Randy Hoback
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“This tax also makes our manufacturers, suppliers and international traders uncompetitive in the global marketplace. What do I mean by that? The reality is that these are costs Canadian manufacturers and Canadian producers face, but their competitors around the world do not.”
“They did not need to be the ones doing it all by themselves. Keep in mind that we produce 2% of global emissions, yet we thought we were taking on the world and we are trying to find a way to solve 100% of global emissions.”
“I never got the tractor stuck. That was always my dad. I will say that, or at least that is what I will admit to. Talking about stress leads to what we are talking about today. Canadians are stressed. They are financially stressed. They are feeling the impact of costs going up.”
“To farmer friends in my riding, across Saskatchewan and across Canada, slow down, take a breath, relax and be safe out there. To those who are working in agricultural districts or driving down those roads, remember that those farmers are working really hard and they are have time constraints. Give them space on the road.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the sincerity of the hon. member's heart. His approach to it is one way of approaching it. Is it the right way? Is it the most efficient way? That is where we would differ. The need is there. There is no question about it.”
“All we are saying is to take the hand from behind their backs and put them on a level playing field. That is what we are saying here by removing the clean fuel standard.”
The complete record
Every one of 126 lines we hold for Randy Hoback, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“After 10 years of Trudeau, there is a lot of rebuilding that has to happen. In fact, I can remember sitting in a coffee shop back in Prince Albert. A farmer sat down next to me and asked what we could do about Trudeau and if we could take his passport away or something. Every time that prime minister left the country, there was a disaster that followed, whether it was the India event or the open mic in the U.K. There is example after example of when the former prime minister went and burned goodwill, burned our image abroad and impacted our reputation negatively. Now we have the Prime Minister going around and trying to rebuild that reputation. I think it is good that he is doing that because it has to happen. With a Conservative government, that would have been the priority of our prime minister, Prime Minister Poilievre.”
“We could have been developing our pipe and our oil and gas infrastructure, liquefied natural gas, over the last 10 years, and we could have built in and solved some of those problems globally. Now we are trying to do it. I guess it is better late than never, but if we would have done it then, just think of how much wealthier this country would be, how much more leverage this country would have globally and how much better everybody in the world would feel knowing they are getting an ethical supply of oil and gas. That is a lost opportunity that could have been done quite simply and quite effectively over the last 10 years. When we talk about things that are important to Canada, we have the Prime Minister right now going around the globe talking to different countries, and I actually think that is a good thing. I really do.”
“We could also have made the ethical argument about the U.K. treating its own civil servants with respect and dignity no matter where they live, especially if they decided to live here in Canada. I can understand why they would want to live here in Canada. I think we would all agree Canada is a wonderful country. Why would someone not want to live here? It is awesome. Unfortunately, that opportunity was lost and squandered. After 10 years of the Liberal government, there are so many examples of squandered and lost opportunities that have come back to roost at this point in time. Let us look at a current example. We have the world knocking on our door again looking for natural gas or oil and gas.”
“Those are all good things. However, I am disappointed at this lost opportunity. As this agreement was being discussed, as we were talking about the fact that the U.K. wanted to join, we had the opportunity then and there to say that some things in our continuity agreement were not resolved, and they could have been resolved as the U.K. entered the TPP. We could have dealt with the additives in food products. We could have dealt with the carcass wash. We could have dealt with the pension issues. We could have said that these things were stumbling blocks that were really a barrier to the U.K. coming into this agreement and that we needed to come to some sort of agreement on all those issues, not only so the U.K. has fair access to Canada but also so we have fair access to the marketplace in the U.K.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really feel honoured to catch your eye. It is a privilege for me to be here on a Thursday afternoon and know that the Speaker has my back. I think everybody agrees that Bill C-13 should go through. It is common sense. It should be almost like a routine item. I am going to talk about some of the frustrations that we have with the U.K. wanting to join the TPP. I think it is good that it is joining the TPP. I look forward to it joining. I look forward to Costa Rica joining, hopefully, at the end of the month. I think whenever we can expand the TPP to include other countries, we make it a better multilateral agreement. It gives our Canadian manufacturers, producers, farmers and industries a chance to have access not only to another market but to other partners, to compete globally in a lower-tariff environment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is the shadow minister for transport. I am just kind of curious. If he had $90 billion sitting in his pocket, would he be putting it into high-speed rail, or would he be looking at places like the port of Vancouver? Would he be looking at things like a national highway that is actually twinned? Would he be looking at other things like that if he had that kind of money? If we had been through 10 years of really good economic conditions and Canada could be self-sufficient, we would be in a different boat, but we are not. We are a trading nation, so if my colleague had that kind of money, where would he place it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member actually highlighted quite a few things. One thing I would like to ask him about is in regard to the government. The Liberals have been in power for a year under the Prime Minister and 10 years under the previous government. What does Canada look like after 10 years of mismanagement, and how is that impacting his province and morale in his province?”
