Gerald Soroka

[Carbon Pricing, April 19th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal government has hit Canadians with another carbon tax increase of 23%. Grocery prices are climbing, making families choose between heating and eating.

Conservatives tried to ease this burden by passing Bill C-234, which axes the tax on farmers. However, this week, the Liberals blocked it. They are hell-bent on making life more expensive. If they are so confident in their costly plan, will they let Canadians decide and call for a carbon tax election?

[Protection Against Extortion Act, April 17th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today before this House to address a grave concern that has escalated into a crisis under the watch of the NDP-Liberal government. Extortion, a severe crime threatening the safety and security of Canadians, has surged alarmingly, particularly in Alberta. We have seen a staggering 283% increase in reported cases after eight years of the current government. This epidemic of crime has sown fear across our communities, demanding a robust response that the current policies fail to provide.

In recent years, our nation has witnessed a troubling escalation in extortion rates, driven by inadequate responses and lenient policies from the government. Its approach to crime, especially to serious offences like extortion, has been characterized by a disturbing leniency that has allowed criminals to thrive. Notably, the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for extortion-related offences under Liberal Bill C-5 has directly contributed to this increase, emboldening offenders with the knowledge that consequences will be minimal.

The impact in Alberta has been particularly severe. Families and business owners face daily threats, and entire communities live in heightened anxiety. A glaring example of the government's failure to protect its citizens occurred recently in Edmonton, where a criminal network targeted the South Asian community. Home builders and construction business owners were extorted for large ransoms via threats communicated through digital platforms like WhatsApp. When their demands were not met, the criminals resorted to arson, destroying properties and livelihoods. This case is not isolated but is indicative of a broader pattern enabled by the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies.

This surge in extortion is mirrored nationally, with Canada's overall extortion incidents having increased fivefold over the past decade. These numbers are damning evidence of the failure of the NDP-Liberal coalition's approach. Its soft-on-crime stance has not only undermined the effectiveness of our police forces but also eroded the trust between the Canadian public and the justice system. The promise of safety and security, a fundamental responsibility of any government, has been forsaken, leaving Canadians to bear the consequences. The consequences of the government's policies extend beyond the immediate victims of extortion. They ripple across the economy, deter investment and stifle the growth of communities, particularly those most vulnerable to such crimes.

In Alberta, where the extortion rate has skyrocketed, we see a clear correlation between rising crime and a faltering community confidence. This erosion of security is the direct result of policies that prioritize criminal leniency over effective public safety. In the face of rising extortion threats and the palpable failure of the current government, the Conservative deputy leader and hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods has taken decisive action by introducing a common-sense bill, Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. This legislation marks a critical shift towards restoring the rule of law and providing substantial deterrence against the crime of extortion.

Bill C-381 is carefully crafted to address the complexities of extortion crimes, ensuring that penalties are both appropriate and effective. The legislation proposes to re-establish mandatory minimum sentences, which were unwisely removed by the Liberals, weakening our justice system's ability to deter serious criminal activity. Under this new law, anyone found guilty of extortion would face a minimum of three years in prison. This firm stance is essential to communicate that extortion will not be tolerated and the justice system stands ready to impose significant consequences.

The bill specifically addresses the escalated risks involved when firearms are used in extortion. By restoring a mandatory four-year penalty for extortion involving firearms, this bill aims to counteract the increased danger to victims and to send a strong message to criminals about the seriousness of using deadly weapons in the commission of crimes. Additionally, the legislation targets the organized crime networks that often orchestrate these extortion schemes.

Recognizing the sophisticated nature of these criminal enterprises, the bill sets a mandatory five-year sentence for any act of extortion carried out for the benefit of, or in association with, a criminal organization. This provision is particularly crucial as it strikes at the heart of organized crime, aiming to dismantle the groups that profit from extortion activities.

This bill also introduces arson as a recognized aggravating factor in extortion cases. This is a significant addition, reflecting the severe impact that arson has on victims and communities. It is often used as a tool for intimidation or retaliation. Enhancing penalties for extortion cases involving arson acknowledges the profound trauma and the destruction associated with such acts and bolsters the law’s response to them.

The introduction of Bill C-381 comes at a critical time, when the need to fortify our legal framework against extortion has never been more urgent. The recent rise in extortion cases, especially those involving severe tactics like arson and the use of firearms, underscores the need for legislation that can effectively respond to and curb these crimes.

By implementing these targeted measures, this legislation not only aims to deter individuals and groups involved in extortion, but also to restore public confidence in the justice system’s ability to protect them and to ensure their safety.

The differences between Conservative and Liberal approaches to addressing crime are stark. While the current NDP-Liberal coalition has favoured a soft approach that has seen penalties reduced and serious offenders quickly returned to the streets, Conservatives advocate for robust measures that prioritize the safety of all Canadians. Our approach is to enforce laws that deter criminals effectively and that provide real protection to our communities.

