Kevin Sorenson

[Government Appointments, June 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Prime Minister actually said that someone's background should not determine if they are fit to become an officer of Parliament. That is simply wrong. Canadians expect that these positions will be filled with people who are competent and independent. No one believes that people giving tens of thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party are independent.

Will the Prime Minister learn a lesson here and ensure that the next Ethics Commissioner will not be another partisan Liberal and will actually enjoy all-party support?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government today has determined there is not a lot of benefit to being at those kinds of exercises. I am not certain why the government decided not to be engaged in them. The Liberals went to their convention where they said they were going to be involved in those kinds of exercises, and today they are saying they are not worthwhile.

In preparation for this debate, I went back to 2007 to a meeting that we had with my good friend Doug Roche, a previous Alberta member of Parliament and senator Ernie Regehr from Project Ploughshares. In response to my hon. colleague from Toronto, who spoke prior to the question by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the concerns they talked about that day seemed in some regard to already have taken place, so the threat is even greater. When the threat becomes greater, we must be vigilant in what we do, but we should not be spending time on things that perhaps may not be effective.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, that is the direction we should be going, maybe now more than ever. We see rogue states and terrorist organizations trying to get equipment and material so that they can have a dirty bomb or something that can even be carried in a suitcase. Russia and China—both nuclear powers, both veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council—are not participating in the nuclear weapon ban talks.

The Russian foreign minister has said that 120 countries are participating in the talks, and are trying to coerce nuclear powers into abandoning nuclear weapons, but as the member asked in his question, is there a greater risk? Yes, and it is not because we see that one of the superpowers is ready to use it, but because we see countries like North Korea with an itchy finger. We see countries like Iran feverishly trying to get not just the technology but the equipment and the material to make a bomb.

Again, the threat is very clear. Whether one is President Trump or former President Obama, all have spoken about an increased threat to this type of war—not even war, but attack. We do not withdraw from everything, but certainly some exercises are very futile in accomplishing much.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate, and I am also pleased to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

Make no mistake. All of us in the House wish that we could live in a world that was free of nuclear weapons. Facing the reality of the Cold War, the former British prime minister, the late Margaret Thatcher, said, “a world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.” She said that during the Cold War.

Is the world today even more unstable than in Margaret Thatcher's era? Today we have jihadi terrorism all around the world. Today we have rogue nations, like Iran, trying hard to build themselves nuclear weapons. There are terrorist groups that want nuclear devices to commit heinous acts of mass murder. It is believed that North Korea has nuclear weapon capability and is working diligently to develop missiles that will deliver a nuclear arsenal. We see every week a new test from North Korea. South Korea is concerned about what is happening in North Korea. The world is concerned about what is happening in North Korea.

Many countries around the world are vulnerable: Israel, South Korea, Ukraine, and many more. However, many nations continue to thrive and survive, because their enemies know that nuclear retaliation would follow an assault on any of these states.

During the Cold War, the former Soviet Union was assured that any nuclear assault it committed on the western world would have resulted in a nuclear weapon response from the west, and not necessarily equal to what they sent to the west. Undoubtedly, a larger attack would have been unleashed. This was known as mutually assured destruction, or as many have referred to it, MAD. The MAD doctrine not only worked to deter the initial use of nuclear weapons but was designed to limit the continued use of nuclear weapons, should they ever be used in a conflict.

Dr. Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state in the Nixon administration, always insists that the United States' nuclear weapon arsenal and the MAD policy has provided the world with more decades of continuous peace than any other time in recorded history. Kissinger maintains that a greater proportion of the world has been engaged in conflict throughout history than we have had since the end of the Second World War. There continue to be conflicts, of course, and in fact there are wars going on right now, yet the longest period of world peace for the greatest proportion of humans has existed since the end of the Second World War and the introduction of nuclear weapon capability. This is the cold reality. It is a peaceful time for the world in this respect, yet the thought of the destructive capability of nuclear weapons is much of what keeps the peace. In fact, it brought an end, some would argue, to World War II.

