Steven Bonk
Souris—Moose Mountain, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“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”.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 189 lines we hold for Steven Bonk, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 4.
“They told me their biggest challenge is not financing or labour; it is uncertainty. They never know when the new rules from Ottawa will change everything. They want to invest, expand and hire, but not if the ground keeps shifting beneath them. (1810) That uncertainty is echoed across this country. It is in mining, forestry, clean energy and even nuclear, where world-leading projects in Saskatchewan remain stuck in regulatory limbo. Bill C-5 offers no assurance that things will get better, only that some projects and some companies might get lucky. Dr. Jack Mintz warned that without regulatory certainty, capital will flow elsewhere, and that is exactly what we are seeing. Investors are not waiting for us to get our act together.”
“That is how we ensure that national interest is not held hostage to provincial politics or activist pressures. We also need to address labour mobility. We have thousands of foreign-trained doctors, nurses and engineers who could fill shortages all across the country but cannot work due to a patchwork of credentialing rules. A Conservative government would implement a blue seal standard, modelled after the Red Seal for trades, that would allow professionals to practise across Canada if they meet national standards. This bill could have included that. It did not. It is another missed opportunity. I would like to share a story of a couple I met in Estevan. They run a small oil field service company. They are honest, hard-working and deeply committed to their community.”
“The Minister of Natural Resources himself said there is no investment certainty in Canada, but who created that problem? The Liberals have been in power for nearly a decade. Bill C-69 , Bill C-48 and layers of overlapping regulation did not appear overnight. They were built piece by piece by the government. Now we are told to celebrate not a fix but a workaround. What Conservatives are calling for is simple: to make Canada competitive again. Let us repeal the broken laws, create shovel-ready zones, cap review times to one year, fast-track permitting through a single, reliable process and, yes, use section 92(10) of the Constitution to declare major projects like pipelines and transmission corridors to the general advantage of Canada.”
“There is no mechanism in the bill to protect approved projects from being blocked after the fact and no real incentive for provinces or regulators to speed up their approvals. What is the point of declaring a project in the national interest if we cannot ensure it gets built? Let us talk about timelines. The government says it wants projects approved within two years, but the bill would not in any way legislate a deadline. There is no guarantee and no enforcement. That means more uncertainty for project proponents. Let us contrast that with the United States, where certain federal energy projects are approved within 30 days. That is what it means to get serious about competitiveness. Here in Canada, we say we are in a crisis, but we act like we are not.”
“It is not a reform or a replacement, and it would not streamline the system for its investors. It picks winners. It does not restore confidence in Canada's regulatory framework; it dodges it. This is not how we build national prosperity. This is how we sow regional division, because when some projects leapfrog the process while others languish, people start to lose faith, not just in the system but in the fairness of our country. We have seen what happens when politics trumps policy. Major infrastructure projects are cancelled, pipelines are stalled and billions of dollars in investment are lost. That is not progress; that is paralysis. Bill C-5 would do nothing to prevent activist litigation or intergovernmental obstruction.”
“We understand that development must be responsible, but also possible. This bill claims it would fast-track national interest projects, but what qualifies as national interest remains undefined. Who decides, based on what and for how long? The answers are not in this legislation, and that is part of the problem. Clause 5 of the bill would allow cabinet to designate certain projects for special treatment, but the criteria are vague, the process is opaque and the project list is not even public. That raises serious questions about transparency, fairness and accountability. What is more, the so-called fast-track powers expire in five years. That is not a solution. That is an admission that the government does not believe in its own regulatory framework. If it did, it would not need exemptions, and that is what this bill is, an exemption.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation rich in resources, talent and opportunity. From potash to petroleum, from uranium to wheat, our country has what the world needs, yet our potential is being held back, not by people or the land but by federal policies that make it harder to build and grow. As we debate Bill C-5 , the so-called building Canada act, we must ask whether this legislation fixes what is broken or merely patches over the cracks. This bill acknowledges that Canada's regulatory system has become a barrier to progress, but instead of fixing the system for everyone, it offers a shortcut for a chosen few. In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, we do not just talk about resource development; we live it. Our oil fields, potash mines and farmers provide food, fuel and fertilizer to Canadians and our global partners.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals were stumbling around clueless, GC Strategies cashed in. The ministers responsible were not fired; they were promoted. Let that sink in: failure led to reward. This is a pattern with the Liberals: Connected consultants profit, ministers fail upward and Canadians are left holding the bill. Why is it that with the Liberals, the more someone wastes, the more they win, unless they are a Canadian taxpayer?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General confirmed that GC Strategies, a two-person company, was paid $64 million by the Liberal government. In nearly half the cases, there is not even proof that any work was done. Departments ignored the rules and approved payments without deliverables. That is not just mismanagement; it is a betrayal of taxpayers. Will the Liberal government do the right thing and support our Conservative motion to finally get Canadians their money back?”
