Warren Steinley
Regina—Lewvan, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick question for my colleague from the NDP. The federal government says it is doing so well and its policies are just great, and its members are always patting themselves on the back. If the government is doing so well, why are so many Canadians struggling across the country?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by members of my community on Commissionaires, which remains the largest employer of veterans in Canada. Commissionaires had an agreement with the federal government that gives Commissionaires the first right of refusal for security at federal buildings for government departments.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Yorkton—Melville has been a great colleague. She really embodies the three things we talk about as Conservatives: faith, family and freedom. She always asks about people's families.”
“Mr. Speaker, this member from northern Saskatchewan is the biggest embarrassment to come out of Saskatchewan since the Riders lost the Grey Cup for having too many men on the field. Let me make a list of what this guy has actually delivered. He cancelled the Snowbirds. He shuttered two agriculture research stations.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said affordability is the best it has been in decades, but in reality, 38% of Canadians face food insecurity. One in five say all food in the home has been eaten and there is no money left to buy more. It is no wonder Food Banks Canada gave the Liberal government an F on food insecurity.”
“Then they decide to cut the Snowbirds and the agriculture research stations, and not fund their commitments to the RCMP heritage museum that they have promised time and again.”
The complete record
Every one of 296 lines we hold for Warren Steinley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, this northern Saskatchewan member of Parliament has abandoned his constituents faster than any MP I have ever seen. The member voted in favour of a gun buyback program, so his people could not hunt on their own land. There is the fact that he got up and voted in favour of a gun buyback program and supports that program, and then there is the fact that there is a 259% increase in food bank usage in Saskatchewan, despite them not having the ability to feed themselves. He wants to stand and take credit for Liberal programs. He should support Saskatchewan people and not his Liberal lapdogs.”
“Mr. Speaker, how do the Liberals not understand that if they would stop taxing Canadians to death, we would not need the programs? After 10 years of the Liberal government's reckless spending, prices of groceries continue to rise. The Prime Minister said he would be judged by the costs at the grocery store. Well, among Saskatchewan children, 35% live in food insecure households. When will the Liberals scrap their industrial carbon tax, scrap their second carbon tax and scrap their food packaging tax so Canadians could afford to feed their own kids?”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate that kind of, sort of answer. There was a lot of word salad there. I heard “build back better” again. As I always say, instead of build back better, I would love it if the Liberals put it back the way they found it. One question I have for the member across the way is this: We just brought in a new bill for the Major Projects Office to get things fast-tracked, but we could have just repealed Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 . I have not heard much conversation on this, but Bill C-69 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The government has never even talked about that or tried to make Bill C-69 better. We need to repeal it. Without repealing Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 and getting rid of the industrial carbon tax, it will be virtually impossible to convince proponents to come forward to build these major projects.”
“Canadian steel is not being used in some of the projects that have moved forward. China, India and other countries are flooding the market with cheap steel that is not as environmentally friendly and is not as good quality as what is being built in my city of Regina, in Hamilton and in Canada. I would love a response from whoever is going to take the question. When will projects be built? When will new projects be announced, not old projects being reannounced? I would love to make sure the projects that get built use good, environmentally sustainable Canadian steel.”
“I have seen polling done throughout the provinces, and there is a desire to get major projects built in the country once again and to get people back to work in industries like steelmaking and pipeline building. A lot of good, hard-working unionized employees in the building trades are looking to see if the government's actions will follow the talk. Is it going to talk the talk or actually walk it? That is what people in Regina are asking about regarding the Liberal government. A lot of promises were made, as with the slogan “build back better”. There have been a lot of slogans from the Liberal government over the last 10 years. I have been here since 2019, and I have not seen a lot of projects being built. I will end with one last comment. For some projects that were being built, the issue was the dumping of cheap steel.”
