Jamie Schmale
Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member opposite was talking about Conservatives not caring about affordability. I would argue that all we talk about, day in and day out, is affordability. What we have an issue with is how many times the Liberal government fails, over and over again.”
“It is actually in the name of the bill we are discussing today, in the indigenous translation. Norman Wells helped fuel northern development, supported generations of workers and families, and provided economic stability for the entire region.”
“It was negotiated under Stephen Harper and Minister Bernard Valcourt. It was a self-government agreement, as the minister mentioned in her speech, one of five potentially coming our way. The government at the time recognized the potential for people to create their own path forward. Again, that is something we support wholeheartedly.”
“Mr. Speaker, in this context, we are talking about prosperity if we are to build energy projects pretty much anywhere in the country, but mostly we are focused on expanding opportunities to the Pacific. That is a lot of what we are talking about.”
“For those reasons, Conservatives, again, can support this piece of legislation. We look forward to dealing with it as it goes through committee, probably in the very near future. We also look at how the government has dealt with a few other indigenous issues within Canada; British Columbia, for one.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her tabling of the legislation and her work on the file. In regard to pushing forward Bill C‑27 , we did note that, in 2022 to 2024, then prime minister Trudeau announced an expansion of one million square kilometres within the Northwest Territories, covering 25% of its land and waters, and to reach t…”
The complete record
Every one of 221 lines we hold for Jamie Schmale, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“People deserve to know, people like Richmond farmer Gord Maichin, who said he was kept in the dark, or a business owner who learned from the news, not his government, that his industrial property might be subject to claims he had no chance to respond to. These are not speculators; these are families, employers and taxpayers who bought land in good faith and trusted their governments to act with transparency. They were never informed. They feel blindsided because federal and provincial governments held discussions behind closed doors, excluding the very people whose titles were at stake. Whether one agrees with the court or not, the human impact of the failure to consult is undeniable. Now ordinary Canadians fear that fee simple title, something relied on for generations, may no longer be secure.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to formally request, following adjournment of the House, a debate on an important matter requiring urgent consideration, pursuant to Standing Order 52, regarding the national implications of the recent Cowichan Tribes v. Canada court decision, the subsequent notices issued to homeowners in British Columbia and the profound uncertainty now surrounding Canada's land title system. The City of Richmond has formally notified residents that the ruling may affect the status and validity of their property titles. This has caused widespread fear and confusion not only in British Columbia but right across Canada. The concerns are legitimate. The court's decision, while under appeal, raises unresolved constitutional and economic questions that extend far beyond one municipality or one region.”
“I want to express my deepest gratitude to Senator Boyer, whose vision and leadership have been instrumental in shaping the bill, along with Senator Wells. Most importantly, I honour the survivors. Some of them are with us in Ottawa today, specifically from the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. Combined, their courage, resilience and unwavering advocacy have brought this issue to the forefront. Without their voices and determination, this legislation would not be before us today. Let us allow this opportunity to get the bill passed. Now is the time to act to protect the vulnerable, uphold justice and ensure that such violations never happen again in Canada. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)”
“Bill S-228. First reading. moved that Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures) , be read the first time. He said: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce Bill S-228 , seconded by the member for Lethbridge . This legislation is identical to amended Bill S-250 , which the Senate unanimously endorsed and sent to the House of Commons in October 2024. Bill S-228 directly confronts the abhorrent and ongoing reality of the forced and coerced sterilization of women, indigenous women and other marginalized individuals in Canada. By making it explicit in the Criminal Code that performing sterilization without consent constitutes aggravated assault under subsection 268(1), we would send a clear message that such acts will not be tolerated in our society.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have 130 people out of work in Lindsay, Ontario. That combined with the latest HungerCount report shows that Canadians are struggling as they never have before. Food bank visits hit 2.2 million in March, nearly double prepandemic levels. One-third of clients are children. Almost one in five has a job but cannot make ends meet. The government continues to impose hidden taxes, including the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and farm equipment, which drives food prices even higher. Instead of the government trying to cause a costly election on a costly budget, why not table an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Liberals have promised their massive deficit will lead to more jobs and investment in Canada; it has not. Tomorrow, we will see another budget packed with more inflationary spending. The result is that Holsag Canada announced the closure of its Lindsay plant, putting 130 people out of work. After 10 years of the Liberal government, manufacturers are closing, costs are soaring and investment is fleeing. Just the other week, the Prime Minister told Canadians they need to be prepared to make sacrifices. For those families dealing with job loss, high grocery prices and a housing market that is out of reach, what other sacrifices should Canadians be prepared to make?”