“If the Prime Minister truly believes in expanding access to global markets, he must commit to serious, sustained modernization of our ports, rails and export infrastructure. Saskatchewan knows how to sell to the world. The government must now do its part to expand markets.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe for not letting the Prime Minister sacrifice canola and pulse producers. Saskatchewan farmers know that market access to China has been low on the list of priorities for the Liberals. Thankfully, the premier understands a simple truth. If we want to grow the Canadian economy, we must sell to the world. While the premier has done his part, the same cannot be said for the Liberal government. Trade deals are as strong as the logistic networks supporting them. Exporters continue to face congested ports, limited rail capacity and aging infrastructure. Years of underinvestment and regulatory delays have made Canada an unreliable supplier in the eyes of our trading partners.”
“Mr. Speaker, division 2, the Canada Post Act; division 8, the Farm Credit Canada Act; division 18, the Special Economic Measures Act; and division 24, the Broadcasting Act, are examples of things included in the budget implementation act that have nothing to do with the budget. Does the member believe, understand or concur that the Liberals are actually shoving things in the budget with disrespect to Parliament, such as the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act, that actually deserve their own piece of legislation and their own committee time so Parliament can actually put forward a proper bill about them, instead of the Liberals' shoving them in for a 30-second bite in the budget implementation act?”
“Madam Speaker, I am just curious. Can the member explain to me why the government felt it needed to include things like stablecoins in the BIA? Something like a stablecoin should probably have its own piece of legislation because of the new aspect of this financial tool. Why would the Liberals include stuff like this in the BIA? Why would they not introduce it as its own legislation in Parliament?”
“Madam Speaker, during the 2008 crisis, the Harper government spent money on infrastructure. It was put into lift stations. It was put into things that were not considered sexy items. It was for things that Canadians needed in order to have a proper functioning economy. Yes, we need proper investments so we can actually feel and touch the assets that Canadians looked at. I want to remind members that during that time frame, it was not the government that picked the projects; it was the municipal governments and the provincial governments. Here, the federal government is dictating which projects get a green light and which do not. A committee was just set up for big beautiful projects. The Liberals should look at all 10 of them.”
“Madam Speaker, I wish we had a surplus so we could spend money with that surplus, but reality is reality. The government has mismanaged the economy so badly over the last 10 years that we are in a deficit. The reality is that this world is not the place it was 15 or 20 years ago. Unfortunately, we will have to borrow money and we will have to spend it on defence. We will have to make sure our men and women in the military have the tools they need to protect our country. There is no way around that. I would love to see it happen under a different financial situation, no question about that, but we are not given that luxury because of bad management by the Liberal government.”
“In the meantime, that compounds the problem. We have seen that compounding effect over the last 10 years, hitting our economy as we speak today. We cannot allow the Liberals to do that anymore.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg North for hosting the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Grey Cup. He did a great job, and we really appreciate that fact. I know he is a closet Roughriders fan. There is a big difference between the Liberal and Conservative approaches. The Liberals would rather take taxpayers' money and throw it at a problem instead of sitting back, analyzing the problem and fixing the policy that is creating it. If one fixes the policy, one creates the private investment that will see the economy grow. What do the Liberals do? They take the other way. If the Liberals have a problem, instead of fixing it, they just throw more money at it. They put a band-aid on it and say that it will be fine for now, because that will get them through to the next election.”
“Policies have to be right, and the Liberals have not made the right policies. With anything they get wrong, what they do is throw more money at it, thinking it will go away. If one does not fix the problem, one does not get a proper solution. Money does not always fix the problem. I am going to leave it at that. I am letting the House know that the budget implementation act is a severe disappointment because it could have done so much. It had the opportunity, and it had the will of Canadians who wanted the government to do things for them that would succeed. The government let us down again. This is a horrible budget implementation act. It is an ominous bill. It should not see the light of day, and I absolutely will not vote for it.”
