Blaine Calkins
Ponoka—Didsbury, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in, and the Prime Minister is in way over his head. He is the only leader, not just in the G7 but also in the G20, who has led his country into a recession. What does this mean practically?”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Liberals' bill, where they say they are putting back mandatory minimum sentences, but they have this safeguard or whatever they want to call it where it is actually optional, I want to ask my colleague, the member for Bow River , is that not akin to putting seat belts in vehicles and then never requiring an…”
“That catering bill would have been enough to feed a Canadian family for 55 years. Every dollar spent on luxury catering is a dollar that cannot go towards lowering taxes, building homes, improving public safety or helping Canadians put food on their own tables. Conservatives are here and ready to get to work. Where is the Prime Minister ?”
“It is wrong not just when it happens to Conservatives; it is wrong when it happens to Liberal, NDP or Bloc members, or to anybody. Since these incidents, the Prime Minister has praised Paul Chiang as a person of integrity, and he has also strengthened Canada's ties with the People's Republic of China through trade and security partnership…”
“Tay, issued by the Communist regime in Beijing for making pro-democracy comments from here in Canada about what is going on in Hong Kong and China. This was a Liberal MP at the time basically encouraging the kidnapping of a political adversary. Goodness knows what would have happened if Mr. Chiang had actually gotten his way.”
“It seems like common sense to me, but that might not be such a common thing across the aisle. We studied the issue at length at committee, where we heard from several witnesses, including, most recently, Gerald Chipeur, that the bill does not go far enough and would need to crack down even harder on foreign monetary contributions.”
The complete record
Every one of 294 lines we hold for Blaine Calkins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 6.
“There was great support for my legislation across Canada. Canadians thought the bill was very popular in the last Parliament. I had the support of other political parties in this place. I truly hope that the government this time changes its position, much like it has changed its position on pipelines, changed its position on criminal justice, changed its position on carbon taxes and changed its position on virtually everything it has been doing wrong for the last 10 years, and actually gets behind my bill. This is what Canadians want. This is what Canadians expect Parliament to do. In fact, when Health Canada did its consultations, it had over 3,000 people respond to the proposed changes in Bill C-47 . There were two in favour and everybody else was against it. It is time the government take these things into consideration.”
“Bill C-224. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-224, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products) . He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to table my private member's bill to reverse the changes that the government made in Bill C-47 with regard to the definition of natural health products. In the last Parliament, the bill was known as Bill C-368 . Eighty per cent of Canadians use natural health products, and virtually everybody in the industry was against the changes that the government made in Bill C-47 . They want to restore the traditional definition of natural health products and not have them included in the same definition as therapeutic products, which are drugs with large pharmaceutical companies.”
“Our economy used to mean something. Our criminal justice used to mean something. Is there anything left in this country that is going to mean something once these guys are done with it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the real problem lies in the fact that the government, in successive times dealing with serious issues before the nation, has not taken the issues at the provincial court level to the Supreme Court, either for a reference or a ruling. The fact that the government did not bother referring or challenging this ruling and taking it to the Supreme Court so that justices from across Canada would have been able to weigh in on the constitutionality of this is certainly a fundamental problem. I disagree, I guess, with some of my colleagues around this place. I think Canadian citizenship, and I am married to an immigrant, actually means something to this country. It is valuable, and we should not undermine the value of that citizenship. The Canadian passport means something. Our dollar used to mean something.”
“It is ironic that one of the first things the Liberals changed when they came into power was allowing people who do not live in Canada to vote. That might have something to do with it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are rightly frustrated with the last 10 years of governance by former prime minister Justin Trudeau and now the new Prime Minister . It is the same political party. It is the same people sitting across the aisle from me, who I have seen for the last 10 years, with the same failed approach to dealing with things. There is nothing the government will not give away to stay in power. It has devalued the value of our dollar. It has completely increased the cost of our national debt and what it means to Canadians. It has ruined virtually all trust in almost all of the institutions we have, including our citizenship process, our national defence and so on, and now, of course, it is going to devalue citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, but it should not take away from the fact that every member in this place has the right and responsibility to speak to important legislation on behalf of their constituents. Not every member has the ability to conduct that same type of cross-examination and debate at the committee stage. It is a subset of the House, so until the House has adequately dealt with this, Conservatives who feel like speaking to this should be given the opportunity. I wonder if the member is implying that we can expect closure at any minute.”
“For the immigrants who chose Canada and earned citizenship the right way, we are protecting the value of what they have achieved. To those who hope to become Canadians, we welcome their commitment, and we will keep the standards high because we believe they can meet them. To Canadians who worry that the system no longer works for them, it can and must. The government said it was open to amendments, so it can prove it. It can support a real connection test, basic security screening and targeted fixes without blowing a hole in our national fabric and the foundation of our citizenship.”