“It has been working on its project for four years now, so I would not say it is a new project. The question I asked in question period was about building pipelines and about the hard-working men and women at Evraz steel in Regina, where, at the peak, when products and pipelines were being built, there were 1,100 or 1,200 people working at the steel plant. They are now down to about half or even fewer than half of that many employees. These are hard-working families that depend on the good jobs at Evraz steel to make ends meet, and these men and women are now struggling to get by, living paycheque to paycheque. I wonder if there will be a pipeline project in the next tranche of major projects that will be announced. Perhaps more projects will be reannounced. In Canada, we are blessed with an abundance of natural resources.”
“Madam Speaker, I am happy to be here this evening to maybe get some more answers to the question I asked in question period before we rose last spring. We had an election and an election campaign, and a lot of commitments were made by the Liberal Party about building infrastructure. There was a lot of talk about pipelines during the campaign but not a lot of action after. The Prime Minister has been in office for six months now, and he has finally announced his Major Projects Office. However, the big, breathless announcement that the Liberals ran out to make was about five projects that were already being looked at and already halfway to getting regulatory approval. I can think of one, Foran Mining in Saskatchewan up by Creighton. I have a friend who works for Foran Mining.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, we did have an election on April 28, but eight million Canadians voted for our platform, and they should have a voice in the House. If you assume that you do not have to listen to anyone who did not vote for you, I think you are in the wrong job. That is not right. The member talked about trying things that have not worked in other countries. The Liberals tried safe supply, and it had not worked in Oregon. They tried drug legalization, and it had not worked in Venezuela. They have tried a lot of policies that have been tried around the world that failed miserably. I said earlier that, if crime increases by only 11%, like it did in California, instead of 130%, that is a lot better than what has happened in the last 10 years under the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commitment of my colleague from Yorkton—Melville to victims' rights. Yes, I think that act should be strengthened. As the member said, the review did not happen. It would once again be another arrow in the quiver of making sure victims do get justice and have their rights heard. If it was reviewed, we would strengthen it to make sure we are listening to the people who have had these crimes committed against them to make sure we do the right things going forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, this proposal would help victims through their knowing that the people who commit crimes against them will be in jail and not in the community with them and their family members. If we are going to put victims first, the people committing these crimes against Canadians should serve the time and not be out on parole. If someone commits serious offences three times, and victims know that those people are in jail for 10 years, the victims might sleep a little better at night.”
“He had child pornography, and my kids had to walk past that guy's house to go to school. It was unbelievable for the town. Parents were outraged, as they should be. How can that happen in Canada, that someone like that is allowed to be released the same day and be within two blocks of our kids' school? That is something that needs to be fixed in our country. I hope some of my colleagues listen to the words I am saying, look at this motion, look at the “three strikes and you're out” bill to try to protect Canadians and put victims first by putting criminals in jail.”
“It must be tough for the police officers to go to work, knowing that the person from whom they are trying to protect the community will laugh at them when they arrest them because they know they are going to get out because bail is so easy to get in this country. It is time to make the right decisions. I will just end with another story from the small town I am from. This summer, there was a bust and a sting, and a person was found having a lot of child pornography in our small community. He went to court, and he was out that afternoon. This person lives two blocks from my kids' school. They picked the rental house because it has a little library full of kids' books, just to make sure the kids would stop by and take books out. He was released that day from court.”
“Everyone is talking about Parliament now coming together and working. I heard one of my Liberal colleagues say, “It increased crime by 11% in the States. It did not work in the States, so it will not work here.” An increase in crime in Canada by 11% is a lot better than the 130% increase over the last 10 years under the government. It really is the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over again, as the Liberal government does, and expect different results. Members of the police force even get tired of arresting the same person. They do not even know why they charge them because they get out the very next day or that night. I could not even imagine being on the front lines as a police officer and seeing the same person go into jail, get out of jail, go into jail and get out of jail.”
“Especially when these people is out on bail, can the Liberals not feel for the victims, who have to see them in their neighbourhoods, in their community? This is from experience. When someone we love has been hurt, and the offender is within our community, every time we see a car like theirs, the hair on the back of our neck stands up. Every time we see them in a grocery store, our pulse quickens and our palms get sweaty. We just feel at a loss because this person is walking free, and the person we love who was hurt will never again feel the same. This is what we are doing to Canadians across the country with the soft-on-bail policy brought in by the Liberal government. The fact that they will not vote for a motion and will be obstructing our ideas to ensure Canadians are safer, quite frankly, confuses me. We are trying to work together.”
