House of Commons photo

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was liberal.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Conservative MP for Battle River—Crowfoot (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 81% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Firearms Act June 19th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. This does not address the issue of criminality. It does not address the issue of unauthorized possession of firearms by gangs. It does not at all touch on gang violence. I have news for the Liberals. There are not a lot of gun shops in my constituency where gangs are coming to purchase firearms. In some cases, it may be those stores they try to rip off to access firearms. The criminal element in our country brings in illegal firearms, and we see very little going to that.

The member has a problem in his riding that he is very vocal about, and that is the opioid crisis. I saw in an article today that 4,000 Canadians have been killed in the opioid crisis, and they do not know how to respond to that one either. We do not have a problem with long guns and law-abiding gun owners.

The issue is that there is so much money that is given to the file of public safety around firearms. Now the Liberals will have to add money to this type of legislation, and they will take it away from other parts within the same department that does fight crime, that does go up against the gangs and the criminal element. That is the problem. Resources that should be going to fight crime are going to fight farmers, hunters, and law-abiding firearms owners.

Firearms Act June 19th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand again in the House tonight on behalf of the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot to speak to Bill C-71. For those perhaps watching at home, we need to at least give some context as to why we are here.

Today is June 19. We are scheduled to break for the summer this week, and the government is trying to push legislation through that it would like to have before the summer break. We anticipate tomorrow that it will bring forward the cannabis bill and may well try to push that through. However, today the government has put time allocation on a gun bill, Bill C-71. It is trying to do it at the very end of a session, thinking that the opposition will probably not stand and debate it too long. We will stand and fight bad legislation as long as it takes to represent our constituents and Canada.

The government has brought in through the back door another piece of gun legislation. Some say it is an easy step from here to a gun registry. Others say this is a gun registry, albeit not as expensive as the $2-billion boondoggle the Liberals attempted before. This bill sounds an awful lot like a piece of gun registry legislation.

For those watching, there may be some who say, “There is so much gang activity. There is so much crime in our major cities. Why doesn't the government stand up and do something to fight that crime?” This bill is in response to that. The minister stood and said that they were concerned about gun offences and crime and other things and that the bill would answer that.

We talked to every gun club, firearm association, rifle association, and recreational, angling, and sporting association. I do not know of one that supports this legislation. Why is that? The reason none of them support the legislation is a tough one. First, their major frustration is that they see that this would do absolutely nothing to curtail crime, gang crime, street gangs, and that type of criminal activity that is on some of the streets of our major cities. The government says it is going to bring forward a bill that will remedy some of those problems. Every gun association I know of says that this is not going to solve any of it, because all the government is doing with the legislation today is adding red tape, making it more difficult to own a firearm and making it more frustrating for those who have to transport a firearm.

I am a registered firearm owner, and I know exactly what has to happen when people want to own a firearm. I know the courses they have to take. I know the regulations around safe storage they have to accommodate. I know that those who typically get a licence and go through and register for the course are, by and large, very safe gun operators. I have met many who are speaking to youth and children about the safe operation of a firearm.

What would Bill C-71 do? Why is it problematic? Why are people standing and opposing this type of legislation? First, for the background check for an individual, it would leave the five-year background check and basically look at the entire lifespan to see if a person should qualify for a firearm. Therefore, anyone who, even in high school, ended up in fisticuffs with someone, and 20 years later wanted to obtain a firearm, that could come up in this background check. Someone could very well evaluate the information and say that the person is disqualified.

I have had cases in my constituency where, at the time of a divorce, a very stressful time, people have said things that 15 minutes later they would not have said. In fact, I had one case of a lady who phoned my office and basically told my staff that when she was asked if there was any domestic offence, she said that she was scared of him and that he had all these firearms, and they came and confiscated his firearms. By the way, the same lady contacted me probably a year or so later and told me that she had said that, but they had settled, and he was not a problem at all. Now, how could he go about trying to win back his firearms?

There are just so many questions about this new piece of legislation, but there should not be a question about one thing. This legislation would make it more difficult for law-abiding firearm owners, such as farmers and hunters, to operate and purchase all of the above. It would extend the background check. We do not know about the qualifications of those who would be evaluating the information or what the criteria for the evaluation would be based on. Why would there be no appeal process in this?

