44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 27, 2024 11:00AM
- May/27/24 9:33:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, members will be familiar with the expression “casting pearls before swine.” Looking across the way, I wonder if it was more casting pearls before an empty pen tonight.
I do want to recognize the points the member made about how this bill would make it more difficult for greener projects to proceed as well. This bill is bad for energy development, for traditional energy and for green energy. The government likes to talk about green energy, but when one piles red tape on new development, it affects all sectors. I wonder if the member wants to comment further on that.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 9:46:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks. It is a pity the benches across the way are so devoid of activity. The member talked about this bill and the impact on green energy.
Does the member think that some provisions of this bill are actually an impediment for the development of green projects?
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 10:01:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing I have been struck by in the debate around the government's response to the challenges associated with climate change is the praise of intentions, as if intentions are what matters most. It has been said, “It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best.”
When it comes to offshore energy development, this could be a great opportunity to support European energy security, to displace dirtier forms of fuel in other parts of the world and to allow the development of green projects with less red tape. However, the government is piling red tape upon Canadian projects, the likely effect of which is actually more greenhouse gas emissions, because we are missing an opportunity to displace less secure, dirtier fuel around the world.
Does the member not think that good intentions are not enough, that we have to look at the results? In this case, the development of Canadian energy with less red tape is good for the environment insofar as it displaces less environmentally friendly sources of fuel around the world.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address the House this evening, as always, and to follow my esteemed colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, who knows a bit more about Atlantic Canada than I do. Nonetheless, I am pleased to support his view and the view of my Conservative colleagues that Bill C-49 needs to go back for further study, that it is a deeply flawed bill.
Fundamentally, for those who are just joining us at home, Bill C-49 is about furthering the government's anti-energy, antidevelopment agenda. In that context, let us talk a little bit about the state of this beautiful country. We are here because we are fighting for Canada, this country that we love and believe in. Canada is a cold frontier nation built on hard work. People who came here as immigrants or people who have been here since time immemorial did not come here or stay here because of the weather. They worked hard in a cold frontier nation to build beautiful things that lasted for themselves and for future generations. They have always taken pride in their hard work. Canadians have understood that it is not the easy life we seek, but it is through striving and struggle that we build and expand a beautiful country for those who come after us.
When I talk to people working in this country, that is what they want. They want to be able to work hard, to use their God-given creativity and genius to create new things for their families and for the future. The government, unfortunately, gets this country totally wrong. This is evident in the way it has approached economic policy and so many other areas over the last nine years. It thinks Canadians are just waiting for that next handout from government. While some Canadians do need to rely on social supports and assistance from time to time, the desire of Canadians is to be able to work, produce, and provide for themselves and their families and, indeed, for posterity.
The government's approach to energy policy, then, is completely disconnected from the desires and aspirations of the people of this country. Canadians want to be able to work, produce and create. People who work in the energy sector, in some cases, face cold, harsh elements, working outside and striving for opportunities for themselves and their families. However, they do this with joy and relish because satisfaction comes from that production; this gives them joy, strengthens their sense of meaning and purpose and allows them, again, to be connected to something greater than themselves.
The government does not believe in the energy economy. It does not think that it is part of the future of the country's economic potential. It has come up with this concept, a so-called just transition. It wants to sell people on the idea that they might no longer, under the managed anti-energy transitional policies of the government, be able to work in these highly productive sectors of the economy. Instead, the government promises that there might be social assistance payments available to them.
This misunderstands the realities of our fiscal situation and the fact that one cannot promise endless spending on borrowing and think it is just going to go on forever. Of course, we see the effects of the government's economic policies with the accumulation of debt and deficit as a result of more and more spending promises. There is no meaningful fiscal anchor, just continuous expansionary spending promises. This has been the hallmark of the government.
Moreover, these promises of moving people out of productive sectors of the economy and onto social assistance ignore the essential nature of the Canadian worker and the aspirations that have defined this country. People do not just want to work for the money, although the money helps. People derive a sense of value and meaning from their ability to produce, create and contribute constructively to the economy. That is why so many have come to this country and built our country into what it is. Nonetheless, after nine years of the policies of the NDP-Liberal government, we are, of course, weaker than we have been for a long time.
