MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Steven Bonk

Follow by RSS

Bonk works for rural Saskatchewan: he wants fuel taxes and the clean fuel standard scrapped, agriculture exempted from a Mercosur trade deal, and questions spending he doubts delivers, like a $20-million-a-year lease for what he calls a launch site with “a gravel road, a couple of containers and a concrete slab.” He states his case as settled fact, saying “the facts are clear” without citing where they come from. A lifelong farmer, he also backs a national livestock brand and soil health.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
87 / 100 over 22 statements
Signal 77 / 100
Relevance 86 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Averaged over the 22 of 26 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

Statements 26

Private Members' Business ·

National Strategy for Soil Health Act

“Healthy soil is vital, and Canadian farmers are world leaders in protecting it. I support this bill, but the government should fund our own farm research instead of closing research centres like the one in Indian Head.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is something that I have a great privilege to speak about. It is deeply close to me and deeply personal to me. I grew up on a farm. I live on a farm. I have had the pleasure of working for 30 years on five different continents, promoting soil health and consulting on soil health and animal genetics. They say that all life on earth comes down to the top six inches of soil we have. This is true. This is something we should not take for granted. We have seen, through the very poor farming practices we had early on in Canada, that it is very easy to degrade the soil, but it is also possible to regrow the soil, to improve it. There are many things we are doing now that are of great use. I come from Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is famous for having eight feet of topsoil. We always hear stories about when the settlers came and dug the basements for their houses. They never hit anything but black dirt. That is no longer the case. A lot of that soil was lost in the 1930s or 1920s, when we had a lot of erosion during dry years. Due to plowing and basically the powderization of the soil, we lost a lot of good topsoil. However, there has also been a lot of great innovation. Think about the topsoils that we had. They were developed over millennia, in partnership with the bison that would come in. Sometimes they would graze heavily and take everything off. They said when the bison left, there was just black dirt; there was no grass left. Sometimes those bison did not come back for two or three years, which gave ample time for the soil to rest and the microbes to regrow. It was like pages in a book. We had soil that would grow grass. The bison would come. They would trample the grass, eat some and leave their dung and urine behind, which would increase the organic matter in the soil. That was like another page. They would do that over and over again. That is how we developed the rich black soils we have today. That is the same thing that has happened all over the globe. When we look at seasonal grasslands, there are about three billion hectares in the world. We can think of the Prairies, the Eurasian steppe, the savannahs in Africa and the pampas in South America. They all developed exactly the same way. Large groups of herbivores would come in, take about half of what there was, trample the other half and leave their fertilizer behind. That would grow incredible soils. With the advent of modern agriculture, we decided that we would manage agriculture. We would have cattle in a small fence and would just let them eat whatever they wanted. Animals are lazy. Cows especially are very lazy. They eat what they like, and they leave what they do not like. By having cattle go back constantly to the same plants they like, they weaken the root systems, which gives an advantage to the grasses they do not like and they soon take over. The cattle do not like those grasses, so they leave them. When they leave them, the plants die. They do not get trampled or eaten, and they are not in contact with the soil, which helps them break down. What happens when the grasses are left standing is that they have to break down by oxidation. That can take years sometimes. When we see two- or three-year-old grass plants in a park, for example, that are silver, that is the oxidation I am talking about. They need soil contact to break down. We used to do that in agriculture by locking cattle in, say, a 160-acre parcel of land in Saskatchewan. That was typical. We would put them there in the spring, leave them there for the whole year and bring them off in the fall. The animals would eat what they liked and leave what they did not like. That caused a problem in the