Debates of Oct. 16th, 2017

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West comes from another beautiful part of Alberta. When I was a young kid, I grew up there for a little while.

He is absolutely right. Just recently I moved from the environment and sustainable development committee to the industry, science and technology committee. We were studying intellectual property. My learned friend from Alberta was also on that committee last year. One of the first things I noticed when I was reading through a new report on intellectual property was the fact the Liberal government seems to think that everything can only be written, directed, and driven by highly educated people. I see this quite often. I also saw it in the report that we are trying to write at the environment committee.

There seems to be a strong favouritism towards the major universities. The government does not seem to want to recognize the technical schools such as NAIT and SAIT, and also the Drayton Valley eco mile, where clean air technology is being studied. I have to give credit to my Liberal counterparts on the committee for changing the wording with respect to intellectual property to refer to all post-secondary institutions, rather than universities specifically. I was appalled by that oversight in the past.

As I said earlier, I would sometimes listen to a trapper well before I would listen to a biologist, and I would listen to a farmer who has been on the land for 50 years before I would listen to someone who has just got out of agricultural school and has a wealth of book knowledge but not a lot of experience. I think we need to address all avenues of education: post-secondary, technical, and everything else.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleagues for their speeches and their interventions in the House today, and on Bill C-48.

I listened to the debate intently, and heard it over and over again. It is very similar to what we have heard from the government time and again, whether it was on Bill C-55, which was earlier today, on the marine protected areas, or electoral reform, or the tax measures that the government proposed earlier on and is now backtracking on. It is very interesting. It comes down to consultation. It comes down to the fact that this has nothing to do with really banning tankers on the west coast, but has to do with slamming shut anything to do with a pipeline to get our product from the Alberta oil sands to the west coast and to get our product to other markets.

I should be really clear that there are approximately 4,000 ships or vessels each year that go in on the east coast, in terms of oil or petroleum-based tanker traffic. On the west coast, oil or petroleum-based tanker traffic represents less than 1% of the vessels that are arriving and departing off the west coast ports which is about 200,000 vessels each year, using 2015 numbers.

It was about 1,487 vessels total for 2015. It is interesting, and I know that other speakers have mentioned this, that it is okay for over 4,000 vessels each year, to go in through the east coast with over 600,000 barrels a day of foreign oil from some of the worst contributors of human rights violations in the world. It is okay for us to be reliant on foreign oil, but far be it for us to be self-sufficient and actually be able to get our product to market on the west coast.

This is really about shutting down the opportunity of the pipeline that was going through my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, one that had a lot of first nations' support. A lot of first nations became equity partners in this program that could have lifted some of our most vulnerable communities up. Instead what we are seeing is that those opportunities have gone away. Just recently, the Hereditary Chiefs' Council of Lax Kw'alaams, which is a community that would have been impacted by this, came out publicly and said, and there have been many who have been mentioned as well:

....we categorically reject interference of outside environmental NGOs (especially those foreign-based) who appear to be dictating government policy in our traditional territory.

That is talking about why we are moving so quickly to implement this tanker moratorium.

Canada has the largest coastline, over 243,000 kilometres. We also have some of the most stringent safety standards. I want to talk about some of those safety standards that we have. We have marine inspectors who board oil tankers that ply Canadians waters to make sure that they have double hulls. We do that because, as has been mentioned before, of the terrible, disastrous incident that happened with the Exxon Valdez in 1989. After that, the global oil shipping industry made a 25-year phase-out plan that banned single-hull ships. As of 2010, there have been no single-hull ships, massive tankers that have been shipping oil, plying the waters of Canada. There have been no single-hull tankers. We have marine inspectors who go out and check that.

Again, a lot of times the Exxon Valdez incident is used to shut down pipelines or have tanker moratoriums. It is used to anger and facilitate a lot of opposition in these areas.

Interestingly, the Liberal government approved Trans Mountain or Kinder Morgan. It said that it approved it, but we have not seen anything about it. That will facilitate 900,000 barrels of oil per day to that west coast port that is right among communities, and an interior passageway, and that is okay. However, to have an economic development project in the northern part of our communities, one that was critically important and had national interest, was nixed.

