Alex Nuttall

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I think that you waited until the end with the previous member, but I will.

If the member looks at the throne speech, I think you will see that the government is committed to an open and transparent government. I would ask all members, including the Speaker of the House, to look at that. We need to be able to see the results from the requests that have been put forward by the opposition members.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I think the member missed a couple of slashes: /redaction/blackout/we-are-not-going-to-tell-the-people-exactly-what-the-carbon-tax-is-going-to-cost-them.

I can understand that the member gets very upset when he cannot even get the information from his own government related to the carbon tax that is going to affect his constituents. That is okay. However, I would like to remind the member that your government—

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, when we go further into the throne speech, we see this:

Decisions will be informed by scientific evidence.

The interesting thing here is that this is actually in the portion of the speech that talks about a clean environment and a strong economy. It does actually touch on the carbon tax, or carbon pricing, carbon levy, or whatever the Liberal government would like to call it today.

It says that decisions “will be informed by scientific evidence.” Well, part of that evidence is what the cost is. What are the ramifications and consequences of introducing such a tax?

We have had the opportunity here, for two and half years, to discuss this carbon tax. It was discussed before it was brought forward and while it was brought forward. It has been discussed probably in every committee that functions as part of the House. Certainly, it will continue to be discussed until we have the answers.

The interesting thing is that the Auditor General came out with a report last week that talked about the culture of the government. In the report, the Auditor General essentially states that the government is trying to determine whether or not it is successful by the amount of money it spends. That is not a direct fit to the Auditor General's statements, but I think there is an analogy here, in the sense that the government is trying to determine its success related to the carbon tax by how much it is taxing Canadians, not by the results that will come from it.

If the Liberals were determined to create a carbon tax based on a results-driven program or process, they would be telling us what the effects would be. What would be the effects of $50 per tonne? What effect would that have on curbing carbon use? What effect would it have on middle-class Canadians? What effect would it have on those who are the least fortunate in our society to be able to continue living their lives?

It is also interesting that the Auditor General essentially states that the culture of government we see today is one that is driven by marketing, one that is driven by Twitter and Facebook, one that is driven by a 30-second bit on a political show or on the news. That is clearly what we have seen. We saw a minister get off a plane and say, $50 over five years, and $10 per year to the provinces. However, what we have not seen, beyond that marketing, is what effect it would have on the Canadian economy and the Canadian people.

What government members need to do, whether they are cabinet members, backbenchers, or parliamentary secretaries, is force the hand of the environment minister, the Prime Minister, and the finance minister to tell Canadians how this carbon tax would affect them today.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise today on the opposition motion. Before I start, I would like to comment on the direct words related to the opposition day motion. This is not the first time that members of the opposition have been asking for information related to the proposed carbon tax and the effect it would have on the economy. In fact, in the industry committee, on October 23, 2016, a year and a half ago, I moved a motion that said:

That...the [Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology] conduct a pre-budget study on the effects that the recently-announced Liberal Government carbon tax would have on the manufacturing sector; that this study be comprised of no less than four meetings to be held at the Committee's earliest convenience; [and] that departmental officials from Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada be in attendance for at least one meeting....

Unfortunately, members of the Liberal Party who sat on the committee blocked it and blocked it. After a month of fighting for the motion, eventually it was voted down as something that would never hit the floor of the industry committee.

Now, we fast-forward a year and a half. There has been request after request. The member for Carleton put forward a request asking for information related to the carbon tax: what effects it would have on the economy, what effects it would have on jobs for people back in our ridings, what effects it would have globally on the Canadian economy, and how it would affect our competitiveness versus that of other countries, specifically those to the south.

We have seen the effects of these Liberal schemes before. We have seen them in Ontario, where we have manufacturing jobs running across the border at an alarming rate, specifically in southwestern Ontario. We know what the costs of these types of decisions are. What we do not know is the specifics related to the carbon tax that the Liberal government has put forward.

It is interesting that the Liberals promised they would be transparent. The Prime Minister promised it in his throne speech. It was actually all through the throne speech that opened this Parliament:

I call on all parliamentarians to work together, with a renewed spirit of innovation, openness and collaboration.

It is not openness when the Liberals black out the results of a request for information.

The speech went on to say:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced.

However, that is what the government is doing. It is silencing the report to the opposition MPs and Canadians overall.

The speech also said:

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

Let us not forget, however, that Canadians have been clear and unambiguous in their desire for real change.

I did not know that real change meant blacking out results that Canadians were asking for.

Canadians want their government to do different things, and to do things differently.

