Andrew Scheer
Regina—Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincere thanks to my colleagues for that accommodation. I think that any time a member is retiring after great service to their constituents in this House, it is appropriate that we show that kind of grace. I want to quickly extend all the very best to my colleague from Yorkton—Melville .”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a quick point of order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member's speech. Our ridings share a border, and so we are neighbouring members of Parliament. My riding goes all the way to Melville where her riding begins.”
“They want to see people elected to the House of Commons who do not just go with the flow or read the polls and make decisions afterwards, but have a clear sense of who they are and what they are all about.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition, signed by over 215 residents in and around the Indian Head area who are protesting the closure of the Indian Head Research Farm. This research facility has over 100 years of data on soil, moisture and crop varieties.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am tabling yet another petition from residents in and around the Indian Head area in southern Saskatchewan who are urging the government to reverse its terrible decision to shut down the Indian Head agricultural research farm.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have all been waiting since last Thursday for today's Thursday question, the time of the week when Canadian telecom providers have to scramble to add excess capacity as hundreds of thousands of Canadians tune in, anxiously anticipating what the government will bring forward in the chamber for the rest of this week and into…”
The complete record
Every one of 243 lines we hold for Andrew Scheer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's deal with Canadians was to elect him and he would get us a win on tariffs. Since then, he has taken over 20 trips, which might be worth it if he came home with better deals, but he is not. After meeting with the U.S., tariffs are even higher than before. After meeting with China, we now have new tariffs on grain and seafood. India put new tariffs on peas after their meeting. He claimed to have some kind of special ability that would result in new trade deals, but it turns out he is not that special; he is just another Liberal. Will the Prime Minister admit he is failing on trade, or is making things worse part of some genius strategy?”
“Mr. Speaker, if they really wanted to give workers a break, they would scrap the industrial carbon tax that their American competitors do not have to pay. Now we all know who this budget really was for: It was a Brookfield boardroom budget. After all, the billions in extra debt means that bankers and bondholders get big interest payments, and when those board members go out to buy a luxury private jet, they get a big tax break. A Gulfstream G600 is currently listed for $63 million. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much a Brookfield executive will save with the private jet tax cut, and how much more Canadians will have to pay when food prices go up?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal inflationary deficits, working Canadians have never had it so tough. People lined up at food banks and parents putting beef back on the grocery store shelf were desperate for something in the budget to bring prices down. Did the Prime Minister scrap hidden taxes on food? No. Did he scrap the 17¢ fuel standards tax? No. The Prime Minister heard the cries of working Canadians and what did he do? He scrapped the luxury tax on private jets and yachts. That is right. The only measure in this budget to make things cheaper will only apply to boats and airplanes. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many Canadians lined up at food banks will benefit from the private jet tax cut?”
“Sign up online and get a cheek swab. It is a simple act that could easily save someone's life. I thank those who have already registered as a donor. Together, we can continue to show the compassion and generosity that makes Canada so great.”
“Mr. Speaker, every year, so many Canadians and their families face the unimaginable challenge of searching for a life-saving bone marrow match. Becoming a bone marrow donor is one of the most selfless and meaningful acts a person can do. lt does not require wealth or status, just a willingness to help a person in need, like my nephew, Lincoln, who received a bone marrow transplant from his generous donor, Ann, and like Ollie Ferguson, who is with us here in Ottawa today. Ollie was in need of a bone marrow donor and found one in his sister Scarlett. Because of Scarlett, Ollie has been able to chase his passion for driving race cars. He races pro late model cars, and he is only 15. Because of Scarlett, he can enjoy climbing the ranks of racing. I encourage everyone to join Canadian Blood Services' stem cell registry.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is time for everyone's favourite moment of the parliamentary week, the Thursday question. I am hoping the government can update the House as to the business of the chamber for the rest of this week and the week after the break week. While I am on my feet, as this is the Thursday before Remembrance Day, I want to thank all our men and women who currently serve in uniform, all those who have ever donned the Canadian uniform with the Canadian flag on their arm, and all those who have put themselves in harm's way to defend and protect Canada and our allies. We cannot thank veterans and current members of the armed forces enough for what they do. I hope all Canadians take a moment on November 11 to thank a veteran and to commemorate their service.”
