- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $138,707.52
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the prairies. I am always eager to speak to any legislation that will impact the prairies, so I want to thank my hon. colleague from Manitoba for his interest in our province and in the Canadian prairies.
The fact that this bill was introduced as a private member’s bill and not as a government bill shows the lack of priority the government continues to display toward the Canadian prairies. I sincerely hope that more members, such as my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, call on the government to support the Canadians who proudly call the prairies their home.
Bill C-235 is an attempt to increase local collaboration and build a green economy in the prairie provinces. I applaud the intent of the legislation. However, I cannot help but notice the lack of focus on agriculture.
I have always said that Canadian agriculture should be part of the solution and not treated as part of the problem. When it comes to the environment, Canadian farmers are world leaders in environmental leadership, and their record proves it. They are some of the most sustainable stewards of the natural landscape across our country, and their efforts to preserve and conserve the environment should not go unrecognized. Any plan to build a green economy must include Canadian agriculture, especially in the prairie provinces.
This is why I find clause 5 of Bill C-235 so disturbing. Clause 5 states that the Minister of Industry must “prepare a report on the progress and effectiveness of the framework, setting out the Minister’s conclusions and recommendations” on this green economy.
The legislation states that the minister must collaborate with “the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources and any minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie provinces”. However, it abruptly stops short of including the Minister of Agriculture.
How can a plan for the Canadian prairies not have the minister responsible for agriculture at the table? Agriculture is an economic pillar for the Canadian prairies. Any plan to grow a green economy must include agriculture. If this bill makes it to committee, I urge members of this House to amend it so that Canadian agriculture is included. The Minister of Industry should be mandated to consult with the Minister of Agriculture on any plan to green the economy, especially in the Canadian prairies. I believe that including this would dramatically improve the bill.
Additionally, the absence of agriculture is shown in subclause 3(2) of Bill C-235, which is focused on consultation. Subclause 3(2) would require the minister to consult with the provincial government representatives responsible for transportation, environment, and employment, but does not require the minister to consult with the provincial agriculture representatives.
Canadian farmers and ranchers deserve a seat at the table. Bill C-235 could easily be improved by including agriculture in the provincial consultation process.
I should also note that I have a lot of questions about the metrics that will be used to determine the outcomes of Bill C-235. Subclause 3(3) of the legislation states, “The framework must include measures that promote economic sustainability and growth and employment in the Prairie provinces”. However, how the government will measure these targeted outcomes appears to be unknown.
The bill also requires the Minister of Industry to prepare a report on the progress and effectiveness of the framework. However, how the minister will determine what is considered effective is also unknown.
My constituents know that I have never believed in the Ottawa-knows-best attitude. Unfortunately, I fear that this bill may only fuel this approach by adding a new layer of red tape and regulation to economic development at a time when we should be reducing it.
I find it interesting that Bill C-235 is a bill focused on improving the environment within specific provincial boundaries because it was only a few years ago when the Liberal government rejected Manitoba’s very own green plan, which was specifically designed to meet the needs of the province. I strongly believe that a one-size-fits-all approach will never work for environmental policy, and I hope that the government will one day acknowledge this too.
I do applaud the fact that the bill would give priority to making use of new sources of energy, including nuclear. As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I have heard loud and clear that we will never meet our climate goals if we do not embrace nuclear energy. The government must grow Canada’s nuclear industry, and I am pleased to see the member for Winnipeg South Centre acknowledge that.
In conclusion, I support the spirit of Bill C-235 to improve local engagement in building a greener economy, and I thank my colleague for focusing on a region that we both proudly call home. However, I have major concerns with the blatant neglect of Canadian agriculture in the bill. Simply put, there would be no prairie economy without agriculture, and Bill C-235 fails to acknowledge this in its current form.
I hope that my remarks and suggested changes regarding this legislation are considered by members during its consideration in committee. I am always happy to work with any member of the House to grow Canadian agriculture and grow the Canadian prairies.
930 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:26:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe the debate we are having on the Emergencies Act is the most important and significant debate Parliament will have in a generation. Canadians are watching what we do. I have never received more emails and phone calls from my constituents since I have been elected. The vote on such unprecedented powers should not be taken lightly by any member of the House. This is not just another vote on another bill. It is setting a precedent in the House of Commons the people of this nation will judge for generations to come. This is not a vote that will impact a few Canadians. It is a decision that will impact the lives of every single Canadian from coast to coast to coast.