“For starters, it needs to require a real consecutive presence in Canada, and it must require criminal background checks. We can and should restore citizenship to lost Canadians and ensure equal treatment for adopted children, without detonating the first-generation limit that has safeguarded our system since 2009. The Liberals have claimed that they are open to constructive changes, and we intend to take them at their word. If they truly want a bill that strengthens citizenship, they will back amendments that give real substance to the law, protect security and uphold fairness for those who have put down roots here. There is a path to consensus here if we choose it. Let us keep what is rightly targeted, lost Canadians and adopted children, and stop what is reckless.”
“Bill C-3 says people could get the full rights of citizenship without ever living here, allowing the full bundle of citizenship rights to flow to people without having lived under Canadian law, with no contribution to our common institutions and with no demonstrated intention to build one. Many newcomers come to this country with the intention to work hard, follow the rules, pay taxes and learn our values and norms. Rightly, they are then rewarded for that commitment with citizenship. When we say that people can have that same status without having lived here or contributed, it does not make things more fair. We erase fairness and devalue the effort of those who earned their place the right way. It is a bad policy that unjustly untethers rights from obligations. There must be significant changes to Bill C-3 .”
“They are financed by the people who live and work here. Bill C-3 would be extending full citizenship rights to those who have never lived here, without a serious test of connection and without basic security checks. Canadians see that and they are rightly frustrated. Under the Liberals, the immigration system has been expanded in ways that outpace Canada's capacity to integrate newcomers, eroding confidence in our system. A responsible approach should work for Canadians and those who wish to become Canadian. Instead, the Liberals are opting for a system that could further strain our public services by a surge of new citizens living abroad who have never contributed to our country. That is not acceptable. Being welcoming cannot mean trading away the inheritance of the value of citizenship that makes Canada a country worth joining.”
“It matters because citizenship is the gateway to our most consequential rights: voting for those who govern, accessing social programs and carrying the protection of a Canadian passport. Those rights are paid for in taxes, in service and in the daily investment Canadians make by building their lives, their families and their businesses here in Canada. Detaching those rights from the duties that I have just outlined would be profoundly unfair. First, it is unfair to immigrants who followed the rules. The people who move here meet strict residency requirements, pass language and knowledge tests, work, pay taxes and then proudly take their oath to citizenship. It would devalue that hard-earned commitment. Second, it is unfair to Canadians who are already stretched. Health care, pensions and housing are not infinite.”
“It is an abdication of these basic standards. Conservatives support restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and equal treatment for adopted children. Those targeted fixes are fair and consistent with the dignity of Canadian citizenship, but Bill C-3 would go far beyond these. It would effectively create an unlimited chain migration route without merit, and in doing so would cheapen the value of our national identity and what many have earned by building their life contributing to our country. I am not hearing this just from people who were born in Canada. I am hearing this largely from people who moved here and followed the law and got their citizenship the traditional way. Why does this matter?”
“The first-generation limit drew a bright line and preserved the idea of citizenship by descent. Conferring a path to citizenship to those born abroad required that they have a parent who was Canadian. This preserves the idea that citizenship and the privileges and rights that come with it are earned. Bill C-3 removes that balance and replaces it with an extraordinarily weak, substantive connection test, which is 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada at any point in a parent's life with no criminal background check, as a precondition for passing citizenship on to people who may never have set foot once in Canada. (1650) In practice, this bill would allow minimal presence to allow for the claiming of citizenship by people who have never lived under our laws, never contributed to our communities and may never intend to actually do so.”
“Conservatives agree wholeheartedly, but compassion does not mean we dilute and cheapen our standard of what it means to be a citizen of this country. We need to ensure citizenship that is strong, fair and meaningful. Immigration done right and rooted in the merit and respect for the rule of law should be the standard gateway to receive the privilege and the right of being a Canadian citizen. Bill C-3 fails this test and opens the door to abuse that removes strong criteria for ties to Canada. It seeks to devalue what it means to be Canadian. In 2009, under Prime Minister Harper, Parliament set a principled boundary through the first-generation limit. The principle was reasonable and necessary: end the spread of so-called Canadians of convenience while ensuring fairness for families.”
“For those who want to become Canadian citizens, of course, once they get that right, it comes with a tremendous number of privileges but also a lot of opportunities. Canadian citizenship is a promise. It is also a duty, faithfully kept, of a shared identity and values that holds together millions of people across one of the largest geopolitical land masses on planet Earth. Citizenship is not a handout just to be given away frivolously. It is a covenant where there are rights on one hand and responsibilities on the other. When we cheapen it, we erode the trust that binds our people together and lets strangers call each other neighbours. We are, and should remain, a compassionate and welcoming nation.”
