- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands undoes himself with his own arguments. He says inflation is not as bad as it was three years ago. He says the Liberals are getting a little better than they were. The Liberals want to tell us they might be bad, but they are getting a little better, and they are not doing as badly as they used to.
To the member's comments on the Constitution, the Liberals just show complete disregard for the Constitution. They just ignore it. They violate the law routinely. We see that with Bill C-69. The anti-energy, anti-development Bill C-69 has been found, in part, to be unconstitutional, and rather than responding to it, they are resuscitating provisions in Bill C-49.
While I am on my feet, I just want to say the lack of extending the rural top-up to the people of Pefferlaw is a grave injustice. I stand with the member for York—Simcoe in calling for the immediate redress of that injustice.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 8:19:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is driving inflation. The carbon tax hits the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who transports the food, the grocer who sells the food and the family who buys the food.
The member across the way gets it, because he has heard it so many times. He is chuckling and throwing it across the floor, but if the member for Kingston and the Islands knows so well that the carbon tax is hitting the farmer, the trucker, the grocer and the family, then why will he not change his position and vote with us to relieve struggling Canadian families and axe the tax?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/23 6:48:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The Prime Minister has more than doubled the national debt in his eight years in office. The Prime Minister has run up more debt in these eight years than all of the previous prime ministers had up until that point. That is the reality of the legacy of the Prime Minister. That is causing inflation. It is causing Canadians to suffer. Of course, some other countries have pursued similar kinds of policies and they are experiencing the same challenges as a result. However, there is a better way. That is to control spending and focus on what is truly important to Canadians.
Much of the growth in spending we have seen, as I talked about, has been to outside consultants. We have dramatic growth in the core public service but, at the same time, we have a government contracting out to consulting firms like McKinsey that it is personally close with for services that are supposed to be done in the core public service. That is driving inflation and driving paying Canadians' experience.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 11:04:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, that is a great point from my colleague.
With the way government members talk about government spending, we would think it was their own money. They say they are going to give people this for dental care and give people this for groceries. There is no appreciation that this money comes from the people we are giving it back to.
In every case that the government promises new spending, it should provide an explanation of where that money is coming from. It does create money out of thin air, I suppose, but the problem with that is it causes inflation, so somebody is paying for it regardless. The inflation tax is another way of taxing Canadians, but it still has the same effect of a tax.
This is not to say that there is no place for government spending. There is absolutely a place for taxation and government spending. However, every time the government spends money, there is a corresponding cost and the cost is borne by Canadians. The government should acknowledge that when it is going out and defending its proposals.
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/23 6:40:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the parliamentary break, we have all had an opportunity to talk to people in our communities and across the country, and it is clear that, after eight years of the Prime Minister's economic and social policies, many people are hurting. There are many people who are struggling in various ways, especially under the profound weight of inflation, and they are asking for all of us to look for solutions that empower them to have jobs and opportunity, and to see their tax dollars respected.
At the same time, we are seeing continuing outrageous extravagance in spending from this government. While Canadians are struggling, the government has been spending so much more, not on helping Canadians, but on things that serve the government's interest, and enrich and empower its friends.
I am asking a follow-up tonight on a question I asked earlier about spending $6,000 a night for a single hotel room. The government spent $6,000 a night on a single hotel room. We asked who stayed in that hotel room. There was some implication that it was the Prime Minister, but we do not know that for sure.
I also mentioned in my question the $54 million spent on the development of an app, the ArriveCAN app, which did not work very well and did more to impede Canadians in their travel than actually facilitate the effective prevention of the transmission of COVID. In any event, if that was the piece of technology the situation called for, which I do not think it was, but if it was, it could have been developed much more quickly at a much lower price and probably be much more effective.
However, we are seeing this trend in outrageous government spending on friends of the government, on external contractors, at a time when Canadians are suffering, which was the question I had asked earlier.
Today, of course, what is big in the news is the fact that the government spent over $100 million in outsourced contracts to McKinsey and Company. I would remind members that McKinsey is managed by Dominic Barton, a close friend of the Prime Minister, and someone who is simultaneously chairing the Prime Minister's economic growth council.