“Mr. Speaker, auditors report that 130 valuable indigenous artworks have vanished from a federal collection overseen by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Security was so weak that the theft went undetected. The department has no plan to recover the missing art, yet it continues to buy new pieces. The entire collection is worth over $14 million and includes cultural treasures. Could the minister explain this blatant mismanagement and why the Liberal plan is just to spend more money and to ignore the crime?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to address the faux outrage and pearl-clutching on the other side. For 10 years, we have listened to the government chew on the RCMP. Here is a headline quoting the public safety minister: “RCMP racism is ‘intolerable’”. The former prime minister called the RCMP a racist organization—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to table e-petition 6605, which was created by a constituent in my riding, Ms. Jo-Anne Green from Haliburton County. The 1,100 signatories would like to bring attention to the issue of indigenous identity fraud. They would like the government to take action to ensure that there is legislation addressing first nations, Métis and Inuit identity fraud with clear definitions, mechanisms for enforcement and legal penalties for those taking advantage. They list a number of other actions they would like to see the House take as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member from British Columbia had to say. He did an amazing job pointing out some of the concerns we have with the piece of legislation. I do want to take issue with the member opposite, the member for Winnipeg North , who rose on his feet just a few minutes ago to talk about the treaties. He took issue with the number of the modern treaties signed by Stephen Harper. Whether he wants to say there were five or there were four, that is still four more than the Liberals have signed in 10 years, so I think we did a pretty good job. The member opposite also talked about a Manitoba Métis Federation treaty. There is no treaty. There is no treaty on the Order Paper. Has the member brought legislation forward? Again, the Liberals are taking credit for things that still have not happened.”
“Mr. Speaker, the long and short of it is that over six years, the Harper government signed five modern treaties, and over 10 years, the Liberals have signed zero. I can understand why indigenous leaders are calling for this. It is because the government continues to fail. The member opposite talked about programs. The Auditor General addresses them, but nothing has been acted upon. What is different?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I have heard during the speeches is nothing new. The concern we have raised in the House specifically is that this piece of legislation would not give the new commissioner, whoever that person might be, the ability to hold government departments to account. We have a slew of reports from the Auditor General already pointing out the failings of governments over the past decades. We have numerous departments set up to monitor modern treaties, among other things, yet government departments do not seem to respond to any reports that are tabled. Why will this be different?”
“Mr. Speaker, I also share the view my friend just mentioned. We are still not at the point that we are absolutely certain this would actually change anything. We would be creating a bureaucracy starting at about $2 million and change every single year for the next five years. When we compare it to other offices like it, we are in the tens of millions, so I do not accept that the cost would stay the same. Again, it is about results. I think what we can do is support that modern treaties need to be implemented once signed. We can forget the photo op, although I know all politicians like to do that. We can do the photo op, but we should ensure the treaty is implemented. We have the Auditor General's report and we have all these departments looking after it. Has anyone been fired because of that? The answer is probably no.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the member just said. It is about implementation, and his colleague from Jonquière brought up the exact same point I was trying to make. The Auditor General has a whole library of reports on where the government is failing on a whole range of points, whether it is related to weather, clean water or something else. It is already there. This goes back decades, for 150-plus years. The government is not living up to its treaty obligations, whether modern or otherwise. If the Auditor General, independent from Parliament, tables this report, why does he have confidence all of a sudden that this new commissioner will actually be able to force the government to do something that it has not done for 150-plus years?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the independence of this commissioner, should the agency be created. I wish to point him to subclause 28(2), which examines how the commissioner, should the agency be formed, reports. His or her report would go to the minister first, then to the Speakers of both chambers, the Senate and the House. I question that chain of events. As the Auditor General does, this new commissioner could compel documents and look into reports, but they could not force the government to do anything. We have tons of reports that do not get implemented. Given that we have already had a whole slew of Auditor General reports, what faith does this member have that this new agency, this new commissioner, would actually have a different effect?”