- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Regina—Lewvan
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $123,656.05
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, with whom I sit on the agriculture committee. Obviously, in this report, there was an examination of some of the input costs that have caused food prices to rise.
My question for my hon. colleague is this. On our opposition day motion to report Bill C-234 back to the Senate unamended, will he be voting with us as Conservatives to make sure that farmers get help in decreasing the inputs when it comes to Bill C-234?
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to get to my feet and second this bill from my friend from Huron—Bruce, Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act or, what we more commonly call it, the farming exemption for the carbon tax.
I was able to join the Standing Committee on Agriculture when this bill was working its way through the agriculture committee. I want to thank my colleagues on the agriculture committee, the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the member for Beauce, our shadow minister and member for Foothills, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex as well, and it feels like I am applying to be the next Speaker but I assure you that this is not the case, and a wonderful Bloc member as well.
I agree with my NDP colleague that the agriculture committee does work very well together. There were some amendments that were agreed to by all members. I would like to thank them for their contribution to make sure that this got passed. It is a bill that is very important to the agriculture committee across the country and very important to our people in Saskatchewan, Alberta and western Canada.
We have talked about what is involved when one is adding natural gas and propane as an exemption to this bill, and grain dryers, irrigation pumps and heating of barns for livestock.
The numbers actually have not been gone through as well as I would like. I would like to put some of the numbers on the record as to how much money we are actually putting back into the pockets of farmers, so that they can reinvest in their farm and invest in new technology, so that they can become more environmentally sustainable, because that is a goal for them. The better their land is looked after, the more land they can put into production, the more we can help with the global food crisis.
We have some numbers from APAS, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan. It calculated the carbon tax, at $50 a tonne, will cost farmers between $13,000 to $17,000. That is an equivalent of a 12% decrease in net income.
One of the reasons why we want to get this bill passed as fast as we can is because, I do not know if we remember, in the recent election the Liberals promised that the carbon tax would never go over $50 a tonne. Well, they blew through that promise. By 2030, the carbon tax is going to be $170 a tonne. APAS said that at $170 a tonne, they estimate that the carbon tax will cost a grain farmer $12.52 per acre by 2030. Of that, $4.44 will be specifically for grain drying. That is a lot of money back into the pockets of our producers.
I think that this is something that we can all agree is a very good thing when it comes to innovation in the agricultural sector.
Some more numbers have come through. The Canola Growers Association calculated that the carbon tax actually cost the industry $52.1 million in 2022, at $50 a tonne, which they said they would never raise or pass, which we all know is not true now, and the end goal will be $277.9 million in 2030 at $170 a tonne.
I think that this is something that we hear a lot from agricultural producers. My colleague from the NDP is very correct in saying that a lot of producers and a lot of groups that represent producers across our country came to the agriculture committee and said that this is something that is very important for their industry.
I am happy that the NDP and the Bloc and the Conservatives voted in favour of moving this bill forward but the Liberals did not. However, they have another chance to actually stand up for agriculture producers in this country on the vote at third reading.
My hope is that there are a few who show the courage of the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert in breaking ranks and will actually join us in supporting our agriculture producers, because it is what the industry wants.
In January 2022, the PBO updated a report on what the cost would be for Bill C-206, and by cost, I mean the savings that will go back into the farmers' pockets. It is a cumulative total of $1.1 billion over a 10-year period.
Can members imagine the innovation and the inputs that money could be in farmers' pockets and back into innovation in the agriculture sector? I come from Saskatchewan, and we are big believers that a dollar in the pocket of someone who has earned that dollar is worth a lot more than a dollar in the pocket of the government.
We have seen all this innovation when it comes to soil health from our province. We have seen precision drilling. We have seen zero tillage, direct seeding and crop rotation. These are all things that were brought forward in our agriculture industry without a dime from government. It was private innovation, such as Seed Hawk, Bourgault, private companies that brought forward these innovations in the agriculture sector, that allowed us to maintain our soil health and to produce more, and that is something the world needs more of.