I want to begin by discussing how we got here, before I tell the House why I believe the use of the Emergencies Act is not warranted in this situation. The Prime Minister is responsible for this mess. He pushed Canadians to the breaking point. He stripped them of their dignity. He deprived them of their livelihoods. He made absolutely no attempt to unite this country or heal divisions. He pitted friends against friends, neighbours against neighbours and kids against parents. While other world leaders encouraged and supported their citizens to get vaccinated, the Prime Minister pressured, insulted and demonized ours. Our Prime Minister is not a leader, and history will show that he is not fit to lead our nation.
When faced with a growing crisis, he made no attempt to resolve the problem, and now the Prime Minister is trying to cover up his own inaction with a dramatic political performance. I should remind members of the House that the Prime Minister was not confined to two options in addressing the state of affairs we face today. This was not a binary choice between choosing not to do anything and choosing to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has decided to go from zero to 100 without attempting to solve the problem.
Parliamentarians have been urging the Prime Minister to resolve the situation at hand. Last week, Conservatives put forward a reasonable solution to resolve it. We introduced a motion calling on the government to present a plan on when Canadians could regain control of their lives. Canadians saw a glimmer of hope, but the government voted against the plan for them. The Liberals could have de-escalated the situation, but they chose not to for their own political gain. The government never attempted to de-escalate the situation. We should not have ever gotten to this point.
The question we are debating today is not whether the blockades should come down. We should not tolerate blockades on any occasion. They are illegal and must be removed. I thank law enforcement for doing its job on that front. The question we are debating today is whether the Emergencies Act, an act that has never been used before in our nation's history, is an appropriate and justified response to the situation our nation is facing. When I read the criteria for implementing the Emergencies Act, it is clear that the extreme use of this government power is not only excessive for the situation at hand, but also an infringement on some of our very basic freedoms.
The House must ask itself what constitutes a national emergency to give the government such extreme and excessive powers. Section 2 of the Emergencies Act defines a national emergency as meeting one of two criteria. Does it “seriously endanger the lives, health or safety of Canadians”, and is it “of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”?
Let us examine section 2(a). Does the situation we are encountering exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it? The answer is no. The provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have all publicly opposed the Prime Minister's use of the Emergencies Act, and the illegal blockades at the Coutts border in Alberta, the Emerson border in Manitoba and the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario have all been resolved with the tools and resources available to those provinces.
The Emergencies Act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that existing laws cannot address.
The government has failed to provide any evidence that we cannot end illegal blockades without the use of the Emergencies Act. There is a stark difference between inaction and not having the ability to act. Parliament has clearly heard that the government could have used existing legislation to address the situation, but failed to do so. Now the government faces court challenges from both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation for failing to meet the threshold defined in the act.
Let us examine section 2(b). Does this “seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada”? Does the situation we are encountering threaten the sovereignty of our nation? Again, the answer is no. Our sovereignty is not in question.
Do members of the House believe that semi trucks on Parliament Hill threaten our territorial integrity? The government has provided zero evidence to support such an extreme assumption, and now there are more questions than there are answers.
Suppose a grandmother donated $20 to feed local truckers four weeks ago. Will she be treated as someone who funded a terrorism activity, and be barred from using her bank account? Suppose a Canadian walks down to the main street in their local community to peacefully voice their concerns with their government. Will they be arrested and criminally charged for peacefully protesting?
We have faced many crises in my lifetime: the Oka crisis, the aftermath of 9/11, the Parliament Hill shooting, deadly wildfires, historic floods, the pandemic and many blockades, just to name a few. Not once have such powers been needed to address these problems. Invoking such extreme measures without meeting the high threshold outlined in the act is setting a dangerous precedent of government overreach. Who are we as a nation if we normalize the use of emergency powers? I encourage all the members of the House not to dilute the magnitude of the decision on this vote.
To my NDP colleagues, who I hear plan to support the Prime Minister in this excessive power grab, I want to remind them of the words of their former leader, Tommy Douglas, who famously took a principled stand and opposed the War Measures Act in 1970. He stood in this same democratic chamber and stated:
The fact is, and this is very clear, that the government has panicked and is now putting on a dramatic performance to cover up its own ineptitude.
Those words could not be truer today. This is nothing more than a dramatic performance to cover up the Liberals' own ineptitude. I also want to remind my NDP colleagues that disagreeing with the demonstrations and disagreeing with the Emergencies Act are not mutually exclusive. They can do both.
We have a decision to make. Will we stand up for the freedoms of Canadians, or will we hand over the unprecedented reins of power to a Prime Minister who has shown no respect for our democratic institutions? The Prime Minister thinks he is leaving behind a legacy, when he is really leaving behind a scar that will take years to heal.
I will be voting against the Emergencies Act, and I encourage every other member in the House to do the same as well.
1281 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