“These are four things that the “three strikes and you're out” law would help with, which I would think most people would see as reasonable improvements to the bail system. I do want to talk about a few of the comments that some of my colleagues made in the House today. If people across Canada have been watching, they would see a distinct difference between what Conservatives have been talking about and what the Liberals, and especially the New Democrats, have been talking about. We have been talking about the victims and the rights that victims should have, and ensuring that victims are taken care of. A lot of focus, especially from the NDP member, was on criminals. Forgive me, but I will always make sure victims' rights are ahead of criminals' rights. Can members imagine someone getting out on bail again and again and committing crimes?”
“It would strengthen bail laws by mandating judges to consider the full criminal history of an accused, would prevent anyone convicted of a major offence in the last 10 years while also on bail and charged with a major offence from getting bail, and would toughen the risk assessment standards from “substantial likelihood” to “reasonably foreseeable”. It would also prohibit anyone with an indictable conviction from acting as the guarantor who ensures bail conditions are followed, would require judges to enforce bail conditions on guarantors and would require non-residents to surrender their passports upon request. (1715) Before I go on, I want to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time.”
“I do not think it is a big leap to think that if criminals are in jail, they are not able to commit crimes. Here are some of the solutions that we have brought forward and some of the things that this proposed law would do. The Conservative bill would repeal and replace the Liberal principle of restraint with a directive for primary considerations to be the protection and safety of the public. It would introduce a new major offence category with reverse onus bail conditions for charges relating to firearms, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasion, robbery, extortion, arson and assault.”
“Despite the rapid rise, we have seen a refusal of the government to commit to making it tougher for people to get out on bail. We hear this from police associations across the country. There are people who get arrested hundreds of times. We have heard the numbers. People may say that our proposed law may not be the solution for everything, but it is going to help. If the people who continuously commit crimes are in jail, there is going to be less crime. For example, in Kelowna, 15 people committed 1,300 crimes. If those people were in jail, there would be 1,300 fewer crimes committed in that city. In Vancouver, as we have heard time and again, 40 people committed 6,000 crimes. I think everyone in this room could agree that if those 40 people were in jail, there would be less crime in Vancouver.”
“We have a solution, and I will go through three or four things that this motion and our proposed law would change. However, we have to know what the problem is. Over the last 10 years, the problem has been a couple of bills that have been put forward, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 , and we can see the results. This is not a new government. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, as everyone knows, and I think they should be judged by the lack of progress they are making on certain files. These numbers are from StatsCan; I am not making them up. Since 2015, gun crime has skyrocketed 130%. Instead of targeting the criminals responsible, the government doubled down on law-abiding firearm owners. The number of homicides has increased by 29%, and sexual assault has increased by almost 76% in this country.”
“I think we have gone back and forth on a few things, so I will read it to make sure we know what we are debating on the floor of the House today. It says: That, given that the Liberal government has changed the law to allow for house arrest for serious offenders and lets repeat criminals go free within hours of their arrest, which has resulted in a 50% increase in violent crime, the House call on the Liberal government to replace these changes with a "Three-Strikes-And-You're-Out" law that will stop criminals convicted of three serious offences from getting bail, probation, parole or house arrest and keep violent criminals in jail for at least 10 years. How did we get here? Why is a law like this being brought forward by the opposition?”