“Mr. Speaker, today, we heard from the Auditor General's report that there was massive abuse with GC Strategies' getting paid for work that they never did. I know that my hon. colleague has a strong legal background. What is it called when people submit an invoice and get paid for work that they never did?”
“Mr. Speaker, today we have discussed that the Auditor General gave a scathing report on GC Strategies. In question period, we heard, I believe, 15 or 16 direct questions about whether the Liberal government would get our money back. There was not a single answer to that question. It is a very simple yes-or-no question. I am wondering if my colleague could address why he thinks the Liberals are so scared to get our money back.”
“Mr. Speaker, farmers in Souris—Moose Mountain and across the prairies are being crushed by crippling 100% tariffs on canola. The Liberal government has done nothing. These unjust tariffs are jeopardizing family farms, threatening livelihoods and undermining the backbone of our agricultural economy. While producers urgently seek leadership and support, the Liberals remain silent. When will the Liberals take real, concrete action to eliminate these punitive tariffs on Canadian canola and, for once, stand up for Canadian farmers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have not read the bill in enough detail. I just got it yesterday, so I have not had a chance to really go over the fine detail of it. One thing I can say is that any time we are dealing with people's private information, it is very important that we take privacy concerns extremely seriously. I have seen what happens when governments do not.”
“The next thing they should do is take off the industrial carbon tax, because that affects all of our inputs, all of our crop supplies and is something that really hurts our industries.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question because it highlights the fact that in our region, agriculture makes up a large part of our GDP. As we know, most agriculture commodities are priced globally, on the global market. Just south of both of our constituencies is the United States. They also share the same region as we do. They produce the same crops and have the same industries, but they are not paying a carbon tax. We have about a 40% higher cost of production than my neighbours do in the States. This is a self-imposed harm that the Liberal government has put on the people in my constituency for the past 10 years. It was a carbon tax that we never asked for and did not want, and it did not work. I am so happy that the Liberals removed it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very happy for that question. I have had the privilege of travelling and working on four continents and I have been to other places that produce energy across the world. One thing I know is that if other jurisdictions in the world adopted the same environmental policies as we have in Saskatchewan, for example, there would be a reduction of 25% in greenhouse gases globally. Canada is a world leader. We should be proud of what we are doing. Our industry should be praised, not vilified.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives always support every tax cut, but, in typical Liberal fashion, it is too little. Liberals say one thing and do another. The Conservatives want to give a tax break to all people buying homes, not just first-time homebuyers, but if the members opposite want to steal Conservative ideas when it comes to affordability, please, by all means, take our ideas.”
“I will return again to that image of myself as a teenager, writing that first letter, guided by my father's words. If something matters enough to complain about, it matters enough to do something about. I intend to do something about it, not just today but every day that I have the honour to serve in the House.”
“Canadians deserve transparency and clarity, and they deserve to know that the people they elect are subject to rules and are not above them. I did not come to Ottawa seeking applause. I came here to do the work, to advocate for those who feel unheard, to push for common sense in public policy and to serve with humility. The people of Souris—Moose Mountain are not looking for platitudes. They are looking for leadership that understands the value of work and the weight of their worries. They deserve to know that their privacy, their voices and their values matter. As I rise from my first speech in the House, I do so not as a politician but as a proud Canadian, shaped by my prairie roots, informed by global experience and guided by the belief that government exists to serve, not to control.”
“Let us give them a reason to believe that we are listening and that we are willing to hold ourselves to the same standard we expect of others, one that respects constitutional boundaries but does not sacrifice accountability. Canadians should not be forced to choose between federal clarity and democratic transparency. They deserve both. This is why, as we debate legislation like this, we must ask not only whether it meets constitutional muster but also whether it strengthens public trust, whether it improves how we serve and whether it brings citizens closer to the institutions that represent them. I saw, in eastern Europe, what happens when governments stop listening, when citizens lose faith in the institutions that are meant to serve them. I can say, without hesitation, that rebuilding trust is far harder than maintaining it.”
