- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Prince Albert
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 60%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $168,935.37
- Government Page
- May/5/22 2:36:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we welcome U.S. trade representative Katherine Tai to Canada today. We expect discussions with her on subjects like softwood lumber, electric vehicles and buy America will produce positive results. In a letter to Ms. Tai, Congressman Higgins urged her to raise the government’s 1% tax on vacant, foreign-owned real estate with Canadian officials, as the tax violates the non-discrimination principles of CUSMA.
Can the Minister of International Trade please advise whether her lawyers agree with Congressman Higgins that this NDP-Liberal tax violates CUSMA?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 2:55:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, inflation is at a 31-year high. Canadians are suffering under rising prices for gas, groceries and housing. A good way to help Canadians is by ensuring that the relationship with the U.S. remains strong and stable, yet the government continues to disappoint: tariffs on our lumber, threats to our auto sector and the most punishing buy American provisions we have ever seen. We know that the Prime Minister likes to fly around for photo ops and surfing trips. Maybe he could add a few flights to D.C. to the flight plan.
My question for the Prime Minister is this: When will he get to work?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 1:41:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this morning talking about government spending again. Spending is something the government knows how to do very well, and it has been very actively spending taxpayers' dollars as it sees fit, as if it is the government's own slush fund. I am here to speak against Bill C-8, because some of that bill would actually do the exact same thing that has happened before.
Let us review what is going on in the Canadian economy as we speak today. Typical housing prices have gone from $345,000 to $810,000 in the biggest one-time gain of all time. Newly created government cash, $400 billion, was pumped into the financial markets, and a lot of that money went into high-risk mortgages at rates less than inflation. Those are concerns that Canadian taxpayers should have going into the future, because we are insuring a lot of those high-risk mortgages. We are seeing the price of food going up, and that is something I hear of quite often. The price of chicken, for example, is up 6.2%, beef is up 12%, bacon is up 20% and bread is up 5%. Those are old numbers. Those numbers are no longer relevant. We could almost double them today and that is what we would see when we go to buy things at the grocery store.
Inflationary pressures, not COVID pressures, are starting to become a major factor in what Canadians are facing moving forward.
We see the economies opening up here in Canada. Saskatchewan has been open for literally over a month and a half. Masking mandates have been removed and vaccine passports have been removed. Canadians are getting back to business, except for federal employees who, for one reason or another, decided not to be vaccinated or not to reveal their status. Those people are still sitting in unemployment lines or have been laid off or fired. It is really sad when we look at the history of these people and what they have contributed to our economy and to our civil service. These are penitentiary guards and other federal workers who have given their hearts and souls to their jobs, only to be told, because they did not release their medical status, that they were no longer needed or wanted.
It is amazing to lose people with that type of skill set and that experience at this point in time, in a situation where we have unemployment. People are demanding and looking for labour. The government is going to have a huge problem filling the shoes of those people who have left.
I think the government has forgotten history, and I am going to go on a trip down memory lane, just as I did last week when I was talking about our motion to look for a way back to a balanced budget. The government has not remembered the mistakes of the past. It has not talked to former Liberal members who went through the process of trying to actually balance the budget after they were told they had to.
Let us go back to the 1990s. Let us look at the situation in 1992 and 1993. All of a sudden, the warning signs were going off. We had inflation. We had gone through a period in the eighties when, if someone got a mortgage at 14%, they were excited. I can remember buying my first house. I was excited. I got a mortgage at 14%. Now, if I cannot get a mortgage at 2.5% or 3%, I am mad. That really tells us the difference between where we are sitting right now and where we are possibly heading again.
We saw rapid inflationary pressures. We were seeing oil and gas pressure. The Canadian economy was showing strides. If someone had a job, they were excited. When I was coming out of high school in 1984 or 1985, if I got a job at McDonald's I was taking it, because there were not a lot of jobs to be had. A lot of people flocked to university, just because they had no options other than continuing to go to school. There were no jobs to be had.
In 1994, Moody's investors lowered our credit rating. In 1995 and 1996, we had more people jumping on that and saying that Canada needed to do something, and in 1996 Jean Chrétien and finance minister Paul Martin had to go through the process of making decisions they did not want to make. They were decisions I hope no future governments will ever have to make. The federal government, for example, wanted to block transfers to the provinces. It cut health care funding substantially, compared with 1993 levels, and those levels did not return to normal, or 1993 levels, until 2004. It took that long to get things back in order so that we could actually start putting more money back into our health care system.
