So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 325 - Jun/5/24

Jun/5/24 8:06:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the contrast could not be more clear. On one side, the Liberals and the NDP want to legalize hard drugs. They want to spend tens of millions of dollars on so-called safe supply, with free taxpayer-paid drugs being distributed. That has been proven, time and time again, to end up in the hands of traffickers and those with nefarious efforts, to only expand the number of people addicted to drugs so that they can make money. By contrast, Conservatives are saying we should end taxpayer funding of hard drugs and put all of that money into treatment, into an off-ramp of hope for a second chance at life to get better and get on a better track, physically, socially and economically. What we can do is help Canadians stop their addictions and stop the need to struggle. Years and years later, 42,000 people have been killed by overdoses and addictions in this country; 2,500 in B.C. alone. Enough is enough.

168 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Jun/5/24 7:58:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in today's day and age, there are not many Canadians in any part of this country who have not been impacted directly or indirectly by the mental health and addictions crisis we face here in Canada. Sadly, over the last little while, I have had to be quite aggressive in my frustrations on the topic when we have seen the disaster, the crime, the chaos and the disorder unleashed in the streets of British Columbia. When it came to the poor judgment of the B.C. provincial NDP government to request the federal government to exempt, from the Criminal Code in British Columbia, the consumption and use of hard drugs in public places, it went about as well as one would think it would go. There were stories of nurses scared to go into work for the fear of meth smoke being blown into their face. There was a nurse who shared a story through the B.C. Nurses' Union, echoing those concerns, who stopped breastfeeding her twin 11-month-old children because she feared that if the meth smoke got into her system, it could affect her children. We heard stories from Abbotsford about soccer parents, as coaches and volunteers with their kids, who had to scour the fields in advance of their kids playing soccer, in Canada, in 2024, because there were so many syringes and needles laying around their parks. On public transit, people were shooting up and people were smoking hard drugs right on a subway or on a bus, and there was nothing the police could do. Thankfully, the B.C. NDP realized what a disaster that was and asked for the pilot experiment to be pulled back. It took two weeks for the Liberal government to agree. The most frustrating part is that despite the examples we heard from the B.C. Nurses' Union, despite the stories we heard from soccer clubs and parents and despite the many examples of transit users in B.C. fearing to go to work or to go to school on public transit because of witnessing the consumption of hard drugs right before them, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Liberal and NDP government here, collectively in their coalition and even the NDP were openly advocating that this experiment that failed in B.C. be brought to cities like Toronto or Montreal like they have been requesting. With the chaos the Liberals have seen in B.C., with the results they have seen there and with B.C.'s admission of failure by cancelling the exemptions that the Prime Minister granted, the Liberals still will not rule out expanding this to other parts of the country. We talk about the so-called safe supply. There is no such thing as safe supply. Doing hard drugs is never safe. The government has spent tens of millions of dollars over the course of the last nine years on the so-called safe supply, which the RCMP and multimedia outlets outlined as not actually going anywhere but to drug traffickers, making the situation worse. However, we have very little money, if any, anywhere in the country to fund treatment for an off-ramp to end people's addictions, to provide them support, to provide them treatment and to provide them a change. When will the government get with the program, stop funding its failed radical policies and invest in treatment?

576 words

Jun/4/24 11:21:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Conservatives balanced the budget. We had lower taxes. Rent was half of what it is today. Housing prices were half of what they are today, and life was a heck of a lot more affordable than it is now, even after all the pitches and proposals by the NDP and Liberals. I will put a common-sense Conservative record any day of the week, on the table, versus what they have and the record they are going to have to answer for.

