David Anderson

[Committees of the House, November 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members in the House for having such great confidence in me, in spite of the campaign that my colleague for Carleton launched as well. I was very thankful, Mr. Speaker, that you did not have to cast the deciding vote.

I am very thankful for the support of government members, but I think they are going to be disappointed here in the next few minutes, just as Canadians have been disappointed in the last year that they have had to face the consequences of having elected the government across from us.

Certainly this has been a long year. The economy has slowed down and obviously it is affecting Canadians across the country. I want to talk a little bit about my area—

[International Trade, November 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, they clearly did not know what the President was going to focus on. If they are so brilliant, why did they offer to negotiate even before being asked? This is the kind of ongoing failure of leadership that we have seen from the Prime Minister. Maybe it is better he keeps travelling. He seems to do less damage when he is out of the country than when he is in it.

It took 10 years to prove that the U.S. country-of-origin labelling rules violated international trade law. Why would the Liberal Prime Minister offer to renegotiate a trade deal when he had no clue what the Americans wanted to discuss?

[International Trade, November 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this is not just about softwood. Canadian agriculture, specifically beef and pork exports, is being targeted as well. We fought for 10 years, and we won the country-of-origin labelling battle. Now this Liberal government's offer to renegotiate NAFTA has given the U.S. the green light to reopen this contentious and costly issue.

When he made his offer to reopen NAFTA did the Prime Minister realize that our beef and pork producers were the bull's eye at the centre of the new President's NAFTA target?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 14th, 2016]

With regard to training provided for Ministers or their exempt staff since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all expenses, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) location, (iv) total amount, (v) contract file number, if applicable, (vi) any travel expenses associated with the training?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 14th, 2016]

With regard to government advertising campaign in China since August 1, 2016: for each campaign, what is the (i) total amount spent, (ii) vendor, (iii) type of advertisement, (iv) internal file or tracking number, (v) dates and duration of ad campaign?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is Canada's most important export location. The Liberal carbon tax is nothing but a money grabbing scheme that would shackle Canadian agriculture and the economy, while doing nothing for the environment. The U.S. president-elect knows this. That is why he is not implementing a carbon tax in the United States.

Why is the Prime Minister bringing in a carbon tax that would kill Canadian farmers' ability to remain competitive?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we know that president-elect Trump is not going to impose a carbon tax. Canadian farmers have led the way to responsible environmental stewardship, but the Liberal Prime Minister insists he is going to force a carbon tax on them anyway. Canada's agricultural sector is in danger of being put at a massive competitive disadvantage. The last thing farmers and rural Canadians need is a tax that increases the cost of everything and makes us uncompetitive.

When will the Liberals stop their carbon taxation fixation?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we believe that it is important that families can support each other in their retirement incomes, retirement savings, and so we believe in those vehicles that allow people to do that. It is obvious that the other side has a real problem with that.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that he is chastising me. I was not exaggerating anything. The reality is that pensionable earnings are set at 9.9% of employees' levels right now and are going to go to 12%. He is right that $2,200 is the maximum, but the reality is that every single employee in this country is going to pay more because of this legislation, and every single employer in this country is going to pay more because of this change in the CPP.

Conservatives believe that is not a good choice to be made for Canadians, that they should have other choices. We know we are at odds with the government because it believes that it can dictate to Canadians what it thinks is best for them. We believe it is best for people to make their choices, manage their own money, and that they will best save for their own retirements when they do that.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, fortunately for the member opposite, he does not usually have to worry about people interrupting him because it seems the higher the volume and the more the hyperbole he uses, the more accurate he thinks he is. Obviously, no one in the House opposes the CPP. That is just ridiculous. If he is going to take that kind of position, then he will end up in a situation where people will not treat what he has to say seriously. He needs to consider that. His exaggerated rhetoric does not do anything.

The reality is that the changes the Liberals are attempting to make would not affect seniors right now. The members opposite stand and say they are concerned about seniors and want to make changes that will impact them. Things like the tax-free savings account and the choices that Conservatives gave them actually impacted them, and they were very happy to have them. Liberals have rolled that back. They have cut the limit back to half.

Certainly, Conservatives support CPP. There was never a move to negatively affect CPP. We simply believe that Canadians need as many options as possible for their retirement savings.