Basically, we saw a situation where people were looking at the economy and were in dire need, and there were just no financial resources there to help them out. We had spent the cupboard bare, and the government had to make all sorts of difficult choices, both at the federal and provincial levels, to pay back the excess of borrowing that happened in previous governments, such as the Trudeau governments of the early and late seventies. I do not want to see that repeated. I do not want to see that handed on to my kids or my grandkids. Hopefully I will have grandkids somewhere down the road.
We are spending a lot of money. We are seeing inflationary pressures and all sorts of instability around the world. We are spending our reserves, which we may need to save for another rainy day, like we did when COVID-19 first hit or when we had the great recession of 2008. At that time, we had the fiscal capacity to spend some money and strategically use it in such a way to advance our communities and help things that needed to be done get done earlier so we could get back to balanced budgets in 2015. Now we are seeing the government spending like crazy.
Part of it is okay. I have to admit that part of it is fine. Supporting people during the time of COVID-19 was important. We had to be there for people. I think all parties agreed with that. However, now as we get out of COVID and start looking into the future post-COVID, all of a sudden we have not learned a lesson and we continue to keep spending and spending. We have to wonder: What is the role of taxpayers? Are taxpayers really on board with this type of spending? If we go back to the last election, they did not vote for a coalition government. They did not vote for a new dental care program or a new pharmacare program. They did not vote for a coalition government. If we asked them that today, they would be totally against it, and it would have changed their voting habits in the last election.
When we look at the costs of these types of programs, one has to wonder: Who is going to pay for them? How are we going to pay for them? There are some options. If we want a dental care program or health care program, there are options to pay for that. One of them is to quit shutting down the industries that actually would pay for it, like the oil and gas sector, for example. We have the safest and most ethical oil and gas in the world. We just need to get it to market. By getting it to market, we would have royalties that could be used to keep our deficits low, pay for services like a dental care program, increase funding to health care and education and transition to a green economy, which is somewhere we all know we have to go. However, our transition is not going to be paid by royalties off oil and gas; it is going to be paid off with deficits and debt.
The Liberals call this investment. That is fine, but in the same breath, why are we borrowing money when we have the ability to raise the money? That is what drives me and a lot of Canadians crazy, because they see opportunities for the government to get this economy going and what does it do? It brings in regulations and policies that slow or shut it down. It brings in policies that are not being followed anywhere else in the world and it is putting Canadians through restrictions that nobody else has to face.
A classic example is the oil and gas regulations for the environment we have here in Canada, and our friend President Biden and the regulations he put in place. If he was so in favour of what we have done in Canada, why did he not copy us? Why did he not bring in our regulations? Why did he not bring in the exact same regulations we have here? Has he done that? Is he going to do that? The answer to that is no, because he will not risk the U.S. economy in light of what he needs to do in moving forward with electronic vehicles or the green economy. He is not going to throw that away. He is basically going to try to do both at the same time, which is what Prime Minister Harper was trying to do. He was balancing the economy and the environment together.
We can look at other sectors. If we talk to those in the manufacturing sector, they are saying we are losing manufacturing left, right and centre. They are saying nobody is reinvesting in Canada because it is too expensive to operate here in Canada. I was in the U.S. two weeks ago and had some closed-door meetings with some senators. They were saying the reputation of Canada being a great member of the supply chain is at serious risk. They were saying that we cannot seem to get it together and that we do not have the ability to be part of a supply chain anymore. They said we are great for one-off purchases, but if we want to part of and embedded in the supply chain, we need to improve our border efficiency, our reliability and our tax structure. Not all of these are federal problems; I will agree with that. Some of them are municipal and some are provincial. However, we need to get to work on them, and that is where we need to focus.
When we look at things we could be spending money on, things that could grow our economy and make things grow stronger, that would be wise to consider. More importantly, we need to be smarter and more proactive. Let us spend money where it is needed and required immediately, not chase new dreams and new structural deficits and debts that will leave our kids basically out in the cold, making the exact same decisions that Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien had to make. Even Ralph Goodale was part of that role.
I encourage the Liberals to talk to some old Liberals. I think a lot of the old Liberals, like Dan McTeague, would say, “What is this party?” [Technical difficulty—Editor] what the government has been doing. They would not endorse it. They would not say this is a prudent way forward. They have the scars of going through the 1995-97 cuts and have experienced that. Let us not make the same mistakes. Let us learn from history. Let us move forward and do it in a prudent, proactive way.
