Blaine Calkins
Ponoka—Didsbury, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in, and the Prime Minister is in way over his head. He is the only leader, not just in the G7 but also in the G20, who has led his country into a recession. What does this mean practically?”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Liberals' bill, where they say they are putting back mandatory minimum sentences, but they have this safeguard or whatever they want to call it where it is actually optional, I want to ask my colleague, the member for Bow River , is that not akin to putting seat belts in vehicles and then never requiring an…”
“That catering bill would have been enough to feed a Canadian family for 55 years. Every dollar spent on luxury catering is a dollar that cannot go towards lowering taxes, building homes, improving public safety or helping Canadians put food on their own tables. Conservatives are here and ready to get to work. Where is the Prime Minister ?”
“It is wrong not just when it happens to Conservatives; it is wrong when it happens to Liberal, NDP or Bloc members, or to anybody. Since these incidents, the Prime Minister has praised Paul Chiang as a person of integrity, and he has also strengthened Canada's ties with the People's Republic of China through trade and security partnership…”
“Tay, issued by the Communist regime in Beijing for making pro-democracy comments from here in Canada about what is going on in Hong Kong and China. This was a Liberal MP at the time basically encouraging the kidnapping of a political adversary. Goodness knows what would have happened if Mr. Chiang had actually gotten his way.”
“It seems like common sense to me, but that might not be such a common thing across the aisle. We studied the issue at length at committee, where we heard from several witnesses, including, most recently, Gerald Chipeur, that the bill does not go far enough and would need to crack down even harder on foreign monetary contributions.”
The complete record
Every one of 294 lines we hold for Blaine Calkins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Imagine that, a Canadian in Canada running for political office and the top police force in our country informing that candidate that he should withdraw from campaigning because of his own safety concerns triggered by an aggressive foreign government. Mr. Tay went on to tell the committee that as his life was exponentially more in danger because of “a direct...[Chinese Communist Party] threat to our democracy through the election, and the MPs or the leaders were promoting it at the same time, it almost gave approval to the people who wanted to hurt me. It was like a green light.” (1610) I agree with Mr. Tay. It is almost as though the interference was sanctioned by the governing party of the day.”
“Tay, who was the Conservative candidate in Don Valley North, already had a bounty on his head and an arrest warrant issued by Hong Kong for making, of all things, pro-democracy comments here in Canada. According to the CBC, this bounty was worth nearly $200,000 Canadian. As if these comments were not bad enough, Mr. Tay testified at the procedure and House affairs committee in December 2025, a committee that I have sat on for a long time now, that his home was surveilled by a vehicle parked outside his driveway during the campaign. He said that his volunteers were victims of intimidation and harassment on the campaign trail, particularly by a man who followed them around in a trench coat. Tay also testified that the RCMP informed him that it would not be safe for him to continue campaigning.”
“The government, the Liberals, including the Prime Minister , have been incredibly lackadaisical on the issue and I have a hard time believing in their sudden change of heart and sincerity. I will use the example of Paul Chiang. Mr. Chiang was the Liberal member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville who was, up until the end of March last year, the Liberal candidate in last April's election. Chiang, a former police officer, suggested to Chinese-language media at a news conference in January 2025 that people could hand over a political opponent of his, the Conservative candidate Joe Tay, to the PRC consulate in Toronto for a cash reward offered by the Hong Kong police. Mr.”
“This is a monumental issue facing our country and the Liberals have dragged their feet in dealing with it. I hope this bill will turn the tide on this generational issue in our nation, but I have some doubts. Why do I have these doubts? It is because it has taken so much and so long to implement a strategy to bring about this needed change. Conservatives have long called for strengthened protections against foreign interference, including during leadership and nomination contests where interference has proven to be pervasive. Foreign interference is a serious issue, one that undermines the integrity of our electoral system and threatens to harm and does harm Canadians, especially those who belong to various diaspora groups all across our country.”
“However, there is a stumbling block here, which is that the Conservative Party has been raising issues around foreign interference for years. This is not new. We have known about this. The government has known about this. Members of our caucus and former candidates and their families have been targets of foreign interference and we have been talking about this for years, yet the Liberals tuned us out. They refused to take us seriously and now here we are. I welcome the government's legislation to strengthen our electoral system, but I ask this: Why did it take so long? For instance, the Liberal Party of Canada stood by for years while foreign interference literally ran rampant in our country. Frankly, it still does. Nothing has changed.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this place and speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-25 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. There is a lot to look at in this piece of legislation. The bill contains many supportable and, frankly, some long-overdue measures. It includes long-called-for amendments to the Canada Elections Act to deter tactics like those used by the longest ballot committee, amendments that the Conservative Party has been asking for for a long time. It would strengthen protections against foreign interference, including in leadership and nomination contests. It would make changes to the third party regime as well, which we believe is an improvement to the current regime.”
