Jake Stewart

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today and certainly, it is a pleasure to speak in the House of Commons. It is nice to see you again, as well.

I stand today to speak to the utter hypocrisy of the Liberal government and to shine a light on the utter disrespect for law-abiding Canadians and victims of crime. The government, with the prop-up support of the NDP, is attempting to push through Bill C-5, which would see the removal of mandatory minimum sentences for serious criminal offences in this country. Let me be clear on this. The Liberals are eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings.

The Liberals' argument is that they are doing this because they feel these laws are unfair. I cannot make this up. What would the victims of these crimes consider unfair? I surely think they would feel that the person or persons who traumatized them through violent acts now being set free by the Liberal government is what is actually unfair.

Can members imagine being the victim of a drive-by shooting, losing a loved one or being robbed or held at gunpoint? Let us imagine this. These are the mandatory sentences that the government is trying to get rid of. The Liberals are more interested in standing up for criminals than actually defending our communities. The blatant hypocrisy is apparent with the fact that they willingly want to let gun crime perpetrators free sooner so that they can go out into our communities and wreak havoc again, and yet, they stand in righteous defence of enacting gun laws in this country that only serve to punish law-abiding citizens.

Let us look at some of the offences for which the Liberals feel the punishment is unfair. Bill C-5 would eliminate a number of mandatory minimums relating to gun crimes. Here they are: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in commission of offences; and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking.

When we hear the list out loud, as parliamentarians we must ask ourselves, is this seriously what the government wants for Canadians? Can a government seriously think that mandatory sentences are unfair for these types of crimes? We might ask ourselves if we are actually living in Canada or if any of this is real to begin with. Sadly, this is real and the members of this House have to stand and speak to this. Quite frankly, it is making our country unrecognizable.

The Liberal government believes the sentences are unfair. That is how it is putting it. The Liberals have no concern for the victims of these crimes. Their only concern is actually for the criminals who perpetrated the acts to begin with.

There are a few other examples of who the Liberal government feels are being mistreated by the justice system. The Liberals would eliminate six mandatory minimums in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that target drug dealers. Here they are: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting; production of a substance schedule I or II. Let me say that last one again: production of a substance schedule I or II. Examples here would be heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

If I were not standing here as the member of Parliament for the great riding of Miramichi—Grand Lake and I was actually home in the community, maybe at Tim Hortons having a coffee, upon hearing this, I would think that it had to be wrong and there could be no way that any of this was true. What government could ever think that someone who produces a poison like crystal meth should be considered treated unfairly because they had to serve a mandatory sentence for their crime?

Crystal meth is pure poison. It is creating rot and decay in every community, including all across rural Canada. The problem is so vast in the region of Miramichi that the public is left scratching their heads on a good day. Law enforcement clearly does not have an answer for it at present. It is very complicated. This issue is really complicating life in Canada. How can we not give the people who produce it mandatory sentences? They are just going to keep doing it.

The members opposite who vote for this bill should be utterly ashamed when they go back to their home communities knowing the plague and rot of crystal meth abuse is rampant across the country. It would be in their backyards too, because it is everywhere in this country. The evil individuals who prey on their fellow man with the production of this drug should do every minute of time we can give them to keep them off our streets and hopefully keep them from enslaving more people with this highly addictive poison.

Canadians will have to try to mentally process how the government can feel that a meth producer is being treated unfairly. At the same time they also must process how the government feels about other criminals. Again, I want to say that as members of the opposition, we are obviously not supporting this. We want people who are going to produce these types of poison to be behind bars, because that is where they should be, and if you are going to commit crimes with weapons and firearms, then you need to have mandatory sentences as well.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, June 6th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am really thankful that it was an NDP member who asked this great question. The NDP members were busy selling their soul to join the Liberal Party of Canada. Here are some examples: offshore oil in Newfoundland, build pipelines, develop gas, develop oil, sell gas to the west, and cut Putin off from selling his energy over to the western countries. Canada would make more money and eventually the price of gas would go down—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, June 6th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, as I said, I am pretty certain that driving an electric car will be a good idea in the future, deep into the future. I heard, not too long ago, that a Tesla car probably takes more fossil fuels to build than the Hyundai I drive in my riding.