“The hypocrisy shown by the Liberal government is totally unbelievable, but I guess we should not be surprised; the Liberals have been full of hypocrisy over the last 10 years by creating a problem and then basically saying that they are the only ones who have a solution for it. The Liberals have created a problem in this country with bad policies over the last 10 years. The Liberals have made our country stagnant. They have created economic policies that have put our kids in a scenario where they will probably never be able to buy a house, instead of using the budget implementation act or the budget to put in proper policies that would make life more affordable for Canadians and to look at things that would help protect seniors in their retirement and things that would grow the economy.”
“It is important that people across Canada feel that the budget is actually going to be something that will benefit them as they move forward, that will make life easier and more affordable. There is nothing in the budget implementation act or in the budget itself that really does that. The budget is really a shell game. It talks about things that either have already been approved and done or that are high and mighty and really would not accomplish anything. The budget implementation act is more about bureaucrats with pet projects, who are trying to manoeuvre and take advantage of a new government to get their own personal will done, not the will of Canadians. It is rather disappointing and disturbing to see in this type of bill. I come back to the omnibus style of the bill.”
“It talked about, in its campaign, how it was going to protect Canadians. It was going to make sure it got the best deal, elbows up, with Donald Trump, and all that. There is nothing in the budget that it talked about in its election campaign to protect Canadians, other than putting them at more risk with higher debt and higher interest payments that they, their grandkids and their great-grandkids are going to have to pay. That is what the government put on the Canadian population, yet it still found time to include all these things that really are not Canadian priorities but are priorities of the bureaucracy or are pet projects of the Liberal government. Coming from Saskatchewan, I believe it is important when a budget comes along that the needs of the people of Saskatchewan are at least talked about and represented.”
“The Liberal government is exposing its hypocrisy, shoving things into one bill to avoid utilizing the House of Commons, Parliament and the committee structure to get a better bill, to get better oversight and to get a better piece of legislation that would benefit all Canadians. Did folks know that the Aeronautics Act is in the budget? Yes, it is, but no, we would not be funding a space program; we would just be changing some meanings of the act. We could not get canola in the budget. We could not get forestry workers in there. We could not get fishery workers in there. (1245) We could not get things in the budget that would actually reduce the cost to Canadians. We could not get things that would actually protect Canadians and their financial stability in the future, which is something the Liberal Party ran on.”
“It should be something that goes through the appropriate committees in the appropriate time frame to flesh out all the issues around it so it can be done properly. It deserves more than a two-minute reading in a committee, in with 600 pages of other items. It is a good policy, but it would not see the proper light of day and the proper scrutiny. Why would things concerning the Broadcasting Act, for example, be in a budget implementation act? Why would they not be their own act that would go through committees on its own? Why do they have to be part of the BIA? I see the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act. Members should think about that. It has nothing to do with finance.”
“I also see things in the budget that the Liberals have stolen from the Conservative Party, and they are good things. The member for Winnipeg North cannot accuse me of saying nothing good. I see the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act. The budget would empower First Nations to tax themselves, to consider a sales tax for themselves to raise revenues to fulfill their financial requirements to meet the needs of their people. This is a Conservative value. It is something that was in the Conservative platform and that the Liberal Party gladly stole, and it is something I could get behind, but it should be its own piece of legislation; it should not be part of the budget implementation act.”
“They should run it through the agriculture committee, which should actually do a study on it and then come back to the House with its own set of motions, but no, the Liberals put it in the budget implementation act. Respecting the Special Economic Measures Act, it looks to me as if the finance department and Global Affairs cannot get along. Historically, under these measures, if it wanted to put a restriction on a financial institution, Global Affairs could do that. However, now it would not be able to. It would have more red tape, and Global Affairs officials would have to talk to finance officials before they could take action. Again, this just puts more red tape into things that need to be done faster and more efficiently.”
“The minister would have a report, not this year or next year but in five years, when there is no longer a Liberal government, to report to the committee about Farm Credit and how it is operating and functioning. I remember the days when banks would not touch farming. I remember there was a reason Farm Credit Canada was an organization created to help farmers: There was a time and place where banks looked at farming as too much risk. FCC has been a great partner for the farming community right across Canada. Now, as I see the government wanting to pry into FCC, I am suspicious of what its motive is. If the Liberals want to do something proper with respect to FCC, they should not put it in a budget implementation act.”
