- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Cypress Hills—Grasslands
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,746.42
- Government Page
- Jan/30/24 6:27:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, of course Conservatives support the development of all types of energy. What we do not support is the government picking winners and losers and putting barriers in the way of provinces being able to set up whatever it is that they want.
I have actually worked in the wind industry. This is just a quick fact. In Alberta, 88 of 88 wind farms were producing next to zero power when it was -50°C, because it was literally too cold for them to operate. It was too dangerous. We need to consider other variables at play in a Canadian winter as to why we cannot go that far in on wind and certain other technologies. We can supplement a grid with them, but we cannot replace the reliable, predictable, affordable energy that we get from natural gas.
That is something that Saskatchewan has decided to do more and more of. We have the Chinook Power Station in Swift Current, which produces all kinds of wonderful power. They are building another one in Moose Jaw. The government needs to support those kinds of projects instead.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 6:20:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I just want take a minute to thank all the great workers in the natural resources sector, and also our farmers and our producers, for making sure that the lights can stay on when it is -50°C, that our homes can stay warm and that we can still produce food. I also thank all the transport workers, who make sure that food, clothing and resources can get all the way across our country regardless of the temperature, whether it is warmer like it is today or if it gets to be, like I said, -50°C as it was a couple of weekends ago back home in Saskatchewan.
Canadians understand how important it is for us to have energy security. Before we all came back to the House, western Canada had to deal with the alarming effects of extremely cold temperatures. The worst of it hit my home province of Saskatchewan, but it was also in Alberta and British Columbia. As we might expect, there was a surge in demand for electricity, but this time, it all put a strain on the system. It got to the point that Alberta had to send out an emergency alert asking everyone to limit their electricity use in order to avoid blackouts. For hours, people were asked to do different things to cut down on their usage, such as turn off their lights, avoid cooking with a stove and delay charging their electric vehicles.
Alberta also received some power from other places, including Saskatchewan. Here is what our Premier Scott Moe said on X at that time. “SaskPower is providing 153 MW of electricity to AB this evening to assist them through this shortage.” It goes on to say, “That power will be coming from natural gas and coal-fired plants, the ones the Trudeau government is telling us to shut down (which we won’t).”
We fired up Boundary Dam 4 in Estevan country to produce more coal-fired power, and I am sure the folks in Alberta were very grateful that Saskatchewan was able to do so. Meanwhile, the government's emissions cap would prevent this from happening. Thankfully, we avoided having a worse situation with rolling outages. However, it is something that could happen, and we do need to take that situation seriously. For the NDP-Liberal government here in Ottawa, it should serve as a wake-up call.
Most people across the country understand that Canadian winters are tough, but I am not sure if some members, Liberal ministers or parliamentary secretaries realize what it is like to live through a typical prairie winter, where it is normal to have a wind chill of -50°C. Our average temperatures can be terribly low and last for a long time. They do not just come and go right away. There are times when it is actually not safe for people to stay outside for very long. People need to be somewhere indoors with a reliable source of heat. That is how we survive. It was one of those extremely cold days when people were faced with the power going out.
My province had greater energy demand as well, and we met that demand from reliable sources. When push came to shove, the overwhelming majority of it came from natural gas and a bit from our coal plants. At the same time, we were also able to lend a hand to our friends over in Alberta. It made a difference for them. It is not a mystery why the premier says he does not want to get rid of affordable and reliable energy. In a critical moment, we all had something solid to fall back on.
The real question is why the Liberals are obsessed with weakening our energy supply with their carbon tax, their emissions cap and the so-called just transition. Not long before all of this happened, they announced some new electricity regulations, and they were shocked to hear that the premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta would refuse to go along with it. This threat of power outages, while enduring extreme cold temperatures of -50°C, is exactly why.
Are the Liberals going to listen to what our western premiers are trying to tell them? Do the Liberals get it yet? Does the Minister of Natural Resources understand why Saskatchewan will not accept his radical agenda? Will they finally give Canadians a break?
751 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/22 4:36:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Conservative Party on the natural resources committee, I have the honour to table our dissenting report.
The report fails to mention the world-leading standards Canada has. It also fails to address issues like carbon leakage and to give credit to what rural, remote and indigenous communities provide when it comes to service work in the energy sector.
Canada has what the world needs, and that is clean, reliable and affordable energy, and the Liberal emissions cap will substantively prohibit Canada from being able to take its place as a world leader in energy production.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:22:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I hear the member talk so much about how carbon pricing is supposedly the most effective way of dealing with emissions. I would like him to put on the record how many megatonnes Canada's emissions have dropped since the carbon tax was put into effect by the government.
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/22 6:56:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, this shows the lack of awareness that the government has on how innovative farmers already have been. Having grown up on a grain farm, I definitely understand how that works. I have seen the farming practices evolve over the years when it comes to rotational crops and when it comes to being more efficient with how we apply fertilizer. Farmers have made those changes for years.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned extreme weather events. Yes, this last year was definitely, I would say, an extreme weather event with how dry it was, but in the region of the country that I live in, it naturally is already dry. We have already made all the adjustments that we need to make sure that we are preserving moisture in the soil. We have better farming practices. We have already improved yields, but we have also better protected the soil. The government is too afraid to recognize that farmers have made those changes themselves.