“There was a core group that came out a lot and helped us knock on 43,000 doors throughout the campaign to earn the vote of people from across Regina—Lewvan. That being said, there is a core group of people I would not be here without, and they are my wife Larissa and our three kids, Jameson, Claire and Nickson, who started school last week. Dad got to be there for their first day of school, and it was fantastic. They are having a great time in school. I hope they are almost out of school by now. If I am not mistaken, they are heading to the hockey rink right away. From the bottom of my heart, I thank Larissa very much for being the glue that holds our family together. The motion before us today was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition .”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join this debate on the opposition motion put forward today. However, before I do that, as it is one of the first times I have been on my feet after the last election, I would like to thank a few people for once again allowing me to be here as the voice of the good people of Regina—Lewvan. It is my third term, so 2019, 2021 and 2025. It has been an honour to be here for almost six years. Obviously, none of us get to this place without a lot of help, and I had a great campaign manager, Shelley, who did an awesome job. We had a team out every day knocking on doors: Khrishno, Brian and Anshumaan. We had a great group of people who helped, such as Ron. I could go on and on, but if I miss someone I will feel bad.”
“Madam Speaker, I would agree that reforms are needed, especially when it comes to some kind of language criteria. I believe my colleague would agree with that. Those are some of the adjustments that need to be made at committee level, but following the process and ensuring that people do get to speak in the House of Commons about legislation is a good part of the process. I think people do have comments they want to put on the record to reflect the desires and opinions of their constituents.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hard work the member does for his constituents in Cariboo—Prince George. I do appreciate the fact that the question is something I mentioned in my speech. I would say it is not the standard of practice in the United States, Britain, France, Italy or a number of our peer countries, which, with the rare exception, have capped passing on citizenship to the first generation born outside of the country. We are definitely not in line with our partner countries.”
“Madam Speaker, with a new session, there is a new demeanor. I appreciate the calm demeanor of my colleague from Winnipeg North. Sometimes he gets a little robust in his debate. I find it interesting that the member who probably speaks the most on the floor of the House of Commons has an issue with us standing up and putting our concerns on the record for our constituents. I think a bit of debate and having members address the concerns they hear in their ridings is a good part of democracy. I feel that this is the proper process, and when we get to the committee level, we are looking forward to putting forth amendments that will make this piece of legislation better. We will see if those are accepted by the other parties in the House.”
“A lot of our peer countries have much different criteria for their citizenship, and we should look at best practices around the world to see what they do and how they make sure their citizenship is valued. This is why we have those questions. As I said, Canada is a beautiful, welcoming country, but we have questions about the criteria and what this legislation would look like. It would put a strain on the system and on our provincial partners as well.”
“Another person I would like to put on the record is Krisha Dhaliwal, Canadian immigration and citizenship lawyer: “At this point, details have not been provided regarding what kinds of evidence will be required to demonstrate the 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada.” I mentioned that earlier. Who is going to be the arbitrator of that? Who is going to make sure that criteria has been followed, and how robust will that be? Those are some of the questions we would like answered at the committee level. I think this bill does something that we as Conservatives take very seriously and puts into question the value of Canadian citizenship. In other countries, it is not the case that people can have next-generation citizenship.”
“Do not only take it from me. These are questions that lots of other people are asking as well. Someone who has a much broader knowledge of the immigration system than me, Sergio Karas, principal of Karas Immigration Law Professional Corporation, said in 2024: Introducing tens of thousands of new citizens without a robust integration plan is reckless. Our social infrastructure is buckling, and health care is under severe pressure. The lack of a clear strategy for accommodating this potential population surge only heightens concerns. It is not just me asking these questions; there are lots of other people who have similar concerns about this piece of legislation.”
“Was consultation done showing that the policy put forward is something the provinces agree with? As in my remarks earlier, a lot of these programs that may be accessed fall into provincial jurisdiction, and there is a lot more burden on them. Health care would for sure be one of them. Are people going to come back for our health care system if they have Canadian citizenship? I do not know the answer to that. Have the Liberals thought of that potential strain on the system? Are more people who have citizenship going to come back to Canada to access education? That is another question that would be asked. The question I have is, what is the total number of people? I think I have heard that it is around 115,000. Has that grown over the last couple of years? Is it more or less? When it comes to our systems, that really needs to be answered.”
