Arnold Viersen
Peace River—Westlock, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, one of those really great laws is Bill S-211 , which requires companies selling or distributing goods in Canada to produce an annual report. The Liberals, contrary to the law, revised their directive and exempted a bunch of their corporate buddies from having to file the report. Now the U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned executive bonuses, and I just want to point out that the company also gave some great bonuses to its executives, while it has built zero kilometres of rail line. I just thought I would put that on the record as well. I want to ask my hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, $200 million is what we are talking about with this launch pad. In my riding, a sawmill was recently shut down, with 190 jobs lost. That $200 million would have gone a long way there. The member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park and I were debating this earlier, and he talked about how we needed a Canadian Cape Canaveral.”
“Mr. Speaker, I assure members that I only have one petition to present today. I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about human rights protections in India.”
“The petitioners are asking that the government ensure that any and all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists are sanctioned and that the government promote a respectful human rights dialogue between Canada and India.”
“Since then, only minor tweaks have been made to that. Because of that, there are a host of companies that work hard on creating a product that is well serviced and lasts a long time. It does not ever really end up in the landfill, because they just keep rebuilding it and keep working it over.”
The complete record
Every one of 305 lines we hold for Arnold Viersen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, I am heartbroken by the vandalism that has happened to churches across this country. Since 2021, arson or attempted arson has been committed at about 130 churches. This is another story of how it seems to be okay to vandalize churches across the country. I want to condemn that in every possible manner. I look forward to a government that will defend the rights of religious people in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thought I gave a thoughtful speech challenging some of the things that are right in the legislation, and the defence of the RCMP. One other issue that I want to bring up in regard to the leadership of the RCMP is the case of Rhonda Blackmore. There are a lot of questions that concern me around this situation, with the treatment of Rhonda Blackmore and her removal as the head of F Division. There are questions about the leadership of the RCMP, and they continue to be unanswered. I look forward to seeing what responses come from there.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is mighty rich for the member opposite to be so concerned about the reputation of the RCMP now, given that his former leader, Mr. Trudeau, said the entire operation was systemically racist. In terms of the comments that my leader made, I particularly remember the commissioner of the RCMP being pressured by Justin Trudeau to release the names of the firearms that were used in Nova Scotia. The actions of the leadership of the RCMP, I think, are indefensible in many instances.”
“Another question is whether we can stop them or refuse them entry, but that is another question altogether. I look forward to seeing some of the questions I have about the bill clarified in committee. I also look forward to seeing if we need an amendment to fix the passport issue.”
“I think the bill would cover that. The changes the bill would make would allow our law enforcement to share with American law enforcement that a registered sex offender is travelling across the border. It is a particular annoyance for the Americans, and I understand that at a time when we are trying to mend relationships with the United States, rectifying this particular annoyance is the thing to do. I would point out that I had flagged this for a number of years prior to this situation. I noted that, proactively, the United States has been sharing this information with us. In the first half of 2022, 165 Americans convicted of child sexual offences were allowed entry into Canada. We know this because the U.S. has a whole system to notify Canada that these folks are coming.”
“In 2022, the RCMP was notified 1,700 times. In 2023, it was notified 2,200 times. In 2024, it was notified 3,300 times. That was for registered sex offenders travelling abroad. However, the RCMP noted that it is unable to track the number of sex offenders who leave the country, given that if a sex offender does not register to do this, the RCMP does not know. We often know when they come back, as they seem to get flagged in the system then. As they come in, border security gets notified, but we do not know how many leave. Also, the RCMP was unable to ascertain how many times a registered sex offender failed to register when they left, because it does not track this. For most of the last decade, countries, particularly the United States, have been begging and pleading with us to share this information with them.”
“Countries around the world are pleading with Canada to alert them that a registered sex offender is coming or to prevent them from coming in the first place by withholding their passport. I noted last time in debate the reality that a passport has, in the opening page, an endorsement of the individual. It endorses the individual and asks those viewing the passport to give the person free passage through their country. I am not convinced that folks in the sex offender registry are necessarily entitled to a passport. The law has been changed already so we can revoke these passports, but the Liberal government has failed to do this over the last number of years. The RCMP was able to share with me how many notifications it had of sex offenders travelling. I see there is an update to the notification process.”