“Those are some of the key people who actually helped make the campaign a tremendous success and led us to a very convincing result in the new constituency of Ponoka—Didsbury, a constituency where I am just getting to know some of the people. I was just at Old Stoberfest, a unique Bavarian twist to a classic Alberta rodeo. If colleagues ever get a chance to come on up from Calgary to have a look at Old Stoberfest, there is nothing like having cowboy schnitzel and beer to enjoy a rodeo. However, I do want to talk about this bill that the Liberal government has put forward. I want to talk about the reflections that I have had in meeting with my constituents recently during the election. Being a Canadian certainly is a birthright for some of us. For some of us, it is the only birthright that we have.”
“Of course, I want to thank Angie Stroud, my campaign manager; Alan Marsh, who came out and did all the social media; Ross Moore, who helped with signs, Al Siebring, who came into the office and did a lot of work; Onsy Tawadrous and his daughter Laura, who came out and helped me door knock in Sylvan Lake; Sean Stroud, David Klein and Doug Will, who helped with signs; Mike Muzicka and his partner Lisa, who helped me tremendously in Olds and did the financial books for the campaign; Daniel Schweitzer, Kirby Wollstone, Richard Bone, Lawrence McKelvey, Devin Haltzer, Dalen Kemp, Chris Thiessen, Dustin Kubelka, Wade Collins, Shad Thevenaz, Abigail Schimke, Kevin Bender and Rocky Downton.”
“I also want to take this opportunity to thank some notable campaign volunteers and people who helped me in my campaign. Larry Schmidik is someone who I just met a little while ago. He housed all of our sign equipment at his shop and was very instrumental and helpful. Brenda Steenson is not even from the constituency. She is from Red Deer and was in the constituency prior to the last boundary review. She came out and spent a lot of time on the campaign trail.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the first speech that I have had an opportunity to prepare for since the last election, although I did speak spontaneously a little bit, prior to the House adjourning for the summer. I would like to use this opportunity to thank the voters of Ponoka—Didsbury. This is the seventh time I have been sent to this place. This is the third different constituency and area that I have represented, even though I have a core common area that I have represented for the almost 20 years I have been here. I do want to thank those voters who put their trust in me for the first time, those who have put their trust in me for about 10 years and those who have kept their trust in me for almost 20 years. I will do what I can to continue to earn and keep their trust and will work hard on their behalf.”
“Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the member's speech, which conflated Bill S-245 , which only deals with lost Canadians, with exactly what Bill C-3 is, which is much broader than dealing with lost Canadians, I have a hypothetical question for her. According to my interpretation of this legislation, if a person who came to Canada from another country and got their citizenship then decided to return to the country they originally came from, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and had a child, and that child came to Canada under some pretense, got convicted of a crime for which they had to serve at least 1,095 days in a federal penitentiary and then returned to whichever country they came from once that was served, they would then be eligible to have their children automatically become Canadian citizens. Did I hear that right?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He and I have both been here for a long time. We watched, for the last 10 years, as the Liberal government blocked and stymied pretty much every economic development opportunity, particularly in my home province of Alberta, and countrywide. As he sees the Liberals seemingly taking all of the ideas the Conservatives have had for the last 10 years and swallowing themselves whole, how much barbecue sauce does he think they had to put on themselves in order to do that?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of economic vandalism by the Liberals, Albertans want the walk to match the talk. It has been three months since the start of the campaign, four weeks since the throne speech, weeks since the meeting with the premiers and businesses, and yet the “no more pipelines” bill, the tanker ban, the production cap and the industrial carbon tax all still remain, and not a single oil and gas project has been announced. When does the talk, talk, talk become the walk, walk, walk, or is this all just more Liberal squawk, squawk, squawk?”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, leaders of the G7 gather in Kananaskis. Top of mind at this summit are international peace and security. Canadian energy is a key part of this conversation. Our G7 allies, such as Germany and Japan, have spent years asking for ethically sourced Canadian oil and gas. Yet, this same Liberal government has stymied our allies for 10 years. When will the Liberals get out of the way and approve the energy infrastructure that Canadians and our allies so desperately need?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is now moving closure on its piece of legislation in order to, as it claims, fast-track projects for our nation. However, without getting rid of Bill C-69 , without getting rid of Bill C-48 , without getting rid of the industrial carbon tax and without getting rid of the production cap, what is the point in fast-tracking legislation to have a one-stop shop where people can just hear the word “no”?”