“Also, there is no criminal record check for people who are going to become Canadian citizens. Is that something this House is prepared to move forward with? Do we not want to know if the people who are becoming Canadian citizens have a criminal record? That really has to be delved into at the committee level as well. These are all pretty understandable questions, and questions that people would have if I were to be in support of this legislation. Have the Liberals asked those questions? Have they, on our behalf, made sure that those checks and balances have been taken into consideration? I really would like a member of the Liberal Party to stand up and talk about the consultations with provincial immigration ministers about this piece of legislation.”
“Who is going to take on the extra bureaucracy to ensure that the criteria laid out in this piece of legislation is met? Perhaps a member from across the aisle could answer that for us as well. (1150) We know there are long wait times at the IRCC. Is this going to add more to those wait times for people who have been waiting years sometimes to get answers from the IRCC? As my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake mentioned, this bill would put in place a two-tier system where some people who have been waiting for years and years for an answer from IRCC would be queue-jumped by people who would be given citizenship without some of the criteria we have outlined. There is the conversation about what the language criteria would look like. That is something else that is not in this bill.”
“It includes measures responding to the December 2023 Ontario Superior Court ruling that struck down the first-generation limitation on citizenship for children born abroad. That was not appealed by the federal government. Under Bill C-3 , citizenship would be extended to those born outside Canada with at least one Canadian parent who has lived in Canada for 1,095 non-consecutive days. That brings up several other questions. How is that going to be regulated? Who is going to oversee it to make sure that criteria is met? We know that the immigration system is at a breaking point. In Regina—Lewvan, we have a very diverse community, and I would say that about 80% of the cases in our office have something to do with the IRCC. Are the Liberals going to hire more people to ensure that this criteria is met?”
“Originally introduced as Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament, it builds on Conservative Senator Yonah Martin's Bill S-245 , which targeted a narrow group that was inadvertently affected by the 2009 reforms under the Harper government. This is something we have had our eye and focus on to make sure there is some fairness for the people who were affected in 2009. However, rather than maintaining that focus, as I mentioned earlier, the NDP used its alliance with the Liberals at committee to push forward sweeping changes well beyond the bill's intent. Then when Bill S-245 was stalled, the Liberals reintroduced the expanded version of Bill C-71 in the last in Parliament, which is now Bill C-3. This legislation drastically broadens access to citizenship far beyond what we can support.”
“How much pressure does it put on the programs and systems we have in our country that are already on the verge of not being able to handle the influx of people who access those systems, such as health care and education? When we look at this bill, we really want to make some amendments to it. I believe some of my colleagues have talked about working collaboratively in the new session to make sure we have good pieces of legislation going forward for the Canadian people. That is something we look forward to doing by putting forward amendments. Bill C-3 is the latest attempt by the Liberals to overhaul Canada's citizenship laws.”
“If people who get citizenship come back to Canada, what will that look like for the health care system? Have the Liberals thought about that? The health care systems across the provinces are under strain right now. What would this bill do to the health care system in Saskatchewan or Manitoba? When we look at a bill like this, I would say there are a lot of potential unintended consequences to adding that many citizens to this country. I know a Conservative senator put forward a bill like this in the other place, but Bill C-3 broadens the scope of birthright citizenship substantially. We have questions about expanding that scope.”
“We agree with some parts of it, but we really want to know what the value of our Canadian citizenship will look like with the Liberals and how it is going to be passed on from generation to generation. I think the number of Canadian citizens we will be adding is about 115,000. Right now, with the climate in our country, do we know how many would come to Canada? Would there be homes for these people if they came to Canada? These were some of the questions I had when I first glanced at Bill C-3 . One question I would love a Liberal colleague to answer, maybe the member for Winnipeg North , is whether the Liberals consulted with the provinces on this bill. Were there conversations? A lot of the time there are unintended consequences to some of the legislation and policies the Liberals bring forward.”