Will the member again here, today, comment and will he commit that the government will not restrict fertilizer use? Much of the European Union did. It said it was going to reduce 30% emissions as well, and it came up with a 20% fertilizer usage hard-cap reduction.
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/22 6:48:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when I originally asked the Minister of Agriculture what it would mean for farmers if the government restricted fertilizer use, I stressed how crucial it is for all Canadians across the country. Since then, the problem has only gotten more obvious. After all, we are talking about the people and operations producing our food and other essential supplies. It is something so critical for people in their daily lives and for the basic functioning of our entire economy, as one in six jobs relies on agriculture. However, ever since the Liberals first announced it over a year ago, they have kept everyone in the dark. Producers, industry and Canadian consumers are still waiting to get some clarity and reassurance about what they are actually going to do, or, rather, what they are not going to do.
After throwing out an open-ended announcement, will the Liberals finally rule out a restrictive approach that aggressively cuts down fertilizer use, much as what we saw in the European Union? It is a fair question, and they should be able to answer it by now. Associations and industry have been asking this for a long time, but the government will not say anything. Whenever I ask them, they all say the government has not been consulting with them. As time goes on, it seems like the government is unwilling to clear the air and it starts to feel like a bad sign.
Let us consider what is at stake and what damage can be done by a rash decision. Meyers Norris Penny worked out a projection based on the European Union modelling over the next decade for losses as a result of a significant cut to fertilizer use in Canada. Year after year, yields would drop by millions of tonnes. It could get so bad that we would have a steep decline in what we can export after filling our own domestic demand. For those working in agriculture, the sector could lose up to $10 billion in a year, for an estimated total loss of $48 billion by 2030.
No one can afford these devastating losses to a key part of our economy, especially when the federal government is already trying to bring down other high-performing industries, such as our natural resources sector. While maintaining food supply is a big enough challenge by itself, whether it is for here at home or to feed hungry populations all over the world, we can expect more problems to come along. We had a terrible drought this past year, compounded by bad years of lack of moisture in the years prior, which brought yields to lows unseen since 2007. It could happen again with future bad years.
Aside from weather conditions, the government is already pushing for a rapid expansion of biofuel production. It is going with the expectation that Canada can produce 26 million tonnes of canola by 2025, which we can definitely do, but only if we do not also remove the tool that makes it possible.
In the Order Paper question I submitted, the response that came back said that the government is specifically looking to reduce emissions from nitrogen-based fertilizers. One of the fundamental problems with that, which it is unwilling to recognize or admit, is that canola and corn, some of the main crops used for biofuels, are some of the biggest-consuming crops of nitrogen-based fertilizers to grow the bushels to get the yields that we need to meet demand. By creating more demand, we will need the same crops for food and fuel supply together, and we definitely cannot afford to sabotage our own yields by taking on a fertilizer-usage reduction, which is what we saw in the European Union. Unfortunately, the minister has not said much about this. She quoted an informal survey of a dozen professionals, who in the end actually agreed with what farmers and industry are already saying.
It has been clear for far too long that the Liberals do not recognize the practical realities of producers and how the difficult decisions they have to make will impact everybody else. I challenge the Liberal government right here and right now to remove all doubt and confusion.
Can the parliamentary secretary, right here and right now, guarantee to our farmers that there will not be a restriction on the amount of fertilizer used in farming?
735 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 3:05:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with rising inflation and supply chain issues, economic and financial recovery is the priority for the coming years. However, the Liberals created more uncertainty for Canadian agriculture when they announced a severe fertilizer reduction, despite farmers proven track record of environmental leadership.
MNP estimates potential losses of $48 billion, including $4.6 billion in Saskatchewan. There will also be shortages of supply, processing and exports.
Why does the government insist on making food more expensive and limiting how much farmers can grow?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 1:11:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, from 2014 to 2018, at the height of oil and gas production in Canada, we increased production by 38% but reduced emissions of flare gas by 22%. We are the only country to do that. If the world adopted the practices that we have here in Canada, emissions from the sector would drop worldwide by 22%.
The government is all about reducing emissions, so why are we not talking about the practices we have in Canada and taking that abroad to reduce emissions, if that is what the Liberals are so concerned about?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 11:57:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my colleague's riding, much like mine, agriculture is the main driver of the economy. Over the last 20 years, farmers have been making changes to their farming practices to make farming more sustainable. In fact, in a worldwide index, Canada has the most sustainable farming in the world.
Prior to the election, the government said it was going to have a 30% emissions reduction on fertilizer, but it has not said anything about how it is going to do that. Farmers in my riding are extremely concerned about this because, without the use of fertilizer, the amount of crops they can grow will go down, our exports will go down and food insecurity will become a problem. Also, as we pursue biofuels as the next wave, we will need more canola to meet that demand, but we are going to see less canola grown because of a 30% emissions reduction in fertilizer.
I wonder if the member has any information he would like to share with the House about how this might be accomplished by the government, so we can get some certainty for our producers.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