The Speaker is calling time, and I have not made it to my fifth point. I have not made it to the second.

The second point I think is very problematic is that it would limit the amount of transportation of that firearm. It used to be that if I wanted to purchase a firearm, I could bring it home immediately. My understanding is that one could still do that. However, now if there was a problem with a restricted firearm, I could not just take it to a gunsmith for repair. I would have to call in and explain it all. I would now have to go through more red tape if I was going to get my firearm fixed. A lot of times, when people do this, it is exactly when they are ready to use it in the lead-up to hunting season, when all of a sudden, they realize that the firing pin is not working right and they want to get it fixed.

Why would transport to and from a gun store for appraisal for a sale be taken away? We do not know, other than that the Liberals want to add red tape to frustrate those gun owners.

The other issue is licence verification. To me, this is very important. In my riding, in Hanna, Consort, Castor, Torrington, and a lot of other communities, they have gun shows. At these gun shows, people come from all across Canada. In a little town of 200, 300, 400, or 500 people, and in Castor maybe close to 800 people, they will fill the arena. People will come from across Canada, and maybe some from the United States, to purchase old collector firearms or new firearms. To do a transfer, even at a gun show, they would now have to get a purchasing number and a transfer number. They would have to go through all this red tape, in a rural riding where there is very little cell coverage to begin with.

A concern that has also been brought to me is what the chances would be, on a Sunday afternoon, of being able to get through to a government number to get that verification number. What are the chances? If I tried to get through to Revenue Canada today, I would need to be prepared to sit on the line for 45 minutes. If at a gun show I wanted to purchase a gun from maybe a farmer or someone who had a booth or table there, now they would have to call in and get a number and verify my licence. In my opinion, it is going to shut down an economic driver in some of these small towns where they have gun shows on the weekends.

I could go on. I have not talked at all about other parts of licence verification. I am told that my time is up. To sell a firearm, they would have to keep records for 20 years.

It is bad legislation. I would encourage all members of the House to fight crime and recognize that we have to do things about crime, but this would not solve anything.

Committees of the House June 8th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 48th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled “Special Examination Report—National Capital Commission, of the 2017 Fall Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

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

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 49th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled “Special Examination Report—Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, of the 2017 Fall Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

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

Natural Resources June 7th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, last year foreign direct investment in this country was the lowest in over a decade. Nowhere is that disaster more real than in Alberta. Tens of billions of dollars of potential oil and gas projects are being scrapped. There is massive divestment by international oil producers.

The Prime Minister's answer to this disaster? A buy-out and drive out of Kinder Morgan. When will the minister quit attacking the industry so it can begin the process of recovery and rebuild investor confidence?

Impact Assessment Act June 6th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, my New Democratic colleague said best when he said “Well, here we go again.”

In the last election, the Liberals said that they would never move time allocation, that they would not move closure, that they would not shut down debate. However, this is the 40th time that they have done it.

The bill before us would have a massive effect on my constituency. I would say that from about 2000 to 2007, when I met with my rural municipalities, without exception the number one concern they had was the navigable waters act. They understood that if they were to replace a culvert or if they were to do any type of construction, they would have to call the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or what they called the “fish cops”. It meant massive red tape and it took forever to happen. This was their number one frustration.

To all those municipalities out there, the Navigable Waters Protection Act would be brought back under Bill C-69. There is not a rural municipality that will like it. Again, the Liberals are doing it, and they are shutting down debate. They are limiting us in being able to represent our constituents, and that is the shame.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 May 30th, 2018

Madam Speaker, I want to make sure I get his riding and name clear, because his quote will be in my householder. Albertans know that it is anything but what he stated. The future of Alberta looks great only because of Jason Kenney coming on the horizon. The future looks great because we have someone down the road who understands the importance of a pipeline, creating jobs, and putting people back to work. That is why Albertans are confident.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 May 30th, 2018

Madam Speaker, if we had more time tonight we would come up with more amendments. This is a bad budget. This whole budget should be put back on the shelf and started over again.

While I want to look forward and what we would continue to do, every once in a while, one has to look in the rear view mirror. When we were in power we cut the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%. We were not going to watch head offices heading to the United States, so we lowered the corporate tax rate. We made Canada a place where Canadians wanted to invest, where they wanted to create jobs, where they wanted to have businesses, and we are seeing just the opposite today.

