- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- May/21/24 11:22:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear that a Conservative government would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Let us bring it home.
I have a very specific question for the member, and I hope we will get an answer for it. He has promised an answer. Everyone has heard him say that he is going to give us an answer. In what year does he believe the budget should be balanced, if ever?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 12:58:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is hard to predict the timeline, but I have a great deal of hope about the critical steps that a Conservative government would take to fix the budget, and that includes establishing a dollar-for-dollar rule. This is common sense, that if a government is going to spend a dollar on something new, it should be able to explain where that dollar is coming from.
Those NDP-Liberal coalition partners are keen to announce all kinds of new spending initiatives, but they never explain where the money is going to come from. Clearly, in all of these new spending proposals, and, in many cases, I do not think they are serious about doing them, they promise new spending that will kick in at some distant point in the future. In every case, where the money is actually spent, it is digging us further into deep debt.
Beyond that, we have this flow of wasteful spending, the middle-man consultants, the management consultants who have done so well under the government.
If we instituted a dollar-for-dollar rule, this will get us back on track to understand that if we are going to spend a dollar on something, it has to come from somewhere.
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today. Yesterday, common-sense Conservatives announced our demands for the upcoming federal budget.
We called on the government to axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. We called on the government to build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money. Finally, we called on the government to cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. We said the government must find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending.
These were the three common-sense Conservative demands for the budget: axing the tax on farmers and food; building homes, not bureaucracies; and instituting a dollar-for-dollar rule. Of course, Conservatives in government would go further to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
Under the NDP-Liberal government, we see how spending is completely out of control. Under the Prime Minister, Canada will spend $46.5 billion this year to service the debt. That is more than the federal health transfer. The government is spending more on servicing the debt than it does on the federal health transfer.
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/23 10:48:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, lately the government likes to claim it has had a conversion to being concerned about affordability. Meanwhile, for years it has been running a horrifying economic experiment. It has massively increased spending and more than doubled our national debt. We know now that it is spending more on debt servicing than it is sending to the provinces for health care.
Outrageous amounts of money in debt servicing costs are making life less affordable for Canadians. Fundamentally, since the Liberals claim to have had this conversion to being concerned about affordability, will they tell the House when the budget will be balanced?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 11:41:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously this omnibus budget implementation act contains many different kinds of measures. We are going to find pieces here and there where we say, yes, we agree with that, but we have to vote overall on the direction of the budget.
I think there has been a great deal of unity in this House on many issues to do with Ukraine. In fact, where we have been critical of the government with Ukraine is where it granted exemptions to sanctions, where it failed to be tough in moving sanctions forward early enough or implementing them fully.
For one example, we spent a long time trying to push the government to rescind a waiver it gave to Gazprom, effectively allowing the export of turbines that would have facilitated the export of energy from Russia to Germany. We think it would have been better to be promoting the export of Canadian gas to Europe to relieve their dependence on Russia, rather than the government's decision to grant a temporary waiver that could have helped Russia export its gas to Europe and, at the same time, not acting to allow Canadian gas exports to Europe.
There has been a substantial measure of unity. If anything, certainly, we have been pushing the government to go further in its response to these events and, in particular, recognizing the role Canada can play in supplying the world with clean, secure, stable energy.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 11:04:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is some irony today in the NDP's signing a deal to support three years of Liberal budgets, sight unseen, and then putting forward a motion to call for additional measures that were not contained in the New Democrats' coalition agreement.
For the Liberal member who just spoke, is not the best way to address affordability simply to allow people to keep more of their own money? Would the member acknowledge that with cancelling the scheduled tax increases for next year, the tripling of the carbon tax and the increase in payroll tax, rather than the government taking more of their money to spend for them, it would be better to let people keep more of their own money and choose for themselves how they are going to spend it?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it does appear that the parliamentary secretary was barking up the wrong tree here. The problem for the Prime Minister is that he appears to think that trees will plant themselves. The parliamentary secretary knows that trees can plant themselves under certain circumstances, so they are unlike budgets, which cannot balance themselves, as we have demonstrated.