We say this in the chamber often, but time and time again we see the Liberal government try to hamstring our farmers in producing more of what the world needs. We talk about being a global supplier of food, but we are now talking about adding another carbon tax for farmers who are already struggling under the inputs they have.
My friend from Huron—Bruce was dead-on when he said that farms are like a carrying account where farmers put money into inputs and wait until the end of the year to see what they are going to get back from the AgriStability suite of programs. However, farmers cannot continue to carry those exorbitant input costs, such as fertilizer. The tariffs on fertilizer hit farmers a lot harder than they hit Russia, which got its money. The farmers had to pay more, because the supply was shortened.
When we talk about how we want to support, stand up and be there for our farmers, this is definitely a case where I would urge my Liberal colleagues to support this bill, because that would definitely be a demonstration of supporting our farmers and putting Canadian agriculture first. We do agriculture better than anyone else in the world, and we are proud of our farmers. We are proud of the hard work they put in.
I talked with the Minister of Agriculture at committee a couple of weeks ago, and she did not realize that 95% of Canadian farms are still family-owned and operated. Everyone has a picture of this big corporate farm in Canada now, because it is painted by the left, but it is not true. It is still Canadian families that run Canadian farms. Those are the people we are supporting with Bill C-234 today, and it is something that is very important for us to continue to do.
On the topic of the environment, I think the carbon tax has nothing to do with the environment; it is just a tax scheme. However, when we talk about agriculture and the environment, when we were able to present to the minister, we disagreed on the numbers. I told her that agriculture represents 8% of all the carbon emissions in Canada, but the minister said that figure was wrong and that it was 10%, which is as close as I have been to a Liberal on numbers in a long time, so I said, “All right, we'll meet in the middle and say it is 9%.”
If it is 9% of our emissions, the average in the world when it comes to agriculture emissions in other countries and other jurisdictions is 25%. That is how much better our agriculture producers are doing when it comes to lowering their emissions than their competition. In trumpeting that and being proud of how well our agriculture producers are doing and will continue to do, we are now asking the Liberals to vote in favour of Bill C-234, because it is the right thing to do. It would allow our farmers and producers to have more money in their pockets to invest in more innovation on their farms to ensure that we have even better environmental standards than we already do, and they will do it better than government.
Do members know what the government might do with $1.1 billion? I can guess that probably more of it would go to McKinsey & Company, their buddies and high-paid lobbyists. So why do we not put that money back into the farmers' pockets? They are going to spend it a lot better than the Liberal government.
1518 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 5:04:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to rebut some of the things my colleague from Kings—Hants said.
In terms of my question, which was pretty direct, from 2019 to 2021 Canada had the second-highest increase in its gross debt-to-GDP ratio out of 33 countries covered by the IMF, behind only Japan. Our gross debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 87.2% to 112.1% in 2021, an increase of 24.9 percentage points. Given that the Canadian government has accumulated more debt as a share of our economy than nearly every other country in our peer group, the expectation would be that Canada's economy fared better than others during this period. This is incorrect.
Despite leading our peers in debt accumulation, Canada did not outperform our peer group in economic growth during the pandemic. Canada had the 11th-lowest real GDP growth, 5.2%, in 2020 and the 12th-lowest real GDP growth, 4.6%, in 2021. Canada also did not outperform its peer group by achieving lower unemployment during the pandemic. Canada had the third-highest unemployment rate, 9.58%, out of 33 industrialized countries and the eighth-highest unemployment rate, 7.43%, in 2021.
I get that these numbers are a lot of numbers that just came out at everyone, but I put these numbers on the record to debunk the myth that the Liberals keep on trying to portray, that they somehow went into the pandemic later than everyone else and came out sooner. That is simply not the fact.
They spent more than every other country in the world but Japan, and our citizens are not better off. The proof is in the pudding, as 1.5 million Canadians in one month used a food bank to put food on the table for their families. That is a failure of leadership by the Liberals.
