- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Prince Albert
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 60%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $168,935.37
- Government Page
- Apr/17/24 2:07:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a respected example of indigenous reconciliation in the town of Weldon, Saskatchewan.
On Saturday, residents came together to participate in a pancake breakfast to raise money for a playground to commemorate the life of Wes Petterson. Wes was a former resident and victim of the mass stabbing on and around James Smith Cree Nation in September 2022.
The Weldon playground project was created in February to raise $150,000 for a new playground in Wes's memory. On Saturday, James Smith Cree Nation's Chief Kirby Constant, Chief Calvin Sanderson and Councillor Adam Whitehead presented the fundraising committee with a cheque for $116,000 to help build this playground.
During the breakfast, James Smith Cree Nation also gifted the town a painting by local indigenous artists. I must say that the room was filled with tears of joy.
May Wes's memory live on through the community playground built for the residents of Weldon and the surrounding area, as well as their families. To the James Smith Cree Nation, I thank them for their generosity and contribution to this project.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/24 2:15:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, while common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost, crime or corruption after eight years.
A typical family of four will now pay $700 more in groceries in 2024 because of the Prime Minister's carbon tax. On April 1, he is increasing the carbon tax yet again, by 23%, as part of his plan to quadruple it, increasing the misery for Canadian families.
Families in Saskatchewan cannot afford this increase, yet the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister will keep hiking this tax, regardless of how expensive groceries and fuel become. He does not understand that if one taxes the farmer that grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, the tax passes down to the person who buys the food.
The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 5:08:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what the member is saying is that it is not actually revenue-neutral. What he is saying is it is turning revenue to somebody else.
My numbers come from the Parliamentary Budget Officer for an average family in Saskatchewan. That is where my numbers come from. If he wants to parse them differently he can go ahead and do that. The reality is that the average family in Saskatchewan is going to receive some $1,480 less than what they pay. That is the reality.
When he talks about charging stations in Prince Albert, he is right. I have nothing against electric vehicles. I think it is something I am going to own somewhere down the road too. However, the reality is that in Nipawin, Shellbrook, Tisdale, Melfort, Smeaton, Kinistino and Carrot River, there is very little charging capacity. These people all have to drive an hour and a half to two hours to get groceries in some cases, so this does not work. Let us put some thought into that before we mandate it.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 4:57:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was such a great presentation from my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia. I was going to ask him a question, but I will get up and speak on the carbon tax, and I am glad we are getting a chance to talk about that here today.
I come from Saskatchewan. It is an agriculture province; it is a forestry province; it is an oil and gas province; it is a province with rare earth minerals; it is a province with uranium; it has a lot of things going for it, yet with carbon tax 2.0, the province's GDP would drop by almost 1%. There would be a 1% hit right off the top with that tax coming into effect.
The average family in Saskatchewan, which has a rural population by majority, would pay $2,840 in carbon tax. We heard our Liberal colleague talk today about how Saskatchewan families are going to get $1,360 back every year. They are going to pay out $2,800 to get $1,300 back. How can that be right? How can that be revenue-neutral? It is not revenue neutral, and that is what people have been complaining about and saying all along.
I think of talking to my friend, Leonard, about the carbon tax. I just need to sit down and say, “Leonard, what do you think of the carbon tax?” and it is a 20-minute conversation going on to a two-hour conversation. He lives in rural Saskatchewan. He has to drive wherever he goes. He has no options to take a bus. He had no options for electric vehicles, because he goes beyond 200 or 400 kilometres. There is no infrastructure for electric vehicles. He has no options to take a train. What does he do? He has to drive. He looks for the most fuel-efficient vehicle he can buy. He has already done that, because it makes economic sense to do that. He looks for other ways to save costs, so he tries to reduce the number of trips he goes on. That is good, but the reality is that he has no choice.
The reality for farmers across Saskatchewan is that they have no choice.
If I look at an agricultural producer, he is going to pay carbon tax on the fertilizer coming into his farm; he is going to pay carbon tax on the diesel used to plant his crop; he is going to pay carbon tax to take off that crop; he is going to pay the carbon tax to ship out his crop; and if he has to dry it, he is going to pay the carbon tax on drying his crop.
Hopefully, the Senate will put forward the bill that would actually give those costs back to farmers. I hope to see the day this House approves that. That would be a step in the right direction to help farmers, and indirectly would help Canadians with their food costs.
The reality is that when we look at these costs on a 5,000-acre farm, it is going to be about $150,000 a year that farmers are going to bear, which their competitors just across the line in the U.S. will not bear, nor their competitor in Australia, nor their competitor in Europe. Those areas do not have a tax as punitive as we do here in Canada, so there has to be a better way.
Why do we need a taxing system to improve the environment to the detriment of families? Can we not do both? Can we not have an affordable economy, still attack issues in the environment and make sure we do what we need to do to improve the environment?
We have seen the carbon tax have limited results and limited success. Going to carbon tax 2.0 would not do anything more except make it worse. The Liberals are going to make it more expensive for people do things. They are going to make it more expensive for people to do things they have to do. They do not have a choice. They do not have an alternative. Is there not a better way?