84 words

Jun/4/24 11:19:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all those numbers the member just cited are their record after nine years. This is a non-binding NDP motion. The NDP members sound tough about making changes, but they have not. Again, what the NDP wants to do, as opposed to doing anything else, is to raise the taxes on everything by hiking up the carbon tax and quadrupling it. Canadians know that is out of touch, and it is only going to drive the gap in prices up even further. I will just have Canadians reflect on a moment here after nine years. The government has increased taxes: the carbon tax, alcohol tax and payroll tax. The government had an unused housing tax that was supposed to solve a bunch of problems. I will ask Canadians to reflect on the government's record and credibility as to finances and taxation. Has climate change been resolved? Are forest fires not happening anymore? That is not true. Is the budget balanced? Not even close. Is life more affordable? Not even close. Are more houses getting built? Not even close. Every time the government claims that it wants to hike taxes as a solution, it actually does the opposite. Canadians see that through and through. They are getting nailed with the carbon tax, while the rich, who the government claims to hike taxes on, seem to be doing just fine.

231 words

Jun/4/24 11:17:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was a little bit of a political science lesson from the member from the NDP. He has been here a long time. He has been in office with the Prime Minister for the last nine years. For every grievance and complaint that the NDP members have, they have had an opportunity to address it and to fix it. For all the complaints that the NDP has in this motion today, NDP members could walk over to the Prime Minister today and tell him that unless he does A, B or C, they will pull the plug and call an election so that Canadians can decide. He talks tough all the time. Conservatives are on the side of everyday Canadians. We want to lower grocery prices. The NDP has propped up the Liberal idea. Remember the grocery summit that happened last year? It was going to lower prices by Thanksgiving. Nothing happened from that. As to the NDP's plan on the carbon tax, the NDP knows that it is out of touch to want to quadruple the carbon tax from the pain already being caused. The NDP talks a big game. I will put our record, when we were in government, of lower grocery prices against the NDP record any day of the week.