I look forward to the next nine minutes or so that I have to speak the next time that this debate comes up.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George will have 14 minutes remaining in his time, and another 10 minutes for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on the question.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Natural Resources

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is blessed with natural resources, and I am extremely proud of the thousands of Canadians who contribute to our economy through the natural resource sector. At a time when certain areas of our country are struggling, the Liberal government refused to stand up for these Canadians and take a clear position in favour of energy east.

From across our great country, there are thousands of people, through their employment, who are either directly or indirectly impacted by our oil and gas sector. Even in my own constituency of Brandon—Souris in southwest Manitoba, there are many who work in our oil patch. These are reasonably high-paying jobs. These are jobs that support our local businesses and provide the necessary income to raise a family. We cannot forget about the billions of dollars generated from the oil and gas sector that helps pay for the social services we hold so dear in our country.

It was a sad day to find out recently that TransCanada decided to terminate the energy east project. This important pipeline was projected to create over 14,000 jobs during a nine-year construction phase. It would have provided highly paid, skilled manufacturing jobs and economic opportunities, not just in the west, as I have said, but across the entire country of Canada. There is something terribly wrong when it is easier to import Saudi Arabian oil than to transport Canadian oil to New Brunswick.

It is clear that political interference by the Liberal government with the National Energy Board review process is putting the future of our energy sector at a clear disadvantage. It is also clear that due to the political interference by the Liberal government, Canada will continue to import foreign oil.

Over the past two years, the Liberals have introduced new regulations on Canadian energy projects and forced Canadian oil companies to comply with standards that are not required for foreign companies. Previously the National Energy Board process only included emissions caused from building and operating a pipeline, but now they have added upstream and downstream emissions. This is a completely new standard, which will only deepen Canada's reliance on foreign oil and put the interests of foreign countries ahead of Canadian interests. Why is it that the Liberals are interested in putting Canadians out of work?

I have two very important questions that I would like the Liberal government to answer. One is, will the Liberal government finally commit to supporting pipeline projects that transport Canadian oil from western provinces to refineries in Atlantic Canada? Two, will it stop politicizing the National Energy Board review process and stop giving Saudi Arabian oil executives a reason to cheer?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brandon—Souris for his question and allowing me to respond.

His comments remind us that there are still those who see resource development as an either/or proposition, a choice between either growing the economy or protecting the environment.

His remarks also remind us that some people do not understand that climate action can be a competitive advantage, or that when a business makes a decision it is called a “business decision” for a reason. It was a business decision when the TransCanada Corporation decided not to proceed with the energy east project.

However, since the project was initiated in 2014, there has been a fundamental shift in global markets resulting from the shale oil revolution, including a 60% decline in oil and gas prices, and a 50% drop in capital investment. Were both the revival of the Keystone XL pipeline earlier this year and our government's approval of the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 replacement pipelines last November also contributing factors? None of these projects were certainties at the time the energy east project was proposed.

Finally, we do not know if the C.D. Howe Institute is onto something regarding the changing economics behind energy east after TransCanada received regulatory approval to slash the price it charges to move western natural gas to Ontario. All we know is that according to the institute, natural gas producers have been signing up in droves with TransCanada ever since. Therefore, to suggest that a $15.7 billion investment hinged on the National Energy Board's decision to review the downstream emissions from the energy east pipeline suggests a profound ignorance of the myriad of factors that go into a business decision. It also ignores our government's very clear response to the NEB's decision to expand the scope of its review.

First, we offered to conduct the upstream and downstream GHG assessments within the legislated timeline to avoid added costs and delays to the proponent.

Second, we made it clear that our government would ultimately use the same criteria, our January 2016 interim principles, that we applied to our reviews of other major energy projects, including the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 pipelines. As the Minister of Natural Resources has said repeatedly, nothing has changed from our perspective.

Our approval of the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 pipelines was based on solid science, meaningful consultations, and the best interests of Canada. Our approach to the energy east proposal would have been the same—nothing more and nothing less.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly outlandish that Canada imports oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and has continued to rely on them. I am still seeing ignorance on this.

The Liberals still do not get it. They have never lived in an oil field to understand how clean and operative this industry can be and is. It provides a very significant portion of energy for the development of things like our auto industry, airline industry, and other industries in Canada. That is why I say it impacts everyone.

It is unacceptable for the Liberals to have politicized the National Energy Board's process. Of course, they did not even answer, or come close to answering, the two questions I asked.

This bill will only ensure that oil tankers from the Middle East continue to ship their oil to be refined in Canada.

