Kevin Sorenson

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the member by relating a story. Not that long ago, I went to a restaurant. I sat down and had the salad. This nice big salad came, but then a bug crawled across the top if it. The waiter came, took the insect off my salad, and said “There you go”.

There is nothing in this budget that is good. When we see the bad crawling across the budget, as this is, then removing one or two pieces of it is not going to make it good again. It is a bad budget. It does not meet the needs of Canadians. It is a budget that adds taxation. It is a budget that does not bring investment back to Canada. It is a budget that we see a lot of spending that even former Liberal governments would not have been caught up in.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that in 2017, only $1.9 billion was spent in infrastructure. The Liberals brag about their infrastructure, but the budget does not answer the questions of why they were incapable of getting their infrastructure dollars out the door.

Although the Liberals may talk about gender equality and some of the things that may be very well intended, as far as bringing economic growth, even John Manley, former deputy prime minister in the Liberal Party and finance minister, said this budget offered very little.

Therefore, I do not think that opening it up and pulling one or two parts out it is going fix anything in this budget.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I quoted a number of other articles, authors of those articles, and economists. I know the member would rather quote George Soros and that group.

However, what we have seen with the Liberal government is huge growth in program spending. The member wants to talk about all of the other things, but there has been a huge growth in program spending.

Since coming to power, the Liberals have increased program spending by 6.3% each year. This amounts to $304.9 billion projected for 2017-18, from $253 billion in the fiscal year 2014-15. This is much faster than the growth in revenue coming into the federal government, which is at 3.3%.

If we fall into another downturn and if we should fall into another recession, with the government spending as it is in good times, what will the response be in times when we fall back into zero growth or negative growth? We would not have the opportunity then to invest and kick-start the economy. We will see that it will not have the impact it would if we had balanced budgets, paying down debt, lowering taxes, and all of that, which the Liberal government has negated and not done.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, may I, on behalf of my constituents in Battle River—Crowfoot, pass my condolences to the people of Humboldt and to the parents who lost a child and a hockey player in that horrific accident. I know we are all moved and we have seen other statements, but on behalf of my constituency, I want to pass on our sympathies and condolences.

It is a privilege to stand in this place this afternoon to speak to budget 2018. I would like to begin by echoing the words that our Conservative leader said on budget day, words that have been mentioned many times here in the House already. I would quote him when he said, “Never has a [Prime Minister] spent so much to achieve so little.” I may add that never has a Prime Minister so blatantly made a promise and so blatantly broken a promise, not only once, not twice, but now three times.

During the 2015 election, Liberals promised there would be three modest deficits of $10 billion or under before they would return to a balanced budget in 2019. Did they keep that promise? Obviously, no. As a direct result of that broken promise, the Liberal government is on track to add $450 billion to Canada's national debt over the next 27 years, with a budget projected not to be balanced again until 2045.

The deficit this fiscal year is $18 billion, three times that which was promised. We now have a national debt of $669 billion, and the interest rate for that crippling debt is rising. This year it will be $26 billion and by 2022 it is projected to be $33 billion, which is more than the spending on any one government department, including the $25 billion that is spent on our national defence. If this is not an insult to our men and women in uniform, perhaps the fact that there is no mention of military spending in the budget is.

Of extreme disappointment to many of my constituents, there was also no mention in the budget of the agricultural sector. The only reference to farming in the budget was the $4.3 million over five years that was brought forward to support the reopening of farms at two Ontario federal penitentiaries. What does it say about Liberal priorities when inmates in our federal penitentiaries come before our farmers?

Budget 2018 also failed to address any uncertainties related to the North American Free Trade Agreement or provide a response to the major tax cuts that were announced in the United States. One month after the finance minister delivered the budget, he was quoted in the Financial Post as saying in reference to the significant tax changes in the United States:

There was no place in our budget for saying speculatively what we might or might not do in the future based on analysis that hasn't been completed.