217 words

Carbon

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Jun/4/24 11:06:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that I am a little tough on the NDP sometimes, not only here in the House, but also out on my travels and during the touring I do across the country on behalf of our party, our leader and the official opposition. I consider myself a relatively nice guy, but I have to say that my patience is wearing thin when it comes to the credibility of the NDP. I have had the opportunity to visit northern Ontario several times, making the drive to North Bay, Sudbury, Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and all points in between. The NDP's continued propping up of the tired Liberal government is a frustrating point in itself, but members can just imagine how unpopular the ever-increasing carbon tax is in northern Ontario. If someone has to go from Timmins down to Sudbury, which is about a three and a half hour drive, the carbon tax is driving up the cost of gas to go to medical appointments. It is adding a cost to groceries when reefer trucks have to go up to northern Ontario to deliver food. The NDP is completely out of touch with the communities in northern Ontario it claims to represent well. Let us talk about Vancouver Island. Out there, over the course of the last couple of years, so many people who cast a ballot for the NDP in the last election have buyer's remorse. They did not vote for the NDP to prop up the Liberals in a four-year coalition deal, to cover up their scandals or to go along with the Prime Minister and his out-of-touch agenda, which has driven up inflation, doubled housing prices and doubled our national debt. The increasingly frustrating point for those people is, if they had wanted to vote for the Prime Minister to remain in power, they would have voted Liberal. They voted NDP for something different, but instead, they got nothing but the same. There is a hypocrisy here. There is a double standard that the NDP need to be called out on. I am happy to do so time and time again. I will remind Canadians of that, whether it be on Vancouver Island, in northern Ontario, or any other place where the NDP currently holds seats. The NDP props up the Liberals on every budget. There is a hypocrisy there because, in the budget speeches, NDP members complain that things are put in the budget but never followed through on. One thing the NDP does as well is that it covers up the constant scandals that the Conservatives try to get answers for at committee. The “cover-up coalition” is a term we have used several times over the course of the last couple of years, such as with the Winnipeg lab documents, foreign interference and ArriveCan. The number of times the NDP has voted to shut down meetings, shut down committee studies and investigations into the numerous examples of waste, is endless and frustrating those who have, perhaps, traditionally in the past, supported the NDP. Many traditional NDP supporters say that they do not recognize the party anymore, and rightfully so. That is why I believe common-sense Conservatives are really getting some good momentum across the country. We are the contrast. After nine years, the government wants to quadruple the carbon tax from its current levels. We want to axe the carbon tax. When we say something to Canadians, we are the ones who will follow through and do it, unlike the NDP, and we are here in the House today on its opposition day motion. The NDP members claim they stand up against corporate greed and against corporate welfare handouts. To clarify, this is a non-binding motion that the NDP has presented here. This is the shell game and the charade that it plays. Canadians are calling it out, and rightfully so. This motion, if it passes or not, will not force the Liberal government to make any change that it claims it wants to have. If only there were something the NDP members could do to get their way and maybe make a change in this country. They could stop propping up the tired, out-of-touch and corrupt Prime Minister and Liberal-NDP government. They could let Canadians decide. If they are so confident about their ideas, and if they are so confident that they are on the right track, they should have no problem in an election. It has been three years since the last election, so call the question. Let us have an election and let Canadians decide. There is a reason we are dealing with a non-binding motion here today. I will split my time today with the member for Bay of Quinte, a great member from eastern Ontario. I just want to say I feel bad for the NDP because it is on full display today just how hypocritical it is with its messaging and its attempts to make Canadians believe it is different than the current Liberal government. Today, we are debating an NDP opposition day motion. Just moments ago, during Routine Proceedings, the Speaker tabled the Auditor General's latest set of reports on spending by the Liberal-NDP government, spending that was not only approved by the Liberals, but also propped up fully, every single time, by the NDP. A report came out regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada. That is the Liberal-NDP green slush fund that has been under scandal and under review for months. The report was just tabled. If the NDP wants to tackle corporate greed, corporate welfare, corporate handouts and Liberal insiders getting special privileges and giving contracts to taxpayer money, this is the real deal of what we are talking about. Here are the Auditor General's words, hot off the press, just tabled here this morning, on this green slush fund scandal. The report states that they found that money was awarded to “funding to projects that were ineligible, that conflicts of interest existed in some instances, and that certain requirements...were not met.” The report continues, “We found that the [group appointed by the Liberals] awarded funding to 10 ineligible projects...awarded $59 million even though they did not meet key requirements set out in the contribution agreements”. It goes on. Here is how bad the corruption is. This is supported and voted for by the NDP and, trust me, it is going to continue to prop the Liberals up. The report also states, “Also...we found 90 cases that were connected to approval decisions, representing nearly $76 million in funding awarded to projects, where the foundation's conflict-of-interest policies were not followed.” What does that mean? Let me simplify it. It means Liberal appointees gave money, in conflict of interest, to their Liberal friends and corporate insiders, approved by the NDP and propped up by the NDP. We talk about corporate greed, corporate welfare and waste of taxpayers' money in corruption. Right there from the Auditor General, the NDP is going to have a lot to answer for if it wants to keep propping the Liberals up, and not through a non-binding opposition day motion, but again, continued confidence in the Liberal government. The NDP has zero credibility. If that was not enough, the Auditor General has been busy, and there was a second report today about the amount of money spent on outside contractors and consultants under the Liberal government. Professional Services Contract was the title of the report. Let me just say this: McKinsey, a Liberal insider firm, has received over $200 million, $209 million, over the course of the last several years. It found many examples of departments and agencies, and eight out of 10 Crown corporations failed to properly follow all aspects of their procurement policies and guidance on at least a contract they had with McKinsey. The investigation needs to continue. We need to get to the bottom of this and stop these corporate handouts that are coming from the NDP-Liberal government. Let us remember, it is not just the Liberals tabling a budget. It is the NDP going along, carte blanche, approving all these, whether it be the budget, the estimates or the cover-ups at committees, as Conservatives try to get to the bottom, to root this out, to stop this corporate welfare handout to Liberal inside friends. It is the NDP that needs to answer for it. At the end of the day, there are things we can do in this country that are not being done after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. We have a competition problem in this country. The NDP, despite all its complaints and its tough questions in question period, props the status quo up of these Liberals each and every time. A key item that could provide immediate relief, controlled by the federal government, is to axe the carbon tax. It is now clear. It is driving up grocery prices, and they are just getting started. The Liberals want to quadruple the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre. It is out of touch. Canadians are out of money. Frankly, with this motion, they are tired of the NDP hypocrisy of always talking a tough game and then propping up the Liberals until at least next fall. I cannot wait for Canadians to have their say at the next election.