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, the bill will get to committee. We will study it, and I am pretty sure there will be amendments proposed. We will see what gets passed and what does not. We look forward to that process. At the same time, however, we are in the chamber to debate, and the bill has been tabled. This is the first day it has been debated, so there are Conservatives members who want to speak to it.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the new office, as it is written, would report to Parliament. It would report to the Senate and to Parliament, but it would report to the government first, and the minister would then decide when the report would get to the Speaker and then be released to Parliament. Parliament would not have the opportunity to dictate where the audits go and what needs to be studied or examined. That is the problem the Conservatives have with it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do support the fact that the government needs to live up to its modern treaty obligations. As I mentioned, the Harper government signed five in six years. I would also point out to the member opposite that between 2015 and 2017, on top of the Auditor General's reports, which I have mentioned a million times, several new federal offices and initiatives were created to work on land claim implementation issues: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment and the deputy minister's oversight committee, as well as the reconciliation secretariat. How many more do we need before the government actually does its job?”
“Mr. Speaker, my friend for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raises a good point. It is exactly a fear that I share with the member, which is that if the office is created and there is another report, and another report after that a few years later, about where the government is failing on modern treaty implementation, will the government actually pay attention to that? Will the departments actually fix what has been broken? The problem I keep raising, and I think what my friend is getting to as well, is that the failures have been outlined for decades. Would a new office fix this? My fear is that it would not.”
“I do not blame them for their frustrations with the government at all, but I question where the accountability is on the government side.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work with my Bloc colleague on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I understand why indigenous leaders are calling for the office of a modern treaty commissioner, because the government has been failing to implement existing treaties for decades. The government fails to implement its word on modern treaties. However, I will say again that the Auditor General has already produced a slew of reports as to how we can fix the problems. The government just continues to ignore the results and the reports. As I asked in my speech, who has been fired in departments? Who has been held accountable in departments to finally see some action? I do not blame indigenous leaders who want to see the office created.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, the Auditor General has done many reports, and I would say the expertise was accepted at the time as an expert dive into the issues Canada is or is not living up to with modern treaty implementation, or with existing treaties and the lack of the implementation of those treaties. I mentioned reports from 2005, 2006, 2013 and 2016, plus 14 more, that talked about where the government is failing when it pertains to first nations, Inuit and Métis. There is plenty of information out there. There are plenty of reports. Why has the government not acted on the recommendations?”
“If we honour our treaties, if we enforce accountability and if we expect results, then reconciliation is not just possible; it is inevitable. Let us act here in the House with integrity, with resolve and with honour. Let us ensure that every promise is kept, not with more bureaucracy but with the discipline to actually do our jobs.”
“They should hold departments accountable directly, without requiring another costly office. Performance must be measurable. Tracking, reporting and enforcement can be done with existing systems, and I have already named a bunch, if officials are mandated to act rather than to report on not acting. Reconciliation is measured in results: homes built, clean water delivered, indigenous policing, economic opportunity and the integrity of our nation-to-nation agreements. We do not need another commissioner. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need another office to spend millions of taxpayer dollars when we are already running massive deficits. We need ministers, departments and public service officials to simply do what they are legally required to do.”
“Oversight came way too late. Do not forget ArriveCAN. A commissioner would not prevent fraud; proper departmental controls, accountability and enforcement would. Similarly, free, prior and informed consent is often ignored in practice. Consultation without power is meaningless. A commissioner cannot give departments the political will to respect indigenous sovereignty; only leadership and accountability can. Therefore the solution is clear: Departments need to do their jobs. The authority, the responsibility and the obligation already exist; we simply need to enforce them. Ministers must be held accountable. If an obligation is unfulfilled, it is not a bureaucratic problem; it is a leadership failure. Parliament must ensure consequences. Indigenous governments must be partners in oversight.”