“Mr. Speaker, maybe farmers can call up CRA and say the carbon tax on farm equipment and fertilizer is imaginary, or maybe they can write imaginary cheques to pay for them. It is not just the industrial carbon tax that is driving up food prices; it is also the Liberal fuel standard. When truckers take the food from farms to factories to grocery stores, they cannot tell the Canada Revenue Agency that those taxes are imaginary. They have to pay that extra 17¢ a litre. To help bring prices down for working Canadians, why not scrap the fuel standards that are driving up food costs?”
“Mr. Speaker, that would be an eleventh-hour change because the government has been telling young Canadians they are going to have to sacrifice more so that the government can get bigger and bigger. The government even tried to deny that its hidden taxes on food make life more expensive. It called those hidden taxes “imaginary”. Let me tell everyone that the farmer who has to pay the industrial carbon tax on his new equipment or on the fertilizer he buys has to pass those costs on to Canadians, and food prices go up as a result. He does not have the option to not pay the industrial carbon tax on farm equipment and fertilizer. A concrete measure to help bring prices down would be to scrap the industrial carbon tax. Will the Liberals do that today?”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Liberal government spends comes out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians in either inflation or tax hikes. Today, we will find out just how many dollars the government is going to take out of the pockets of Canadians. There will be one difference. After today, every tax rate, every piece of red tape, every rule, every regulation and every bit of wasteful spending will be exactly how the Prime Minister wants it. Conservatives have been clear: We will not support a costly budget that makes life more expensive for Canadians. Instead of asking Canadians to pay more for big, bloated bureaucracy, why not bring in an affordable budget that lowers prices for everyone?”
“Finally, when the budget is introduced on Tuesday, will the Liberals continue to ask Canadians to sacrifice even more so the Liberals can line the pockets of their friends, or will he bring in an affordable budget that allows Canadians to have an affordable life?”
“For example, the official opposition has asked for a take-note debate on softwood lumber, as many Canadian families are heading into the Christmas season out of work from the lumber industry after the punishing tariffs that the Prime Minister has failed to remove. Will the government House leader schedule a debate on the automotive sector, after thousands of workers in Canada have received pink slips because of the government's failure to get a deal on autos? Will he schedule a debate on agriculture, as our Canadian producers now face tariffs not only from China but also from India, something that the Prime Minister promised to solve? He said he would get a deal and a win for Canada and remove tariffs, but there are actually more tariffs today for Canadian workers than there were when the Prime Minister took office.”
“I know that many Canadians cannot afford “whosits and whatsits”, after the government's inflationary deficits have priced families out of being able to buy toys for their children, so I hope it is the government that will remove its Grinch costume and think about an affordable budget for an affordable life for Canadians. I would like to ask the government House leader what the business for the rest of this week and for next will be for the House, and to ask specifically whether he will show some Christmas cheer and some Christmas charity and allow the House to have a take-note debate on any number of issues that are distressing to Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I will rise to ask the traditional Thursday question. I know I speak for all Canadian baseball fans, who have a lot on their minds this weekend other than what the government's legislation might be next week, as the Blue Jays come home with the wind in their sails as they look to finish the job in games 6 and 7. I know I am very excited for that, and I want to congratulate all the players, teams and fans for an amazing playoff run so far. I heard a lot of references to the Grinch in the government House leader 's answers today. I will point out that, much like the Prime Minister is making food unaffordable for Canadians, so too the Grinch took the roast beast away from the Whos in Whoville.”
“Mr. Speaker, if flushing billions of tax dollars through big bureaucracies actually worked, we would not be having this conversation. We have been hearing the same thing for 10 years from the Liberal government, and the results for young Canadians are terrible. The youth unemployment rate is now 15%. Young people are being forced to move back into their parents' basement. Now the Prime Minister is telling them to sacrifice while he uses their tax dollars to pay off big bonuses for government officials. Do the Liberals not realize that young Canadians simply have nothing left to give?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberal government, elites and insiders have never had it so good. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is telling young Canadians that they are going to have to sacrifice even more. Now we learn what all that sacrifice is for. We learned today that the Liberals just paid out big bonuses to government officials. The Liberal housing agency, CMHC, whose main job is to make housing more affordable, paid out $30 million in executive bonuses at a rate of about $42,000 a pop. Each one of those could have been a down payment for a young Canadian. Why is the Prime Minister telling young Canadians that they have to sacrifice so he can pay off government insiders?”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been a week, and all we have gotten from this minister is political theatre. She is bragging about who she gets on the phone. She is bragging about the tough talks she is having. Here is the thing: If the Liberals actually included a job protection clause in the contract, all they have to do is invoke it. I am starting to get a terrible feeling. I am starting to worry that they signed a $15-billion deal with Stellantis and did not include a guarantee to protect those Canadian jobs. Can the minister tell Canadians very clearly and explicitly if they included a job protection plan for all jobs at Stellantis when they forked over $15 billion?”
