Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 957
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2021-06-23 15:37 [p.9061]
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment about this whole issue that has been before the House. I was so pleased with your actions on it, as were my constituents. I know this is a great blow to the sense, again, of credibility of the place in which I am so proud to sit. I would ask that you, please, do everything you can to expedite this response that we need for the people of Canada to know this place has the authority with which it has been invested, and that your response would be coming forward very quickly to them to let them know that what we do in this place actually matters.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions here today.
In the first petition, the citizens of my riding are calling on the government to reverse course on their ban on strychnine, which is used to control Richardson's ground squirrels populations as Richardson's ground squirrels can pose a serious threat to the health and well-being of our livestock population and also to our food security.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is calling on the Government of Canada to defend the energy sector at any opportunity as presented to them both nationally and internationally to make sure that they are prioritizing the natural resource sector here in Canada.
View Robert Kitchen Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Essex for pointing out that the Liberals love making things up. One of the things that they suffer from is a disease called “dyspocketnesia”. What it means is taking from “this pocket”, which is the taxpayer pocket, and putting it into “that pocket”, which is the government's pocket, and then forgetting about why they did it.
One person who does not forget about things that the Liberals do is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who points out the Liberal claim that they would create 315,000 jobs this year, 334,000 in 2022, and 280,000 in 2023. He notes that it is more likely 39,000 jobs this year, 74,000 next year and 94,000 in the year after that.
I wonder if my colleague would mind commenting about these job numbers.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the member use his favourite word, according to Open Parliament, which is “Conservatives”, so I want to congratulate him for being able to avoid the rhetoric.
I am grateful that he talked about some things of substance in the budget bill, particularly child care. The federal government has a $30-billion plan for it. There has been a lot of interest and a lot of feedback on that in my riding. A lot of people are concerned about the costs that are going to be shared with the provinces. People are looking at the finances of the provinces and asking how on earth the provinces will be able to afford their portions of this.
Can the member comment on that?
View Corey Tochor Profile
CPC (SK)
View Corey Tochor Profile
2021-06-22 14:01 [p.8970]
Mr. Speaker, there is something rotten on Parliament Hill. We have the Centre Block renovations that have become a big, black hole for Canadian taxpayers, with billions of dollars blown through already, over budget, delayed and literally just a big hole on Parliament Hill, and the Liberals are just getting started.
It is now being reported that the once proud national symbol is being “green washed”. The Liberals want to cancel our centennial flame, symbolizing Canadian unity, that has been using Canadian natural gas since the start. The Liberals now want the flame to burn on garbage instead. They would rather truck in garbage dump gases from Montreal than use Canadian clean natural gas.
When will the Liberals stop turning our national symbols into garbage? Canada is not a garbage dump, and the Liberals need to stop treating us like one.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Speaker, the budget references rural and remote communities. I have a very large rural riding and so does the member. I am wondering if he wants to comment further about what this budget would do or, in my opinion, would not do for rural and remote communities. Maybe he has something he would like to share with the House that will benefit rural and remote Canadians.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Speaker, we are here debating closure on a very important topic. It is top of mind for all Canadians. As we have already heard other members say, the bill was rammed through committee and the government did not consider all the reports at committee. I am on the natural resources committee. We have been hearing from numerous witnesses across multiple studies that the government does not even have complete data on the amount of carbon that we sequester here, and there does not appear to be any commitment to make sure we are getting that data.
What is going to be done to make sure this will be achieved as we move toward the path that the government is ramming through on Canadians?
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
View Brad Redekopp Profile
2021-06-22 19:46 [p.9014]
Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of sitting on the environment committee with my colleague, and I did notice all of the collusion that happened between the NDP and the Liberals on this issue.
My question to him is simple. How will all of the collusion in the way the NDP has worked to support the Liberals be portrayed in the next election? Can Canadians trust NDP members to have their own thoughts, or are they just here to prop up the Liberal government?
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
View Brad Redekopp Profile
2021-06-22 20:36 [p.9018]
moved:
That Bill C-12, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 12 to line 9 on page 13 with the following:
“(2) The Minister must make the annual report available to the public within 30 days after receiving it and then, within 120 days after receiving the report, the Minister must publicly respond to the advice that the advisory body includes in it with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs 20(1)(a) to (c), including any national greenhouse gas emissions target that is recommended by the advisory body if the Minister has set a target that is different from it.”
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
View Brad Redekopp Profile
2021-06-22 20:50 [p.9020]
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to speak tonight to this important bill. I am going to take a bit of a different slant on this.
