House of Commons Hansard #159 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was 2017.

Topics

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is clear that some members said no. I know there was a bit of noise in the House, but there were a number of members who did indicate that they wanted to oppose the motion.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In fact, I only heard a very faint no, and when I asked a second time, there were none. Some members are insisting they said no, so I am going to accept that. If there are more than five who rise, we will have a vote.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #242

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to order made Monday, April 3, 2017, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 10, under ways and means proceedings.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #243

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

I have notice of a question privilege. Perhaps the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman would like to wait a moment. I ask members to leave quietly and conduct their conversations outside in the lobbies.

Comments of Minister of National DefencePrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to address comments made by the Minister of National Defence in the House, and information provided to the House through an Order Paper question.

On January 30, the minister signed and tabled a response to Order Paper Question No. 600, which states:

All Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving at all Operation IMPACT Kuwait locations received Tax Relief effective 5 Oct 2014 (date at which the original risk scores became effective) to 1 Sep 2016.

Operation IMPACT (Iraq) has had Tax Relief since 22 Aug 2014, date at which the original risk score for this location became effective.

Operation IMPACT (Baghdad) has had Tax Relief since 17 Apr 2015, date at which the original risk score for this location became effective.

The answers to this question means that the troops that were deployed by the Conservative government had all their danger pay and tax relief benefits.

In response to questions during question period, on March 8, and most recently March 21, the minister contradicted himself.

Specifically, on March 8, the minister said, “I would also like to correct the member in terms of the previous government's actions on this. It actually sent troops into Kuwait without the tax-free allowance, something we had taken up.”

On March 21, the defence minister said, “I just wish he had the same passion when he sent the troops to Iraq without the tax-free benefits” and “the previous government was the one that actually sent our troops to Iraq without the tax-free benefit.”

I have engaged the minister several times in the House attempting to get him to correct the record. Time and time again the minister ignores the fact that he submitted information through the Order Paper question to the House has said one thing, and continues to leave on the Hansard record something entirely different.

On February 1, 2002, Speaker Milliken ruled on a matter with respect to the former minister of national defence. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar at the time alleged that the former minister of national defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days.

The Speaker considered the matter and found that there was a prima facia question of privilege. He stated, “The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.”

The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include the following from page 115 of O'Brien and Bosc, which states, “Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.”

While Speaker Milliken in 2002 accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House, he stated, “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation.”

The Speaker then referred to the first edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 67, which states:

There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties...

Speaker Milliken went on to state:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar to move his motion.

I would argue that the issue we have before us today is identical. The Minister of National Defence has informed the House that the previous government provided tax relief to our soldiers through an Order Paper question, signed by the minister himself, and has provided oral information in our debates that say the complete opposite.

Page 63, 22nd edition of Erskine May, refers to a resolution passed by the U.K. House. It reads:

...ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and to be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament...

How can the minister explain signing off on information that is tabled in the House that completely contradicts what he is saying in the House almost on a daily basis? Only one of these statements can be true.

I have given the minister many chances to correct the record, and as recently as March 21, he has refused.

On February 17, 2011, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House, and that as such, a prima facie case of privilege existed.

In his ruling on March 9, 2011, Speaker Milliken said:

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word “not” in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word “not”, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the “not” was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as “unfortunate”. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River told the House, this “has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion”.

In a ruling on March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part:

...the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be not—do I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House.

There are two versions of events before this House by the same source, the Minister of National Defence, and no effort has been made to clarify this matter. I ask that a prima facie case of question of privilege be found, and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Comments of Minister of National DefencePrivilegeGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, on all accounts, whenever I witness the Minister of National Defence stand in his place, I have found him to be very clear and transparent on all the statements he makes. At this point, what we would like to do is review the matter and bring it back at a later time after we have had the opportunity to go over what the member has stated.

