- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Cypress Hills—Grasslands
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,746.42
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20 in this debate tonight. We have an important issue in front of us.
As we consider making changes to the oversight of the RCMP and the CBSA, it is important for all of us to recognize and honour the active members of both organizations. I grew up in southwest Saskatchewan, and our farm was about a five-minute drive to the border crossing, which is the port of Turner on the U.S. side and the port of Climax on the Saskatchewan side. There are three other border crossings in the southwest: Willow Creek, Monchy and West Poplar River. We have a few really good border crossings in our part of the country, and I can personally attest to the great work the CBSA agents have done in southwest Saskatchewan. They have been valuable, contributing members to our communities. I went to school with some of the kids of people who worked at the border crossings, and they were fantastic people who brought a lot to our communities.
The RCMP and the municipal police services again are made up of fantastic people who do great work. They have signed up to serve the country, and they serve very well in the capacity they are given. That is part of the importance of this debate here today. Anybody who enters public service is doing it because they have, or should have, a deep desire to serve their country and not to benefit themselves, which unfortunately we do see quite rampantly with these Liberals when they are in power and with a lot of the people they are putting into important positions.
For example, earlier today we were debating our opposition day motion about the green slush fund with SDTC and 186 conflicts of interest in this one area alone. It is quite mind-boggling when one thinks about it. As we go through other departments, and as we go through other levels of government, we start to see that there seems to be a pattern.
It is important that we have a good civilian oversight for the RCMP and for CBSA. I do think what the government is trying to do here is in the right vein. We heard in the previous questions and comments period about amendments Conservatives are looking to get. There are always things we are looking to improve when it comes to legislation.
I want to go into a few examples of some issues that have arisen at CBSA over the last couple of years. Back in 2021, there was an article in the CBC. Forgive me, as I will be quoting CBC articles a couple of times tonight. One will not normally catch me doing that, but for tonight, I will. The border agency concluded that, in 2021, there were “92 founded investigations” that year. It came up with 92 investigations for which there was enough proof of evidence to pursue a certain course of action. This includes everything from somebody getting called into the manager's office for a reprimand to people being given dismissals. There were a few different issues that people dealt with.
In 2022, there were over “500 allegations the CBSA deemed 'founded'”. Over 500 is quite a jump from the numbers of 2021. I will read this part because there is a common thread emerging, especially given what we now know from the NSICOP report. The article states, “A Canada Border Service Agency employee opened himself up to the threat of exploitation by 'hostile intelligence services' after visiting massage parlours in China, Japan and Canada”.
This person engaged in illegal activities and put himself in a vulnerable position where hostile intelligence services could take advantage of him because of where he worked and could hold the illegal actions that he had engaged in over his head by saying, “Do this for us or else.” Having civilian oversight would allow for a more thorough examination of what was going on in some of these cases and would hopefully bring a quicker resolution to some of the issues and claims.
I had the opportunity to speak to a similar piece of legislation in the previous Parliament. At that time, the timeline for processing a complaint or a review was up to seven years. That is problematic. If I made a complaint to my banking institution, my cellphone provider or anybody else who provides a good or service and it took seven years for it to be resolved, that would be totally unacceptable in all cases. I know it is not as cut and dry with the CBSA. Obviously, there are more things it has to look into. However, seven years is absolutely ridiculous.
We have had some good comments from the Customs and Immigration Union:
There is also a glaring lack of time limit requirements for the Commission to complete an investigation, which is only amplified by the absence of time limit requirements for the Commission to submit a final report following reception of the CBSA President’s response to an interim report (Section 64). In short, we fear an investigation could take years to complete, which is neither fair to the employee under investigation nor to the complainant.
We recommend that Bill C-20 include clear language around time limits for every step of the process.
Along with that, the Canada Bar Association said:
It seems inevitable that as the Commission’s workload increases, delays will grow. The Commission’s work could then be portrayed as being “efficient” in dealing with complaints, when in fact the goal lines have been moved. The Bill imposes a one-year delay for a complainant to file a complaint. Thus, it is reasonable that the Commission be required to conclude its work in a fixed timeframe as well.