“The bill says that we could share it with other law enforcement agencies, but the challenge is that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is not law enforcement. The folks who issue passports are not law enforcement, so the bill is unclear. I do not think it will solve the problem of passport marking and the revocation of passports based on the registered sex offender list. This continues to be a problem. I reached out to stakeholders who work in this space, like the folks from Ratanak International, based out of Vancouver, who flag this for me regularly. Registered sex offenders, convicted sex offenders, here in Canada often go abroad, likely to perpetrate more crimes.”
“As members know, when there are amendments to a piece of legislation in the abstract, it is often difficult to see what they are, but since then, I have had a chance to put them in their place in the act and see what kind of effect they would have. I was concerned at the time about the passport markings the Conservative government had put in place and the ability to revoke the passports of folks who are registered to the sex offender registry, and there has been zero action by the government over the last 10 years on either marking passports or revoking them. (1155) I have been digging into this a bit, and I discovered that one of the issues is that the RCMP, which holds the registry, is unable to share this information with other levels of government, other organizations and other law enforcement agencies.”
“We see that the government continually goes after the freedoms that Canadians enjoy in Canada, and we see its subtle and dogged attack on things like charitable organizations in this country, whether it is through the recommendations that came out of the finance committee last year about stripping religious organizations of their charitable status, the Canada summer jobs changes or the charitable attestation changes. Now we see a ban on cash donations. The Conservatives will always stand up for the charitable sector and the good work it does. The bulk of my speech last month was about the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the changes being made to it. I had not had the time to look at it in detail.”
“At the time that I gave my speech, about a month ago, I was reprimanded and chastised by the members opposite, who said that we should get out of the way and let the bill pass quickly. We saw right away that there were major concerns with Bill C-2 . I remember, in particular, that I was challenged on allowing Canada Post to open people's mail, as if we needed this to fight the fentanyl being mailed out. I am interested in knowing if members opposite still hold those positions and why these things have been dropped. I can tell the minister that my constituents and those across the country thought this was a dangerous inclusion in the bill, and I am happy to see that it is gone. We have always worked hard to fight for everyday Canadians, and one of the other areas of concern was about the $10,000 donations.”
“At the time, the member for Winnipeg North pointed out that Canada Post needed to be able to open people's mail without a warrant, but then he said it was with a warrant. Interestingly, that has now been dropped. I guess that was something the Liberals recognized as a problem. I talked about the banning of cash payments and donations over $10,000 and said we had concerns with that, and that piece has also been dropped. Kudos to the government on that. The pressure from Conservatives caused that to happen as well. Then we talked a lot about concerns regarding warrantless access to information. These are some of the most dangerous parts of Bill C-2 and they have been dropped, and I am pleased about that.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise again in the House of Commons to represent the people of Peace River—Westlock. Today, we are talking about Bill C-12 , which sounds a lot like Bill C-2 . Bill C-2 has been replaced by this bill. It was less than a month ago that I stood in this place and gave a speech on Bill C-2, during which I outlined a number of deficiencies that I saw with the bill. When I heard the Liberals would be reintroducing Bill C-2 as Bill C-12, I mentioned a number of things for consideration as possible fixes and the concerns I had with the bill. I was hopeful they had the opportunity to listen to my speech and would address a number of the concerns I had. Unfortunately, it does not look like the Liberals listened, once again. I want to address a number of things that were asked of us.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals want to talk all the time about the 1,000 RCMP officers they are going to be hiring. I submitted an Order Paper question to discover how many RCMP officers we are capable of training in one year. Currently, we are training 34 per year, and that could ramp up to 58 per year. Given that, it would take 20 years to get the 1,000 RCMP officers the Liberals claim they are hiring operational. I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any comments about these bait-and-switch announcements the Liberal Party puts up all the time.”
“Instead of broken promises, we would restore the promise of a Canada in which hard work can buy an affordable home in a safe neighbourhood and put food on the table for every Canadian.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to make Canada an energy superpower and get projects built at lightning speed. Six months later, not a single project permit has been granted. There are no pipelines, no mines, no energy corridors, just broken promise after broken promise. Now the Prime Minister is pushing forward with an emissions cap that will wipe out $20 billion in GDP, drive investment away from Canada and cost over 40,000 jobs right here at home. These are more broken promises. The Prime Minister seems to think that supporting oil and gas starts and ends with cheering for the Edmonton Oilers. Albertans do not need a Prime Minister to come up with a national wish list. We need him to get out of the way. A Conservative government would scrap the emissions cap, end Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 , and scrap the industrial carbon tax.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite did not answer my question on why he thinks they need to reduce spending. This is something I have heard over and over today, that the Liberals are going to spend less. I am asking the member why they have to spend less. Conservatives think they should spend less to balance the budget so that we can bring down inflation. Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find the member for Bourassa's analysis of our motion today to be rather crude. In addition to that, the Liberals have caused the increase in crime in our country, the out-of-control immigration in this country, our housing crisis, the inflation, the rampant food cost increases across the country and the unemployment across the country. For them to say that they are now the solution to all these problems is rather disingenuous. Would the member not agree that they are attempting to spend less? Why are they attempting to spend less?”
