Jeremy Patzer
Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, when I rose in the House previously in question period, I asked the Minister of Public Safety about charges being stayed against two fentanyl traffickers who were arrested and in court in Swift Current. Police found 17.5 pounds of fentanyl in their car, and their charges were stayed.”
“This person was out on bail for a previous drug possession and trafficking charge for a street value of $125,000. This is getting insane. These are the kinds of things that people are seeing on the streets.”
“The “earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions” is the main theme of what Bill C-75 has meant for people like drug traffickers. Let us take a look at a few other cases in and around Saskatchewan. On April 8, another individual was found with 51 grams of fentanyl.”
“Mr. Speaker, the common theme we see with the Liberals is that they go easy on criminals, and then all of a sudden they introduce all these new laws that try to make up for their own undoing of previous laws that were in place and would have helped deal with a lot of this. There are other chronic issues that are at play here.”
“The borders continue to be a sore spot for drugs coming in. Basically zero containers are scanned coming into Canada, so all kinds of drugs and who knows what else are pouring into our country, and it is putting our citizens at risk and in danger. How else do we end up with 17.5 pounds of fentanyl getting on the streets down Highway 1?”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan, and to be able to do so here in the month of June. We know June is the graduation season for all of the kids in elementary school who are moving up to high school.”
The complete record
Every one of 281 lines we hold for Jeremy Patzer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“We basically feed the world from an area that was deemed to be unfit for humans, so it is pretty remarkable what has happened. (1335) However, it is because of the things that have happened at the research stations. They are strategically placed because of the various different soil types that exist in Canada, particularly Saskatchewan. My area is very sandy, very hilly and very rocky. A lot of it probably should have been left as native prairie grass, but it has now been turned into agriculture-producing land for crops. The research stations have been very key to making sure we have the crop varieties and also the right timing as to when we want to grow our crops in order to make sure we can maximize their output value.”
“A lot of the research in that farming technique happened at the research stations across Canada. It was in partnership with some other regions in North America, but a lot of it was done at the research stations. However, that is just one firm example of some of the benefits we have seen from the research stations. Also, various crop varieties have been developed there, which have been cutting edge for being able to continue to grow crops in one of the most difficult places to grow crops in the world. The area I represent is smack dab in the middle of what is called the Palliser triangle, which was designated by the explorer as an area unfit for humankind to live in, yet we are able to be the largest exporting area in the world of pulses. We grow a lot of grain, canola, other oilseeds and lots of cereal crops.”
“It benefits farmers here first, but we are then able to export what we learn to the rest of the world. One such practice would be zero-till or low-till farming practices, which is something we changed on our farm when I was growing up. I jokingly say that it was something that put me out of a job on my parents' farm, because I used to do a lot of the cultivating and disking that we needed to do at that time. However, what we learned, which was aided by the research stations, was the value of doing continuous cropping to restore nutrients to the soil. It also helped build and maintain topsoil quality and moisture retention. It showed that we did not need to be plowing up our fields nearly as much as we used to. There are jurisdictions around the world that are still using that practice, and they could learn a lot from Canadian agriculture.”
“When we look at the tone the government is choosing to set by cutting funding in agriculture, it is really backwards to the direction this country should be going. To take that at another level, we are going through the comprehensive expenditure reviews, and we are seeing department after department come back to the federal government saying that they will be able to lay off and make cuts with no impact to service delivery. However, I would say that the Department of Agriculture is the one department that is going to notice a substantial impact to the services that are being delivered to Canadians and Canadian farmers, but also to producers around the world. We know that the research that happens in Saskatchewan and across the country not only benefits farmers here.”
“Over this last break week, I had a couple of meetings in regard to the government's plan to slash funding and lay off workers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research stations all across Canada. Some of that is affecting locations in my riding, as well as other locations in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and other places across Canada. It is really tragic that this is where the Liberals are choosing to make cuts. The return on investment in agriculture is massive. Agriculture is the largest exporting element of the Canadian economy, particularly the Saskatchewan economy, and it plays such a key role in supporting our small towns, cities, communities and various organizations because of the strength of that industry.”
“I would also like to mention that I had the opportunity this week to meet with members of Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, or APAS. Its young leaders were out in Ottawa this week. I had the distinct privilege of meeting with them, and I really appreciated the opportunity to hear what they had to say. I can say that the future of agriculture in Saskatchewan and across Canada is in very good hands. They have brilliant minds and are putting in tremendous work. They have a skill set and a talent level that is befitting of what the next generation of agriculture is truly all about, which kind of gets at the basis of the speech I want to give today in regard to the direction the government is going and the way it is treating agriculture.”
