Earl Dreeshen

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 20th, 2017]

With regard to the Mandate letters of Ministers who were either sworn into Cabinet, or received new Cabinet positions on August 28, 2017: (a) why were their Mandate letters not posted on the Prime Minister’s website as of October 2, 2017; (b) when did each of the concerned Ministers receive their Mandate letter; (c) for Ministers who have not yet received their Mandate letters, when will they receive it; and (d) what is the website addresses where the contents of the Mandate letters for the Ministers impacted by the Cabinet shuffle of August 28, 2017, are located?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 20th, 2017]

With regard to official gifts given by the government or individuals representing the government since November 5, 2015: (a) what are the details of all gifts given which were provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage’s “Gift Bank”, including (i) date, (ii) value, (iii) person who presented the gift, (iv) person who received the gift, (v) description of the gift; and (b) what are the details of all other official gifts given, including (i) date, (ii) value, (iii) person who presented the gift, (iv) person who received the gift, (v) description of the gift, (vi) date the gift was purchased, (vii) store where the gift was purchased from, including its name and location?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and about being able to build infrastructure in Asia using Canadian funds.

When we look at having an opportunity to use Canadian investment dollars to build infrastructure here, unfortunately we find, with projects such as LNG and other opportunities to move our natural resources to other places in the world, that it is a bit ironic that we are holding back our own natural resources while helping other countries build ports, so that they can move other people's natural resources into their communities.

Could the member talk about some of the serious issues concerned with this Asian infrastructure bank?

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, part of what the hon. member said was that regulations needed to be streamlined. That is fine, but we need to ensure the basis of the legislation is sound and that any regulations that come into are useful. That is key.

Both the member and I sit at the trade committee and have spent time in the U.S., talking to producers there. Of course, CN and CP are big players in the U.S. However, we lack that same type of reciprocity in Canada.

We can think about the opportunities of having U.S. lines coming into Canada. This would help our producers compete. It does not exist now. We do not go Into negotiations between the two countries and put something like this on the table, saying that this is how we want to deal with it. I doubt it would be worthwhile to do that.

On his point with respect to what happens in Vancouver, in the same report, we talk dwell times and how long it takes to get loaded without the cars. Obviously, it is a problem on the other end as well.

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate for Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act. This Liberal omnibus bill would substantially amend 13 different acts and have a profound effect on three major modes of transportation: rail, air, and water.

These are big changes, and it does not look as if the Liberals would be changing the rules for the better. Bill C-49 is the first legislative response to the 2016 Canada Transportation Act review. While we welcome the commitment to a modernized and safer transportation strategy, we are concerned that the proposed changes would have costly unintended consequences.

While I would like to discuss all the complicated sets of changes from Bill C-49, such an undertaking would be impossible, given the time constraints of this debate. Today, I would like to particularly talk about the changes to rail transportation and what this means for our Canadian farmers and producers.

Our biggest concern on the changes to rail transportation has to do with the changes to the long-haul interswitching that this bill would make, in replacing the provisions introduced by the previous Conservative government with Bill C-30. Bill C- 30, or the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, extended interswitching distances to 160 kilometres. Those provisions expired on August 1.

While new interswitching provisions were anticipated, this bill is far from meeting its objective of improving shipper and producer options with the new 1,200-kilometre interswitching tool. The system introduced through Bill C-30 was popular with shippers. It provided the certainty of a regulated rate up to 160 kilometres, and it is key that they dealt with the regulated rate for that full 160 kilometres.

With Bill C-49, the Liberals are putting forward a new long-haul interswitching tool on hauls of up to 1,200 kilometres, or up to 50% of the length of the entire haul. Shippers would be charged the regulated interswitching rate for the first 30 kilometres of the haul, and then the rate determined by the Canada Transportation Agency, which is determined on a case-by-case basis based on similar pricing hauls. That goes for the remainder of the distance to the interswitch point.

Shippers would only be able to interswitch at the first available interswitch point. The nearest interswitching location for many shippers and producers in northern Alberta and British Colombia would be in the Kamloops–Vancouver corridor, and the other exclusionary zone is from Quebec City to Windsor. lnterswitching is not allowed beyond 30 kilometres in these areas. For captive shippers, the new interswitching provisions would do nothing to encourage more competitive rates or improve competition.

