- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Lakeland
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,261.63
- Government Page
- Apr/15/24 1:04:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last summer, Sweden paused all efforts of its official government policy toward net-zero and is ramping up the production of fossil fuels. Last year, Germany brought more coal online than ever before in history.
We can quote the International Energy Agency. We can look at the examples of individual countries that have gone way further down the road in this policy agenda and see what is happening now. They now are facing the consequences of high expensive bills, of expensive essentials, of expensive and unreliable power, of collapsing agricultural communities and rural areas, and of collapsing secondary and tertiary job creation in the private sectors dependent on oil and gas.
I think the member is sort of making a false dichotomy that is not coming from the Conservatives. The Conservatives are recognizing the fact that oil and gas development, as private sector investments, are the biggest investors in alternative energy and in clean tech and fuels of the future. We are saying not to cut that off at the knees to the detriment and peril of Canadian workers, the Canadian economy, Canadian security, Canadian self-sufficiency and Canadian energy independence in order to force, not something that is just happening, the economy into the exact same situation these other countries are already in, which is the citizens protesting and governments rolling back those bad agendas.
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ontario who has also been a reliable, steadfast and passionate supporter of energy workers. He knows, for the sector and for individuals, it benefits the entire country.
Ontario has a lot at stake with BillC-50, given the negative impacts on manufacturing, construction and transportation that would come from it. He is exactly right; it has been a travesty. I do not know if the word “treason” is too much when we watch our Prime Minister say that there is no business case for Canadian LNG. He is apparently the only world leader who thinks there is no business case for Canadian LNG, since our allies and world leaders everywhere are literally begging for us to provide it to them.
Of course he is also a person who says that there is no business case for the development of those projects, even though 15 private sector proponents tried to get LNG projects built in Canada in the last nine years since he has been in government. They have all been blocked.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 12:52:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since the minister was not on the committee, I appreciate his commendation of his cohorts for colluding in the costly coalition cover-up. The Liberal members of his party rejected a Bloc Québécois motion that would have ensured that Bill C-50 supported “the decarbonization of workplaces while preserving existing jobs, minimizing job losses, and encouraging the involvement of workers and trade unions in the associated transition processes”. How can he possibly rationalize that?
This is an important question, because in the Canadian energy sector, more than 90% of energy companies are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. In Bill C-50, the just transition actually does not contemplate those workers at all. We supported that Bloc amendment; the Bloc and the Green Party are the only parties being honest about the agenda that is actually included in Bill C-50, instead of pretending that it is about skills and jobs-training programs.
That amendment, as well as all the Conservative amendments, were the only measures that would have included provinces, territories and indigenous governance bodies for consultation and collaboration under the central plans by all the secret government committees that would stem from Bill C-50. How on earth can the minister defend Liberal members for rejecting these amendments?
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:00:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Ukraine needs weapons and Canada's energy, not the Liberals' carbon tax. I am confident that the Ukrainian farmers, who are my neighbours, friends and relatives, support that position and I will never stop fighting for them.
That right there is the Liberals' distract-and-divide agenda. It is only those guys who do not get that when one taxes the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who ship the food, the stores that sell the food and the consumers who buy the food, Canadians cannot afford the food, yet the Prime Minister is going to quadruple his carbon tax, even though he already forces people to choose between heating and eating.
He can help bring down those costs right now. When will the Prime Minister get out of the way of his former Liberal donor, candidate and MP senators and get them to pass the common-sense Conservative bill?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, energy is fundamental to all people in all countries around the world, especially in expansive and northern countries such as ours and in the region that we are talking about.
As my colleague mentioned during his speech, after eight years of the Liberals, there were 18 proposals for LNG terminals from Canada. However, because of the Liberals' red tape, gatekeeping, anti-energy agenda and policies, not a single one has been built.
Conservatives are supportive about actual outcomes rather than words. We know it is so important for Ukrainians and citizens of allied countries to have energy security and affordable fuel.
Could the member comment on the ways in which the NDP-Liberals are holding Canada back from being able to truly support the resilient, tenacious people of Ukraine, who are fighting for their territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as for sources of responsible oil and gas—
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we do agree it is the future, which we have said multiple times. We just recognize that the reality that the oil and gas sector in Canada still remains the most abundant, available, affordable source of energy for most Canadians throughout this country and is also the biggest investor in clean tech and alternative energies. What the government wants to do is kill the very sector that leads to the innovation and technology.
The Liberals should answer more questions about how on earth they are going to meet their targets in 2035, when they cannot get critical minerals out of the ground, when they are holding back the ring of fire, when interties do not exist and when there is no grid capacity and no end-user distribution system for Canadians on the back end.
Conservatives are saying, “Answer the questions.” How is this going to get done? When, why and in what way will it get done? Who is paying for it? Then, maybe people could have confidence in their plan. However, we all know they are not—
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, given that the anti-energy, anti-private sector, anti-resource development costly coalition of the left continues to mis-characterize the position of the Conservatives, let me just say this again. We support innovation and the development of new energy sources, which obviously help diversify Canada's energy mix and create new opportunities and reduce emissions globally.
