- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Cumberland—Colchester
- Nova Scotia
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,737.37
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the folks from Cumberland—Colchester, especially when it is to speak to a bill that would negatively affect potential development in Nova Scotia. We have heard from many people in the House, Atlantic members of Parliament specifically, wanting to now portray themselves as the saviours of Nova Scotia. They are going on, touting how many people really want to be a part of the bill, which we know is utter hogwash.
We know that Bill C-49 would create uncertainty and control. By that, I mean it would create uncertainty and control related to the cabinet members of the NDP-Liberal coalition government. The difficulty we see there is that they are the ones who would assume the ultimate decision-making process when looking at the development of the offshore industries in Nova Scotia. We know very clearly that they would want to stop projects in the ocean to have ultimate control of their fiefdom, as they have had on land now for many years, and to effectively kill the oil and gas industry in Nova Scotia. It is really quite shocking.
We know that representatives from Germany came to specifically Nova Scotia in Canada and said that they would like to have our natural gas. The Prime Minister said that there is no case for natural gas. He asked who would need natural gas and why anyone would want natural gas. We also know that the NDP-Liberal government has killed 17 natural gas projects in this country, which obviously shows its true colours. Those members not only want to control it, but also to control the destiny of people in Atlantic Canada.
We know that the bill is rife with difficulties, red tape, long delays, stifling unproductivity and an unfriendly business environment. That part of this really hearkens to the words of a friend whom I had an opportunity to see during the break week, who said that, for people who build houses, the red tape, delays, bureaucracy and cost that the NDP-Liberal coalition has created really make it absolutely unpleasant, unpalatable, unfair and unpredictable for someone to even want to build simple housing in this country. Going forward, why would Canadians want to continue to have the voice of the NDP-Liberal coalition, and cabinet members in particular, making those decisions?
We know that, as my colleague spoke to before, at the discretion of a cabinet member, it could possibly create marine protected areas for anything that could possibly, at any time in the future, be examined or have difficulties. With any of the ambiguous language put forward, they would create marine protected areas that, of course, would stymie development.
We also know that the track record of the government, when it comes to offshore projects, is absolutely atrocious. We know that Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project, offshore in Nova Scotia, partly in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, was effectively stopped by the government. We know that Sustainable Marine simply asked for direction going forward from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and it got absolutely nothing from the department.
This was the first time a project in the development of tidal energy had put energy back into the grid, and it was measurable. It also had significant abilities to monitor for fish strikes. Even the government arm of monitoring, called FORCE, on the tidal energy project, readily admitted, when I met with those folks and Sustainable Marine energy, that there were no worrisome signals or fish strikes. There was one fish that swam through one of the turbines, but other than that, no fish were harmed in this process.
The scope of Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project is really related to the fact that, if it were able to harness a significant amount of the energy off the Bay of Fundy, which has the highest tides in the world, there would be potential there to power all of Atlantic Canada in perpetuity with minimal cost. When we look at that kind of a project, which the Liberal government has absolutely no ability to support or go forward with, then I ask again why Canadians would want to say that we should allow the cabinet minister to have the opportunity to decide when projects should or should not go forward.
The difficulty, and my colleague, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame mentioned this, is that there are many sections of overlap from Bill C-69 embedded in Bill C-49. We know that the Supreme Court of Canada has very clearly declared Bill C-69 unconstitutional.
Just a few things, if I may. Clauses 61, 62, 169 and 170 of Bill C-49 invoke section 64 of Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, where the minister finds that a given project's adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and its adverse direct or incidental effects are in public interest, section 64 allows, and in fact requires, the minister to create any conditions which they deem appropriate in relation to those effects and with which the project proponent must comply.
In Bill C-69, the Liberals forced all offshore drilling to be subject to a review panel, increasing the timeline from 300 to 600-plus days for offshore reviews. Conservatives raised this as a major point of concern with Bill C-69. The impact assessment by the agency can take 1,605 days, which, sadly, is four and a half years, if all aspects of the process are followed.