“The Liberals say they can protect the environment and protect the economy at the same time, but the results of their actions say something completely different. Conservatives would gladly partner with organizations to aid in conservation and the recovery of endangered and at-risk species, with the understanding that if a necessary economic activity needs to happen, then everybody involved is consulted and the decision is made transparently. (1815) It is because of these and a plethora of other examples that Conservatives cannot, in good faith, support the agenda that the government currently has because we know that this agenda will overly restrict human activity and economic activity, as well as create friction in the socio-economic fabric of our country.”
“Drawing circles and lines around 30%, and eventually 50%, of Canada and locking it in place for all time simply makes no sense. I will give an example. In its desire to help the southern resident killer whales on the west coast of Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has created massive exclusion zones for fishing and other activities. The whales are rarely in these areas, because they are migratory creatures. Permanent closures and permanent restrictions are of little to no use at all in the protection of these whales. While they serve the purpose of a box-checking exercise, it is very easy to question whether the desired result of balancing ecological integrity with economic activity is what the government is actually doing.”
“Marginal land with trees and natural systems acting as connected corridors weaving through highly productive farmland and forage land creates an abundance of ungulates, migratory birds, upland game birds and even some apex predators. That leaves 4% of the land mass of Canada available for building roads, cities, towns and the human ecosystem. Why are land and building houses so expensive in Canada? It is because we restrict access to our own land. Fourteen million people are allowed to access only about 4% of the land for purchase, building houses and development. Now the government, through the motion, would be enabling further restrictions on the 7% of farmland that is currently zoned agricultural. This would create more barriers, preventing economic activity that is necessary to keep our country working for all Canadians.”
“For the remaining 11% of land, which is privately owned, 7% of it is zoned agricultural, meaning that only agricultural activity is permitted on these lands. In fact when it comes to the environment, farmers and ranchers are some of the best stewards of the land, because it is in their own best interests to ensure the integrity of the land and the ecosystem. The land of a farmer is valuable only if it can continue to grow a crop and if it continues to yield forage or pasture for livestock, which means that this land is also very valuable for wildlife. Anybody with any hunting experience would know that pasture land is some of the most prized hunting land a hunter can access.”
“Nobody owns a single square inch of the surface of water in Canada. If the management of our Crown land has sustainable development frameworks underpinning it, and it does, and if the Government of Canada, which is responsible for all our oceans, were properly managing them, then one could easily say that Canada has already met this conservation agenda. Nothing happens on Crown land without permission from a provincial, territorial or federal government. No activity is allowed to happen on the ocean without permission granted by the Government of Canada. No activity is allowed to happen on any lake or river without the consent of a province or territory. These are all governments that all Canadians are allowed to vote for.”
“An estimated $1.2 trillion is annually needed from private sector investment in order to achieve their outcomes, addressing an estimated $700-billion annual biodiversity funding gap. Key roles for banks involve mobilizing private capital through blended finance and green bonds, shifting portfolios away from nature-negative sectors such as defunding oil and gas and other types of economic development, and developing new financial instruments, adopting the nature-related risk disclosure framework and promoting sustainable practices, which Canada already does in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. What would Conservatives do differently? I think Canadians would be surprised to know that, currently, 89% of Canada is Crown land and 100% of our water is managed under the direction of the government.”
“Targets to reduce pesticide risks and pollution, as well as to cut food waste by 50% is another goal, as is the framework for fair benefits sharing from digital sequence information, such as the genetic resources that we are looking to protect and preserve. What role does the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have in this? It acts as a facilitator and a coalition builder, supporting the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda; aligns private sector capital; and develops financial models and brings political and business leaders together to advance the implementation of this agenda. The global financial sector and banking sector have a role in this as well. Banks are a key capital allocator supporting the 30 by 30 goal.”
“(1810) The core target includes 30 by 30, commitments to restore 30% of degraded ecosystems and halt human-induced species extinction. Financial reforms include reducing harmful subsidies by $500 billion annually and mobilizing $200 billion a year in biodiversity funding. Emphasis is placed on indigenous rights, stewardship and integration of traditional knowledge. This means that the indigenous-protected conservation areas will rely on traditional knowledge rather than science-based management of species. This is in contravention, generally speaking, of the North American model of wildlife management, which creates confusion for wildlife managers.”
