- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Conservative
- Calgary Midnapore
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $141,419.87
- Government Page
- May/3/23 11:36:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I loved the personal examples my colleague provided within his speech.
Over the last week, this member has asked questions about not only the CRA deadline but also the implication of still having public servants from the CRA out on strike. I would like to know if he might provide any further suggestions to the government as it considers these important negotiations with this important group at this time, as Canadians want to file their taxes and receive their returns.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 10:19:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague did, sort of, reference his life before entering the House of Commons. We are so fortunate to have him here. He has a very strong background in business.
As the government goes on to do the third iteration of Bill S-6, from a completely business perspective, and as we did see in The Globe and Mail today that this is a time when fewer Canadians than ever are considering starting a small business, what are some considerations for business or even small business?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 9:14:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, as my colleague indicated, there is no counterpart for a minister of reducing red tape on the government side. One initiative I am impressed with that the shadow minister has undertaken is a website where Canadians can submit their ideas for reducing red tape. It is www.cutredtape.ca. Can he share one or two good ideas he has seen as a result of this initiative?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 8:44:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, it really feels like I just read an issue of National Geographic.
As Bill S-6 goes into its third rendition, I would like to ask my colleague if he would prefer more of a stakeholder consultation approach or a hands-off government approach, and what he thinks the citizens and stakeholders in his riding would prefer.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:30:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, it warms my heart to see that we both care about our counterparts at the municipal level. We both have hope for more housing in Quebec and Alberta—
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:29:02 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, my wonderful colleague from Edmonton Manning is absolutely correct. I indicated this concern in my speech. I am very concerned what this glacial pace of re-evaluating regulations and policies means for the economic future and security future of our nation. On a daily basis in the House, we are seeing it being compromised.
I would say to my colleague that I am really looking forward to the third edition of Bill S-6 having some clauses on VCRs, beta tapes and compact discs.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:27:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, the government is not getting results. It is absolutely evident. We have had individuals from other parties talk about the necessity of providing housing at all different scales of the housing continuum. Our platform has done this in the past as well.
I do not know what I could even say to the member to bring to light just what a failure the Liberals' plan has been. We have to try something different and some new ideas. I believe this is a different idea and a new idea to incentivize, because I have not seen anything change in my municipality, and I have not seen—
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:26:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I am certainly not going to let any member in this House, be they from that part of the government or the part of the government back there, deter me from a future that I believe is better for Canadians, and that is a Conservative government. These individuals can belittle me, belittle my ideas and belittle the ideas from my party, but they will not deter me, my colleagues or my leader from fighting for a government that is better for Canadians.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:23:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel for his question. I also want to thank him again for his bill, Bill C-290.
The idea he just mentioned was part of our platform in the last two election campaigns. I am pretty sure about that with respect to individual tax returns. I am not 100% sure about it when it comes to businesses, but certainly with respect to individuals.
I know that the Quebec members of our caucus, but really all members of our caucus, agree that Canadians should be able to report their income in the simplest and easiest way possible.
I therefore agree with my colleague. We support the idea of collecting taxes as he has suggested.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:22:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Kingston and the Islands had an opportunity to weigh in on this conversation today.
First of all, I have the utmost respect for our civic politicians. I want to give a special shout-out to Dan McLean, who represents Ward 13 on Calgary City Council. I thank Dan for all the work he does and ask him to please keep fighting for the constituents and for all Calgarians.
It is very clear the housing plan of the current government is not working, as is indicated by the results. Providing incentives to Canadian cities, Canadian municipalities, is simply looking at the results, so how many homes they built and incentivizing that. There is a saying that if what one is doing is not working, one has to try something different. This is something different and I think it is going to work.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:08:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for ensuring that the debate stays relevant.
Certainly the amount of money the Liberal government is spending is critical to every bill, so thank you, Madam Speaker, for overseeing the discussion as I continue my interaction here today.