Of course, we have to protect the environment, but we still have to develop our industries. If we are incentivizing Canadians to buy vehicles that they have no capability to receive or to plug in, then what is the point of it? What about all the rural areas that do not have that capability? What is the government saying to the people in my riding? What are they supposed to do? We have rural, rugged terrain and rural people travelling long distances on bad roads with no places to plug in. There is no way to sell that product.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, June 6th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, what the member opposite fails to realize is that when the government stalls an offshore oil project in Newfoundland, the third-largest oil reserve in the country, it is actually trying to stifle the very energy sector that fuels the entirety of the country.

The problem here is that the Liberals are so out of touch with the rest of Canada. They drank so much Kool-Aid that they believe their own bullet points now. That is part of the problem. We have inflation in this country because they printed too much money and spent too much money. They did not develop energy at the rate they should have. They left immigrants trying to get in here for months on end.

They have literally ruined this country. Everybody in rural Canada knows it, everybody on this side of the floor knows is, and even their constituents know it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, June 6th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be here in the House of Commons. It is also nice to hear about all of these electric vehicles.

The funny thing is that in my constituency, I think we have two places to plug in, maybe three, and my constituency is the size of Prince Edward Island times four. Another interesting fact about electric cars is that, for anybody who is ordering one, it takes about 20 months to get it, and then there is no place to plug it in, so it is a really great option if one lives in rural Canada.

I rise today to speak to the difficult times Canadians are having, which includes the constituents in my home electoral district of Miramichi—Grand Lake. Food, fuel and every aspect of their daily lives are becoming unaffordable, yet the government puts out a budget that would only exacerbate an already bad situation.

I recall that back in September of last year, the government was blaming inflation predominantly on the global pandemic. Sometimes inflation would be blamed on other global phenomena. Recently, the blame seems more pointed towards the war in Ukraine. There is lots of blame to go around, although the war has been with us only for a short time compared to the pandemic itself. Nobody is looking in the mirror. No members on the government side of the floor are willing to look at themselves to see how they could have been adding to this inflation. The pandemic was primarily blamed for supply chain issues, shortages and inflation, and now the war is blamed for those. All the while, economists' warnings fell on deaf ears with the government opposite in the House.

Now, with the most recent budget, the government is yet again asleep at the wheel, with a pile of new spending and no revenue to compensate for that. The ill-conceived attempts at revenue generation, like the luxury tax and the excise tax, only serve to devastate the very industries and the very sectors being targeted, causing reduced economic development and job losses.

Claiming that inflation is a global phenomenon is truly a cop-out, because we had high inflation long before the war in Ukraine, and it is not all just supply-side issues or caused by the pandemic. The cause of high inflation is monetary, and we know that the current government does not have a monetary policy. It does not even plan for it. Liberals do not agree with it, do not support it, and rarely speak of it, but the cause of high inflation, as we know, continues to be monetary, plain and simple. The government is printing more and more money, driving up the cost of everything. If we couple that with large fiscal deficits, which again get monetized by the central bank, the cash gets shoved out into the system, and what do we have? We have more inflation, more Liberal-induced inflation.

To most Canadians, it seems like there is a level of complacency in the government with respect to inflation. The government seems oblivious to the struggles of average Canadians, yet continuously regurgitates all that it is doing to make Canadians' lives more affordable. All the while, it is Canadian citizens making the hard choices between nutritious food in the fridge and gas in their cars to get to work with.