1593 words

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

May/30/24 5:30:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote on this important issue.

11 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

May/30/24 5:27:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to get on the record in Ottawa my support for our Conservative opposition day motion, a common-sense motion to help provide immediate relief to those who are suffering from the cost of living crisis in every part of this country. What we are proposing is immediate fuel tax relief on the price of both gas and diesel from Victoria Day all the way to Labour Day. That would take the tax off on multiple fronts when it comes to gas and diesel, suspending it for the summer. It is not just the carbon tax, which is going to quadruple, but also the federal fuel tax. If the Liberals do not frustrate Canadians enough, remember that they taxed the tax when they put GST and HST on the carbon tax. We will save 35¢ a litre for Canadians this summer if our motion passes. That means Canadians and families could maybe afford a summer road trip, which is not possible now because they cannot make ends meet. It maybe helps somebody going to medical appointments from my part of eastern Ontario to Ottawa or Toronto on a regular basis, or somebody in northern Ontario, in Timmins, who has to drive three and a half hours down to Sudbury for routine medical appointments. They deserve to have 35¢ a litre kept in their pockets this summer. I want to spend a bit of time talking about the break that Conservatives would provide on not only the price of gasoline, but also the price of diesel. As many know, I was proud to be born and raised around Jet Express, a trucking company in eastern Ontario that my parents ran for many years. I want Canadians to know about the trucking industry and how billing works. If we were to take the federal taxes off the price of diesel for the few months we are talking about this summer, it would have an immediate and measurable impact on the cost of transportation in this country. The overwhelming majority of trucking companies, when they charge a rate, have a base rate and fee, but there is a flexible and rotating fuel surcharge put on that. The higher that gas and diesel prices go, the more a trucking company has to charge in fuel surcharge, adding to the cost of delivering something from, for example, the soup and salad bowl that is Simcoe County all the way up to northern Ontario and all the way out to the east coast or west coast. If federal taxes were taken off, the price to run a reefer truck would drop significantly with the savings from the federal tax on diesel. The fuel surcharge could go down, providing immediate relief on the cost of goods and shipping around this country. It is common sense. The Conservatives will keep advocating for it, despite opposition from the other parties.

490 words

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

May/30/24 2:48:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, Canadians know how unaffordable life has become, and the facts speak for themselves. They are so glaringly obvious that even the CBC of all places is covering the record surge of Canadians moving to the United States. Some 126,000 Canadians moved to the U.S. in 2022 alone, a 70% increase in the last decade. There are Facebook groups, some as big as 55,000 members, that are finding ways and sharing tips on how to move out of Canada. If things are so great, why are a record number of Canadians moving to the United States?

109 words

Moving

Context: House Hansard - 319 - May/28/24

Context: House Hansard - 319 - May/28/24

May/28/24 7:35:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would argue that I feel I have a pretty good pulse on the thoughts of people in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. There are about 100,000 people who want to have an election so that Canadians can decide on all the issues the NDP keeps talking about, and more importantly, the NDP constantly propping the Liberals up. The member who just spoke, the House leader for the NDP, was at the PROC meetings when it made the report on the first set of ethical violations and poor judgments of the Speaker. New Democrats said that they will make sure this never happens again, and if he does anything further, he is going to have to resign. He does it, and it does not count. It does count. The Speaker knew. Was he going to randomly just show up at this fundraiser by accident the night it happened? No. The Speaker knew he was going to be at a fundraiser for his riding. He was going to be speaking at it. It was his choice to host all this, and knowing the history only months ago, he should have had better control and processes to make sure this did not happen. It was poor judgment, and he should not have done it. The NDP has to stop propping him up and giving him free rein to keep committing these multiple ethics violations.