As we stand here today, faced with a significant rise in violent crimes and extortion, we must choose action over inaction. The protection against extortion act is not just another piece of legislation; it is a real solution for those who have been living in fear of criminals. This bill would restore necessary and effective penalties for extortion, particularly addressing the use of firearms, the involvement of organized crime and the destructive act of arson. We can no longer stand by as our communities suffer.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-381. It is time to send a clear message that we are committed to the safety and the security of our citizens. By passing this bill, we would demonstrate that we stand for justice and for security, and we stand for the peace of mind that every Canadian deserves.

Let us take decisive action today. Let us pass this bill and ensure that our streets are safe again. It is not just our duty; it is our responsibility to bring home safe streets for every Canadian, restoring trust in the justice system that protects, that deters and that delivers real justice.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this crucial issue. Let us work together to make Canada a place where safety and security are not just ideals, but also realities.

[Carbon Pricing, April 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk slowly so the member might understand. According to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average family will be hit with $2,943 in carbon taxes this year. This is coming from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, where their “eight out of 10” statistic comes from. Yes, the Parliamentary Budget Officer did state that, but it refers only to the fuel charges. Once one includes everything else the carbon tax is charged on, such as groceries, then over 60% of Canadians are worse off. If the member would only read the entire report, not just the sections the Liberals want to promote, then we would actually get the truth out of them for a change.

[Carbon Pricing, April 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on March 21, I questioned the government about the punitive carbon tax burden on Alberta families. According to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average family in Alberta will be hit with $2,943 in carbon taxes this year. In a completely out-of-touch response, the member for Edmonton Centre claimed this was not a problem because these families will receive $2,160 in rebates with the rural top-up.

As I know the Liberals struggle with it, let us do the math together. If we have $2,943 and minus $2,160, that leaves families $783 out of pocket. That is nearly $800 that hard-working Albertans will pay directly from their pockets, thanks to the government's policy. The situation is even worse for those not qualifying for the rural top-up as they face a staggering $1,043 in carbon taxes not covered by any rebate.

The evidence is clear: The average family in Alberta pays more than they get back and it is not debatable. The PBO has also dismantled the Liberals' claim that eight out of 10 Canadians come out ahead with these rebates. In truth, the PBO states that 60% are actually worse off under this tax scheme.

Furthermore, constituents are sending me their heating bills, outraged to find that the carbon tax often exceeds the cost of the gas itself. I would be happy to send these bills to the minister, so he can explain to them why everything costs more. This is not just an abstract statistic. It is a harsh reality eating into household budgets. These are budgets already suffering because of the inflation caused by the Liberal government.

Additionally, the impact on our communities is devastating. Data from food banks across Yellowhead, like in Edson, show usage has increased by nearly 300%. This tax is not just a line item on a bill. It is a factor driving more of our neighbours toward food insecurity. Let us talk about the supposed environmental benefits. This tax has done nothing to reduce emissions or address climate change.

The government boasts about reduced emissions since the tax was implemented in 2019, conveniently leaving out that a global pandemic significantly cut emissions by reducing travel and economic activity. With the end of the pandemic, emissions in Canada have surged once again. What a surprise.

Let us not forget that Canada makes up less than 2% of global emissions, meaning if we went net zero tomorrow, countries like China, which does not have a carbon tax, would offset our efforts within a year. The carbon tax forces Canadians to pay up without offering any real alternatives. As the minister from Edmonton should know, Albertans need natural gas to heat their homes and gas-powered cars to get to work, especially when EVs fail in our cold climate.

Conservatives have a common-sense plan. We will incentivize innovation across industries to develop green technologies that not only lower emissions in Canada but can be marketed globally to tackle worldwide emissions challenges. We will axe the carbon tax and bring home affordability for all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, April 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, in a move that can only be described as completely out of touch, the NDP-Liberal coalition has once again chosen to burden Canadians with a staggering 23% increase in the carbon tax.

As we gather in the House, families from coast to coast to coast are struggling under the weight of soaring prices for essentials like fuel, food and heating. This tax hike is a direct hit on the wallets of hard-working Canadians, particularly in Alberta, where the carbon tax costs by far the most.

Opposition is not limited to just voices in this chamber. It echoes from the west to the east, with premiers across Canada standing united against this absurd increase. The message from Canadians is loud and clear: Enough is enough. It is time for the Prime Minister to convene an emergency carbon tax meeting with all of Canada's first ministers.

This issue is bigger than just partisan politics. It is about the livelihoods of our citizens. We demand action and we demand it now, for the future of our federation and the well-being of every Canadian family.