The government has more than doubled the national debt, if we can imagine that. The Prime Minister is responsible for more than half of this country's national debt. We see crime, chaos, drugs and disorder reigning in our streets, as many people feel a sense of desperation.
Many Canadians feel that doing the right thing, working hard and living a good life no longer pays in this country. People who are trying to take advantage of the system are getting ahead, whereas those who are trying to work hard and do what is right fall further behind. This has increasingly become the reality in this country after nine years under the Prime Minister.
However, the good news is that this is not truly what we are as a country. It is not what we are as Canada. It is not what we were before 2015, and it is not what we will be after we have restored the kind of responsible leadership this country needs.
The economy is not just about money. It is really about providing people with the opportunity to engage in meaningful work and to have the joy, sense of purpose and mission that comes from working hard and providing for the next generation. With that in mind, we have an agenda.
The Conservative Party is proposing an agenda that is based on restoring the country's enthusiasm for development. We are a country that has, in the past, undertaken great nation-building infrastructure. We are a country that builds things. In the process, we give jobs and opportunity to each other, and we strengthen our sense of national unity and purpose.
In the 19th century, it was our cross-country railroad. Today, in the 21st century, we need to become a country that builds great things again. We need to build homes and national energy infrastructure. We need to support the development of energy infrastructure in all parts of this country, and that includes, of course, in Atlantic Canada.
However, instead of recognizing the urgent need to once again become a country that builds things, the government continues to propose antidevelopment, energy-blocking legislation, such as Bill C-49.
Our plan is based on axing the tax to unleash the creative potential of the economy and building homes at a micro level. We are not building enough homes in this country. I do not mean “we” as in the state, I mean “we” collectively. The government has put itself in the way of new home construction. It is time we axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget so we do not have inflationary spending getting in the way of development and, of course, stop the crime that is holding back our communities from reaching their full potential.
Our plan to restore Canada is based on axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime. It is an agenda that seeks to build beautiful things that last and build the nation-building infrastructure of the 21st century, that is, homes at the micro level, and at the national level, the energy infrastructure, the mines and the development opportunities in both traditional energy and new green energy.
The problem with the Liberal government, in terms of its rhetoric on green, is that it misses how its antidevelopment, red-tape-driven agenda is actually holding up green projects as well.
If we have an economy where people want to invest, where we can unleash opportunity and where we are attracting investment with the right tax policies, as well as pulling aside red tape, this would have an impact on both traditional and green energy.
The Liberal approach is to pile red tape on and then hope that an additional subsidy is somehow going to help move certain preferred projects in preferred sectors along. They do not understand that the government's role should not be to pick winners and losers; rather, it should be to create an environment where all businesses want to invest and pursue opportunity.
That is what our country was before 2015 and will be again under responsible, Conservative, pro-development leadership. Despite the challenges our country faces, I know that there is great excitement about what is to come. I hear it from constituents across the country. There is great hope for the restoration of this country to one where we see the good in each other, where we see the opportunity in our natural resources and where regions wish for each other's success.
Under the current government, there has been a pitting of regions against each other. There has been a desire to create division between, for instance, Atlantic Canada and the west, with a carbon tax policy that seeks to create a temporary fake break to the carbon tax in eastern Canada while not having the same kind of changes happen in western Canada. Nonetheless, the carbon tax is expected to go way back up again in eastern Canada. Liberal ministers have made incredibly divisive comments on this. This is the Liberal approach. It is to see economic development as a zero-sum game. They have to tear down the west in order to build up the east.
What we say in the Conservative Party is this: Let us encourage and be excited about the opportunities for growth and development in every part of this country. As an Alberta MP, I want to see Atlantic Canada succeed. I want to see Atlantic Canada become incredibly prosperous and create jobs and opportunities for people in Atlantic Canada. I want the same thing in Quebec, Ontario, the north and every region of the country. Conservatives want to see every family, community, region, province and territory prospering and building itself up. We want to end the division. There is hope for this new vision of a strong Canada made up of strong individuals. The Liberals are bent on a government that is constantly gorging itself and growing at the expense of citizens. Conservatives want a smaller government and bigger citizens. That is our vision, and that is how energy development connects to that vision of what a brighter future will be when the current Leader of the Opposition becomes prime minister.