“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 will start my speech off today by acknowledging that the Saskatchewan Winter Games took place at the same time as the Olympics. I want to give a quick shout-out to all the kids who went up to Meadow Lake and to the Flying Dust First Nation to compete in those games. I say congratulations to those who won medals, but I also want to thank the kids who put in the hard work and tremendous effort to be able to compete in those games, and the parents who took time out of their busy schedules and lives to take their kids up there and spend some time up in the northern part of our province, which is a beautiful part of Saskatchewan. I congratulate all the athletes who competed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the cost of groceries continues to rise quite rapidly. When we go to the grocery store, it is quite alarming how expensive just one bag of groceries is. Conservatives certainly support the concept of helping people be able to buy those groceries, but the bill would not actually lower the cost of groceries. The Liberals would be borrowing money to give to Canadians to help them buy groceries. With the way the benefit works, it would basically work out to an additional $10 a week for Canadians. We know that $10 does not buy much of anything at the grocery stores these days. Would the member not agree that trying to lower the cost and the price of groceries would be a better idea than borrowing money to give to Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has admitted that a country that cannot feed itself has few options. However, the Liberal government is closing seven agriculture research facilities. Their research and development has a 35:1 return on investment for taxpayers. It is also crucial for growing crops to feed Canada and the rest of the world, despite our harsh climate. With 2.2 million Canadians lining up at food banks every month, does the Prime Minister seriously think that it is a good idea to cut valuable research into how we can grow more food here in Canada?”
“Studies show this project will add $13 billion to our GDP, create 80,000 jobs and generate over $1 billion in tax revenue. The Liberals have so much to learn from rural Canada. This is one of many promising and resourceful projects we want to build in Saskatchewan. All the government needs to do is let our farmers and industry do what they have always done best and lead the way forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has the highest food price inflation in the G7. That is the Liberal record on full display for the whole world to see. Instead of fixing it, the Prime Minister raises taxes on fertilizer, manufacturing and transportation, all of which lead to higher food prices. Reversing Liberal policies that punish Canadian agriculture would be a good start, but we could also grow even more food here at home. Saskatchewan is already the breadbasket of the world, but there is still room for us to grow and expand the available farmland. Right now, there are shovel-ready irrigation projects waiting for approvals, like the ones around Lake Diefenbaker. The Westside irrigation rehabilitation project alone would open up 100,000 acres of irrigated land to grow more food and specialty crops.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's terrific speech highlighted that the urban-rural divide is one of the biggest issues that Canada faces and that one of the best ways to tackle that issue would be through our proposed sovereignty act because there is a lot of nation-building potential that exists within it. Could the member highlight a little of that?”
“Madam Speaker, the government is looking for some quick, simple, easy wins. A sovereignty act is obviously just that. There are so many great parts to it that would remove the barriers that industry has been telling us about for over a decade. The member and I have been on the same committee together many times, and we have heard this over and over again. I am wondering if my colleague would like to inform the government about some of the conversations that have happened at committee with stakeholders about the need to pass something like a sovereignty act to try to kick-start development here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I were elected at the same time, and I know that in that time frame, we have both found that the government is really, really bad at legislation. It is even worse at managing the House calendar. I am just wondering if my colleague can elaborate a bit more on some of the amendments that the Conservatives put forward to strengthen the bill that the Liberals have no idea how to properly legislate.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to engage in debate and to ask some questions. We have seen over time that the issue of the border is a big one. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts as to when the government is going to start the process of getting the 1,000 CBSA guards it promised in the election.”
“Madam Speaker, earlier in the chamber, we had a member accuse one of our members of misinformation. This is a continuing trend we are seeing from the Liberals. Conservatives bring facts to the debate. If the Liberals do not believe us, all they need to do is open a newspaper, read the news on their phone or watch TV, because that is how we get a lot of our facts and information, as well as from all the research, and the hours we spend doing the research. We work very hard on doing this. They get up here and try to gaslight Canadians by saying we deliberately spread misinformation, yet they never say what we said was wrong. I wonder if the member could provide some insight as to why he thinks the Liberals would want to do that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to pick up on a thread one of my colleagues was talking about earlier, with regard to Bill C-4 and the rebate on new housing. We know that most first-time homebuyers do not purchase newly built homes. There is a phrase, “starter home”, that usually means an older house, smaller in square footage but more cost-friendly to purchase. This is what first-time homebuyers are looking to purchase. We wanted the tax removed for all people buying a newly built home, and the Liberals changed that. Why would they do that?”