The April 1 23% increase in the carbon tax orchestrated by the NDP-Liberal government significantly inflates the cost of living, affecting not just the cost of gas but everything that goes through our supply chain. The burden is most felt in Alberta, where, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average family will pay a staggering $2,943 in carbon tax this year, which is the highest in the nation.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also disproves the claim that the government keeps making about the rebates. The rebates fall dramatically short of offsetting the financial impact on families, no matter whether they reside in urban centres or rural Alberta.

This tax hike is not an isolated issue. It is representative of a broader, more concerning trend of inflationary pressures made worse by the government’s fiscal policies. As prices soar, the government's insistence on increasing the carbon tax adds fuel to the inflationary fire that is engulfing Canada.

The notion that the rebates would cushion the blow has proven to be false, leaving Canadians to grapple with diminishing household budgets. This policy does not discriminate. Its reach extends to every corner of the country, leaving no one insulated from its effects. From the single parent in Edson struggling to make ends meet to the small business owner in Rocky Mountain House facing increasing operational costs, the message is clear: This carbon tax increase is financially and morally wrong and one that demands immediate re-evaluation.

The fiscal health and well-being of Canadians must be the priority, not the relentless pursuit of a tax scheme that deepens the divide between fantasy policies and real-world outcomes. The backlash against the carbon tax is not just a small group of angry Canadians. It is a national outcry for change from millions.

Representing the will of the people are the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and P.E.I. These leaders, representing diverse political and geographical backgrounds, have united in their opposition. Their stance reveals a critical flaw in the carbon tax policy, which is that it fails to acknowledge the unique economic and environmental realities of each province. This united front of opposition is mirrored by the Canadian people, with two-thirds expressing opposition to the tax hike.

On April 1, I met with many of these Canadians who are frustrated, and I joined them at axe the tax protests along Highway 43 and in Drayton Valley. Every business owner I meet and every person at the homes I door knock has shared their experiences with the worsening cost of living because of this tax.

Between the provinces and the federal government, the essence of Canadian federalism is collaboration and respect for jurisdiction, yet the current approach to the carbon tax defines the NDP-Liberal government’s preference for unilateral decision-making. It disregards the principle that provinces should have the autonomy to pursue their own economic objectives. This moment calls for a return to true partnership, where provincial voices are not only heard but answered, crafting a more cohesive and effective strategy for Canada’s future.

Aside from this, the imposition of a steep carbon tax by the government, under the banner of environmental preservation, presents a glaring problem. Despite the financial strain this policy places on Canadians, there is a troubling lack of evidence and measurable targets concerning its impact on emissions.

Astonishingly, by the government's own admission, specific outcomes tied to the tax's effectiveness in reducing emissions do not exist. This is further compounded by an inconvenient truth: emissions in Canada are on the rise, not the decline. Our country finds itself ranked 62nd out of 67 countries on the climate change performance index, a clear example of the policy's ineffectiveness.

I would like to move an amendment.

I move that all the words after “That” be replaced with:

the House note:

(a) that the federal carbon tax is causing a debate in the country, and

(b) that, while Quebec, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories already have their own systems in place, the federal government mandates carbon tax policy;

that the House call on the Prime Minister to convene an emergency carbon tax and tarification meeting with all of Canada's 14 first ministers; and

that this meeting be publicly televised and held within five weeks of this motion being adopted.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 8th, 2024]

With regard to the finding of the Auditor General that the government's ArriveCAN application mistakenly told 10,000 people that they needed to quarantine in June 2022: (a) what compensation or recourse has the government made available to these 10,000 people; and (b) which minister has taken responsibility for this mistake?

[Carbon Pricing, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of that NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, food bank usage in Edson is up nearly 300%. Now, on April 1, those Liberals want to raise the carbon tax another 23%, making groceries, gas and heating more expensive for Canadians. They are on track to quadruple the carbon tax. The average family in Alberta will pay nearly $3,000 of carbon tax this year.

Will the Liberals finally allow a carbon tax election so that Albertans can decide to axe the tax?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2024]

With regard to Parks Canada and the Sidney Island Deer Cull: (a) what are the total expenditures to date related to the cull, broken down by type of expense; (b) what are the details of all contracts awarded to date related to the cull, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) value or amount, (iv) description of the goods or services, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (i.e. sole-sourced versus competitive bid); (c) how many deer have been culled to date, in total and broken down by date; (d) what are the future planned dates of the cull; (e) how many more deer will be hunted as part of the cull; (f) what types and models of (i) firearms, (ii) ammunition, were used in the cull; (g) were the firearms and ammunition used obtained domestically or imported, and, if so, from what country; (h) were any of the firearms used classified as restricted or prohibited, and, if so, which ones; (i) did the RCMP or the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs give an exemption to the hunters to use restricted or prohibited firearms, and, if so, what are the details; (j) did all hunters who participated in the cull possess a valid Possession and Acquisition License, and, if so, what are the details of how these licenses were checked, including who checked them and on what dates; (k) why were Canadian hunters not offered the opportunity to cull the deer; (l) was a financial benefit analysis done regarding how much income would have been generated if Canadian hunters participated in the cull, and, if not, why not; and (m) were any of these deer shot from helicopters, and, if so, was permission received from Transport Canada prior to this occurring?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2024]