“Mr. Chair, that is one, and it needed an exemption from Bill C-69 , Bill C-48 and the carbon tax. I am going to ask the minister this again. How many projects are they going to be cutting the ribbon for that did not need an exemption from the laws of the Liberal government of the last 10 years?”
“Mr. Chair, I am not sure where the minister has been for the last 10 years. Apparently, no bankers lost their jobs. How many of the crude oil pipeline projects that were applied for since 2015 have been completed to date?”
“We would think that just the Liberal budgets would cause chaos, but no, we actually had a situation in Parliament where I think the government was in contempt of Parliament for not tabling the fall economic statement, if I remember correctly. That was the debate at the time. The government had asked for the House resources for that entire day, so proud of its fall economic statement, and then of course we remember how that turned out. As a matter of fact, it is actually such that, I think, if I have the stats correct, 80% of the spending in the current ways and means motion is under the care and control of people who have been in cabinet before, so it cannot be a lack of experience. Is it because the government has a scam? I think it is. I think it is going to cook the books on operational versus capital.”
“They were able to do that in a minority Parliament and bring forward these ideas in a budget in 2005 to Canadians. For some reason, the current government does not seem to be able to do that, so it obviously has something else in mind. Is it because the government does not have any experience? Is this Parliament so new that the government does not have any experience? That cannot be the case, because the current finance minister was a member of cabinet the entire time the Justin Trudeau government was in office. He is a very experienced parliamentarian. As a matter of fact, the previous finance minister is only a couple of desks down. Anybody could ask the previous finance minister, who, if people remember, so ceremoniously presented the fall economic statement last year.”
“Is it because it is in a minority? That does not make any sense, because, like I said, the Speaker and I have been here for the last seven Parliaments. The Speaker might have actually come in 2004, in which case I have been here for seven Parliaments and the Speaker has been here for eight. Only two of those Parliaments were majority Parliaments. The other five, in my case, and six, in the Speaker's, have been minorities, yet every minority government up until this point in time has had no trouble tabling a budget. As a matter of fact, in 2005 the Speaker was here when Paul Martin, the prime minister at the time, and Jack Layton were able to draft up a budget on the back of a napkin. It was not a problem at all. Does everybody remember the napkin budget?”
“The House actually just voted very recently, last week, asking that the government reverse course on its decision to blow off the Canadian people and not table or present a fiscal budget this spring. Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a long time, almost as long as you. We have had offices and have been acquaintances for quite some time. I do not remember ever not having a budget in the spring. Everybody else has a budget. The provinces and territories have budgets. Our cities, towns and counties have budgets. The Lions Club has a budget, for heaven's sake, but not the Government of Canada. For some reason, we cannot seem to get that done. (1810) The man with the plan is seemingly turning out to be a man with a scam in mind, if people ask me. What could possibly be the reason the government would not table a budget?”
“Last, to my family, this is my seventh term in the House of Commons, and I would not have been able to do any of the things that I am able to do here on behalf of the good people of central Alberta over the last seven elections and 19-plus years, if I did not have the support and blessing of my family: my wife, Barbara; my children; my parents, Gord and Bev; my brother Tim; my sister Wendy; and everybody who has supported me. When we run for office, we can give as much time to this endeavour as we want. It is hard to maintain friendships and family relationships sometimes, but they have stuck with me. For that, I am eternally grateful. Here we are, talking about the opposition day motion. Quite succinctly, to those who are watching back home, what are we talking about today?”
“I want them to know, the over 56,000 of them who put an X beside my name, that it is not lost on me. The only promise I ever make during a campaign is that I will do my best on people's behalf, and they have that commitment from me. I also want to thank all of the volunteers who came out and helped on the campaign. There are too many to name them all, but I just want to thank particularly Angie, Alyn, and Al; they were great. Larry, Ross, Abigail and Onsy were invaluable to me, and numerous other people came out and knocked on doors, put up signs and helped with the campaign. I thank them so much.”
“However, I want to thank them for the kindness they have shown me, the patience they have shown me and the goodwill they have extended to me for almost 20 years as the member of Parliament who represented that particular area. When we lose about 50,000 people through redistribution, we have to gain another 40,000 or so back. With the good people in Mountain View County and in Red Deer County, we are just getting to know each other a bit through this election. To the people in Innisfail, Bowden, Olds, Didsbury and Benalto, I am very much looking forward to working very hard on their behalf and getting to know them all well. I am going to have to buy an economical vehicle. The riding has gone back up to a whopping 35,000-plus square kilometres, but they sent me here with a great endorsement.”
