House of Commons Hansard #373 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.

Topics

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the 2018 Governor General's History Awards. It is a long list, so bear with me, please, and stand as I call the names: Jonathan Chassé, Kaira Picard, Leah Baptiste, Pat Watson, Eric Chassé, Temma Frecker, Jean-François Gosselin, Lisl Gunderman, Maxine Hildebrandt, Paul Paterson, Sarah Pashagumskun, Deborah Dobbins, Jean-Paul Guiard, Sergio Gutiérrez, Elsbeth Heaman and Bill Waiser.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That the House of Commons:

(a) condemn the use of images of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy in works of fiction;

(b) demand that Netflix Inc. remove all images of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, which took 47 lives, from its fiction catalogue; and

(c) demand that Netflix Inc. financially compensate the community of Lac-Mégantic for using those images for entertainment purposes, without concern for the trauma of citizens, survivors, and the victims' families.

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

(Motion agreed to)

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for me to table in this House a document entitled “Modelling of Pricing and Emissions Reductions”. This document from Environment Canada shows the government's plan is to increase the tax to $300 a tonne, not the $50 it admits to, which will mean much higher taxes for Canadians.

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is there unanimous consent?

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House to table the official Liberal Party platform. On page 76, it states that the budget would be balanced in 2019-20.

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

Use of Images of the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy by NetflixOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Business of SupplyOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that Thursday, January 31, 2019, shall be an allotted day.

Member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-MichelPrivilegeOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, there have been many interventions, as you know, regarding the now former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. I wish to point out two brief but important facts after having read through the Hansard records of our former colleague's intervention.

The first point is that the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel made many accusations during that speech, many of the ad hominem nature, against my personal character. Those I will leave aside, but very importantly he accused me of having relied upon the interpretation of a speech he had made previously. He said I relied upon that interpretation to present my facts before the House.

It is fine to go after members of Parliament for different points of view on the topics of the day, even sometimes character assassination, as in this case, but we must leave aside at all times the excellent, non-partisan and highest-quality nature of the interpretation services that happen for all of us here. We must not suggest there is any defence made available to members of Parliament because those interpreters do not do an excellent job on behalf of us all in what are oftentimes very difficult circumstances.

The second point is that despite the insinuations that were made by our now former colleague against me, this was never a personal issue for me. I have no actual personal interactions with the former MP.

This was personal for me, though, with respect to the House of Commons and the reputations of members of Parliament, which we must jealously guard because they are constantly under siege. Raising the issue of members of Parliament who claimed to be leaving their office and then did not for a number of months is an attempt to hold up and try to maintain what we can of the esteem of Canadians, on whose behalf we seek to speak.

Now that the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has resigned his seat, I can do nothing but wish him health in his future. The people in Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel will finally have representation again because they, like all Canadians, deserve no less.

Member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-MichelPrivilegeOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his additional arguments. In particular, I thank him for recognizing the wonderful work of our interpreters. I know all members agree with him because I heard the applause, as we often do, though not often enough.

Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on December 13, 2018, by the hon. member for Skeena-Bulkley Valley concerning an allegedly misleading statement made in the House by the former member for Saint-Leonard-Saint-Michel.

I want to thank the member for having raised the question, as well as the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie for their interventions.

In raising his question of privilege, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley stated that, on December 11, 2018, in response to another question of privilege, the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel had misled the House when he said he was not collecting his salary as a member of Parliament. He concluded that that statement had to have been incorrect given that, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, the House of Commons administration has an obligation to pay a salary to all sitting members and that the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel was still a member when he made that statement.

Earlier today, the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel reaffirmed that he had no intention of ever “pocketing” his salary and, in fact, had donated it to a cause of his choosing. He also explained that his statement was made in French but the English translation, used by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley as a basis for the current question of privilege, did not accurately represent his views and led to a misinterpretation of his remarks.

I have carefully reviewed the statement made on December 11, 2018, by the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel in which he stated, indeed several times, that he was not “collecting” a salary. The words spoken at the time, or at least what one could easily understand them to mean, appeared to contradict the established facts, specifically the House of Commons administration’s legal obligation to pay a salary to all members until such time as they are no longer members of Parliament. Today’s statement clarifies what the former member intended to say.

The charge of misleading the House is always regarded by the Chair as a most serious one for it touches not only on the technical aspects of the charge but also the integrity of the member. The Chair, of course, is bound to respect the established conventions accepted by the House on such matters; this does not include assuming a role in the interpretation of what members intended to say. As Speaker Parent reminds us at page 9247 of the Debates on October 19, 2000:

What I am required to rule on is a more narrow procedural issue: whether a wilful attempt has been made to mislead the House....Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members.

After a careful review of the precedents and the current case before the House, the Chair cannot find that there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie question of privilege.