Comments of Minister of National DefencePrivilegeGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for raising this question of privilege, and I thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. I look forward to hearing further from him or someone else on his side, and then I will take the matter under advisement and come back to the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 43 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the late Liberal senator Keith Davey purportedly said this during the 1980 election campaign: screw the west and we will take the rest.

Budget 2017 does not just regurgitate the bad fiscal policies of that period, but it also regurgitates the divisive anti-Alberta policy approach, which defined the Pierre Trudeau government. My constituents are proud Albertans and also proud Canadians. We work hard, we do our share, and sometimes we do more than our share. During good times, that is okay, but Alberta is hurting right now. Unemployment has surged and investment is drying up, partly due to commodity prices but also because of tax increases of every shape and size from multiple levels of government.

From the current federal government, before budget 2017, we had all kinds of different measures that have substantively negatively impacted the Alberta economy. We had the introduction of a tanker ban off northern B.C., limiting our export options at the same time as Alaskan tankers are constantly flowing through that area. We had the withdrawal of support for vital energy infrastructure like the northern gateway pipeline. We had the effect of federal small-business tax hikes, which went completely against a commitment made in the Liberal platform. We had the elimination of the hiring credit for small business, an important incentive to help create jobs. We had the expansion of CPP, effectively a significant increase to the tax on jobs, again creating a greater disincentive for prospective employers. We had the introduction of the carbon tax. We had the overall fiscal instability characterized now by a second budget with a deficit of over $20 billion and the impact that has on investor confidence, but we had that instability even before this budget. Finally, we had a failure of the equalization formula to update in response to the realities on the ground with respect to Alberta.

Those are a number of key ways, already before this budget, where we were seeing the impact of federal policy on Alberta.

The Alberta Conservative caucus recognized these challenges and worked hard through an Alberta jobs task force process. I want to recognize the leadership of my colleagues from Edmonton Riverbend and Calgary Nose Hill on this process. It was a process whereby we presented constructive feedback to the government about what it could do to help Alberta. We did our job as the opposition. We did not just oppose; rather, we proposed constructive solutions. We did that, but all of these suggestions were ignored.

What is in this budget for Alberta? There is nothing, in fact, but more tax increases, targeted punitive tax increases that would negatively affect our energy sector. The government chose this budget at this point in time to remove vital incentives for small companies engaged in energy exploration. These incentives allowed those companies to defer taxation by writing off capital investment in the first year. These incentives were not a subsidy or even a tax break for the energy sector; they were a tax-deferral measure that encouraged investment, which would actually make more money for the government in the long run. The removal of these incentives in this budget, the tax hike uniquely targeted to our energy sector, would not increase revenue. It is a purely punitive measure that would discourage exploration and investment. It would reduce government revenue by reducing investment in the energy sector. It reflects no plausible policy other than the current government's clear anti-energy ideology. There is just no other explanation for the removal of tax-deferral incentives that benefit not only workers but that benefit the government in the long run.

What is the current government's message to struggling middle-class families in my constituency and across Canada? The government's message is this: If they are struggling, it will increase their taxes; if they are unemployed, it will kill off business investment that could have given them a job; if they are down, the government will kick them again.

The budget begins:

The story of Canada is the story of hard-working people—from fisheries workers in Atlantic Canada to forestry workers in Quebec, from the farmers who feed us to the tradespeople who build our cities to the teachers who give young Canadians the tools they need to embrace their own futures.

It says “from fisheries workers in Atlantic Canada to forestry workers in Quebec”. Even in the government's colourful, fluffy opening paragraph, it cannot spare a mention for the entire western half of this country or for the hard-working women and men who get their hands dirty pulling the stuff out of the ground that the government members use to drive their limousines and ride around in helicopters.

The budget repeatedly talked about a so-called innovation and skills plan, which from the start excludes any investment in or support for our energy sector.

It repeatedly mentions advanced manufacturing, agrifood, clean technology, digital industries, health and bioscience, and clean resources as being the only places where this spending will go, even though our energy sector is one of the most innovative on the planet. Our innovations are helping to create jobs as well as reduce environmental impacts. All discussion of innovation and so-called superclusters highlights these six arbitrarily selected sectors only, and makes no mention of the critical value of Canada's energy sector.