“Mr. Speaker, we hear, again, another Liberal who is standing up and saying that things have never been better in Canada. However, we are consistently saying that inflation is out of control and unemployment is up dramatically. We have seen billions of dollars leaving this country and being invested in the United States. I want to get the member on the record clearly. Does the member think that things are going well in Canada? If she does not, what is the cause of that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would have us believe that everything is great in Canada. If we listen to them, they are constantly promoting the big projects window they have put in place. They also talk about LNG Canada. I would like to point out that when the Liberals came into power, there were 14 applications for LNG plants across this country. In the last 10 years, only one of those has been built. Does my hon. colleague have comments on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, today is one of those days when the Conservatives oddly agree with the Bloc. I do not think Canadians give the Liberals credit at all for cutting the carbon tax. It was an entirely Conservative idea. I agree with the member when he is completely incredulous at the hypocrisy, double standard or complete turn on a dime. Today, we have some sort of odd agreement. I wonder what his comments are on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, that comes just after all the nice things I said about the Bloc. I would point out that, particularly on Bill C-5 , we made significant amendments to ensure that, for example, the Lobbying Act would not be undermined by the bill. I understand that the Conservative members on committee for that bill made sure the projects would still be subject to conflict of interest and lobbying guidelines, and a number of other acts that apply. It would exempt them from Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 , the anti-pipeline bill and the anti-tanker bill, respectively, because we think that those two pieces of legislation are standing in the way. If the Liberals are willing to make an exemption from their own pieces of legislation again, an admission of Liberal failure, we would be happy to support that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would point out again that it is estimated that the commissioner would cost the Canadian government $2 million. That is deficit spending, I would point out. The fact is that first nations communities, along with all communities across this country, are struggling to put food on the table and to pay their heating bills. Saying that we should do more deficit spending and deflate our money more does not, I think, help anybody.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member listened to my speech; however, I would remind her that the previous Conservative government signed five modern treaties over the course of the Conservative tenure of governing this country. Our relationship with first nations was managed. Our relationship to get major energy projects built in this country was a success. We look forward to the day when a Conservative government rules this country once again.”
“When we then look at that piece of legislation, it generally does something other than what they say it will do, or it fails to change anything. I just want to put on the record that, in some weird way, we agree with the Bloc on this, that the commissioner would not do anything. I also want to close by stating that the bill is an admission by the Liberal government that its inabilities over the last number of years have led to failure. (1720)”
“The government is responsible for maintaining these relationships and cannot outsource it to a commissioner. It cannot outsource it. I guess the same goes for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for example. Does his advice get followed by the Liberal government? No, not at all. Will this commissioner's advice be followed by the Liberal government? Maybe, or maybe not. The fundamental issue is the results the government has caused. We see it over and again, whether it is with the Liberals' bail system, which they totally made a hatchet job of, border security or cybersecurity. Over and over again, the Liberals fail to be responsible for the issues the government is supposed to be responsible for in this country. We see a failure, and then suddenly the Liberals will say we need a particular piece of legislation in order to fix it.”
“When we say the Liberals are failing to maintain our border and are allowing people to run across our border and things like that, their response is not that they are doing a good job managing the border; it is that they are spending more money managing the border than the Conservatives did and are therefore being successful. They are not. The problem is that the border is porous and unmanaged by the Liberals. If we could spend zero dollars to manage the border, I would be in favour of that as well. The amount of money the Liberals spend to manage the border is irrelevant if we are not getting the results we are looking for. Fundamental to an accountable government is who is responsible. This commissioner is a distraction from the responsibilities of the government.”
“This is something the Liberals have talked about for a long time, and now, because their legislative agenda is kind of empty, suddenly they are going to put it forward. I am going to turn my attention to the Bloc. I always find it interesting when I agree somewhat with the Bloc. Bloc members are saying that this commissioner would not achieve anything, that it would not do anything, which is also kind of our position on this. It would not do anything and is just spending money for the sake of spending money, which, I acknowledge, is generally the Liberal test of success: Success is how much money it spends on a particular thing. I point to the border.”