This bill specifies section 64 of IAA, which allows the minister to create any condition they wish, based on an impact assessment report, which could add another 330 days to the process, if it was stated in clause 62 of Bill C-49, required by the regulator or prescribed.
What we are talking about is a country where people cannot afford to feed themselves, to put a roof over their heads and to generally look after their families. When we understand that the NDP-Liberal coalition continues to want to put up red tape, barriers and concerns, then we know what is on the mind of Atlantic Canadians.
Those of us who went back to our ridings last week talked to people, and they talked about the carbon tax and the cost of living. We know that the Atlantic Liberals over on that side of the House have voted 24 times in favour of a carbon tax, over and over again.
There is one person on that side of the House, a Liberal, who has suddenly found religion, or perhaps he has found the Conservative common sense. I cannot exactly explain why, but we do know that he was on TV and was quoted multiple times. I think it is germane to read into the record one of the great quotes:
I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.
A gentleman on the opposite side said that. When we go back to our ridings in Atlantic Canada and hear of the difficulties, we understand very clearly that the Atlantic Liberals continue, over and over, to vote for a punishing carbon tax. What do they want to do now? They want to create further problems for Atlantic Canadians by stopping projects in the ocean.
We already know that they continue to do this on land with the statistics that I quoted previously, the delays of four and a half years on projects. Again, I will tie that to the builders we hear from to understand very clearly that they are giving up on their dreams of building houses and projects for Atlantic Canadians because it is an untenable position.
It is intolerable. It is unacceptable. It is unexplainable why the NDP-Liberal coalition wants to continue to stymie development in Atlantic Canada. That is something, on this side of the House, that we will not stand for.
1373 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 2:57:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely fascinating, because my office receives hundreds of emails, phone calls and letters outlining the extreme difficulties people are having with their finances because of the Liberal government's terrible carbon tax and its terrible inflationist policies. They are the worst in 40 years. Even the premier of Nova Scotia, Tim Houston, has put forward a comprehensive plan to reduce emissions and actually save Nova Scotians money, where that minister lives. How can he vote against such craziness? This makes no sense.
When will the Liberal government allow Canadians to keep the heat on and axe the tax?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 2:56:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians can no longer afford to eat, to heat and to house themselves. We can take, for example, Phyllis, who lives just outside of Springhill, Nova Scotia. She turns the heat on in her trailer in the morning. She spends most of her day in bed with her clothes on to stay warm, and she gives herself a bit of heat in the evening before turning in for the night. Conservatives will continue to keep the heat on and take the tax off.
When will the Liberal government stop blaming everyone else, take some responsibility and axe the destructive carbon tax?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 2:44:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: The majority of Atlantic Canadians still have not seen a penny for the cleanup of Fiona, and the mess is still there. I want to read a quote: “provinces and territories must not implement measures that directly offset, reduce or negate the price signal sent by the price on carbon”. The Liberals want Canadians to pay more at the pumps, and shame on any provincial minister of finance who would dare try to reduce the tax. This is the attitude we are dealing with.
Why does the Liberal government refuse to allow provincial governments to reduce taxes on gas, groceries and home heating? They are the essentials.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:39:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that large corporations can be exempt from this carbon tax. To me, that really does not make any sense. We know that the cost of living crisis is hitting northern communities particularly hard. Continuing to increase their cost of fuel and the delivery of goods is going to be a significant hardship for those in the north, and we need to put those Canadians first.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:24:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House of Commons on behalf of the good people of Cumberland—Colchester. As we found out last night, we were hit very hard by hurricane Fiona. I think it bears repeating that our thoughts and prayers are with all the folks out there who continue to suffer without power and to dig out from the storm.
Primarily, we need to think of the carbon tax as exactly what it is. It is a tax. It is another tax that businesses and individuals have to pay. We are here now, of course. If other parliamentarians are not aware of this, then they must be living under a rock, but we are at the highest rates of inflation in decades. It harkens back to those days in my life in 1999 when we were coming out of those very high inflation years. Indeed, in 1990, when my wife and I bought our first car, we needed a loan and interest rates were at 18%. My lovely father-in-law was a great accountant and someone who always needed to teach one an interesting lesson. Interestingly enough, he was kind enough to give us a loan for 12%. Those kinds of things are where we are headed to now.