As I was saying, the finance minister indicated that she would use fiscal restraint. I do not believe she did so. If I could go even further back to when Bill S-6 was first being discussed, which was last spring before we broke for the summer recess, it was at that time and even into the fall that the finance minister indicated she was going to implement an idea that our leader has committed to: the “pay as you go” system. She said she would have fiscal restraint, but I do not believe she has that. Last year, at the end of the spring session, Bill S-6 was being discussed, as well as the “pay as you go” system, but both of these things did not happen.
In relation to our economy, I talked about Canadians being frustrated, defeated and exhausted. I am sure members saw the article in The Globe and Mail today indicating that this point in Canadian history is the worst time for new small business start-ups. This touches my heart very much. I know members have heard me speak before about how I come from a small business family in Calgary Midnapore. For me, growing up, small business was always front of mind. This included regulations, and I believe small businesses will struggle with the changing regulations indicated in Bill S-6. Again, if we look across the different departments, we can see how this can happen. Those are a couple of points in relation to Bill S-6.
I will also point out that in Bill S-6, with the way the government legislates and operates in general, the language is consistently filled with jargon, with words and phrases that are difficult for Canadians to interpret. I started out this speech by talking about how legislation should be for Canadians. It is the common Canadian we should be legislating for. When we have phrases that are too complex for Canadians to understand, it does not help them. It does not empower them. We need to do that.
With that, I would like to take a moment to talk about the plain language law that we would implement once we are in government, again in an effort to get government working for Canadians instead of having Canadians work for the government, as we are seeing in this case. I thought that was a very important point to mention.
As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, another place where I see this take place is with the public accounts. There needs to be much revision to the public accounts and how they are presented. I do not believe Canadians understand them in the format they are in presently. I always share the story that in my home growing up, like the concept we have in our home, a budget was like this: We bring in this much money as a household, we spend this much money as a household and we save this much money as a household. I do not believe the public accounts reflect a simple concept such as this, a concept that many Canadian households and many Canadians sitting around the dinner table have to follow. Again, this is in relation to the jargon, the lack of plain language and the complexity we see in regulations and legislation from the government, which is relevant to Bill S-6.
We also talk about Bill S-6 being indicative of another concept, which is very dear to the official opposition and the heart of our leader: getting rid of the gatekeepers. That essentially means making it easier for Canadians to live, to conduct business and to have the quality of life they deserve, which the government is not delivering to them, as evidenced by some of the earlier indicators I gave.
We as the official opposition have provided some constructive ideas for getting rid of the gatekeepers.
For example, our opposition day motion that was presented yesterday talked about getting rid of the municipal gatekeepers, which, coming from Calgary, I have had an opportunity to see first-hand at Calgary City Council. Having done some advocacy work at the civic level, I can say that all governments must be working together, pulling in the same direction in an effort to provide Canadians with the best standard of living, and that includes housing.
Especially when we consider the ambitious immigration targets of the current government, we need to seriously and sincerely consider how we are going to accommodate all of these newcomers. Again, I say this as an Albertan. Alberta is a place of incredible growth and we are so happy that so many new Canadians and so many Canadians who have abided in other places are making the choice to come to Alberta, but we need to seriously consider how we are going to support our citizens.
In his opposition day motion speech yesterday, my leader talked about how we will incentivize those municipalities that make the decision to build more homes for Canadians, and we will not reward those that do not. This is an excellent example of where we have to think about the gatekeepers. Bill S-6 is just an indicator that there are so many gatekeepers across government, when we have to make these minute changes to legislation which seems applicable to ages ago, including things as simple as removing stickers from liquid vending machines. It is astounding to me that these types of things are coming to light now.
Another example I will give of the official opposition's desire to get rid of the gatekeepers is our unique idea to bring home doctors and nurses and to allow for a Blue Seal in the same way that we have the Red Seal in the trade professions. That is wonderful. It is just fantastic how we have more young people joining the trades. I am especially excited about more young women joining the trades. I am certainly glad to see some of the legislation, even if it is at a provincial level, allowing young women to feel comfortable in joining the trades. Whether it is providing safe and clean restrooms for them or whether it is providing equipment that is suitable for their size and stature, whatever that may be, that is just excellent.