Where I live, there are not a lot of electric cars, and the folks who want them, God love them, are waiting a long period of time to get the cars. Then, when they get them, there is no place to plug them in. It is a great idea maybe, and I can imagine that a couple of decades down the road we will all be driving electric cars, but we are nowhere near that level in this country, so it borders on outright hypocrisy that, every day, we have to learn about this agenda, which is not working for my riding. It is not because I am a Conservative member of the House. It is because I live in an area that does not support this concept. It will take many years to have the infrastructure to support such a concept.

The government's failed economic policy further drives the divide between the rural and the urban. I witness this in Miramichi—Grand Lake, which, as I said, is very rural. I think my riding is a couple of times the size of P.E.I. It could be three or four times the size, but I usually say it is four, because it is quite a lengthy area to drive around on the weekend. Most people travel a long distance to their jobs, which takes costly fuel, and that fuel is hurting their pocketbooks badly now. It is so bad that they are making choices about whether they can keep their children in sports, which creates a healthy lifestyle, or whether they can take a family vacation, or worse yet, whether the family can eat healthy food or not.

These are not the choices that any government should want Canadian citizens to make, but a Liberal member opposite said the high gas prices are positive as more people will buy an electric car or ride a bicycle. Wow. That has to be the statement of the century. Maybe that member should come to Miramichi—Grand Lake and bike some of the distances that people must drive to work. Maybe that member could take a bike from Escuminac to McGivney or from Minto over to Sunny Corner or from Neguac up to Boiestown, and enjoy that ride. It is definitely going to take the member a little while to get there. Trust me when I say that the member had better be in good shape, because I doubt he will make the distance needed, especially on a bicycle.

To the member's point on electric cars, as I said earlier, we have very few options for plugging in electric cars. There is one in Doaktown at Tim Hortons. There is one at the McDonald's parking lot in Douglastown. I believe there is one more, although the location is eluding me. I doubt we would have half a dozen options within a driving radius of five or six hours, maybe more. I am trying to picture it. There are three in my head. Could we have a few more outside of that? It is possible. However, charging locations for the public are not great options where I live, or trying to afford an electric car. In my riding, in Northumberland County, for the most part the median income is $34,500 per year. With the cost of electric vehicles, even with subsidies, they remain out of reach for most people.

Inflation is one thing. If we add it to the carbon tax, we have the perfect storm to punish Canadians for just trying to live, work and look after their family. The families that I know really cannot make ends meet. Families on fixed incomes or low incomes simply cannot pay their rent or buy food, so we are actually in a real crisis in this country. Even as an opposition member, I am still surprised and very much disappointed that the government does not seem to be more concerned about this and does not immediately move to suspend the carbon tax to give Canadians relief at the pumps. Suspending the carbon tax would give relief across the board and reduce fuel prices for everyone, including transportation costs. We would see the reduction in the costs of goods and services and the reduction in the cost of food.

I feel the government is doubling down on the tax right now. Considering that the Liberals have not met any climate change emission targets, doing so shows not only that they are out of touch with their own project, but that they are out of touch with Canadians. Hitting an emission target is something they should have achieved if the country is going to pay this much for it when nobody can afford it.

I wanted to be a member Parliament to help the people in Miramichi—Grand Lake. It is my belief that each member in this House is here to do the same. Therefore, I call on all members, including those in the sitting government, to remember why they are here and put partisanship and ideologies aside. There are big differences between rural and urban in this country. We have to recognize those differences, regardless of who is in power, and fight to make the changes urgently needed to help Canadians today. The future of the country depends on it.

I will not be supporting the budget.

[The Economy, June 6th, 2022]

Scale the wall, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, without pulling up to a pump and paying for the gas himself, the Prime Minister is utterly out of touch with the struggles Canadians are faced with. With the affluent means available to him, the Prime Minister truly does not understand that struggling mothers are having to choose between nutritious food or fuelling the family vehicle to get to work.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit today that his economic policies are what is driving up the cost of fuel and food across this country?

[The Economy, June 6th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, pain at the pumps is a reality across Canada, including in my riding.

