- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Cypress Hills—Grasslands
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,746.42
- Government Page
- May/1/24 2:10:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, MS Canada continues to push forward in the fight against multiple sclerosis. With a mission to connect and empower the MS community to create positive change for those affected by it, it has its sights set firmly on a world free of MS.
I had the joy of having my wife, Kyla, and mother-in-law, Donna, join me in Ottawa this week for the kickoff of MS Awareness Month. We all know someone who lives with the disease. My wife has connected with people who have MS, including staffers, MPs' spouses and even her hairdresser, so they can share their experiences and talk about treatments. I have seen first-hand the impacts of MS, and the resilience of my wife in her fight with this disease. Some days are better than others with MS, but her fight against it inspires me every single day.
In honour of MS Awareness Month, I am wearing a carnation to show my solidarity with the MS community. Let us work for a better country for those with MS and support those who need it.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 12:43:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is another excellent point, and I do need to thank the member for all of the time, effort and hard work she has put into this particular topic. I know it is something she is very passionate about, as a fantastic mother.
When the government is designing and developing programs, that is who they should be targeted to. The government should be looking after people who are the most vulnerable and people who are the most at risk. When we hear alarming statistics, such as that people whom this program should be geared toward are struggling to even find a space, let alone access to the program, that is very alarming.
There are other government policies out there that disproportionately affect and impact single mothers. One of them is the carbon tax, and there are also the clean fuel standards and the clean electricity standards the government is putting forward. Single mothers are listed as the most vulnerable to be impacted in a negative way by those standards, yet the government is plowing ahead with them anyway.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, now they all come running back in to hear this marvellous speech, despite the heckles from the NDP guys over here.
Thankfully we have not gotten to the point yet where they want to get us to, but when we hear people deny the primary role of parents to raise their own children, that is the line of thinking that will start to take us in a dangerous direction.
Our approach to child care must respect parents and their choices. We cannot expect the NDP-Liberal coalition to get things right if they do not have that solid foundation to begin with.
Child care is crucial. Canadian parents know it better than anyone. As Conservatives, we want to meet the needs of families and we understand how valuable and important it is to do so. It is common sense. Especially in today’s world, which moves at a rapid pace, we need to maintain and support the family unit.
Children are a gift. Those of us who are parents know how much they change our lives. They give us purpose and direction. They bring joy and pride as they grow up, despite some of the difficulties that we sometimes have to go through as parents with our kids. Not to sound too cliché, but our kids are the future of society. That is why it is so important that we provide the right support to parents as they raise the next generation.
There are people out there looking for options that are affordable and help to build the lifestyle they want for their family.
For many, it is a struggle. I have heard about it in my own riding, which is largely rural. Last month, at a town hall in Eastend, as I was talking about at the beginning, I was asked about the lack of access and spaces in our area. It confirmed for me that not much has changed since I was part of another town hall in Maple Creek a couple years ago, where one of the prominent issues was also child care.
I would say that, as the most rural province, Saskatchewan is in a unique situation. We have so many small towns that are so spread out. There is an especially stark contrast between urban and rural. Access to child care is linked to our access to workers. Business owners in the southwest are struggling to hire, but it was not because of a shortage of applicants; it was a shortage of day care facilities where potential hires could have their kids taken care of. Unfortunately, these interviewees moved on, got another job outside Maple Creek, and left these businesses still wanting.
What is sad is that Maple Creek is just a phenomenal town. Houses are still decently affordable, the school is great and it is not too far from the Cypress Hills. It is a quick drive to some major centres in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is just an all-around great place for a family, yet people are choosing to not raise their kids here, in part because they cannot find access to child care.
We wanted to see this bill include a wide range of child care options that should be available to parents. That is what the NDP-Liberals rejected.
One of the amendments that we had proposed was to make sure we included all types of providers, private providers, home-based providers, alongside public and not-for-profit providers, just to make sure that all types of home care options were eligible.
In fact, in Saskatchewan, there are over 87,574 children under age six in our province but the majority of them are not in licensed care and receive no benefit from the implementation of the government's child care strategy.
This government has a one-size-fits-all approach for parents. This bill says to Canadians, “It is okay. Do not worry about it. Let the government take care of your kids.” That is basically it. This bill overlooks many families who want to have some other options, including stay-at-home parents. Many Canadians do not want that approach from the government; they believe that what is best for their family is that they stay home with the kids and live off one income.