“As I mentioned before, indigenous policing is underfunded, housing is substandard and climate-related disasters disproportionately impact indigenous communities. The Auditor General has talked about all of this. The Auditor General has also outlined ways to fix it. The commissioner would not build houses. The commissioner would not hire police officers. A commissioner would not ensure clean water. What is required is executive responsibility and operational diligence. Departments must prioritize, budgets must be executed properly, and ministers must ensure that existing laws are followed. That is how results are delivered, not by another layer of bureaucracy. Federal programs designed to support indigenous communities are often mismanaged. Hundreds of non-indigenous firms have falsely claimed indigenous status to win contracts.”
“We have built a system that celebrates the signing of those treaties, but nothing is happening to ensure that they are being upheld, despite the reports, despite the information, despite the studies and despite the conversations that we have on the ground with indigenous leaders themselves who are calling for this. What should change is ministers and departmental officials being held responsible for their legally binding obligations. That will change when we start firing people who are not doing their jobs. If a treaty commitment is delayed or ignored, someone must be held accountable, not an office on Wellington Street but the department itself, the minister and the leadership who signed those agreements. (1100) Safety and basic services remain uneven.”
“The court called this a violation of the honour of the Crown, not an oversight but a breach of trust, yet instead of ensuring that departments and ministers simply fulfill their obligations, now we hear talk of creating another bureaucracy to monitor implementation. The honour of the Crown is not measured by bureaucratic reports or new offices but by results on the ground: homes being built, clean water and indigenous policing being named an essential service, something that was promised years ago by former prime minister Trudeau, which still has not happened. Infrastructure is crumbling. Governance and economic opportunity are what indigenous leaders are calling for, and it is Canada that has failed to live up to those obligations.”
“This bureaucratic mess means that when commitments go unfulfilled, no one is held accountable, not politically, not financially and not morally. Instead of holding those responsible accountable, the government proposes spending millions on a new office to supervise what should already be happening. How many offices do we need to tell the government that it is failing? Adding one commissioner does not change culture or performance. Only enforcement, accountability and clear expectations can. A lot of this, as I have mentioned many times in my speech, has been outlined in various reports already tabled in this House over decades. The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Restoule v. Canada was a stark reminder of what is at stake. For nearly 170 years, the Crown failed to honour the Robinson Huron Treaty, failing to adjust annuities as promised.”
“A treaty signed is celebrated. A treaty implemented is where the government drags its feet. Across Canada, indigenous and treaty partners continue to wait for commitments signed decades ago to be fulfilled. Implementation remains chaotic and delayed. Fiscal transfers are late or incomplete. Departments pass down responsibilities back and forth like a file that nobody wants to own. In 2024, the Auditor General reported again that the federal system remains fragmented, bureaucratic and unaccountable. One of the greatest challenges is that no single department or body holds full responsibility for ensuring Canada’s compliance with its treaty obligations. Responsibilities are fragmented across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board, just to name a few.”
“These agreements represent some of the most advanced models of indigenous government anywhere in the world, yet today, the situation remains uneven. Some treaty nations have made substantial progress in self-government and economic development. Others remain entangled in administrative barriers, forced to negotiate or litigate and litigate again for the very rights they thought they had already secured. For many indigenous governments, the experience of treaty implementation has been one of delay and paternalism. Departments interpret treaty commitments inconsistently, and fiscal transfers are too often designed to preserve federal control rather than encourage and enable indigenous autonomy. This results in what leaders have called “the illusion of implementation”: the appearance of progress without the substance of change.”
“Again, maybe the answer is to start firing those who are not doing their jobs, who are not living up to the commitments the government signed and is obliged to do. There are reports creating dust on shelves. Why are we not just doing what those reports have outlined? We need ministers and officials to take responsibility for obligations we already have, whether in modern treaties, self-government provisions or historic agreements. (1055) Since the 1970s, Canada has sought to move beyond the numbered treaties through the negotiation of modern treaties, which are comprehensive land claim agreements that establish self-government, define rights and confirm jurisdictional authority. Today, there are over two dozen modern treaties in force across Canada, from the Yukon and Nunavut to British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.”