I look at the U.S. They are attacking climate change. They are looking at ways to do it, but not with a carbon tax, because they understand that a carbon tax is so hard on families and small businesses, that it is not an economical way to get the results we need to get for our country. There are different ways of doing it, yet the current government doubles down, and instead of actually looking at it in a very serious manner and saying that they really look at the environment and make improvements to the environment, they are just going to take the money away from our farmers, small businesses and families, and leave them with nothing. How are people supposed to make the changes that need to be made to meet the environmental requirements that are going to asked of them going forward?
If we pull $150,000 a year out of a farm, how does that farmer go and make an improvement on his machinery? How does he make an improvement on his yard, like putting in more solar panels? How does he do the things he needs to do to become net zero by 2050? He cannot; he has just given all that money to Ottawa. Where does it come from? There is no help coming back the other way. It is a one-way street, and it is not help that is going to make a farmer more profitable going forward. There is no reinvestment in the industry, the rail system or the ports. We have seen nothing to assist farmers along the way. It has just been a clear cash grab, and that is really sad, because farmers could actually do a lot of things with that $150,000.
Farmers in Saskatchewan were the first to do no-till. In fact, I was with Flexicoil and Case New Holland, and they introduced the technology. We were embedding carbon before carbon was really even talked about. We were reducing fuel costs before reducing fuel costs was being talked about. We were doing those things in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, before it was even popular in the House of Commons.
Farmers take care of the environment. They recognize climate change. My dad, in the 1970s and 1980s, talked about climate change. He talked about how the weather has been changing and how things are different now than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago and 50 years ago. Climate change, to farmers, is nothing new. Weather change is nothing new.
The reality is they want to do their part, but if we drain all of the revenue out of their bank accounts, how can they? How can they participate? How can they raise their families? What will the future be like for food production and food security in Canada if they cannot operate and run a successful farm and if they cannot transfer that asset down to their kids because it is not profitable?
That is what is happening with the carbon tax 1 and the carbon tax 2.0. Can we not do something different? Can we not find different ways to meet environmental requirements that actually do that? Can we not put together an environmental and climate change plan that does not penalize families, that does not hurt the mom and dad who live in rural Saskatchewan when they want to take their kid to the doctor or just go to town and buy groceries? Why are they the target?
The reality is that there is some $1,480 difference in what they get versus what they pay, so we are already hitting them there, and then we have increased the cost of food and increased the cost of everything else. The doubling down's impact on them is substantial.
If I lived in downtown Toronto, and I have no issue with people in downtown Toronto, I would have all the options. I could take the bus. I could take the subway. I could walk. I would have that ability. I do not in rural Saskatchewan. That is what the government fails to comprehend. We do not have the options in place.
I want to pivot a little to electric vehicles. I have nothing against electric vehicles, but I live in rural Saskatchewan. We do not have the infrastructure yet, although I believe that someday we will. When I look at what the U.S. is doing in regard to emissions, the U.S. did not prescribe what type of vehicle we need to drive to hit emissions targets. It just set the targets. It went to the industry and said, “Here are the targets and this is what you have to do.”
What did the government do? It should have done the same but it did not. It said, no, it has to be electric vehicles. There is a problem with that. What about hydrogen? What about new technologies we have not even dreamt of yet? What about new ways of doing things that actually meet those goals and solve the issues that the electric vehicle does not solve?
How does somebody who lives 200 kilometres north of Prince Albert charge their vehicle, get it to Prince Albert and get it home in the same day? How do they do it when it is -40°C? These are questions my constituents are asking. They are asking where the charging stations are, where they will be and what will be involved. If they get to a charging station, will they be able to plug in right away or will they have to wait for 45 minutes before the guy in front of them finishes charging? These are questions that should be answered and talked about as we go down this path.
If we look at the U.S., it said to those in the industry to figure it out. They are smarter than the government. They can figure it out and tell us the best way. It may be hydrogen. It may be electric vehicles in certain areas. It may be something else. That is fine as long as we hit the goals.
That comes back to the carbon tax. Why do we care about how we do this as long as we hit the goals? When we see that something is not working, why would we not change course? Why would we not actually look at it in a different way and say this is not as good a way of doing it as we thought it was going to be? In theory, it sounds really great. In reality, it is killing our small businesses. In reality, it is doing a lot of harm to our families. Can we not do something different instead of doubling down on it?
That is the frustration Canadians have right now. We should be listening to Canadians at the doorsteps and talking to them. Why are the Liberals not looking for other alternatives to hit the environmental targets they put out, instead of just doubling down on something that has not worked? That is why we are here today. We are just telling them over and over again that the process they put in place is not working. Look for something different. Can they not do an environmental program without hurting Canadian small businesses and families? Surely they can do that.
1947 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 4:37:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I want to extend my appreciation to all the hard-working firefighters and folks who are out there in harm's way, protecting themselves.