As Canadian gas prices soar to record highs, Putin fuels his war by selling Russian energy to the democratic west, yet the Liberal Prime Minister and the New Brunswick Liberal MPs are doubling down on a failed climate agenda that has not met a single emission target.

Will the Prime Minister admit the carbon tax has failed and give Canadians a break at the pumps?

[Income Tax Act, June 2nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to speak on this important bill from my great colleague.

The COVID-19 pandemic has hit Canadian charities extremely hard. Today I am happy to stand in the House and discuss a measure that would see the potential for a new revenue stream for our struggling charities across the country. Amending the Income Tax Act to provide an exemption from capital gains tax in respect of certain arm's-length dispositions of either real estate or private corporation shares to charities is an extremely important measure to see implemented. The bill would see to it that the proceeds of any arm's-length sale would qualify for exemption if donated within 30 days of disposition. The value is, of course, determined in the market by the sale and is not determined by the seller.

Each of us in the House has a charity, or in fact several, that would be near and dear to our own hearts. About 10 years ago, I created a not-for-profit organization called The Josie Foundation. That is one that is very near and dear to my heart, along with so many others. It is important that we understand just how difficult it was for charities to raise funds as they normally would because of the pandemic and the strain that it put on charitable organizations.

The importance of charitable organizations in Canada is without question, and we want to remind all people of the importance of volunteerism. Many hard-working Canadians volunteer their time. They get on the charities that are near and dear to their hearts and whatever charity they are working on benefits our country in a great way. All members of the House and every political party in Canada inside these walls would agree that we must do anything we can to help charities. This bill would increase the amount of charitable giving by incentivizing donations through this tax measure. Again, Canadian charities need all the help they can get right now.

I will note that this measure was proposed in the 2015 budget by the Stephen Harper government, but in the 2016 budget, it was confirmed that the Liberal government did not intend to proceed with this measure. With this bill, we are trying to address the downturn in charitable giving that has been a trend for a while and was exacerbated during the pandemic. COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the charitable sector with the inability to raise funds at events, as well as donors being less likely to donate because they were personally struggling financially. When we add the concept of inflation to the mess and the problems charities are having raising funds, there is a really poor situation for the charities in this country.

With inflation running rampant, the financial struggles to Canadians are rising. In turn, this is putting more pressure on household disposable income, which is driving down available donation revenue. It should be noted that the charitable sector represents $151 billion, or 8.1% of Canada's GDP. Currently, the Income Tax Act allows for this tax treatment for the proceeds of the sale of publicly traded shares. This bill would provide similar tax treatment for the sale of private shares and real estate. The Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector recommended the government implement this measure as a pilot project in June 2019 in its “Catalyst for Change” report, recommendation 34.

People at home and potentially people in the chamber are wondering whether the bill seems to disproportionately favour those who are high-income earners. The answer is that it is important to note that not a single donated dollar remains in the hands of the donor. Each dollar benefits the charity that receives it. This bill would make these donations more affordable for donors, no matter what their income level is. It is very good for charitable organizations. Many small business people are not necessarily high-income earners, but would be incentivized to make donations if they did not have to pay the capital gains tax associated with the sale of their businesses.

As to whether the nature of the tax is regressive, this is something that could be ascertained through expert testimony at the finance committee if the bill were ever to pass. We know we have to pass this bill.

If this bill does not pass, the people in every charitable organization in the country are going to feel sad, but they are also going to feel ashamed. Government members and parliamentarians know that this is the type of bill that each of us can represent. It transcends partisanship. We can look at this bill and each of us can understand how important it is for us to help this sector.