“There is nothing there that would give people in the forestry sector a game plan to solve the problems they have with the U.S., to actually look at expanding their markets into other parts of the world and to look at using wood and wood products in different ways that would take them into the next generation and allow them to export throughout the world. What is there? There is a piece regarding the Canada Post Corporation. What that has to do with budget implementation, I am not sure, but it is there. There is a piece respecting Farm Credit Canada that is concerning. It is important to talk about Farm Credit Canada to make sure it is delivering things in the most effective and meaningful way.”
“I think of the agriculture sector, which is important to me; there is nothing of substance in the bill to help canola farmers and to help fisheries workers, both of whom are facing tariffs out of China and need market relief and market help to gain market access into not only the Chinese market but also other markets around the world. There is nothing really set aside to assist these guys to work with them. There is nothing in the budget for the forestry sector, other than more debt and more loans.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always great to rise in the House to talk about things that are important to Canadians. Of course a budget implementation act is something we would all like to think is very important to Canadians. This budget really is an omnibus bill full of hypocrisy. The member for Winnipeg North would probably agree with me when I talk about hypocrisy, because I can remember the days when he talked about omnibus bills and how bad, how horrible, they were, yet here he is today defending one. A classic example is what the bill is supposed to do for people in Saskatchewan.”
“If we do foreign aid properly, we can maintain that respect, be more efficient and more effective, build that soft power and have that influence to make the world a better place. This motion has some good ideas, and I can see the Conservative Party getting strongly behind it.”
“We need the commonality where we stand up for the values we strongly believe in and show those values around the world through foreign aid and through the way we conduct ourselves in the business community. I think that is something Canada could really do well in, and I think it would be appreciated by countries all over the world. The Canadian flag still means something. I wear it proudly whenever I go abroad, and people often tap me on the shoulder to ask where I am from in Canada, because a lot of people have friends and relatives who live here in Canada. There are things we have done right in the past, which has created a country that is respected around the world.”
“The motion would do this by “requiring the Minister of International Development to report to Parliament annually on the extent of Canadian participation in international assistance projects, the measurable benefits for partner countries, and the economic opportunities created for Canadians”. Again, that is part of the accountability. I do not want to see this become something where there is red tape, where it gets over-regulated and becomes a cumbersome process. To come back to a committee to show what was done this year, show the benchmarks for next year, give a five-year goal and show that the 10-year goal can be flexible and change would be very proper and proactive management of our foreign aid and how we distribute our foreign aid. Canada should have a common, consistent approach around the world.”
“On digital technology and education, Canada is becoming a leader in that, and it will be a leader in that. Why would we not help other countries around the world in developing those types of technologies? Why would they not come to Canada? Canada is a great place for AI work. It is a great place to store data. A lot of people do not want to store their data in China or the U.S. Why not store it in Canada? There is a natural advantage. Of course, these storage facilities take a lot of power to cool. It just so happens, where I live in Saskatchewan, it is cold six months out of the year, so we do not need nearly as much power to cool that data and keep it in place. Again, that is a common-sense approach where Canada could really help people around the world.”
“I think that is a positive thing. The motion would do this by “establishing a dedicated Economic Partnerships Window to support projects that align poverty reduction abroad with economic security at home, and that utilize Canadian economic strengths such as clean energy, agriculture, digital technology, and education”. Again, these types of things make sense. We have lots of knowledge in all these areas. When I think of agriculture in my province of Saskatchewan, I think that part of our foreign aid could be teaching farmers around the world how to use things that conserve soil and conserve fertilizer. When I look at the province of Saskatchewan, the potash, I see that we have things that can help increase yields, allow people to be self-sufficient and provide food security.”