“The Nature Conservancy of Canada focuses more on purchasing land and will allow the continuation of farming and certain agricultural practices, but as the landholder and title holder, they would ultimately be able to decide if any other types of economic activity would be allowed to proceed on this conservation-designated land. Both organizations, I know, are well intended. As a hunter, I appreciate that I can usually access these conservation areas, although it usually comes with more restrictions than accessing private land or Crown land. Who is driving and helping with this agenda? The United Nations Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in December 2022, establishes four goals and 23 targets for 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.”
“For example, if one were going to do any development on that land, such as building a pipeline on it, the pipeline company would need the blessing of both the landowner and the holder of the conservation easement. We can see where this gets really complicated really fast. Furthermore, each easement is an individual agreement between the landowner and the holder of the easement. They are not all the same, so if one is managing a large construction project that is spanning several different easements, each one of them is written differently.”
“I want to focus on this for a minute, because it is these other effective area-based conservation measures that this motion is specifically speaking to. This is largely how private land can become protected and count towards the 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050. There are excellent organizations in Canada doing good work. Ducks Unlimited uses a model of conservation easements where willing landowners put restrictive covenants on their properties in exchange for cash. These easements survive change in title so that when someone buys land with an easement on it, they honour the easement. Once an easement is in place however, it does severely restrict what the landowner is allowed to do.”
“The mechanism to donate this land already exists. The motion seeks to make the donation of money to this cause be treated equally under Canadian tax law, which is meant to be a driver of this agenda. Furthermore, the government is using this non-binding motion to implement its global central-banker-backed philosophy. The definition, for those who do not know how this works, is that for the 30-30 initiative, a protected area is a geographically defined space managed legally or effectively to achieve long-term biodiversity conservation. This includes formal national and provincial parks, marine protected areas, indigenous protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, such as wildlife corridors or sustainable management zones.”
“It is not just a random 30% of Canada or 50% of Canada, but 30% of each ecological zone in Canada, which means 30% of our mountainous areas, 30% of the Canadian Shield, 30% of prairie grasslands, 30% of the parkland forest, 30% of the boreal forest and so on. Much of these areas have significant portions of the land as privately owned property. The government needs a mechanism to turn this privately owned land into recognizable conservation land in protected areas. As well, because the Convention on Biological Biodiversity sets the standards of what it means to meet a conservation or preservation threshold, it will require private landowners to either sell their land or put easements or conservation overlays on that land, which would severely restrict what types of activities are allowed to happen on that private land.”
“I asked, through an access to information request, and I only received four agreements that have been signed by the government. I asked for these two years ago. The Liberals had 30 days to get back to me, and they have not done so on over 50 of these agreements. We are seeing a trend in Canada where the government and first nations negotiate among themselves and then announcements are dropped on the public, causing confusion and uncertainty. Now even the question of private property ownership in British Columbia is in doubt. What is the agenda? For those who are listening at home, many have never heard of this. The Liberals' goal is to preserve 30% of the terrestrial and marine environments of Canada by the year 2030 and 50% by the 2050. The rationale is to ensure habitat protection to maintain biological diversity.”
“In the previous Parliament, the minister of environment, who has since resigned due to the MOU signed between Canada and Alberta, tried to table a bill to give the government a mechanism to implement the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda. The bill never passed; there was no vote. The government simply signed on and has begun implementation without consulting all Canadians or the House. The Liberals are doing so through the Fisheries Act powers, through the creation of national parks and through agreements with first nations on indigenous protected and conserved areas. The government has already signed on to agreements or has begun negotiations for over 60 of these indigenous protected and conserved areas, and we do not know what is in them.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is Motion No. 15? It is a non-binding motion brought forward by one of our new colleagues, a Liberal here in the House of Commons. Its purpose is to create a discussion and take a vote on a very specific proposal to make the donation of cash to conservation or preservation organizations be treated in the tax code the same as the donation of land. In the preamble of the motion, we read, “the Government of Canada has committed to conserving 30% of territory by 2030 in order to address biodiversity loss and strengthen the resilience of our ecosystems”. Well, that sounds good, but here is the stumbling point. The House has never voted to approve the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda that Canada signed on to at COP15 on the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the hard work he has done on this. I know the folks in my riding of Ponoka—Didsbury certainly appreciate his efforts and the efforts of the Conservative team. We heard a little while ago from the member for Mount Royal , who cited a whole bunch of examples of why this piece of legislation is needed, yet when we look at the Criminal Code, section 264 deals with harassment where people fear for their safety in their communities; mischief is section 430, which deals with interference with people's lawful enjoyment of property; intimidation is section 423, which deals with obstruction, coercion or making people feel fearful. Plus, there are the hate speech provisions that we already know about in the Criminal Code.”