“In fact, the Liberals really ought to learn from their past mistakes. Between 2015 and 2017, several new federal offices and initiatives were created to work on land claim implementation issues: the modern treaties implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee, and the reconciliation secretariat. Since the creation of these offices, as I have said before, no modern treaties have been established by the government. There are six entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure the implementation of these treaties, and now we are supposed to believe that finally we have the magic bullet that will solve it all.”
“It is a question of whether current officials are doing their jobs, whether existing departments are held accountable and whether existing laws and commitments are enforced. However, here we are today talking about a new office, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, a multi-million dollar bureaucracy intended to monitor, oversee and report on implementation, an office that would not be entirely accountable to Parliament. The commissioner, government and treaty partners would decide when audits are conducted and how, not Parliament. Reports would be tabled by the minister a few weeks after they receive them, but Parliament would not have the power to initiate audits of the government's handling of modern treaty implementation. With respect, that is the wrong approach. We do not need more bureaucrats.”
“We think the government itself, within the bureaucracies, and the ministers themselves have not been pushing departments hard enough to live up to these modern treaties. While governments continue to ignore the reports and audits from the Auditor General and continue to ignore treaty partners, there is still no collaborative modern treaty implementation policy, which happened in 2023. What would be a positive step forward considering the Liberal government is currently bogged down with 70 treaty negotiations, and two years later, it has not implemented anything? Here is another crucial point. Implementation is not about new policies, new offices or new dollars going into bureaucracies.”
“Some of the audits include the 2005 report on the federal government meeting treaty land entitlement obligations, the 2006 report “Federal Participation in the British Columbia Treaty Process—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada”, the comprehensive “Audit of the Implementation of Modern Treaty Obligations” from 2013, and the 2016 report “Implementing the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement”. This does not even include the 14 Auditor General reports produced since 2015 on related issues facing first nations, Inuit and Métis. Where are those reports? Has every government department been addressing the concerns tabled by the Auditor General? This is why indigenous leaders are calling for this legislation. Yes, they want to see more oversight, absolutely, but we think the failure is on the government.”
“Have any departments done some reorganization because of the failures of the government to live up to its treaties? I have not heard that today in a speech. (1050) How has the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations managed this internally? I know she is new. I get that she was elected just a few months ago, but this question still remains: How is a report from the new commissioner's office going to change things when dozens of Auditor General's reports on the failures of government have resulted in nothing moving forward? The Office of the Auditor General conducts regular audits of treaty negotiations, modern treaties, self-government agreements, the implementation of them, and treaty land entitlements.”
“The five modern treaties include the Tlicho first nation's land claims and self-government agreement that happened in 2006, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement in 2009, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement in 2009, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement in 2013 and the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement in 2015. Make no mistake. I have said it once; I will say it again. The Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous communities that want to get off the paternalistic and archaic Indian Act. What we do not support is the mistaken assumption that spending more taxpayer dollars compensates for the lack of accountability within government bureaucracy. Who has been fired? Has anyone been fired for not living up to what the government signed?”
“There remain outstanding issues, which I understand the government continues to negotiate on. I wonder exactly how a future commissioner of modern treaty implementation would be able to magically motivate the government to get this done. Naming and shaming is one way, yes, but the ministers can do that themselves. The ministers of each and every department can hold their departments accountable for failures rather than creating another new bureaucracy. We know it can get done. In fact, the Conservatives, under Prime Minister Harper, signed five modern treaties in a span of six years. In over a decade, the Liberals have negotiated none.”
“Its purpose is to grant indigenous groups the right to govern themselves, which includes control over education, health care, culture and local services. The scope focuses on political authority and administrative powers rather than on only land and resources. Legally, self-government provisions are binding and implemented under federal law. They can exist as part of a modern treaty or as a stand-alone self-government agreement. Understanding these distinctions is crucial. Implementation is not about creating new offices or new bureaucracy; it is about ensuring the Crown and its departments respect the legal authority already established in those agreements. I should note that the recent Whitecap Dakota's self-government agreement, which passed with Conservative support in 2023, is not a full modern treaty.”