Students at universities across our country are staying in hostels or needing to use a food bank to eat or, like in my alma mater, the University of Regina, actually fundraising so students do not go to bed hungry, asking alumni for money to help feed students.
Another thing I am looking forward to is splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris and hearing what he has to say about a private member's bill he brought forward last Parliament, which still has not been implemented.
On the topic of not doing what Canadians need, I would like to talk a bit now about agriculture and the agriculture file.
My colleague from Kings—Hants left a bit of wiggle room on Bill C-234. I know he had some positive things to say about it, and I am very interested, because all the Liberal members voted against the bill in committee. As the chair, he did not have to vote, and I am really excited to see how he votes and if he is going to stand with the agriculture producers in Kings—Hants or with his party whip, whether he will be voting along the party line or voting for the people who sent him here.
I am very much looking forward to that vote, because I think that over the last couple of weeks a few members on the Liberal backbenches are starting to feel a bit of pressure when it comes to either supporting the carbon tax or supporting the amendments at the report stage of Bill C-21. I am looking forward to seeing if some of the rural members from the Maritimes or Newfoundland or some of the members from Alberta and Manitoba are going to support these gun amendments that criminalize law-abiding firearms owners, or if they are going to support their constituents and make sure their voices are heard in the chamber. There are a few votes on which I am really looking forward to seeing what some of the Liberal members in the back rows are going to do.
This motion is about making life easier and more affordable for Canadians. We hear in our offices across the country that one of the biggest strains now on families is going to the grocery store and trying to make sure they have enough food to put on the table.
Some of these increases are staggering. I get pictures sent into my office of what $100 buys now at a grocery store. It does not go a long way for a lot of these families. Some of the reasons are that fish is up 10.4% to purchase; butter is 16.9%; eggs, 10.9%; margarine, 37.5%; bread, rolls, buns, 17.6%; dry or fresh pasta, 32.4%; fresh fruit, 13.2%; oranges, 18.5%; and the list goes on: lettuce, 12.4%; potatoes, 10.9%.
These are a lot of staple foods for families. Our household is no different from anyone else's. We have three growing children. They are five, seven and nine, and they are starting to eat more and more. Like a lot of other families, we are seeing our grocery bills continue to climb, and these are the things that we need to have solutions for.
As members of the House of Commons or as public servants, we have to look for how we can ease this inflationary pain. One of the things we can do is get together and take some taxes off the prices of these fruits and vegetables and everyday essentials.
We also had a motion brought forward a couple of weeks ago to take the carbon tax off home heating, which is quite reasonable. Some of the members across the way voted in favour of that motion, and I thank them, including the member for Avalon, for voting in favour. I appreciate that very much, because he was listening to his constituents. It is incumbent on us to remember who brought us here. Former premier Wall always said that these are not our seats, that these are the seats of the constituents and we are just caretakers for a while, because someone else will come and take them. I think a few members are remembering that, and we appreciate that support very much.
When it comes down to erasing the carbon tax on the price of groceries, it is pretty much unanimous in the House of Commons that the price of groceries is too high. We are just trying to figure out how to deal with that situation. Also, the price of groceries is high because that carbon tax hits our producers; it hits the farmers and it hits the trucking industry. At each link of a supply chain, the carbon tax continues to increase the price of goods. That is something we are trying to get through to the members across the aisle and get through to our Liberal, NDP and Bloc colleagues. It is not just a one-time hit; it continually makes things more expensive.
We saw from a recent report that a 5,000-acre farm, by 2030, will pay $150,000 in carbon taxes per year. I grew up on a small family farm in southwest Saskatchewan. We had dairy and beef, and we made our own hay. We had 2,000 acres that we combined. They are not big farms. I do not know anyone who farms 5,000 acres who can take a $150,000 hit year after year. Unless common sense prevails, the only outcome for these family farms is bankruptcy.
