is what it walked away from. That was the cost for Teck. Extensions could also be granted with Bill C-39, especially for consultation purposes. If this mechanism were applied to allow for some reasonable flexibility, it is true that there could be a benefit to industry in some cases, but right now we have no idea how it would play out and if it would be consistent. We still have uncertainty hanging over everyone’s heads, and because this is such a big and complex omnibus bill, it is tough to find clarity on some important points. If proponents missed a deadline, the application could be declined, but what would happen if the government missed the one-year deadline? Where is the accountability and the transparency for government to support industry? Could this put us right back in the same spot where projects run into death by delay all over again? The bill would allow cabinet to designate certain projects or regions in the national interest, but this might not be as promising as it sounds. Again, where is the consistency? The government would still have too much control over the process, where it could pick winners and losers. There would still plenty of room for having unhealthy favouritism between industries or for political priorities getting in the way of our economic recovery. We are still way too close to comfort to the way things were under Justin Trudeau and the same problems remain in place here. In a weird way, the Liberals are reinforcing the uncertainty and setting things up for it to become worse by proposing to centralize the process and opening it up for more politicization. While this is going on, global investors would still see that energy production remains subject to other priorities while uncompetitive policies remain in place, like the Liberals’ fuel regulations or an industrial carbon tax scheduled to increase. Canadian industry talks about a lost decade, and it is not because it is living in the past or crying over spilled milk. It is forced to make up for that lost time while facing global competitors and jurisdictions that do not punish their industries the same way that these Liberals do. It is not good enough for the government to take its sweet time and tinker with amendments to Trudeau’s policies. Bold and decisive action is the only answer. Canadians are running out of patience and they are tired of hearing excuses from the Liberals. Canada needs to build major projects to strengthen the economy, improve energy security and defend our national sovereignty. Success does not come from passing a bunch of Liberal government bills. We have to measure success by how many projects are built by the private sector and how many pipelines will move Canadian energy to market. Canadians need clear answers and strong action from the government. Like they say, it is time to get started. It has had 11 years. When will it get started?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“I oppose this bill. It is far too long. The government keeps trying to pass new laws to fix its past mistakes, and I do not believe it will get things right this time.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 39 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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