I was not here for any of the previous parliaments, but I can guess that when the government was stating this, it probably was not saying that it was going to black out documents going forward so that Canadians do not know the cost of the decisions that the Liberal government and the Liberal MPs are making on their behalf.

The speech said:

They want to be able to trust their government.

How can they trust a government that is holding information from them that is going to affect every piece of their life? The tax is going affect literally everything.

The speech went on to say:

And they want leadership that is focused on the things that matter most to them.

Things like growing the economy; creating jobs; strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it.

What we are looking for right now is the answer. What effect is this carbon tax going to have, not just on those in the middle class, not just on those who have jobs today, but on those who are working hard to join it, those who are the poorest in society, who find it the most difficult to be able to fill up their gas tanks?

I was in B.C. over the last couple of days, and I took a drive. When I went to take the rental car back, I was amazed. The gas was $1.61 at the pumps, absolutely shocking.

The throne speech said:

Through careful consideration and respectful conduct, the Government can meet these challenges, and all others brought before it.

That is just the opening statement on openness and transparency, which the government committed to in its first act in the House, in the throne speech.

It went on to say:

The Government will undertake these and other initiatives while pursuing a fiscal plan that is responsible [it is not], transparent [it is not] and suited to challenging economic times.

We know that the times are challenging, with all the things going on in terms cross-border disputes. We know that the times are challenging, with all the new taxes that have been brought forward by the government. We know that the times are challenging, when manufacturing jobs are running south. We know that the times are challenging, because we hear it at the door day after day.

There is an entire section of the throne speech called “Open and Transparent Government”. Are they kidding?

[T]he Government is committed to open and transparent government.

I guess I could just end there and we could move on to the questions portion. I could answer every single question with that exact statement, “the Government is committed to open and transparent government”, except when it blacks out documents so that Canadians do not get to know how much the Liberal carbon tax will actually cost them.

The trust Canadians have in public institutions—including Parliament—has, at times, been compromised. By working with greater openness and transparency, Parliament can restore it.

Please explain to me, members of the Liberal Party, how are you restoring the confidence in Parliament when you are blacking out the documents related to questions being asked by the people's representatives?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address both of those separately. In terms of the $7-billion slush fund, there cannot be measurables in place for something that has not been allocated to where it is going to be spent. That is a major issue in and of itself. I hope that over the coming year we will see what is going to happen there from the Treasury Board, and that for any dollars that are eventually designated there will be measurables put in place for whatever programming or investment they are put into. I do not think the fund should exist at all.

Second, on the carbon tax, I actually think the government has determined and measured what the effects of a carbon tax will be on the Canadian economy and on the different splices of Canadians, those who are perhaps hurting a little financially, versus the middle class, versus those with a lot of money. At the end of the day, what we have seen is that the government has not been willing to allow the opposition to have all the data. Therefore, the citizens do not have all the data.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, if there are places within the government's programs where the Liberals are putting measurables in place, then I congratulate them. The problem is that, if there are, it is not the norm. When we look at the spending that is being outlined, we have $60 billion in new spending over the last three years. Where are the measurables for $60 billion in new spending? If we are investing in a tax cut, can the government show me what the measurables are, and what the projected measurables are against the end result on a year-over-year basis? We are just not seeing it. In fact, the GDP has grown 0.1% in two years, but spending has gone up far more significantly.

These are major issues that need to be dealt with, and the only people who lose by our not measuring the effects of our spending are the taxpayers. They are the ones who do not get to see the accountable government they believe should exist. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to step up, measure, and ensure that they have the information they need to determine whether the member for Ottawa South, or the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro—Medonte, or anyone else is doing a good job.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, June 5th, 2018]

Yes, I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Innovation joined us. One of the programs the government had funded was the car of tomorrow program. Interestingly, the previous government had put in a few bucks as well, but there was now a $20-million investment taking place into that program.

I asked the obvious question: What is it that the people of Canada, the ratepayers, the citizens are getting in return for $20 million of investment? He proceeded to give an answer. I asked what the measurables were. It was an answer that did not give me measurables. I asked how many jobs were being created. Three to five, I believe, was his answer.

The report actually said that three to five jobs were indirectly created, meaning that we were investing $20 million as a government in a program that created zero jobs. That is the problem of the political class within government, the culture that exists, and we see it over and over again in the budget this year.

The Auditor General said it more succinctly:

In the current culture, the two perspectives are out of balance, with the political perspective being dominant. This is largely because of instant digital communication, which means that politicians are more concerned with message and image management.

When I came to Ottawa to represent the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, I really hoped that the most important thing would always be the people we serve. However, we see in announcement after announcement that it is not about the people we serve, or there would be measurables put in place. It is actually about looking good in front of the public.