“Last week, a senior Brookfield executive admitted to the ethics committee that the Prime Minister would not have to worry about managing so many conflicts of interest if he just sold his assets instead of putting them in a blind trust. It was also confirmed that 95% of Brookfield's companies are not included in his screen. By the way, the same Brookfield executive had a meeting with the Prime Minister in October after he had already met with the Brookfield CEO in May. Are Canadians really supposed to believe that the blind trust is hidden from him? What more do we need in order to see that the government is starting yet another round of Liberal corruption?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the Prime Minister left his position at Brookfield Asset Management as head of ESG and impact fund investing. He claims to have put all his assets in a blind trust and disclosed his investments to the Ethics Commissioner. With the conflict of interest screen in place, everyone is supposed to just trust the process, after the head of Canada's government left working with a company known for using tax havens in the Caribbean. It also means he must recuse himself from policy discussions involving multinational investment firms. How is that going to happen consistently while he is running a G7 country?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked in her speech about how a family could save up to $840 with the Liberals' tax break, but at the end of the day, a couple with children making about $75,000 a year would realize only about $20 in savings with this tax cut. In fact, a single parent making $50,000 would realize only about $140 or $150 in savings with this tax cut. I am wondering how the Liberals can square this. They are trying to sell the bill as having big, grand savings for people, but the reality is that the people who need it the most would be receiving the least amount of benefit. How can the member sell this to her constituents?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was reading in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report about the tax break the Liberals are supposedly giving to people. For a couple with a child, if they are both in the first income tax bracket, it would amount to only about $20 a month in savings for that family. When I look at the cost of groceries, I see that the cost of butter alone is up two dollars. If people are using butter for cooking and different things, they would eat into the $20 savings pretty quickly. A person could spend that amount just on butter alone in a year. I am wondering what my colleague has to say about the cost of living and about how the so-called affordability bill would not actually go far enough to help Canadians with the affordability crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, while there is little income tax relief in this bill, the cost of inflation and the cost of food continue to go up. I keep track of the price of butter, for example, and in just the last year, it has gone up $2 at my local grocery store. There was an article by Policy Options magazine, entitled “Ten million Canadians live in food-insecure households. The federal budget doesn’t help them.” A quarter of Canadians are food insecure. This bill does nothing to help those Canadians be able to get out of that particular position. If the government was serious, this is the kind of thing it would look to address.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The forestry sector is one of the breadwinners for Canada, or at least it has been historically. The government has completely abandoned and neglected it. I would have liked to see more measures to support economic growth, because that is what the forestry sector brings. Unfortunately, the member's riding has been decimated by bad Liberal policy, again ignoring getting a trade deal done with the United States. We need more demand for these products in Canada. Housing starts are still going down across this country. If the government got out of the way so that we could truly enable homebuilding to happen, the forestry sector could continue to go up and we would have more places to be able to use these products here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I told the member, this bill has some Conservative values and Conservative principles in it. The Liberals are starting to run out of ideas. This is Bill C-4 . It is only the fourth piece of legislation that this place has seen, and already, they are trying to plagiarize Conservative ideas and principles. Of course, we are all for tax breaks for Canadians. We would like to see the government take it even a step further. When we look at the tax that is collected, it is not even enough to cover the cost of servicing the debt load the government is saddling onto the next generation of Canadians. It is time for the Liberals to start talking about and doing things to try to increase productivity in Canada. Canadians need to see their paycheques go further and be able to do more.”
“If we compare that to a senior couple in the second income tax bracket, they are going to save $680. The discrepancy between people who are in the first bracket and later in the second, third, fourth and fifth income tax brackets is crazy. When we look at the cost of living, we know it is seniors on a fixed income who are disproportionately impacted. When we look at single mothers with children, trying to put healthy, nutritious food on the table, they are struggling. This tax break shows that they are basically getting the equivalent of a couple of loaves of bread and a couple of packages of sandwich meat. That is about what it would amount to. (1210) If the government truly wants to tackle affordability issues, I have outlined a few areas where it could do that, and there are many others.”
