Cathay Wagantall
Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I will move on to this. I move: Amendment That the motion be amended: (a) by adding after the words “be disposed of as follows:” the following: “(a) the bill shall be divided into two bills: (i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting timely access to data and information, which shall be composed of clauses 2 to 40 of Bill C-22, (ii) B…”
“(1705) Nobody recognized me. They had phones outside the door here, over there and downstairs. They were trying to find me. They could not find me, because in every campaign, I look a little different. I said, “You have to do a better job of this.”
“I wonder if she will get it done. I then had one on protecting pregnant women. A lot of women came and talked to me and said they wanted access to abortion. I said, “Fine.” The truth is that 84% of Canadians want access to abortion. I said that there was a DART & Maru/BLUE poll that was done.”
“I could not do my job without my staff who are in my riding and, certainly, those here on the Hill as well. I am so grateful for every one of them who has been a part of my team. I want to thank the pages and all the folks who help us out in the lobby and put up with us on a daily basis. They are remarkable.”
“I will stop there, but his heart is what drives him, as does his love for being a servant leader and caring about people. When my mom passed away, he phoned me. When this happens to anyone in our caucus, he makes that call, and no one ever feels rushed when he is talking with them.”
“Many members get their name pulled out of that hat, but never get the opportunity because they are too far down the list. My predecessor was here for 22 years, and I do not believe ever had that opportunity. My passion is caring about violence against women.”
The complete record
Every one of 262 lines we hold for Cathay Wagantall, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 6.
“We have departments challenging each other's purposes, and our farmers are stuck in the middle. I really felt for that farmer. He is facing productivity challenges that he should never have to face, beyond the weather and all the other challenges our farmers face, from his own government. He is calling on the government to please stop interfering with his ability to grow his crops, feed his own family and feed the world. He does not want to face the stresses of a government that brings forward damaging policies.”
“As a farmer, I can tell members that what they heard tonight about farmers is true. They are resilient. They are creative. They are innovative. They are the reason we have zero tillage and have had it for over three decades while the rest of the world is just figuring it out. That farmer's circumstances are bad, and what did the government say it would do to help in light of the tariffs from our own nation and from China? It is going to give him a loan. More debt is not what our farmers need. What farmers need is for the government to not continue to penalize them in every way possible, whether it is with increased tariffs or telling them they have to use less fertilizer. By the way, the government wants farmers to have higher yields so they can feed the world and help out with additives to gasoline.”
“His crop is canola, and he said things were pretty good and that he could make it, but there is a thing called Chinese tariffs on canola, peas, fish, seafood and pork in Canada, and they have caused the price of his product to drop to where it is not what he needs to cover the cost to move forward with his farming into the next season. The farmer said that he needed to buy his fall fertilizer, but the government has made buying fertilizer more difficult. There are tariffs on the fertilizer he needs for the next season, and he said that he was sitting there wondering whether he should purchase it knowing that he will probably not have the amount of money he needs for inputs and knowing that, if he did, he would have no guarantees. He was sitting there wondering what he is supposed to do.”
“Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to have this time today to respond to our question about why the Prime Minister would say that we are to judge him by the cost of food in grocery stores. We heard nothing tonight about why he has failed to impact that cost for Canadians. I want to focus on agriculture. Agriculture is huge in my area, and I had a call yesterday from a farmer. We played phone tag all day because there is a two-hour difference. He was out on the field and I was doing my thing. Finally, later in the evening we connected, and he said he was out in the combine; he was still combining.”