“The motion states it would do this by “implementing new policies to ensure that Canadian international assistance programming integrates opportunities for reciprocal economic benefit, including through the participation of Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises, innovators, and workers”. Why would we not want to include our SMEs in this process? They have so much to offer. They have so much to contribute in foreign aid. Foreign aid does actually give us soft power. It creates a Canadian environment in different countries around the world, and that is a positive environment. Our businesses that export in these regions do it with integrity and honour. Why would we not include them in foreign aid? I think that is a good way for them to participate. If there is a little economic benefit for them, there is nothing wrong with that.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to get up this morning to talk about this motion. I can get behind it because there are lots of common-sense things within the motion. Who would not want to “strengthen the accountability, effectiveness, and mutual benefits of Canada's international development assistance”? I think that is common sense. I think everybody would get behind that. We always want to do things better. We want to deliver programs more efficiently. If we can do that more effectively with more accountability in the process, then that is a good thing. I think that is proper.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have another person from Saskatchewan who is full of common sense. It is nice to see that show up here in the House. The member is absolutely right. We have to look at the things that underlie the increase in the cost of food. If it is increased taxes, increased indirect costs, or regulations coming into the sector that nobody else faces around the world and that are not providing food safety or food quality, those types of costs should not be borne by Canadian producers. Then they would not be passed on to the consumer. Let us use some common sense in this House, take a step back and keep in mind that people have to eat. They have to be able to afford groceries. That is the number one requirement. If the government keeps bringing in bad policies, as it has over the last 10 years, this is going to get worse.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what the member he is referring to said. We have to make changes when it makes sense. He used the example of tariffs on fertilizer. If we put a tariff on fertilizer and nobody else does, what impact does it have? If we put regulations in place that nobody else in the world is putting in place, all we have done is added costs to our consumers that nobody else is bearing. Let us look at that. The member is right. It is a complicated thing, but let us use common sense, which the member before him said, as we go through that process. Let us not disadvantage our farmers and manufacturers in the process just because we think we are right when nobody else is following that in this area.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member did not hear me right. I did not say food; I said inflation in general. Second, when the government reduced the carbon tax, what was the price of fuel at the pump? It went from two dollars a litre down to I think $1.29 in Prince Albert. Where do members think inflationary pressures were relieved for Canadian consumers? It was from the savings they had on the price of gas so they were able to afford other things. That is what is showing up in your inflation numbers. Nothing else you have done has brought costs down. The reality is the reality. Go to the gas station and look at the price of fuel today compared to when you were in charge with your carbon tax.”
“He said he was going to make things better and be elbows up with the U.S. I am not sure if that was the right policy to begin with, to be honest, but he said it was the right policy and sold that to Canadians. Where is he today? He is scared to come into the House. We do not see him in question period or at any time during the day. The reality is that costs have gone up. Bad policies have made costs go up, and the government is so blind and so much like a cult on the environment and in so many other areas that it refuses to make decisions that would make things—”
“It used to be $18 for a pound of coffee and it is $32 now. These are the result of bad policy. Farmers are not getting rich. This is not going into farmers' back pockets. If the farmers are not getting it, and I do not think the supply chain is getting it, who is getting it? It is the taxes being paid, directly and indirectly, to the federal government, which it is then paying back in some sort of subsidization program. It is absolutely stupid. When the Prime Minister was elected, he made all kinds of promises. I will remind members of his promises, the things he said during the campaign. These are not made up. Conservatives are repeating word for word what he told Canadians. All I want is for him to keep his word. The Prime Minister said he was going to reduce food costs, and he has not done that.”
“They say they are going to stick with the bad policy, but make it better by subsidizing, with a bit of a tax benefit, a food program, a dental program or something else. There was a time when Canadians did not need those types of programs. There was a time when I could go to the grocery store and fill up the cart, and it would only cost a hundred bucks. When I go to the grocery store now and put two items in the cart, it costs 250 bucks. It was 10 years ago that it was a hundred bucks. Today, it is substantially more. I was joking with a guy in the grocery store. We were waiting in line, and he said that we do not need these big carts anymore because he cannot afford to fill it. He is right. Bacon has gone from $17 to $23. I used to buy hot dogs for $12 and they are now pushing $18.”
“It wants to barrel ahead with blinders on and bring in this kind of policy, a policy that is going to increase food waste, which increases cost. It is going to increase the cost of food because the packaging will have a higher cost. It is going to bring zero benefit to the environment. I understand that we want to take care of the oceans and all that. I am all for it. I think we should be doing everything we can to do those types of things when it makes sense and when we have the science, technology and materials to do it. In the meantime, we can do things to mitigate the problem. There is a gentleman in Prince Albert who does plastic recycling. He has a home for it all. He is looking for ways to recycle. I want to highlight for the Liberals that, when they bring in bad policy, there are costs.”
“When that was proposed, those in the industry very quickly asked if we understand the consequences of this. They explained very clearly that a lot of the fruits and vegetables that come in plastic are shipped from around the world in that type of material. They made it very clear that they are not going to change the packaging in which they ship food to Canada to accommodate Canadians without somebody paying the cost for something different. They also said that the amount of food waste will increase substantially because of rotting and not having the proper packaging material and that there are no alternatives at this point in time, but there is research going on for alternatives. What does the government want to do?”