“The Prime Minister said that he was the man for a crisis, and that was why Canadians needed to elect him. Tariffs have only gone up. They have gotten worse on steel and on lumber. If we look at affordability, it has gotten out of hand. Part of this bill, as I mentioned earlier, is the tax cut for Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a nice report outlining the impacts it would have on Canadians. The average Canadian is going to see $280 in average savings, which is a small amount, but every bit of savings would help. However, let us break it down a bit more. When we look at what a single parent in the first income tax bracket is going to save in one year, it is $140. A single senior in the first income tax bracket is the biggest loser here, with only $50 in savings.”
“Then we hear the Liberals trying to say that Canada has a better deal than everybody else around the world with the United States when it comes to tariffs and things like that, but we have some value-added products we make in Canada, such as kitchen cabinets, which we used to send down to the United States, and these have almost ground to a halt. Why is that? It is because we have one of the highest tariff rates in the world on these value-added products going down to the States. It is more than double what Europe's tariff rate is, so the Liberals' argument does not hold any water when it comes to some of these products. If the government wanted to address affordability for Canadians, one of the places it could have started was getting a softwood lumber deal with the United States and prioritizing that.”
“We just had a take-note debate in the House last week on sawmill closures and on the softwood lumber issue. I will just reiterate that B.C. has seen around, give or take, 40 sawmill closures since 2015. Members will note that 2015 was the beginning of Canada not having a softwood lumber deal with the United States. That represents jobs and paycheques, but it is also GDP that Canada no longer has. This time last year, there was an article written about nine forestry plant closures in Quebec. That was a CBC article. If anybody does not believe me, they can look it up. The CBC even wrote about it.”
“People like Sandra Schmirler are from there, among a few others as well. It is a fantastic community that has always punched above its weight. The costs are exorbitant for Biggar to replace its curling rink, and when we look at a community of roughly give or take 2,000 people, plus or minus a few, that is a huge cost for a community like that to bear. The government is single-handedly driving some of those costs to be higher than they need to be. If the government truly wanted to make this bill about affordability, it could have scrapped the industrial carbon tax, but it did not do it. Another measure that the government could have taken is around lumber, so let us talk about lumber for a minute. If we are talking about housing, lumber is a huge part of that.”
“I know the City of Swift Current is looking, first, to build a new swimming pool, and in the long term to add an indoor soccer facility and things like that. The cost to build this project in Canada has more than doubled in just the last couple of years. The costs continue to skyrocket. We hear the Liberals get up and say it is Donald Trump's fault, or it is because of global issues, and so on and so forth, but the reality is that there are self-imposed issues at play here, and the industrial carbon tax is one of them. There are other small towns affected, smaller communities, like the community of Biggar, for example. It is facing problems with its curling rink, which has been shut down for a couple of years. Biggar is one of the best communities for curling in Canada. It produces world champions, Olympic champions.”
“We need steel in order to build high-rise buildings. We need steel for manufacturing. We need steel for all kinds of things. I represent a riding in Saskatchewan. We have some manufacturers there. They tell me the industrial carbon tax is one of the single biggest threats they face. Again, because it is a hidden tax, they do not see it on their line items of the material they are bringing into their business to make their products with, but they know it is there, because it is forced onto the large emitters, which again are largely steel producers, concrete producers and things like that. This is one area where it applies. (1205) However, it is also driving up the cost of housing. It has also had a dramatic impact on the cost of being able to build recreational facilities.”
“Again, it is good to see two Conservative proposals and ideas make it into this bill. Our proposal would have gone a little further than this one does, but nevertheless, two Conservative principles in one bill is a good place to start for the government. However, I would like to see them go a bit further. Why? Well, back in January, the Prime Minister , before he was the Prime Minister, was giving an interview, and he said to the interviewer something along the lines, “How much steel do you actually use? How much steel do you actually use?”, to downplay the role steel plays in the Canadian economy. Well, this bill talks about housing. Within it, there are provisions on multi-dwelling units, condos and things like that. Just about every single condo that is built in this country has steel in it.”
“There are market measures, of course, that impact that, but the carbon tax was something that was imposed by the government on Canadians. However, what the Liberals do not do in this bill is repeal the industrial carbon tax. We are seeing them actually double down on their insistence that it has to be in place. I am referencing the industrial carbon tax because this is an affordability bill, and the industrial carbon tax is a hidden tax on Canadians, but, in particular, it is because this bill also deals with housing and how the government is going to repeal the tax mechanism for first-time homebuyers on new or substantially renovated properties. Again, that was actually a Conservative idea. Conservatives were the ones who first proposed removing the tax on new and purpose-built homes, but the Liberals commandeered that as well.”
