So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 154 - Feb/6/23

Feb/14/23 1:12:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my friend from Kings—Hants talked about competitiveness. He had some really good ideas. I have heard of the issue with electronic logging devices, as well, when loading and unloading cattle, and some common sense approaches to that, but he did not touch on inflation very much or some of the spending his government has done that has added to that inflationary fire. I have one simple question: Does he believe the CRA should try to get back some of the $15 billion that it said, by its own numbers, was spent on people in jail, companies that did not need it and even some people who are dead? Should we work hard on that? I know there has been an increase in capacity at the CRA. Why would we not be sure they would do the good work to get those hard-earned taxpayers' dollars back into the pockets of Canadians?

158 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 142 - Dec/6/22

Feb/6/23 11:02:28 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-293

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate to discuss Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness. I do not think we would find anyone in the House who would be against being prepared for when the next pandemic comes to our country. However, we would have a different way of going about it. Looking through the bill brought forward by the member from the government's side, there are a few questions that come to my mind right away. One of its sections talks about agriculture and industrial agriculture. It states: (l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and provincial governments, provide for measures to: (i) reduce the risks posed by antimicrobial resistance, (ii) regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture, (iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and (iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species; I do not see a definition of what those high-risk species. We have a question about that. The section continues: (m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment: after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan, There are issues that will need discussion. First, I would ask the member who brought the bill forward if he had discussions with the provincial and territorial health ministers already. When I read the bill, there is a lot of encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. I think some of the Bloc members would have concerns about that as well, moving to take over some of the things that should be in the province's jurisdiction. I have another issue with respect to the agriculture file. I am on the agriculture standing committee and a few things in the bill could limit the use of agricultural land. That concerns me and the people who I represent across western Canada and in Saskatchewan. Our producers do a fantastic job with managing their land use. Part of this preparedness plan has some land use issues in it. Talking about deforestation, one of the biggest countries that is in competition for agriculture, one that our producers compete against, is Brazil. Brazil is doing a lot of deforestation right now, putting more and more land into agriculture use. If we could use our land and produce more, we would be helping the environment on a larger scale by ensuring that other countries would not have to use deforestation. They would have to put that use of land into agriculture, which would be great for our environment. More concerns around the pandemic preparedness act are some of the encroachments on our civil liberties. One thing that is mentioned a few times in the bill is the “one health approach”. Like many people, I did not know what one health meant, but I did get a definition from its website. It states: One Health' is an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment. It is particularly important to prevent, predict, detect, and respond to global health threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together. This way, new and better ideas are developed that address root causes and create long-term, sustainable solutions. One Health involves the public health, veterinary, public health and environmental sectors. The One Health approach is particularly relevant for food and water safety, nutrition, the control of zoonoses (diseases that can spread between animals and humans, such as flu, rabies and Rift Valley fever), pollution management, and combatting antimicrobial resistance (the emergence of microbes that are resistant to antibiotic therapy). On the surface, it sounds like it is a pretty good approach, but one of the concerns I would have is the loss of our own ability to get ready for the next pandemic. The problem is that the one health initiative to integrate work on human, animal and environmental issues limits our ability to look after our own Canadians citizens. This, from the WHO, is more of an overarching approach to health care and that still should be central to governments in their own countries not to have that loss of control. We need to dive into this and look a lot closer at the one-health approach. I hear my colleague from Winnipeg North speaking. I hope he gets up on his feet today. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are concerned with most bills the Liberals bring forward. They take a decent idea in theory, but then they over-complicate it. That is what this legislation would do and that is one of the reasons we will be unable to support it. Also, when it comes to the Liberals' approach to the pandemic, all we have seen throughout the pandemic is a lot of money being thrown at some of the issues when it comes to programming. We have found out now from PBO that 40% of that money was not even used for pandemic services. That is a big concern for us and we believe it is one of the major factors that has been hitting inflation so hard for Canadians across the country. The approach the Conservatives are taking is that we would like to see a little more control and a lot more consultation. I asked about the dental program that my friends across the way hail so largely. I asked the Minister of Health if he consulted with the health ministers of the provinces and territories before the Liberals brought forward the dental program. To this date, he has never answered me. I would really like to see some follow up on the consultations the member did on his private member's bill with the other jurisdictions, the municipal and provincial leaders. I would also like to know if they had any input into bill before it was tabled. I would like to see some follow up on the consultations that were had with the appropriate health ministers and also with the agriculture ministers. The Liberals talk about agriculture, land use within agriculture and animal health, so I also wonder if the member, before putting his private member's bill forward, had discussions with all the agriculture ministers across the country as well since they are talking about changes to land use in agriculture land. I have not heard whether the member spoke to the Saskatchewan agriculture minister. I wonder if there were any conversations with those ministers. When we talk about consultation, we talk about working together in other governmental jurisdictions, with provincial, territorial and municipal leaders. I believe the government has failed on those consultations many times. I wonder if this is another stack of failed consultations that should have been done before the bill was brought forward. I look forward to hearing other speeches and whether other members will or will not support the bill. I am happy to stand and lay out some of the reasons why I feel the government does not have the capacity to be prepared for the next pandemic. I hope that we can work together with our provincial and municipal leaders to ensure we have things in place. The Conservatives believe that we have to be ready for the next pandemic, but we do not think this bill would get the job done.