The Minister of Agriculture was at the agriculture committee, and I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The minister was there for ministerial estimates, and I asked her to give me a definition of what a family farm is. She could not. Some Liberal members have not been on a farm and do not know agriculture. They see it as big corporate agriculture and big business, but 95% of the farms in Canada are still family farms.
The minister was taking the family out of the family farm and said that families are still okay, but it is the farm that is getting taxed. That is not a thing. The family farm is one unit. It is a package deal. Those two cannot be separated. Some are incorporated and some are not. One thing we learned through CERB was that sometimes a family farm that is not incorporated missed out on some programming.
I will leave members with this, when it comes to the rising cost of inflation. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, said himself that the increase in spending by the government has had an effect on inflation.
One more thing that is really going to hit us hard, now that the interest rate is 4.25%, is that people are going to start losing their homes. I have friends whose mortgages have gone up $750 to $800 per month. That is over a $10,000 increase in what they will have to pay for their mortgages over a year. Families, farm families and everyone in between are squeezed hard enough. They cannot absorb that $10,000 hit. They cannot absorb that $1,000 hit on their grocery bill. We in the House of Commons are going to have to come to the realization that one cannot get blood from a stone. We have to give tax breaks to Canadians.
1584 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/22 2:09:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are tough times coming this winter for all Canadians. This is especially true for the hard-working people of Saskatchewan, who will see the triple increase of gas, groceries and home heating bills. However, the leader of the NDP has the nerve to go on Twitter and complain. His hollow “demand” to remove taxes from home heating would be more believable if he and his NDP comrades had voted in favour of our leader’s motion last week, calling to axe the carbon tax on home heating.
The current NDP Leader looks more irrelevant every day. It is no wonder the Saskatchewan NDP rescinded its invitation to have him appear in person at its latest convention; even it knows how much brand damage this leader can do.
I wonder how many more failed elections the NDP will have to go through before it realizes its policies, its party and its leader are all out of touch with the real struggles Canadians are facing today.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:14:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a point of order. It is not debate. The member constantly said that there was no motion put forward by the opposition that involved the GST. I will read from the March 22 Hansard when the opposition motion was, “(i) Canadians are facing severe hardship due to the dramatic escalation in gas prices, (ii) the 5% collected under the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), and the Quebec Sales Tax (QST) creates increased revenue for the federal government”.
This is not debate, Madam Speaker. This is the actual information. The member from wherever he is from is—
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 2:12:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week, my Conservative caucus colleagues and I had the distinct privilege of carrying through our motion to review and amend our Canadian Constitution.
By unanimously removing a long-standing tax provision that granted special treatment to a large corporation, all members of the House played a critical role in opening up and fixing that error in our Constitution. Although not necessarily a headline-grabbing initiative, removing red tape and unfair provisions of our Constitution is an important task, and part of the responsibility our constituents have entrusted us with in sending us all here.
Tensions have been running high in the House for weeks as we debate issues that are important and have a direct impact on the future of all Canadians. Given the fraught environment we currently find ourselves in, the rarity of finding unanimous consent on any issue is not lost on me. I thank members of the House, especially my 13 Saskatchewan Conservative colleagues, for the show of unity in getting this important work done.
We will always be on Saskatchewan’s side. After all, if we do not respect the Constitution, do we have respect for anything?
195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 6:17:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for adding his voice in this chamber and for his support for this motion.
I have asked a question of a couple of Liberal members who spoke today, and I am wondering if there are other areas where we can support Saskatchewan with other measures in his file. We know the environment plan put forward by Premier Moe is very similar to those of other provinces, such New Brunswick and P.E.I., and those were accepted by the government.