“No Canadian voted for this. The Liberals are penalizing Canadians of faith through support from the Bloc Québécois to target people and beliefs that they simply do not agree with. This is an unjust and barbaric assault on the freedoms of Canadians who merely think differently from the government, while the real criminals are able to reoffend. It is quite telling that the government is using procedural tactics to push this bill forward when it could have used those same tactics to change the bail laws. It is telling that this is what the government's priority actually is.”
“(1810) Over 80% of Canadians voted for either the Liberals or the Conservatives in the last election, yet the Liberals are partnering with the vehemently anti-faith, anti-religion Bloc Québécois to make amendments to Bill C-9 . This would be like the Liberals allowing Albertans to make all the decisions related to oil and gas in Canada. This is what they are doing. Over 80% of Canadians voted for the Liberals or the official opposition, and one would think they would try to find common ground with the official opposition rather than a party that is basically a smaller fraction of Canada, a party that, frankly, knows it will never be in government in this country. This is who they are choosing to partner with. The Liberals are taking Canada down an incredibly dangerous path through their partnership with the Bloc Québécois.”
“We will fight to keep the Liberal thought police out of Canadians' places of worship. Canada already has clear laws against threats, violence and inciting hatred. Section 319 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group. Similarly, section 318 makes it an offence to advocate for genocide. These laws have worked reasonably well to limit harmful hate speech, while respecting the charter rights of all Canadians. What Liberals are attempting now goes far beyond that. When the government begins redefining “hate” as anything that hurts feelings or contradicts activist narratives, it endangers open dialogue and the very foundations of a free and democratic society.”
“My neighbours in Ponoka—Didsbury are right to be alarmed. The Liberal and Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 would remove long-standing protections for religious expression and in doing so, risk criminalizing sections of the Bible and other sacred texts simply because they contain teachings that some may find disagreeable. This is a deeply troubling path. Canada has always upheld the principle that people of all faiths must be free to speak, preach and live according to their beliefs. That freedom should never depend on whether the government of the day approves of those beliefs or not. Conservatives oppose this latest Liberal assault on the freedom of expression and religion, and we will defend the rights of Canadians to discuss, debate and express their convictions.”
“The Liberals know full well what they are proposing in this legislation and it is the chill effect that they are looking for. Meanwhile, as this is a priority for some reason for the Liberal government, violent crime in Canada has skyrocketed in the last 10 years. Instead of going after violent criminals and repeat offenders, the government is targeting good neighbours, solid people and churchgoers. Folks back home in central Alberta, and indeed across Canada, have a great right to be concerned with the contents of Bill C-9 when it comes to removing the religious exemption. While violent crime surges and our local RCMP detachments are left to try and handle surging rural crime, the government has decided to crack down on religious freedoms and faith-based groups. This is insulting, it is dangerous and it is completely out of touch.”
“There are people from all different faiths who practise here in Canada, like the Jewish community and those practising other religions from other parts of the world. All of them have come here so they can be part of that great Canadian cultural phenomenon, which used to be that we were a nation premised on freedom. That same letter from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops goes on to say, “The removal of this provision risks creating uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators, and others who may fear that the expression of traditional moral or doctrinal teachings could be misinterpreted as hate speech and could subject the speaker to proceedings that threaten imprisonment of up to two years.” This is called the “chill effect”. It is actually part of this legislation, not by accident, but by design.”
“In December, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote the justice minister and said the following: The proposed elimination of the “good faith” religious-text defence raises significant concerns. This narrowly framed exemption has served for many years as an essential safeguard to ensure that Canadians are not criminally prosecuted for their sincere, truth-seeking expression of beliefs made without animus and grounded in long-standing religious traditions. Courts have made clear that only the most extreme forms of speech fall within the scope of hate-propaganda offences. That says it all. Of course, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is only one of hundreds of Christian organizations. There are hundreds of Muslim organizations.”