1332 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 95 - Jun/23/22

Dec/6/22 12:06:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the discussion today on the fall economic statement. What we wanted to see is a plan for the future of all Canadians, but what we received from the Liberals in this fall economic statement is more reckless spending. We laid out two requests before the statement was delivered. One was no new taxes. The second was that if the government brought in more spending, it should find savings in the budget. That was not possible for the reckless Liberal-NDP coalition. What we see right now is more spending and less money in the pockets of Canadians. We even heard the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, say that there is a made-in-Canada inflation problem. That is as a result of the reckless spending by the costly NDP-Liberal coalition. I will go through a few of the spending items that we see as possibly unnecessary. For one of them, the finance minister could not even answer a question. When asked about the $14.2-billion spend in the economic statement that is unaccounted for, she could not answer what it was earmarked for. As the finance minister of a G7 country, she should really have a better handle on where the money is going. To add to the idea that the government right now is not in control of its spending, the Auditor General released a report today, and there are some very concerning things in it. A few of the numbers we saw today gave us a second to pause and wonder where the government is taking Canadians. One has to do with “overpayments to ineligible recipients” regarding COVID–19 spending. There was $4.6 billion in overpayments to ineligible recipients that the taxpayers of this country will never get back. Let us not stop there. There is another one about “payments that should be investigated further” by the Auditor General. This was just released today, and there is $27.4 billion for further programs that we need to look into. One of my questions here, and I hope one of my Liberal counterparts will ask me about it, is whether the Liberals believe this needs to be investigated as well. Are they curious about where that $24.7 billion is that they said was necessary for COVID spending? I ask because we all remember the solemn hand-on-heart moment when Canadians were told by the Prime Minister that he has their backs. Do members remember one of the last fall economic statements delivered by the current minister and the government? There was a famous line that will go down as one of my favourite quotes from the Prime Minister. He said the Liberals were going to take on debt so Canadians did not have to. How is that working for the government now? I think Canadians across the country are wondering when exactly that is going to happen, because they have seen the government take on massive debt, more debt than all other governments combined. What I am seeing and hearing from Canadians across the country is they feel that this debt is now being passed on to them. That is how they feel. Where is this solemn pledge by the Prime Minister that the government is going to take on debt so Canadians do not have to? That is not a thing and Canadians are falling further and further behind. I have a few examples of some of the discussions I have had. This past weekend, I had the opportunity to speak with the Association of Canadian Custom Harvesters in Saskatoon. People from all over the country do custom harvesting. By the way, in question period, the associate minister of finance, who is from Alberta, keeps saying that there have been massive crop failures across the country, yet I did not hear that from the people who actually harvest crops. That is another one of the fabricated stories the Liberals continue to tell to make sure they have a compelling narrative to keep shovelling out dollars. At this conference in Saskatoon, it was great to hear about some of the innovations and new technologies these custom harvesters are using to lower emissions. There were questions they kept coming back to ask me: How much is enough? For the carbon tax, what level will make the government happy? I was dumbfounded. I did not know how to answer that because I do not think it will ever be enough. One of the custom harvesters actually does work across the border in Montana and the Midwestern states, and then comes back up. I asked him what the difference in his fuel bill is when he is harvesting down south across the border compared to when he is harvesting in Canada. He said it is between $15,000 and $20,000 a week. Could members imagine doing business in a different jurisdiction where it costs an extra $15,000 to $20,000 a week on something they have no control over? They have to fuel their vehicles. They have to fuel their harvesters and trucks. I asked him how it makes sense to keep going back and forth across the border. He said it does not. Then and there it just hit me that this is why we are becoming so uncompetitive. That is why the jobs are going south. It is because the current government is taxing businesses out of existence. Then I remembered a quote I heard from one of the Liberal backbenchers, the member for Whitby. It all made sense when he stood in his spot and said to Canadians that they will have to go through pain. Can members imagine a government member standing up and saying that it is going to get worse? Can members imagine him saying he is not sure it is ever going to get better, but that Canadians can be sure that, as long as the Liberals are in government, it is going to continue to get worse for them, with more pain and suffering? I say “kudos” to that member because that is probably one of the first honest statements I have heard from a member of the Liberal Party in being honest with Canadians and saying that under the Liberals it will continue to get worse. We see that situation across the country. One of the biggest things that hits me when I look at some of the statistics here is that 1.5 million Canadians are using a food bank every month in our country when we are supposed to be the breadbasket of the world. We have the food, fuel and fertilizer the world needs and we cannot feed our own people. I opened the mail the other day when I was at home and my wife brought a letter to me. We are both U of R alumni. It was from the University of Regina. Usually people get these fundraising letters when it is for a capital project or some kind of infrastructure project. My wife said, “You will never believe this is coming from the University of Regina.” I read the fundraising letter and it was literally to feed students. It was an anonymous letter from one of the students saying that they go to bed hungry almost every night. There are 58.6% of university students at the U of R who are going to bed hungry. This is in our country now and it is shameful. From where we were to where we are now as a country, the food bank usages are up. Students are living in hostels and going to bed hungry, and they were looking for a vision from this economic statement. The government cannot spend itself out of inflation. We are getting to another point where, if there are two more interest rate rises in this country, we are going to see a rash of bankruptcies. What is the Liberals' plan for that? Times are getting tough. I know people on variable mortgages whose mortgages have gone up $600 or $700 a month. Now it has come out that grocery bills are going to go up $1,000 to $1,500 per month. Eventually, there is nothing left. In our country, under the current Liberal government, taxes now exceed take-home pay for people who are going to work every day. This is unsustainable in our country. We need a vision and we need a plan. We need to start making paycheques pay again. We need to make it so that people who are going to work have the ability to support their families and do not have to put water in their milk so they can make it go further for the kids. Parents are literally now scared to take their kids to the grocery store. I have constituents who have sent pictures to me of what $100 in groceries is buying for their family now, and it is sad. It is a couple of loaves of bread, maybe a jug of milk, some pasta and some pasta sauce. That is not good enough. I will leave members with a quote. It is something Premier Wall always said when we were in government. He said that the best thing a government can and should do is leave things better than it found them. The current government has failed on that miserably.