“Mr. Speaker, this news out of GM today is another devastating blow for auto workers. It comes less than a week after Stellantis announced 3,000 layoffs as it moved production from Canada into the U.S. The Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye and promised that, in exchange for their votes, he would prevent auto sector job losses from happening. Well, they are happening. If the government included a Canada-wide job protection plan in its $15-billion deal to Stellantis, it could simply invoke that clause. The minister who signed the contract should be able to answer this question: Did the Liberals include a job protection clause in the contract with Stellantis?”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification, the request was for a take-note debate on an emergency basis. It is within the government's purview to grant take-note debates. Am I to take it that the request has been refused?”
“Perhaps the Prime Minister has not had a chance to read that, but, if the House gives its consent, I will table that right now. Maybe the government could also tell us what the business will be for the rest of this week and all of next week. I have one more thing. Before we go, I would like to wish all Canadians a very happy Thanksgiving. I hope that all members of the House from both sides of the aisle, and all the support staff who work here and help this place place function, have a great, happy Thanksgiving with their friends and family.”
“The member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has asked for an emergency take-note debate on softwood lumber. We note that yesterday the Prime Minister came home empty-handed; he did not get a deal on softwood lumber tariffs. Many mills have been closing across the country, and my colleague, who represents a lot of the forestry workers in British Columbia, has asked for an emergency take-note debate. I am wondering if the government will agree to that and schedule such a debate. I would also like to seek the opportunity to help inform the Prime Minister . He said during question period that the Liberals voted against something that does not exist when it comes to the oil and gas production cap. I have here the actual regulations for the oil and gas production cap.”
“Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, it is time for the Thursday question. I would like to use this opportunity to ask a few very specific questions. First and foremost, we see that the embattled public safety minister has had to come, cap in hand, back to the House of Commons and restart his efforts with Bill C-2 . It was literally the first piece of legislation the government introduced, and the government has had to do a complete do-over because it got it so wrong, infringing on Canadians' individual rights and liberties, completely violating charter principles of the right to privacy and due process. Now that the Liberals have tabled the do-over, mulligan piece of legislation, I would like to ask them when they might be calling that piece of legislation. Second, I would like to ask the Liberals something very specific.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister said the Liberals believe in Canada. The Liberal Prime Minister will not even pay taxes in Canada. Once those investment dollars go to the U.S., they do not come back. Let us just look at TC Energy. That used to be called TransCanada, until the Liberals had to drop the word “Canada” because they cannot get anything built in this country. They just put $8.5 billion to work in the U.S. The Prime Minister said during the election that anyone who worships at the altar of Donald Trump will kneel before him, not stand up to him. Yesterday, he knelt like a pylon while the president skated around him. Did the Prime Minister get an end to U.S. tariffs in return?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that we do not need elbows to come home empty-handed. Yesterday, we found out why Donald Trump wanted this guy to be Prime Minister so bad; it is because Trump knew he would get everything he wanted from the Prime Minister. In addition to keeping all the Trudeau-era policies that are already chasing away jobs and investments, the Prime Minister decided to offer a $1-trillion gift of Canadian investment dollars flowing to the U.S. That means mines built in the U.S., factories built in the U.S., sawmills built in the U.S., all with Canadian investment dollars. In exchange for this generous sacrifice, did the Prime Minister get an end to all U.S. tariffs once and for all?”