grasslands. We would see a big space between the plants. However, we changed that. Canada is a world leader in something called regenerative agriculture, especially when it comes to livestock agriculture. What we have done is used cattle as a proxy for the great bison herds. We do what is called rotational grazing or cell grazing, where we lock animals in a very small, specific area so they have to eat everything there, or at least eat every plant there, hopefully leaving half of them or a little bit more and trampling the rest. Then we move them to other parcels. If we do this management correctly, the grass that was grazed will not get regrazed at all until, perhaps, 60 or, even better, 90 days after that. This has made huge differences in our soil’s capacity to hold water. We are seeing it on my own farm. We used to have small potholes that would fill up in the spring and then the water would go away by June and nothing would really grow there for the rest of the year, and now those potholes do not develop at all because all that water can filtrate into the soil. We are seeing a much healthier water table that way. Also, it keeps the temperature of the soil much cooler. This is something that was pioneered in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it has been exported all over the world. I have had the great opportunity to do a lot of this work, particularly in Central Asia. When we look at the great Eurasian steppe of Kazakhstan, Siberia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, that whole area, and Mongolia, there is so much potential because they have had years and years of nomadic herders who built the beautiful soils they have now. However, because of the Soviet system they had to endure with Soviet farms, the Communist farms they had, the management was so poor that they have desertification on a scale that people just cannot imagine. By using some of these great principles we have developed in Canada, such as rotational grazing, the proper management of moving these animals in the right place, and most importantly, allowing for adequate rest of the grasslands after they have been grazed, they are seeing huge responses. The spacing between plants is getting better. The soil temperature is going down. The organic matter is coming up. Water filtration is improving. Water filtration is something that is so important, especially in the seasonal grasslands, which are known for not having that much rainfall. It is typical in the regenerative agriculture world for someone to say, “How much rain did you get?” On our farm, we say, “all of it,” because we do not have runoff. All of it goes into the soil. All of it is there to keep the soil temperature down in order to grow our plants. Allan Savory, who is the founder of the Savory Institute, claims that if we were to take half of the world’s seasonal grasslands and we were to use proper management, if we were to use rotational grazing as a proxy for these wild herds of herbivores that used to roam, we could bring the carbon levels in the atmosphere down to pre-industrial levels. That is the power of soil health and proper soil management. This is not a pipe dream. This is something we can do. The health of the soils is extremely important. It is a fact that there is about 2.5 tonnes of carbon in every hectare of grasslands right now. Third party studies in Saskatchewan have already shown that a lot of people are sequestering up to six tonnes of carbon per year in their grassland. By managing it properly, by doing what we do here and exporting that to the world, we can make a huge difference. This is something that I think is so important. However, I am a little confused by the Liberals promoting this bill so much. I appreciate that they are, but I do not know why they would do something like close the research centres we have in Canada that have promoted, developed and pioneered some of this technology. I think of the Indian Head research centre, which is right next to me in my riding. A farmer named Jim Halford partnered with Guy Lafond at the research centre, and they were the original pioneers of zero-till technology. That has been exported all over the world, and now we are seeing about 270 million hectares of grain land in the world that is now under zero-till. This was developed, and I am going to take the credit that it was in Saskatchewan, at Indian Head, and was all pioneered at the Indian Head research centre. It costs about $3 million to keep the Indian Head research centre open, yet the government decided it was not worth it. It decided that scientific innovation and agriculture was not worth it, yet it gave $8.2 million to study gender-neutral rice in Vietnam. I appreciate this bill, but I also want the Liberals to understand that scientific research in Canada is very important, and the world is relying on us for it.