1586 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Jun/23/22 12:38:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join this debate. I have been listening intently over the last hour or so to what has been discussed in the House, and I heard the government House leader say that we will be able to look at this at PROC in the fall. However, the rule is going to be in place until June 23, 2023. I do not know where the Liberals come from, but where I come from, we do not make a rule and then study it to make another rule when it has already been put in place. Their argument here is irrelevant. If they want PROC to study this in September, why are they putting in this piece of legislation now so that the rule stays until June 23, 2023? It does not make any sense, so I would like our House leader to explain it to us.

151 words

All Topics

Jun/7/22 12:02:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was happy to listen to the member opposite's speech, but the NDP has truly fallen far from being the party of hard-working Canadians. In this motion, we talk about getting rid of restrictions and mandates so people can go back to work. These are people in the public service and the RCMP across this nation. There are three million to four million people who have not been able to go to work. Also, those same people cannot travel within their own country, yet all this member wants to talk about is big corporations and how they are bad for Canadians and never help Canadians. What we want to do is talk about a few things, and one of which is getting Canadians back to work. How far has the NDP fallen that its members do not even care if people can provide for their families anymore? This member should be ashamed of that speech.

159 words

All Topics

May/30/22 6:50:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our job is to make sure that bad legislation does not pass. That is what we continue to do, because the Liberals have brought forward bad legislation a number of times and it did not pass.

38 words

All Topics

May/30/22 6:48:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, that is a fair question. Lots of people wonder what the role of the opposition is in government. The role is to make sure that government legislation does get better. We have some very thoughtful but maybe critical arguments on some of the legislation, for example Bill C-11. I do not think the government should be legislating the Internet and regulating what people can and cannot see. I believe in free speech. The Liberals do not. There is another example. I do not think people should have to pay a carbon tax on the gas they use in their vehicles, on the equipment they use to seed or on the machinery they use to grow food for people across Canada. I do not think schools should have to pay carbon tax on their heating. I do not think there should be a carbon tax on bussing kids to school in Saskatchewan. These are policy debates we could have. The Liberals say, “But they get it back.” My question or comment, and Premier Wall made the same comment, would be this: If the government is just going to give the carbon tax back to Canadians in boutique tax credits, why take it in the first place? Please, why do we not let Canadians keep the money in their own pockets?

224 words

All Topics

May/30/22 6:46:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do enjoy the banter back and forth. If there was ever a master class to give on how to outrage Canadians, it is the Liberals'. I do not remember, but in the 10 years of Stephen Harper, how many mass blockades were there on Parliament Hill protesting government policies? Zero. The member yells that the Liberals did not encourage them, but they did by their terrible policy. They did by stigmatizing and dividing Canadians. They did by creating two classes of Canadians. If people want to take a master class on outraging Canadians and making Canadians so upset that they would knock on the doors of Parliament to have their voices heard, they should talk to the Liberals. Any time the Liberals want to have a policy debate on economics, any time they want to have a policy debate on world affairs, foreign affairs or the military, I would be happy to meet them anywhere for a debate on whose policies are better for Canadians, whose policies are better to lower inflation, whose policies are better to lower the cost of living and to make life more affordable in Canada, because the Conservatives would win a policy debate with the Liberals any day of the week.