With regard to government advertising promoting or about the climate crisis, since 2016, and broken down by year: (a) what are the total amounts spent on such advertising; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of advertising, or media outlet; and (c) what are the details of all contracts awarded related to the advertising, or the associated advertising campaigns, including any contracts associated with developing the content of any government websites or advertisements, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount or value, (iv) description of the goods or services, (v) duration, if applicable?

[Impact Assessment Act, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Impact Assessment Act.

We are at a critical juncture where the decisions we make can shape our nation's trajectory towards prosperity and sustainability. Central to our discussion is a vital piece of legislation, common-sense Bill C-375. The bill represents a golden opportunity to streamline how we approach environmental assessments, ensuring that crucial green projects can move forward swiftly and responsibly. It is about cutting through red tape to unleash Canada’s potential for growth while safeguarding our natural environment.

Bill C-375 is not just about amending current legislation; it is also about embracing a smarter, more collaborative way of working together as federal and provincial governments, joining forces to make Canada a better place. If we work together, we can propel our nation into a future where economic development and environmental stewardship go hand in hand.

Over the past eight years, our system has been bogged down by unnecessary bureaucracy, a maze of regulations that, while well-intentioned, often hinder progress rather than facilitate it. The Liberal government's approach, as seen with Bill C-69, better known by many as the “no more pipelines act”, has unfortunately contributed to this stagnation. That piece of legislation, found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, exemplifies an overreach of federal jurisdiction into areas that should rightfully fall within provincial expertise. The result has been delays, confusion and a chilling effect on investment in green and infrastructural projects essential for our nation's future.

The Conservative Party has always championed the principles of efficiency, jurisdictional respect and the reduction of unnecessary governmental interference. Bill C-375 stands as a testament to these values, offering a practical solution to the challenges we face. By allowing for agreements between federal and provincial governments to exempt certain projects from the cumbersome process of repeated environmental assessments, we are proposing a way forward that would respect the expertise of provincial authorities and eliminate redundant federal oversight.

At the heart of our discussion on Bill C-375 lies a multitude of benefits that promise to reshape the landscape of environmental assessments and project development in Canada. The legislative amendment stands not just as a policy shift but also as a signal of progress, highlighting our commitment to efficiency, economic growth and environmental integrity. There are several tangible benefits the bill would bring to the table, ensuring a prosperous future for all Canadians.

The cornerstone of Bill C-375 is its ability to streamline the environmental assessment process. By allowing federal and provincial governments to work closely together, we can eliminate redundant evaluations, ensuring that projects do not get tangled in a web of bureaucratic red tape. This approach would not only speed up the approval process but also conserve valuable resources. It would be a common-sense step toward making government operations leaner and more effective, directly translating into quicker turnarounds for project commencements. This efficiency is critical for maintaining Canada’s competitive edge on the global stage, especially in attracting investments in green technology and infrastructure.

An immediate advantage of streamlined assessments would be the acceleration of project approvals. This benefit cannot be overstated. By reducing the time it takes for projects to clear regulatory hurdles, we would open the door to wider economic opportunities that come with new infrastructure and technology investments. These projects are not just about immediate economic gains; they are also about laying the groundwork for sustainable economic growth. Developers and provinces could move forward with greater confidence, knowing that their initiatives would not be indefinitely delayed by the bureaucratic process. This predictability would be invaluable for planning and executing projects that can significantly contribute to our economy and our environmental goals.

Furthermore, fiscal responsibility is a principle that guides our goals for proper governance, and Bill C-375 is aligned with that aspect. By avoiding duplication in environmental assessments, we would be poised to save significant amounts of public funds. These savings would stem from reduced administrative costs and the more efficient use of resources. While it is challenging to put an exact figure on these savings, the financial implications are clear and substantial. These funds could be redirected to other pressing needs, such as health care, education or further environmental conservation efforts, maximizing the impact of every taxpayer dollar.

Perhaps one of the most profound benefits of Bill C-375 would be the emphasis it places on collaboration and respect for provincial expertise. Canada's provinces and territories are diverse, each with its unique environmental landscape and economic context. This diversity demands a tailored approach to environmental assessments, one that respects the knowledge and capabilities of provincial authorities.