“Mr. Speaker, changing the date Canadians are told how bad inflation and deficits are going to be is not going to give comfort to anybody. The Liberals have to get their stories straight. When they are asked about job losses here at home, they say they are all because of U.S. tariffs. When they are asked why the Prime Minister cannot get a win on those tariffs, they say that Canada already has the best deal and that those tariffs do not apply to most goods. Both of those excuses cannot be true at the same time. Here is what is true: The deficit here has doubled; Canada has the second-highest unemployment in the G7; and 86,000 people have lost their jobs. What is the reason? Is it the Prime Minister 's failed trade diplomacy abroad or his failed economic policies at home?”
“Mr. Speaker, for those of us keeping score at home, the Prime Minister is oh for three. He promised to negotiate a win with Trump by July 21. There is still no deal and tariffs are actually higher. He promised it would be elbows up, but then he quietly dropped countertariffs, and what did he get in return? He got nothing. He promised Canada would have the fastest-growing economy in the G7, instead it is the fastest shrinking. The 86,000 Canadians who have lost their jobs since he took office cannot afford to wait for the Prime Minister to get through this slump. When the Prime Minister comes home from Washington this week, will he have a deal to eliminate all U.S. tariffs, or is that promise just stuff he said during the election?”
“We cannot ignore this violence and tragic loss of life. We must speak out and shine a light on what is happening so that people can donate to relief efforts and provide support to those displaced by the violence. To my brothers and sisters in Christ, we know they know the power of prayer. We will not forget them. Stay strong and keep the faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the tragedy Christians in Nigeria are experiencing. The deadly terrorist organization Boko Haram is trying to eliminate the Christian faith in Nigeria. This is the same terrorist group that kidnapped dozens of young schoolgirls and burned innocent civilians alive in cages. According to reports, over 3.5 million people have been forced to flee their homes. Three churches are destroyed every single day. Seven thousand Christians were massacred this year alone and the faithful must now meet in secret or in burned-out sanctuaries. Sadly, the world is turning a blind eye to the plight of Christians in Nigeria. There are no embedded journalists covering the violence. There are no daily updates. Politicians around the world are not asked questions about how they will respond.”
“Members would feel free to make all kinds of accusations about the groups members opposite might be associated with. That is a road I do not think any of us wants to go down. I think the hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas should do the mature thing: apologize and withdraw,”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary should know that the Speaker is fully empowered to make decisions in the moment when things are said that are unparliamentary. He does not have to reserve judgment for days and days when people use unparliamentary language. It has also long been a well-established principle in this place that making accusations of involvement with heinous and reprehensible organizations is ruled out of order. The hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas should do the right thing and simply withdraw as the Speaker has instructed him to do. If he does not, and if there is not more of a sanction than not being recognized for 20 minutes on a short Wednesday, then this will send a terrible signal to this place.”
“They certainly were not listening to opposition MPs who have tabled common-sense legislation that would do that for them. In the interest of non-partisanship, I wonder if the hon. government House leader will tell us if he will work with us to quickly fast-track Conservative laws. If the Liberals will not bring legislation to the House themselves, will they at least get out of the way so that Conservative bills can pass to make Canadians safe?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the government House leader would not want to evade the Thursday question. It is probably the highlight of his week. As we work toward the end of every week, Thursday is the day when the opposition gets to ask the government House leader what the business will be for the rest of this week and next week. I am hoping the minister will tell us when his government will end the obstruction and finally bring in legislation to undo the Liberal bail system problems that have caused the crime and chaos that is terrorizing Canadians in their communities. We have been here now for two weeks. It is almost as if the Liberals did not do anything this summer. They certainly were not listening to police associations that are demanding these changes.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was the public safety minister who set the record straight when he was caught on tape saying that this program will not do a thing for public safety. The Liberals are not taking guns away from criminals; they are letting criminals out on the street, and now they are diverting $750 million that could go to things that would protect Canadians. That is money being diverted away from the border, where illegal guns and drugs could be stopped. It is $750 million that is not going to new border agents to deport foreign criminals. Why will the Prime Minister not just do the right thing and fire the incompetent public safety minister ?”
“Mr. Speaker, gun crime is up 130% under the Liberal government, and what is the Liberals' answer? It is to target law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. The public safety minister was caught on leaked audio accidentally telling the truth about the Liberal gun buyback scheme. He admitted it is not worth the money, that it will go over budget, that it is politically motivated and all for optics, and, worst of all, that it is not even going to work, yet the Prime Minister is telling the minister to go full steam ahead. The minister is actively trying to sell a program that he admits will waste $750 million and not improve public safety. Why will the Prime Minister not just fire the minister ?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right, and the government is right too: This will have generational impacts. That means generations of Canadians into the future will be paying back the debt that the current government is racking up, including the interest on the debt, which goes to bankers and bondholders. That is not what Conservatives want to see happen.”