By no means is it easy. I am speaking from my own personal experience. It requires determination and sacrifice but for my family, and for thousands and thousands of Canadians, the right decision is to have a stay-at-home parent.
Last time I spoke on this bill, I shared my own family’s experience with stay-at-home parenting, and I would like to touch on that point once again.
Shortly after my wife and I were married, and while our first child was on the way, we sat down and discussed how we could it make it work for my wife to be a stay-at-home mom, because that was something that she truly wanted and was near and dear to her heart. We also thought that this is what would be best for the kids in the long run. The decision to live on one income was definitely an adjustment. We got by for nearly a decade, until she went back to work in 2019, when the kids were old enough.
I would suggest that we were better off for it. We had adventures driving our old minivan. We had to make decisions on buying older, well-used vehicles, to make sure that we could make ends meet. These were definitely part of the joy, and the struggle at times, of deciding to live on one income and have my wife be a stay-at-home parent.
Yes, Conservatives supported this bill because there are Canadians in different situations who make other choices, and they are looking for support, too. Not all Canadians can survive on one income. We know that and get that, especially with the cost of living crisis spiralling out of control because of the government. However, for those who are able and choose to do so, they are completely overlooked by the Liberal government. Instead of supporting Canadians who choose to live as independently of government as possible, the government continues to throw program after program at Canadians, as if they cannot run their own lives.
Last June, the member for Milton said to me, “When women go back to work, they tend to earn money and pay taxes, and that pays for programs like this. I would like the member to appreciate that.” However, I did not need him to tell me that. There are mothers who work and contribute to our economy. My point is that parents are more than just simply taxpayers. The family is the basis of society, not the government. Strong parents make stronger families and, all together, they make for a strong society. If a woman does not want to go back to work after she has kids, we should not just let her, we should help her.
For the member to consider that women are nothing more than a taxpayer is a frightening insinuation. Does the Liberal government just view Canadians, especially Canadian moms, as just a source of income? If so, that is really worrying. The state is not the be-all and end-all solution for everything. Parents do not get up in the morning and head out the door to their jobs while thinking with pride about the taxes that are going to be carved out of their paycheques, but rather about how to pay for the food that their children are going to eat or how to pay for the mortgage that puts a roof over their heads, how they are going to save enough money to hopefully go on a vacation or maybe to have their kids sign up to play hockey, to put their kids in gymnastics or to have their kids take music lessons. Those are some of the finer things we are able to do as Canadian citizens. We cannot put a dollar value on parenting, and it is certainly not $10 a day.
Parenting, for many of us, is something in our bones, what we were created for. The government is looking at Canadians and thinking about its return on investment, not bout how it can support Canadians living life the way they want to, including as a stay-at-home parent. A mother who chooses to leave the workforce is not an extra cost to society. She is not a burden or a strain or a negative, by any stretch of the imagination. Moms are not a commodity to be given a dollar value. People have tried to determine the hourly cost of motherhood, that a mom’s work is worth about $180,000 a year. The work of a mother is absolutely priceless. We cannot put a dollar value on it.
This line of thinking, with the government’s belief that women must get back to work to pay their taxes, inherently devalues that work, the sacrifice and the unconditional love that mothers give. While child care might be $10 a day with the rollout of this bill, there can never be a price put on being a mom, or a dad, for that matter. Our kids are our future, and their youngest years are the most important years of their lives. Do members not think that mom and dad should be with them as much as possible during that time frame? The role of the government is to act in the best interests of its citizens, so why are we not doing everything in our power to ensure our children have the strongest start possible?
As I said, this bill, Bill C-35, is narrow. It ignores and leaves behind other child care options. Back home, we know that many families share child care responsibilities. Family friends are all brought to someone’s house and a stay-at-home parent takes cares of them for the day. There is no government intervention, no subsidies, just community coming together to find a solution to their needs.
Canadians who rely on others for their child care, people from their church, their neighbours, their co-workers, should be encouraged to do just that. They should not be forced to put their kids into a government-sanctioned day care. For the private child care groups put together between friends, for the stay-at-home moms who choose to leave the workforce because they see the value in spending every day with their kids, the Liberal government leaves them wanting.
The government must do more to tackle affordability and to enable parents to spend time with their kids. Parents know their kids better than anyone and will love their kids more than anyone else ever will. The government should not encourage the separation of child and parent, but should be actively working toward a country in which parents can spend as much time with their kids as possible. The 53% of child care centres in the country that are unlicensed are, therefore, excluded from this legislation and so, too, are the 35% of parents whose children are not in child care as they would rather stay at home with them.