236 words

Context: House Hansard - 319 - May/28/24

May/28/24 7:32:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is the typical Liberal response. It is everybody else's fault but theirs. There are six strikes that I outlined in my speech: the video he made; the comment in The Globe and Mail about the Liberal Party being “our party”; his trip to Washington, D.C. and talking about his history in the Young Liberals of Canada; attending a Quebec Liberal Party fundraiser across the river when he was Speaker; the invitation that went out that was completely inappropriate and over the top; and then, the shameful comments he made today, completely distorting the reality of what he said and, again, attacking the integrity of an NDP MP. The NDP has no problem propping him up. Which six of those are wrong? None of them. They all happened, and Liberals continue to give him more chances, wrongfully. He has zero reason to give up the chair, if that is going to be the attitude of the Liberal Party. The more strikes he has, the more they seem to love him.

176 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

May/28/24 7:21:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if members think ethics and integrity are important, I think most Canadians would be stunned at the fact that we would have to say, “six strikes and he should be out”. We are still here, six strikes in on the Speaker of the House, over and over again, as the Liberal MPs mock and just say, “Why not ten?” They have such a low bar they have set for themselves that we are here again today. The Speaker has been in the role for eight months, and there are numerous examples, time and time again, of his being incapable of being neutral, impartial, and non-partisan. Let me talk about the six strikes from my perspective. We are aware of what happened late last year. The Speaker had the extremely poor judgment to record a video in the Speaker's office, in his Speaker's robes, talking at the Ontario Liberal Party convention, doing a video praising another Liberal. It is completely unacceptable. The second strike was when the Speaker did an interview, cited in his role as Speaker in The Globe and Mail, regarding Mr. John Fraser, to whom he paid tribute by video. He referred, in his role as Speaker, to the Ontario Liberal Party as “our party”. It is completely unacceptable and just common sense not to do that as a Speaker of the House. If that were not bad enough, right in that time frame, the Speaker decided, when the House was sitting, to take a trip to Washington, D.C. It is nearly unheard of for the Speaker of the House of Commons to leave the country when the House is sitting, let alone when under a cloud of scandal, calls for his resignation and debate about his future. It was poor judgment to leave the country, not just when the House was sitting but also when he was under a cloud of investigation, scandal, criticism, and calls for his resignation. One would think that would be enough, but it goes on. He gets to Washington, D.C., as Speaker, goes to a private retirement party for a friend instead of being in the House of Commons, and gets caught on video talking about his partisan, Young Liberals of Canada history and how great those times were back in the day, and celebrating his Liberal roots. This is literally while he is under calls for his resignation for time and time again not showing impartiality but showing bias and partisanship towards the Liberal Party. That is number three of the six strikes we are now at. Number four is the photos that came out right around the time that PROC finished its investigation, showing that the Speaker attended a Quebec Liberal Party fundraiser locally, just across the river. When one is Speaker, they should not go to partisan fundraisers for political parties of any jurisdiction. That has just been the common-sense consensus of every Speaker we have had in this country for over 150 years. That is a strike again. Now we get to where we are when the Speaker, knowing the amount of criticism that has been lobbed rightfully against him, gets caught using such partisan language on an invitation to a partisan Liberal fundraiser for himself that it would make the member for Winnipeg North blush, probably. It is not just an accident to do all of this. Here is the thing that is interesting. After all of what I have just laid out, the Speaker promised, because the NDP propped him up, that this would never happen again. He said that he would put procedures in place to make sure that it would never happen again, and that he would be be completely impartial. This was just a rough start, and he wanted a new slate to do it all over again. One would have thought that the Speaker would have