House of Commons photo

Track John

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is farmers.

Conservative MP for Foothills (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 76% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply September 22nd, 2025

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his incredible speech. He is certainly advocating for his constituents and first nations across the country.

The Liberal government is showing it is much of the same as the previous Liberal government. We had some of our most important allies come to Canada and request access to Canadian LNG, like Germany, Japan, Italy and Greece. The Liberal government said we did not have a business case scenario, but now we see that Japan has signed an LNG contract with the United States for 20 years. It is worth billions of dollars.

What does my colleague think the economic benefit is to first nations in his constituency and across Canada? What would have been the financial benefit to first nations had Canada been able to sign those agreements instead of the United States?

The Economy September 15th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford to put food on the table, let alone pay for the Liberals' bureaucracy when it comes to housing.

Let us be clear: This was the Prime Minister's promise. These were the Prime Minister's words. This is the Prime Minister's failure. Food prices are going to go up $700 per Canadian family this year. Canned soup is up 26%. Apples are up 14%. Tuna is up 19%. The daily essentials have become unaffordable.

Is sticker shock at the grocery store the experience that the Prime Minister promised Canadians?

The Economy September 15th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, it is the same Liberal promises and the same Liberal results. Canadians are paying the price for another Liberal Prime Minister's broken promises. The Prime Minister said that Canadians are going to be judged by prices at the grocery store. The results are in: The Prime Minister has failed. Food prices have surged 40% since the last Liberal prime minister broke that same promise the last time.

Should the Prime Minister's promise to Canadians be judged not by food prices at the grocery store but by the number of families being forced to food banks?

International Trade September 15th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, right now, Foothills farmers are in the middle of what looks to be a bumper canola crop. However, instead of celebrating what looks to be one of the best harvests they have had in years, they are being crushed by canola tariffs of 75% or more from Communist China, blocking them from their second-largest market.

The Prime Minister said he was a master negotiator who would be there when Canadians needed him most. Instead of results, Beijing has added more tariffs and higher ones on canola farmers. Now our pea, canola, pork, seafood and beef producers are all being blocked from a critical market.

The Liberals' response to this is higher loans for farmers, but canola growers are adamant that they cannot borrow themselves out of this crisis. Canada's Conservatives are committed to finding real solutions to this crisis, but Canadian farm families know they have a real champion in Canada's Conservatives, led by the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5 June 16th, 2025

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. As we saw multiple times before the campaign and after the campaign, the Prime Minister took his fake little red book and signed it like he had some sort of presidential executive powers, which he simply does not. He is trying to jam this bill through as fast as he can. If he had really wanted to do it quickly, the fastest way to do it would have been to repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48, repeal Bill C-50 and remove the industrial carbon tax and the cap on energy production. That would have been the easiest thing to do.

That would have opened the door to investment and to Canadians. It would have shown them that we are open for business. However, the Liberals did not want to do that, much like Cinderella's stepmother. They want to bring people to the ball. They want them to come, but they are putting on some impossible things for them to achieve knowing they will not be able to do it. That is what Bill C-5 is doing.

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5 June 16th, 2025

Madam Speaker, that element of the bill almost seems like a doubling down on Bill C-69. One element of that bill that is so frustrating to private investors and applicants is the loop it puts them through to get any decision on whether their project will be approved. It ultimately comes down to cabinet and the government to make the decision, regardless of input, consultation and science.

This bill kind of reminds me of that. Once again, the government will be approving or picking the winners and losers. These things should come down to what is best for Canada as a result of consultation and science with all Canadians, not just a select few friends and elected officials within the Liberal government.

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5 June 16th, 2025

Madam Speaker, my colleague says he wants to be bold. I am waiting to see that. This legislation is not bold. If anything, it is underwhelming. The Liberals are over-promising and will under-deliver for Canadians. Absolutely, I think we have shown today that we are more than willing to work with the government to try to make this work because we want energy projects built. We want interprovincial barriers torn down, but this bill does not do it.

Once again, if the member is truly committed to working together on this, I would encourage him to listen to the proposals and amendments that are brought forward by the opposition to improve Bill C-5 to ensure it actually achieves what the Liberals are claiming it will.

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5 June 16th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, imagine that we are renovating an old house and we do not worry about the shoddy foundation, the rotted joists or floorboards and the rusted plumbing; we just hope that the new buyer does not notice that we have put some lipstick on a kind of an ugly pig. That is very similar to what the Liberals are trying to do now; they are trying to put forward legislation without dealing with the root cause of the rotten consequences of bad Liberal legislation that has gotten us into this position.

We all want the one Canadian economy act to pass. We want it to succeed. As Conservatives, we want pipelines built. We want energy projects completed. We want to see interprovincial trade barriers torn down and removed to grow Canada's economy.

It has been said many times that the most lucrative free trade Canada could have is the one we do not have within our own country, but as we walk through the process and as we listen to the Liberals, we can see that they slowly walk down on what they have promised and what they can actually deliver. Bill C-5 clearly shows that what they are promising is very different than what they would deliver.

Canadians will notice that the Liberals are building a house on a shoddy foundation, because nothing will get built unless they listen to the opposition members and make some amendments to the bill to ensure that we get things built, like repealing Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, eliminating the production cap on oil and gas and repealing the just transition, Bill C-50. Those are the things that would actually make an impactful difference to ensure that projects get built in Canada.

I want to give an example. The Prime Minister first came out saying that we are going to be building pipelines and national projects, and that we are going to have a free trade agreement in Canada by July 1. What is now being said is that we will have pipelines if there is national consensus, that the projects probably will not actually include pipelines, that provinces will have a veto and that we are not really going to have a free trade agreement by Canada Day because there is a difference between federal interprovincial free trade and provincial interprovincial free trade.