Our leader and the official opposition have found that the licensing bodies create endless barriers and red tape, which again is a topic that is talked about much in Bill S-6, resulting in an unnecessary, even greater shortage of doctors and nurses. I would like to quote this sentence from my leader. He said, “The Blue Seal will mean that it won’t matter where someone comes from, it matters what they can do.” That is just fantastic. If these doctors and nurses meet our Blue Seal standards, they will be able to work in our health care system. Again, this is just another example of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, looking for true efficiencies.
Bill S-6 addresses these tiny things. Really our energies could be spent on addressing much larger problems and finding efficiencies in larger problems rather than, in many cases of Bill S-6, providing opportunities for even more legislation through regulation.
I will add that legislation by regulation has not always resulted in the best outcomes for Canadians. I know that as we discuss Bill C-290 in the government operations committee right now, we are discussing, for example, the role of the public service integrity commissioner. A big discussion around these debates on Bill C-290 is really to decide how much leeway we will give the public service integrity commissioner in terms of regulation.
These are significant things that touch upon workers and will gravely determine whether a public servant decides to file a grievance and if they feel comfortable in doing so. This is something that is very important.
Another situation where we saw regulation was not sufficiently applied, for this official opposition, was the order in council regarding firearms. My goodness, that was before the pandemic, so three or four years ago now. That is a time when it most probably should have been legislation. Of course, we are going through the Bill C-21 process right now, which the Conservatives oppose. No matter what the wolf in sheep's clothing looks like, we will oppose Bill C-21. That is an example where regulation was used and perhaps should not have been. Perhaps it should have been left to legislation. This is most definitely another example.
I look through these different examples. There are other examples that my colleagues will talk about this evening, things they are very concerned about, interpretations of endangered species, for example. Again, there are more topics filled with jargon, but members will give their comments as well as to what interpretation of this legislation will mean through regulation.
It is something important to keep in mind, because, as I indicated, legislation should be made by the people for the people. This is something the official opposition, the Conservatives, are committed to. I think about how we are going to deal with the complex issues ahead of us, such as artificial intelligence, if we are talking about liquids coming out of vending machines.
Bill S-6 brings back the complexity, the jargon and the gatekeepers of this legislation. We on this side of the House want to have legislation that works for every Canadian in every single home, my home, all our homes, so let us bring it home and let us re-evaluate Bill S-6.
1660 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:00:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Midnapore. Of course, as the shadow minister for the Treasury Board, I am responsible for critiquing this bill and overseeing the debate for the official opposition this evening, and it is a pleasure to do so.
I am sure members are aware that Bill S-6 is the second piece of regulatory legislation aiming to clean up small pieces of legislation throughout a series of departments and ministries that have required these small pieces of legislation to be cleaned up for some time. I will add that the first was completed before the pandemic. This one, the second, is unfortunately a little behind schedule as a result of the pandemic, but the government expects to conduct this exercise on a yearly basis.
What I think is very interesting is that in the third round, the government will start to consult with outside stakeholders. Of course, as the official opposition, we are always for consultation and transparency with Canadians, for Canadians working for themselves and for Canadians making decisions for themselves, so I certainly encourage the government to pursue this route of consultation and stakeholder talks in its next round before its proceeds to it.
In respect of the Bill S-6 document we have before us today, one thing is evident to me, and it is seen, I would say, throughout all of the correspondence I have received at my house, all of the conversations I have had with my hon. colleagues and all of the debate we have had in the House: Canadians are defeated and exhausted. With this bill, it is easy to see why.
First of all, as members know, the cost of living has skyrocketed in this country at a time when Canadians need measures to reduce their cost of living. I need not remind members that both rents and mortgages have doubled since 2015, since the government has been in power. Also, food inflation has increased at the fastest pace in 40 years, up by 10.8%. Butter is by 16.9%; eggs are up 10.9%; breads, rolls and buns are up 17.6%; lettuce is up by 12.4%; and apples are up by 11.8%.
Really, this is a time when Canadians need cost of living reductions. It means we need a government committed to balancing the budget, lowering deficits and working toward getting rid of our national debt. I really do not see this bill working toward that.
