Clifford Small
Central Newfoundland, Newfoundland and Labrador · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, Brett Cox, a fisherman from English Harbour West, reached out to me yesterday and said, “We need the tariff gone on sea cucumber or that fishery is done.” He is referring to the 25% Chinese tariff, which still applies to all Canadian seafood except lobster and crab products.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech on the spring economic statement. I know that he comes from a riding in New Brunswick where salmon are paramount in Restigouche. The Minister of Fisheries announced $82 million towards making Atlantic salmon as they once were, in a great healthy state.”
“Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Prime Minister bragged about his deal with China to remove tariffs from Canadian seafood. There were 49 seafood products subjected to 25% Canadian tariffs, but this government secured exemption for only two species and only until the end of this year.”
“Mr. Speaker, more than 9,500 people responded to DFO's food fishery survey, and the overwhelming majority called for a longer season and greater flexibility. These findings reflect exactly what Conservatives have been calling for: Respect our traditions, let us fish when it is safe to do so and provide fair access to the food fishery.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have tabled a dissenting report. The then minister of fisheries, the member for Beauséjour , came to Newfoundland and Labrador in 2018 and talked about how massive the unit one redfish fishery would be.”
“Mr. Speaker, service medals represent the formal recognition of dedication, service and sacrifice by members of our Canadian Armed Forces, workers in emergency services, firefighters and other eligible public servants. These service medals have been taking longer and longer for people to receive.”
The complete record
Every one of 79 lines we hold for Clifford Small, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's four weeks in Parliament were filled with broken Liberal promises: a broken promise on spending, a broken promise on tax cuts, a broken promise on consultants, a broken promise on defence and a broken promise on being elbows up with the U.S. Canada's fiscal watchdog confirmed a massive broken Liberal promise, the so-called tax cut. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the average Canadian will save just $90 this year, or less than $7.50 a month. That is barely enough to buy a cup of coffee. Low-income seniors will see even less, only $50 a year, or under $5 a month. That is not relief; that is an insult. It is one thing for Liberals to promise relief but another to deliver pennies while families struggle. Canadians are concerned, and rightly so.”
“Madam Speaker, what I really believe in is moving towards natural gas away from either diesel, coal or any type of heavier fuel. If we want to solve the emissions problem in this world, natural gas is the way to go. The member knows it, and I wish that Quebec would get in on the game and start producing some natural gas.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not have the exact stats on how many homes have greater than a 200-amp service, but I suspect there are a lot that do not. I really could not make a stab at that, but the cost to upgrade for those who need to go to 200 amps is atrocious. It is another cost. Once consumers are forced down that pathway, it is not just the cost of the vehicle. It is also the cost they will incur at their home residence. It is terrible.”
“Madam Speaker, I think it is just completely wrong for the Liberal federal government to meddle in a free economy by creating mandates like this to force people. Whether they like it or not, everyone is going to pay if this mandate is followed through with because all vehicles will get more expensive.”
“Madam Speaker, if folks in certain regions have more of an acceptance of EVs, if there is more demand, and if they like them more, then they can buy them. The member spoke about choice. It is their choice, but if they do not work in other regions, and folks do not want to buy them, they should not be forced to buy them and forced into poverty. It is all about choice. This is democracy and capitalism, and I do not know why the Liberals are trying to take those away from Canadians.”
“It goes on to say, “The latest news of slowing demand for electric vehicles highlight the profound hazards of the federal government’s Soviet-style mandate”. That ums it up. It is a Soviet-style mandate. EV mandates will mean lots of suffering and no freedom.”
“It is possible that these EV mandates could cost the automotive industry $1.3 trillion. Job losses in the sector are projected to be 137,000 jobs. That is not my number. The hit to our GDP would be 4.8% nationally per year, and the demand for autos would drop by 10.5%. All of this is to drop our emissions in Canada by a mere 6%. It will cost $3,400 per tonne. That is 20 times the original Trudeau carbon tax nominal rate per tonne. There is no need for this. If consumers think electric vehicles are better, they will choose them. According to the Fraser Institute, “Electric vehicle mandates mean misery all around”. That was the headline out of the Fraser Institute, a very respected organization.”
“The government knows its zero-emissions EV target will not work. Building electricity generation and transmission infrastructure takes time. If we are going to expand our grid by 23% just to have enough electricity to power these vehicles, it is going to take decades to build that kind of infrastructure. What is the Liberal Prime Minister 's real goal? It is to tax Canadians. Canadians will pay the price. They will pay for this doomed plan. Who will also pay for it, besides the consumer? According to the peer-reviewed Canadian Journal of Economics, in the best-case scenario, our auto sector will lose $140 billion by 2035 under these mandates, and the worst-case scenario is that it continues to lose until 2050, at a cost of $1.3 trillion. Can members believe that?”