gone back to his riding association as he organized fundraisers, and thought, “Maybe we should watch the way we word our invitations.” I am not one to give free political advice to anybody on the other side of the aisle, particularly when it comes to fundraising, but nobody forced the Speaker to hold the fundraiser. He had promised to have procedures in place so this would never happen again. He could have simply mailed a letter out from the president of his riding association saying, “Our Speaker is busy being the Speaker and should be non-partisan. I am John Smith, the president of the Hull—Aylmer Liberal Association. Donate $100 to help out our local candidate in the next election.” It would have been free advice that would not have gotten him in trouble. However, it was put in an event, and here we are again. That was strike number five, and I am not done yet. The sixth strike was today. I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. The Speaker appeared today to talk about the topic of violence and harassment prevention policies of the House, PROC, Board of Internal Economy and so forth. The member for Calgary Nose Hill had an exchange with the Speaker about his past, his judgment and his actions of being overly partisan, and that it was on the floor of the House of Commons that the Speaker wrongfully defended the Prime Minister when he was not accused of but admitted to elbowing the chest of an NDP MP. What frustrated me as I sat in the room and listened was what the Speaker said in response to the member for Calgary Nose Hill's calling him out, saying the Speaker questioned the former member's integrity and her events of the story, literally mocked her on the floor of the House of Commons minutes later and suggested she took a dive reminiscent of something in the World Cup. He was called out for it. In the committee today, and anybody can go and watch the exchange, he said, “I can tell you that I never questioned Ruth Ellen Brosseau's accounting of the situation.” He literally stood up on the floor of the House of Commons, and it was infamous because he mocked her, and the Prime Minister had to apologize. The Speaker never did. Here he was today, when he was confronted about that situation, and I have to be careful of the words I use in the House so I do not get a point of order, and what he said in his response was completely false. People can listen to what he said that day only a few years ago, and can watch the footage from the cameras in here. That is strike number six. In 150 years, this country has now had 38 speakers. The current speaker is the 38th. I am not saying they have all been completely innocent. There have been blemishes. There have been issues. However, to have a Speaker with so many accusations against him of being partisan, having poor judgment, showing bias, and of not being neutral and impartial, and to have a couple of strikes, is not good. Some people say, “Three strikes and you're out.” We are at six strikes. The Speaker has not been here for eight years; he has been here for eight months. We have had Speakers who have served for about 10 ten years. Peter Milliken was raised earlier. He did not have eight issues and ethical violations in a matter of 10 years. The current Speaker has six strikes against him, from what I have outlined here tonight, in eight months. The question needs to be, “Who is the common denominator?” Liberal MPs have gone on to be Speaker before, with success in being able to balance. When the Speaker is elected, there is a tradition that the Speaker gets dragged in by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, dragged to the chair. That tradition is the fun part that everybody sees on TV. Nobody forced the Speaker to run in the first place. He did not ask me for my opinion, and it is probably better that he did not. I kind of wish that he had, because I would have told him that I did not think he was the best fit for the job, because whether it was in the ethics committee or public accounts over the years, time and time again, he was constantly unflinching in his defence of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, no matter what. It was a recipe for disaster. We need to have a Speaker in the chair who can be respected, command the respect of the House and allow us to get to business. We are here tonight not because of Conservatives. We are here because the Speaker, over and over again, has violated trust and has violated the code that for 150-plus years has not resulted in issues. The simple thing I will say again is that it is time for the Speaker to resign. Let us put a new Speaker in the chair, one who can unite the House and focus on the democratic importance we have in the chamber.