In the spirit of collaboration, I am wondering if the member would be another advocate for Saskatchewan in trying to ensure that Liberals could take a second look at the environmental plan that Premier Moe and the minister of environment for Saskatchewan put forward. Maybe we could move forward together in this new spirit of happiness. They could take another look at it so that we can make sure Saskatchewan is once again being treated fairly by the federal Liberal government.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 6:04:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again on this very important constitutional amendment. We have heard a lot of talk from the member for Winnipeg North on the UC motion that was brought forward in December. Once again, I was the member who brought that UC motion forward. We did have some initial conversations, but hearing everyone today putting their opinions and statements on the record about why they want to support this constitutional amendment for Saskatchewan and support that unanimous decision from the legislature, I think, is an important and good process to go through.
My friend and colleague from Prince Albert is dead on when he said it is great that the House of Commons can work together like this in collaboration to get things done. I wish the people of Canada would see this more often than what we see during the theatrics of question period.
Another thing my friend hit on is what the $350 million has been used for in terms of public services for the people of Saskatchewan. I was an MLA for eight years, and something I would like to put on the record is that probably one of the best initiatives we did was the STARS air ambulance coming to Saskatchewan. It helps everyone across the province from rural Saskatchewan to Regina and Saskatoon, because that helicopter is a lifesaver. When we hear it in the air coming to land, it is a life-saving initiative. We should be very proud, as a province, that we brought that forward.
I wonder if my colleague would like to put a few other comments on the record about how, moving forward, we want to thank our colleagues across the chamber for supporting this initiative and making sure we get this done and ensure this also passes on the floor of the Senate sooner rather than later.
315 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 5:50:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the comments my colleague put on the record, and I thank him for his support of the motion going forward. I do have kids and I have played many games of Ticket to Ride. We have more in common, my Quebec colleagues and I, than we think.
Another thing we have in common is a respect for provincial jurisdiction. I thank the member for the support. Premier Moe called for an increase in health funding, so that is another thing Quebec and Saskatchewan have in common.
Given the constitutional amendment, are there other areas where the current Liberal government has let Quebec down? We probably have more things in common than we expect. Could he put some of those on the table so we can learn more about each other?
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 4:39:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see my friend rise to speak in the House. I am glad we are on the same side and that the Liberals will be able to support this motion. I have a question that I have asked a few of his colleagues as well.
We have talked about other issues for Saskatchewan that the Liberals have not been as supportive of, such as the environmental plan put forward by the Saskatchewan government. I am wondering if they would have a chance to revisit that decision. I know the Prime Minister dismissed it out of hand a year ago, but it is very similar to a few of the other environmental plans put forward by other provinces that were accepted, such as those from the maritime provinces, and the member would know that.
Therefore, I wonder, in this new sense of coming together and great decorum in the chamber, if they would take another look at the environmental plan put forward by Saskatchewan Premier Moe and his government to see if it would meet their standards.
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 4:29:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, once again, it is great to see all the connections to Saskatchewan that so many members in the chamber have.
I have a quick question for my friend from Saskatoon West who gave a great speech. Are there other areas where perhaps the federal government has not been listening to the Saskatchewan government or the people of the Saskatchewan for some of the needs they might have going forward?
I could think of the environmental plan and a few others, but are there any other things that we would like to get on the record that we would like to work together to make sure we get it done for the people of our province?
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 3:57:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I love talking about taxation and the fairness of taxation, especially in the transportation sector.
One thing we have heard from Saskatchewan residents is that the Saskatchewan government has put forward an environmental plan very similar to that of the Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It was dismissed outright by the current government. I know the member was the former envoy to the Prairies for the Prime Minister.
I am wondering this. Could the member talk about some more things we could work together on, such as the environmental plan Saskatchewan delivered? Hopefully he could speak to the Prime Minister about accepting that plan from the Saskatchewan government.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 3:43:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle and I have worked together on a couple of committees, and I appreciate that he has voiced his support for this motion.