As members know, I was first elected in 2019, so I am a relatively new member of this House. This period of time just before the session ends for the summer is a very busy time, as I understand. This is my first experience with it. It is the first time I have gotten to see the government trying to complete its agenda, which is kind of lagging. What I have been expecting is the very best the government has to offer to get its agenda through before the House rises for the summer.
My background, really briefly, is that I come from the accounting world, and specifically the management accounting area. Efficiency was one of the things I really focused on. I worked in a manufacturing plant and I helped people figure out the easiest way to do their job so that it required the least amount of labour and we could produce the best product, most efficiently, at the best price. Essentially, it is where I learned one of my mottoes, which is “Work smarter, not harder.”
As I have watched what has gone on here in the last couple of weeks from my lens, a relatively new lens, I have witnessed the exact opposite of efficiency. It has been quite fascinating. In fact, I imagine that when our Prime Minister was on his way back from his vacation trip to Europe a couple of weeks ago, he had to stop in a quarantine hotel like all other Canadians, except that he of course stayed in a special hotel that was close to his house and was only there for a few hours—but I digress. He probably would have called his government House leader to ask how things were going and how the legislation was coming along. Unfortunately, the government House leader would have had to give him the sad news that nothing had happened, that in fact everything had stalled out because of the many mistakes made by the government. In fact, everything was in chaos, as he could see if he looked at Bill C-30 or Bill C-10 or anything else.
As we look at this bill, the government House leader has denied many times that the Liberals are going to call an election shortly, saying it is the event that just is not going to happen. However, in April, on this bill, the Liberals seemed to suddenly realize that they needed to pass something, and that is where Bill C-12 came into the picture. They needed to pass something just in case the event that is not going to happen happens.
After months of inaction on this bill, suddenly there was a big panic. Why is the government willing to ram through a flawed bill just before the summer? It is just in case that event that is not going to happen happens. Of course, the Liberals could wait until September, but here we are instead. It is the last panic time before the event that is not going to happen happens. This is hypocritical, and it is very disrespectful to our democracy.
I want to look at Bill C-12 through my new eyes. I had a front-row seat to this bill because I am on the environment committee. I have been able to see this first-hand. One of the questions I was asking myself was, “How do we have success when creating a new law?” Of course, the first step is to write a good bill. When the minister came to our committee, the first thing he said was that he was open to amendments. I am assuming he said that because he knew that the bill was not well written and that it had many flaws.
He just opened the floodgates, because there were 114 amendments that came to committee, and 17 of those came from the government itself. The bill was only 10 pages long at that point. That is over 11 amendments per page, or four per clause. That is a lot of amendments. Those numbers alone should prove that this bill was flawed.
Every morning we are led in a prayer by the Speaker, and one of the lines in that prayer is “Grant us wisdom....to make good laws....” I cannot sit back and watch this law come into force. It is a bad law. The number of amendments also showed that this was true.
The second way that we could have success when creating a new law is to get feedback. There was a lot of feedback. There were 75 briefs received by the environment committee, which is great. A lot of Canadians put in a lot of hard work to write reports and provide information to the committee. The bad news is that only eight of those briefs were received before we started our study. That was because the study was jammed in. It was rushed into committee with a very short deadline.
That means that 67 briefs were received after we did our study. It means that the work of many Canadians was ignored, and the government was happy to ignore it. It was not particularly interested in listening to the views of people who submitted the briefs. It had a plan, an idea of what it wanted to accomplish, and that is what it was going to do.
The third way we could make sure to have success in creating a new bill is to let the committee do its work. The first thing the government did was make a deal with the NDP. It did not want the committee to get bogged down in any details of actually providing useful information. It wanted to be able to ram things through.
The Liberal-NDP coalition did exactly that. It rammed this bill through the committee. Almost every single vote at the committee was marked by the Liberal-NDP coalition. The Liberals and the NDP made no bones about their coalition.
The NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley posted to his Twitter before the clause by clause started, “[T]he NDP will be proposing amendments that the government has agreed to support.... We have also jointly agreed to a number of other amendments.”
What was the practical result of this? The New Democrats and the Liberals fell silent. They did not ask questions. I am not even sure they read many of the amendments or even understood what they were. They had a plan. They just knew to vote for this and not vote for that. Therefore, it fell to the Conservatives and the Bloc MPs to scrutinize these amendments. As for me, I asked reasoned and thoughtful questions of the departmental experts as to the consequences of certain amendments, but the problem was that there were 114 amendments, as I said.