That would have been very helpful to include to clearly set an expectation as part of the complaint process. I think any civilian who would issue a complaint, or even an officer who had a complaint levied against them, would want it dealt with sooner rather than later. To have it left hanging out there for seven years or longer is a problem. That definitely needs to be brought up and dealt with.
In my remaining time, I want to emphasize how important it is that we get things right when it comes to public safety. The RCMP plays a very important role in southwest Saskatchewan. Rural crime, unfortunately, is on the rise. The rate of assault against peace officers nearly doubled between 2011 and 2021. This legislation, this oversight, would ensure that we protect both sides in interactions with law enforcement.
Rural violent crime is up 19% in the country, and the crime severity index is 60 points higher in rural Saskatchewan than in urban Saskatchewan, which is the largest gap in the country. RCMP officers do good work. There is a lot of hard work they have to do. There are lots of split-second decisions they have to make that sometimes make them vulnerable or susceptible to complaints. That does happen. They need some certainty and clarity on the timelines of the review process as well. That would have been an important component to have sorted out in this bill.
With that, I will wrap up my remarks. I look forward to hearing the questions and comments.
1249 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 11:51:51 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was an entertaining speech, to say the least.
I grew up on a farm in rural Saskatchewan. The Bloc largely represents rural Quebec. My family's personal vehicles would usually have a combined amount of about 115,000 kilometres a year on two vehicles. That did not include our farm vehicles, farm machinery and all the other stuff.
If we wanted to go on a family vacation to Jasper National Park, it was 1,000 kilometres from my place to get there. If I wanted to stay in my home province and go to Prince Albert National Park in Saskatchewan, for example, that was 650 kilometres from where I grew up. Even if we wanted to just go camping at the landing where we would always go, it was about 250 kilometres to get there. Those who live in rural Canada have to drive a long way to get places.
I know they say that they do not pay the carbon tax, but there is still a federal tax and GST. Would the members of the Bloc not at least agree that the federal tax and the GST being removed for the summer would be a good idea?
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 2:15:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it gets more and and more obvious just how out of touch the NDP-Liberal government is. After nine years of the Prime Minister's high spending and tax hikes, Canadians can barely afford necessities. That does not matter to the NDP-Liberals, who want to hike the carbon tax by 23%, and they want to keep on raising it, year after year.
Only Conservatives understand that Canadians need a break. With summer approaching, people are trying to make plans to go out and see all the wonderful destinations we have to offer in southwest Saskatchewan, places like the Jean Louis Legare Regional Park in Willow Bunch, the Great Sand Hills in Leader or maybe Harvest Eatery in Shaunavon. That is why this summer we are calling for the removal of the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax and the GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day. An average of 35¢ a litre taken off gas prices would save Saskatchewan families up to $850 this summer.
Even if the NDP-Liberals refuse to support this common-sense initiative, Canadians can be assured that after they vote in the carbon tax election, Conservatives will remove the carbon tax for good.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 5:31:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member thinks we are standing. We are standing in Ottawa in the federal Parliament, not in the Saskatchewan legislature. I have two points on that.
First, this fall there is going to be an election in Saskatchewan at the provincial level. Maybe the member should put his name on the ballot if he is so concerned about what is happening in Saskatchewan, and see how the people of Saskatchewan like him.
Second, the member used a very important term: “independent”. The Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature actually operated independently. The Speaker of the chamber, who is from the Liberal caucus and was propped up three times by the member right there, continues to violate the chamber as a partisan hack. The Speaker needs to resign. Shame on the member for supporting him.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 12:35:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of the great people of southwest Saskatchewan.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 12:10:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the big crises right now, along with the energy crisis, is the food crisis. We have people lining up at food banks by the millions just trying to get a meal. That is the crisis our country is facing right now that needs to be addressed immediately.
Let us also look at some of the data that exists. We know that the energy sector at large has reduced emissions intensity by over 30%, while increasing production. The province of Saskatchewan has reduced methane emissions by 60% without a government mandate, because industry has figured out a way to do it on its own and it knows it was the right thing to do.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 12:07:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are so many things wrong with this bill. The member referenced part of it. As I said in my opening, this is an act to promote Liberal friends to fancy boards. That is all that is going to happen. There is going to be a board of Liberal elites who are going to write reports to talk down to and explain to the provinces and the people in the community I represent how they should live their lives and that what they are doing is wrong.