A big concern that I have is the cost of living. If we are talking about raising taxes, we cannot do so without talking about the cost of living. Every day, my constituency assistants receive calls from people who are unable to afford their lives. As we might say, they are being priced out of their own lives. I have spoken in the House previously about people who have had to sell their wedding bands in order to buy food.
We know that where I live, in rural Canada, it is going to be important to understand that winter is coming. I know that is a bit of a cliche from a TV show, but winter comes every year, and it is still coming. I think we need to understand what it costs to fill a barrel of oil now. Many people in rural Canada still live in single-family dwellings with oil heat, especially in Atlantic Canada. It is going to cost about $1,500 to fill one barrel of oil. Of course, if we get a bad winter it may last six weeks, but it may only last a month. When we are talking about $1,500, we all know that is a significant amount of money.
We also know that people at the current time cannot feed themselves. We have heard multiple times that the cost of groceries has gone up 10%. On top of that, the carbon tax, of course, will add many more difficulties and much more hardship on the people who live in Cumberland—Colchester. Another thing of interest is that I am very perplexed as to why the government would continue to have only one solution for a complex problem. Why continue to beat Canadians over the head with more taxes, more taxes and more taxes to fund the free-fall spending of the Liberal government? I fail to understand that.
Previously, I was a physician. What we do know is that for complex problems there are often multi-faceted solutions. For instance, when people suffer from cardiovascular disease, we know that people may take medications. We could suggest that they just take their pills, go out, eat whatever they want and live their lives. Is that appropriate? Could it make them live longer? Yes, but does it make people any healthier? I would suggest to the good folks out there that it would not actually make them healthier. How do we help people become healthier? We ask them to exercise more. We ask them to get better sleep. We ask them to help their mental health problems.
The stretch here, of course, is to understand that climate change is real and to question how we will solve that problem. They continue to push tax upon tax to solve a problem. In my mind, and I think in the minds of Conservatives across this great country, people understand that that is a solution based on only one facet of the problem. Clearly, we know it is, given the significant cost-of-living challenges of Canadians at this time and what they are really unable to afford. As, my great colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable pointed out, gasoline it is costing another 40¢ a litre.
In parts of Atlantic Canada, buying a car still poses a great difficulty. There may be many people in larger cities, and perhaps across the aisle, who can afford fancy electric cars for $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000, but we know that in parts of rural Canada there are people who buy cars for $2,500 or $3,500 because that is what they can afford. We know now that adding on top of that is going to be difficult.
One of the big concerns I have is that people in Cumberland—Colchester are going to be specifically and proportionally disadvantaged by having to pay more for gasoline. We do not have mass transit. We do not have subways. We do not have those kinds of things. People rely on themselves to get to where they need to go, because that is where we have chosen to live. Therefore, should we be disproportionately affected by another 40¢ per litre on gasoline? To me, that is not really a possibility.
One of the other important things to figure out is who is paying this tax? We understand very clearly from the government that large corporations can apply for an exemption from the carbon tax. That does not really make a lot of sense to me, because we know small businesses are not eligible to have an exemption from it. We also know that small businesses are the backbone of Canada; they are the economic drivers. Therefore, small businesses have to pay the tax and large corporations do not.
We also know that individuals will end up paying more. We know that an average household is now paying $1,400 more annually for the carbon tax.
I always look at this as a shell game, that game where the ball is hidden under shells, then they are moved around and we guess what shell the ball is under. We want to know where that shell is, who is paying the tax and how much is it. These elusive answers make it more difficult to find any type of support for a carbon tax.
We need to look at other technological examples of how to do that. We know that our western partners in the great province of Alberta have the cleanest oil in the world. We also know that there are other technologies, such as carbon capture and storage. We also look to things like small modular reactors to produce pollution-free electricity.