209 words

All Topics

May/30/22 6:44:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the ways the Liberals usually deal with reports when there are troubling times is proroguing Parliament or calling an election. Usually we do not get to deal with them because when it gets really difficult, what they do is cut bait and run because they do not want to see what the final results are. I would like to see more opportunity to have this go back to committee, investigate it fully and make sure that when we see the final report, we have a good process going forward so that when the next Liberal ethical violation happens, we already have a template to make sure that we are able to deal with it properly, efficiently and in a fair, non-partisan manner.

127 words

All Topics

May/30/22 6:42:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate it when the member stands and shows his incompetence once again. I actually talked for 20 minutes, not 10, so he did not listen to my whole speech. I did provide some solutions. One was to axe the carbon tax so that people could afford gas, so that people could drive to work. On schools, I love the Liberal argument so much because it shows the Liberals' complete and utter incompetence when it comes to fiscal policy. If we are just going to give the money back to the schools through a carbon tax rebate, which does not give it all back, we should not take the money from them in the first place. We should let them use it right off the hop.

129 words

All Topics

May/30/22 6:19:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate on ethics and the role that ethics should play for the people who govern our country. This report is about whether we should re-evaluate what happened during the WE Charity scandal but, throughout my speech, I am going to cover many ethical lapses that have happened with the government. I will also talk about some of the things that people in Regina—Lewvan and across Saskatchewan and Canada would actually like to see this chamber debate. I have listened to a few speeches now from the members of the opposition, the members for Winnipeg North and Kingston and the Islands, and they are talking about how the government has been nothing but a blessing for Canadians across the country. They are talking about how they cut taxes for the middle class in 2015, without really having the realization of what is happening in 2022 and putting the lens on. We are getting past COVID-19. They still want to bring it up, and they still want to make everyone across the country afraid, but if we go to every country across the world, people are moving on. It is now time for the government to move on past COVID-19 and start looking at what it can do to help control inflation and the rising cost of living, get people back to work full-time, get all Canadians the ability to travel, get rid of restrictions, and stop stigmatizing and dividing Canadians at every turn. The Liberal government has not met a wedge issue it has not tried to take advantage of with Canadians. Liberals have not missed an opportunity to try to pit Canadian against Canadian. Whether it be western Canadians against eastern Canadians, or people who made a personal health choice to take a vaccine or not, they will continue to try to pit Canadians against Canadians. That is something that us on this side, as Conservatives, have always fought against. We have always had a consistent message: vaccines are available for those who want to take them. We needed to get to a high vaccine rate, which Canadians did. Canadians did go and get vaccinated, but we should not penalize people who have made a different choice. They should be able to go to work and raise their families. They should be able to travel, not only within Canada but also outside of Canada as well. We have people in the country who are not able to travel within their own country. They cannot get on a plane. They cannot get on a train. That is something we should be discussing in this chamber and questioning the Liberal government as to why it continues to try to stigmatize Canadians. Those are the debates we should be having. We should be having debates on policy and on ethics as well. That is important. Time and again, the government has used time allocation to stifle debate. In the magical fantasy land the member for Winnipeg North has brought forward in his speech, Conservatives try to stifle debate. We try to have debate as often as we can because we believe that it actually brings forward better legislation. It has happened, a couple of times. It has happened, a couple of times, where we have added to the legislation. I remember the early times of the pandemic in 2019. We had debates, and we made programs better. That is hardly stifling. They did try to sneak past a piece of legislation that gave them the right to tax and spend for two years completely unfettered, which, once again, shows that every time there is an opportunity or a crisis, the Liberals will continue to try to seize more and more power so that they have the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want. That actually should be their next campaign slogan in 2025: “Liberals: we can do whatever we want, whenever we want. Just trust us. Heart over hand.” I digress. One of the things that I hear in Regina—Lewvan constantly is the fact that we need to fight the rising cost of living. We have brought forward opposition motions. We have brought forward ideas on how the Liberal government could help people out. Over 50% of Canadians are finding it hard to put food on the table. That is not the sign of a good, prosperous, well-run government, when 50% of Canadians are unable to put food on the table. Plus, we have seen it and people have seen it, all across their provinces, that the rate of visitations to food banks continues to increase. That is a sign of troubling times ahead. We brought forward an idea in an opposition motion a few weeks ago. Why not finally scrap the carbon tax? It continues to punish Canadians who have to drive to go to work. It punishes Canadians who have to heat their homes. It punishes Canadians who have to continue to try to buy food that gets trucked in to the grocery stores. Northern and remote Canadians get punished more because, when their food gets trucked in, the prices of everyday necessities continue to rise. Those are the debates we should be having. The Liberals talk about the tax cuts they had for the middle class in 2015. They are not helping anyone anymore. The price of gas and every essential good has gone up so high that those tax cuts have gone back into government coffers. The