Why is it important to support energy development? It is important on four grounds, which I would like to go through: on economic grounds, on reconciliation grounds, on environmental grounds and on global security grounds.
I have spoken about the economic grounds already, but we can build a strong national economy driven by the private sector if we focus on removing the barriers that prevent investment and development from moving forward. I believe in the inherent creative potential of every human being, wherever they live, whatever their background. We do not create economic opportunity through central state planning, but rather by unleashing the creative genius of every individual. We need to build systems that emphasize subsidiarity, which is decentralized decision-making that unleashes the creativity of more and more individuals as part of economic development. That is why our focus should be on removing gatekeepers, removing red tape, identifying those things that prevent development and investments from taking place, and removing those barriers. It is only through the creative genius of individuals with new ideas and taking risks through investment that we will truly see economic growth and opportunity.
This government seems to believe that it is about the government making bets on specific sectors, without taking any kind of risk itself. The Liberals are not spending their own money, after all, and they are only applying the creativity of the central state system. This is not how we build a powerful modern economy, and all the evidence shows that. We have the current government, frankly, trending towards the most left-wing economic philosophy in a government that we have seen in decades. This is not the John Chrétien-Paul Martin Liberal Party. This is a government that loves centralized state planning as its approach to the economy, and it clearly just does not work.
Energy development has incredible potential for facilitating reconciliation. Canadians want to see each other succeed. We all want to see success in economic development that will provide jobs and opportunity for indigenous peoples. A big part of that is going to be economic development in the area of energy, and many indigenous nations are eagerly engaging with and investing in this opportunity.
We have a number of prominent indigenous leaders who are joining the Conservative Party and running in the next election. In the Edmonton area, we have Chief Billy Morin, who is a great champion of energy development. He will, of course, be joining our caucus after the next election. Indigenous leaders such as Ellis Ross, Billy Morin and so many others understand the potential for economic development, for prosperity and for ending poverty in indigenous communities through energy development.
Many indigenous communities are asking for this, yet the Liberal approach is, on the one hand, if someone is proposing a development project, to pile on consultation processes, but then when they want to stop development from happening, they do not consult at all. We have had many instances in which the government has proposed antidevelopment policies and has shut down development opportunities that indigenous nations wanted, and the Liberals did not feel like they had to consult at all. How do they explain that? The government, on the one hand, wants to constantly pile on more red tape if a project is going to move forward, but it does not feel any need to consult with indigenous nations when it is imposing antidevelopment projects on communities who want the opportunity and want the prosperity to come from that.
Conservatives believe in the benefits of development, and we believe that consultation should be meaningful consultation. It should be required and a part of the process, within reasonable parameters and a reasonable time frame, and it should be part of the process if they are moving forward with a pro- or an antidevelopment policy. Either way, the people should be listened to and consulted.
In terms of the environment, Canada's energy sector is continually improving its environmental performance. This is part of who we are. This has always been part of who we are. We live here. We live on this land. We breathe the air. We are all working together on environmental improvements. However, that environmental improvement surely cannot mean shutting down highly productive sectors of the economy and moving those jobs to other jurisdictions that do not have the same environmental standards. Given the global need for energy, either Canada can fill and respond to that global need, or we can leave it to other countries that do not have the same standards that we do. I submit that it is better for the environment if Canada continues to develop and improve its environmental performance while sharing the technology that it develops with the rest of the world. This is good for our economy. It contributes to reconciliation. It is also good for the environment.
Finally, I want to speak about global security. This is the biggest issue being talked about around the world. We are in a new cold war. The world is an increasingly unstable place, and access to energy will be a critical part of that global struggle as it unfolds. Canada could play a critical role. Most of the world's free democracies happen to be geographically small, more densely populated nations that rely on the import of natural resources. This is the reality for our democratic partners in Europe as well as in the Asia-Pacific. In the vast majority of cases, they are geographically small, densely populated nations that struggle with energy security and have to constantly be thinking about how they could position themselves to have a secure supply of energy imports.