When we look at those kinds of things, it becomes very clear that there are multiple solutions to a problem as opposed to continuing to talk about a carbon tax, which we know very clearly was originally promised at $50 per tonne and is now set to more than triple to $170 per tonne.
I would also be remiss if I did not talk about the specific situation in Nova Scotia. We know that it has made significant strides in greening its economy and reducing greenhouse gas. We also know that Premier Tim Houston has sent very pointed letters to the Minister of Environment to help understand better what Nova Scotia's position is.
To quote Premier Houston, he said that his government would outpace federal greenhouse gas reduction targets while costing Nova Scotians less than what they would pay with a federal carbon pricing system. He said, “our path to 2030 is more effective, it’s more affordable and it’s more visionary than a carbon tax.”
According to provincial documents, Nova Scotia's legislated greenhouse gas reduction target is to be at least 53%t below 2005 levels by 2030. The objective of the federal carbon tax is to be 40% to 45% below 2005 levels.
The other part of this is that it behooves us to understand that if we are to continue to not allow the provinces to be creative and if we are to continue on with this Ottawa-knows-best approach, this again is absolutely untenable. Why would Canadians believe in this carbon tax when clearly, as I have stated in multiple different ways, there are other ways to reach these targets? Continuing to bash Canadians over the head at a time when inflation is at a 40-year high is really an untenable position.
Canadians are hurting. Our offices hear from them every day. I am absolutely astounded that the members across the aisle are not hearing from their constituents as well to understand how difficult it is to function in today's world from a financial perspective. Therefore, I would suggest that perhaps the members opposite need to listen to their constituents to understand how difficult it is and then, as we might say in the vernacular, axe the tax.
1562 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 11:33:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the cost of living in Canada is crippling small businesses.
In the words of my constituent David, who owns a small business, it is also pushing middle-class workers close to the poverty line. David has 30 individuals and 16 vehicles on the road on any given day. His fuel costs have doubled in the past month. This means that projects he bid on a month ago he will have to pay to complete.
His question echoes what many other Canadians want to know, and it is very simple. What is the government going to do about rising fuel costs and the out-of-control cost of living?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 3:06:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this week I spoke to Krystle. The rising cost of living is threatening her small business in Amherst. She has worked 28 of the last 30 days to make enough money to keep her business solvent. A recent errand for supplies has cost her $600 versus the usual $350, as the cost of fuel and goods has gone up. She cannot understand why the government would not support two Conservative motions to reduce fuel prices.
On which date will the government remove tax upon tax and get fuel prices and the cost of living under control?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:05:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I find interesting is this trumped-up indignation that the member has with respect to the coalition party, which his party continues to support. I also find this really fascinating: When this side of the House proposed a cut of eight cents per litre to the price of gasoline, where was the member's party? That is the question I have.
We talk about choice. That is a choice. When are we going to make this change, vote against the government and end the speNDP-Liberal coalition? Will the member commit to that?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 1:07:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the interesting thing is that I did speak about climate change. Perhaps he does not know the geography of Nova Scotia. Canada is actually connected to us by an isthmus called the Isthmus of Chignecto, which I have raised multiple times in the House. It is in significant danger of being flooded from the climate change that is happening.
What we do know, again, as I mentioned very clearly, this is not mentioned in this budget, even though the government has chosen to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to study this issue multiple times, and the sad thing is that this is a very important link from Canada to Nova Scotia. It brings across many goods every day, and this would sadly be flooded by climate change. That is something that the government, again, has not addressed in budget 2022.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 1:13:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his discourse, partly on Vladimir Putin.
That being said, it really baffles my mind that we could go on about supporting the people of Ukraine and really loving them, while in short they are dependent on natural gas from their aggressor. If there is an opportunity in the longer term to change such things, why does the Liberal government want to continue to use short-sighted policies that would not help people in the longer term, understanding the security nature of using things such as energy as a weapon?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 10:52:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his speech and its comprehensive nature. Does he agree with the European Union that an important energy strategy will also be essential to ensuring the safety and security of nations going forward and at this time? We see that as a very important part of what is going on with Ukraine.
Is energy security not an important part of the government's process as well?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