government and the Liberals need to listen to what Canadians are saying, not just their Liberal insiders and Bay Street buddies. They need to hear how much harder it is for Canadians to get by, and it is going to get harder. Members may or may not believe this, but they want the carbon tax to go up to $150 a tonne. Imagine being a single parent who is trying to decide whether they can put gas in their vehicle to take their kids to sports, music or drama, or whether they can buy the essential goods of food and medication if they need it. That is ridiculous. When does it end? We continue to bring forward positive suggestions and the Liberal government continues to slap them down and bring more rhetoric forward. Time and time again we talk about people coming with questions about whether the government is doing the right thing. The Liberals continue to show that the only people they are willing to listen to are those who already agree with them. The reason they like time allocation is they do not like debate. They do not like to hear opposing views. They show it in their actions. They showed it in their actions in February when people came to the chamber and wanted to talk to representatives about how they were feeling during COVID‑19. I cannot even imagine the type of frustration some people must have felt when they came to Ottawa to try to talk to a member of the Liberal cabinet in person and they would not be heard. They were good people who came here and wanted to be listened to because it is their right. It is the people's Parliament, and not one Liberal took the opportunity to have a conversation with them. I have gone through a few conflict negotiation classes, and not one of them ever said that conflict negotiations do not include dialogue. We need dialogue to resolve a conflict. I think the Liberals like some of the conflict that is going on right now in our country. I think they enjoy seeing the divide between Canadians, in some way. That is why this building is one of the only places that still has a mask mandate in place. We have asked constantly to see the science and have asked why we still need to wear masks just on Parliament Hill. If we go to receptions all around downtown Ottawa, we see members opposite and members from all parties not wearing masks at them. Let us ask this question. Why is that still in place? Maybe my hon. colleagues will talk about the BOIE, but the Liberals now have a majority on the BOIE with the NDP and can vote in whatever they want, so really it is up to them to decide when restrictions will be dropped here on Parliament Hill. Moving on, restrictions should be dropped elsewhere. I do not know if members have been to the Toronto airport lately, but it is an unmitigated disaster right now. These are very tough times with the restrictions and some of the vaccine mandates. People would be at work today at the Pearson airport if there were no vaccine mandates, and they could be helping get rid of some of the backlogs and making air travel more smooth. Those are some of the things we should be talking about, but the Liberals continue to bring in time allocation. This is an opportunity to bring forward something else that is also important to people across the country: When are we going to have some confidence in our democratic institutions again? That goes straight to the heart of ethics and the ethics report. People see a decline in democracy in our country and they are losing faith. I hear it in the conversations I have in Saskatchewan with people from Regina—Lewvan. A lot of people who come to my office ask why we cannot get rid of these guys and ask what is going on in our country. Some people feel our country is a laughing stock right now because of some of the policies the government has put in place. People are travelling to the States or over to Europe and they see how life there is returning to normal. When they come back home, they find that travellers from other countries who come here do not understand this because a lot of people have moved on. It is a difficult thing, because now these decisions and policies, which are really out of touch with most Canadians, are being propped by the junior party, the NDP. It is propping up the Liberals now. Technically they never won a mandate for a majority, but they stole a majority government from the mandate they got in 2021. That is something people have a really hard time computing. They are asking how the Liberals have a majority when they never were awarded one by the voters in Canada. When they talk about the co-operation, they understand that sometimes parties have to co-operate, but how could they give a blank cheque to the Liberal government to govern until 2025 and not show what was agreed to on the blank cheque? We have asked many times for them to show the documentation of what was in the hidden deal that was signed in the back rooms of Ottawa that allows the Prime Minister and the government to stay in power until 2025. What were the priorities of the NDP? A lot of us who live in western Canada have seen some NDP governments, and they have had a lot of different priorities from those the federal NDP does right now. I am pretty sure Tommy Douglas would not even be part of the NDP right now in Ottawa because he would have a lot of different views, especially around fiscal policy. Some of my friends have seen some NDP governments, such as in Winnipeg, for example, that have had a lot more fiscal responsibility than the current NDP members in Ottawa have. That comes to the crux of the argument. When we are looking at supporting the government, from my standpoint, if I was a New Democrat, I would also look at how I could support a government that has this many ethical violations. My friend from Kingston and the Islands actually had to answer the question when I said the WE Charity maybe did not say the Prime Minister was guilty, but it did say the former finance minister, Bill Morneau, was guilty of breaking ethics rules. There was also the “Trudeau Report” and the “Trudeau II Report”, which show the Prime Minister has broken ethics rules on several different occasions. When we are talking about an ethical government, people at some point in time in the next little while are going to wonder if they can continue to vote for a government that has so many ethical lapses. I think that does go to the heart of the debate in this chamber, and it goes to the heart of the debate on what is going to happen if the government continues to have ethical lapses. For example, we just saw another one. The Minister of National Defence gave a sole-source contract to a friend