Here is a crucial point, and it is relevant to the member's comments. The Conservatives want to attract private sector investment that will spur the development and the affordable and feasible adoption of alternative energy and the fuels of the future, instead of putting taxpayers on the hook or losing innovation and investment in the valley of death between invention and commercialization in Canada. It makes no difference and it is not in good faith to tell Canadians a bunch of things that are not possible.
The Conservatives recognize this reality. Oil and gas remains the top private sector investor in the Canadian economy, Canada's top export. It also counts for 75% of private sector investment in clean tech. That is why the Conservatives take an approach of the development and advancement of all kinds of energy, because all of this innovation technology fits together.
Given all of the concerns that the member has raised, since he seems more interested in holding Danielle Smith accountable instead of the Prime Minister, could he just explain how he rationalizes being the power broking prop-up to the federal Liberal government despite all his complaints and crises about which he is apparently outraged?
261 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do recall finding interesting points of agreement on Bill C-69 around the arbitrary, unilateral and unclear impacts of that bill, but as she noted, we had wildly diverging world views and aspirations for the energy sector in Canada.
Since we are debating this federally, let me just emphasize what Conservatives believe. We believe in lower taxes and less red tape, and the elimination of duplicative and onerous regulations so businesses can thrive. Conservatives want Canada to be the supplier of choice for our responsible oil and gas development, for our own energy affordability and security and for our allies.
As prime minister, our Conservative leader would green light green technologies so brilliant engineers can advance more affordable electricity. We would reduce approval timelines for all energy projects, and remove unnecessary, duplicative red tape and punishing taxes so that entrepreneurs and companies can invest in Canada and so that major energy and infrastructure projects can actually get built in this country. This is unlike the NDP-Liberals, who gatekeep, roadblock and make traditional energy more expensive while delaying and driving out new energy opportunities.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 4:16:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP-Liberal just transition plan, brought in as a bill last week even before the final committee report was out, is a dangerous government-mandated threat to outright kill 170,000 jobs and risk the jobs of 2.7 million Canadians overall. It will negatively impact all sectors of Canada's economy and disproportionately harm certain provinces and regions, namely rural, resource-based and indigenous communities. It will hike energy costs, undermine Canada's energy supply and security, prevent self-sufficiency and gatekeep Canada's ability to fuel, feed, secure and help innovate allies in developing countries to help lower global emissions.
The final report attacks Canada's energy sector and fails to recognize its world-class standards and unmatched contributions to clean-tech investment in Canada. It encourages an accelerated transition away from the livelihoods on which millions of Canadians depend, instead of examining practical ways and timelines for increased technological development and grid decarbonization, without jeopardizing Canada's economy and standard of living. It is designed to prop up the Liberals' legislation and excludes witnesses who disagree.
It is notable, as a final comment, that the recommendations use the term “sustainable jobs”, despite the fact that it was used only once by a single, non-government witness in the entire 64-witness, 23-brief, year-plus-long study of a motion that called this the just transition, an obviously cynical, last-minute name change to obscure the real aims and consequences of the plan.
The Conservatives believe in transformation, not transition; technology, not taxes; and that the energy evolution must be led by the private sector, not forced by government. The Conservatives will make both traditional and alternative energy affordable and accessible, accelerate approvals of energy infrastructure and export projects, and green-light green projects to put Canadian resources, innovation and workers first to ensure Canadian energy affordability, security and self-sufficiency.
The conclusions of the committee's final report will not do that. For these reasons, I am tabling a dissenting report on behalf of the Conservatives.
345 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:33:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this budget actually admits that the Liberals broke their own regulatory process for traditional sources of oil and gas and will now harm ever-increasing attempts at private sector investment in renewable and alternative energies in the future. There is $1.3 million in this budget allotted for regulators to “improve the efficiency” of assessments and another $50 million to help participants navigate Liberal red tape after eight years.
Let me just finish, please, the point on LNG. In the last eight years, 18 projects have been proposed in Canada. Only three have permits, and zero have been built. In the same time, the U.S. has built seven. They have approved 20 more, and they will build five more this year alone. Meanwhile, allies around the world are begging for Canadian LNG to help meet their energy needs and lower global emissions. That is what the government should focus on promoting.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 2:40:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, energy self-sufficiency is national security, but the Liberals have killed four pipelines, more than 300,000 oil and gas jobs and more than $150 billion in energy and indigenous projects, and they have lost 18 LNG export proposals. There is now a scheme with the NDP to end oil and gas in Canada and hike the carbon tax. Canada has the most responsible oil and gas and among the largest reserves in the world, but it still has to import.
Does the Liberal-NDP cabal really want to keep Canada having to rely on oil and gas from corrupt regimes and hostile despots?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