That will not do for our citizens. It will not do for the taxpayers we represent. Again, last week we saw a $4.5-billion investment into Kinder Morgan when the private sector was walking away. I will call it an investment, although I am not sure it is one. The Liberals say they are trying to de-risk the project. They are not de-risking the project; they are de-risking the owners and investors of Kinder Morgan and then taking that risk and putting it on the taxpayers of Canada.

This is the type of spending we are seeing. There are no measurables in place. I wonder whether the $7-billion fund that is being staked out by the treasury, the fund we do not know where it is being spent, is where the $4.5 billion for Kinder Morgan is coming from.

It did not matter whether I was at the municipal level of government or in the private sector, in finance; one thing was always consistent: There need to be measurables put in place when the government is investing dollars. As I look through the budget, it talks about spending, spending, spending, but it fails to talk about how it is actually going to influence the lives of Canadians, the measurables that are being put into effect to show us that the dollars are actually well spent.

It may come at some point during the year, and if it does, I will be the first to congratulate the Liberals, but I have a feeling, based on the last two and a half years and perhaps even longer, considering it is not just the current government, that it will not happen. I ask the government to start putting measurables in place for the dollars it is spending so the taxpayers and citizens of Canada know that the dollars being spent on their behalf, taxpayers' dollars, not government dollars, are spent correctly.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by recognizing that tomorrow is the 74th anniversary of the storming of Juno on D-Day. On behalf of the Conservative caucus and the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, to those who sacrificed their lives, who fought for freedom, who went through pain and danger that we cannot even imagine today, I say thanks so very much. Without them, we would not be working in the best Parliament in the best country in the world. We thank our veterans so very much.

This is my second opportunity to speak on the budget. When I had an opportunity to speak last week, we were talking about a number of items. We talked about Kinder Morgan, the many issues in this budget relating to youth, including the amount of debt we are leaving them with. After I spoke, the Auditor General's report was released. He had an incredibly scathing report in his spring audits, and there were two that really stuck out. In fact, the first line of the Auditor General's report refers to “incomprehensible failures”, not just one but many, with the Phoenix pay system. I acknowledge that the system was developed over two governments and implemented by the current one, but certainly the failure of government, the culture of government, and the failing culture of government was at the centre of the Auditor General's report.

One of the audits was on indigenous affairs. When I was knocking on doors, every single day I would hear people say they just do not get it. They would say they live in the best country in the world, in a country that has one of the best qualities of life, but there are Canadians who do not have clean drinking water and do not have the same opportunities. They said they just do not get it. They said they would hear all the announcements from government after government of all stripes, indicating that so much money is going to indigenous affairs, for a certain program or for the education of aboriginal young people, and yet it feels like it never changes, that this is a perennial issue that constantly has to be dealt with.

The Auditor General, in his opening remarks to his 12 audits, said:

The ministerial focus on the short term explains why the Indigenous file has been so intractable. A long-term view has to dominate that file, but because it usually only brings political problems in the short term, government tries to stay in the safe space of administering payments instead of being an active partner with Indigenous people to improve outcomes.

This next line is the crux of the issue. It states, “The measure of success has become the amount of money spent, rather than improved outcomes for Indigenous people.” I feel like we can apply that across government as a whole. How many programs do we fund and tell people how much money we are going to spend on said program, but we never tell them what the effects will be of the money being spent?

It is deplorable. People in the private sector are measured by their results. Yes, the effort put in counts. Yes, research and data count. However, the real data that counts is the data that comes out the back end that says x number of dollars have been spent and x has been achieved. The Auditor General recognizes this, but, unfortunately, the government culture does not.

From what I have seen, it certainly extends into the current Liberal government. I was at the industry committee about a year and a half ago when Minister Bains came and the government had funded—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up a few things about omnibus bills, and so forth, and the promise made by the Liberals not to bring forth such bills to the House. I know it will leave everybody exasperated to hear that the Liberals made a promise and then abandoned it. I cannot believe it. It is incredible.

On the second point the member made with respect to the promise not to imitate the Conservatives, I can guarantee her that the current government is not imitating the Conservatives. If it were imitating the Conservatives, it would be bringing forth a budget to help those in society who have the least. It would be doing something to create jobs in this country, not taking money out of the economy constantly. It would be ensuring that people in this country have a right to earn a fair wage, not leaving us with lesser jobs, with the government picking up the pile it created in the beginning. Therefore, with all due respect, it is not imitating the Conservatives. I hope one day it will learn from us and start to.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would at least hope that the Canadian government would be our government. However, the fact is, that is not the case anymore.