I think the government's approach of state-managed innovation is the wrong way to go about things, anyway. It has not worked before and it will not work now, especially when the government is simultaneously undercutting our competitiveness through tax hikes. However, it is telling that in the midst of this the government explicitly excludes our energy sector from any of its proposals. The exclusion of Alberta and the energy sector from the budget cannot have been an accident. Repeatedly, proposals are discussed, but Alberta is passed over.

A further example on page 93 of the budget proposes the extension of the mineral exploration tax credit, a tax credit for junior companies that invest in mineral exploration. Does this sound familiar? It is exactly the same kind of tax measure that the Liberals are cutting for the energy sector. They are extending exploration incentives for the mining sector while killing them for the energy sector.

What other possible conclusion could Alberta families draw from this than that they were left out of this budget not by accident but on purpose? It is the same old 1980 Keith Davey Liberal election formula: screw the west.

The Liberals' approach harkens back to an old and dangerous view of Canada, which many westerners had hoped had been put to bed, a view that sees Canada as a compact of central and eastern Canadian provinces, which then acquired the territory of western Canada as a sort of colony of which it could decide how to dispose. It is a view that sees the project of national reconciliation and agreement as including only urban central Canada.

However, this is a view that, on this side of the House, we firmly reject. We believe in Canada as a union of equal provinces. Some provinces may seek different kinds of accommodation or arrangement, and that is fine, but we believe that the project of national co-operation and reconciliation stretches from sea to sea to sea. We believe that the representation of perspective and culture and support for economic development must include every Canadian in every region from every kind of industry.

When Conservatives were in government, I am proud to say that we did not favour the west over the rest of the country. We presided over the lowest ebb in Quebec separatist sentiment in a very long time. We invested in shipbuilding in Atlantic Canada; we bailed out the auto sector in southern Ontario; we engaged and grew our seat total in Quebec, in part by supporting the forestry sector. We did our best to listen to and govern Canada as one nation, for the common good.

We created jobs from Newfoundland, to British Columbia, to Nunavut, and everywhere in between. We believe in Canada as a union of equal provinces.

That the Prime Minister himself rejects this view is well established. He said during the last government: “Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work.”

We know the Prime Minister's view, but what about the Liberal MPs from Alberta? What about the member for Edmonton Centre and the member for Calgary Skyview, the Minister of Infrastructure and the Minister of Veterans Affairs? Do they at least think that Alberta should have been included in budget 2017?

Oh, wait, there is a heading in the budget that refers to supporting jobs in the resource sector. It says:

The Government understands the challenging economic circumstances arising from weak commodity prices affecting the oil and gas sector. Budget 2017 proposes to provide a one-time payment of $30 million to the Government of Alberta to support provincial actions that will stimulate economic activity and employment in Alberta’s resource sector.

Wow, that is almost 10% of what Bombardier was given. In fact, that is less than the total proposed executive compensation being paid to Bombardier's board chair and top five executives. More for the executives of Bombardier than for the province of Alberta to address the energy sector. Last year, Alberta had a budget deficit of $10.8 billion. With this spending, it could have been $10.77 billion. Now that would have made a difference.

This is a screw the west budget, indeed.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Fredericton New Brunswick

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam Speaker, as an Atlantic Canadian, I remember acutely the former leader of that party, the former prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, say that Atlantic Canada had a culture of defeat. Atlantic Canadians certainly did not forget that in 2015 when they elected 32 strong Liberal members of Parliament who, in concert with our colleagues right across the country, are working to ensure that we have a plan that helps middle-class Canadians right across this country and supports those working hard to join the middle class. That has been exemplified through this government's approach to balancing the economy and the environment and the approval of three pipelines that emanate from Alberta.