“They are going to pay the price for Liberal failures. The government has known for quite some time that this mandate will fail. It has been warned by utility companies that the grid will not stand up to it. Electricity demand will go up by close to 23% by 2035, and the electricity market is governed by supply and demand like every other commodity. With the continued electrification of everything, the price of electricity is going to go up. That will be another inadvertent consequence, with collateral damage to the people of Canada. To have our grid ready with additional power generation, with an upgraded transmission grid and with more charging stations, the cost is forecast to be $300 billion. This is according to the Liberal government's own research, published last July by Natural Resources Canada.”
“I see my colleague from Winnipeg. He is listening intently because he knows this is the case. Consumers are going to pay the price, and this is exactly what the Prime Minister wants. This is not straying from his mantra. We can go back to 2021, when he wrote a book called Values . I will give a little quote from that book. He said, “A host of other fiscal and regulatory policies can be highly effective in setting out the contours of a net-zero economy, including...regulations to phase out the sale of new internal-combustion vehicles in the next decade”. That is 10 years. That is not a long time. (1805) “Fiscal and regulatory policies” is what the Prime Minister stated in his book. Let us unpack that a bit. EVs are a failure in Canada. People do not want them, and as a result, Canadians are going to pay the price.”
“It is scientifically proven that these batteries cannot take the cold. There is a lack of charging stations. In Newfoundland and Labrador, right now there are only 120 charging stations. Another reason people are choosing to be against electric vehicles is the cost of these vehicles. They cost, on average, $15,000 more than an equivalent gas-powered model. Where do we stand heading into 2026? The latest data from February and March is that only 6.6% of vehicles that were purchased were EVs. In order to get on target for the 20% mark by the end of 2026, EV sales would have to triple what they were in the last recorded months. This is not going to happen. What will be the result of this consumer rejection and of this Liberal plan? The Liberals would charge auto manufacturers that fail to meet this target a $20,000 tax per vehicle.”
“I rise today to speak to our Conservative opposition day motion calling on the Liberal government to immediately end its mandate to ban gas-powered vehicle sales in Canada. This is supposed to happen by 2035, when all vehicles sold in Canada are to be zero-emitting, and there are various targets along the way. By 2026, 20% of all vehicles sold in Canada are to be zero-emitting. By 2030, that figure is supposed to go to 60%. Of course, by 2035, it goes all the way up to 100%. Consumers are rejecting EVs for various reasons. There is the fact that they lose 40% of their battery life in cold weather. We have lots of cold weather in Canada, and we certainly have it in Newfoundland and Labrador. That stat is based on the Canadian Automobile Association. They did the test. This is not something we are coming up with off the top of our heads.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise as the member representing the newly named riding of Central Newfoundland, formerly known as Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. I am truly grateful for those who supported me, put their trust in me and sent me to this place again to bring their thoughts, concerns and worries to this place. I owe a world of gratitude to all those who helped on my campaign. We had a tremendous campaign, and it meant so much to everybody and even more to me. God bless everybody who was involved. I thank them very much. I will continue to speak out on behalf of the people of the riding of Central Newfoundland while I am in Ottawa, in this chamber or on the fisheries committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I heard the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister talk quite a bit about trade. One group of products being hit hard right now by tariffs is Canadian seafood. Lobster, of course, is a very important seafood export of the member's province and of mine as well. Since March, there has been a 25% tariff placed on Canadian seafood by China. It seems as though seafood and the seafood industry are just collateral damage in a trade war the member's government started with China. Given his high-profile position and how connected he is to the PMO, could the member explain to the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada if he is doing anything about it?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is time for the minister to go to sea in a gale wind on a fishing boat or to get some dirt under his nails on a farm with our hard-working farmers. Clearly he has no respect for the people who toil to feed their family and everybody else's family, and who play such a crucial role in food security for Canada. Will the minister get relief from Chinese tariffs, or are fishermen and farmers just collateral damage in a trade war that the Liberals do not know how to fight?”
“Mr. Speaker, fishermen and farmers feed families. This season, Chinese tariffs on harvests from the land and the sea are impacting the livelihood of those who depend on markets in China. These tariffs are a direct result of the Liberal government's bungling of trade relations with China. The tariffs range from 25% on lobsters to 100% on canola. My question for the Minister of International Trade is this: When can farmers and fishermen expect the Liberal government to fix the mess it has made so they can get relief from Chinese tariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, has the minister's department done a cost-benefit analysis on the 30 by 30? What will be the cost to industries that depend on our oceans, and what will be the benefit to coastal communities if 30% of our oceans are marine parks?”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been 33 years, as of June 6, since that convention came into effect, and that is where the 30 by 30 was spawned from, as we say when we are talking about fish in the sea. We have protected 15% of our oceans in the last 33 years under that convention. How does the minister expect to protect another 15% in just four and a half years?”