Before I conclude, I would once again encourage members to be more mindful of the need to choose their words carefully to help minimize any confusion, however inadvertent, that could lead to a serious misunderstanding. Of course, this is even more important when the ambiguous statement cannot be readily clarified as happened in this case. At the same time, I would urge members to be cautious in considering a charge against a fellow member.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to take the floor, particularly in this brand new West Block Commons. To start, I want to echo the comments of many of my colleagues and our leader in thanking all the people who have been part of this historic move and the renovation of this amazing space. Our Parliament is in session when Canadians send their representatives and we meet to debate the issues of the day, with you, Mr. Speaker, moderating the debate, and with the mace.

While the room may change, the institution is core to our country, and the success we have had as one of the leading countries of the world is rooted in our democracy. I will speak about that in depth, because there has actually been an erosion in responsible government under the current government. In fact, when it comes to debt, deficit and taxation, the Liberals are deviating from the historic responsible-government model that Canada's parliamentary democracy enjoys.

I will get to that later, but the member for Carleton brought a good motion today, because the government has no plan. There is no plan to balance the budget and no plan to withhold more and future tax increases on top of the ones that are already in place, and there have been broken promises by the Liberal government with respect to its core economic agenda. Therefore, this opposition day motion raises this as an important national issue, and the House is calling upon the government to do a simple thing: table a plan to get back to balance, and do it with a pledge of no future tax increases.

Why is that plan a good one, and why should it be simple? The Harper government did that amid the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, when we were the only country of stability within the G7 and we had a balanced budget that was maintained while we lowered taxes on families, seniors and employers. That was tough to do, particularly when there was global stagnation. We had positive growth, we had a balanced budget, and we had lower taxes. We had to have a plan to do that.

Before I speak about the plan, let us talk about the promise, because Canadians were misled by the Prime Minister. I have said a few times in the House that what should scare Canadians is that midway through an election, the current Prime Minister, then the third party leader, changed his core economic plan in the middle of the election to win votes away from the NDP. He was willing to throw out the Liberals' economic plan, the most important thing a government does, in order to curry votes.

At the beginning of the election, the Liberals were the party of Paul Martin, of balanced budgets. They quoted David Dodge and all these things about prudent and sound economic management. Midway through, the Liberals lied to Canadians. They said we were in a recession, which was not true, so they were going to run modest deficits, which we know is not true, in order to stimulate the economy with infrastructure spending. That, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown, is not true either.

Therefore, the Liberals lied to Canadians about the crisis, that we were in a recession, and they suggested they were going to have short-term, modest deficits based on infrastructure to get the economy moving. All of that has proven to be untrue.

We recall the Liberals' election pledge to Canadians. We have seen it online. We just have to scroll to see the Prime Minister's comments from various speeches and debates. He said the Liberal government would run modest deficits, never larger than $10 billion, and that it would be back into balance by 2019. All of that, again, was false. Despite having the best economic times in 25 years because of a booming U.S. economy, we have seen deficits that have been double or more what he promised. Rather than balancing the budget this year, in 2019, the Prime Minister and his finance minister refuse to even give a future date for balance.

We have seen that money has not gone out to infrastructure in the GTA, in Whitby, in Pickering or in Brampton. The Liberals are waiting. There has actually been a slowdown, and when it comes to spending on affordable housing and other forms of social infrastructure, they have back-end loaded all the funding announcements. Therefore, they announce big numbers but the money will not flow until the mid-2020s.

Why have we moved this motion today? We want the government to stop its shell game on the economy and stop relying on Canadian families, seniors and small businesses as the people it can squeeze and squeeze again for its overspending.

How can I say that? It is because this current government, by its third budget, had increased spending by over 20%. It increased spending across the board, including spending for the hiring of personnel, which is the largest expense for most departments. There is a 20% increase in spending by the government. There are increased revenues, but revenue forecasts are out by $5 billion and $10 billion. The government is bringing in more money because the economy has been doing well, but it is spending even more than it is bringing in. It has increased spending by the federal government by 20%, and most Canadians families could not tell us about any positive development from that. As we see more growth in the office towers in Ottawa, we hear reports in the last week of a majority of Canadians being $200 away from bankruptcy, or almost a majority, I believe.

These are challenging times. In manufacturing in Ontario, the Oshawa area had the GM announcement. Our resource sector in western Canada, for years now, has been feeling it. The Prime Minister and the finance minister, who live in gilded cages, do not understand the needs of families, seniors and small businesses in my area in Durham. It is why they say there is no problem and that we do not need to ever balance the budget, because in their world budgets do balance themselves. They hire someone to do that. They hire someone to manage the affairs of their trusts or their family fortune, as the Prime Minister puts it. They need to do a reality check with Canadians. Life is not 20% better from the government's 20% overspending. Canadians are being squeezed, and we all know that the deficits of today, be they $18 billion or $28 billion, which are the numbers we have had in the last few years, are the higher taxes of tomorrow. My daughter, who is 12 now, will be in university before the current government can balance the budget at the current rate. She can guarantee herself that she will have to pay higher taxes then because of the Liberals' mismanagement now.