I know that other members, such as myself, would have liked to speak to this bill at greater length. We will not be able to because we are under a very draconian programming effort by the government to limit debate on this bill.
I wonder if the member can comment on the overall fiscal framework of the government. Its spending is out of control, with more debt run up under the Prime Minister than all previous prime ministers in the country's history up until now. There is great concern. Members of the government think this is funny. It is not funny. My children are going to have to pay off the debt being run up today by the NDP-Liberal government. Can the member comment on the lack of any targets for any balanced budget at any point in time?
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/22 3:38:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about the budgetary policy of the government. I wonder if the member could comment specifically, though, on the issues around the government's intention with respect to direction and control regulations. The government has finally recognized that there is a problem with direction and control, but there is still a lot of concern among stakeholders about what remedy the government will put forward. The budget refers to changes that are in the spirit of Bill S-216, which is a bill sponsored by a colleague of mine in the Conservative Party, but it does not address the specific measures.
I wonder if the member, who I know has some expertise in this area, can clarify for the House, and for stakeholders in the development community and elsewhere who are following this issue with great interest, what precisely the government intends to do on direction and control and when we will see those changes formally brought in.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 5:14:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands just assured me that he was not laughing; he was not even listening. It is too bad. He might learn something. I see him chatting over there without a mask, which does not bother me. I think he should be free to choose, but his other Liberal colleagues must be terrified at that reality.
Nonetheless, let us talk about the fiscal situation and the promises that were made by the Prime Minister. In 2015, the Prime Minister said that there would be three $10-billion deficits and a total of $30 billion in deficits, and then in the fourth year there would be a balanced budget. The Liberals blew through all of that in year one. They said they were being ambitious in their hopes for the country. Well, I would say that we should measure our ambition by how much we leave to the next generation, not by how little we leave to the next generation. While calling it ambition, the government is creating a situation where my children and their children will have so much less capacity to develop and invest in their own future because they will be paying for the debt that we have run up in such a short space of time. This was the promise made in 2015, broken right away, blown through. Now tens of billions of dollars in deficits per year have become hundreds of billions of dollars of debt and deficit.
The NDP has continually said throughout this process that it is not enough and the Liberals should be spending more. I just listened to speeches from the NDP members, and it is such a baffling philosophy to me. They talk about people who are struggling, but they never jump to the obvious conclusion, which is to let them keep more of their own money and let them spend it on what they want.
The member for Elmwood—Transcona said that he spoke with a constituent who, sadly, had to move back in with his parents as a result of expensive dental work. I would suggest not creating a massive new government program so the government can pay for his dental needs, because he would have to apply to the government, someone would have to be hired to evaluate his application to see if he qualified and we would have to establish thresholds and determine who the money will be paid through and when. Instead of going through that entire process, how about we cut his taxes? How about we spend less money, financed by inflation, so that his money can maintain its value?
Every time I hear stories from members about people who are struggling in this country, it strikes me that those on the left use these stories as an excuse to say we should have more government. More government is not going to help people who are struggling. Why are people struggling? It is because the cost of living is being driven up by high taxes, by inflation and by the fact that the government is financing its out-of-control spending by reducing the value of money that people have.
This is most evident in the case of gas prices. Let us be very clear and honest about why gas prices are where they are. It is because of a policy decision by left-wing parties, Liberal and NDP, that believe the gas price should be high because they want to use high gas prices as a tool to discourage people from driving. The only reason to support a carbon tax or carbon price, whatever we call it, is to discourage people from buying gas by making the costs higher.
Now, of course, the price of gas fluctuates and responds to other events, because absent the tax there is an underlying price that goes up and down. However, a significant amount of that price is determined by the taxation that sits on top of whatever price a private entity would charge. Of course there are fluctuations and of course those fluctuations are shaped by global events, but on top of those fluctuations we have policy choices made by politicians who believe that gas prices should be higher.
