Randy Hoback

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, October 23rd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, in theory, I would say yes. We still have to see what is really in the agreement to make sure it will actually meet the requirements of Ukraine and Canada. It has to be a partnership. Any trade agreement, at the end of the day, will not work if it is not a partnership between the two countries.

I like the idea. I like the notion of Canada standing behind Ukraine and fast-tracking it, but we still have to do our due diligence as a government and as an opposition party.

I think we would have to look at this very closely. However, I think we should try to get it to committee as quickly as possible so that the committee can do its job and then go from there. If it comes out of the committee, the committee is happy with it and all parties say that is the way we should go, then we should explore those options just to show that support.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, October 23rd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The trade agreement with Ukraine was done in 2015 and was originally negotiated under the Conservative government. It removed tariffs on 86% of all exports. That agreement really showed support to Ukraine when it needed it. It was there to give it a hand up. It laid the groundwork for creating perfect and good partnerships with Canada and Ukraine and for building on our relationship, which has been going on for years and years.

My riding of Prince Albert has a strong Ukrainian community. Ukrainians are very active in the community. In fact, there is a big festival coming up in a couple of weekends, at which they will be celebrating their heritage again. There are also a lot of Ukrainian refugees in the riding who contribute to our economy. They have basically fit right in and are pulling their weight. I am sure they would rather be back in Ukraine with their families, but we are glad to have them in Saskatchewan, in the riding of Prince Albert. We are making them feel at home, and we are there for them.

This new agreement lays out what I expect in a trade agreement. I am not going to lie. I was actually surprised we made an agreement while the war was ongoing, but looking at Ukraine, I thought we should think about it in a practical sense. Ukraine is going to win this war. I think everybody here believes that Ukraine will win this war. It is going to have to rebuild after the damage that Putin has caused in Ukraine. There is no question about that.

Who is in the best position to help it do that? That would be Canada. That is why we make an agreement like this. We position ourselves to be there not only during the war but also after the war to partner with the Ukrainian people to rebuild their country, to make it the modern country it can be and make it a progressive part of the EU, which I think it will ascend to one day.

We say that is what we expect out of a trade agreement. I expect a trade agreement, first of all, to take advantage of the Canadian skill sets we have. Let us look at the agriculture sector. I used to be the marketing manager in eastern and western Europe for Flexi-Coil, which was owned by Case IH at the time, and for a brief stint, Ukraine was my marketplace. It was one of the areas that I covered.

I went to Ukraine once, and its potential to grow crops was phenomenal, but it did not have the technology. We shipped it air seeders and tractors and got it new genetics. I know other companies go there with cattle genetics and dairy genetics. Canada had all these resources that we shared with Ukraine to build it up, and what did it do? It helped feed the world. Now, with this war, people in northern Africa and places like that may die of hunger because Ukraine is not there to help feed them.

In a scenario like that, with the war and the amount of damage being done, Canada can step in again on the agriculture side to be there for Ukraine, to help rebuild its agriculture sector, its food production and food manufacture. If we look at our manufacturing sector, we have some of the most efficient manufacturers in the world. They have to be. With the carbon taxes and everything they have here, they have to be efficient to compete on the global stage. They are that much better than anywhere else in the world. Canada would be a natural ally to go into Ukraine to help it rebuild its manufacturing sector and their facilities and plants.

We can look at uranium power generation and nuclear technology. Saskatchewan is where uranium is mined, and it is processed in Ontario. When we look at the facilities we have in Canada and what we offer for sale around the world, there is a great partnership to offer to the world. Canada and Ukraine working together could provide green power moving forward. That makes so much sense. I expect a free trade agreement to start to facilitate those types of partnerships and that type of growth.

When I was in western Europe this spring with the foreign affairs committee, one of the discussions was about how to rebuild Ukraine and make sure it has the skill sets, the plumbers, the electricians, the people who would go back to that country after the war to rebuild it. We have talked about how we could use the education system in Canada with the women who are here right now. How can we give them the skill sets so that when they go home, they can contribute to rebuilding their country?

That is something the province of Saskatchewan is looking at very seriously. It is saying that, through its education system, it can do that, making sure people have the proper skill sets, the technology and the know-how to do that, but they also need the resources to do it. They are going to need the lumber, the cement and all the things to finish those projects.

What of those things can come from Canada? Which items can actually be imported from Canada, or maybe from somewhere else, but where the technology and knowledge are transferred into Ukraine? I think there is a tremendous amount of potential there.

As we look at the Canadian Ukrainian community working together, just think about how that partnership can be in the world. When one sees a business that has Ukrainian strengths and Canadian strengths put together, if we think about it, it will compete anywhere in the world.

Ukrainians have one little hurdle, which is Mr. Putin. They have the war to overcome; I am amazed and maybe speechless about just how well they have done and how they have been there, pushing back the Russian forces and fighting for their country and for their people.

One thing I have to say is this: We had a staff member in my office who was from Ukraine, and when the war broke out, she left my office to go back. There is no question of the commitment from people in Ukraine to their country.

Not only Ukrainians from Ukraine but also Ukrainians from around the world are saying the exact same thing: They want to free Ukraine. They want to see their country grow and prosper. Can we give them a hand up and do that?