Canada, relatively uniquely in the democratic world, is a geographically vast, sparsely populated nation blessed with an abundance of natural resources. We are that cold frontier nation within the community of democratic countries. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to develop those resources for the benefit not only of our own domestic economy, but also for the benefit of our partners and contributing to global security.
When European countries have to rely or have chosen to rely on imports of energy from Russia, they fuel the aggressive, violent, genocidal designs of the Putin regime. Canada can be strategic and displace and replace that Russian gas. Particularly when we are talking about energy development in Atlantic Canada, of course, which has greater proximity to Europe compared to western Canadian resources, there is a great opportunity for us to be excitedly engaging with the opportunity in Atlantic Canadian energy development and using that opportunity to not only support Canadian prosperity, but also contribute to global energy security. This is good for us, but it is more fundamentally the right thing to do in this new cold war struggle to ensure that our democratic allies around the world do not have to rely on strategic foes for energy, that they do not have to calibrate their foreign policy positions for fear of losing access to the fuel that their people need.
This is Canada's vocation. This is Canada's opportunity in this new struggle. Let us step up to seize it. Let us do what is right for our country and for our people. Let us also play our essential role in the world by rejecting Liberal antidevelopment bills and standing up for Canada and for freedom everywhere by developing our natural resources and creating jobs, opportunity and prosperity for the Canadian people.
3009 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 10:53:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, maybe I should just go from the top if it was not clear where I stand on the bill. I will emphasize again that this bill piles red tape on development. It gives ministers arbitrary power to disrupt energy projects without consultation. It is aligned with the broader thrust of the government's approach to energy development, which is to not seek jobs and opportunities that align with economic reconciliation, global environmental improvements and global security, and we reject its anti-energy, antidevelopment agenda, full stop.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 10:55:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do have concerns that this bill, among other problems, gives too much arbitrary power to the government with respect to the designation of areas without proper consultation. I share what I think are the concerns raised by the Bloc in that regard.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it does seem that a substantially greater number of Liberals came in for my speech, like the member for Kingston and the Islands in particular, and the prospective leadership candidate, the Minister of Housing. The Liberals are busy planning leadership campaigns.
To the member's point, a very important point, I will firmly agree with everything said by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. The government members love to talk about the Constitution, except when they violate it. It is all about the charter, except when it is inconvenient.
Then, on Bill C-69, the court finds the government was ignoring the Constitution. It shows flagrant disregard for the constitutional order, and it gets its plans shut down.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Garnett Genuis: The member is asking if that leads to the use of the notwithstanding clause.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals actually just ignore the Constitution. They bring in a bill like this that does not at all address or respond to what the court has already found with respect to Bill C-69. The member for Kingston and the Islands wants to use constitutional issues as a pointed, partisan political attack, while he and his colleagues show shameful disregard for the Constitution in terms of their own legislative action.
I have read, in the good book, that someone should not try to remove a sliver from their brother's eye when they have a log in their own. When it comes to respecting the Constitution, I think the government has a log in its own eye that it needs to address before it tries to hurl political attacks at others.
276 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands undoes himself with his own arguments. He says inflation is not as bad as it was three years ago. He says the Liberals are getting a little better than they were. The Liberals want to tell us they might be bad, but they are getting a little better, and they are not doing as badly as they used to.
To the member's comments on the Constitution, the Liberals just show complete disregard for the Constitution. They just ignore it. They violate the law routinely. We see that with Bill C-69. The anti-energy, anti-development Bill C-69 has been found, in part, to be unconstitutional, and rather than responding to it, they are resuscitating provisions in Bill C-49.
While I am on my feet, I just want to say the lack of extending the rural top-up to the people of Pefferlaw is a grave injustice. I stand with the member for York—Simcoe in calling for the immediate redress of that injustice.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:01:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands has to be loud to make up for the absence of other colleagues who are able to say anything in the House. I want to credit the member. He speaks when nobody else is here, and he is carrying more water than some.