We have seen the job numbers from the internal government briefing department that said there are hundreds of thousands of jobs that are going to be destroyed. Where are they going to be destroyed? They will be destroyed in southwest Saskatchewan, in Lakeland, in Battle River—Crowfoot, in Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, in Grande Prairie, in Fort McMurray and all over western Canada. It is going to have a ripple effect across the entire country. The Liberals have failed to recognize it, but Canadians know it.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:48:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things I need to clarify for the member. The only people I work for are the residents of southwestern Saskatchewan. Those are the only people I work for. Also, I have never campaigned on a carbon tax. Regardless of what the former leader of the Conservative Party may have tried to do, I never ran on that promise. I never have and I never will. That is also reflected in what the people of southwest Saskatchewan want.
I have some more data that works. The Premier of Saskatchewan said:
When the latest consumer price index came out, Saskatchewan was at 1.7%, down from the 2% projected target that the Bank of Canada hit and one full point lower than the Canadian average. Statistics Canada said specifically that this was due to a decision the Saskatchewan government made to remove the carbon tax from home heating. You can imagine what would happen to our CPI nationwide if we were to pause, first of all, and then remove the consumer carbon tax on Canadians.
Right there we can see the benefits of removing the carbon tax for all Canadians.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 1:15:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, he was talking about the point of axing the tax. The Province of Saskatchewan, starting in January, told the Crown corporations to no longer collect the tax. The inflation in Saskatchewan has actually dropped almost a full point in the month of January. I am just wondering what his thoughts on that are.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 10:58:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House once again to speak to this bill. We do have an amendment coming back to the House from the Senate, which is why we are standing here to speak today.
What makes this interesting, based on how this bill went last time, is that my province of Saskatchewan signed on to its agreement with the federal government in 2021. I hosted a couple of town halls in January, and one of the topics that came up was child care. When we look at rural Canada, rural Saskatchewan and what is available for people who are looking to put their kids into a day home so that they can go to work, quite frankly, there is basically no capacity.
The town I grew up in had a small facility that maybe five to 10 kids could go into. Most kids were raised by a stay-at-home mom where I grew up, but in some of the other towns now, as people are looking to be working, capacity is the number one problem. When I look at the way this program has been rolled out and the way the federal government has put money to the provinces, it has definitely put an overemphasis on creating spaces in the larger cities and the larger centres. In typical Liberal government fashion, it looks like rural Saskatchewan, once again, has lost out and has been left behind.
244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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/5/23 2:42:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to help the NDP-Liberal government understand why, after eight years, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Let us look at the carbon tax alone.
A recent report by APAS shows that Saskatchewan farmers will pay over $40 million in carbon tax just to get their grains to port. A rebate does not even come close to covering that cost for our farmers. The solution is simple: axe the tax. Why will the Liberals just not get it done?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 3:50:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by the great people of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, who have been facing consecutive years of drought.
One of the many ways the Liberal government has made life difficult for farmers is that it banned strychnine for dealing with out-of-control gopher populations. The petitioners are calling on Health Canada to reverse the decision and support the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Alberta, which have both spoken against this, because there is already sound scientific evidence proving that strychnine is effective and also safe to use when used properly.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/20/23 3:02:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as summer starts, the Liberals are going to rain on everyone's Canada Day parade.
On July 1, Canadians will be be forced to pay a second carbon tax. Combined with the first carbon tax, gas prices will go up eventually to 61¢ per litre. It does not stop there. They are going to raise both of the carbon taxes so that every Saskatchewan household has to pay another $3,000 per year.
After eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians cannot afford another tax increase by the government. Will the Liberals listen to Canadians and cancel both of their failed carbon taxes before July 1?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is great to have such a lively audience here tonight in the chamber just past 11:30 p.m. It is fantastic to have a lively House of Commons. I really appreciate it.
We are here to talk about strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, Bill C-33. This bill is important to me. The reason is that Saskatchewan, the province where I am from, is completely landlocked. We need our ports. We need railway access. Those are two hugely important fundamentals to the province of Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan, in 2022, had over $81 billion in gross domestic product for this country. That is a fantastic output and a fantastic number. Saskatchewan does a fantastic job. It definitely punches above its weight, especially for a province that has roughly 1.2 million people. We do a great job. Obviously, agriculture and the energy sector are the main drivers of the economy where I am from.