“Madam Speaker, I just want to share with my colleague that he did a great job of describing the amazing work that happens in Saskatchewan, where we value our land and the environment. However, across the floor, the previous speaker made a comment. I wrote it down, as I could not believe it. He said that the Liberals are pleased to be able to relieve parents of the pressure to feed their children by having the national food program in our schools. To suggest in any way that it will relieve the pressure on parents who cannot afford to feed their children because of the policies of the government is beyond the pale. I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we are debating today is the fact that the Prime Minister made a promise that Canadians would judge him by the cost of food at the grocery stores. Instead of focusing on that, the Liberals have pivoted to this thing around affordability and a focus on food being available on a national blanket level through schools. One of the members across the way made a comment, and I would like the member to respond to it. He basically said that parents should be thankful because they are saving $200 a month on groceries because the Liberals are spending their tax dollars on a program that is basically blanketing the whole country, whether or not that is the best way for them to help parents be able to feed their children.”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that my colleague across the floor indicated that it is wonderful that families can save $200 on groceries because the government is spending their tax dollars on a national blanket food program for children in school. Parents are the ones who should be earning an income to feed their kids the way they want to. The issues in schools right now are due to the government's poor management of its money and basically making it impossible for parents to have the funds they need. We have a problem with what the Prime Minister said. He has failed and is not doing what he said he would to make food affordable across Canada for families.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member is saying. This debate today is on the cost of food and the Prime Minister saying he would bring it down. What we hear constantly is a pivot to affordability, which of course is an issue that we have a lot to say about, but the reality of this circumstance is that the cost of groceries is not dropping and Canadian families are not able to afford food. Putting forward a food program is not the answer; meeting the needs of Canadians is by dropping the cost of food.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. He spoke of the reality that there are fewer farmers. He also spoke of the reality that there are more Canadians who have no understanding whatsoever of the amazing work our farmers do, and that they are so innovative and care about the environment, because that is where they earn their income and how they feed Canadians. What does the member think of the reality that the federal government, in the middle of last year, cancelled all funding to Agriculture in the Classroom and 4-H programs, which are so crucial for this generation of young people who do not understand where their food comes from? Does the member have any comments on that?”
“Madam Speaker, what I heard from my colleague tonight was that words really matter. The government plays a great deal with words. As an example, quickly, a young person told me that the Prime Minister said into the camera that he would build homes people can afford. I said that was an open-ended sentence and asked if he heard “homes you can afford to buy” or “homes you can only afford to rent”. He said he is going to make Canada the wealthiest in the G7 with government investment, but what is government investment? It is taking our tax dollars and depleting them. What is private investment? It is creating more tax dollars. What is an emissions cap? It is to get rid of oil. However, really, it is a production cap. What is the difference in the use of those words in regard to this topic of emissions versus production?”
“The truth is simple: Every day the government spends recklessly and selfishly, life gets harder for the people who work hard and are playing by the rules. Canadians deserve a government that will end the abuse and the waste, balance the books and end the attack on Canadian prosperity. Canadians deserve leadership that puts them and their country—”
“Mr. Speaker, this colleague of the Prime Minister is forgetting that the same Prime Minister told Canadians to judge his government by the price at the checkout counter; they do not like the verdict. Families are falling behind, with millions resorting to food banks, while Liberals are lining the pockets of consultants, bureaucrats and certain investment portfolios with their tax dollars. Many of these families voted based on the hopeful rhetoric of the Prime Minister that he would do things differently. Now, after 10 years of waste, what do Canadians get? There is not a plan or a budget, just more delays, more excuses and more empty promises. The shelves are bare, the cupboards are empty and the government is missing in action when we need decisive servant leadership.”
“After 10 years of Liberal waste, Canadians are choosing between paying their bills and putting food on the table. The Prime Minister is generating a greater and greater chasm between, as the leader of the official opposition rightly says, the have-nots and the “have yachts”. Conservatives demand that the Liberals stop the destructive mismanagement, rein in spending, and finally deliver a plan to bring down both the deficit and the cost of living for Canadians.”
“Canadians have now delivered their verdict; it is a failing grade. Statistics Canada confirms that food inflation is running 70% higher than the Bank of Canada's target. Meat is up 7%, beef is up 13%, coffee rose by 28% and even infant formula is climbing. Watching the Prime Minister in the House, I see a total indifference to these statistics. They do not matter; he got what he wanted. A shocking 25% of families are struggling to afford food while the Liberal government spends billions on more bureaucrats, high-priced consultants and government-controlled projects that only fuel higher taxes, higher debt and higher inflation. Canadians know that the government is not investing their hard-earned tax dollars; it is bleeding them dry. Today, Canadians spend more of their income on taxes than they do on food, housing and clothing combined.”