Whether one is from urban or rural Canada, Vancouver or Swift Current, Toronto or Shaunavon, child care is something all Canadians need. Whether it is private, at a co-op, maybe over at one's grandparent's house, it could be a stay-at-home parent or a group of parents who have agreed to a cycle of taking care of the kids. However it presents itself, we know that Bill C-35 before us overlooks nearly all those people, and that does not even consider the fact that this scheme does not do anything to create new spaces. It is not growing access, which for people in the southwest matters the most.
In Saskatchewan, only 10% of kids aged zero to 12 have access to day care, either full time or part time. For the ages between zero and six, the ages managed by the agreement between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, that is just under 18%. For example, there is one day care facility in Saskatoon that has 90 spots available in its day home. Its waiting list had 1,900 people on it, which is 1,900 kids and families who are being overlooked by the Liberal government. Sure, the government might be trying to make day care more affordable, but if Canadians cannot get their kids into the day care, where is the benefit?
Across the provinces, we see some different approaches when it comes to delivering access to education, for example. When I came here to Ontario, I heard something in the news about how the multiple school boards work. It sounds different from the arrangements we have made in Saskatchewan or from how education funding is delivered in Alberta. Each province is responsible for its own needs in that area. We need to see the same respect shown to provinces when it comes to early child care as well.
I also want to say something my Quebec colleagues might appreciate. I hope we can work together to find some common ground whenever possible. Our friends in Quebec already have their own child care system, which has been running for decades already. I have to admit that I am not completely familiar with all the details of child care in Quebec or with the discussions they are having about it in that part of the country, but they genuinely do seem to be happy with it. However, that was long before the government in Ottawa brought forward its version of a program for national child care at the federal level. The government should not take the credit for what Quebec is doing. It also should not assume that what works in one province will work exactly the same in other provinces. There are different histories, cultures and values to consider.
The choice of parents matters the most. We need to expand their choices and not limit them, including through an affordability crisis. At the end of the day, a lot of the problems they face come down to the fact that this is a country where people can barely afford to live at all. After all, 51% of Canadians are $200 away from bankruptcy. Most women in Canada are having fewer children than they want, and it is partly because they cannot deal with the economic burden that comes with parenthood. The root of the problem is not child care; it is affordability. It is the fact that Canadians are not earning enough money to raise a family. The current government should not be putting a band-aid on the problems created by the government with social programs. It needs to address the very real concerns faced by Canadians so that they can have the kids they want and that they can raise them however they want, without the government telling them exactly what it is that they are supposed to be doing.
2553 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 9:29:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are a few important points that we need to talk about first.
First of all, the Liberals did not actually complete the mandatory review that the original legislation had. If that review had happened properly, I would be willing to bet that we would not be where we are today.
The next point I want to make is that a couple of years ago the government promised $4.5 billion or maybe $6 billion for mental health. I do not remember the exact amount. I stand to be corrected, but as far as I am aware, so far, it is zero dollars. The government talks about making sure there are supports there for people with mental health, but the only support I am aware of right now is the 988 hotline that my Conservative colleague has been able to get in place.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:10:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are out of money and the Prime Minister is out of touch. At a time when energy security is crucial, this makes life harder for Canadians and our allies. An emissions cap would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in exports and would make life more unaffordable for Canadians.
Instead of supporting powerful paycheques for our people, the Prime Minister supports dollars for dictators. When will the Liberals' costly coalition stop supporting dirty dictator oil and make Canada export the resources the world so desperately needs?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 7:58:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is one part about this bill. All it seems to do is create a big round table for a bunch of Liberal insiders to get fancy appointments.
What would the people of Portage—Lisgar think about a bill only creating a couple of round tables and not actually doing anything for workers, as they say?
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 11:46:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in short, unfortunately the answer is no.
My private member's bill, which deals with interoperability, could actually help deal with some of the issues in the rail line system. It is going to help pave the way to be able to do that, so we have some commonality there.
When it comes to the trade agreements, my colleague from Abbotsford was somebody who negotiated a lot of those and got deals signed. Unfortunately, due to delays, maybe from some of the other countries and whatnot, the Conservatives did not get them fully implemented. Yes, the government finished some of those off, but it made some changes to them that we do not necessarily agree with.