Manufacturing jobs are leaving Ontario and going to the United States or Mexico, and it is because of bad government here in Ottawa and at Queen's Park in Toronto by the Liberals there. That is why Canadians, especially those who live in Ontario, are saying they need a new government. They need hope. Here in the province of Ontario we hope that change will come with the Progressive Conservative Party, real true hope with a true future.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 May 30th, 2018

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives proposed the tax cut for small and medium-sized businesses, the Liberals initially opposed it. In the last election, the NDP signed onto that small business tax cut. The Liberals finally said they would do that too. In the first budget, in their first year, they did not do it. They gave us no sign they were ever going to do that. As a result of strong opposition by both the Conservatives and the NDP, the Liberals did put it in the budget, and we are thankful for that.

When we steal from Peter to pay Paul, we never have a problem with Paul; it is always Peter. The Liberals are simply taking money from small business. They say they are going to cut the small business tax rate, but they are taking money away with the carbon tax. They are taking money away with the CPP premium increase. They are taking money away with an EI premium increase. The Liberals are simply taking money from one hand, putting it in their pocket, and claim to be giving back to small business. It is a shame.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 May 30th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, again, congratulations on working through 409 amendments. You did a great job. I listened intently, and you did not miss one, and we do appreciate that.

It is drawing close to 10:30 in the evening, and I am honoured to stand in this place once again to speak to the budget implementation act, 2018. On April 4, I stood in the House to speak to the budget. During that time, I focused my remarks primarily on our competitiveness, or I should say our lack of competitiveness, and the troubling effect of budget 2018 on our competitiveness and business investment in this country.

We are struggling today, as we were then, to attract capital from abroad, with foreign direct investment plunging last year to the lowest level since 2010. As I pointed out in the House over a month ago, the province of Alberta has experienced the worst decline in business investment in the country, much because of the NDP government we have there, much because of the lower price of oil, and much because of the Liberal government here.

Energy investment is at its lowest level on record, below even the worst of the 2009 global recession, with a loss of $80 billion of investment and more than 110,000 jobs. Drilling rigs are leaving Canada, heading to the United States, where there is a more hospitable investment climate. There has been a significant decline in capital spending.

I stood in the House to debate the budget just one week after Kinder Morgan announced that it had suspended its work on the Trans Mountain expansion project and had given the Liberal government until May 31 to provide the necessary assurances that this project would go ahead. We know that the Liberals were funding protesters to protest against that pipeline straight from government programs here. That was the first time I had an opportunity to speak to this budget.

Kinder Morgan's skepticism was based on the fact that Canada had approved the project in November 2016, following an expanded environmental review process that included additional consultations with indigenous communities, yet more than three months into 2018, there was no movement and much added red tape, frustrating Kinder Morgan and others that would invest here in this country. Kinder Morgan saw nothing in immediate sight that would give it any confidence that it could go ahead, so it put the ultimatum of May 31.

I lay the blame for that unfortunate thing with Trans Mountain development at the feet of the Prime Minister, and rightfully so. The Liberal Prime Minister failed to take any concrete steps to ensure that the project was completed. This failure added to the significant economic difficulties facing my province of Alberta and a number of my constituents, as this project is a pivotal part of both Alberta's and the country's economic future.

While yesterday's announcement regarding the purchase of Trans Mountain by the federal government may help get our oil finally, some day, to new markets, it came at an extremely high price. It is a price taxpayers should not have to pay. Given what the government has done, chasing $4.5 billion out of Canada to a Texas oil company so that it can invest in America and around the world, because it is very unlikely that it will come back here to invest soon, there is no guarantee that the government is going to ever be able to build that pipeline.

Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $4.5 billion, and that shows the Prime Minister's failure. I have zero confidence that the government can see this pipeline through to completion. The private sector has more experience in building pipelines, more experience in building infrastructure, and more experience in building the infrastructure needed to move its product than any government ever has had.