“We can establish minimum privacy standards for political parties, standards that ensure Canadians know exactly how their data is collected, stored and used, so that the publication of a privacy policy becomes more than a symbolic check box. We must restore trust and credibility, and we must strengthen our democracy from within. While the legislation does address the jurisdictional gap, it should not be mistaken for a comprehensive solution. The real solution lies in demonstrating that political parties are willing to play by the same rules as everyone else, that we are not seeking exemption but embracing transparency. This is our chance to get it right, not just for today but for the next generation of voters, many of whom are already deeply skeptical of political institutions.”
“If we expect businesses, charities and provincial governments to uphold privacy rights, should we not hold ourselves to at least that same standard? I believe that we can do better. Rather than simply assert jurisdiction, we should be using this moment to create a clear, principled and enforceable privacy framework tailored to the political context, one that respects constitutional boundaries but does not sacrifice accountability. Canadians should not be asked to choose between federal clarity and democratic transparency. They deserve both. There is a real opportunity here to lead by example. As federal lawmakers, we can take a proactive approach.”
“These offices have built strong, effective systems to address complaints and hold organizations accountable. By removing that layer of oversight, we risk weakening the transparency and trust that Canadians expect and deserve. There is also the risk of reinforcing cynicism. When people see legislation rushed through Parliament, particularly as part of a broader omnibus bill, they may feel that their concerns are being managed, not addressed. When they discover that their personal data, collected for political purposes, exists outside the scrutiny applied to most other private entities in Canada, it raises a troubling double standard. We should ask ourselves what example we are setting as federal political actors.”
“It would retroactively assert that provincial privacy laws do not apply to federal political parties, reinforcing exclusive federal jurisdiction. However, beneath this technical language lies a more profound question about the relationship between citizens and their democratic institutions. (1740) When Canadians provide their personal information to political parties, whether signing up for a newsletter, attending a town hall or simply expressing support, they are placing trust in us. They expect that information to be treated with care, confidentiality and respect. When that expectation is not met, the harm is not just legal or administrative. It is democratic. The bill may clarify federal jurisdiction, but it also takes provincial privacy commissioners out of the picture.”
“Once trust is broken, it takes generations to rebuild. When I returned to Canada, I brought those lessons home with me, into my business, my community and eventually into public service. I later had the honour of serving as a cabinet minister in Saskatchewan's provincial government, in which I was responsible for portfolios on economy, trade and innovation. That experience deepened my belief that when government works well, it creates opportunity, not barriers, for people to grow, contribute and succeed. I reflect on all of this when I consider part 4 of Bill C-4 , which addresses the question of how privacy laws apply to federal political parties. At face value, this provision seems narrowly focused.”
“I was involved in international trade and economic development, working with businesses and governments as they sought to rebuild their economies and re-establish democratic norms after generations of state control. What I witnessed was both inspiring and sobering. In many of these countries, privacy had once been non-existent. Information was power, and that power had too often been abused. Surveillance was used to silence dissent. Trust in public institutions had been deeply damaged, and though democracy had arrived, the scars of its absence lingered. In some places, people were still afraid to speak freely, still hesitant to believe that the change was permanent. It was there, in conversations with small business owners, young reformers and cautious civil servants, that I saw the true cost of lost public trust.”
“It also teaches us that when we make a promise, we keep it, because our word is often the only thing we have. Those lessons have never left me. I remember when I was a teenager and a federal issue was affecting cattle prices. My father said to me, “If it matters enough to talk about, it matters enough to do something about.” I wrote a letter to our MP. That simple act of engagement was the first step in my realizing that democracy works only when people participate. It taught me that government, at its best, should be accessible and responsive, not distant and dismissive. Years later, I had the opportunity to live and work in post-Soviet Eastern Europe for nearly a decade, immersed in countries still navigating the aftermath of authoritarian rule.”
“Their belief in our cause and their tireless efforts are a humbling reminder that public service is never done alone. I was humbled to receive the highest percentage of the vote of any candidate in Canada during this election, but let me be clear: This is not about me. It is a testament to the people of Souris—Moose Mountain and their belief in our message, which is rooted in principle: a respect for hard work, for resource development, for freedom and for limited but accountable government. I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan, where I learned early that complaining would not get me very far. If something is broken, we fix it. If something matters, we stand up and speak out. Life on the land teaches us patience, persistence and humility.”