for $16,000. That has come out in the last couple of hours. The Minister of International Trade gave a sole-source contract to her friend for $17,000. Also, who can forget Frank Baylis's sole-source contract? There was couple million dollars for that one for ventilators, and he does not even have a company that makes ventilators. It goes on and on with these ethical lapses, so the question that comes to Canadians is, how much is enough and when is it enough? Also, it does not have to just be contracts. We have seen this time and again in other areas of the government. Continuously we see it among insiders and Liberals who are well connected to the Prime Minister and to the front bench. We have seen it from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, from New Brunswick, who has had a few questions come up about some of his appointments. I think members might remember they had to go through a Liberal donation registry before they had the opportunity to do some other things. These are some of the questions that Canadians continue to ask us, which we want to bring forward on the floor to debate, because I think there is a higher expectation of government than what the government has had. I was an MLA in 2015, and I remember watching the Prime Minister debate Stephen Harper and talk about how sunshine is the best disinfectant. Do members remember that? An hon. member: Hear, hear. Mr. Warren Steinley: Madam Speaker, I heard a “hear, hear” from the member for Winnipeg North. I wish the Liberals still believed that. I also wish the Prime Minister still wanted to lead the most transparent and open government in Canadian history. An hon. member: He does. Mr. Warren Steinley: Madam Speaker, I heard “he does”, but he does not, because he is only the second Prime Minister to break the ethics rules not once but twice. It is unbelievable for the government to say it is going to be the most open and accountable government in Canadian history and then continue to bring forward legislation that curtails freedom of speech, curtails freedom of expression and curtails what Canadians can put on the Internet on their own personal pages. How does that make it the most open and accountable government in Canadian history? People are looking for more. Something the government is really falling short on is making sure that people have hope for the future. There are reports that the optimism of Canadian business owners is at an all-time low. If we talk to anyone in agriculture right now, we hear that people do not know how they are going to afford the inputs. This is a direct result of some of the policies put forward by the government. Let us look at what the cost of fertilizer is going to be for this year, with a 30% reduction, a completely arbitrary number, in emissions in the fertilizer industry. Basically, the only way the industry is going to get there is by lowering its outputs. Less fertilizer means that agriculture producers are going to have less fertilizer to put on their crops because they cannot afford to put more on. In turn, that means there is going to be less food available to Canadians and people around the world. That is the result of some of these arbitrary emission targets that the government has put into place. I do not think some members of the Liberal government have thought about what the consequences are. I know a few have because, in doing the right thing, a few have voted in favour of a private member's bill that would lower the cost of the carbon tax on agriculture producers. One was the member for Kings—Hants and another member abstained. They have talked to agriculture producers and realized the impacts that these policies are going to have on the people who produce the food we consume. Some of these ideological crusades that the government has been on for the last seven years do have real-life impacts on Canadians across the country. I am not talking about just western Canada, although western Canadians are the ones who produce the food that feed the rest of our country. It is not all of it but a lot of it. These impacts are compounding each other. Some of these policies were put in place not by malice, but maybe simply because sometimes the people who are putting them in place do not understand what is happening in agriculture in western Canada and the differences we see in our country. There are a few other issues we can talk about. I have some time left, and there is a lot more I want to say. I want to talk about the residents of Regina—Lewvan and the effects that some of these policies have had there, and some of the causes and effects of ethics. When the government makes decisions and gives some sole-source contracts, it is giving money to Liberal friends. However, it is also leaving out some of the people who are creating jobs and creating wealth in their communities. Small business owners have had a tough time over the last couple of years. I talked to one of them, who owns a restaurant called Rock on Albert Street in Regina. He said that with how much money he has paid in carbon tax for heating and cooling the building, he could afford to hire another two staff members if he did not have to pay the carbon tax. Two people in Regina could have a job in one restaurant if there was not a carbon tax. That is something the Liberals really have to think about. Another thing that this carbon tax is affecting in our country more than the Liberals probably realize is the budgets of school divisions in Saskatchewan. The school divisions have to heat their schools in the winter and keep them cool in the summer. Our temperature fluctuates a fair bit in Saskatchewan. It snowed on the May long weekend. What the school divisions are seeing in their budgets, which are getting squeezed tighter and tighter, is that the carbon tax is taking tens of thousands of dollars out of them. That could be used for an EA, for another teacher or for the expense of fuel for busing. Some people do not understand how much people have to ride the bus in rural and remote communities. Fuel is also needed for heating and cooling schools. That is the equivalent to probably one or two EAs in a school division per year. The Liberals talk about putting Canadians first and talk about having Canadians' backs. We need to bring forward good public policy to try to help out and make sure that the lives of Canadians get easier and more cost effective. We need to control inflation and the price of living. That is what we are hearing from Canadians. I hope that when we have another conversation, we will be able to talk about the Liberals being more co-operative in the House.