The big point about the Port of Vancouver in particular is that it is the third-worst port in the world. Prince Rupert is the ninth-worst port. These are ports that could have huge potential. They could be in the top 50 ports in the world with no problem. They could be, and they should be. The potential is there for them to be able to do that. I do not see anything in the 108 or 109 pages of this bill that would actually make sure that those ports go from being at the bottom of the pile to the top of the pile.
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 11:02:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is an issue with the bill about creating a bunch of new advisory bodies and a bunch of new committees. Going back to other bills the government has implemented where new committees and new advisory panels have been struck, quite often we see a stacking of the deck, with a bunch of Liberal insiders on the panels. At the end of the day, it is delaying things and causing issues in trying to get projects completed and built.
I know that people in Saskatchewan desperately need a port modernization strategy so we can get our products out of the Prairies. We are landlocked. We need the ports. These advisory panels generally do not do any good in helping the people in our situation. I am wondering if my colleague has any thoughts about that.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 8:43:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, the point that the hon. member raised is actually a very important one. If we are going to implement recovery strategies, local knowledge is of utmost importance, and there is no more important local knowledge than that of the indigenous people, whether it is up in Nunavut, or in the northern part of the Prairies, or even in the southern part of the Prairies. They have been on the land for centuries, for a very long period of time. Again, getting back to that local knowledge, people who have been there and have a long history of being there have seen how species change, how species can adapt, how the land has transformed and changed over the years, and what the delicate balance is there.
I think it is extremely important that we rely on local knowledge. The member has that part of it right, absolutely.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect, when we talk about health care or access to mental health care, that quite often gets forgotten about or just more or less put onto the back burner. It is people living in rural Canada and the access people have to the different types of care and services they need.
I am wondering if the member wants to talk about the importance of having services for rural Canadians. That needs to also be part of the conversation when we talk about supports for mental health.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's concern about the lack of due diligence on the artificial intelligence aspect of the bill. I wonder if the member wants to elaborate on that point a bit more, because artificial intelligence could be anywhere from national defence all the way to something as simple as products people have in their homes. I wonder if the member wants to talk a bit more about the importance of separating that part of the bill.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 12:04:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, it is backwards hearing it from the parliamentary secretary when he thinks that just because it is paid by importers, somehow farmers are not going to have to pay for it. We all know the importers are going to pass that cost on to the farmer, but the farmer has no means of passing that cost on to anybody else. If the government truly wanted to support farmers, it would scrap the tariff for farmers.
Canada is also an outlier on this issue. The G7 countries do not have this kind of tariff because they truly know what it means to support farmers. Supporting farmers and going tough on Russia for its illegal occupation of Ukraine are not exclusive to each other.
I call on the minister once again. Let us harness our superpower and use it to address the looming global food crisis. After seven years of working against our farmers, the government has an opportunity to change course. Instead of working against them by making their lives more expensive, let us work alongside our producers. Standing up and saying they are working with the industry is not enough. Our farmers deserve actions and results.
Once again, will the government do the right thing, support our farmers and drop the tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2?
222 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 2:44:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that India has placed a ban on wheat exports as a result of poor crop yields. It is Canada's responsibility to step up to the plate and meet this new global demand, but because of the current government's failed policies, like the carbon tax and a failure to grow our export markets, our farmers are now left with their hands tied. Why has the minister failed to secure greater market access for Canadian wheat, which would allow our farmers to step up and meet this looming global food shortage?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, well, the one thing they have gotten done is they sacrificed their principles on lots of other areas, so that is up to them to decide. Conservatives have supported different government legislation over time. We do not support everything the government does, but it is our job to always rise in this place, go through legislation and point out the flaws, as we have over the last couple of years. There were many times during the pandemic when we pointed out that there were some flaws with some of the support programs coming out. There was a rush to get them approved so they were just approved, but then we had to come back and relegislate, because nobody had bothered to listen to us.
When we actually do due process on legislation, we go through it and provide the scrutiny that Canadians expect the opposition to do. It does not matter what party one belongs to, the opposition's job is to scrutinize what the government is doing, not to hold its hand through the process and make sure its agenda gets through. It is to make sure that the appropriate measures are in place and that Canadians get the best possible outcome in each particular piece of legislation.
That is what I will—
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 10:55:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia talked a little about housing and the importance of the issue for his riding and all across the country. I would like him to provide us with a few more sentences to elaborate on that further, if he would like.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