“My wife, Candace, is my greatest partner and source of strength. Through every challenge, every sacrifice and every long stretch of road, she remained unwavering in her support and grace. Her belief in me never faltered, and I am endlessly grateful for her love, insight and patience. My daughter, Emma, reminds me daily of what truly matters. She is thoughtful, courageous and wise beyond her years. Her quiet encouragement has been one of the most steadying forces in my journey thus far. I am also grateful to my parents, who taught me not only to work hard but to work with purpose. They instilled in me the importance of character, integrity and perseverance. The examples they set are my guiding light. I am also thankful to the many volunteers whose dedication and sacrifice helped make this journey possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House today for my first speech as the elected member of Parliament for Souris—Moose Mountain. I want to share a few reflections on where I came from, whom I serve and the responsibilities we all carry as members of this chamber. I am deeply humbled to represent a region that is rooted in hard work, resilience and unshakable community spirit. First and foremost, I want to thank the people of my riding. I am here because of them. They entrusted me to be their voice in this chamber, and I will work every day to be worthy of that trust. I also want to acknowledge those who came before me. Ed Komarnicki and Robert Kitchen served this region with integrity, thoughtfulness and strength of conviction. Their example has set a high bar. I would not be here today without the support of my family.”
“In doing this, we honour the immense contributions of ranchers, farmers and indigenous peoples, and we affirm the enduring significance of our western and frontier heritage in shaping the Canadian identity. This symbol is a quiet but powerful reminder of who we are: resilient, rooted and proud. I want to sincerely thank the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills North for seconding this motion. I thank all members of this House for their thoughtful consideration. Recognizing this symbol is not just a matter of history; it is a matter of national pride. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“These are the people whose livelihoods not only support our communities but also power this country. They are the builders of Canada in every sense of the word. As a fifth-generation Canadian rancher, I say that this motion could not be more personal. For those of us who have lived the ranching life, a livestock brand is more than a practical tool; it is a legacy. It tells a story. It represents families who rose before dawn, worked through storms and endured hardships of the land with quiet determination and unwavering faith. This motion seeks to formally recognize the livestock brand by adding it to the official inventory of Canadian national symbols, where it rightfully belongs, alongside the maple leaf, the beaver and the Mountie.”
“Bill C-208. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-208, An Act to recognize a national livestock brand as a symbol of Canada and of western and frontier heritage . He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of honour and deep personal connection that I rise in the House to table a private member's bill on behalf of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot . We share not only a strong personal friendship but also a deep-rooted belief in the importance of honouring the people, values and traditions that helped shape this country, especially those born of the land. I am proud to represent the good people of Souris—Moose Mountain, home to generations of ranchers, farmers, oil and gas workers, miners and manufacturers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on her recent election. I agree with the member that we are all here for the right reason, which is to serve our constituents the best we possibly can. I know she now finds herself in a very unfortunate position of having to defend the very policies that created all these problems. I was just wondering how the hon. member will square that circle with her constituents.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Minister of Finance say that the Liberals will “take no lessons from the Conservatives”, but maybe they will take a lesson from Brookfield. I am pretty sure Brookfield has a budget. I will ask my hon. colleague, why are the Liberals treating Brookfield shareholders better than they are treating Canadians?”
“To the good people back home, I say thanks for their trust and their example. It is a privilege to serve them, and I will continue to be a strong and steady voice for them and our region here in Ottawa.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a distinct honour to rise in this chamber to represent the good people of Souris—Moose Mountain, a region that shaped who I am. It is where I was born, where I was raised and where I learned the value of hard work, integrity and service. Our riding is built on the strength of those who rise early and work hard: farmers, ranchers, oil and gas workers, power producers and entrepreneurs. Their industries do not just support families in our region; they help drive the Canadian economy. The people of Souris—Moose Mountain embody the best of rural Canada. They are self-reliant, community-minded and deeply rooted in their values. I was raised in that environment, and I will carry those principles with me into every debate, every vote and every conversation in this House.”
“Mr. Speaker, as anyone who has been in private business knows, the two things we look for the most are predictability and stability. We have a Prime Minister now who cannot even be bothered to bring in a budget. I wonder what the hon. member across the aisle thinks of that.”
“Mr. Speaker, after years of delays, uncertainty and economic damage, it is undeniable that Bill C-69 , the no more pipelines bill, has been an absolute failure for Canadians. Industry leaders, provinces and indigenous communities have repeatedly sounded the alarm over its complex, unpredictable regulatory process that chases away investment and blocks development. Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed that key parts of the legislation are unconstitutional, will the Liberal government finally admit it got this wrong and scrap Bill C-69 to take real action to get Canadians back to work?”