1994 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/1/22 11:51:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canada's export-dependent sectors have said that the WTO's upcoming ministerial conference must secure ambitious outcomes across the board. This includes removing pandemic related restrictions, fixing the appellate body and improving transparency. In addition, the global trading community must ensure Russia is condemned in all international institutions.
What is the government's plan to ensure this WTO ministerial conference is used to further isolate Putin and his aggression?
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/22 2:31:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week, I was in Washington meeting with U.S. lawmakers, business leaders and other stakeholders, and I heard a blunt message from our U.S. friends. Canada has a reliability problem. I have been told that Canada cannot be counted on as a major supply chain partner.
The government's public policy failure to combat supply chain shortages and other trade disruptions has inflation at a 30-year high. Canadians are hurting. What is the plan to improve the trading relationship with our number one trading partner? What is the plan?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:35:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be a member of Parliament here in Canada. It is an honour to represent the people of the riding of Prince Albert. I am going to do the best I can to do that here tonight as I talk about this emergency debate and the emergency measures that the government is calling for.
One thing that has been missing from this Parliament and from this debate is respect, respect all the way around for people, whether they are vaccinated or not. I think if we go back through time and look chronologically at what has happened and ask ourselves how we got to this point, lack of respect is the true factor.
I have talked to constituents, some vaccinated, some unvaccinated. The unvaccinated would come to me and tell me they were doctors who had been working 80 or 90 hours a week all through COVID, doing whatever they could, and then one day all of a sudden the government comes in and tells them they are no longer safe enough to be doctors. Not only that, the Minister of Employment comes in and tells them that they will not get employment insurance unless they get vaccinated. That is a problem. It could be a nurse and it is the same scenario. It could be someone working with elderly people and it is the same scenario. It could be a police officer and it is the same scenario. These people feel they have been forced or pushed into a corner where nobody would listen and nobody would show them respect. They were there for us in times of need, but now we as politicians need to listen to them and see how we can help them in their time of need.
We actually approached the Liberal Party, the Minister of Transport, before the vaccine mandate for border crossing came into effect. We told them not to do it. The science does not prove it is a problem. We know it is not an issue. These guys are sitting in their trucks. They have been running across the border for the last two years and they are not bringing the virus in and out of Canada. It actually could create problems for supply chains, so why do it? The science does not say we need to do it, unless we want to force our will on somebody, which is what the current government was doing when it said we had to do it. There is no respect.
When people are pushed into a corner, when the lives of their families are at stake and they do not know what to do, what do members think will happen? How did we get to the stage we are at today? Do members think these people wanted to drive across this country to come to Ottawa? Did they want to spend thousands of dollars on diesel? Did they want to sit there and stare face to face with police officers, whom they showed the utmost respect for? Did they want to risk their reputation, knowing there would be undesirables who may join the group and they would have to self-regulate it and kick them out? Did they want to be here? They did not.
There were so many examples down the trail of this where, if the Prime Minister had shown some leadership and respect, this could have been stopped and prevented. It is really frustrating and maddening to see these protesters come here to Ottawa, a lot of whom we might see at a Riders' game, at a baseball game, at a hockey game. They are average Canadians who are at their wit's end, asking and screaming and crying for help. They do not know where to turn. That is 90% of the people who were in that crowd.
They were sitting there waiting to speak with the Prime Minister, but he would not speak to them, because he saw a swastika on the stage, which did not belong to them and they had asked that person to leave. However, he still refused to speak with them, calling them chauvinistic white supremacists, which inflamed the situation. Instead of sitting down with them to talk about their concerns and acknowledge that they are a good chunk of the population, he dug in his heels and showed more disrespect.
That is what created the problem. That is why they stayed for three weeks. That is why they did not leave a week later. If he had shown some respect and goodwill, taken the olive branch we gave him and put out a plan that would show that the mandates would end, a plan that would show that their families would have a future, based on science, we would not have what is going on today. There would be no need for the Emergencies Act. There would be absolutely no reason to use it. Even now there is not.