What strikes me is that almost nobody in the House is prepared to honestly acknowledge that. I hope that someone here, Liberal, NDP or Green, is willing to say what they honestly, clearly believe, which is that they want gas prices to be high. That is the point of a carbon tax. It is to make gas prices high. However, somehow, they think they can fool people by saying that even though they have put these taxes on gasoline, they would like prices to be lower, and then they blame something else for that fact. Their solution is to have higher and higher taxes and then to create more programs to allegedly treat the affordability problem.
To me, this is like being in a hole and we just keep digging, because the more spending we have, the more programs we promise, the more government intervention we have and the more expansion there is of the state sector, the more that money will have to come from somewhere and the more we are going to see deficit, inflation, higher prices and higher taxes. That in turn is going to make life less affordable. We are in this vicious cycle that is going to accelerate now as a result of this union between the Liberals and the NDP. We are going to see more spending. That is the promise of the deal these parties have made.
Coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many people are saying that we need to get our spending under control and back off of some of these spending measures and move back toward balanced budgets, the government is agreeing to an extreme NDP economic policy to put its foot on the gas further. My concern about this deal between the Liberals and the NDP is that we are going to end up with the worst of both worlds. Historically what we have seen in the House is the NDP pushing far-left economic policy but sometimes standing with us in trying to hold the government accountable on its ethical failures. Very often, those in the NDP have opposed things like time allocation and programming motions. They have been willing to join with us on requests for documents on things like holding the government accountable over the WE Charity. We have had significant disagreements with the NDP about economic philosophy, but at least we have been able to work together on some issues around protecting Parliament and the functioning of Parliament and on holding the government accountable for significant ethics violations.
However, what we see with this deal is that the government is talking about being able to get a free pass to move its legislation faster without the kind of accountability and scrutiny that are required. It will be expecting the NDP not to hold it accountable on ethical issues and not challenge it on issues regarding access to documents in defence of Parliament. At the same time, we see, without any seeming reluctance, the Liberals diving fully into the radical left-wing economic philosophy of high taxes, high inflation, high deficits and high spending. What we are left with is this picture of an accord that looks like Liberal ethics with NDP economic philosophy, and that is a disaster for this country.
If we must stand alone, the Conservatives will indeed take a stand and fight back against these abuses of Parliament, abuses of process and broken promises to voters, and the escalating damage being done to our economy. We will not solve the affordability crisis through higher taxes, higher deficits and inflation. We will solve it by supporting economic growth driven by individual freedom and individual initiative. That is the kind of philosophy we need. We need support for economic growth driven by individual ingenuity and getting the government out of the way.
1350 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 5:12:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where the fiscal house is on fire. The Prime Minister has run up more debt in his time in office than every previous prime minister, including the last Trudeau prime minister, from 1867 until 2015. Just in time, the NDP has arrived to pour more gasoline on this fiscal fire.
I have been listening to the debate on Bill C-8 today, the government's fiscal plan, if they want to call it a plan. It is a promise to spend more on everything in the midst of an agreement to spend even more with the NDP.
I was struck, hearing the member for Elmwood—Transcona from the NDP describing the levels of spending in this budget as “underwhelming”. “Underwhelming” is what the NDP is saying about the spending. I know his speech was very hurtful to Liberal members, just after they ink a deal. Imagine being called underwhelming during the post-wedding speeches. So much for the work that is supposed to exist. The NDP, nonetheless, has sold out to agree with this deal with the government, but still it is describing the government's fiscal measures as “underwhelming”.
Let us look at the reality, at the overwhelming level of debt and deficit that we have seen run up by the government in the last six years. The Prime Minister, in 2015, promised in the election three $10-billion deficits. It is hard to imagine there was a time when a $10-billion deficit seemed quite large relative to what we had been used to. Up until 2015, there had been a general consensus that outside of extreme events, a global financial crisis—
289 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