I want to talk more about the agriculture side. In Saskatchewan, particularly southwest Saskatchewan, where I am from, we grow the vast majority of the pulse crops that the world relies upon, particularly the lentil crop. It is exported all over the world. Whether someone is growing organic crops or otherwise, we grow what the world wants and what the world needs.
The only way we can get those lentils around the world to all the countries that have such a high demand for them and for the protein they provide is through rail. When I look through this bill, I see it is trying to do some things around safety. It is trying to do some very important things around modernizing our ports. It is trying to strengthen our ports.
If we look at where our ports rank across the world, we see that we are right at the bottom. I am sure my colleague from Provencher, with whom I will be splitting my time, will want to touch on that later, so I will be sure to leave a few points for him to get to as well.
Access to ports and access to rail are so important. We have CN, we have CP and we have some really fantastic short-line rail operators. Our short-line operators are actually leading the charge on safety in the railway system. In fact, one of the owners of one of the railway companies reached out to me recently to send me an email regarding some of the statistics that the short-line operators have in Saskatchewan around safety. There are zero incidents, month over month. There are zero incidents.
They are running a high-quality rail line, taking care of their employees, providing great jobs and providing a service to the farmers, the producers and the shippers in Saskatchewan, and they are doing so while respecting the safety of the workers and providing high-quality service. That is what they are doing.
The email I got was from the Great Sandhills Railway. Our Saskatchewan caucus recently met with Great Western Rail, another fantastic short-line operator in our region that does a fantastic job of providing that service to farmers. It does so safely, while providing the fantastic jobs that are required to be able to meet that demand.
I was just messaging one of the exporters in my riding. They export farm equipment around the world. They export to 28 countries across the world. It is a farm implement dealership in a small town in Saskatchewan. It ships to 28 countries. How does it do that? It ships through the ports in Halifax, Montreal, Vancouver and, I believe, Prince Rupert.
Earlier today I heard my colleague from British Columbia talking about what the port of Prince Rupert actually means. It is the closest port to the Asian markets. The ports in Halifax and Montreal are some of the ports in North America that are closest to the European markets. They are very important access points.
One of the issues that they are dealing with in Vancouver is that it takes 12 days to get a container through. Montreal is closer to 10 days, and in Halifax, it takes 14 days to get a container through. Sometimes they are waiting over a month to even get a container. Trying to get access to the things they need to ship their products is not being addressed by this bill.
There is mention in the bill about setting up advisory panels and empowering the minister to set up authorities to deal with a variety of issues. However, the one thing that is not included as one of the issues that they would deal with is the actual production of the ports and making sure that they are getting results for producers and shippers. The bill would not require rail companies to make sure that they are providing the fullest service to shippers.
For example, CN does not do any business with Hapag-Lloyd. When we are sitting in Saskatchewan watching a train go past one of the many intersections that we have, we see Hapag-Lloyd's name on many containers. It is one of the more popular company names that we see going across Saskatchewan when we see sea cans going down the rail lines or on a flatbed truck, but CN does not deal with it.
How is that going to work for exporters in a landlocked province trying to export products? They also have to import pieces so they can build the product they are trying to make and then export. However, one of the biggest players, CN does not even deal with it, and there are other companies CN does not deal with as well. This is severely limiting the options for people trying to export a product, but the bill does not deal with that. These advisory panels that the government is looking to set up would not deal with that. It is not a priority for this government.
When we hear other colleagues talking about the bill needing to be withdrawn and strengthened, and that the government needs to do more, I would suggest that these are some of the things that need to be looked at in the bill. Why is it not a priority for the government to try to make sure that we get the best result for our exporters who do such a fantastic job?
All across this country, we care about the environment, reducing emissions and reducing greenhouse gases. We do that all across this country and across party lines; everybody cares about that. We have innovators in the prairie provinces that make world-class products, and they do so in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. These are products that people in the rest of the world need. If they had the technology, if they had the products that our farmers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta have, they would be able to reduce their emissions as they harvest their crops in other regions of the world. They need what Canada has to offer, and without a robust port system, without a robust rail line, that cannot happen. I see that one of the advisory panels would actually deal with climate change, but do members think that it would bring this element of it up? No, not a chance. This will not be part of what the panel would talk about.
