David Anderson

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what palace he comes from, but I come from an average family farm in southwestern Saskatchewan. My grandfather and his brother came here and homesteaded. My father and uncle farmed together, and I farmed with them. I would call that a pretty average Canadian.

My colleague, the finance critic, talked this morning about his parents being teachers. Two teachers, and he has the privilege, as I do and many of us do, to be here in the House of Commons to represent the average person across the country. If he thinks average people are different than the little people, that is up to him. On this side of the House we do not have an extra $33 million to lose track of. We do not have a French villa that we cannot remember to declare. They may have that across there. We represent average Canadians, the little people across the country. They certainly do not, especially when they stand up and argue against the fact that they should be doing that.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

The gentleman across the way asked if that is a bad thing. It is a bad thing if the Canadian public does not know what he is doing and if he has been fooling around with his assets for the last two years so that he is getting a benefit that the Canadian public is not aware of. We are supposed to list those kinds of things, and Canadians are supposed to be aware of them.

Yesterday at the press conference, the Prime Minister himself would not let the finance minister answer questions. It starts to look like someone is guilty of something.

The Prime Minister is not exactly lily-white in this whole situation either. Lately, he has been bragging about how someone else manages and controls his family fortune. We certainly hope that is so and that the Prime Minister holds himself to a higher standard than he has allowed the finance minister to hold.

From the beginning the Prime Minister said that the government did not want to see or smell corruption anywhere. Right or wrong, from the very beginning we have questioned the ethics of the government. The Prime Minister has been in the middle of it from when he took his family with him to state dinners and left his ministers at home. A natural resource crisis with softwood lumber is going on but he leaves the minister at home, because he wants to take his in-laws with him to a state dinner.

There are numerous examples we can use. How about the one last Christmas? The Prime Minister went to a billionaire's island. I would say he got a personal benefit. The ethics code does not allow us to get a personal benefit from our position and the opportunities that we have. I would say that taking a private jet to a private island and spending 10 days there enjoying someone's hospitality in a fancy resort would be a private benefit. We have not heard anything yet whether that was in fact some sort of violation of the code, so why are we surprised when other cabinet ministers start dabbling as well?

We can talk about office renovations and their cost. When new ministers decide they will spend $600,000 or $800,000 on an office renovation, it does not matter because the tone is being set by the Prime Minister and his finance minister in the government. The Prime Minister claimed that the Liberals were going to be clean and accountable. We are just not seeing that.

It seems to be the way the government is that if it can find a loophole, it will take advantage of it and move through it. That is okay to it and there is no problem as long as it can find the loophole and squeeze through it. The problem is that the Liberals treat everyone else differently. When they start talking about regular people being tax cheats for using using corporate structures not to pay taxes, we know they are treating them differently from themselves.

I want to take a short look at the history of this government. I have talked a bit about some of the things it has done and the ethical standards it has failed to set up. The Liberals continue to mislead Canadians about the consequences of the tax cuts, but I would like to talk about the last six weeks in particular and the approach they have taken to Canadians.

The Liberals accused Canadians of being tax cheats, the people who have used some sort of corporate structure for their small businesses or their farms at a time when the Prime Minister and finance minister have had their own trusts. However, we found out they have foreign corporations in Barbados and France. Would they be putting those corporations in place if they were not trying to avoid Canadian taxes? I doubt it.

With its last approach to tax policy, the Liberal government has dragged millions of Canadians into a situation wherein they will face increased taxes. It is an attack on small companies, private business, employees, and agriculture. We know the details. Private investment is being taxed at levels of up to 73%. That is what the Liberals were proposing. They said, “Okay, we have got income sharing going on in small companies. We have to stop that. Well, if we can't stop it, we are going to go in and are going to make sure we spend time with these people to see if they are actually doing the work they claim they are doing.”

Are the Liberals serious? Are they going to put in place a reasonable test that will result in inspectors being on farms? Most of the people who work for the government cannot even come close to working the hours that farmers and their spouses work on their own operations.

In addition, the government talked about capital gains changes that would basically make it cheaper for people to sell their assets to a stranger than to their own children. Now, we hear it is backing off from that. The only reason it is backing off is the pressure it has been put under by this side of the House and Canadians across Canada.

The Liberal government threw out a little tiny promise it made, refusing to keep it for two years until it was in big trouble. Then it decided to move ahead with a tax break that was in place two years ago, but which it chose to disregard and remove, and now it wants to put it back in.

Canadians are supposed to treat this policy and the government seriously. It will not work, as people are starting to see through the government. They are starting to see its arrogance and sense of entitlement. As well, they are starting to smell something even worse, which is a deep-rooted sense of corruption in the government.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, did we just hear the member for Kingston and the Islands ask if we really think we represent Joe Public? He stood and asked if we actually think we represent Joe Public in the House. I can tell him that this caucus is made up of farmers. It is made up of teachers. It is made up of construction workers who may own construction companies. It is made up of business people from across this country. We are Joe Public in the House. The reason we are here today is that the Liberals do not believe that they are. They do not believe they represent the public in this country. That is why they keep getting themselves into the trouble they are in.

I have been here probably too long now, but I remember one of them saying, “I am entitled to my entitlements.” We all remember that. Fortunately, in the end, it cost that government its position, and it had to move over here. The Liberals moved back into government and brought that same attitude with them right from the beginning. I want to talk about that this afternoon.