“The Prime Minister promised to build Canada up; instead he has wasted billions on bureaucracy and high-priced consultants, and he has driven inflation through the roof. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told committee that the government seems to have no fiscal anchors and that, “bet your boots”, Canadians will soon be paying much more to service the debt. Canadians deserve better. We know they deserve better because of the real-life ripple effects we have seen becoming all too familiar. Between record-high taxes and reckless spending, the purchasing power of Canadians is being eroded at an alarming rate. The Prime Minister said that he wants to be judged by prices at the grocery store. What a great sound bite that is to mislead Canadians in an election when they are desperate for hope.”
“This country has had no proof from the Liberal Party that it is governing differently than the last administration. The Liberals claim they are different, and in one respect they actually are: Their record is worse than Justin Trudeau's. The Prime Minister has already warned Canadians to brace for a painful deficit, double that of Trudeau and what he left behind. This is a dangerously directionless experiment that the Liberals are undertaking. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7; he delivered the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7, with the second-highest unemployment, the worst household debt, and the worst housing prices. That is not what Canadians voted for.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on a question I posed to the government before the summer recess. In my question, I referenced half a trillion dollars in new inflationary spending that the government had ushered in. I spoke of Canadians' stress and frustration with the rampant inflation, causing the price of essentials to continue to climb month after month at the grocery store. I directly asked when Canadians could expect a federal budget to be introduced, one that reduced inflation and cut taxes. It has now been over 12 weeks since my intervention. Has anything changed for the better? Well, we now have a date for the budget, November 4, nearly two-thirds of the way through the fiscal year. Trust is so low in the Prime Minister 's predictions as Canadians are expecting yet another bait and switch.”
“Does the member know and understand that minimum sentences were actually legislated in the House by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and complemented by Stephen Harper, and the number of—”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing about the corrections programs. Actually, our colleague from New Brunswick brought forward the Reduction of Recidivism Framework Act, Bill C-228 , which was passed in the House. This is an important concept, and we of course value these individuals and the opportunities they need to change their life. However, what we are dealing with and hearing about in the House, something that has been going on and on and growing and growing, are the issues around individuals who are being released back into society and who do not have those things. It is on an almost daily or weekly basis that they are returning, so there does need to be some form of ability to keep them off the streets.”
“I believe the Act needs to be strengthened to require officials to uphold victims’ rights in the criminal justice system and require institutions to measure and report on their compliance with the Act. Is this something—”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the difference of ideology and priorities that seem to appear very evident across this floor. In 2015, before the Liberal government was in force, Conservatives brought in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which was to be reviewed in 2020. I remember trying to get the government to do that, but I do not know that it ever did. It would be really good if a few of the members over there focused on that. However, the ombudsman did speak up, and I want to ask the member to respond to what she said: However, based on our analysis..., it appears that the objectives set out in the Act have not been met. The Act falls far short of delivering the real rights it promised.... Thus, the situation of victims of crime has not fundamentally changed since it was passed.”
“Madam Speaker, the speech on Bill C-2 has been good. There are some good parts to it, but there are some that are very questionable, for our side of the floor, that need to be addressed. The thing that concerned me, and that I picked up on, was the comment that there are a lot of mental health issues in our country right now and that they have grown. The question has to be, why? When Canadians are struggling with the economy, with their ability to pay their bills, with food banks, with loss of freedoms and all kinds of issues going on in our society over the last 10 years, how can the member not take responsibility for the fact that Canadians are really struggling and that this causes them to get into situations they should not be in?”