My hope is that the government, if it is going to appoint these advisory panels, will actually talk to the shippers, exporters and manufacturing companies; the people who are trying to get their far superior products out to the world market. The government should talk to them when it is talking about how it is going to achieve some of the things that these boards are going to do. It should make sure that there are actually people in industry, who are involved in taking real and meaningful actions on these boards to make sure that we can actually get things done in a timely manner, to benefit our country and the rest of the world, and do so in a sustainable manner. That is the power that a robust rail line and port system could have in this country, because Canada has what the world needs and wants.
We grow the products, we manufacture the goods and we export them. Some of those things have to get refined and brought back yet again, which is crazy; we could do much of that here in Canada. However, in order to do any of that, regardless of where we are at, we need a robust rail and shipping system, and we do not have that, but we could.
We have had a trans-Canada rail line for over 100 years. It has been around for a very long time. It was a huge marvel to get that project done. However, we still have not reached the full potential that a valuable resource like that could have. We need to utilize it. The bill before us should be strengthening and building that up. It should be focused on lifting the entire country up so that we can use those ports, especially for landlocked provinces. We have not just what the world wants, but we have what our country needs, if we could even just get our goods out to the provinces and out to the edges. We have what is needed.
I hope that the government will take these considerations to look at the bill and make a serious version of it so that we can actually accomplish what needs to be addressed.
1612 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again be able to rise in the House on behalf of the great people of southwest Saskatchewan.
As I kick off my speech tonight, there is a core principle I really want to get at, and that is about trust. When I speak in this House, I like to ask how much trust the government has built with Canadians and whether Canadians can actually trust what the government is doing.
Before I get into the meat of it, I would really like to talk about the actual cost. We hear a lot from the Liberals about how this is $10-a-day day care. I recognize there is a benefit to people who are currently in the system, who will be paying less up front because of the program. I am not going to deny that and I am not going to say it is not a benefit to people who are in the program and are already benefiting from it. That is great for those people.
However, a lot of people email my office and routinely ask how much this program is actually going to cost. What we do know is that over five years the Liberals have set aside $30 billion to implement this program, so that is the cost we are aware of. We heard others, through many speeches tonight in this place, about the additional costs that are starting to already creep into the system. This is the cost of meals on top of the fees people are going to be paying up front. We are already hearing of extra costs that will be burdened onto the system.
That does not even get into the fact this system we are talking about here tonight is not going to build much in the way of new spaces. It is not going to provide new access to people, which, being from Saskatchewan, and particularly being from rural Saskatchewan, to me is the crux of the debate when we talk about day care.
We know day care is a universal need. It does not matter if one is from urban or rural Canada, from Saskatchewan or Ontario, from Toronto, Swift Current, Frontier, Leader or Maple Creek, one needs access to day care. There are many different ways people realize this. There are a lot of different programs out there. Some of them are private, some of them are run through co-operatives and some of them are just in-home systems. There might be a person who has chosen to be a stay-at-home parent, and other people looking for child care might bring their child to that person and have that person provide the service to them.
A lot of what we are finding out is that this bill would not do anything for those people who are in those situations. In fact, in Saskatchewan, only 10% of kids from the age of zero to 12, whether they are full-time or part-time, currently have access to day care. From zero to six, which is what the agreement signed between the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal government covers, right now that access number I believe is a bit under 18%.
Saskatchewan is a bit of a unique case. I would be willing to say we are the most rural province in this country. I think that is a fair thing for me to say. We have so many small towns. We are a very spread out province, so the needs of people are vastly different in rural versus urban. The access to spaces is different as is access to workers. One of the fundamental issues we have is the access to workers to be able to fill these positions. That is one of the key points we have.
I did a town hall probably about a year and a half ago or maybe two years ago in the town of Maple Creek. A lot of the business owners came together and arranged this. They wanted to have me out to talk to them about what is affecting their businesses. Part of it had to do with the pandemic at the time with the programs and different things, but we also talked about things that were outside of the pandemic.