“The purpose of a modern treaty is to resolve long-standing disputes over land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. The scope of a modern treaty can include land, resources, financial compensation and governance rights, and it often incorporates self-government provisions. However, not all modern treaties are full self-government agreements. Once implemented, modern treaties are enforceable by federal law and generally replace or clarify rights under historic treaties. A self-government treaty is an agreement, often part of a modern treaty, that specifically recognizes and establishes an indigenous government with the authority to make certain laws in areas similar to a provincial or municipal government.”
“The new office of the treaty commissioner would tell us nothing that the Office of the Auditor General and many indigenous leaders have already told us: that the government continues to fail. I want to speak plainly about where we are in implementing modern treaties in Canada, what progress has been made, where failures persist and how we can fix the system without creating another costly bureaucracy at a time when taxpayers can ill afford it. However, before we discuss implementation, it is important to define what we mean by modern treaties and self-government treaties. A modern treaty is a comprehensive land claims agreement negotiated between a first nation, Inuit or Métis group and the Crown, which means the federal government and sometimes provincial governments, that settles outstanding aboriginal rights and land claims.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a matter that goes beyond the very foundation of this country: the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples. That relationship is defined not only by our history, but by our honour. It is tested not by words or new offices, but by actions. It is measured not by the number of new bureaucracies we create, but by the commitments we fulfill and the promises we keep. For decades, governments have spoken of reconciliation, yet reconciliation without accountability remains a broken promise. The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-10 , an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, simply provides cover for its decade-long history of broken promises to indigenous peoples.”
“The minister said, in her own words, that indigenous leaders are calling for more oversight, which we support, and that the government has not been living up to its promises. It has been decades. Why not hold the minister 's department accountable instead of creating new bureaucracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we support modern treaties, the path to self-government and the path to economic reconciliation, and we wish to work with communities that want to see that happen. We support those initiatives. However, the fact that the minister has to table a piece of legislation dealing with the modern treaty shows the failure of the government. In six years, Stephen Harper signed five modern treaties. The government has signed zero in 10 years. It has signed two self-government agreements, but it has signed zero modern treaties. Not only that, but we also have numerous Auditor General reports talking about treaties and the government's relationship with implementing those treaties.”
“It is, yes, about wearing orange but also about listening, learning and committing to action every day and ensuring that no indigenous child should ever again feel invisible, neglected or unworthy. Let us remember the children who never came home, honour the survivors who carry those stories and work toward a future where justice, respect and dignity are the foundation of true reconciliation. Let us say today, and every day, never again.”
“Mr. Speaker, September 30 is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Also known as Orange Shirt Day, we remember the indigenous children who were taken away through the residential school system, and we honour their families and communities that continue to feel the weight of that loss. Orange Shirt Day began with Phyllis Webstad in Williams Lake, British Columbia, which is also the hometown of my seatmate. At just six years old, Phyllis had her new orange shirt taken away on her first day at residential school. That shirt has become a symbol of what was stolen and a reminder that every child matters. Reconciliation cannot be marked by a single day.”
“Madam Speaker, if I heard the hon. member correctly, I will say that is why market forces demand this kind of thing. Consumption of oil is expected to go up. We have a lot of it; let us get it to market and create jobs, opportunity and wealth right here at home.”
“Madam Speaker, I do agree that interprovincial trade and removing the barriers is a good thing. I do agree that when those barriers are gone, we would be able to create billions of dollars in economic activity right across our country. The issue here now is the fact that the Prime Minister , during the campaign, talked about getting interprovincial free trade done by Canada Day, and the clock is ticking.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a fantastic question. I think that is the essence of all of this. On the one hand, Liberals say, “Let us get things built”; they say that they will get things moving and shovels in the ground. However, at the same time, they have a regulatory framework that currently exists that stifles any of that from happening, while companies that beg the government, are properly connected and maybe, hopefully, even throw a few dollars to the Liberal Party, might even get their project approved. It happened in Ontario with the Green Energy Act; a whole whack of companies that received projects for wind turbines and solar panels were shown to have donated to the Ontario Liberal Party. I fear, unfortunately, that the framework the Liberals are setting up in Bill C-5 is a dangerous path to take; I do not advise it.”