I wonder if there are things that we can work together on. He just talked about taxation. The Saskatchewan government has put forward its own carbon pricing system, but it was denied outright. I was wondering if we could work together on this with a sense of decorum and friendship as well, and move it forward. I am sure the Saskatchewan government would like to hear if it could work with the Liberal government on its new environmental plan as well.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 1:38:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood. As we do know, the Senate has tabled a motion very similar to the motion that was tabled here in the House of Commons, so they will be ready to move on that hopefully as soon as we have broad support from all parties when we vote tomorrow.
How does the member think that some of the money we would be saving from CP could be used better for taxpayers in Saskatchewan? Where could some of that money go? We all agree that corporations should pay their fair share.
I want to tell the people of Saskatchewan that we are here for them, and we are always going to be on their side. I would like the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood to explain what he could do with some of that money and where it could be better spent.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 12:23:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his support on this motion today. I heard him mention Biggar. When driving into the town of Biggar, Saskatchewan, there is a sign that says, “New York is big, but this is Biggar”. The hon. member can take this back to his relatives: it is a cute little sign. I have been through Biggar many times. Once again, people are still trying to make that connection to Saskatchewan, because it is a great province to be from.
Today, we will deal with this motion and I thank my colleague for his support, but I would also ask one more thing. If he does have friends in the Senate, if he knows a few Senators, I would ask that he go and talk to those friends to make sure the Senate deals with this important motion as soon as possible. I would like to have his support with the next step, which is making sure this motion passes in the Senate, so that the taxpayers of Saskatchewan receive fairness and make sure that the corporation pays its fair share.
I would hope to have his assistance with that, as well.
204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 12:07:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for his support of our motion. Saskatchewan appreciates it. It is also heartwarming to see how everyone tries to make a connection to Saskatchewan. It has been said that all roads will lead to Saskatchewan, so I am happy to see members trying to make that connection. It is truly the best province in our country.
I understand that the railway does have a wide swath. I think that if we can find agreement on something else today, other than the motion itself, is that maybe if we had other ways to move goods back and forth across our country other than the railway, maybe with some pipelines, that would be a good start as well.
I wonder if my colleague would agree that some pipelines also need to be built in this country.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:55:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the Bloc. I think there is symmetry in what Saskatchewan is going through with this Constitutional amendment: this mistake that should have been fixed in 1966.
Are there other, comparable changes the member would like to see made to the Constitution from a Quebec point of view? It is nice to see that Quebec and Saskatchewan are on the same page. Could the member outline a few more examples of where he would like to see some fixes in the Constitution for his home province?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 11:21:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech from my friend across the way, the parliamentary secretary for justice, and thank him very much for his support on this motion. I have also heard questions from my Bloc colleagues, and they said they support it as well, as do my NDP colleagues. I thank them very much for today's decorum. The people who have spoken have been very much in support of this motion.
Does my colleague who just spoke believe that we will have that same support from the senators in the Senate chamber when this motion goes to the floor of the Senate? I am hoping they have the same kind of decorum and unanimous support for this motion.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 10:49:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is coming up now because the provincial legislature passed this motion unanimously just recently. At this time, how the process rolls out is that the provincial legislature has to pass a motion unanimously before it comes to the House Commons. That is why it is happening now.
In my speech, I said that it had been passed in November of 2021, and we brought this up at the earliest opportunity. First we asked for unanimous consent and now we are going through this process to ensure it is done properly and is debated on the floor. I know the court case has been going on for 13 years, but the timing of when the provincial legislature passed its motion unanimously is the reason it is here in the House of Commons today.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 10:47:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is not a precedent. It has been done before, as I said in the opening comments of my speech. B.C. and Alberta have used this method as well to change portions of their provincial constitutions. It would not set a precedent, and other provinces have the ability to do it. I would love to have a constitutional debate with my friends from Quebec. If they have any suggestions, I am open. They always bring forward good ideas, so I hope that if they have ideas to bring forward, they will do so through the House of Commons.
This particular motion is only about the Saskatchewan Act and does not set a precedent, because, as I said, B.C. and Alberta have used this method already to change their provincial constitutions.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