“Mr. Speaker, that feels like censorship, but it is not. I know we are just going to run out of time. I want to thank all of my colleagues in the House today for this very passionate debate on an issue that I think many Canadians are paying attention to. I would like to start with a quote from someone who is considered to be a great Liberal prime minister. Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said, “Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality.” Where is this freedom today in regard to religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, when it pertains to Bill C-9 ? Where is the Liberal Party of Wilfrid Laurier? As a matter of fact, I think many people today are wondering if there are any Liberals left in the Liberal Party. Former Prime Minister Laurier was born and baptized Catholic.”
“Canadians deserve a system that protects safety while respecting their ability to care for their own health, and after over 157,000 voices have spoken, now is the time for action for the health freedom of Canadians.”
“These rights include the right of every person to sovereignty over their own body, the right to choose how to prevent illnesses or address illness and injury, the right to access treatment options without unnecessary government restrictions, the right to make their own health decisions without undue interference from the state, respect for the constitutional role of the provinces in health care and recognition of the sovereign right of first nations people to practise their traditional medicines. The charter of health freedom calls for a new legislative framework recognizing natural health products and traditional medicines in their own category, rather than treating them as therapeutic drugs under the Food and Drugs Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the 157,057 Canadians who have signed the historic charter of health freedom petition, one of the largest paper petitions in Canadian history, initiated by the Natural Health Product Protection Association. Parliament has a duty to respond to a petition of this magnitude, one driven by grassroots, everyday people who want rights that guarantee their freedom to make informed choices about their own health.”
“Based on the announcement by the government on the expected value of this trade relationship with Indonesia, I wanted to ask my colleague if he can tell me what the value of one LNG tanker leaving Canada might be worth to our economy in context.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight on what has happened over the last couple of decades in this place. When Stephen Harper became the prime minister, he did not inherit a single tidewater pipeline project from the previous Chrétien-Martin governments. When he left office in 2015, there were four of these projects, not to mention the number of projects that were actually done in expanding our trade to the United States. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Blaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, because my colleague is from Calgary, he talks about oil and gas. He actually knows what he is talking about, unlike the guy who is chirping me across the way right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals tried to clarify the rules behind their ridiculous gun-grab scheme. Canadian soldiers who were deployed before the gun-grab program started will return after the amnesty period ends. This means that they would have no opportunity to declare their firearms under this gun-grab policy. Because of this, many armed forces members will return to Canada as criminals because the Liberals will not extend the amnesty period. This is very troubling. If the Liberals trust our deployed soldiers with the biggest guns we have, why on earth would they not trust them with their Plinksters and turkey guns when they get home?”
“As I said, 80% of Canadians use natural health products, and they support their own right to choose their health outcomes. They were the ones who signed the cards we all got, signed the petitions, wrote the emails and made the calls to MPs' offices. They have changed the tide of the debate in this country, and the House should be responding to them. (1915) I am very much looking forward to the continuation of this bill as it goes through the legislative process. I want to thank everybody who has been supportive.”
“I know that is going to come up again in the debate, should this bill get to second reading. Before I conclude, I want to extend some thanks, if I can be permitted, even if I go a bit longer. I want to thank the Natural Health Product Protection Association, specifically Shawn and Teresa Buckley, for their continued advocacy for freedom of choice for Canadians on this issue and so many more. I thank them so much for the work they do. To the Canadian Health Food Association, particularly Jules, Sonia and Wenjing, I thank them so much for the work they do in advocating on behalf of retailers and the entire industry, the producers, retailers, everybody. Most importantly, I want to thank Canadians who are watching right now.”
“There is no reason at all that natural health products should get caught up in the clutches of Vanessa's Law, a very important piece of legislation and work. We need to treat natural health products for what they are. They are a stand-alone category, and my bill seeks to take us back to where we were prior to Bill C-47 . I made one small adjustment to the bill in this Parliament to exempt nicotine, because I believe many people would think it reasonable that nicotine should be managed completely differently and separately from natural health and therapeutic products. I am looking forward to my colleagues having that debate, should this bill get to committee. I want to thank my colleague in the Bloc Québécois. I think he was a little upset that I did not include the amendment to deal with recall.”
“That is when the lid kind of blew off the whole process and people started getting involved. To take us back to where we were, this is not some wild west, non-regulated area of responsibility. Natural health products have been very highly regulated in Canada for a long time. As a matter of fact, IADSA, the International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations, not therapeutic drugs but dietary food supplements, basically had Canada's regulatory regime ranked as the gold standard around the world. We were exporting these products because importers and agencies from around the world trusted that made-in-Canada label and the natural product number. This was a solution in search of a problem, and it blew up in the government's face.”
