44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/8/22 4:43:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we are talking about the rail lines, I thought maybe it would be a good time to ask the member a question about opening up more access for our farmers to ship more of their grain and if they would consider building more pipelines in order to get more access to farmers on the rail lines.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 4:58:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, which is right beside the riding I represent and home to Canada's most notorious member.
I am very happy to see our first Conservative motion in 2022 dedicated to my home province of Saskatchewan, the land of living skies. It is an even greater honour for me to speak on its behalf today. It is another reminder of where I come from and who sent me to Ottawa in the first place, so in my first speech since the last election, I will first take a moment to thank the constituents of Cypress Hills—Grasslands for their support. It is always humbling to receive their trust and to serve as their representative in this place. I also have to say I would not be here without my family's love and the support they have shown me throughout my time in office, and of course I could not go without mentioning the many volunteers who have also helped to get me here as well, and board members who have also worked very hard on our local EDA.
Today, the official opposition is calling for the federal government to finalize a process already started by Saskatchewan in managing its own affairs. Back in November, the provincial legislature voted unanimously to amend the Saskatchewan Act under the Constitution. Since then, what remains is for a constitutional amendment to be authorized by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. In other words, the House and the other place will need to pass it. It might seem like a simple housekeeping item, and it could be handled as that, if the government so chooses, but that does not mean this is not a priority. It can be resolved easily and quickly, but only if the Liberals are willing to do it.
Instead, the government House leader waited for the last sitting day in December to say there would have to be a take-note debate in February. I hope all my colleagues here can see and appreciate how much time has already passed by and added up with this task we have taken on. We have not even started talking yet about passing anything through the actual parliamentary process. Of course, I can only hope the legislative agenda and procedure will run smoothly whenever that time comes. If not, how long is it going to take after it finally gets started?
In a minority Parliament we have done some good work through collaboration among all parties, and there is no reason for it not to happen here again as well. If the House leader's plan is to have a take-note debate, which still sounds good enough to some people, I will draw their attention to what the guide on parliamentary procedure has to say about it. Take-note debates “solicit the views of Members on some aspect of government policy and allow Members to participate in policy development, making their views known before the government makes a decision.”
Of course, the government can and should ask for input from different parties in Parliament. To be frank, I wish the Liberals did it a lot more often for developing policy and making decisions. This country would be much better for it. Hopefully this will become a new habit for them, but it is a bit confusing to see it happening on this file, if we should even really call it that.
What policy are we developing, exactly? Are the government members signalling that they have not yet even made a decision on what they are going to do about it? Are they going to oppose the amendment from Saskatchewan? If they are going to decide to authorize this change, why bother with a process that is supposed to be open to different options? If they somehow are trying to drag this out for some reason, it certainly seems like they are, but why? Would they take the same approach if the former member for Regina—Wascana was still in cabinet? I could say more about that later.
First, I want to focus on what is happening in Saskatchewan and in my riding. Apart from historical arguments, we can plainly see a situation in which a large railway company has not only tried to get out of paying taxes, but has tried to get taxpayers' money back after paying tax for decades. If this happened, there would of course be a huge business advantage over smaller competitors, but what is good for one company is not necessarily good for the market as a whole. When we consider everything together, it is not as surprising as it might sound that the Saskatchewan Party and the provincial NDP voted for the same motion. They have significant differences, but they share consensus here, because the case is closed.
As with so many other things, there are real benefits if we promote competition and smaller local businesses. In this case we are dealing with short-line operators. They highly deserve a shout-out in this discussion, as well as our thanks and substantial support. My riding is home to two of them: the Great Sandhills Railway and the Great Western Railway. They have strengthened and served their rural communities very well. I have heard that 90% of a particular company's operating budget goes back into the rural communities where they are stationed. As one example, when Great Sand Hills bought its line in 2009, there were only seven employees there. Deciding to start with nine employees, they have since increased to 60 people.
The positive effects of their investment and success on the many communities along the line they operate are undeniable. Business is growing, where larger operations without having a special connection to a place are more likely to let certain locations simply fade away, as is tragically the case with many small-town communities across this country.
As a result, people can find more jobs now. They can buy homes and they can support local charities and initiatives. They can create or maintain their way of life in rural Canada. Short-line railways are proving to be efficient, environmentally responsible and safe, while at the same time reducing burdens on publicly funded transportation. What is not to like? These railways need all the help they can get to continue on with their important work.
Knowing the current Liberal government, the answer might turn out to be that this all has to do with just Saskatchewan. For two elections in a row, the Liberals have failed to win a single seat in our province. The message from voters has been absolutely clear. Something is probably wrong with a national government that fails to connect to and win support from an entire region within our great country. It is nothing for the Liberals to be proud of, and it never should be ignored.
However, in so many obvious ways over the years, the Prime Minister's team has shown that it will prioritize petty politics over what is best for Canadians. It is definitely not a way to gain anybody's support, if the Liberals will keep treating our province disrespectfully. The Liberals will often interfere with our provincial government's attempts to improve the lives of our citizens, whether it is declining a better rebate for the carbon tax or unfairly attacking the delivery of health care services during the federal election.
Even though this might seem like a minor issue compared with other ones, it is a good opportunity for the Liberals to start treating Saskatchewan with respect. They should show us some goodwill and courtesy by delivering something for the betterment of our province. We really have to wonder if the Liberals would be handling this issue in the same way if it were another province trying to make a constitutional amendment.
There is no limit to the favours the Liberals will give out to their supporters. That is precisely the opposite of responsible leadership. That is why, as a Saskatchewan caucus representing every part of our province within the official opposition, we are leading the charge here in Ottawa. We are calling for the government to resolve this issue sooner rather than later. It really does not have to be so complicated. It does not have to be very difficult. Let us get it all done. We have a good spirit of collaboration happening here today. My message to all the members across the aisle, and to the other opposition parties, is let us get this done. Let us do what is right for Saskatchewan, and let us show that we are willing to work in the best interests of the provinces here in Ottawa.
1483 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 5:07:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is great that every now and then we see some successes from some government programs, and we can clearly say that is one really good example of success.
There have been some other issues. We saw the government hand out lots of money to a multi-billionaire from the U.S. to create a pulse-processing plant in Saskatchewan. I do not think he necessarily needed taxpayer money for that.
Generally speaking, though, what the member has referenced here is a good thing, and if we are spending taxpayer money, I would like to see more targeted investment to make sure we get the best possible result for Canadians.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 5:09:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was not alive in 1982. I was not born until 1987, but I wish I could have lobbied a little more for all the provinces to sign on to the Constitution. I think we would be willing to hear and see Quebec do so, but a Conservative government would be more than happy to work with all the provinces, regardless of whether they had signed the Constitution or not, to make sure that all provinces are treated fairly within a united Canada.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 5:10:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we want to make sure that tax dollars for Canadians are respected. We want to make sure that businesses are paying their fair share, of course, but in the same breath, we also want to make sure that we find the right balance between incentivizing growth and job creation by these corporations to make sure that their money stays in Canada. We can look at some specific, targeted measures to make sure that those dollars are staying in Canada, and I am all for taking a look at that.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 5:12:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The safest and most environmentally responsible way to transport oil is through pipelines, and we need to see more of that. Again, it would help free up rail capacity to ship other products that are essential and critical and that cannot be shipped any other way. We can also avoid disasters such as we have seen with incidents in Lac-Mégantic.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