Effectively, Dominic Barton, as the head of McKinsey, is both an adviser to the government and a vendor for the government. With great fanfare, the Prime Minister said that he was only paid a dollar a year for his position leading the economic growth council. Only a dollar a year, but meanwhile we have over $100 million in outsourced contracts over the life of this government so far to McKinsey. We asked today what the exact amount of it was. The government would not provide that number, and it keeps going up every time.
After eight years of this Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling economically. They are struggling under the weight of inflation, which the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the former Governor of the Bank of Canada all say is domestically caused. They are struggling under the weight of those policies. Meanwhile, we are seeing outrageous profligate spending on contracts to friends of the government going out to the McKinsey, $54 million for the ArriveCAN app and $6,000 a night for a hotel room.
Therefore, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary this: How does he and other members of the government face their constituents, who are facing these challenges, and justify this kind of outrageous, unaccountable, nonsensical spending?
591 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, while today the government is asking the House to expedite its spending, we have the Auditor General revealing tens of billions of dollars in inflationary waste associated with the government's past spending. Tens of billions of dollars went out the door to people with clearly identified risk factors for not actually being eligible for the programs they were receiving money for: There were no spending controls before the money was spent and no spending controls afterwards. Essentially the government is handing out money through its programs on the basis of an honour system. If one says one is eligible, one gets the money, and there is no checking before or after. Over $30 billion in spending was identified, associated with very likely risk factors in the Auditor General's report.
I have a simple question for the minister with respect to the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General has come up with clear recommendations to try to address this problem of tens of billions of dollars of inflationary waste. Will the government accept and implement all the recommendations of the Auditor General, yes or no?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will never feel remorse about voting against measures put forward by the government.
Canadians, looking back over the last seven years, are asking themselves if things are more affordable than they were seven years ago, or if they are better off financially than they were seven years ago. I think virtually all Canadians are saying no. There may be a few exceptions. There may be individuals who have benefited from various government contracts, but the vast majority of everyday Canadians, who do not have access to government largesse, will clearly realize that the government's policies, when it comes to allegedly creating affordability, have failed.
The government also has a regular habit of giving with one hand while taking away with the other. People are paying substantially more. Unless the government changes course, we are going to see increases to the carbon tax and payroll taxes next year. When the government was first starting out, it reduced the amount people could save through the tax-free savings account.
We have seen multiple instances where the government said it was giving people money over here, but taking that away and more. In particular, we are seeing that now with inflation. The escalation of inflation under the government is gobbling up any of the other so-called gains that it says it is giving to people.
If members ask people in Winnipeg North or anywhere, I think they will find that the middle class is not better off as a result of measures taken over the last seven years. In fact, they are much worse off.
267 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 6:38:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is clear that the parliamentary secretary has not cancelled his Disney+ subscription, because he still seems to think money grows on trees.
I will put the following points to him. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that inflation here in Canada is being caused by domestic policy. The same has been said by the former governor of the Bank of Canada and future leader of the Liberal Party, Mark Carney.
The government's proposal to triple the carbon tax and increase the cost of vital necessities such as gas, groceries and home heating is not going to help tackle inflation. The government's plan is to raise taxes on goods that are vitally necessary for Canadians and to balloon government spending, in the vast number of cases, on things totally unrelated to measures that Canadians can see, touch and feel, such as $54 million for the ArriveCAN app, $6,000 a night for a hotel room for the Prime Minister and an ineffective infrastructure bank. The government is taxing Canadians, causing inflation and making life less affordable.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting, going back to the previous Liberal speaker, that Liberals do not want us to be talking about the carbon tax today. It is not surprising that they do not want to hear us talking about their plan to triple the carbon tax.
The reason we are raising this, of course, is that it speaks to the Liberal government's approach to affordability. The Liberals are presenting these measures as their so-called affordability package, but the reality is that they are continuing to increase taxes on Canadians. They have scheduled automatic tax increases for next year. The Liberals plan to raise payroll taxes and triple the carbon tax.