“It is a very important issue, and I am glad that we are having this conversation today. As members may recall, in the previous Parliament, the definition of “natural health products” was changed in Bill C-47 , which was a budget implementation bill. Nobody knew this was coming. It was underhanded and sneaky. That was the approach of the previous government in the previous Parliament. There was no consultation with the Natural Health Product Protection Association or the Canadian Health Food Association. Nobody even knew it was there. As a matter of fact, there was basically radio silence for about six months, until somebody figured out that those four little clauses in that bill had been passed and subsequent changes to the self-care framework were being implemented by Health Canada.”
“I was more than happy, on behalf of the 80% of Canadians, some 30 million, who use natural health products on a routine basis to improve the quality of their lives at a time when it is hard enough in this country to make ends meet, to get by, to find a doctor and to look after oneself. It seemed pretty straightforward and easy for me to get behind this cause. Not only am I a user of these natural health products myself, but I know that so many friends and family members also do the same thing. All my constituents in Ponoka—Didsbury, which in the previous Parliament was Red Deer—Lacombe, have been very supportive of what I have done. I have travelled across the country to meet with health store owners, various stakeholders and Canadians on a regular basis about this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who spoke in the House tonight, in the second hour of debate on Bill C-224 . As has been mentioned, this is the second Parliament I have tabled this bill in. In the previous Parliament, it was Bill C-368 . It passed at second reading in this place, but it was not unanimous. It went through the committee process in the last Parliament, but it died on the Order Paper with the prorogation and subsequent election. Now we have a new Parliament, and I was very fortunate to get drawn in the first tranche of private members' business.”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberals have repeatedly told Canadians to trust the science, but now they are firing the very scientists who help feed Canadians. The government is shutting down seven agriculture research centres across Canada, including the storied one in Lacombe. Meanwhile, the Liberals will waste $742 million on a gun grab that police say will do nothing. That $742 million that would keep the Lacombe research station open for 40 years. With 2.2 million Canadians lining up at the food bank every month, why is this government so hell-bent on wasting cash on programs that experts say will not work and killing the programs that the experts say will?”
“Trapping is an essential part of wildlife management, livestock protection, infrastructure maintenance and species recovery. In short, trappers live in harmony with the land, as opposed to living on it. Today, there are over 20 delegates on Parliament Hill who are attending the Fur Institute of Canada's Hill day. I am excited to meet them, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.”
“Mr. Speaker, l am very pleased to rise today and recognize the Fur Institute of Canada's day on the Hill. The Fur Institute was created in 1983 by Canada's wildlife ministers and serves as Canada's national voice for the fur trade. The Fur Institute is internationally renowned for its expertise in humane trapping and is home to the Seals and Sealing Network, which promotes Canadian seal products at home and abroad. Representing a broad cross-section of the fur trade, from trapping and runway to farm gates and showrooms, this organization represents the interests of over 35,000 Canadian trappers, fur farmers, seal harvesters, artisans and furriers, as well as governments and indigenous nations all involved in the fur trade.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to recap how things work around here, and I will ask my colleague to comment on it. Conservatives are always way out ahead of Liberals when it comes to things dealing with justice and public safety. As a matter of fact, we warned them about the consequences of their changes in Bill C-75 , Bill C-5 and a number of other changes they made. We told them crime would go up. We told them our communities would become less safe. They ignored us and did it anyway. We then propose private members' bills, which the Liberals across the way systematically vote against every single time until public pressure gets so great that they actually then take our ideas, bundle them up in a bill, put them before the House and then claim that we are blocking them. Is that true?”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberals never let solutions get in the way of their ideology. While the jet-setting Prime Minister travels the world to glad-hand and talk about his new world order, food prices are up and families are struggling to put food on the table. In the meantime, the government is closing the very agricultural research centres that allow Canadian farms and agribusinesses to be so innovative. When will the Liberals finally understand that when we learn more, grow more, build more and export more, incomes go up and life becomes more affordable for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has broken his promise to Canadians. He said he would build Canada strong, but in eight months he has not approved a single new project. Instead, he is closing down agriculture research stations and firing scientists, including at the 120-year-old station in Lacombe. Conservatives introduced a motion this week to pass a Canadian sovereignty act. Will the Liberals vote for our legislation to repeal Liberal laws that block development, to reward investment in Canada and to protect Canadian innovation, or will they continue selling Canada out with their new world order agenda?”