Can this free trade agreement actually do that? Can it give them a hand up? Can it provide the tools for a prosperous Ukraine after the war?

We need to be there. We cannot neglect things. We cannot say that there are other issues in the world, so we have to water down our support for Ukraine. No, we have to be steadfast, with our chin out, with Ukraine. We have to do what we can to get it through this crisis, this war, and get it back on its feet afterward.

I will tell everyone this: If Canada can do that, we are going to have a good ally and friend for years to come. I just see us building on those strengths. The trade agreement is a great way to do that.

In a trade agreement like this, I expect the markets to be open, with goods coming out of Ukraine. I expect goods to come out of Canada and go to Ukraine. I expect the exchange of technology, labour, knowledge and education systems.

As I said, I expect the uranium sector, the nuclear sector, to be focused on, as well as the commitment to bring that sector together, to actually grow it and to offer that technology throughout the world. We can take our strengths, bring them together and put them on the marketplace.

An FTA can do that. If it is written right, it can do all those things. One thing about an FTA, even now, for the people of Ukraine, is this: They can look at that and say, hey, if it is written right, it is a good agreement.

It is just another reason why we need to fight, to steel our resolve and actually push the Russians and Putin back and get back to some normalcy. I think this FTA could do that. I am looking forward to seeing that as a possibility.

If I look back to the riding and people of Prince Albert, they are free traders. Saskatchewan is a trading province. We export. We produce so much that we have to export. Therefore, we are always in favour of trade and good trade agreements.

With Ukraine, we have technologies that are so common and that have so many advantages we can work together on, and we can work for each other's benefit. It could be a really good relationship moving forward.

I look forward to seeing what is in this agreement. I like the idea of a trade agreement with Ukraine; I always have. I have always liked the idea of giving Ukraine a hand up and being there for them, not only during the war but also after the war. I think there is a possibility of a win-win, if it is done properly.

I think the Ukrainian people will look at us and thank us for being there, both during and after the war. I think they will thank us for being there all the time and consistently.

We have been there since the early 2000s. When the wall came down in Berlin and the Communists left, Canada was one of the first countries to actually start throwing resources into Ukraine. After the war, we will be there to help it again.

[Liberal Party of Canada, October 19th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, over the last eight years, the current government has borrowed, borrowed and borrowed some more. When questioned about its borrowing and the future impact it would have on Canadians, its answer was not to worry; interest rates were low.

The chickens have come home to roost. The current NDP-Liberal government has leveraged the future of Canadians with deficits and inflation that are most certainly not in control. The impact this is having on Canadians is unreal. By continuing to borrow like this, the NDP-Liberal government is mandating unaffordability. People cannot afford their grocery bills, rent or mortgage payments. Walking into a grocery store should not be the cause of stress and anxiety.

The reality is that the current Liberal-NDP government does not understand budgeting. When will the government realize that this Prime Minister is out of touch with Canadians and not worth the cost?

[Petitions, October 3rd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present six petitions signed by 204 residents of the riding of Prince Albert. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to delay its expansion of medical assistance in dying.

[Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act, June 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Port of Vancouver this weekend, which is very concerned about the pending strike and what the government is going to do.

In light of this time allocation legislation, with only five hours to talk about the legislation, its impact on possible labour disputes going forward and whether that has even been talked about, could the minister bring us up to speed on what his plans are to date to make sure that a collective agreement is put in place so we do not face the charges in the supply chain that the parliamentary secretary talked about or a situation where people cannot get the goods they need for the summer?

As we know, not only could there possibly be a strike at the Port of Vancouver, there is a strike in Long Beach. That basically means that all of North America on the west coast would be shut down. Does the government have a plan, or is it just going to sit and watch and let its NDP partners sit and watch with it?

[Carbon Pricing, June 6th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling with the costs of food and fuel. They are facing a cost of living crisis, but what is the Liberal government doing about it? It is adding a second carbon tax.

Canadians need a break, not a tax, and 61¢ a litre could mean the difference between buying food and paying the rent.

Why will the Liberal government not do the right thing, give Canadians a break and axe the tax?

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I understand the challenges the hon. member must face in the north and that the carbon tax must present to her. However, the reality is that those companies are spending billions of dollars on carbon sequestration. They are changing their businesses to get to net zero. That is where those profits are going. Those profits are going to pension funds that get paid out to people right across Canada, like the CPP. Those profits are distributed to the economy in different ways through investment and reinvestment in Canada.

Saying we are going to grab them and give them to the government is a no go, sorry, because the government is horrible with money. I would rather let companies pay it out in dividends and pay it out in pension plans and have it distributed to Canadians that way. I would rather see them spend some money on the environment than give it to the federal government.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2023]

Madam Speaker, there is no problem with standards provided that standards are equipped right across the world and are not set in such a way that they create an unlevel playing field for our producers. That is what this has done. We have done it to ourselves. Nobody has imposed this on us.

The reality is that there is nothing wrong with standards, but let us have the same standards as the U.S., the same as Europe and the same as our competitors. We do not have that. We pay more. We compete in a marketplace with our hands tied behind our backs because we get charged more by the government than anybody else does around the world.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2023]

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.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2023]

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.