This morning, when I flew back home, I was at the Toronto airport and everybody is fleeing Canada. They are not fleeing because they are scared; they are going on a holiday, getting on with their lives, doing things, being active and out and about. There were families with children at the airport waiting to fly to their vacation destinations or across Canada to visit more family and friends, something they have not been able to do for two years. I came back to Saskatoon. There must be a serious crisis because these are emergency measures that have to apply right across Canada, yet there are kids snowmobiling in the ditch. Life is going on. Home Depot is busier than ever.
We look at that and ask ourselves where this crisis is. I turned on CBC News to see what happened today in Ottawa, and I saw law enforcement removing the protesters. Yes, they are pushing them back and everything, but everything they are doing is done using existing legislation. They did not need anything new to do what they are doing today.
One thing that is interesting, and something we need to draw attention to, is the finance minister and Deputy Prime Minister and her comments about how we are going to go after the money. I think a lot of people were really amazed that this group could raise so much money so quickly. One could say there was U.S. influence on it. There is no question about it. We could say that about any environmental protest, too.
The reality is they raised a whole pile of money in a short period of time. We all know money talks, and when we see that kind of money being raised, we know there are a lot of people supporting them in the background. We could say half of it came from the U.S., but still, if it is $10 million raised in Canada in two weeks, which political party could ever do that? They would all dream about it. How did a group of truckers, nurses, doctors and farmers all of a sudden put together a fundraising mechanism to raise that kind of money? If this is not grassroots, I do not know what is.
Are there bad influences among that money? There probably are, no question about it. Are there people we should be worried about? Yes, there is no question about that. We should basically call these people out and make sure they are held accountable for their actions, no question about that, too.
However, does it require the Emergencies Act to do what we need to do? The answer is no, not unless we really want to scare people from donating money to any type of cause, not unless we want to make sure that we have shown the country that we have been gone for three weeks, but now we are actually here and we are going to do something: talk about overcompensation for lack of results and lack of effort.
This is another example of the Liberal government not reacting until something becomes a crisis. We have seen it in other situations. On the Canada-U.S. trade deal, the Liberals would not react until it became a crisis, and also on the U.K. trade deal. I know trade because that is the committee I sit on. The deal is expiring, and the Liberals are just saying maybe we should bring it in to be looked at.
The government is not proactive. If we did something beforehand, it could prevent a lot of problems, but no, they wait until it is a crisis and then they want to jump in and be the hero. It is dangerous. As we see right now, it is very dangerous. It produces zero results and there are no winners at the end of the day.
How do we get out of this? The police are doing their job, and I commend them for doing it. They would be doing it whether or not they had the Emergencies Act. If we had told the police to clear them out two weeks ago, they would have done it two weeks ago without the Emergencies Act.
Case in evidence is at the border crossings in Coutts and Windsor. They did not need the Emergencies Act to move those people out. They just sat down and talked to them, and negotiated a way to get them out and get them to move on. There are ways to move forward on this that would actually present the results we want to see.
I also want to highlight the fact that the government does not have the support of the provinces; seven out of 10 provinces do not agree with the government. The Liberals could say they consulted with the provinces and that is good enough. No, it is not good enough. When we hear Quebec saying not to implement it in that province, or in Saskatchewan or Alberta, why would we not listen to them? If they are saying to the Prime Minister that he has not met the threshold for that, why not take that advice? These are smart people who are elected by their populations also. They have a stronger mandate, I would say, because they have majority governments in their provinces, not a minority government.
When we look at that scenario, why would the Prime Minister not take a step back and say maybe we should not do this? It is because of his ego. He has been caught not doing anything and now he feels he has to do something. He is now overreaching and overcompensating, and Canadians are going to pay for it.
What he is doing is setting a very dangerous precedent. He is making it so that with any type of protest or action, any government today or in the future can look at Ottawa and say there were 170 people arrested there, so we can bring in the Emergencies Act and clamp down on everybody because of one protest. It does not meet the threshold.
Looking at my NDP colleagues, Tommy Douglas would never stand for this. Members can go back and read some of his comments when the War Measures Act was implemented in Quebec. If they are truly New Democrats, Tommy Douglas New Democrats, they would not be standing with their leader right now and voting in favour of this. They would actually say they cannot do this because it is not right.
If we are looking down the road at different union protests or strikes going on, what is going to prevent them from doing this at those protests or strikes? What are they really fighting for?
1960 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:54:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, President Biden released reserves of oil and gas to lower gas prices and asked the OPEC nations to supply more fuel. Why would he not turn to Canada, our best friend, to get those resources?
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