“Here in this bill, we have it written in part 3 about how they are finally going to repeal all the clauses of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the fuel price on consumers. This is great. Conservative pressure got the government to finally admit and realize the carbon tax was punitive and punishing to Canadians. Further proof of that is that right now, the price of gas around the country is actually at a nice low point. I would like to see it even lower yet. I will be honest; it could and should be lower, but at this point in time, it is significantly down from the highs of around $1.80, when we were at the peak of the madness with the Liberals and their insistence on the carbon tax. The last time I filled up, it was $1.18. Removing the carbon tax has had a huge portion to do with that.”
“This would be a good way to frame this bill, because, for the last number of years, we heard over and over, time and time again, from the Liberals on that side of the House that Canada had to have a carbon tax, that the carbon tax was the most effective way to deal with climate change, that the carbon tax was an affordability measure. We heard all kinds of ludicrous and crazy comments from the government about the carbon tax, and the Liberals told us repeatedly, again and again, that we had to have it. We had to have it. Conservatives needed to support the government, or else, and so on and so forth, yet here we are: One of the Prime Minister 's first acts after becoming Prime Minister was to halt the regulations on the carbon tax.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. This weekend, we got to experience the first real blast of winter back home. It was down to the mid minus 20s. We had a bit of snow on the ground. I think we are fully into the grips of winter here now. To everybody who is out driving on the roads, or out working in the cold, I thank them for what they do and hope they stay safe. Again, it is an honour to be able to represent them here in the House of Commons. I would like to say, as well, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Markham—Unionville . We are speaking today on Bill C-4 . If the government were to come up with a creative title for this bill, it could start with “repealing Justin Trudeau”.”
“I came to this place because I wanted to be able to make a better future, not just for my kids but for the next generation of Canadians. When we can learn from tragedy and the failures of the system and better protect people going forward, those are steps that we as parliamentarians must take. With my final few seconds, I want to again acknowledge the great work by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , for putting forward this tremendous bill, and recognize the great speeches by my colleagues in the House today. I would acknowledge the family who is in attendance as well.”
“At that particular point in time, the issue they brought up and we worked closely on was a provision called Clare's Law, which was the disclosure of a person's history of domestic violence. We were able to do some work on that and, ultimately, get the RCMP to find a way to comply with Clare's Law, so that way Saskatchewan could become the first province to fully benefit from Clare's Law. We are here today to talk about a different law, though, which would be yet another great tool that could and should be used to deal with the scourge that is domestic violence. We have heard the story of Bailey McCourt today. Multiple people have shared it. It is extremely tragic. When I read these tragic stories, I think about my two daughters and my wife, and what the tone is of what we are trying to accomplish in this place.”
“Saskatchewan, unfortunately, still carries the mantle for the highest rate of intimate partner violence per capita in Canada, and that number continues to be on the rise. In fact, if we go back to 2018, before I was even elected, there were 489 people per 100,000 who were impacted by intimate partner violence. That number is now almost 800 people per 100,000 in the province of Saskatchewan who are dealing with domestic violence. This is definitely a big issue in Saskatchewan and something I take very seriously. One of the ladies who came to my office had lost, I think, her twin sister, who had been murdered by an intimate partner. They wanted to talk to me about what could be done about intimate partner violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. I want to commend my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola on this fantastic bill. It is our job as members of Parliament to take issues from our local communities and find ways to advocate for or work on them to make a better Canada. I firmly believe the member has done a great job with this bill. Unfortunately, it takes yet another tragic story for this bill to become reality. When I was first elected in 2019, one of the first meetings I had in my office was with a group of women who wanted to talk to me about domestic violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I will say to the member opposite is that he was sort of getting on the right track because I think the point he was trying to make was that natural resource development is the jurisdiction of the province. It is not the federal government's jurisdiction to be in natural resource development. When I look at the Major Project Office, most of the projects it is developing are projects that are under provincial jurisdiction and should be left alone to the provinces. Instead, the federal government wants to maintain a hammer over the provinces and be the one to try to cherry-pick what projects can and cannot be built, when it should not be meddling in provincial governments' or first nations' jurisdiction to begin with.”