3372 words

All Topics

May/30/22 6:19:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I love how over-the-top this is coming from the member for Kingston and the Islands, but he said there was nothing wrong. The previous finance minister was found guilty of breaking ethics in the WE Charity scandal. Just because the Prime Minister did not break the law this time, it is not like Liberals did not. Their finance minister did. How can he be so over-the-top, looking down his nose from his high horse and saying that nothing is wrong with this report when the finance minister of the country broke the ethics rules?

100 words

All Topics

May/30/22 5:14:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

Madam Speaker, that was one of the most fanciful speeches I have ever heard from the member. It was amazing. He lives in a parallel universe. The Liberals brought in time allocation on Bill C-18. Their job is done. It is going to get voted on. Now he is making this big pitch about how we should be debating Bill C-18 and saying we are being obstructionist, but the vote is going to happen regardless. The government got its wish; its job is done, so now we should get to a vote on this concurrence report and have the debate, because he has done his job. For the first time in eight months, the member actually got something done for the Liberal government. Time allocation was brought in, and he made this big fanciful speech about how we are obstructionist. I am wondering if the member could lay bare some of the facts that happened today, such as the government bringing in time allocation and curbing debate on Bill C-18 after one Conservative member got to speak. The rest of the member's speech was about nothing. Could the member please put the facts on the table for Canadians about what has actually happened in the House of Commons today? My constituents in Regina—Lewvan would like to hear a Liberal answer a question. For once, could he please be truthful about the fact that he did get Bill C-18 to where a vote is going to happen? Then we can move on and debate something as important as ethics in the government.

268 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

May/30/22 4:51:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise and ask a question of my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot. While debating this ethics concurrence report, does he think the decline in democracy, the lack of faith that Canadians continue to have in some of our institutions, can be brought back to the fact that there continues to be ethics violation after ethics violation from the Liberal government? Does he think that would have a role to play in people having less faith in the Liberal government, having less faith in what the Liberals are trying to do and having questions about the authenticity of some of the programs rolled out? Most of the people who are getting ahead now in Canada have a connection and must be a Liberal insider. Does he have anything to say about that?

138 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

May/19/22 3:47:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the member for the performance he just gave. It is interesting that the Liberals who sit here with their masks on during the debates in the House of Commons are the same Liberals who go to receptions all over downtown Ottawa with their masks off, where there are hundreds of people. I would ask my colleague across the way why it is the Liberals wear their masks in the House of Commons, but not when they go to receptions such as the Sir John A. Macdonald one last night? If they are concerned about their safety and the safety of others, why is it okay for them to not worry about wearing their masks in public when they are not on Parliament Hill? Why is it okay for health officers across the country to say we do not have to wear masks in Alberta, Saskatchewan or anywhere else in the country but on Parliament Hill? Can he tell me what advice the Liberals are following? It is not scientific: It is political, as this member has talked about throughout his whole speech.

189 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 63 - May/3/22

May/19/22 11:16:57 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the parliamentary secretary for reading that speech prepared for her by the PMO. It was really interesting. The question I have for her is twofold. First, she talked about following the science and the data. Could she please give the House the data that shows these mandates are still necessary and that we cannot go back to prepandemic-level travel? Second, does she believe that, in Canada now, it is fair that three million people cannot travel within their own country to see their family, to see their friends or to go on a vacation within Canada because of a personal health choice? Does she think that is fair and equitable treatment for all Canadians?

122 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 63 - May/3/22

May/3/22 2:45:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, here are a couple of headlines from the past few weeks: “Italy, Greece relax COVID restrictions ahead of tourist season”; “UK Drops All COVID-19 Travel Restrictions”; “Denmark Lifts All Covid-19 Travel Restrictions”. Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Ireland, Romania and Slovenia are all open for travel ahead of summer, and the list goes on. When will Canadians have the same freedoms that so many others around the world currently enjoy? Very simply put: Does this NDP-Liberal government actually trust Canadians?