“Madam Speaker, we have already shared our opinion on the Liberal strategy of creating a diversion so that Canadians do not think about their terrible track record. I apologize to my colleague for not having the French version of the text. However, in the English version, the government's position is clear. [ English ] It states, “In accordance with his role as intervener, the Attorney General of Canada takes no position, on any basis whatsoever, on the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act respecting the laicity of the State.” [ Translation ] That is clear. We need to talk about the motivation behind this Liberal strategy: The Prime Minister does not want Canadians to be talking about the cost of living crisis, the inflation crisis and the crime crisis as they sit around the dinner table.”
“Madam Speaker, the member makes an unfounded allegation that I could be biased when all I did was read statistics. Math has no bias. Numbers have no prejudice. They come into the world because of calculations. Let me look at some of those calculations. Spending on consultants has gone up 37%, from $19 billion to $26 billion. Spending on bureaucrats by the Liberal government is up 6%, from $59 billion to $63 billion. There is no bias in that. Those are just numbers that we take from departmental websites and estimates and things like the Parliamentary Budget Officer's dispassionate, independent analysis of government spending. The government members talk about how many Canadians are being affected by their policy. How about every single Canadian being affected by the inflation crisis that the current government caused?”
“They have engineered a distraction from their terrible record: their terrible record on cost of living, their terrible broken promises on fiscal responsibility and their terrible record on public safety, letting crime and chaos reign in our streets by putting the rights of dangerous offenders ahead of the rights of law-abiding Canadians. It is shameful, but the Prime Minister is employing the same tactic as his predecessor, Justin Trudeau: dividing to distract, distracting from his terrible record, and he is proving to be just another Liberal.”
“I have heard from police associations that say they will arrest somebody at about 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening whom they had already arrested that morning. Those dangerous and repeat offenders have been let out by the federal government, and Canadians are sick and tired of it. However, rather than take real action like adopting the Conservative “three strikes and you're out” policy, and rather than apologize to Canadians for all the lives that have been shattered by the criminals the government set free, the Liberals are blocking and obstructing legitimate attempts to fix the bail system and to bring in tougher penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders. This is what the Liberals are doing.”
“This means that just about half of young people in the workforce who are looking for work do not have jobs. The youth employment rate is the lowest in almost three decades. Canadian household debt is the highest in the G7. Bankruptcies are rising at the fastest pace since 2008. It is not just the cost of living crisis that is causing so much hardship in Canada and that the government is trying to distract from; we have a crime crisis as well. We have a Liberal government that decided to instruct judges to give bail to some of the country's worst, most violent and repeat offenders. What does that mean? It means that now, when someone is being arrested for the 14th, 15th or 20th time, when they get booked by the police, they get back out on the street, often the very same day.”
“However, the hard-working person in a hotel, the plumber, the mechanic and the people whose wages do not keep up with inflation have to start paying all the increased prices before they are able to secure any kind of pay increase. Their paycheques have to go further. They work harder and are able to buy less. Since the Prime Minister took office, there are now 86,000 fewer Canadians who even earn a paycheque. That is because 86,000 people have lost their jobs just since the Prime Minister took office. He promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7; Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. Unemployment in the GTA is now 9%, with 365,000 people out of work. The youth employment rate is 53.6%. This is the lowest it has been in almost three decades.”
“I know the Liberals are not embarrassed, because one has to have shame to be embarrassed, but I am embarrassed for them that they had His Majesty come over and participate in that kind of bait and switch for Canadians. Let us talk about the take-home pay crisis. The first people who suffer when inflation rears its ugly head are people who live paycheque to paycheque, people who have shift work, people who have to have second jobs to make ends meet. This is because when the government creates an inflation crisis, there are some winners and there are a whole lot of losers. The winners are the people who get the new money first: the asset managers, the hedge fund operators and the big banks. They get the new money before anybody else does, so they can buy up assets before prices go up.”