I am sure members are aware that over a million Canadians are using food banks at this time. In fact, it is 1.5 million, I believe. I am sure everyone saw the social media post, which was very unfortunate, of the Fort York Food Bank about the lineup there. Again, at a time when we need a government to be thinking about reducing waste instead of having red tape and additional measures that will cost more for government and more for Canadians, the government simply does not have that on its mind.
With that, I will make reference again to some of the numbers we see from the government.
As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, I can tell members that the cost of the public service has increased by over 50%. It is 53%, in fact, and it is crazy. If members can believe it, that is an additional $21 billion spent on our public service. We have this cost of living crisis, yet we have these incredible increases in the public service and in spending.
As I know everyone is well aware through conversations we have had in the House, in addition to that $21 billion spent on public servants, $22 billion was spent on outside consultants. Of course, one of them was McKinsey, a firm that was studied in depth at the committee on which I sit, government operations. I hope the transport committee will finally get an opportunity to discuss that after some back-and-forth among its members relating to the motion they passed to consider it.
The different types of waste evident in Bill S-6 come at a time when we need to be thinking about saving money for Canadians and not having these incredible expenses. The federal debt, as I am sure members are aware, reached $1.22 trillion. That is $81,000 of debt per household. This is the type of thing we need to focus on. The deficit for this fiscal year is projected to be $43 billion, and that is something we need to really think about. Also, the deficit for next year is projected to be $40.1 billion. That is really something.
If we look at these incredible numbers, our debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to increase from 42.4% in this fiscal year to 43.5% in the next fiscal year. The finance minister indicated prior to the budget that she was going to consider fiscal restraint, but we do not see anything like this. The result is that we end up with a bill like Bill S-6, with more—
866 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:46:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's pointing out all the climate targets that I missed.
He seems to have missed the idea of the economy entirely, as well as that we came here as independent parties, not as a part of the costly coalition.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:44:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his comment about my dress. Even though he is not supposed to talk about my dress, I thank him anyway. I do my best to dress for the occasion.
I think that we the Conservatives are well grounded in reality. Right now, the reality around the world and in Canada is that we need energy from oil and gas. Quite frankly, I think that Quebec benefits from energy from oil.
Even if we want to go in a certain direction, we can assess the other type of energy. Right now, Canada, like the rest of the world, needs oil and gas. We need to recognize that and work together—
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:42:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I did not really hear a question there. It was more of a statement and a proclamation.
I will say that while we have always considered the environment, our focus at this time is inflation and the cost of living, and historically it has been the economy. The Liberal government staked its existence, its raison d'être, on the environment, and it has failed. It has failed in every single capacity.
Maybe the hon. member has not seen the results that she wanted from either party in their time in government, but we were realistic, with our focus set on the economy. The Liberal government set its expectation, its future, on the environment, and it has failed.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:31:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here today and to speak to Bill S-5. Members may be aware that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since the 1990s. However, my colleagues have pointed out that it is more of a bureaucratic modernization effort than it is an environmental bill. Nonetheless, we as Conservatives, as my colleague just mentioned, will indeed support it.
Certainly, there is a lot of ambiguity within the bill as it would do many things, including recognize that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and require the Government of Canada to protect this right. This right is not defined in the act. However, this right may be balanced with social, economic, health, scientific and other relevant factors, and it would require that the minister develop, within two years, an implementation framework on how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of CEPA.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that we have seen ambiguity from the government. Certainly what comes to mind at this moment is to highlight the failures of the current Liberal government on the environment in particular. I will start with the fact that the Liberal government has never met a single carbon emissions reduction target in all of its years in government. We saw the Liberals do this again in March, when they said they were going to slash emissions by 40% by 2030. They once again released an ambitious climate plan with far-reaching emissions reduction goals, yet to this date they have not met a single reduction target.
Therefore, the Liberals' plan in March answered the question of what the Liberals do when they miss their climate targets. They simply make up new ones. The Liberal government's reaction to each failed target is simply to increase them and to talk louder, as we have heard from a previous minister: If they say it loud enough and often enough, people will totally believe it.