“I was proudly the member of Parliament for the folks of Red Deer—Lacombe. I just want to say, to anybody back in Red Deer who is watching today, that I thank them so much for those three elections where they sent me to Ottawa to work on their behalf. I certainly enjoyed getting to know so many of them and working so hard on their behalf. I appreciate the good wishes and sentiments that many of them have sent to me in my new role. Of course, there are the four bands at Maskwacis, whom I have actually represented since 2006 when the riding used to be called Wetaskiwin. I will certainly miss the conversations I have had up there with them. I am sure I will always be available if anybody there wants to have a chat with me. I am happy to continue to advocate for all people of Alberta, not just the people I represent or once represented.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to split my time with the member for Barrie South—Innisfil , but you just told me that it is probably not going to happen. I am not going to get into some procedural wrangling with you about the close of the day. I want to thank my colleagues in the Conservative caucus for using this opposition day to highlight a very serious matter about just how incompetent this start is for the new Prime Minister and the so-called new Liberal government. However, because this is my first time on my feet in a speech scenario in this Parliament, I want to first of all express thanks and appreciation to everybody back home. As members may know, there was a redistribution in the last election. Ponoka—Didsbury is a new political entity. It did not exist in the previous three sessions.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is official: the new Liberal Prime Minister refuses to present a spring budget even though Canadians have been without one for over a year. In that time, students have had budgets, families have budgets, small businesses have budgets, towns and cities have budgets, provinces and territories all have budgets, banks have budgets and I am pretty sure Brookfield has a budget. Why does this government not have a budget? The last guy thought budgets balanced themselves. Does the new guy think budgets just draft and table themselves?”
“As a matter of fact, when I was a kid, families could be single-income in this country, could have a nice home in a safe community and could afford groceries. What happened in the seventies? His name is Pierre Elliott Trudeau. With everything that has happened, we are continuing to pile red tape on farmers and make it so costly to produce food. I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on how devastating this is.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my common-sense Conservative colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City for the part of her speech that focused on agriculture. I was very fortunate as a youngster to grow up in Lacombe County. I grew up on a mixed farm in the early seventies that eventually became a cow-calf operation. I remember going to town with my grandpa when I was about five years old. We would leave the windows rolled down on the truck. We were not worried about crime. The truck came right from the assembly line with a gun rack in the back. We could leave the .22 in there, pull up to the store in town, get the things we need and go home. We could actually produce high-quality food that people could afford.”
“I will miss our conversations, his welcoming and hospitable character, his charitable spirit and the fun-loving, mischievous glint in his eye. I say to Blair, “Rest easy, cowboy.””
“Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honour the life and legacy of my friend Blair Vold of Ponoka, Alberta, who passed away on May 11. Born on October 13, 1955, Blair embodied what it means to be Albertan: hard-working, resilient and devoted to community. He was best known for his life in cattle sales and service on local boards, including being president of the Ponoka Stampede. He was a man who earned tremendous respect and accomplishments in Alberta's business and agricultural community. Above all, Blair was a devoted husband to his beloved wife, Sheryl; a proud father to Nansen, Labrie, Gjenna, Sarah and the late Cooper Tonneson; a loving son to Dolores and the late Ralph Vold; a cherished grandfather; a caring brother; a loyal human to his dog, Odie; and a dear friend to all who knew him.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my new colleague to the House of Commons. My understanding is that he is an experienced legislator. He has, I believe, served in the National Assembly of Quebec and was even the finance minister. Unfortunately, he has been overlooked for a cabinet appointment with the new government. I am a little surprised and I am wondering whether he too is surprised that after the fourth full day of debate here in the House of Commons, the government has yet to actually table any legislation. Would this have been the case if he had actually been in cabinet?”
“We heard His Majesty the King in the Speech from the Throne talk about respecting law-abiding firearms owners, yet when we take a look at the estimates tabled by the government, we see that it is going to spend four dollars going after law-abiding gun owners for every one dollar it is going to spend going after gangs and criminals. I am wondering if my colleague would talk about how Liberals seem to say one thing and do the exact opposite, not just on energy, agriculture and firearms, but on basically everything they do.”
“Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you on your new role as Deputy Speaker. You and I are fellow Albertans who have been in this place for a long time. My colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek gave us quite the list of things Liberals had said that they would do, just for us to find that they were going to do the exact opposite once they were elected. That seems to be pretty much the way the Liberals operate in Canada. They say whatever they need to say, and create whatever state of fear they need to create, to get elected, and then they come to Ottawa to basically renege on all of the promises they made. In my constituency, there are a lot of hunters, anglers, farmers and ranchers who own firearms.”