Energy east was supported by numerous provincial governments, such as Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Liberal, NDP, and Conservative provincial governments set aside their political differences and heavily backed this nation-building project.

I ask the Liberals once again, will they stop politicizing the NEB and stop putting the interests of foreign companies ahead of Canadian workers?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is telling that the opposition members still equate measuring greenhouse gas emissions with killing economic growth. They still live in a world where the choice is a stark one between economic prosperity and environmental protection. They cannot imagine how climate action can be turned into a competitive advantage. They simply cannot understand that when a business makes a decision, it is precisely that, a business decision. That is what TransCanada did when it chose to cancel its energy east proposal. It made a business decision.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question I originally asked on May 8 in regard to comments the Minister of National Defence made on April 18, when he was in India. He gave a speech and embellished the facts when he said, “On my first deployment to Kandahar in 2006...I [was] the architect of...Operation Medusa, where we removed 1,500 fighters, Taliban fighters, off the battlefield”. On May 8, I asked if the minister could honestly explain whether he has any integrity left.

It comes back to the National Defence code of ethics he was bound by, not only as the Minister of National Defence but as a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces. It says that “being a person of integrity calls for honesty, [and] the avoidance of deception”. It requires the “pursuit of truth regardless of personal consequences”.

If we look at the minister's behaviour, I know he apologized for his comments. He has made it more than once. It also appeared in a video in 2015, and I believe he understands the consequences of his actions, but it also brings into question all the other things that have changed under his direction as Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, because there is a real lack of transparency.

The Conservatives used to provide all sorts of briefings and updates and explained to Canadians what our armed forces were doing in things like Operation Impact, and now we never get any briefings on what our troops are doing in the battle against ISIS in Iraq or in Syria. We know there have been changes, because the media have reported on them, but there have not been briefings offered to us as parliamentarians. There have not been technical briefings offered to reporters and Canadians in general to find out exactly where our troops are off to.

The rules of engagement have actually just changed again in the last few weeks. We now know that our special operations forces have expanded what they are doing in dealing with unexploded ordinances and going out and assisting the peshmerga as well as Iraqi security forces in taking the offensive in the last few holds ISIS still has.

If we go beyond that and look at what the Prime Minister's code of ethics states, it says that ministers must act with honesty. We are going through this whole process where the Minister of Finance has been caught and has not been practising the code the Prime Minister laid out to make sure that they are honest. According to the code of ethics, parliamentary secretaries and ministers of the crown are given 60 days to respond to the issue of making sure they put all their assets out there. He did not talk about his villa for two years, not 60 days. He did not put his assets into a blind trust, which everyone else had to. I put my farm in a blind trust when I was parliamentary secretary.

I want to come back to how the minister has not been honest in how he has dealt with the replacement of our CF-18s. The minister has made a circus of the replacement of our fleet of fighter jets here in Canada, and that goes from when the Prime Minister first said he would not buy the F-35 because he did not think it worked. Then the Liberals invented an imaginary capability gap, despite what we heard from all sorts of experts and former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Then they were going to sole source Super Hornets but then were in a fight between Bombardier and Boeing, and the circus continues. Now they are not going to buy the Super Hornets but are going to buy used, worn out fighter jets from Australia. It is a circus. There is no integrity. We ask for some clarity, transparency, and integrity from the Minister of National Defence.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question he asked more than five months ago.

As the parliamentary secretary, I have the privilege of working with the Minister of National Defence every day. I can attest to his honesty, integrity, and determination in carrying out his mandate. The minister has the support of the military, his colleagues, and the Prime Minister.

The primary responsibility of the minister and the government is to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the training and equipment they need. That is the goal towards which the Minister of National Defence has been striving with singular determination for almost two years now. He is working to discharge his mandate with the greatest respect for our men and women in uniform.

The minister is a proud Canadian with 26 years' experience in the Canadian Army Reserve, during which time he served his country with honour and distinction in four overseas missions. He served on an extraordinary team of Canadian, American, and Afghani soldiers who made Operation Medusa a success.

His commanding officer in Afghanistan, General Fraser, considered him to be one of the best intelligence officers he had ever worked with. He said:

He was the best single Canadian intelligence asset in theatre, and his hard work, personal bravery, and dogged determination undoubtedly saved a multitude of Coalition lives. Through his courage and dedication, [the minister] has single-handedly changed the face of intelligence gathering and analysis in Afghanistan.