I could argue with that. I could argue, knowing the finance department, that I very much doubt that there was no analysis done or that it was incomplete moving into a budget. In terms of a budget that is going to give confidence to investors and people here in Canada, he backed away from mentioning anything that would give some confidence on the completion of that trade agreement.

He said that the Liberal government is not yet prepared to help Canadian businesses tackle competitive challenges in the face of the corporate tax rate in the United States being cut from 35% to 21%, in the face of a U.S. tax system that fully supports the adoption of new technologies, and in the face of new U.S. incentives for intellectual property and marketing until he has undertaken a complete analysis of the impact of these reports.

He said this despite the fact that investment in this country has been waning since the oil price collapse of 2014, with a total decline of almost 18%. Once the strongest in the G7, it has been the weakest over the past four years.

He said this despite the fact that we are struggling to attract capital investment from abroad, with foreign direct investment plunging last year to the lowest level since 2010; despite the fact that Canada's average corporate tax rate is about 27%, three percentage points above that of the world's advanced economies; and despite Canadian businesses being faced with regulatory changes, new carbon taxes, carbon prices, minimum wage hikes, and higher energy or electricity prices. He said this despite the fact that the Business Council of Canada, representing chief executives from dozens of major companies, asked the finance minister prior to the release of budget 2018 for an immediate response. There was silence.

John Manley, former Liberal finance minister and head of the Business Council of Canada, stated:

We’re hoping for a signal that the government is on the case. There’s really no indication in the budget they’re on the case. The first step to solving the problem is admitting that there is one. And they’re not admitting that there is one.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce concluded that budget 2018 is long on spending and short on growth. It agrees with the Business Council of Canada and has implored the Liberal government to “...act with urgency to implement measures that will retain and attract business investment in Canada.”

They get it: we need to attract business investment opportunities back to this country.

We on this side of the House applaud the efforts of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada because we know, as do many economic experts, that business investment is the most important source of economic growth in this country. The government must leave more money in the hands of business so that it can invest more in innovation, productivity, and enhanced technologies.

However, before the government takes any steps that affect business, it needs to invite small and medium-sized business owners to the table. In his keynote speech at the April meeting of the chamber of commerce, Ken Kobly, president of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, called out our provincial and federal governments for failing to talk with business owners on policy that affects them. As a result of this failure, Mr. Kobly said, the federal government’s budget “was heavy on platitudes but light on any real long-term economic diversification plan.”

Jack Mintz, of the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, said that rather than providing real tax reform to more powerfully impact economic growth, most provisions of budget 2018 are “aimed at raising taxes, whether it's tightening international rules, throwing money at CRA to curb avoidance, [or] capping the deduction for small businesses on passive income.” He said that to get any economic growth, “the Liberals are relying heavily on government spending.” He further said, “It all harkens back to the 1970s, when Pierre Trudeau's policy framework offered regional development, politically driven grants, wage and price controls, a far-too-generous employment insurance program, and subsidized Crown corporations.”

Obviously it comes as no surprise that the apple has not fallen far from the tree.

The province of Alberta has experienced the worse decline in investment in this country. Energy investment is at the lowest level on record, below even the worst of the 2009 recession, with a loss of over $80 billion and more than 110,000 jobs. With drilling rigs heading to the United States, where there is a more hospitable investment climate, there has been a significant decline in capital spending.

If these facts are not bad enough, a week ago Kinder Morgan announced that it has suspended work on the Trans Mountain expansion project. The blame for this development rests squarely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister, who has failed to take a single concrete step to ensure this project is completed.

John Ivison said last week, “The consequence of failure is the collapse of his entire economic and environmental framework, not to mention reputational damage from which he might never recover.”

We need this project in Alberta. We must do all we can to get the oil moving again to a deepwater port so we can build our markets around the globe. We cannot rely on the United States. The budget does not give any encouragement for investment to come back to our country. We need to see a plan, soon, that will do this.

[Rural Crime, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this motion forward. I have served on the Alberta rural crime task force. The member has worked very closely with us, and I appreciate that.