“Madam Speaker, I am happy to be back in the House of Commons representing the people of Regina—Lewvan. If I can have some leeway, we obviously had the summer to go back to our ridings to talk to our constituents to find out some of the main points and topics they would like us to discuss here in the House of Commons on their behalf. We did some barbecue circuits and had lots of events in Regina—Lewvan. It is a busy place. Some things that came up were about affordability. We are facing an affordability crisis in the country. We are also facing a housing crisis and an inflation crisis in this country. Those tie into some of the questions I have regarding Bill C-3 when it comes to what the Liberals are going to do with it. We want to get it to committee so we can put some amendments forward to strengthen it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is sad but true, Canadians are getting used to being misled by that Liberal in particular. Moving on to another Liberal failure, a damning new report from the Liberals' own housing agency has declared the death of housing affordability in our country. It said that Canada needs to double housing construction to restore affordability, but the Liberals' record is dismal. Housing starts in Vancouver are down 10%; in Toronto, down 58%; in Guelph, down 78%; in Hamilton, down 50%; in London, down 72%. It is a simple question. When will the housing minister stop buying investment properties and start building homes for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's fiscal watchdog confirms another broken Liberal promise, this time on the Liberals' tax cut. On the campaign trail, the Prime Minister promised Canadians an $800 income tax cut, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer just confirmed that the average Canadian will save $15 a month, and low-income seniors will save only $10 a month, which will not buy a gallon of milk from the Lumsden co-op. Why did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians in the last election?”
“According to the CAA, electric vehicles lose 40% of their battery capacity between -7°C and -15°C. How cold does it get in Winnipeg?”
“Mr. Speaker, actually, we have a great example of different philosophies on display here in the House of Commons with the EV mandate debate. As a Conservative, I think that if someone wants to buy an electric vehicle, they should go ahead. If they want to buy a gas vehicle, they should go ahead. It is their choice and up to them; the government should not have to mandate people to do something. Liberals who want to buy an EV vehicle think that if they are buying one, everyone has to buy one; everyone has to do the same thing they do. That is an example of how we view things differently on the Conservative side, as we think people should be able to make their own choices. With that being said, there has been a lot of rhetoric from my friend from Winnipeg.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate. The member was actually out in Saskatchewan last summer, and we met with Evraz steelworkers, pipefitters, building trades workers and refinery workers. Not once did EV mandates come up in any of our conversations. He was able to see our province, with its vast, beautiful, long distances. There are not a lot of charging stations and availability to charge EV vehicles. My one question is this: Who does the member think has asked for the EV mandate? I wonder whom the Liberals have talked to who has actually asked for the policy to come forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, can members imagine driving to work every day wondering if that is the day they are going to get laid off? For 10 years, the Liberals have had antidevelopment policies, like Bill C-69 , Bill C-48 , the emissions cap and the industrial carbon tax. These hard-working men and women deserve a much better answer than that. Will the government be like the old government? Is the new guy the same as the old guy, with no pipelines? Pipelines deserve to be built in this country. They run our economy. Will the Liberals use Canadian steel in pipelines?”
“Mr. Speaker, having no pipelines means no jobs for hard-working employees at Evraz steel in Regina. How can the Liberals get pipelines built if they are looking for a consensus? What does consensus mean? Will they use Canadian steel to build these pipelines?”
“Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a hard no to me. Saskatchewan people want to build pipelines. To secure and grow Canada's economy, we must develop a world-class energy sector. The anti-energy NDP Premier of B.C. has stated that there will be no new pipelines in B.C. Anti-development extremists in the Prime Minister 's cabinet have dedicated their careers to keeping Canadian oil and gas in the ground, such as the heritage minister and the environment minister . If the Prime Minister cannot get consensus within his own cabinet, how will we ever get a pipeline built in our country?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate. The member for Battle River—Crowfoot and I actually have a long history together. We both started as members of the Saskatchewan Party caucus office working in research. I was elected in 2011, and the hon. member took my job as the director of research in the Saskatchewan Party caucus office. I decided to make the trip to Ottawa, and I was very happy that my friend followed me to Ottawa. I guarantee this is not the last time I will have the honour of working with this very honourable man. I cannot wait for him to come back to the House in the next election so we can work together once again. To his lovely family and his boys, he is a great dad and an awesome husband. I am proud of him and cannot wait to see him in two or three years.”