“We have seen the resource industry stalling out because of our inability to build major projects across this country, and now the Liberals are bringing this forward. The other thing I find very interesting is that, although I say it is the tired old Liberal government, this is a “new” government, but we have yet to see any major new pieces of legislation. This is not a new piece of legislation from a new government. It is something that is long sought-after. The Liberal government has introduced this idea over and over again. This is not something new. We are looking forward to the removal of Liberal bail. That would be a new piece of legislation. The reversal of Liberal bail in this country would be an impressive thing in order to get crime under control. That would be new, but this is not a new idea.”
“(1715) In the case of the current government, it is the Government of Canada, and it should live up to its obligations. This means treaty obligations, keeping the peace in this country, working on maintaining our borders and reducing the crime. On all of these things, many times, we see total mismanagement, and then the Liberals come in here and say, “If we only had this piece of legislation.” We see this in front of us over and over again, with bills such as Bill C-2 , Bill C-8 and Bill C-11 , where the government is trying to solve problems it could already solve and is the cause of. With Bill C-10 , we see a classic case of Liberal mismanagement. We failed to sign new treaties across the country and failed to manage the relationship.”
“In reality, it generally has the tools and ability to fix the particular problem or manage the particular issue or maintain the relationship around the world that it currently has. We hear from the Liberals often that a particular UN document is demanding that they do something. Maintaining the relationship with first nations across this country, ensuring they are full participants in our economy and living up to the treaty obligations this country has signed onto are just basic functions of the government. We do not need a UN document or a UN declaration to tell us to do these things. The Government of Canada should be doing these things because we are upholding the honour of the Crown and we are upholding the things that make us this country.”
“He signed that into law, and the negative implications of it came to fruition. Parliament then reversed itself on that particular bill. I tell that story just to point out that the things that happen in this place have an impact on Canadian society. I hope that is the case, and I know that to be the case. The point is that the Liberal government is the government of this country, and it has duties it has to implement. The Liberal government is classic in terms of causing a problem or failing to address a problem and then, rather than fixing the problem, coming back here for another piece of legislation and saying that this is the one that will fix the particular problem.”
“I also want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time. When we talk about accountable government, this is an important part of Canadian history. This is something that this particular place fought vehemently for at the founding of Canada in response to being a colony of Great Britain, asking and pushing for our own responsible government. I would also point out that the responsible, accountable government that was fought for at that time was immediately put to the test in the riot reparations act that the brand new Canadian Parliament passed. It then ran out to ask the Governor General to not sign it into law, because the government had suddenly realized the ramifications of the riot reparations act. The Governor General at the time asked if we wanted a responsible, accountable government or not.”
“Unlike in the United States, where the administration lives outside of the legislative process, in Canada, in a parliamentary system, the government lives in the front bench, and that is the Prime Minister and his cabinet. They direct the administration of our country, and they answer directly to the legislature. They are right here, and one of the key functions of this place is to hold the government to account, principally through question period. That is probably what people see the most. That is the Government of Canada. It then branches out from there to all the ministries, the ministry offices across the country, and the folks who work for those ministries would also be part of the government. Very soon, I hope to be part of the governing party of Canada, if not part of the government, Lord willing.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up here today to talk about accountable government and speak to Bill C-10 . The government has put forward this piece of legislation, and I think it is a total admission of the Liberals' failure to keep first nations included in the Canadian economy and ensure first nations are part of the Canadian conversation. Therefore, one of the trinkets they are putting forward is the commissioner position, to acknowledge that they have been a failure over the last 10 years. I want to talk about accountable government more broadly. People back home always say, “Arnold, you are part of the government,” but I say no, I am part of the opposition. The government is generally considered to be the front bench on the government side of the House. That is the government that lives inside of our legislative chamber.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for answering my last question about accountable government and acknowledging that the commissioner is indeed needed because the Liberals have failed to live up to all of their hype and rhetoric. Once again, will the member answer a simple yes or no question? Will he admit that this bill is merely an admission of failure on the Liberal government's part?”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member about responsible and accountable government. Does he feel that this piece of legislation is trying to mask the issue that the Liberals, over the last decade, have failed to secure any modern treaties across this country and have failed to live up to the modern treaties that have been signed over the last number of years? When Stephen Harper was prime minister, we signed five modern treaties, and we worked very hard to enable the relationship between Canada and first nations. Would the member not agree that this bill is an admission of failure on the part of the Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the member represents a large rural riding in northern British Columbia, just two ridings over from northern Alberta. I appreciate his comments immensely. He talked about the treaty relationships we have around the world and getting out from underneath the Indian Act. It is a mantra I think all parties in the House talk about: getting folks out from underneath the Indian Act. I was wondering if the member could explain a little more what that would look like for his particular community.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about making progress on these issues. I would point out that under a Conservative government, we signed six modern treaties, and that under 10 years of Liberal government, no modern treaties have been signed. Does the member think that is progress?”