“This good work is rooted in faith-based Christian Canadian tradition. Our Canadian fabric is strong and richer because of the vital work of these faith-focused charities. On behalf of these petitioners and in response to the fundamental rights we have and cherish as Canadians, this petition calls for recommendations 429 and 430 of the pre-budget report to be rejected and denied any part in further legislation. I am honoured to table this petition on behalf of the 38,942 Canadians who look forward to the government's timely, transparent and supportive response to their request.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on behalf of the 38,942 Canadians who signed e-petition 6586. They are united against the finance committee's 2025 pre-budget report that called for the removal of advancement of religion as a recognized charitable purpose under the Income Tax Act. Canadians from all walks of life, different faiths and different beliefs have signed this petition. They value the irreplaceable role that these faith-based charities have in serving the hungry, homeless, hurting, discouraged, depressed and lonely; those in difficult leadership positions; first responders; those in our Canadian Armed Forces; those with injuries, illnesses or disabilities; children; parents; families; young people; seniors; and newcomers. Anyone and everyone who seeks out their services are cared for.”
“I would like her comments on that and how in the world the government could expect that a bill of this size and magnitude, with so many good things mixed in with those that are not, could be something Canadians would give the government the opportunity to regain trust with.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments from my colleague, because over and over again in my mind, I ask why Canadians are so apprehensive as to the intent of the government with the bill before us. The truth of the matter is that they are very concerned about their privacies, and rightly so. The member mentioned already the abuse of Canadians' rights and freedoms when the warrantless surveillance by the government, along with its use of the banks as a third party, froze everyday Canadians' bank accounts, which put the element of mistrust in the government at a whole new level.”
“For the sake of our youth, we cannot wait. We want a Canada that is self-reliant, sovereign and independent, and where workers take home powerful paycheques. What the member is saying on the other side of the floor reflects this side of the floor, and it is time to see the government actually do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear to me that our effectiveness on this side of the floor has been significant. On resource development, the Prime Minister made a revealing admission: He acknowledged that his government's own laws made it nearly impossible to build anything, and his solution is to give political exemptions to a few hand-picked projects. However, here is our question: If Liberals admit the laws do not work, why not repeal them altogether? That is why Conservatives are calling for a true national sovereignty law, one that would repeal the disastrous Bill C-69 , lift the tanker ban, scrap the energy cap and the job-killing industrial carbon tax, unlock our potential with shovel-ready zones, and provide clear permitting paths for mines, dams, nuclear plants, LNG facilities, pipelines and more.”
“The Prime Minister is known to have a fondness for Conservative ideas, although he has watered each one down, with a minuscule tax cut, a very confined GST break and a sleight-of-hand huge increase in carbon tax measures. For the sake of our country, those who go to work every day to power Canada and the world and those who desperately want to do so, I implore the Liberal government to continue to follow our lead. If not, we are on the doorstep.”
“Canadians need to know that we are still committed to our plan: to repeal Liberal anti-development laws and regulations that have cost them half a trillion dollars in lost investment over the last lost decade; to build a national energy corridor to rapidly approve and build critical infrastructure and end our dependence on the Americans; to create one-and-done approvals to accelerate priority resource projects through one application and environmental review; to scrap the industrial carbon tax; and to lower costs for Canadians while boosting our economy and allowing our companies to become competitive again with the U.S. We would repeal Bill C-69 and the west coast tanker ban to build the infrastructure needed to export our clean, responsible energy overseas.”
“It would provide clearer or more streamlined regulatory guidance for designated resources and infrastructure projects, but the Prime Minister will need to do more to free his dream projects from the existing laws he helped create to choke development. With Bill C-5 , the overall environment for free market private sector development remains restrictive. Meanwhile, it was Conservatives who put forward the only credible plan to reignite energy investment in Canada.”
“These are not merely devastating numbers; these are lost paycheques, lost opportunities and lost hope for thousands of Canadian families. Canadians overwhelmingly rejected political parties at election time that, time and again, refused to recognize the vital importance of our resources and the prosperity they create. However, the Liberal Bill C-5 would marginally improve our ability to move projects forward, and yes, Conservatives will support any measure, no matter how small, if it would help one single project break ground. So far, Bill C-5 is largely a symbolic move to make minor improvements to interprovincial trade and regulatory clarity.”