Retired British Army colonel, Chris Vernon, said:

[W]ithout [the defence minister's] input as a critical player, major player, a pivotal player I’d say, Medusa wouldn’t have happened. We wouldn’t have the intelligence and the tribal picture to put the thing together.

The Minister of National Defence made a major contribution in his deployments as a reservist and he is making an even greater contribution within our government. He oversaw the most ambitious defence policy review of the past 20 years. He is now overseeing the implementation of more than a hundred initiatives that will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces are fully able to meet current and future challenges.

He has established solid and effective contacts with all of our allies, including within NATO, and especially with our American neighbours, our most important military and economic partner. With the help of his cabinet colleagues, he has made major improvements to the procurement process.

I am proud of what he has accomplished. I am happy to work by his side, and I am convinced that, thanks to his vision, leadership, and hard work, our government will continue to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the tools they need to serve Canada for many years to come.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know what the minister did in uniform, and we are all proud of the work he did. We are not questioning that work; we are questioning his integrity, the embellishment of what he did, what they call “stolen valour”, by taking full credit for an operation on which he had to backtrack.

More important, the parliamentary secretary has failed to mention how the Liberals have created a complete circus out of replacing our tired CF-18 fighter fleet and how they have gone from one extreme, saying they will not buy the F-35 to they might have an open and fair competition, which we need to have happen right now. They invented the idea of an imaginary capability gap. Again, that has nothing to do with the actual requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces for the last 30 years and how we fulfill our NATO and NORAD responsibilities in the protection of Canadian sovereignty.

He failed to mention that the Liberals were not planning to buy the Super Hornets now because of the Boeing-Bombardier fiasco they created and the war of rhetoric going on back and forth between them, Bombardier, and Boeing. He fails to recognize that buying used legacy Hornets from Australia is a waste of time and money when we should be investing right now in an open and fair competition to find the right plane for our pilots, for our aerospace industry, and for the protection of Canadians.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Defence. I see him as a model to us all.

His missions as a reservist in Bosnia and his three tours in Afghanistan make him an example to us all. We all know he helped fight Daesh. We have seen the praise he received.

The most important thing to keep in mind about the minister is that he has drawn on his experience and held cross-Canada consultations to find out what our soldiers need. Canadians asked us to look after these men and their families during and after their service. They want us to make sure our troops are well trained and have the equipment they need. That is what we are doing.

We have announced new equipment purchases. We will have 88 new fighters and 15 new frigates. Contrary to what the Conservative government did, this equipment will be funded. We will be able to carry out our missions at home and abroad.

Taxation

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I asked the finance minister about his misguided plans designed to unfairly target Canadian family farms. While Conservatives welcome the Liberals' decision to follow the work of the previous Conservative government, as it announced today that it will bring back their legislation that will lower the small business tax, we are concerned that it is not being clear with its entire plan for Canadian small businesses and family farms.

The Liberals' original unfair tax proposals included draft legislation aimed at discouraging the conversion of dividends into lower-taxed capital gains and measures that would restrict income distribution to family members through an incorporated small business, unless the payments meet a new and vague reasonableness test from the CRA. While the Liberal government suggests that it may not be moving forward with its proposed changes to limit access to the lifetime capital gains exemption, it will still be sticking with its plan to restrict income distribution, conveniently leaving out any detail that would establish how CRA will be able to accommodate for spouses and children genuinely contributing to the family farm or small business.

This morning, I was proud to speak on behalf of Canada's farmers and ranchers during the debate on Motion No. 108, initiated by my colleague from Bow River, that recognized the contributions of Canadian farmers and ranchers and the incredible promise of the next generation of farmers and ranchers. Farming is truly a family-run business, with farmers and their families putting everything they have into the family farm. Children who grow up on farms participate from an early age, and I know this because I was one of them. These young, aspiring farmers are some of the hardest-working and most innovative young Canadians one will ever meet.

The Liberals have treated farmers like tax cheats and young farmers as though they are spoiled trust fund kids, like the Prime Minister and the finance minister. Sorry, it is actually worse. If there will be no clarifications from the Liberal government, it will eventually create an arbitrary system with an unfair tax regime that will slap unnecessary barriers on farmers, small businesses, and their families.