On the stories the member has shared today here in the House, all members of Parliament, especially rural members from Alberta and Saskatchewan, can share similar types of stories. However, as we conducted our meetings throughout the riding, I realized that many of my constituents were living in fear, and she brought that out very well in her speech.

Also, many of my constituents were uncertain as to what their response should be when, not if, they were broken into. Living on a ranch and a farm, I have been a victim to a very small degree with having fuel stolen. Someone came in and ripped a line off of a piece of equipment, broke the fuel pump, and did other things.

I wonder what the member has heard from the government. Are government members going to be supporting her bill? What timelines would be involved in this study? What could go on after the study? Is this the type of recommendation that could work together with provinces, as the member from the NDP shared, or is this something that would eventually come back to committee and be studied?

This is a non-partisan issue. Can the member share on that?

[An Act in Relation to Firearms, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work she has done on this issue. Over the years, her name, the name of Garry Breitkreutz, and other come to mind.

I came into politics to get rid of Bill C-68 and the long gun registry. The day we did it as a government, my constituents were thrilled. We were frustrated with the cost of it. We were frustrated that it did not concentrate on crime, that it concentrated on legally owned firearms by farmers.

There are reasonable people in all parties and I would put out my plea to them. We have gun shows on weekends throughout my rural the riding. These gun shows are for collectors who sell their firearms. People come from across Canada to these gun shows and from Consort, Hanna, Camrose, Castor, and many other places in my riding. Their frustration is with respect to the registration number. Every firearm sold has a licence to purchase it, but the idea that people will have to get hold of Miramichi or a gun group somewhere on a weekend to verify that licence, they know it will shut down these gun shows.

Would my colleague respond to that?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all parties for their unanimous consent to table this report.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Report 3, Settlement Services for Syrian Refugees—Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, of the Fall 2017 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[Government Response to Petitions, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have checked with the House leaders of the various parties, and I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees to allow me to table a report from the public accounts committee.

[Committees of the House, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Report 1, Phoenix Pay Problems, of the Fall 2017 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada—Part 1”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's presentation, and to be quite frank, I was very disappointed in the way she painted with such a broad brush the faith-based communities as being opposed to basic human rights, and the issues around the attestation.

I remind her that the right to freedom of belief and opinion is guaranteed by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Most Canadians should be very concerned with the direction the government is going in basing funding decisions on whether someone holds a certain belief.

I would like to talk about an organization with which the people in Alberta and across the country are quite familiar. I am receiving hundreds of letters from my constituents, for example, Catholic churches, Protestant churches, and other churches saying they typically have summer programs, and now cannot hire anyone because they cannot affirm the attestation.

The Mustard Seed in Calgary ministers to tens of thousands of Albertans, vulnerable and homeless people, and typically has accessed this program to allow young people to see the plight of homelessness and feed them. However, it is saying it is not going to get pushed into the government's attestation, and the fact that it wants to take it from a neutral position into an affirmative position on certain issues it has never taken a position on before. Consequently, many young people are not going to be able to serve.

With all due respect, what is next? We are doing this on Canada summer jobs. If we do not line up exactly the way the government sees, which program will be next?

[Canadian School Counselling Week, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, February 5 marked the launch of the first-ever Canadian School Counselling Week. Each year, the week will provide a great opportunity for Canadians to recognize and highlight the tremendous contributions that school counsellors make to the personal, social, and educational well-being of students. I am proud to say that Ariel Haubrich, a constituent of mine, is the president of the school counsellors chapter of the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association. The CCPA is a national association providing access to exclusive educational programs, certifications, and professional development, and provides direct contact with professional peers and specialty groups.

As many young people throughout this country try to find their way in this world and struggle with mental health issues and learning disabilities, the need for counsellors is growing. We all know that nothing is as important to us as the well-being of our children. Therefore, on behalf of my honoured colleagues and of parents all across Canada, I would like to take this opportunity to thank school counsellors and the CCPA for the care and guidance that they provide to our children.