One of those issues was day care. Multiple business owners have told me they cannot hire the workers they need. In fact, there are many people who came to Maple Creek, interviewed for the job and really wanted to move to Maple Creek, but because there was actually no day care available to them, these people passed on that job and passed on moving to Maple Creek.
To me, Maple Creek is one of the greatest towns in this country. It is a phenomenal place. It does economic development really well. On the cost of living, one can get affordable housing there. There is a great school there and it is close to Cypress Hills. It is close to some of the bigger centres both in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is not terribly far away, so it is a great location and a great place to raise kids, but there are people who have a young family who are choosing to not move to Maple Creek simply because they cannot find day care.
When I talk about trust, repeatedly we do not see the government working to build trust with rural Canadians. To me, that is a problem and is again where this bill misses the mark.
I talked earlier about the agreement between Saskatchewan and the federal government. Part of the agreement that they signed only provides the subsidy for kids aged zero to six. I have a had a mother reach out, talking about both her and her husband and the hours they work. They need day care before and after school, and the agreement actually does not cover people in that situation. Therefore, those people are being left out of the picture here, yet in a community like Swift Current, that is actually a big chunk of people who are trying to utilize day care spots.
I also want to talk a bit about my own story. My wife and I have three kids, and they are fantastic. They are 12, 10 and eight years old. When my wife and I had our first child, we had a great conversation, talking about what our goals as parents were. One of our goals was something that we even talked about when we were first married; it was that my wife wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. This meant that we had to plan out a few things. We had to figure out how we were going to make that work and what that was going to look like. We had to make some big decisions, such as where we were going to live, where we could afford to live and what kind of vehicle we were going to drive.
We had to make a lot of sacrifices. For example, a lot of our friends would go on these big, elaborate trips, and we never did that. For us, a trip was driving from Swift Current to Saskatoon. That was our summer vacation, but that was because it was all we could afford with the goal of having my wife be a stay-at-home mom raising our kids. That just meant that disposable income was not necessarily there. Those were some of the sacrifices we had to make. However, the bill before us would not have any provisions for people who are choosing to stay at home and raise their own kids.
As we added more kids to the mix, it definitely changed that dynamic. My wife was a stay-at-home mom from 2011 all the way up until about 2019. Then, she was first able to go back to work, because our kids were old enough. All three of them were in school at that point in time, and she was able to find some part-time work where she could work during the school day but be home when school was over, so she could be there for the kids when they got home.
I recognize that this reality is not available for everybody, but there is a lot of sacrifice that is required to do that. Therefore, I think it is really important that we talk about the government respecting families that have made that decision. I have listened to Liberal speeches at report stage here and also at second reading, and to paraphrase them, what I heard repeatedly from that side and from some of the other opposition parties was that women are only of value if they are working; they are not of value if they are staying at home. I think that is completely bonkers. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Being a mother is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week job. There is no break from it. As husbands, we come in and try to do what we can, but there is no replacing a mom in the house. My wife and many other moms we have talked to talk about the commitment it takes, how much work and effort go into it, and how it is more tiring and more gruelling being a stay-at-home mother and being with the kids compared with going to work. However, it is also more rewarding.
I recognize that some people are dedicated to their profession, and they have chosen that professional life, which is awesome. It is fantastic that they are doing that, and we want them to be able to do that. They should have that choice and the ability to do that, but the signalling we are getting the government is that a woman who decides to stay at home has no inherent value, because she is not working. That is the vibe we get from the government. That is the message it is signalling, and that is wrong. The value a stay-at-home parent has, even if the father does stay at home with the kids, is extremely valuable. Society, the kids we raise and the system generally, at large, all benefit from that.
1720 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 3:02:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been a good start to seeding for the farmers in southwest Saskatchewan, and what do they get as a thanks from the Prime Minister this year for being the most sustainable and innovative farmers in the world? Carbon tax 2.0. The Liberals are bringing in fuel regulations that are going to gouge producers and consumers above and beyond the first carbon tax, which they are still going to triple.
We already know the first carbon tax has caused the price of food to go up, so how much more are Canadians going to have to pay after the Prime Minister puts in the second carbon tax?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues that come with this type of debate. I appreciate my colleague talking about the reality in urban Saskatchewan versus rural Saskatchewan. Does he want to elaborate?
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