1555 words

May/27/24 11:31:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, I agree. At one point, I would have said that I do not understand what the government is doing, but after a while, one knows full well what they are doing. The Liberals and the NDP are antidevelopment. They are anti-Canadian jobs. They are doing everything they can to suppress investment in this country. Look at what Bill C-49 would do. It is going to be caught up in the courts. There is going to be chaos and confusion. Look at Bill C-69 and what it has done to our natural resources sector. It has been devastating. It has been struck down in court. It will be the same thing here. The Liberal record after nine years is turning away investment in this country. We go through the laundry list and they keep saying they are proposing new ideas. It is the same failed approach that got us in this mess in the first place. It is time for a fresh start. Bill C-49 and their other efforts are not worth it.

178 words

May/27/24 11:29:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia is correct. A number of times leaders of other countries have come to Canada asking it to tap into its natural resources, LNG and all of the vast natural resources we have to offer, and the government's line is that there is no business case for it. It is nonsense. The irony is that the government literally says those replies on the days or weeks when leaders from around the world are coming to Canada asking us to help them do all of that. Here is the thing that is interesting with the Liberals. It is the equivalent of saying the budget will balance itself. People just laugh now. After nine years of lectures they give on that side of the aisle, we can throw their record back at them. A number of projects are being cancelled in this country with the delays, dithering and red tape that goes on. The Liberals act as if they have just been here for nine days, when they have been here for nine years. It is worse, not better, than when they started. How many more months or years do they think they need before they make things better? Better yet, let us just call the election and let Canadians decide the direction of this country. I have a feeling they are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

242 words

Budget

May/27/24 11:27:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member from the Bloc a little, and I am going to disagree with her a little as well. I agree that this is a shoddy bill. The government has been warned. The Liberals and the NDP want to ram this through, and they have been reminded over and over again, including in some great speeches here tonight, of how this is going to end up in the courts, like Bill C-69. I agree with her on that. They are putting it through and they do not care. It is going to get stalled for years and they are going to blame everybody but themselves. I find that I disagree with the Bloc, though, too. I agree a little more, if I could, about simplifying the environmental assessment process: one environmental assessment, federal or provincial. We do not need the double red tape taking years. The list goes on of the number of companies and projects that have been caught up in this. The thing with the Bloc Québécois is that it wants to cancel, as an example, all offshore petroleum or the wonderful oil and gas sector, with a number of jobs in this country. The irony is that when we cancel a project here in Canada, what happens is that countries like Russia, Venezuela and other countries that do not give two hoots about emissions reductions are going to take up that limit. Trust me: They are not having the same conversations about conservation and good measures that we are having here in Canada. The Bloc Québécois is saying these projects and paycheques belong in Canada, but it wants to export them around the world.