The motion the NDP has brought forward has six parts. The first part reads:

(a) recognize the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, and recognize those consequences transcend national borders and pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security, and for the health of future generations;

The Conservative Party does not disagree with that statement. In fact, we kept that in mind for the last three parliaments we governed.

Second, the NDP motion says that we should:

(b) reaffirm the need to make every effort to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances;

Well, we have heard a few people use the word “utopian” today. This clause, most believe, is unrealistic, given the reality of nations possessing or trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea continue to develop their nuclear weapon capacity even today. India and Pakistan achieved the development of nuclear weapon capability. North Korea, Iran, India, and Pakistan have all stated clearly the circumstances under which they would use their nuclear weapons. Therefore, “under any circumstances” in the NDP motion, we believe, is unachievable.

Third, the NDP wants the House to recognize previous motions passed by the House or by the United Nations. The motion reads:

(c) recall the unanimous vote in both Houses of Parliament in 2010 that called on Canada to participate in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention;

The House is aware of that motion from 2010, yet the current international negotiations, we believe, will not lead to a nuclear weapons convention, because Russia, the United States, and China are not participating. They are not talking the talk.

The NDP also wants the House to:

(e) express disappointment in Canada’s vote against, and absence from, initial rounds of negotiations for a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons;

This is where we also disagree with the motion. There is no point in commencing negotiations leading to a convention to prohibit nuclear weapons without including the nations that actually have those nuclear weapons. It is a waste of time, money, and effort.

The final part of the NDP motion asks the House to support the initial draft of the convention prohibiting nuclear weapons. Again, the nations that have nuclear weapons have already made it clear why they have them, and until the threats they live under are eliminated, these nations will keep their weapons. Some of these nations are Canada's allies, and they are, in some cases, protecting Canada as well.

The question is what we can do. It is one thing to say whether we agree or disagree with the Liberal approach, but what can we do?

Our previous Conservative government worked to achieve further decommissioning of the still huge arsenals of nuclear weapons that exist in Russia and the United States. The official opposition recognizes the government's action to contain fissionable material. Meaningful talks continue with our nuclear weapon possessing democratic allies and others in the enduring hope of one day having a nuclear free world.

The coercive exercise the NDP is calling for Canada to participate in is not a good way to work toward a nuclear weapon prohibition. Our Conservative government worked hard over our 10 years as the government to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the possession of foreign governments and other international actors. We worked to prevent not just nuclear weapons but chemical weapons and biological weapons, weapons of mass destruction. We worked with our allies.

Conservative and Liberal governments have signed treaties and international agreements at the UN and a number of organizations, including NATO, the G8, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Conference on Disarmament, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons available in the world. We continue to work toward reducing nuclear proliferation and making sure that fissionable material is not available to rogue states and terrorist organizations to produce nuclear warheads.

The reality is that an all-out prohibition is not on the horizon in the foreseeable future. Supporting the NDP motion is unrealistic, when our NATO allies, western democracies, and other major UN nations that possess nuclear warheads are not participating in these talks. When the main world powers are in agreement, then there can be a prohibition, but we do not have that agreement when it comes to nuclear weapons. We have a situation where China, and Russia in particular, continue to build up their arsenals, not reduce them.

As Canadians, we must continue to do what we have in the past. We must always use diplomatic means to assist world powers in the de-escalation of conflict. We must work with our allies and partners in the non-proliferation of nuclear arms to make sure they are effective, safe, and responsibly used. We can work toward a prohibition of nuclear weapons that will be accomplished, we hope, in the future. However, arbitrarily trying to coerce nuclear weapon states into giving up these arms we know does not work.

The NDP is asking Canada to sign up for negotiations that do not include our allies. These negotiations do not include the powers that possess nuclear weapons. There can be no discussion or dialogue when they are not at the table.