Why do we worry? On July 18, the announcement was made that there were going to be 75 days of consultations. It was just two days later that I was able to speak with some tax advisers and tax lawyers, who talked about the three themes and the same concerns they have. However, what is important is that as two, three, and four weeks went by, they started to look at the all of the different levels and concerns, and that is where all the frustration took place. It was not just the three main things they were discussing; it was all of the different layers associated with the new tax procedures the government had in mind.

How will the Liberals clarify the new rules for income distribution for family-run farms and how can farmers feel confident when it is, indeed, the bureaucrats from CRA who will determine what is and what is not reasonable criteria? This is all so arbitrary. How will the Liberals make sure that their new changes will not, in fact, discourage the next generation of young farmers from being involved with family businesses?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House on Small Business Week, as we celebrate the hard work of all of Canada's entrepreneurs and small business owners, including farmers. I thank the member opposite for this opportunity to discuss tax fairness.

Our government knows that when we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone. That is why two years ago, after we were elected, our government took the first steps to building a stronger middle class by lowering taxes for middle-class Canadians. We also introduced the new Canada child benefit that is simpler, tax free, more generous, and better targeted to those who need it the most. There are nine out of 10 Canadian families who are receiving higher benefits, and hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty.

Earlier today, the Prime Minister announced the next steps in our plan for a stronger middle class. Our government intends to lower the small business tax rate to 10% effective January 1, 2018, and to 9% effective January 1, 2019. To support this change, the government will take steps to ensure that Canadian-controlled private corporation status is not used to reduce personal income tax obligations for high-income earners rather than supporting small businesses. We are committed to ensuring that unintended advantages are not being used by high-income and wealthy individuals to pay less than their fair share of taxes. Based on what we have heard from Canadians in a series of country-wide consultations on tax planning using private corporations, the government will this week set out its approach to better target strategies used by the relatively small number of high-income individuals who have the biggest advantage from the existing tax rules.

In addition to announcing its plan to lower the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, the government announced earlier today its intention to simplify its proposal to limit the ability of owners of private corporations to lower their personal taxes by sprinkling their income to family members. The government is taking into account feedback from Canadians and is adjusting its approach to limit red tape and not interfere with genuine family business arrangements. In addition, in response to the comments we have received, the government will not be moving forward with measures that would limit access to lifetime capital gains exemptions. We would like to thank the tens of thousands of Canadians who took the time to share their views, their concerns, and their expertise.

We want to encourage people to invest in their businesses. Small businesses are a critical part of our economy, and the government is taking action to help them grow, invest, and create good, well-paying jobs. The government has listened to small business owners, professionals, and experts during the consultation on tax planning using private corporations, and will act on what it has heard.

The Minister of Finance and other members of the government will continue to meet with people in every region of this country, as we provide more details on the way forward for fairness, a strong middle class, and a thriving business community. Fairness in the tax system allows the government to keep taxes low while ensuring programs and services for all Canadians. Moving forward, changes to the tax treatment of private corporations will be informed by the many Canadians who contributed to these consultations.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is very little comfort in hearing some of the stories we have continually heard from the members opposite. Of course, about the only thing they have done is to say they realize they have made so many mistakes that the one thing they will do is go back to the Conservative plan of reducing the small business tax rate. That is an important point.

It is suggested that it was the Liberals who were listening to the tens of thousands of people who were up in arms about the way in which this was presented, and 75 days was the timeframe they would have to discuss it. The last time that major changes of this severity took place was about 50 years ago, and they took six years to sort out. To suggest that we should be able to manage this because we can manage it politically in 75 days does not mean that is what is happening as far as the economy is concerned.

Billionaire families like the finance minister's get a pass under the Liberal government while family farms and local professionals may be subject to ridiculous amounts of bureaucratic paperwork to prove in what ways their families contribute to the family business. We know that all Canadians work hard. They think they can assure Canadians with this announcement. Instead, what we see is the growing concern among farming families about this proposed tax change. It continues to be extremely frustrating for each and every one of them.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to Canadians who lent their voice to this discussion on tax planning using private corporations. That is why we are bringing forward measures that will demonstrate we are focusing on supporting the middle class, those working hard to join the middle class, and helping small businesses.

Throughout the consultation period, we heard from Canadians who agreed with the principle that we needed a fairer tax system. Today's announcement is good news for our economy, for small businesses and for middle-class Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)