This is central to the debate today because, when the government says it is concerned about inflation and affordability, it was, frankly, not talking about inflation at all until the member for Carleton became Conservative leader. The Liberals were completely ignoring the issue. Now they say they care about it, but they are persisting with tax increases. Why are they persisting with their tax hikes?
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know the member for Timmins—James Bay is excited to hear the rest of my remarks and it sounds like he is chomping at the bit for the privilege of debate that may be coming. I look forward to his remarks. I would encourage him to make sure he has consulted with the rest of his party around the position he takes on that, because there may be some differences of opinion around that important and sensitive issue.
With respect to the remarks I was making, it is very clear that we have two different approaches in front of us when it comes to responding to the economy. The Liberals have started to try to adopt Conservative language, although not all of it, as maybe the point of order demonstrates. They do not want to acknowledge their own responsibility when it comes to inflation, but they have started to acknowledge that there is a problem of inflation. They just think it has nothing to do with the policies of the government, which obviously stretches credibility.
The government has, in the last two years, pursued a radically different direction. In some respects, it has the last seven years, but it has escalated in the last two years. They have pursued a radically different direction with respect to economic policy. We have gone from tens of billions of dollars of deficit, which felt quite significant, and was quite significant, to hundreds of billions of dollars in terms of deficit, and they want to pretend as if that approach has had no consequences with respect to affordability. The reality is that it obviously has and Canadians are seeing the direct impacts on their lives when it comes to rising costs of all sorts of different goods. The government's efforts to pass the blame for this onto everybody but themselves really stretches credibility. Now their proposals of more taxes, more spending and more borrowing are simply going to make the problem worse.
I appeal to the government, on behalf of my constituents and many Canadians who have raised concerns about affordability, that if it wants to show that it has a modicum of sincerity when it comes to the issue of affordability, it should cancel the planned tax increases for next year. It would be a simple way for the government to show that it is actually listening to Canadians.
I want to talk specifically about the issue of the carbon tax. The Liberals think that a tax increase is a replacement for a meaningful response to the challenges we face with environmental policy. It is clear from various reports that their carbon tax is not working to achieve environmental objectives. Many of the groups that have supported them on this are saying it is a dramatic increase they want in terms of the carbon tax, and the Liberals are planning, I believe, and forecasting it.
Before the previous election, they had promised that they would not increase the carbon tax, but then they did increase it. It is continually going up and up. When is it going to stop? Every time their carbon tax fails to achieve their environmental objectives, instead of changing approach and realizing that we actually need an approach that emphasizes technology instead of taxes, they are just doubling down on the taxation approach. It is just not working; it is not achieving the objectives they said it will.
The government really needs to be responsive to what Canadians are telling it and it needs to be willing to make changes in its direction when the evidence clearly suggests it. I repeat that appeal again: no new taxes. The least the government can do is stop the damage, and that means to commit to not proceeding with the tax increases that it has scheduled for next year.
It is a clear choice and a clear contrast. We have a government that is talking about borrowing, spending and taxation, and that is leading to inflation. Then in the official opposition, we are talking about more freedom, giving individuals back control of their lives, reversing tax increases, lowering taxes and fundamentally replacing big government with big citizens, with a big society, as David Cameron talked about, with the idea that a strong society, with people standing together and supporting each other's needs, is much better at bringing us together as communities and moving us forward than the government. I am proud to continue to champion that vision and make the case for that vision in the House and beyond.
At this point, I would like to move an amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
"the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, since the bill will fuel inflation and fails to address the government's excessive borrowing and spending that lead to the inflation crisis in the first place.”
849 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/22 2:40:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, is this real life? I ask because that answer was pure fantasy. We have inflation landslides and no escape from poverty. When will the Prime Minister open up his eyes and see? He is not a poor boy, but he should have some sympathy. For too many Canadians, opportunity had just begun and now the government is going to throw it all away.