We can do things, including the enforcement of a Sergei Magnitsky law. We can have sanctions and global isolation of those state players and individuals that are responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

There is opportunity to work within the G7, to work through NATO, to work through other forums, and I hope that we continue to do it, whether it be through economic sanctions, travel bans, or engagement with our allies. We can make sure that we are partners with them on the world stage, but if we are to speak, let us make sure the ones who have the weapons are there at the table.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in the last round of questions, you did not come back to the Conservatives. We heard from the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona in her speech this morning. After two other speeches, she had lengthy questions, which prohibited others from standing and asking questions.

When the Liberal member gave his speech, you made the full circle and took a Liberal question. When we came back to the Conservative member, we had the NDP again stand and give a mini-speech, which prevented the Conservatives from asking their own member a question.

Just for further and future--

[Committees of the House, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 29th report, entitled “Report 7, Operating and Maintenance Support for Military Equipment—National Defence, of the Fall 2016 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”, and also the 30th report of the committee, entitled “Report 5, Canadian Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention—National Defence, of the Fall 2016 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of remarkable experiences. One of them was working together with not only the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, but Jim Flaherty and Joe Oliver, as our finance ministers. I served with Jim Flaherty as a minister of state for finance. He was a finance minister who would come to the budget table and advocate on behalf of the disabled and the underprivileged. He would advocate on behalf of certain things like the Special Olympics. Certainly, together with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, when the idea was brought forward to invest in the autism partnership, we had people who said there may be other ways of doing it, but it just seemed right to do. I will never forget those times.

On this side, I do not know if there was a reason why they did not. However, make no mistake, those types of initiatives from the Liberal government, which only believes in enlarging the size of government as an answer to everything, fail the average Canadian every time.

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fair question from the government side about the specific program initiatives that a government would take in spite of world prices being softened, as he said. First, I would say it is not always what one promotes; it is what one says it will not do. The very first thing I would say is that the carbon tax is not the answer to putting people back to work. A carbon tax that is dictated to the premiers to start administering is not the avenue for the oil and gas industry. It is piling onto the problems that the oil and gas sector are facing.

What are the answers to a balanced budget? The answer is not to only increase taxation. In fact, Conservatives lowered taxes and came to a balanced budget. In the first two years of the Conservatives governing, from 2006 to 2007, before the great recession took place, we paid down nearly $40 billion of Canadian national debt. When we already have a deficit, low job creation, and low economic growth, the answer is not a carbon tax that hurts absolutely everybody.

That is just one. If I had more time, I would gladly provide more ideas on how to build this economy.

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this place and speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. They say that all politics is local and it is important as members of Parliament to look at budgets, as specifically tonight we are debating that, and how they affect local communities. I want to tell members about Battle River—Crowfoot, about the people, the problems, and perhaps the policies that are creating some of those problems.

My riding is predominantly a rural riding. Our largest centre has around 18,000 people, but it is just under 45,000 square kilometres of agriculture and a lot of natural resources. Gas and oil are abundant in the riding. Because of that, it is quite obvious that much of the constituency is hurting right now. Communities are hurting. We know what the oil prices have done, so these communities are legitimately hurting. Many of the people calling my office work in the oil patch, some even part time. Some are farmers who in the wintertime work with welding crews, service trucks, and service companies dealing with it, and there has been no work for many of them over the last number of years.

Let me also say that when we come to a point in time after a long winter, typically people understand that the time around a new budget should be a time of optimism, a time where we say how the government is going to address our current circumstances. After we toured our constituency before the last budget, people asked what I thought the budget would have that would affect our communities, so we sat and we explained and we waited. Sadly, when the budget came down, people realized there was very little for rural Alberta, very little that would help the oil and gas sector.

We had a Prime Minister and a provincial premier who said that the one initiative they could put forward would be a new carbon tax, a new level of taxation, a tax on everything. Wherever I went in my constituency, I did not hear any people say that this was a positive measure that would help them in their circumstances.

I want to tell members about two communities in my constituency, the community of Hanna and the community of Forestburg, two communities that are situated in a special part of Alberta. In one case, Hanna is right around the special areas. These communities have pasture and grain. It's cattle country, but it's also gas and oil country. The other interesting thing about Hanna is that it has a coal generating power plant. This is a community that has been told it will lose over 200 jobs because of the imminent closure of the Sheerness coal power plant.