291 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

May/27/24 11:17:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here in the House and have many of my colleagues join to listen as I contribute some points to the debate we are having here tonight, particularly on our Conservative amendment. Many would argue it would be common sense. I look forward to getting into that tonight a little bit more. However, Mr. Speaker, you are from Nova Scotia. The legislation here impacts that province. It also impacts the great people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the honour to visit, a couple of weeks ago, the province. I had some great visits, travelling many miles, all the way from St. John's and Mount Pearl in the Avalon region, all the way across to Clarenville, Grand Falls, Windsor, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Stephenville, Kippens, and all points in between. I think the debate here is timely tonight, as we talk about what the priorities are for the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, I want to give some breaking news here in the House tonight, if I could; breaking news that is fresh, hot off the press of some by-elections, a by-election that just took place in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals love intruding into provincial jurisdiction on issues, although they should not. They get struck down by courts and we have these prolonged problems. I am going to bring in provincial jurisdiction here because in Newfoundland and Labrador, in that by-election tonight, in the riding of Baie Verte-Green Bay, the votes are in. It was a carbon tax by-election. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, here is an interesting thing. Both of the PC and the Liberal candidates endorsed the Leader of the Opposition in Ottawa. The Prime Minister has become so toxic, even Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador want nothing to do with him. The results are in tonight and it was very conclusive. The voter turnout in the by-election tonight in central Newfoundland was 57%. It was 15 points higher than it was in the last general election in that riding. It was a close riding in 2021. The Liberals got about 52%, the PCs got 47%. Tonight, the Conservative candidate who opposes the carbon tax got 80% of the vote. Congratulations to Lin Paddock from Ottawa. I am thankful to him for fighting the carbon tax, fighting and standing up against the punitive measures that the Prime Minister and the NDP are imposing on his province. That by-election followed, in Newfoundland and Labrador, a by-election that just took place about a month ago. Again, it was the same thing around central Newfoundland. There was a historically high voter turnout in that riding. It took a long-time Liberal riding and flipped it to the PCs; again, a carbon tax by-election. They are just building the momentum. If we go to Nova Scotia, in Pictou West, the minister of housing's own riding, right in that region, the PCs not only held that riding, but they drastically increased their vote share and the turnout there was very solid for a by-election. There was another example, absolutely, in Preston only a short while ago. For the first time, in a long-time Liberal or NDP back-and-forth riding for the most part, there was a Conservative victory there as well, another carbon tax by-election. I raise this point tonight because there is a theme developing in Atlantic Canada. It is going from Liberal to common-sense Conservative. Here is the thing that is interesting. It is building the momentum. The Prime Minister and the NDP and Liberals know they are extremely unpopular. They know that their plan for this country is more and more unpopular, the more Canadians learn about it. The priorities that they try to address are out of touch with the realities on the ground. After giving colleagues these updates of these carbon tax by-elections in those respective provinces, I cannot wait for our carbon tax election here to take place all across Canada. Canadians are going to have their say. I think the turnout and the blue wave are going to be equal in every part of this country. I want to talk about Bill C-49 here tonight. I do listen to what the member for Kingston and the Islands says, believe it or not. I have to because both he and the member for Winnipeg North speak quite a bit here in the chamber. Just a few minutes ago, the member for Kingston and the Islands was trying to make this argument about the Constitution and how the Liberals listen to the Constitution, respect it and talking about their actions when it comes to their legislation and bills. This bill here, or more specifically, our Conservative amendment, actually just call it out for what it is, hypocrisy. It is saying one thing and doing the absolute opposite. He goes on about how they do all this. Well, Bill C-49 has a lot of very similar provisions to Bill C-69, which has garnered a lot of attention when it comes to developing our natural resources and realizing our economic potential. It has done a lot of damage in every part of the country. It has turned away, turned down and cancelled investments by the hundreds of millions of dollars in this country. The thing about Bill C-69 was that, for months and for years, Liberal ministers would go out and say, “There is nothing wrong. The bill is constitutional. It is going to be upheld.” Well, the Supreme Court had its say, and guess what. It did not uphold it. The bill was struck down. Now, moving forward, we have Bill C-49. Our Conservative amendment tonight is saying that we need to take this back to committee. There are serious flaws with what the government is trying to do because many of the same provisions that were struck down in Bill C-69 are embedded and repeated here in Bill C-49. Mark my words. I am going to put it right here, in Hansard, in the blues and on video here tonight: This piece of legislation is going to be dithered and delayed for years. It is going to be challenged. Look at what happened with respect to Bill C-69. Liberals and then the New Democrats said, “Oh, it is all fine. Do not worry about it. The Conservatives are just talking negative about it.” The government ignored it, and guess what happened. It is the chaos coming around Bill C-69. The uncertainty, the lack of answers from that side and the lack of fixing the problem the Liberals were warned about in the first place are challenging the economic environment in our country. It is turning away investment. It is turning away projects that could be completed here at home, creating great Canadian paycheques. The Liberals are doing the exact same thing. Members could look and see that there are now the same inefficiencies that are here in the Impact Assessment Act, in sections 61, 62, 169 and 170. The list goes on about how they are constantly dithering and delaying. If members do not want to take my word for it here with what I have said so far, let us just look at the number of projects already stalled under the Liberal-NDP government. The Liberals are blocking projects with red tape left, right and centre. Bill C-49 would only make it worse. There is Beaver Dam gold mine in Nova Scotia. It has been nine years, and it is still not done. Fifteen Mile Stream gold project is going to be a massive $123 million investment. After six years, that project, 95 kilometres northeast of Halifax, is still being delayed, and with three years extension, it is still not done. Then we have the Joyce Lake direct shipping iron ore project, which would be a $270-million investment in Newfoundland and Labrador. After 11 years, it is still waiting and not approved. There is Cape Ray gold and silver mine in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been eight years, and it is still waiting and not going through. The list goes on and on. It is the definition of insanity. I have said it before about the budget, and I will say the same thing about the Liberals' efforts to remove red tape and unleash the economic potential of this country. We have so many natural resources. We have so many jobs that could be created in this country, and what the Liberals have done time and time again, and what they are doing with Bill C-49, is causing legal nightmares. They are going to cause red tape nightmares for years to come, and it is Canadian workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia who are going to be hurt. We are putting this amendment forward. We are opposing the constant red tape of the Liberals. After nine years, Canadians have had enough, and I do not blame them.

1530 words