Kinder Morgan never asked for a single dollar of taxpayer money. All the company wanted was certainty. Now, Kinder Morgan's assets have been sold. It is abandoning its expansion plans in Canada and taking its significant investment in this country elsewhere. It is doing so at a time when business investment in Canada has fallen by 5%, or $12.7 billion, since 2015. During that same period, business investment in the United States has grown by 9%. Foreign direct investment plummeted by 42% in 2016, and then a further 27% in 2017.

Why is business investment so weak? There are many different reasons. One reason is all of the added red tape, the red tape piled on top of red tape in environmental assessments and reassessments. It has weakened investment in Canada, because Canadian businesses understand that they are facing rising costs, such as increased CPP and EI premiums, personal income taxes for entrepreneurs of over 53%, and, again, new carbon taxes.

Budget 2018 did not reveal exactly how much the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian. We have tried day after day in the House to get the Minister of Finance to tell us what that carbon tax is going to cost Canadian families, but he will not tell us.

Although the budget did not reveal how much, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation predicts that the carbon tax will cost $2,500 per family at a time when taxpayers recognize they have less and less money in their pockets. Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary estimates that it may cost $1,100 per family. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released a report that found that the carbon tax will take $10 billion out of the Canadian economy by 2022, while other estimates argue that the cost could be as much as $35 billion per year. None of these numbers can be verified because, unfortunately, the Liberal government continues to refuse to tell Canadians exactly how much that carbon tax will cost them, just like they refused to tell us the total cost of the nationalization of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

What is the final cost of that pipeline? Is it $4.5 billion for the assets of Trans Mountain today? What will those costs be by the time the pipeline is built, if it ever is built? We can ill afford the $4.5 billion price tag, let alone the billions of dollars in untold costs, especially given our massive debt.

I would add that the finance minister has finally started to pick up on the Conservatives' talking points, because that $12 million a day, or $42 million a week, is the differential in the price for oil that we do not receive because we are not getting our oil to the Asian markets. This money could build a school or a hospital a day or a week.

In their first three years in power, the Liberals will have added $60 billion to the national debt. Last year, Canada's net debt reached an all-time high of $670 billion, or $47,612 per Canadian family. The growing debt is a direct result of the Liberals' broken promises on their projected deficits. This fiscal year's deficit is $18 billion, which is triple of what was promised.

In comparison, in our 10 years in government, we paid down the national debt. We took surpluses and paid down just under $40 billion. However, during what was considered the worst recession since the Great Depression, we ran deficits. Although fundamentally opposed to debt and deficit spending, we realized, like every G7 country, that we needed to kick-start the economy. That was not enough for the Liberals or the NDP, but that is what we did. We invested in large infrastructure programs in Canada, the largest in Canadian history. With Canada's economic action plan, we got a significant return on this investment. We were the first G7 country to come out of the recession and back to growth.

I see that my time is up. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this budget implementation bill.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 May 30th, 2018

moved:

Motion No. 330

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 331

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 332

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 333

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 334

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 335

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 336

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 337

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 338

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 339

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 340

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 341

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Motion No. 342

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Motion No. 343

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 343.

Motion No. 344

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 344.

Motion No. 345

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Motion No. 346

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 346.

Motion No. 347

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 347.

Motion No. 348

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 348.

Motion No. 349

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 349.

Motion No. 350

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Motion No. 351

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 352

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 353

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Motion No. 354

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Motion No. 355

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Motion No. 356

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Motion No. 357

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Motion No. 358

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

Motion No. 359

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

Motion No. 360

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 361

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 362

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

Motion No. 363

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

Motion No. 364

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

Motion No. 365

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 366

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Motion No. 367

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 368

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

Motion No. 369

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

Motion No. 370

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 370.

Motion No. 371

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 371.

Motion No. 372

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Motion No. 373

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 374

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Motion No. 375

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Motion No. 376

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 376.

Motion No. 377

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 377.

Motion No. 378

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Motion No. 379

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Motion No. 380

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Motion No. 381

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 381.

Motion No. 382

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 382.

Motion No. 383

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 384

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 385

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 386

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 387

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 388

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Motion No. 389

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 390

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 391

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 392

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

Motion No. 393

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Motion No. 394

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 395

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Motion No. 396

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 397

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 398

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 398.

Motion No. 399

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 399.

Motion No. 400

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 401

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Motion No. 402

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Motion No. 403

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 404

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 404.