Bradley Trost

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to a carbon tax, a mileage tax, or a tax on greenhouse gas emissions: (a) what are the details of all correspondence and briefing materials between all government departments, Crown Corporations and agencies, that were sent or received since October 19, 2015, including but not limited to, (i) the sender, (ii) the recipient, (iii) the dates that correspondence was sent or received; and (b) what are the details of any briefings to ministers or staff which contain mention of a carbon tax, a mileage tax, or a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, that were sent or received since October 19, 2015?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the implementation or levy of a carbon tax, by the government, its departments and agencies: (a) have studies been conducted to determine how much global warming will be prevented by the imposition of a carbon tax over, (i) the next five years, (ii) the next ten years, (iii) the next 15 years, (iv) the next 20 years, (v) the next 25 years, (vi) the next 50 years, (vii) the next 75 years, (viii) the next 100 years; (b) what is meant by a carbon tax; (c) what does a carbon tax cover; (d) will a carbon tax levied be a straightforward tax levied on any emissions of carbon dioxide when they occur; (e) will a carbon tax levied be a straightforward tax levied on any emissions of carbon dioxide when they occur, regardless of where in Canada they occur; (f) does the carbon tax cover natural resource operations, and, if so, to what extent; (g) does the carbon tax cover oil extraction, and, if so, to what extent; (h) does the carbon tax cover natural gas extraction, and, if so, to what extent; (i) does the carbon tax cover coal mining or coal generation, and, if so, to what extent; (j) does the carbon tax cover the generation of electricity, and, if so, to what extent; (k) does the carbon tax cover agricultural activities and, if so, to what extent; (l) does the carbon tax cover carbon stored in soils; (m) how does the government plan to deal with measurement issues during implementation of a carbon tax; (n) how does the government plan to deal with measurement issues regarding the slow release of carbon dioxide over time; (o) how will carbon dioxide emissions be measured as this gas slowly leaks out of formations where carbon dioxide is sequestered; (p) will a carbon tax be applied to the type of emissions identified in (o); (q) does the carbon tax cover forestry operations, and, if so, to what extent; (r) does the carbon tax cover timber; (s) how will a carbon tax be levied on the content of carbon in timber; (t) how will a carbon tax be levied on the content of carbon in timber when it is harvested; (u) how will a carbon tax take in account carbon stored in wood products; (v) once trees reach maturity, how will the government prevent or delay harvest, broken down by each forest, and whether it is public or private; (w) how will carbon taxes be contracted; (x) how will carbon taxes be measured; (y) how will carbon taxes be monitored for compliance; and (z) what information, including the details of all documents, briefing notes and correspondence, has the government complied on implementing a mileage tax?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to federal government spending within the City of Saskatoon, for each fiscal year since 2010-2011, inclusively: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

[Petitions, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to introduce a petition of several hundred people from Saskatoon who are calling upon the House of Commons to specifically identify hospice palliative care as a defined medical service covered under the Canada Health Act. With the current debate in Parliament, this is a very timely petition.

[National Anthem Act, June 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today. I believe it is likely I will be closing this debate, and a momentous one it is.

These are not perfunctory. We often issue our best wishes to fellow members in this House for various things, but to my hon. colleague, let me say from the bottom of my heart, we pray for a miracle and we wish him our best. Even though I will not be voting for his legislation, I do think he will have the satisfaction of seeing it pass the House of Commons at least, if not the Senate as well.

A fair number of my colleagues have stated, and I will not restate to any great degree, the issues we have with the process of this. We understand the reasons and are somewhat sympathetic. One of the things we must understand is that we hold this office on behalf of Canadians, and therefore we have the duty to speak on their behalf, to speak for all viewpoints in this country, the viewpoints that we represent in this House. That is the reason I am rising here today.

There are many reasons that have been stated as to why we should not support this legislation. They include attachment to symbols, the history, the possibility that “thy sons command” was a reference, looking forward to possibly some military engagements our country would have been involved in, going forward.

However, for me, the reason that I will be opposing this legislation is a very simple one. If I vote for this legislation and the rationale has been made that it is discriminatory, I would then be accepting that Canada had been, in its words, discriminatory for the last roughly 100 years.