The deficit and the spending are out of control. In the last budget, the Liberals used the word “investment” more than 450 times in the budget document. Do members know what “investment” is in Liberal language? It is spending. They can frame it in more positive-sounding language, but it just shows reckless and wanton spending, because they always feel they can squeeze Canadians. They can squeeze farmers in terms of transitioning the family farm in succession planning. They can squeeze small businesses, physicians and other people who have retained earnings to try to make sure they can plan for the uncertainties in life, such as unemployment, maternity leave and retirement. The government is even talking about re-auctioning wireless spectrum, which is essentially expropriating resources so that it can squeeze more money out of it.

The Liberals actually have Crown agencies right now that have been tasked with trying to raise more revenue. They have both a spending and a revenue problem. They have raised taxes on people and small businesses. They are bringing in a nationalized carbon tax. They brought in a payroll tax on small businesses. They cut tax-free savings accounts, which hurt seniors in particular. They have raised new taxes on ride-sharing and on Saturday night, as they say, because they have raised taxes on alcohol and the Uber ride home. The Liberals love the cannabis change, because they can tax that too.

Do members know what the Liberals tried to do, contrary to representative government? They tried to put an escalator clause on the alcohol tax raises, meaning they were not even going to come back to the legislature before they raised taxes yet again.

Dozens of tax increases on Canadians and reckless spending: these are the reasons we are asking the Prime Minister today for a plan to get back to balance and to lower taxes.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Madam Speaker, we saw what the previous government did. The Conservatives thought they could cut their way to growth and very quickly realized that this is not how things work. We need to invest, as any person who has been in business knows. I ran a small business for 25 years, and in order to grow that business, I invested in it, and it grew. As my income increased, I was able to increase the level of debt to invest in that business and bring about even further growth in that business.

We cannot cut our way to growth. We have invested in Canadians, and that has seen a record 800,000 jobs created in the country and the lowest unemployment rate in over 40 years.

To the member opposite, what are you going to cut? What is your plan? Are you going to cut the tax-free Canada child benefit?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind the member that he is to address questions to the Chair and not to the individual members.

The hon. member for Durham.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, I do not think the member from Hastings would be going back to his riding and talking to many of his small business friends, because his government's attempt to tax retained earnings, to tax dividends, to tax the small businesses he claims to come from caused almost a tax revolt from small business, including those throughout Prince Edward, Hastings, Durham and Northumberland.

All of those members are very worried, and they should be, because small businesses are seeing less growth. They are seeing higher taxes and more regulation. They are seeing a government whose plan, after a bad deal on NAFTA, is to tax them with Canadian tariffs.

In fact, when I go by the member's area or through southern Ontario, I see that small businesses have had enough with this government. It sees them as a piggy bank it can keep using to fuel the overspending of the Prime Minister on issues that are not a priority.

It is about a plan. What is wrong with having a plan?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, when the Conservative government was in power, it upheld a tax system that was not working for everyday Canadians. It supported tax havens that we saw benefited the wealthy and it supported CEO stock option loopholes. In the meantime, that Conservative government ran a deficit of $160 billion. On its pathway to balancing the budget, it upheld a tax system that benefited the rich. Its cuts were on the backs of everyday Canadians and those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, our veterans.

I have a lot of respect for the member because he has stood up for veterans. He has called for support for veterans and he was the veterans affairs minister. Under the Conservative watch, a thousand staff at Veterans Affairs were fired. That has resulted in a backlog that has affected veterans, whose disability applications are unopened and are waiting to be addressed in a timely fashion. Of course, this Liberal government promised to fix that.

Does the member regret cutting the thousand staff at Veterans Affairs, which has created this enormous backlog and has inhibited veterans from getting the services they rightfully deserve?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, I will correct the member on both his tax claims and his veteran claims.

Specifically, he talked about the pathway the Harper government took to get back to balance. We did; after the global recession, we had a very difficult but planned path to get back to balance, and we did not raise taxes. In fact, our cuts to the GST and raising the basic personal exemption helped low-income Canadians the most. We helped lower middle-class incomes across the board and we helped small businesses, which are the hirers.

On the veterans front, we actually removed most of the paperwork. We created the My VAC Account, which the member knows. I had veterans actually say how they wanted to be served as Afghan veterans. They did not want to go to the offices like the World War II veterans did. By the end, we knew where resources needed to be put, so we put about 300 employees back in to some of the claims processing for mental health. That got the backlog down under my watch, and the member knows that.

The current government has allowed the backlog to rise back up because there has been no effective hand who understood veterans. The Liberals broke their promise on pensions. They were just placating people. I am hopeful that the new minister, who is much more substantive than the previous two, will bring some truth and a plan as well to veterans, because the government has there are enough resources to keep the backlog down. They just need to apply it to the employees.