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 5 of 5.
“Madam Speaker, what was clear during the election was that somehow the administration down south, which had been in place for about two months or so, maybe three months, was the focal point of the Liberal campaign. However, Liberals seem to have done a smoke and mirrors show, where the last 10 years of Liberal misery was forgotten about. Unfortunately, now we see the results: Crime is still through the roof, housing is in trouble and the inflation crisis is out of control. We just saw the latest food prices, and the cost of meat is insane right now. All these problems are still here, and they are here because the government is still the same as the one that was here before.”
“We would get what the government tells us is music, and that would be unfortunate. With competition, innovation and the freest of markets, we get better product, better quality and a better price. I think that is lacking in the bill. We do not address that. We are still working on the fact that in order to get fast-track approval, people have to go begging to government, whether they have the right lobbyists or lawyers, in order to get that approval. That is not innovation.”
“If we are lucky, we might get some supersmart people running a department, and innovation is able to happen quicker, but on the whole, if it is left up to politicians, unfortunately innovation comes second. I think government is not good at running much. If it were, if people say, “Well, maybe government is”, I ask what would happen if the government ran the music industry. It would probably stifle all kinds of music that the government does not like. An hon. member : Would it? Jamie Schmale : Yeah, it probably would. Madam Speaker, we would not get the choice; we would not get the innovation. What is good music, right? I bet my taste in music is totally different than that of the member opposite, and that is a good thing. I guarantee that if the government controlled the music industry, we would get what government wants.”
“With the free market, though, if we do not like a service being provided, we take our money and go elsewhere, and because of that dynamic, of course we get competition. Somebody is always trying to innovate a product or service to gain a share of the market. That means that people who are not happy with their current offering always find the path of least resistance; they find something better. That is why, with creativity and competition, we get vibrant innovation. When a government agency or entity monopolizes a service, we get pre-approved innovation; we always get innovation based on what the government has in mind. There is always a conclusion, and the grants are handed out based on what that conclusion is.”
“The regulatory burden, the framework, was so much that the company had to give up. The only reason the pipeline was able to be completed is that the government took over the project with endless resources at its backing, which is the tax base, the taxpayers of this country. That is why it got completed: through government control. If we were in some bizarre world, some upside-down universe where there were windmills in abundance and we were getting a lot of our energy from them, and all of a sudden the government found black goop that came from the ground that was able to power cities and make car engines run faster, it would be in favour of it. It would be in favour of drilling, of fracking, because it would then be the government controlling that industry and that kind of energy.”
“This way, the government would decide who gets the government grants and who would get the fast-track approvals to bypass the legislative regulatory framework. Of course, it happened in Ontario under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. We all know about the Green Energy Act, where favoured companies got big contracts and grants and were able to steamroll through legislation already in place that prevented some projects from going forward. In essence, the government wants people to buy primary services from it with their tax dollars, with all of the grants going to its chosen companies, again, with some link to government. This is how the power broker class does business, and this is why government had no problem pushing TransCanada out of building the Trans Mountain pipeline.”
“It is clear that in the legislation, without the removal of key pieces of previous government legislation I mentioned, Bill C-69 , Bill C-48 , and many more, the regulatory system would continue to choke industry and continue to stifle investment from abroad. What the Liberals would do, with the piece of legislation before us, is continue to reduce our ability to extract energy and sell it to the world, unless powerful lawyers and lobbyists cozy up to Liberal politicians to get their project fast-tracked. This would lead to more government control. Why is this? It is the same thing the Liberals seemed to love with so-called green energy, more like alternative energy. It is mostly about control.”
“(1655) This would create a system where we have more people regulating an industry than we have actually working in it, which is a problem. Again, the Prime Minister has no problem creating more white collar desk workers with government authorities, simply to expand the class of people who will always be loyal to the growth of big government. That is a choke point for innovation and productivity. Let us be clear: We are not saying, “Let us promote dirty air and dirty water.” We all breathe and eat the same things, and we want the cleanest possible. However, when we have a political class that has no compassion with respect to the impact of its decisions, because government always gets paid and first and never runs out of supply, that is a problem.”
“Bill C-69 , the no more pipelines bill; Bill C-48 , the tanker ban, which will not let Alberta energy leave off our west coast; the emission caps and many more barriers and hurdles to economic growth and expansion have all been put in place by the Liberal government. Fortunately, we have now gotten to a place where the Prime Minister is saying that if projects are determined to be in the national interest, federal reviews would shift from whether these projects get built to how best to advance them. Apparently, according to the Prime Minister and multiple media sources, this is meant to streamline multiple decision points for federal approval, while minimizing risks of not securing project approval following extensive project risk.”
“After an admission that the Liberals caused the problem through Liberal laws that have made it impossible to get anything built in this country, the Liberals have turned to allowing certain projects, like those that are politically favoured and lobbied by Liberal insiders, like maybe GC Strategies no doubt, to circumvent the Liberal laws. Conservatives do agree with the Liberals that it is all their fault that the economy is stalling when it comes to natural resource development, and that their own legislation has hobbled the Canadian economy and has actually put us at risk due to the desires of the administration down south. We have known about the ongoing dangers of the economic waters that have become unsettled; we have called this out for over 10 years.”