I wonder what the member opposite has issue with if we take the totality of our plan, which includes both last year's budget and this year's budget, and supports over 8,000 families and 13,000-plus children in the Fredericton riding, and injects $4.88 million into a riding. That is just one example. The budget also supports seniors through a strengthened guaranteed income supplement in a province that sees the fastest aging population. It enhances benefits for veterans with a commitment to returning to a lifelong support system.

Why does the member continue to work against this plan that the government has put out that supports Canadians right across the country?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I certainly recognize the results of the last election and the work we are doing in Atlantic Canada, but I will say that the investments the government made in Atlantic Canada with respect to shipbuilding were significant. After the last election, it was not that member or that government that was fighting for Atlantic Canada's place on the Supreme Court. It was only after repeated questions from members on this side of the House, who do not even represent ridings in Atlantic Canada, who stood up for the people of Atlantic Canada because they were not getting representation from that side of the House.

However, my speech was about Alberta. That member is a parliamentary secretary in the government. He should have posed a question about the fact that there is nothing in this budget to address the situation in Alberta. There are specific sectors named for a focus of the investments which do not in any way consider the specific sectors that are suffering in Alberta. They do not address at all the energy sector. The government thinks that energy is a dirty word. That is the issue.

The Liberals do not care about Alberta. The best they can do is this paltry discussion of $30 million to the Government of Alberta. At least in questions and comments, we should have a comment from the government about what it is doing for Alberta. The Liberals cannot even stand up and defend it. That is pretty telling.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for talking about this being a “screw the west” budget. I share those sentiments.

The forecast for salmon on the west coast is critical. A fisheries and oceans bulletin for the west coast of Vancouver Island indicates that for 2017, the recommended management forecast for Somass sockeye, which is in the Alberni Valley, is the critical zone for harvest management corresponding to an expected return of less than 200,000 adult fish. It indicates that key factors in the sharp decline in expected abundance relative to recent return years are very low observed smolt production, and very low marine survival rate for the 2014 and 2015 key sea entry years associated with this year's adult return.

Right now would be a really good time to invest in some habitat restoration, salmon enhancement programs, and habitat protection when we are facing what is really a threat to our most important food source on the west coast. Two hundred thousand fish is a steep decline. Just in perspective, typically about 750,00 fish return to that salmon area per year. At the top end it is about 1.9 million. This is so important and it is critical that we do something now.

I would love to hear the member's comments on that.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, that is precisely the issue when a budget talks about only six sectors with respect to innovation. There are needs across a wide range of sectors, such as, fisheries, the agriculture sector, the energy sector, which I focused on. The member is right that the west just does not get the attention that it should be getting. There are very innovative sectors that are important, and not just to western Canada, and they are being totally ignored.

A member of the Liberal Party said during the opioid crisis, which is ongoing, that if the centre of that crisis was not in the west, perhaps the government would have reacted faster. It is comments like that coming from Liberal members that are very telling about the mentality of the government.

We need a government that governs for the good of the whole country, that considers the national common good, the good of every region. That is just not what we are seeing.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like you to know that I will share my time with the dynamic member for Shefford.

We live in a time of amazing change. The rate of change that we see in our society is, quite frankly, mind-boggling. We have supercomputers. It is an era of big data. There is artificial intelligence which now rivals or can surpass human intelligence in so many functions. This all started right after the Second World War. In 1947, William Shockley, along with his team of scientists at Bell Labs, invented the first transistor. That small invention 70 years ago has set us on a course that has not stopped, and will not stop for a long time.

My father is an electrical engineer. He told me that the first computers he worked on would fill a room. He would need all kinds of fans to cool down the systems and the amount of electricity that was drawn was incredible. Today, my cellphone has infinitely more computing power than the computers my father worked on had.

I, too, am an electrical engineer. I remember that at my first job, we had to buy a hard disk. This was a big expense. It had to sit underneath my desk it was so big. We would save our engineering drawings on it. Today, for example, this USB key which someone gave me has three or four times its—

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind the member that he cannot use any props during debate.