Another question that people might have is how the benefit flows from the tax incentive to the charity. When business owners decide that they wish to sell shares in their businesses, under this bill, proceeds from the sale of those privately held shares would qualify for a capital gains tax exemption if donated to a charity by the donor within 30 days of the close of the transaction. It is great news for charitable organizations. For the purpose of clarity, the shares of the donor's company could not be donated, but rather the proceeds derived from the sale of those shares could be donated. This mechanism helps avoid any valuation ambiguity, as the sale must be an arm's-length sale for the purpose of value.

Some may wonder how often people gift shares and how often people gift real estate, in particular outside of a will. The bill would not incentivize gifting private company shares or real estate. Rather, it would incentivize the donation of the sale proceeds derived from the sale of private company shares or real estate. One example is important as it pertains to real estate. Someone who invested in a small apartment building or a duplex several years ago is now retiring and decides to sell the place. Currently, when they sell, they will be required to pay capital gains tax, which would be roughly the equivalent of 25% of the increase in value of the property during the period of time it was owned. Under Bill C-240, those proceeds could be donated, in their entirety or in part, to a charity of the donor's choice and the donor would receive an exemption from the tax. In the end, we would incentivize somebody to be more charitable in our country, which would benefit charitable organizations.

Some might ask about the benefit to cost that is associated with this legislation. Someone correctly pointed out that a Library of Parliament report references two different types of tax costs. The first is the tax cost related to the forgone capital gains taxes. As I mentioned earlier, this equates to roughly 25% of the actual gain. The second cost is the cost due to behavioural change, as the goal of the bill is to increase charitable giving. Additional charitable tax receipts would also be issued. This is a win-win all day for charitable organizations, for the people who benefit from the great work of charitable organizations and for our great country when we put forth legislation such as this that would actually make a real difference in our society.

The federal tax costs related to the issuance of tax receipts may vary based on the amount of the contribution and individual income, but my understanding is that the cost is roughly 25% to 30% of the contribution. This, too, could be clarified by testimony.

I want to thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to bring forth this insightful commentary. I would be happy to meet with any members of the House, but I want to say again that Bill C-240, sponsored by my great friend from Winnipeg, is the type of bill that every political party can be proud of and that every member of the House can support. They are not supporting a political party here. They are supporting every charitable organization in this country, and we will proudly take all of their support. We need it. This is good for Canadians.

[Criminal Code, June 1st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today. One thing I find most interesting is that when Liberal members are talking about guns, we hear they are always trying to crack down and ban guns that have already been banned for 45 years. We hear this every day. They blame every problem that happens on guns.

I want to note to the Canadian public what Bill C-5 is doing. It eliminates a number of mandatory minimums relating to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking, including firearms and ammunition; importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of offences; possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking; and discharging a firearm with recklessness.

The bill would eliminate the mandatory prison times for these firearm offences. It is very simple. There is a great hypocrisy in what is happening here in this country. We have a government fixated on guns, but now it is letting off criminals who bring illegal guns into this country, the illegal guns that are killing children and innocent people in their homes and on their properties. It is letting them off without mandatory prison time.

Now explain to me how Liberals can be bleeding hearts and against guns when they are allowing them to be trafficked into this country and are allowing people to get away with no mandatory prison sentences based on the very guns they are trying to convince the public they are banning and that were already banned 45 years ago. This is a clear example of the government firmly believing that Canadian citizens do not know anything about guns and that Canadian citizens want people who committed crimes with weapons to have lesser sentences. Imagine the hypocrisy in our country in this very bill.

A majority of the above mandatory minimums were introduced under previous Liberal governments, most notably the government of the Prime Minister's own father, contrary to the narrative from the Liberals that they are undoing Conservative legislation. This is yet another hypocrisy. To be clear, the Liberals would eliminate mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. That is shameful.

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many pending investigations that it is hard to keep track of them all when it comes to the government across the floor. With the SNC-Lavalin scandal, we saw how the government would move mountains for its corporate friends. It fired the former attorney general and fired a former president of the Treasury Board, but for the CRA whistle-blowers, there is nothing.

Why do insiders always get ahead with the government while Canadians are left behind?