As we have a chance to look at Bill C-5, we see what is going on. I want to give an example. The Prime Minister keeps talking about how only national projects within the government's own interest would be approved, and that they must include decarbonisation of oil. What does decarbonisation of western Canadian oil and gas mean, compared especially to oil and gas imported into eastern Canada?

For example, in 2023, eastern Canada imported, on average, about 790,000 barrels of crude oil per day, valued at almost $20 billion. Those imports were from the United States, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia for the most part. By implying that western Canadian energy has to be decarbonised, it would have to be produced and transported under very different regulations, making it uncompetitive with what is imported into eastern Canada. I asked the government earlier if the same regulations and non-competitive rules would be imposed on energy imported into eastern Canada from places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. It would not answer that question.

A renowned energy analyst, Dr. Ron Wallace said, “A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the one Canadian economy act moot and create two market realities in Canada—one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.”

We cannot say we want to build projects and then put metrics and bars so high that Canadian energy projects and Canadian investment cannot actually reach that bar. We also cannot put the same regulatory burdens on energy imported to Canada. That is why it is so important to clear the deck. Repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48 and repeal Bill C-50. Send a clear message to the private sector and foreign investment that Canada is truly open for business and that we are serious about getting these projects built.

The Supreme Court, as my colleague from Alberta said earlier, said that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional, yet the Liberals refuse to repeal it. As a result of Bill C-69, 16 major energy projects have been abandoned, worth more than $600 billion. Of the 18 LNG projects proposed by 2015, only one remains viable, LNG Canada, and that project is proceeding only because it was granted exemptions, by the Liberal government, to Bill C-69 and the carbon tax.

Meanwhile, some of our most trusted allies, Japan, Germany, Ukraine, Poland and South Korea, came to Canada asking for LNG. They want Canadian energy that is clean, affordable and sustainable, but nonsensical policies and a decision by the Liberal government forced those countries, our important allies, to go somewhere else for their energy. In fact it was one of the few times that I was embarrassed to be Canadian, when our allies, in their time of need, came to Canada for something that we could supply, that we desperately wanted to supply, and we turned our back on them.

However, those decisions by the previous Liberal government, from which most of the ministers are still on the front bench, have consequences. Germany even signed an agreement with Qatar. Japan signed an agreement with the United States, our biggest competitor when it comes to energy, and the value of that agreement is a 20-year LNG agreement with the United States valued at $200 billion annually, supporting 50,000 American jobs.

Those jobs should have been here in Canada, and that is just one LNG agreement. That $200 billion a year should have been building schools and hospitals here in Canada. The revenue from that one LNG agreement should have been helping pay down our debt and lower taxes for Canadians here in Canada, but instead that $200 billion is going to the United States.

While the Americans are creating jobs in the energy sector, the Liberals' ideological policies, by contrast, are killing jobs here at home. For example, the just transition bill, Bill C-50, will cost about 200,000 jobs in the energy sector, 290,000 jobs in agriculture and 1.4 million jobs in construction and building. In total, the just transition bill, Bill C-50, will cost Canada 2.7 million jobs.

The member for Winnipeg North asked me where I got that information from when I mentioned it last week. Well, a memo to the Minister of Natural Resources from his own department said, “The transition to a low-carbon economy will have an uneven impact across sectors, occupations and regions, and create significant labour...disruptions. We expect that larger-scale transformations will take place”. In agriculture, it will be about 292,000 workers; in energy, about 202,000 workers; in manufacturing, about 193,000 workers; in buildings and construction, 1.4 million workers; and transportation sectors, about 642,000 workers. That adds up to 13.5% of Canada's total workforce in all parts of the country. Can members imagine a piece of legislation that is going to impact 13.5% of Canada's workforce and perhaps put another 2.7 million Canadians out of work?

In contrast, the Americans are creating tens of thousands of jobs by unleashing their energy sector while we stand by and watch. In fact last fall, the Bank of Canada stated that we all see those signs that say, “In case of emergency, break glass”, and it is time for Canada to break the glass. We are saying that it is not time to take baby steps, which Bill C-5 would be doing; it is time to be bold. It is time to be disruptive. It is time to grab the opportunity that President Trump has given us.

At no time in my life as a legislator, as an elected official, have I seen Canada united, with 75% of Quebecers wanting an east-west pipeline. Canadians across this country want interprovincial trade barriers removed, and at one time they probably did not even realize what we were talking about, but they understand the impact and the potential that Canada has if we just grab it. We cannot just dance around it; we have to be bold. Bill C-5 needs to be improved, and hopefully the Liberals will listen to the opposition and take the steps that are needed to unleash Canada's potential.

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5 June 16th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for recognizing the consequences of bad Liberal policy, like low Canadian productivity, which is at 71% of that of the United States.

As part of Bill C-5, the Prime Minister said that only projects that are low-carbon or decarbonized would be approved. Canada imports about 500,000 barrels of oil from the United States, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria a year. Would those imports be under the auspices of the same new decarbonized or low-carbon rules and regulations that would be put on Canadian energy projects?

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5 June 16th, 2025

Mr. Speaker, I was here in 2017 when the Liberals touted their Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which had more pages of exemptions than it had of things where interprovincial trade barriers were removed.

The Prime Minister is at it again. He says that we will have free trade in Canada by July 1, and now Liberal members are quantifying that by provincial and federal. Would the member say this is just another example of the Liberals saying one thing and doing something completely different, over-promising and under-delivering?