I appreciate the member's comments. He said that families in Saskatchewan are getting roughly $1,360 back a year. However, they are paying out $2,840 every year, so where is the difference going? He talks about this being revenue-neutral; if it is, then why are they not getting back the full $2,840? There is roughly around $1,480 that is coming out of Saskatchewan and going somewhere else. Can he tell me where that is going?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think this is such a great motion. There are so many times when we come to the House of Commons and listen to a lot of speeches that have zero impact for the people on the ground back in the riding. This is one example where it actually does have an impact back in the riding.
Can the member tell me how tradespeople in Saskatchewan will benefit from this type of legislation?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 2:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's carbon tax has had a devastating effect in my province of Saskatchewan.
On April 1, the carbon tax will increase the cost of fuel an additional 14¢ a litre. My constituents tell me their heat and hydro costs are already unaffordable.
A typical Canadian farmer will now face $150,000 in carbon tax alone, something their competitors will not have to pay. Our farmers are the most efficient in the world. As the world needs more Canadian food exports, the Prime Minister is making it impossible for our farmers to survive. He needs to stop punishing their ability to feed the world.
As carbon emissions continue to grow, money continues to flow from families, businesses and farmers. If our goal is to fight climate change by reducing emissions, it is obvious that the carbon tax is not the answer.
The Conservatives have a better way. A Conservative government will get rid of the carbon tax.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 5:22:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, it shows why there are no Green members elected in Saskatchewan, because they are not in touch with the agriculture community in Saskatchewan.
If the member is concerned about what is going on in the Port of Vancouver, I am too. When they are ranked second last out of 400 as a port for Canada, that tells us they have had bad policies and are not putting the infrastructure in place that is required for Canadian shippers, and the member is paying for it in her riding. There is no question about it.
If the government had actually put in the processes, had actually modernized the ports and spent the money in an appropriate manner, made it capable of taking on the next generation of ships that might be hydrogen-based, if it would do things like that, then we would actually see some results, but it has done nothing and the—
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 4:58:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend from New Westminster—Burnaby, and it just shows a sad attempt at relevance. The NDP is not even relevant enough in Saskatchewan to be invited to a Saskatchewan NDP convention, because it is not viewed any longer as a credible NDP party.
In Saskatchewan, we have had NDP governments in the past. The saving grace for us is we had Alberta. We could go to Alberta to work. When we have an NDP-Liberal government here in the federacy, where do Canadians go to get a job? That is a real problem facing Canadians at this point in time.
As we look at this motion and the context of this motion, some of it is correct. It is fair to look at the motion itself, and it is fair to study exactly where the price increases in food are happening and why. We should look through the entire chain, right from the farm gate all the way through the supply chain and to the end users. We need to look and examine what is there.
What concerns me here is the fact that members predetermined the result. Will this member give the committee the chance and the credibility to do a thorough a study, and will he accept the results? When it comes back and members realize it was carbon tax that created the increase in the price of food and it is the government's bad policies that they have been supporting, will they vote against it and bring the government down?
261 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 3:52:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who I know has a very important speech to give after me.
This is a very timely motion, considering what is going on in our airports across Canada and the fact that many have had the privilege to pair off with a minister to the U.S. I could draw some comparisons to how the U.S. is doing things in light of post-COVID, or endemic COVID, versus how we do it here in Canada.
To be travelling here in Canada, people have to be vaccinated. Let us make that point very clear. Let us look at the way people go through the process. In Saskatoon, I get to the airport and walk into the airport, but I do not have a mask. I have been out and about in the community all weekend without a mask. I do not have one in my pocket and have to run back to my truck to find one in the glove box, because I need one at the airport. I do not need it anywhere else in Saskatchewan, but I need it at the airport.
I find an old mask, dust it off and away I go through security. I show my NEXUS card. In Saskatoon, a NEXUS card does not get people into their own lane. It actually just gets them to the front of the line. That must make the people who have been waiting in line for an hour and a half really happy to watch me walk by them to go to the front of the line—
278 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 1:53:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes an excellent point. One would think people in Saskatchewan want dental care, and yes, they do, but they do not want to burden their kids with all sorts of expenses they cannot afford. This is a structural change in government spending, so we need tax revenue, not just today but in the future, to pay for it. How we are going to do that? We just shut down the oil and gas sector and we just heard from the manufacturing sector that it is leaving, so what are we going to do? My suggestion, if we want a dental program and pharmacare program, is to maybe get the cash first. Maybe pay for it instead of financing it through deficit and then waiting for somewhere down the road to pay for it.
We talk about the big banks and the people who make tremendous amounts of money with their corporations. Proper taxation is very important, no question about it, but keep in mind that when a big bank makes money, what does it do? It pays out dividends. What do shareholders do? They reinvest it back into the Canadian economy. They buy things, or they borrow from the bank and use the money in their business to function their operating capital. If we want to have fair taxation rates for banks, let us talk about that; let us make that part of the debate. However, why not raise that money first before we start committing Canadians to a structural expense that they may not be able to afford?
264 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