“If children have full stomachs, they will learn better and grow, but I will remind the members opposite that kids only go to school five days a week. They are also not at school on holidays and during the summer break. If their parents cannot afford food when the kids are at school, what are they supposed to do when they are not at school? Would it not be a better policy to look at things to bring costs down instead of bringing in a new program to help people out? Would that not be a better policy? Would it not be better to analyze what the real problems are and what is driving the cost of food up? The Conservatives put forward some solutions. Those are the things the government has to focus on, not looking at how to spend taxpayers' money to patch things up from A to B. I will use the example of the plastics program.”
“The industrial carbon tax on steel, for example, is something they have to pay that their competitors around the world do not. When they export into Kazakhstan, China and around the world, they are already at a disadvantage because of the costs they bear here in Canada because of the bad policies of the Liberal government. (1145) That is the problem I see with the Liberal government. It brought in policies so quickly and blindly without listening to the industry, which has added costs to the system. It made the system so expensive that it has to subsidize people now just to stay alive. Members have been talking about the food program for schools. I think the aim is $4.50 a plate. Nobody wants a kid to go hungry. The science is there.”
“There would have been a proactive game plan put together, sitting with canola producers and growers and talking to different associates, to figure out how to mitigate this and move things forward, “Can we get more crush? Can we do more? Can we step up to the U.A.E. or Dubai? What are the options to make sure we do not feel the harm Chinese tariffs will place?” Nothing was done by the government. The cost to the Canadian economy is going to be substantial because of that, as will the hurt felt on the prairies and how that will domino back to Ontario and the rest of Canada. I was talking to some of the prairie machinery manufacturers, and they are looking at things very closely, too. Their sales are down substantially because their costs are up.”
“When my dad first started farming, if he had a bad year, he could work in the winter time and catch up. Now, if these guys have a bad year, they are done. There is the amount of capital they have to put out in the spring and the lack of the ability to get that capital back in the fall if they have a bad crop, tariffs, bad market conditions or bad weather. There is so much going on that people who farm really have nerves of steel. There is no question about that. At least the Premier of Saskatchewan was willing to go to China and talk about canola, and I will give credit to the parliamentary secretary for going with him, but I will say that, when we had these problems under the Harper government, it was not even a day and a half before Minister Ritz would be on a plane and in China to sort out the problem.”
“It had six months before the tariffs started to hit the canola and seafood industries to proactively develop a game plan for how to mitigate the damage, to go to China and say, “We are going to work something out for our canola and seafood industries.” The Liberals did nothing. They could have put together a mitigation plan with the canola producers, crush plants and facilities and say, “Here is a game plan to help adapt to the new environment we are possibly going to be faced with,” but there was nothing. What they did offer were more loans and debt, but those do not solve the problem. As producers look at a combine that is going up to $1.5 million and the machinery going over $1 million for an air drill, they are really starting to feel the pressures of the costs.”
“Let us, the Conservative party, accept a thank you and take a bow for that, because that is something we, for the last 10 years, have been saying would happen, but the Liberals did not listen until the voters decided they were going to turf them unless they listened. In Saskatchewan, we are a big canola-producing province. In fact, canola was developed in Saskatchewan, and it has grown in Alberta, Manitoba and parts of Ontario. Canola farmers are going through a really tough season this year. When we put tariffs on EVs roughly a year and a half ago, the 100% tariff, we and the canola and fisheries industries knew at that time that there were going to be consequences. The government did not prepare for those consequences.”
“Canadians are struggling. I do not want to give the impression that because food prices are going up, farmers are making a pile of money or getting a fat wallet out of this. Nothing is further from the truth. If we look at what was facing farmers when they were making decisions last spring, at that time they had a carbon tax, a cost other producers around the world did not have. Now that the carbon tax is gone, inflation has gone down substantially. It is not because of good policy from the government; it is the government taking the Conservatives' policy and applying it that brought inflation down.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to be in the House this time of the year talking about harvest, food security, food safety and the cost of living. I come from Prince Albert. The riding of Prince Albert is an agriculture-producing region. It is a very viable part of the province of Saskatchewan, which produces a lot of the food we eat across Canada and around the world. What we are seeing happen right now in this economy and the bad policies of the government are really putting people in a bad situation. When we look at the cost of food right now, we are seeing food purchases and storage rising 3.5% year over year, versus 1.9% in the U.S. If we look at the costs in Canada, they are double the costs in the U.S. The prices have risen 48% faster in Canada. Food inflation has been 1.5%, which is double the 0.8% increase headlines in the CPI.”