As I also mentioned, the government put forward 17 of its own amendments. That means that on 17 separate occasions, the minister messed up drafting the bill and he needed his MPs to fix it. That is like us buying a new car, driving it off the lot and just as we are leaving, the salesman says he has scheduled 17 appointments for us to come back for maintenance because the dealer messed up and there are a bunch of problems with the car. Therefore, we drive it off the lot, go back tomorrow and the dealer starts fixing it. It makes no sense.
The Liberals and the New Democrats on the committee were only interested in their amendments. They refused to engage with us on our amendments. To prove my point, there was kind of a funny example.
Subsection 7(4) of the original bill required that the minister would set national targets five years in advance. The government and NDP wanted to change that to 10 years in advance. The problem was the Greens put forward an identical amendment and because they got there first, we dealt with their amendment first.
As was the practice of the government and the NDP members, they did not want to support anyone else's amendments and certainly not the Greens'. Therefore, the Green amendment was voted on and was rejected. Next up was the government amendment that was literally identical. The chair, rightly so, ruled that it was inadmissible because we had just dealt with this at committee and we had decided not to proceed with it. That was a big problem. Everybody wanted to vote for that second one because the members actually wanted the amendment. However, I do not think they read the first one from the Greens, which was the same, and they did not realize they had just voted down, essentially, their own amendment.
In the end, after a very long discussion and a lot of time wasted, the government members finally realized that instead of saying 10 years, they could say “9 years 366 days”, which was different enough to get it passed. I found that quite humorous, that the government members were not able to accomplish this.
I have an amendment that was read tonight, and it is in a section of the bill referring to the work of the advisory body, specifically the annual report that it has to submit. My amendment would require that the minister make the annual report public and, further, that the minister publicly respond to this report. It would require the government to actually take action, which is something we all know the Liberals are quite allergic to. The Liberals tried to make an amendment on this section at committee, but theirs was sloppy and it left the legislation in very bad shape.
Essentially, the Liberal-NDP amendment added words but it did not remove redundant words, so the bill as it is written right now makes no sense in that section. It still includes a long sentence that should not be there and it starts with a partial word. It just does not make a whole lot of sense. My amendment allows that wording to make sense again.
The Green Party put forward some really good amendments. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was quite frustrated at committee. I want to quote her because it is quite telling. She said:
I have to say that this is the most dispiriting process of clause-by-clause that I've experienced in many years. Usually amendments are actually considered, people actually debate them and there is a good-faith process....
I condemn this government for what it has done: for telling people like me, who believed in good faith that there would be an actual appetite for change to improve the bill and who accepted it and prepared amendments, only to show up here and watch Liberals stay mute, the NDP stay mute and march through their amendments, passing them in force, and not listening and not caring about the possibility that other amendments might work.
What happens when there is a flawed committee process? Flawed legislation results. Bill C-12 is flawed legislation.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
View Brad Redekopp Profile
2021-06-22 21:01 [p.9022]
Mr. Speaker, what we have to understand is that right in the numbers she provided there will be oil and gas used in the world for many years to come. I want to ensure that Canada is the country producing and supplying that oil and gas to the world.
We have some of the toughest rules when it comes to human rights, labour policies and environmental legislation. We do not want oil that will be produced in the world to come from jurisdictions where they do not have the tight and very difficult rules we have. That is clearly what we want, and Canada can lead the world in that way.
We also have to remember that our oil and gas producers are very good with technology, and they are developing new technology all the time, which reduces the carbon footprint of our own gas production. Through technology and good legislation, we can be leaders in the world and we can produce the oil and gas that the world will need for many decades to come.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
View Brad Redekopp Profile
2021-06-22 21:03 [p.9022]
Mr. Speaker, yes, global warming is real and yes, we need to do something about it. It is not other politicians that need to be convinced of this, it is people. Where people struggle sometimes with this, is the fact that many of the proposed solutions to this point will affect them deeply. They are going to take away their jobs. They are going to take away their livelihood. They are going to take away things that they are used to. That is why we have to be smart in how we do this. We cannot simply outlaw things without proper solutions to replace them with.
It is incumbent upon us as leaders to ensure that we have the tools in place to reduce our greenhouse footprint, absolutely, but we need to do it in a way that does not get rid of jobs, does not throw people into poverty, that allows people to live their lives, but do it in a better and more environmentally friendly way.
Results: 1 - 15 of 957 | Page: 1 of 64

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data