Bigger targets do not mean action and stronger rhetoric does not get results. The Liberal plan will have devastating effects on Canada's oil and gas sector under the guise of increased stringency, which includes a capped production. This confirms the Prime Minister's pledge to phase out Canada's energy sector. As an Albertan, this is nothing new to me.
Canada has what the world needs. When Europe needs ethical energy, the Prime Minister is effectively making sure that Canada will not or cannot meet these demands. The Liberal government is spelling the end for Canada's environmentally and socially responsible energy sector, and it is in fact surrendering the global market to oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela who do not have the same care as we do in Canada for both human rights as well as the carbon footprint. Canada's world-class energy should be taking up more space in the market to keep out producers with lower standards, but the Liberal government has failed to recognize this. Under the Prime Minister, Canada will continue to sit on the sidelines and lose tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to countries who do not share our values on the environment, human rights or freedom.
I will also make it clear that carbon emissions have gone up under the current government. Between 1990 and 2020, Canada's GHG emissions actually increased by 13.1% or 78 megatonnes. That is a significant increase under the current Liberal government. That certainly has to be pointed out.
As well, I will speak to the carbon tax, which we do, as Conservatives, because we want to realistically evaluate this. The carbon tax is an absolute failure. It has not reduced emissions, as I just pointed out in my last statistic. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the majority of Canadians pay more in taxes than they get back in rebates. Again, we see the government tax and tax. In fact, when we look at the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we see that when the economic source impact is combined with the fiscal use impact, “the net carbon cost increases for all households, reflecting the overall negative economic impact of the federal carbon levy under the government's [healthy environment and a healthy economy] plan”.
The report states:
Indeed, most households will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing under the HEHE plan in 2030-31. That is, their overall costs—which now include the federal levy and GST paid (fiscal impact) and lower employment and investment income (economic impact)—exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income.
The government talks a lot about this rebate, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has come out and said that all the Liberals are doing inflicts more pain on Canadians than the good they are claiming they are doing. We are seeing in that report that even with the rebate they claim is helping Canadians, this is not the case.
In fact, in 2022 the commissioner of the environment released 10 reports on the performance of the Liberal government's protection of the environment, and more than half of these reports showed the government was failing to meet its targets, as I indicated before. A March 28 article from CBC News states, “Canada has had nine climate plans since 1990 and has failed to hit any of the targets in them.” It has not met a single target out of nine plans.
The article continues, “Jerry V. DeMarco said Canada has been the worst performer among G7 nations on climate targets since the landmark Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015.” I will add that the Conservatives supported it, in good faith, back in 2017.
Here is an interesting quote. The article goes on, stating that a climate plan “is a lot like a household budget, in that if one doesn't pay attention to the details, one won't achieve one's goals. 'You need a plan. You need to break it all out—what are my expenses, what do I need to achieve. And without that, you are obviously not going to stay within your budget.'”
Who said that? It was not a Conservative. Julia Croome of Ecojustice said that. Even Ecojustice, an organization that Conservatives would not usually bring up, is saying the government has failed on its climate targets, like so many things we have seen, most recently of course with inflation and the cost of living.
We are all very concerned on this side about what the fall economic statement will bring on Thursday, despite our leader's asking to stop the taxes and to stop the spending, but we have seen it is often a lack of planning that has led to this.
I will tell the House who has done their part. Industry has done its part, despite the government's demand to ask more and more of it. Enbridge has a plan to eliminate GHG emissions from its business on a net basis by 2050 and reduce the intensity of GHG emissions from its operations by 35% by 2030.
Cenovus is going to reduce absolute GHG emissions by 35% by year end 2035 as it builds toward its long-term ambitions for net-zero emissions by 2050, through methane reductions, carbon capture and storage, and other decarbonization, which is something of great interest to our leader.
As well, Imperial is a founding member of the Oil Sands Pathways to Net Zero Alliance, as well as determining transformational technology solutions.
The government is marred in ambiguity, and while this bill is necessary, it also is marred in ambiguity. As we have seen from the lawyer from Ecojustice, if one fails to plan, one plans on failing. While we will support this bill, let us clear up the ambiguity, not only with Bill S-5 but in government as well.
1347 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