“Mr. Speaker, again, I would ask the Minister of Environment, how long has it been since the UN Convention on Biological Diversity came into effect? I think she should know that, as the Minister of Environment. It is very important.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my hon. colleague is the Minister of the Environment right now, who is leading the charge on 30 by 30. What percentage of Norway's and Iceland's oceans does she think is protected right now, because she indicated she would like Canada to be a world leader like Norway and Iceland?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Leduc—Wetaskiwin and the member for Calgary Heritage this evening. I wonder if the hon. minister would like Canada to be a world leader in oceans protection as Norway and Iceland are.”
“Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader just talked about how Canadians are tuned in. If they are tuned in, they are watching a rerun of a 10-year-old show, the same show from the same guy, who is bawling and blaring over there, never giving his colleagues a chance to speak. The member spoke about the election. He was wondering what we heard at the doors. I will tell members what I heard. When I knocked on doors, people said they would not be voting Liberal. I wonder why that would be. Why were they telling me they would not be voting Liberal?”
“Madam Speaker, inshore operators along the northeast coast are seeing heavy predation on their crab stocks by cod. This has impacted their crab quotas and will worsen as the cod stock grows. Plant workers and fish harvesters in this adjacent area must benefit from the growth of the cod stock, which is placing livelihoods that are now dependent on crab in peril. Will the minister not yield to high-paid lobbyists and foreign-funded ENGOs, and instead do the right thing and accept the FFAW's proposal to allocate any increase in northern cod to fish harvesters on the inshore sector of the northeast coast?”
“Madam Speaker, this year's northern-cod assessment places the stock just a fraction below the healthy zone. With all those seeking increased quota, one sector stands out in terms of its historical access and adjacency to the resource. Those are the inshore harvesters of the northeast coast of Newfoundland in areas 3K and 3L. Given that these harvesters had little increase in their share of quota last year, will the minister do the right thing and accept the FFAW's proposal to allocate any increase in the northern cod quota to the inshore fishers of the northeast coast?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no consensus. That is the reality this week on getting Western oil and gas to tidewater. There is consensus in Newfoundland and Labrador today, where a VOCM poll shows that 74% agree that the Liberal oil and gas cap is an “investment killer”. No pipelines are required to get Newfoundland and Labrador's 2.5 billion barrels of oil to the world market or its 12.5 trillion cubic feet of gas to tidewater. It is already there. Will the Prime Minister put his money where his mouth is and get rid of his investment-killing cap to bring prosperity back to the Atlantic Canadian oil and gas patch?”
“Mr. Speaker, a promise was made to the people of Prince Edward Island, as it was made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the ferry passage rates would be drastically reduced, to less than half. I know that the member has been quite irritated. I saw in the press not long ago that he expects that the rate should be dropped by July 1. With regard to the promise that was made that affected the outcome, and he spoke about outcomes in his speech, is that promise going to be kept, or was it just a promise that was pulled out of thin air to affect the outcomes of the elections in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Prince Edward Island?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague, the new member for Cardigan, that the throne speech made no mention of the fishing industry other than the commitment to turn 30% of the ocean into marine parks by 2030. The new Liberal direction with respect to the fishing industry is identical to the direction of the Trudeau era. The Prime Minister is more concerned with meeting United Nations goals and satisfying NGOs than with supporting our fishing industry. Does the member for Cardigan agree with his leader that it is more important to maintain commitments to the United Nations, or is it more important to support coastal economies like those in his own riding?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj . His riding has quite a bit in common with my riding and many ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador. With regard to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to 30% by 30. Right now, 14% of Canada's oceans are considered protected areas. Iceland has 2% protected and Norway has 1% protected, with no plans to go further with that, but the Prime Minister's lofty intentions are to increase marine protected areas to 30% of the ocean. I wonder what my hon. colleague thinks of that and what impact it could have on the fishing economy in his riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's throne speech, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment to persecute the fishing and aquaculture industries through Liberal policy to close down 30% of fishing grounds by 2030. The 30 by 30 marine protected areas agenda was developed by the United Nations in conjunction with foreign activists, and the government signed it, so how can the Minister of Fisheries support shutting down the productivity of the fishing industry and the aquaculture industry, which means so much to coastal communities throughout Canada, given the impact that it will have on our very own province?”