Home prices are already being affected. Councils, mayors, and people are asking what to do next. What should they expect from the government? What are the alternatives they could bring in to help sustain their communities? There is nothing in the budget that will help sustain them and nothing coming from the province. There has been very little as far as alternative types of ideas for those communities.

The other one is the Battle River power plant in the community of Forestburg. People work there from all over the county, a number of counties, Paintearth, Flagstaff, undoubtedly Camrose. Again, a smaller community of about 800 people is being negatively affected, and very little in this budget will help them.

I stand in this place and I say that if politics is local, then they forgot a great amount of my constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot. They have no idea how to replace the hundreds of jobs in those communities, and they will be lost. Even if we went to natural gas generation instead of coal, the difference is over 200 jobs compared with 40 jobs.

There are problems. Let me say this. All through most of the time I have served, we have had an unemployment rate in my constituency of around 3%. It would go down to a little bit under 3% then go up to a little bit over 3%. Even during the recession it was remarkably low compared with other parts of Alberta and across the country. My constituency right now has the highest unemployment rate in Alberta. In the month of March, it was 9.9% unemployment. The statistics coming out for April say that we are down to 9.7%, but still, there are a lot of people unemployed who want to work.

What initiatives do we have? We have a government that tells us not to worry; it will help with EI. Yes, it will increase the premiums on employers and employees, but it will also see what it can do to help EI. The answer to these problems is not in more social programs or programs to help keep people on unemployment. It is to get people back to work, to help create jobs.

In the other part of my riding we have agriculture, which is under a large cloud since last fall, with crops being left out in the field over the winter. I can recall when I was about five years old going out with my dad in the spring just to combine a few acres of wheat that had been left out. I remember how bad that was and how sick it made us feel over those winter months knowing that we would be going out in snowdrifts or maybe in the spring.

Thousands or maybe tens of thousands of acres in my constituency were left out. What does the budget say about that? The budget says we will do a consultation to see if we can take away the cash deferral that farmers use. That means if they sell their grain in the fall, they can defer the payment for it until the spring or after January 1. It helps them manage a little bit their income for the year. It also helps with storage on their farm, and typically we have problems with delivery.

These are issues. It seems as though every time there is a problem in Alberta and in my riding, the answer to the gas and oil industry is a new carbon tax. The answer to the agriculture crisis is taking away cash deferrals. This budget does not talk about the things that the Conservative budgets talked about, like being balanced, like lowering taxes, like more support for small businesses. When we have more revenues than expenditures, that is a surplus. That would be included as a balanced budget, but the government today has failed to deliver that.

In fact, when the Liberals came into power, they said that they would cap their spending at $10 billion, and it went close to $30 billion. They said they would balance the budget: “Have no fear, Canada, we will balance our budget by 2019.” Now it is 2055.

The level of optimism is over. The level of optimism by the Canadian people is over. Balanced budgets, lower taxes—these are the bedrock of a strong and growing community. Unfortunately, this budget does none of these things. For the second year in a row, the Liberals have blown by their $10-billion deficit pledge. They are raising taxes on everything from public transit to Uber. The government plans to nickel-and-dime Canadians to pay for its spending, and what has its spending accomplished? Nothing substantial. The last budget failed to grow the economy, failed to create the jobs the Liberals had promised, and it failed to deliver to a large degree the infrastructure they had promised. This budget is no different.

The Liberal government does not understand how to grow an economy. It does not understand that small businesses are the engine of our economy, representing over 90% of Canadian businesses and employing two-thirds of all Canadians. There was another broken promise. All political parties in the last election said they would reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 10.5%, to 9.5%, to 9%. The Liberals immediately attacked the small business community and said, “No thanks.” Once again, it is a promise broken.

This side of the House is holding the government to account. Conservatives are holding the Liberals to account, but make no mistake, Liberals simply believe that big government is the answer to everything.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled “Public Accounts of Canada 2016”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.