“The Prime Minister had the King of the United Kingdom come all the way from London. The King graciously accommodated that request and came to the Senate and read the throne speech. In that throne speech, there was a commitment to cap spending at 2%. Just 48 hours later, the government tabled its spending estimates and blew past that. What was the point of inviting His Majesty all the way across the ocean to come read the speech if it was not even worth the paper it was printed on? Let that go down in history as the shortest-lived Liberal promise ever: 48 hours, a new world record. (1140) I am embarrassed on behalf of the government.”
“What has happened to prices at the grocery store? Food inflation continues to rise; it is now 70% above target. Food prices are 40% higher since the Liberal government took office. The Prime Minister is making the Trudeau debt crisis even worse. Remember, Justin Trudeau racked up more debt in the short time he was in office than all the other prime ministers combined. Consider World War I, World War II and the Great Depression; Canada faced all those crises, but it took Justin Trudeau to massively rack up the debt. Since the Prime Minister took office, federal spending is up 8.4%. Do people remember what he promised during the election campaign? He put in writing, in black and white, when he was going to voters for their vote, a written guarantee to them that he would cap the deficit at $63 billion. Spending has gone up by 8.4%.”
“It is to distract from the terrible cost of living crisis that the Liberal government started creating 10 years ago, with tax hikes on hard-working Canadians and small business owners, the massive layering of regulations on the productive parts of the Canadian economy, the barriers to investment, the barriers to getting things built and the ban on shipping Canadian energy to other countries, while foreign oil and foreign resources come into our country. Let me just go through a few of these crises so members can properly understand why the government is so desperate to have this debate instead of a conversation about the hardships that Canadians are facing. The Prime Minister famously said that he would be judged on the prices at the grocery store. That is what he said during the election campaign.”
“This is the Attorney General of Canada's officially putting before the courts the position of the Government of Canada, the Liberal government, on Bill 21. It is part I, section A, paragraph 1, line 1. I just want to stress that, because it is the opening statement, the thing that the government leads with in its court submission: “In accordance with his role as intervener, the Attorney General of Canada takes no position, on any basis whatsoever, on the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act respecting the laicity of the State.” It takes no position on any basis whatsoever. That is the government's position. One might be left wondering what the purpose of the engineered distraction is.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing his time with me today. This is another engineered distraction on the part of the Prime Minister . He is trying to distract from his terrible record. Even though he has been in the role of Prime Minister for only a short time, he has an abysmal record and is desperately trying to change the channel for that. Let me just explain how I know this. It is an engineered distraction, because the Prime Minister has never expressed opposition to Bill 21 in Quebec. We can look at the official submission. I have here a copy of the factum of the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada. For anyone in the gallery or at home watching the debate, or any of the press, and trying to decide how to frame the conversation, let me read the opening line.”
“Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. Is this the first time the government has tried to deflect attention from its terrible record on the cost of living and crime? For the past 10 years, I have noticed that every time the situation in Canada gets worse, especially when it comes to quality of life and the cost of living, the Liberal government finds a way to change the channel. Does my colleague agree that this is the government's MO?”
“Mr. Speaker, we had a fantastic meeting, and we heard loud and clear that as long as there are not new major pipelines built in Canada, as long as there are not new major energy projects, companies will have to continue looking to the U.S. to make their products. As long as the tariffs are in place, Canada is even more vulnerable to this situation. When I tour energy facilities all over western Canada, I see parts, component pieces and heavy equipment vehicles, all manufactured in Ontario. The link between manufacturing jobs in southwestern Ontario and development in western Canada or in Atlantic Canada is obvious to everyone who is not a Liberal.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear: Canada can help lower global emissions by developing our own natural resources. The two go hand in hand. After 10 years of a Liberal government's vetoing natural resource projects and chasing away foreign investment, those investment dollars have just gone to other countries, countries that do not have anywhere near the same environmental standards as we have here in Canada. Take LNG alone; by exporting more LNG, we can help other countries get off coal-fired electrical generation. That is what the Conservative plan is all about with technology, not taxes. We can help lower global emissions while developing more of Canada's natural resources.”
“The Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway and energy east projects, which would have taken western Canadian oil to displace foreign oil imported from other countries. It is clear that if Canadians are hoping to develop the natural resource sector, it will not be with a Liberal government.”