“However, there is still a glaring failure that will continue to inhibit the restoration of our economy and growth to become the energy superpower that we must become. The “no new pipelines” law or Bill C-69 , the shipping ban that applies only to vessels carrying oil and gas, the job-killing oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax, which will raise the cost of everything on all projects, remain in place. Giving a free pass to a few federally controlled projects obviously fails to generate the private sector growth that we need to restore powerful paycheques that should stimulate individual prosperity in every corner of this country long into the future. Sixteen major energy projects have been delayed or denied under the Liberal government, projects that could have brought in over $176 billion.”
“Last night on Power Play , his House leader basically admitted that the previous system was too onerous and Canadians have voted them in to now do big projects, another admission of 10 years of intentional sabotage of our energy resources, which the world needs and asks for. It is important to note that the roles of the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders need to be respected, and Canadian workers and investors need to be prioritized. I want to give a shout-out to the excellent work of the transport committee into the wee hours of this morning to agree to 13 significant amendments to Bill C-5 that provide oversight, access to information, conflict of interest compliance, timelines, consultations and protections that will increase the confidence of Canadians moving forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, just two months ago, Canadians were fully tuned into an election campaign set against the backdrop of a tariff war and uncertainty about Canada's relationship with our largest trading partner. Looking for a solution, they saw a Liberal leader who claimed to be a fresh face, declaring that he would be different from the last decade of inaction on the nation-building projects that we desperately need. He said he would be a change in direction from the Liberal policies that made it impossible to get anything built in this country, the very policies that he championed as Trudeau's economic adviser.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague would like to comment on the truth about the fact that modular homes are being built by folks who are part of the Prime Minister 's community. Brookfield, which has moved to the States and has no accountability here anymore, in 2021, actually spent $5 billion on one of the largest modular home construction companies in the world. Does the member think that might have something to do with this?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. The member mentioned something we hear and see often, which is that there is too much discretion left to federal ministers within almost every piece of legislation the government brings forth. Of course, we are dealing with lobbying and insider deals and all this type of thing, and yet, when it comes to these projects, a major projects office will be put in place that aims to coordinate between the different departments required for project reviews. This, to me, says that at that point, the provinces are out of the picture. Should they be part of this decision-making for clear transparency on what is happening within these supposed projects that are being put forward nationally?”
“Karen Breeck, rightly said: I hope a day like this isn't just about appreciation for our service—I hope it becomes a day where women Veterans engage with their communities and parliamentarians to work together toward making things better for the next generation of women who wish to serve their country I am honoured and humbled to stand in the presence of the incredible veterans joining us today in recognition of women veterans appreciation day. This is not a day for meaningless platitudes, but measurable action. It is my hope that this report paves the way for countless more women to serve Canada with pride and dignity.”
“Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs released a landmark report. “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans” was the first of its kind, finally putting on record women veterans' unique and often painful stories. From poor equipment more likely to injure than protect to unimaginable sexual trauma, more than 50 women showed their immense courage in sharing with the committee the realities of their service. A tireless advocate for women veterans, Dr.”
“Madam Speaker, we have heard that the Liberals are going to be removing the carbon tax, called a consumer tax. However, I would like my colleague to speak to the fact that it is actually a retail carbon tax, which they are replacing with an industrial carbon tax, which would ultimately impact the consumer. Does my colleague think that it will impact the cost of homes? They are taking the GST off but will probably increase the overall cost.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the first carbon tax is being taken off. It is a retail carbon tax, which, yes, is also a consumer carbon tax. The truth of the matter is that the industrial carbon tax is also a consumer carbon tax, so I am wondering if the government has taken that into account as it is looking at these new homes that are to be built and looking at what the additional cost would be on each of those homes for the wood, the concrete and all of the utilities involved in building that home. Will that offset what the Canadians would have had from the GST rebate because of the increased cost through that industrial carbon tax?”
“Madam Speaker, I noticed the member referred to the issue that the GST rebate on homes is only for first-time homebuyers. Our plan as the Conservative Party was to use this as a tool to help deal with the housing crisis, but giving only first-time homebuyers the opportunity to use the GST rebate is significantly more truncated and is not going to make a difference, especially with young people who cannot afford their first home to be a brand new home. By spreading it out over more people, we could build those homes, and it would free up more of the other homes that our young people need. Does the member think that would be a good plan in light of the limitations in the Liberal plan?”