“Ever since the government has been in power, for over 10 years now, we have not had a softwood lumber agreement with the United States. We need lumber to build homes. We have had 30 sawmill closures in B.C. alone, yet there has been no acknowledgement from the government about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was a fantastic question. There are several things they could have taken out of the budget that would have helped the next generation. The industrial carbon tax is a huge one. It is largely a hidden tax. We cannot see it on line items, but it is baked into a lot of things. Any of the large emitters that have it include the steel producers. The Prime Minister , when he was running to be the leader of the Liberal Party, asked, who uses steel anymore anyway? That shows how little he actually knows about how buildings are built and how large projects are built in this country. There are many such things that could have been done differently and should have been done differently. The industrial carbon tax is one great example. As another example, there is no software lumber agreement.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite publicly supported defunding the police. I did not hear him say that. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Jeremy Patzer: Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about ways that we can save money, for example, Conservatives proposed that we would cut funding to the CBC. That is a pretty simple and easy one there. There is the $742-million gun buyback program, which I mentioned already. The $10-a-day child care system is not working the way the Liberals said it would work. There have been day care closures. There have been all kinds of issues with that. Access to day care has not actually increased at all. I could go on and on. The private sector was going to build the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The Liberals should have let the private sector build it. Instead, they meddled with it and messed up the process.”
“The gun buyback program is in the budget: $742 million to take property away from law-abiding Canadians. That is shameful. (1800) They are spending $362 million on farmers overseas, not on farmers here in Canada or in Saskatchewan. With the trade issues that we are seeing going on, I can think of lots of great places where that money could have been used instead. Maybe in questions, we will get to that.”
“We all know that it was actually a production cap all along. There is a section in the budget that I was looking at earlier, called “Improving the Efficiency of the Tax System”. It does not even get half a page. All it does is remove the luxury tax from airplanes and yachts. It also repeals the underused housing tax. That is it for improving the tax system. During tax season, so many people came in to talk about their issues with CRA, how the tax system was unfair and how it needed to be massively overhauled and reformed. The government could have chosen to, for example, change how the livestock tax deferral works for our ranchers when they go through drought. It would have had a massive impact if that livestock tax deferral were to have been extended. That would have been a positive measure and a step in the right direction, but no.”
“We have blown way past that level. The government has now switched to a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio and also to the balancing of the operating budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, the independent PBO, did a fantastic study. He said that there is only a 7.5% chance that the deficit-to-GDP ratio will decline. There is a 92.5% chance that the government is going to fail on that fiscal anchor as well. Let us talk about a few other things. There are a couple of things the government has said that we will give it credit for. It wanted to repeal the carbon tax. The Conservatives opposed the tax for a very long time, and the Liberals repealed it. We opposed the emissions cap, which they are repealing because, they cited, it would have marginal value on actually accomplishing any emissions reduction.”
“The way that the borrowing happened at that point in time, when that all came to be renewed in the late 1980s and into the 1990s, interest rate percentages were in the high teens and into the 20s. There is a reason why the government could no longer borrow more money. That was why, when Jean Chrétien tried to borrow more money and he could not, he had to massively slash government spending, which meant that he slashed the transfers to the provinces. That is what took one of the biggest hits. That is the track record of out-of-control Liberal spending. Canadians do not want those results again. Let us talk about the fiscal anchors. The fiscal anchors from the previous budget have all been completely abandoned. Those included not spending over $42 billion, and also making sure that the debt-to-GDP ratio did not go over a certain level.”
“For example, someone living on a farm or in a rural community who wants to start a young family has to go two hours to get to the hospital to be able to deliver their child. Things like that have had a dramatic impact and have been a change over the years. With the Liberal government's budget running such a massive deficit, people in Saskatchewan always remember what the ripple effect of that was and how it happened. Pierre Elliott Trudeau had done exactly what Justin Trudeau did. Interest rates were low, so they locked in crazy spending. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in the 1970s, ran a deficit of an equivalent of, I think, $72 billion when we factor in the value of today's dollars.”
“Everybody in Saskatchewan remembers when, in the 1990s, the federal government's debt got out of control. Jean Chrétien tried to borrow more money and was told that he could not. He ended up rolling back health care transfers to the Province of Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, 52 hospitals that had eight beds or less were closed or were repurposed and had their service delivery changed. That was the impact that this had all across Saskatchewan. I am sure other provinces went through the same thing. In Saskatchewan, that was devastating. Our health care services have now become so heavily centralized. In some cases we have to drive three or four hours just to be able to see a doctor, when there used to be a hospital or a health clinic only half an hour or even 20 minutes down the road. That is no longer the case.”