Money is not easy come, easy go in this economy, so when will the government cancel its planned tax increases on gas, home heating and groceries and spare us from this inflation monstrosity?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 9:18:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to work with my friend across the way. We agree on many issues. We disagree on some as well. I would say, respectfully, that I think inflation is caused by a number of factors. We had a significant issue of inflation prior to the invasion of Ukraine. A significant part of that is the government's approach to spending. We have run up more debt in the past seven years than the country had previously.
I will certainly agree with her in saying that we need to have firm resolve. We need to be prepared to do what is necessary to impose sanctions that are debilitating to the Russian economy. We need to up energy production to displace Europe's dependence on energy. We need to supply the heavy artillery that is required and we need to endure through these circumstances, because so much of what we believe in is at stake.
I believe that citizens in democracies believe in and benefit from the systems, and are prepared to endure. While we may disagree on some aspects of the inflation issue, I appreciate that we agree on the fundamental point about the strength of democracies.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 3:47:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a brief follow-up to my earlier exchange with the member. I think it is clear there are a variety of government policies at the fiscal level that are impacting inflation, and that impact is especially strong at this point as we are seeing the highest level of inflation in decades. This is at a point when we have very much come out of the depths of the pandemic.
There is also a question of the target the federal government sets and how seriously it sets that target, because the Bank of Canada operates within the target that has been set by the federal government. It is ultimately the government that establishes the policy framework that governs the way the Bank of Canada, which is an independent but Crown corporation, operates.
To re-emphasize my previous question, does the member acknowledge that the policy choices of the current government are driving inflation and making things more expensive, and that it could be making different policy choices that would address this problem of inflation and the rising prices of goods that people are seeing?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 3:41:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, respectfully, the hon. member makes a fairly obvious error in his economic analysis. He is talking about the fact that the Bank of Canada controls monetary policy, but he misses the fact that fiscal policy can impact inflation as well. It is fairly well established. The first-year economics professor he spoke about at the beginning of his speech could, I am sure, confirm the fact that monetary levers and fiscal levers can both impact inflation. In fact, the expansionary fiscal policy being pursued by the government is having a significant impact on inflation.
Of course, it is also important to acknowledge that the Bank of Canada, as a Crown corporation, acts within the general ambit of established policy on things like the inflation target, which is set by government. The member and other members of the government who try to absolve the government of responsibility for inflation by saying that it is just about the independent Bank of Canada are missing the obvious fact that the fiscal decisions of the government do impact inflation as well.
Will the member acknowledge that fact and call his government to account for its fiscal decisions?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 5:23:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member spoke about how, at the beginning of its mandate, the government raised taxes on some people. The promise it had made at the time was that the tax shifting it was doing would be revenue-neutral. However, in the end it was not. It significantly added to the deficit, and we have seen continuing measures that have added to the deficit.
I think what the member glosses over in her remarks is just how unequally and disproportionately the effects of high levels of deficit spending, leading to inflation, fall on middle and lower-income Canadians. Those who are very wealthy have a variety of tools at their disposal for protecting themselves from the effects of inflation, but everyday working Canadians simply do not have the same opportunities. We are passing on costs to those who can least afford it and to subsequent generations.
Does the member acknowledge this problem and believe the government needs to do more to confront inflation and other ways in which out-of-control spending is passing costs on to those who can least afford it?
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/22 4:21:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned child care in his speech as part of this debate on affordability. He is keen that his province sign on. I will share a big challenge that I am hearing of from child care providers in my province, a province that has signed a deal with the federal government, and that is that the federal plan effectively involves deregulation and limited increases to fees, which are actually below the current rate of inflation.
Child care providers are very concerned. They are being told that they cannot charge more than a certain amount, that they cannot raise their fees beyond a certain amount, and that is severely limiting their ability to expand to offer more child care services and do what this plan is theoretically supposed to do, which is to increase the availability of child care.
In the short term, it sounds great to say the fees are being regulated, but in the long term, if child care providers cannot expand, cannot afford to offer services and are being forced to close as a result of the cost squeeze on them from inflation and other factors, there is a serious problem. It is a real sort of ticking time bomb in the availability of child care services.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