It is my understanding that the reason the lyrics were changed, and the grandson of the author was going to change it, was not for any particular great issue, etc., but for poetic reasons, to make things much more easier to flow, to go forward. It is what poets do.

We think of how the French version of our anthem talks about bearing a cross, carrying a sword, flowers on the head. Canada is not a person, but poetic language also includes that. This is effectively a Victorian poem. The language used is period language, and that is one thing that I think needs to be understood, and was understood clearly by the people at the time. Symbolism allows us a little more flexibility.

The second thing, and this one puzzles and surprises me, and perhaps because the way I was educated was a little different, is that people cannot understand or recognize that historically the word “sons” in English has not necessarily been a term used purely to refer to the male gender. There are many illustrations and the historian who testified at committee pointed this out. It is a term that is often used for the broader encompassment of all people. The author referenced the sons of Jacob, a phrase that is used in various poetic songs and other things of that nature coming from the King James version of the Bible and other periods.

I do understand Shakespearean language. King James language is not as common now as it used to be, but that is the intent, that is the understanding of the language going in. I think we actually do owe a certain degree of respect to the people who have understood that it was inclusive of everyone, going forward.

If I thought this was discriminatory, excluding half of our population, I could support that. I think there are some changes that need to be made from time to time to various symbols to understand and to broaden. I do not see this change bringing my daughter, my wife, my mother in, because I saw them brought in under the old terms.

It is for those reasons, along with some of the reasons my colleague has stated, that I will be choosing to vote no on this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again, God's blessing to my colleague.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's emphasis on people on the lower end of the spectrum, having grown up in a family that was generally beneath the poverty line. Having once not had money for my rent, I had to sleep in a car for a month, so I very much appreciate where the hon. member is coming from.

One of the interesting things I noticed when she was talking about the new child benefits was that the underlying philosophy behind it is giving money directly to parents, something which, when I first got here, was a matter of debate for the House: do we give money directly to parents, or do we set up a day care or other great social welfare program across the country?

Does the hon. member not concede that giving money directly to parents, as the Conservatives did and now the Liberals seem to be saying, is actually the best way to help families with children who have particular needs?

[Natural Resources, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's steel industry provides 22,000 direct jobs, with an average salary of $75,000 per year. Another 100,000 indirect jobs are associated with the industry.

According to Canadian Steel Producers Association, the value chain stretches all the way back to eastern Canada, to where iron ore is mined in Quebec and Labrador before being poured into primary steel forms in Ontario.

Why are the Liberals killing jobs in our steel mills, mines, and factories across Canada that benefit from new pipelines?

[Natural Resources, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, steelworkers are excited for the job security that comes with over 1,100 kilometres of high-grade steel for the northern gateway pipeline. Thank goodness for energy east, its 4,600 kilometres of steel pipe and the 14,000 construction jobs that come with it.

However, wait, the Liberals voted against energy east, and the Prime Minister killed northern gateway.

Why are the Liberals saying no to building new pipelines and tens of thousands of high-paying jobs?

[North Korean Refugees, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the privilege of attending a meeting in regard to the plight of North Korean refugees in China. I and other members of the House heard how these refugees are preyed upon, how North Korean women are kidnapped to be forced wives in China only to be kidnapped years later and returned to North Korea leaving their children behind.

We heard how these defectors are forced to live, never sure of the basic necessities of life, fearful that at any moment agents of North Korea will swoop down and take them away.

Assisting North Korean defectors is something that all parties of the House have spoken of in the past. The issue, therefore, is not a matter of inattention, it is a matter of attention. It is a matter of action. The government, with the support of the opposition parties, needs to act on previous motions brought in the House. Canada needs to take concrete action to help refugees fleeing North Korea. We need to support NGOs that provide life-saving assistance.

There are many issues that divide the House. This is not one of them. Canada needs to be involved in aiding North Korean defectors and we need to do it now.

[Softwood Lumber, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and President Obama now said that a new softwood lumber agreement would be made within 100 days. Well, the clock is ticking. Time is running out.

Over half of Saskatchewan is forested. Forestry is northern Saskatchewan's largest industry. It generates $1 billion in forest product sales, $800 million in exports, and directly employs 4,000 Canadians.

What is the Minister of International Trade doing to keep forestry workers in Saskatchewan employed by securing U.S. market access?