“Madam Speaker, I was amazed yesterday when the answer with respect to the school food program rose from 400,000 children to 500,000 children, between two 30-second questions. The Prime Minister said he wanted to be judged by the experience of Canadians at the grocery store, so let us evaluate him. The cost of apples is up 18% since January. Oranges are up 26%, coffee is up 9% and beef is up a staggering 33%. Canadians are being crushed, and the Liberal response has been an additional half a trillion dollars in new inflationary spending. When will the Liberals table their budget that reduces inflation and cuts taxes so Canadians can afford to feed their family?”
“Ten years and counting of Liberal inflationary deficits have record numbers of Canadians needing food banks, single mothers watering down milk and Canadians eating less nutritious meals. What is Prime Minister “I am a banker and I know how to grow the economy without spending money” doing to solve this inflationary crisis? He is bringing in half a trillion dollars in new spending.”
“Madam Speaker, as a young mother in the early 1980s, I experienced the challenges so many mothers are facing today. Under the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Liberal government, our resources were hijacked and our economy was ravaged. Interest rates rose to 22%. When we talk about inflation being the highest in 40 years under the current Liberal government, it takes me back 40 years to when we, as small business owners with a young family, experienced the devastation in real time. Now my children and grandchildren are facing the same challenges, with higher food costs that alone are overwhelming. The Liberal Prime Minister is more of the same, causing even more chaos.”
“Mr. Speaker, from what I have been reading about ecological corridors and all the things the government says it is going to do, the truth of the matter is that it chooses to get consultation from its own people, who do not have the expertise. We have firefighters across this nation who are prepared to assist the government with the things that it needs to do, and it turned a blind eye. The Liberals made a number of promises recently, in 2019, that they have not come through on, and as a result, we continue to see the fires that we are facing in this nation. They need to listen to the experts and get out of the way.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is so much the government has done to inhibit and prevent Canada from becoming as prosperous as it should be. That is because it is limiting our abilities as a nation to extract those resources that we talk about over and over again in this place, resources that are so crucial to the economy of this country. The truth of the matter is in everything the Liberals did in the case of the Jasper fire. I know the Liberals get really sensitive about it, which I can understand, because they have chosen not to take responsibility for decisions they made that have impacted Parks Canada and all of our parks in becoming more of a tinderbox simply because they refuse to do the right things and allow the people who know how to manage our forests to do the work they know how to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I included climate warming as one of the factors in the Jasper fire and what Parks Canada needs to do. The reality is that in the majority of these fires, as was mentioned by my colleague from Winnipeg, out of 20-some fires, only four were not started by humans. Clearly, the members across the floor are exaggerating the dynamics in this particular situation, as I know is the case for northern Saskatchewan as well. The truth of the matter is that we need to be doing more with our resources for the sake of the world. The members across the floor refuse to recognize the fact that Canada has so much it should be doing for the entire world. Climate change does not begin or end at our borders, and Liberals are missing the best opportunity possible to make a difference in the world when it comes to climate change.”
“For the sake of Jasper, my home province of Saskatchewan and Canadians across the country, we know public safety is at stake. Wildfires impart lessons that we cannot afford to ignore.”
“I question Parks Canada's implementation of ecological corridors, connecting the 30% and 50% of Canadian land and waterways to be protected areas by 2030 and 2050, respectively. How can it be trusted to be a steward of Canada's amazing wilderness, national parks and pristine waterways when it turns a blind eye to the basics of protecting the biodiversity of our national parks, allowing the forests, flora and amazing wildlife to be wiped out by a devastating, preventable fire for the sake of a need to alarm and take no blame for its decisions to do nothing? Let us not allow the victims of wildfire to have to suffer and sacrifice in vain. The federal government has clear obligations to listen to scientists and industry experts on the dangers that long-standing forest management practices pose.”