“A more integrated domestic market would allow businesses to scale operations more efficiently, access a larger customer base and reduce duplication and costs. Here in Ontario, it is estimated that could mean about $200 billion annually in the province. However, Bill C-5 , as mentioned, only takes baby steps and falls short of where we need to be. I am afraid Bill C-5 , unfortunately, may not have any impact at all in removing the barriers to interprovincial trade. The second and probably most controversial part is around natural resource development. Bill C-5 attempts to address the effects of a decade of Liberal mismanagement of the economy by introducing measures to fast-track major projects in Canada.”
“For everyone in this place, if we do not have the support of our family, it is extremely difficult to do this job. My family has my back and is encouraging me to keep doing this, so I thank my family as well for the ongoing support. We are debating Bill C-5 today. It has two main parts, and the first has to do with interprovincial trade. As we all know and have heard in the debate today, Conservatives have long called for the easing of interprovincial trade barriers as essential for boosting economic efficiency, fostering national unity and enhancing competitiveness in the global economy. One of the most compelling reasons to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers is the potential for significant economic gains.”
“I would like to thank Marnie; Lisa; Tara; my executive assistant, Andrew; of course Mack and Paul here in Ottawa; and, during the election, the teams of volunteers, of whom there were many on all sides. In our part of the world, in Ontario, we went through some pretty challenging weather. There was the big ice storm. Every municipality in my riding was under a state of emergency for a couple of weeks. It put a strain on volunteers of all stripes, but everyone showed up day in and day out. They kept knocking on doors, putting up signs and spreading their respective messages, so I want to thank everyone who played a part in that role. Our democracy is stronger because of their work. I want to give a shout-out to my campaign team and my campaign manager, Paul; my EDA president, Derek; and of course my family for their unwavering support.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House to add my thoughts and the views of our constituents on various pieces of legislation. Today, it will be on Bill C-5 , an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk . Before I get into the meat of the bill, I will say that this is my first chance to stand and give a speech in the House since the election, so I would like to thank my team working here in Ottawa and, of course, back at home, for their ongoing work. They keep the wheels on the bus and keep things moving. I want to thank them for their very hard work and professionalism.”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the member opposite on the indigenous and northern affairs committee and hope he is returning there so we can complete that work. In the member opposite's speech, he talked a number of times about interprovincial trade and reducing barriers, and what we have heard pretty much all day and throughout this debate from members opposite is that it just seems new to them, and all of a sudden, they have this great big idea to reduce trade barriers that they have just come up with. Meanwhile, we have been talking about this in the opposition for years. We remember the “free the beer” campaign and many others, where we were talking about reducing and eliminating barriers that hindered interprovincial trade. Also, there are interties. At the natural resources committee, we did a study in 2018 about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Prime Minister has the backs of Liberal insiders and backroom cronies, not hard-working Canadians. It is business as usual for the Prime Minister, who has no plans to cut the gravy train to Liberal consultants with no intention to actually complete work. While the RCMP investigates fraud on Canadians, those ministers responsible get a pat on the back, and they get promoted. Will the Prime Minister impose a lifetime ban on the founders of GC Strategies and all aligned entities and individuals today and, of course, get Canadians their money back?”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal consultants are getting millions in contracts without the required security clearances or experience. Worse, they do not even have to do any work. The Auditor General found evidence that nearly half of government contracts were paid out but not actually completed. While Liberal insiders get rich, Canadian families struggle to pay for food. In true Liberal fashion, of course, the ministers responsible have been promoted by the Prime Minister . When will the government support today's Conservative motion to ensure that Canadians get their money back?”
“In true Liberal fashion, of course, the Trudeau ministers responsible for arrive scam actually got promoted. It is clear that with decisions like this, the Liberals have no plan to get taxpayers' money back on this blatant corruption.”
“Mr. Speaker, today's Auditor General's report is another damning indictment that the Liberals have lost control of their rampant spending on consultants. GC Strategies, the consulting firm with links to arrive scam, cut 106 service contracts worth $92.7 million. This is the same company that was found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to answer questions and was called to this very House to answer questions. The scandal, of course, compounds from there. The AG found that in a third of the contracts awarded, there was no evidence the consultants had the required experience, and there were massive security clearance failures. There was also a failure to prove that the fees paid did not exceed market rates, and most damning of all, endless reams of evidence showed that the work was not even completed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think asking for a budget on behalf of Canadians is a slogan, and, actually, something that Canada has always had is a budget. The government has spent $330,000 just on consultants to rebrand a Crown corporation. The goal of that name change is to get people really excited about high-speed rail from Toronto to Quebec City. People in my area have grown quite tired of waiting decades for this project to become a reality. When will the government actually get shovels in the ground instead of padding the pockets of well-connected Liberal consultants?”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, it is the same spending, same ministers and same painful consequences for Canadians, except now, we do not know the government's full plan because it refused to table a budget, something quite new to Canada. Budgets have been presented during wars, economic downturns and, yes, even following elections. We do know the government has increased spending on consultants by 36%, meaning every Canadian household must pay $1,400 to get gimmicks instead of results. How is the Liberal government asking to spend half a trillion dollars without even a budget?”