We are not here just because of an issue concerning the Ethics Commissioner. We are here because of the attitude shown by the government that disrespects Canadians right across this country, particularly the attitude of the finance minister and the Prime Minister of this country.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

We just heard the NDP member talk about the finance minister, in 2013, giving a speech explaining changes to pension plans and benefits he wanted to see that would benefit his company, Morneau Shepell. Let us fast forward to his being elected and appointed finance minister, when he introduces Bill C-27. Anyone who looks at the bill knows it would accomplish pretty much everything he wanted in 2013.

We know he is going to leave here. Where is going to go? It actually does not make much difference if his interests are in a blind trust right now or not, because he is taking care of them from here. That is the problem. That is the heartbeat of a Liberal right there. We are here today not just because of that one issue around ethics but because of an attitude the current government has had from day one.

There is a total disinterest by the Liberals in being here today, and we know why that is. However, I have to ask if it is because they have a sense of entitlement that they do not even need to be here to answer the questions Canadians are asking. We have seen that for the last month on the tax changes. Liberals want nothing to do with Canadians. They want nothing to do with talking to them. They want nothing to do with town halls. They want nothing to do with extending the consultation period.

They ask if we represent Joe Public. We actually meet Joe Public. They have been hiding in their offices for the last two months, afraid of the Canadian public.

Is it arrogance that keeps them from being here today? Is it carelessness? From the beginning, we have seen that they just have not been able to get the job done. They are running massive deficits. They have not been able to keep virtually any promise they have made. Is it because of corruption that they do not want to be here today to defend themselves? The opaqueness we are seeing is not meant to inform Canadians; it is actually meant to push them away and protect the Liberal government.

I heard this afternoon that they are begging for more time and that we treat the finance minister with great respect because somehow it is poisoning the well if we dare question the direction the Liberal government is going.

Let us talk about what is expected of ministers. Members are elected and are appointed to cabinet or to the position of parliamentary secretary, and it is expected that they will not be able to control their assets. They are expected to either sell them off or put them in a blind trust at a distance so they cannot have any influence over them. All of us who were in that situation had to give up control of our assets.

What is it that the finance minister has done? Nobody really knows. The further we go, the more convoluted this gets and the more unsure we are about what he has actually done with his assets. We heard today that he could be making up to $150,000 a month. My Liberal colleague across the way talked about how we are privileged to be here. The finance minister is making the equivalent of an MP's salary every month just in dividends from his company, according to the information.

[The Economy, October 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to start saying no to the deliberate destruction of the western Canadian economy.

These Liberals are very carefully sabotaging natural resource development and the prosperity that comes with it. For decades western Canadian natural resources have led the Canadian economy.

Now the government insists on interfering with that prosperity. The hypocrisy on pipeline approvals, the politicization of the regulatory approval process, and the hundreds of billions of dollars of lost investment are crippling the western Canadian economy.

On top of all of that comes an even larger threat, the carbon tax that the Liberals are about to impose. This tax is built on lies, that it will somehow change our environment, that it will be fiscally insignificant, and that it will somehow be revenue neutral, whatever that is. The reality is that this is a massive tax grab by irresponsible governments, that it will exclude some of the worst polluters by letting them buy their way out, and that western Canada will be hardest hit.

From the west, it looks like this Prime Minister is trying to finish the job that his father started.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are a number of us here who are very enthused about this subject and about hearing the government's perspective on the motion we have before us. However, the member is about seven minutes into his speech and has not yet touched on the motion. I would ask if you could encourage him to speak to the motion and to the tabling of documents that have to do with the minister's ethical lapses and his failure to abide by the ethical conditions that have been laid out for him by the Ethics Commissioner and others, including the Prime Minister. If he could speak to that, we would be glad to hear his opinion.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on and get the member's comments about a concern of my constituents.

Kyle Salikin has owned Double K Meats in Chaplin, Saskatchewan, for eight and a half years. He lives in a little town and has been working very hard. He calls the Liberal tax changes back-breaking. His margins are tight and with the new tax changes coming in he is worried about the future of his business. He would love to hire more people in the near future so that his family time will not be sacrificed even more than it currently is. He asks why he is getting punished for trying to grow a small business.

How have the Liberals so misunderstood small businesses in this country that they think they can move ahead with these changes to punish people like Kyle, who is already working overtime, probably has his family in the meat business working with him, and is just trying to make a living?

[Taxation, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just are not interested in talking to Canadians about their unfair tax plan. Mitchell writes: “I wrote to the government first to [the Prime Minister] then they pass me off to [the finance minister]. Now I've responded to the email that they sent to [the minister] and I've got nothing back.”

Mitchell has built a company up from the ground that now employs 12 people, including new Canadians. The Liberals are proposing to take his hard-earned money to pay for their reckless spending.

When entrepreneurs and job creators like Mitchell call and write, why are the Liberals so unwilling to listen?

[Taxation, October 3rd, 2017]

No you're not.

[Taxation, October 3rd, 2017]

No you're not.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, government members are saying that this will not apply in the past. It will be applied from this point moving forward. It is more evidence of how little they know about small businesses and the planning they need to do for the future.

Does my colleague think the Liberals are now running scared? When they first introduced this, the finance minister and the Prime Minister were bound and determined that they were not going to change a thing. Over the last couple of weeks, media reports have been saying that this will not be that bad and that there is not going to be that big a change. I am wondering if there is any hope for Canadians that these Liberals will actually listen to them and turn around and get rid of these changes.