In response to my colleague, absolutely the industrial heartland is a critical example of the benefits of energy-related manufacturing, and my riding is a real hub of that. Of course, it covers some parts of other ridings. I am very proud of the industrial heartland, what it has been, and I can only see the growth in potential when we finally have a federal government that is actually supportive of our energy sector.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:44:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the important points he made about the energy sector, about the value it produces for our economy and about the failures of the government. I wonder if he can expand specifically on just what the bill would do, the additional challenges it would create and what kind of an approach we should be taking instead.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. We have heard many excellent speeches from Conservative colleagues tonight about the importance of the energy sector, jobs and opportunity.
After nine years of the Liberal government, it is clear that its policies are not working, and it is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption. We will get to that, but in the context of the bill, certainly, it is not worth the cost.
However, the good news is that, after nine years, there is hope on the horizon. Canadians know that it was not this way before the extreme NDP-Liberal coalition took power, and it will not be that way once we have a restoration of common-sense leadership in this country.
Could the member share a little more about the promise associated with a restoration of common-sense leadership in this country and how his constituents are reacting to that?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:09:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the costly, crooked, cover-up coalition engaged in corrupt practices in the arrive scam scandal. The Auditor General's report revealed that the government rigged the process, which was that senior officials sat down with the well-connected insider firm, GC Strategies, and discussed and arranged the terms of a deal, which GC Strategies would then bid on. It was able to rig the process, discuss the terms of the deal, which it then bid on and, surprise, got the contract. However, we still do not know why the NDP-Liberal coalition went to such lengths to favour GC Strategies.
Let us paint the picture. GC Strategies is two guys who work out of a basement. They do not do any actual work on projects; they simply receive the contracts and then subcontract them and take massive commissions along the way. It would be as if the member for York—Simcoe and I went out and started Lake Simcoe Enterprises, did no work but just got contracts and passed them along. That would be a good deal for us, but it would be a bad deal for taxpayers.
Why is it that the government did not simply hire the IT professionals to do the work rather than going through a couple of middlemen sitting in their basement who know nothing about IT and whose only business is to go on LinkedIn, find people who can do the work, then get the contracts, find the people to actually do the work, and collect millions of dollars in commissions in the process?
However, the government chose the two people from GC Strategies. The government chose this company to be the favoured son of Liberal corrupt procurement. Why were they chosen? We still do not have an answer to that. Maybe the parliamentary secretary will be able to explain it to the House.
Frankly, we have seen that the government, the Prime Minister and the people working under him, have persistently rigged the process to reward insiders and punish taxpayers, and the process is broken. We will hear Liberals say, “Well, those Conservatives will make cuts. What will they spend less on when they are in government?” I will tell members; it is not rocket science. If there is a two-person firm that receives the contracts then passes them along and does no work in the process, it seems pretty uncomplicated. I mean, it would be ideal to cut out the contracting in general and have the work done inside government, but at least cut out the middleman.
GC Strategies has rightly gotten a lot of attention. It has done very well under the current government. It was founded in 2015 and has done extremely well under the NDP-Liberals. However, there are over 600 different companies doing IT middleman contracting and subcontracting, doing so-called staff augmentation for the public service. This is out of control, and it involves massive amounts of money. There has been a dramatic growth in public service spending but also a dramatic growth in contracting out at the same time, and a substantial amount of the contracting out is going to do-nothing middleman companies and is going to advice from professional services.
Why is the government spending so much and getting so little for Canadians?
560 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:16:15 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me that the NDP-Liberals are still defending the arrive scam policy. The fact is that this app was a disaster. Sixty million dollars was spent. A big chunk of it went to this do-nothing middleman company. Most versions of the app, according to the Auditor General, were not tested. As a result, over 10,000 people who followed all the rules were accidentally sent into quarantine because of a glitch in the app.
We can imagine that someone does everything they are supposed to. They are coming back home; they are supposed to be able to see their family and get back to work. They are sent into quarantine, not because they are supposed to go, but because the government could not be bothered to test the app. Rather, it hired two guys working out of a basement with no IT experience, who went on LinkedIn to find other people to do the work.
The Auditor General very clearly said that there is no excuse. The government continues to make excuses in spite of it. Does the government have no shame? Will it finally admit what a disaster the arrive scam policy was?
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