“They also point out that people with disabilities have expressed opposition to allowing MAID for people with disabilities, or track 2, as it is sometimes known. They are calling on the government to protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying to those whose prognosis for natural death is more than six months.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today highlighting the concerns of petitioners regarding euthanasia in Canada. The petitioners point out that choosing to end one's life because of a lack of available services or treatments is not a real choice. They also point out that allowing those with a disability or chronic illness who are not dying to choose to end their life devalues their life and tacitly endorses the notion that life with a disability is optional and, by extension, dispensable. Offering medical assistance in dying as a solution to a disability or chronic illness reduces incentives to improve treatment or care for people living with those conditions. The petitioners note that Canada does not want to be an ableist society.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member on his speech and say to him that I was just wondering if he could perhaps enlighten us a little more on why bail reform is needed in the country. The Liberals keep telling us that they are bringing in bail reform, but they do not tell us why it is needed. I was wondering if the hon. member could tell us why bail reform is needed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been pointing out that they are the solution to their own problems, that they are the heroes of their own stories. When we point out that grocery prices are unaffordable for the average Canadian family, they say, “Don't worry about it. We have a school food program.” I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite confirmed what we are saying. His solution to the food crisis is a school food program. Why do we need this program in place? It is because people cannot afford to buy groceries. Would the member not agree with me that he has just, basically, granted us the entire premise of our argument?”
“Madam Speaker, the last petition I have to present today comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the MAID regime. The lack of services or treatments makes it so that MAID is not a real choice. The petitioners are concerned that medical assistance in dying for those with disabilities or chronic illnesses devalues their lives and tacitly endorses the notion that a life with disability is not worth living. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying for those whose prognosis for death is more than six months.”
“Madam Speaker, the second petition I have to present comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the government's actions against firearms owners. They note that firearms play a big role in Canadian culture and history, and many new Canadians love to participate in the heritage of hunting and sport shooting. They are concerned about the amendments to Bill C-21 seeking to ban hunting rifles. Therefore, the folks who have signed this petition ask the government to leave their guns alone, repeal Bill C-21 , and defend and safeguard the property rights of Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first petition comes from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the persecution happening in Turkey, Pakistan and Bahrain. The governments there have committed human rights violations against thousands of Turkish people, including eight Turkish Canadians. The petitioners are concerned about the over 300,000 wrongfully detained people and that several human rights organizations have committed gross human rights violates. The folks who have signed this petition want the Government of Canada to closely monitor the situation; place sanctions on 12 officials who are responsible for these violations, particularly around the death of Gokhan Acikkollu; and call on the Turkish, Pakistani and Bahraini governments to end the violations against these particular people.”
“It pays lip service to energy superpowers and does nothing to get out of the way to make these projects happen in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about LNG Canada, for example. I am interested to know what roadblocks Bill C-5 pulled out of the way of LNG Canada. LNG Canada was well on its way to being built already. Bill C-5 has not created a new project in LNG Canada. The member talked about certainty for business. Bill C-5 gives no certainty for business. All Bill C-5 does is say that someone better go and lobby the federal government and the cabinet to get a particular project on the books, and maybe they will say yes. What certainty for business looks like is a clear set of guidelines, and if a project fulfills those types of things, it will be able to be built in Canada; someone does not have to go to the cabinet and request special permission to build a particular project. The government is a sham.”
“We have watched billions of dollars exit this country. We had the energy east pipeline, the northern gateway pipeline and the Pacific northwest pipeline that were going to be built, but they are not going on. We had 15 LNG projects on the books ready to go back in 2015; today, one of them has been built. I guess the question still remains. Back to reality, we have passed Bill C-5 , and we have yet to see any new major energy projects coming online. There has been delay after delay. Will the government be proposing major energy pipelines across this country under Bill C-5?”