89 words

Context: House Hansard - 62 - May/2/22

May/3/22 12:00:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, it has been a while. I would have finished my debate on Bill C-8, but the last time I rose, I had five minutes and we had to break for routine proceedings. It is great to get back on my feet and talk about this bill. This bill really looks at some of the budget implementations from the economic and fiscal update in 2021. There are seven parts to this bill. A lot of it has to do with amendments to the Income Tax Act. We have had a lot of questions around the 25% income tax for school supplies and rebates for the farm fuel industry and farmers and producers across Canada, and I will get to those discussions. However, what the Liberals are putting forward is that Conservatives are holding up this debate. I would like to outline a bit of the timeline that we have seen and the incompetence in the legislative agenda by the Liberal government, which it is trying to blame us for. The Liberals did not introduce this bill until December 15, right before the House rose for the Christmas break. My colleagues across the way will know this is factual. Then, the Liberals did not start the second reading debate until February 2. Second reading was completed a week later, on February 10. That was the week of the completion of the second reading debate. The finance committee studied the bill for less than a month and reported the bill back on March 1, after only three meetings. The current debate on report stage started March 4. Since then, there have been four constituency weeks, when the House did not meet, and only six days of debate in this chamber. There were 34 sittings days in the House for this bill to be debated, and they are complaining that this bill has been debated for only 11 days. Once again, the government is seen not completely telling the truth to Canadians on where and how this bill has proceeded through the House of Commons and the committee stage. I said to some of my hon. colleagues yesterday, when I was asking questions, that it has been a long time since I have heard someone be so adamant that it is the opposition's fault that the government is not getting its work done. It is the equivalent of a kid saying, “The dog ate my homework.” Just because the government does not have the capacity to get its legislative agenda through, that does not mean it is the opposition's fault. We are standing and presenting different ideas and different priorities that Canadians might have. A lot of this debate is around making sure the refundable tax credits are given out. There is just a different philosophy on this side of the House. The member for Winnipeg North gets so excited about how he can hand out money to Canadians across the country. On this side of the House, I asked a question that a lot of the constituents in Regina—Lewvan have. The government is excited for tax return season, but Canadians do not want to have their taxes given back to them at tax season. What they would like is for the government not to take them in the first place. The government is not giving out government dollars to Canadians; it is giving back money it should not have taken in the first place. That is the problem we see with the Liberals. They think the $500 billion they are throwing around like a drunken sailor is their money. It is not. The government does not earn a dollar. It does not raise a dollar. The only way the government gets money is by taking it from Canadians who go to work each and every day and earn that money. That is why we feel the government should be a bit more careful with Canadians' money. I should be more careful to make sure I say that I am going to split my time with my good friend, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. We are talking about how the government believes the money it is giving back is its money. It is something that we never really hear from people in Saskatchewan and in Regina—Lewvan. They always see tax season as a bit of a difficult time, because they see all the money and all the tax rebates, but the government is saying that people should be so thankful it is giving them refunds. Why take it in the first place? That is the question lots of people come to my office to ask. Another thing is that the Liberals are like Robin Hood. They expect Canadians to kiss the ring and be grateful they are getting this money back at tax time, when they should have had it throughout the year. They should have had it when their kids needed new shoes. They should have had the money they earned when they had to buy school supplies. They should have had that money when inflation made their grocery bill $500 or $600 more each month. They should have had that money throughout the year, not just given back to them at tax time. That is something that I think the people across the way just do not understand, that all this money they continue to shovel out the door, time after time, has to come from somewhere and it is everyday Canadians who are the ones stuck paying the bill. We have heard a lot of questions about schools and when teachers can get their rebates back. Do members know what I hear from teachers and what they are concerned about? What teachers and people in the school divisions across Saskatchewan are concerned about is the hundreds of thousands of dollars more that it is going to cost them each year to keep the classrooms warm in the winter and cool in the summer, because of the NDP-Liberals carbon tax. In rural Canada, the cost of fuel for people to have their kids bussed to school continues to increase each and every day. That is something that hits people hard in their pocketbooks. It is basically a trickle-down effect. The municipalities and the provinces have to pay for that because of a Liberal initiative that continues to put pressure on each and every level of government. When we speak with school board trustees in the school divisions across Saskatchewan, that is one of their major concerns, and it is something they cannot control. They cannot control what the cost is going to be when they have to keep filling those buses with expensive fuel because of the Liberal carbon tax. In Saskatchewan, when it is -40°C, they have to have heat in their classrooms. What the current government continues to do, in basically each and every one of its pieces of legislation, is ensure that people in rural Canada are treated differently than everyone else across the country. The government continues to try to divide Canadians and make sure that what it is doing is seen as environmentally friendly, yet more Canadians are being left behind. Another thing I find interesting when it comes to the economic and fiscal update in 2021 and now Bill C-8, and the government's budget as a whole in 2021, is the fact that the PBO said that of the $500 billion that was earmarked for COVID, because my colleague talked about COVID a lot in his speech, $200 billion was not even for COVID measures at all. He said it was not accounted for in COVID spending: $200 billion of the $500 billion the government spent, and said it needed to spend, on COVID basically is not accounted for whatsoever. There really needs to be more accountability when it comes to the government's legislative agenda. I think that is what the Liberals do not like. As we have seen time and again, accountability is not very high up on the government's list of priorities. Whether it be with respect to the Emergencies Act committee or the WE Charity scandal and the ethics committee, when it comes to accountability, this is definitely something where the government used to believe that sunlight was the best disinfectant, but that was long in the past. I remember when, in 2015, the Prime Minister used to do his Care Bear stare, hand over heart, and say that the government had the backs of Canadians. With friends like the Prime Minister, Canadians truly do not need any more enemies. If this is the idea of the Prime Minister having the backs of Canadians, when 50% of them are $200 away from bankruptcy, when inflation is going to 6.7%, when the idea of owning a home in Canada for people under 30 is now a nightmare because they will never be able to do it and they will live in their parents' basement until they are 40, I think they would rather that he just take his walk in the snow and say goodbye.

1534 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

May/2/22 10:12:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I am sorry. Sometimes it is frustrating, because some of the stats that my friend across the aisle quotes are really just made up by him in his dreams. He really does not know what is going on with people around this country. It is actually a bit embarrassing for him, I would say, when he stands up and spouts off rhetoric about things that do not really affect people's everyday lives. I would ask my hon. colleague what he has to say to the three million people who cannot go to work because of mandates. What does he say to them when they cannot actually pay their bills, cannot pay their mortgages and cannot support their families?

121 words

All Topics