“Farmers drive innovation in farming because they know their land and animals best. Why does the member think only the government can solve this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one thing we know is that most innovation in agriculture is driven by farmers. No one knows their land and their animals better than they do. The member said in her speech that this can be achieved only through government action, yet we have seen that some of the most incredible innovation, of any field at all in Canada, is in agriculture. Why does she now think it has to be done by the government?

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

“This bill does not clearly define key words like online bullying or the social media sites it targets. I want the member to explain how we can measure its success when we do not even define what we are measuring.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I assume the Liberals are aiming to have some definite outcomes from this bill, but we are lacking definitions. For example, one of the main items they are discussing is online bullying, yet we still do not have an official definition of bullying. We do not even have a definition of the social media they are targeting. Could my hon. colleague mention how on earth we can measure something when we do not even know the proper definitions to measure it by?

“We cannot track progress on this bill if we do not clearly define key terms. What exact definitions is the government using for social media platforms?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals brought forward this bill, and there are a lot of things resting on it, but the most important is definitions. I mentioned this to my colleague who gave a speech previously: How can we measure outcomes and how can we measure progress if we do not even have strict definitions with respect to what the bill is intended to do? Can the member enlighten us about exactly what definitions the government is going for when it comes to social media platforms?

“We cannot put this bill into action without clear definitions. This bill leaves those key details to unelected bureaucrats. I want my colleague to explain the dangers of doing that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, whenever my colleague gives a speech in this House, it is very dense and full of facts. With his legal background, I would like to ask him about something that is very important. He mentioned two things: one was implementation and one was definitions. We cannot get into the implementation until we have strict definitions. He said that the defining features of this legislation would be in regulations that are to come from unelected bureaucrats. Could he maybe expand on that and on the dangers of that?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The Prime Minister has added more to our national debt than all other prime ministers combined. We now spend more money paying off that debt than we send to provinces for health care. I want the member to explain how this huge debt stops us from building needed infrastructure.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, there was so much in that speech that I agreed with and quite a bit in that speech that I did not agree with. I think the main thing I do not agree with is that the Prime Minister has the heart of a Conservative. A Conservative would never run up such ridiculous amounts of debt. There has been more debt added to our national debt load during the terms of former prime minister Trudeau and the current Prime Minister than there was under all of the other prime ministers combined. In fact, we see now that in a lot of the COVID spending, all the bonds that were sold during that time were short-term bonds, and $600 billion or 29% of our national debt is going to be turned over this year. When the member was mentioning hospitals and the infrastructure needs in Canada, I could not agree more with him. We are now spending more on debt repayment than we do on health care transfers. Could the hon. member explain a little further how the debt that is crippling us now is actually halting the investment in infrastructure?

Statements by Members ·

Thomas Grieve

“I want to honour Thomas Teg Grieve, a Saskatchewan cattleman who recently died at 93. He was my mentor and a respected cattleman who lived by hard work, honesty, and helping others. I thank his family for sharing him with us.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Saskatchewan cattleman and, more importantly, my friend and mentor, Thomas “Teg” Grieve of Fillmore, who recently passed away at the age of 93. Teg was a cattleman through and through. For 51 years, he exhibited at Agribition, supported 4H and young cattlemen, and earned the respect of people in the cattle industry across Canada and far beyond. However, that is not why I will remember him. Teg lived by the cowboy code: work hard, keep one’s word, help one’s neighbour and do the right thing, especially when no one is watching. When I was a young man, Teg showed me kindness when there was absolutely nothing in it for him. He encouraged me and guided me in his own quiet way, and was simply there when I needed him. That is integrity. I thank Karen and the entire Grieve family for sharing Teg with us. Happy trails, my friend.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“The government keeps announcing new offices and powers, but it gets no results. There are 500 projects waiting for approval. I want the government to stop making announcements and actually approve them.”
Official Hansard

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?

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“When a government borrows too much money, it causes higher inflation and higher interest rates. Why does the government keep borrowing money when it cannot back it up?”
Official Hansard

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?

“Canada produces plenty of food, but government taxes at every step make it too expensive. I want my colleague to talk more about how these rising costs hurt people in her riding.”
Official Hansard

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.

“The Liberals change financial rules so they can borrow more money without showing it. Can the member explain how this is another example of them changing the rules as they go?”
Official Hansard

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?

“The government's fuel and carbon taxes make food more expensive to produce. The government should be embarrassed that Canadians need help just to buy food.”
Official Hansard

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?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Life has gotten worse in that member's riding. Food and living costs are up, and people are even getting scurvy. The government needs to reverse the policies that caused this.”
Official Hansard

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?

“Canada is in a recession and many Canadians are struggling to buy food and pay bills. I want the Prime Minister to admit his policies caused this.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

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?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want to know why the government is doing this right now. It hurts our trade relations just when we need to work with our partners and review our trade deals.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 43 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, 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?

Statements by Members ·

Fuel Taxes

“High fuel costs are hurting farmers and truckers in my area, and food bank use is way up. I want the government to remove its fuel taxes and end the clean fuel standard.”
Official Hansard

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.

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

“The member laughed at what my colleague said. I want him to take it back and apologize.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the member laughing when my colleague brought this up, so I think the member opposite should apologize and withdraw his comment.

“The government changed how it tracks its debt limits. Canada is the only G7 country that leaves out provincial debt from this math. I want to know what Canada's true debt number would be if we counted it like other countries do.”
Official Hansard

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?

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“The member's speech made no sense, and he insulted Christians. People in his riding are struggling with the cost of living and housing. It has been a year since the election. When will he open his local office so his voters can reach him?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 12 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

“The government is hiding things from the public. I want to know why the government will not give us enough time to debate this bill.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 43 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, 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?