This is a serious problem. It is important to remember that railways in Canada operate in a near monopoly situation. Captive shippers and producers have no choice but to use one company, to which they are effectively held hostage. This situation could put shippers and producers at a real disadvantage.

While there are provisions in Bill C-49 that would allow shippers to request a contract from a railway with reciprocal penalties, the penalty needs to be designed to acknowledge that the railways have much greater economic power than the shippers. We can also see that Bill C-49 is intended to encourage the efficient movement of shippers' traffic while creating a system that is fairly balanced between the shipper and the railway, but this original intention is eclipsed by the many uncertainties of Bill C-49, which are also present on this issue. To achieve the intended outcome, the government must improve and clarify its provisions for both issues of interswitching and penalties.

Bill C-49 also proposes changing the 30-kilometre interswitching rate so that the interswitching rate over 30 kilometres would be decided by the CTA on an ad hoc basis, as I mentioned earlier. This 30-kilometre interswitching rate would be set each year. It purports to take into account the railway's infrastructure needs across the entire network, which could increase the rate paid by shippers.

The rate-setting regime this bill introduces needs to be designed to ensure shippers always have access to competitive rates. As it stands, the rate would be derived from comparable traffic that is subject to captivity. This system needs to concentrate on a concrete review mechanism to ensure it is actually working for shippers.

However, the Liberals cannot just design this system and leave it to simply administer itself. It is not a budget. Without a sunset clause or predesigned review dates in two to three years, there are absolutely no guarantees for shippers and producers that they will benefit from it.

To remain competitive, shippers and producers rely on clear provisions to ensure efficient access to competing railways. The Liberals are failing to provide clarity and assurances for our Canadian shippers.

In addition, the new long-haul interswitching rates would be more difficult for shippers to use and will not serve as a useful tool in negotiations with the railroads. The proposed slew of changes to the long-haul interswitching rate present very vague outcomes. The sheer number of the regulatory changes and the administrative cost will put Canadian carriers at a disadvantage, especially against U.S. carriers.

Some argue that implementing these changes will increase U.S. railroad access to Canadian traffic at regulated rates without reciprocity. The government has expressed a desire to increase agricultural exports exponentially in the coming years, but has come up short with policies that would help achieve this. If we want to help the agricultural sector increase production and expand its global market share, we need to do more to increase its competitiveness in the global market, not restrict it. One of the ways to do that is to make sure they have efficient and reliable ways of moving their products.

Transportation needs to work much better and the bill must strive to improve rail transportation, because increasing the amount of produce that our amazing farmers produce will be useless if getting it to market becomes a substantial business cost for our producers. Canadians need and expect great rail service. We need an efficient system that ensures the cars show up and grain gets shipped on time.

An article in the Manitoba Cooperative states:

Western Canada’s bigger-than-expected crop is moving to export slower than at last crop year’s record pace, and while grain companies aren’t panicking, Keystone Agricultural Producers’ (KAP) president Dan Mazier says it’s costing farmers....

For most of the current crop year, which began Aug. 1, Mazier said CN Rail hasn’t delivered as many cars as it did a year ago, based on data published by the Ag Transport Coalition (ATC). It reports weekly on the number of cars most grain companies order and the number the railways deliver.

I have the Ag Transport Coalition numbers here for week 12 from October 15 to 21, showing that CN supplied 51% of the hopper cars that were ordered for shippers for that week, which resulted in an unfilled shipper demand of 2,614 hopper cars; and CP supplied 94% of the hopper cars ordered by shippers for grain in week 12, resulting in unfulfilled shipper demand of 281 hopper cars, with nearly 3,000 in total not making it in week 12.

In addition to that, speaking of competitiveness, we are also aware of the ongoing NAFTA negotiations. It is therefore remarkable that the government would allow the new 1,200 kilometre interswitching distance to increase U.S. rail access to Canada at regulated rates, allowing the U.S. to access this Canadian traffic without reciprocity. It seems like weak negotiating on the part of the government to give up this leverage before the NAFTA negotiations are concluded. It is another head scratching idea by the Liberal government to propose such changes even as NAFTA is being renegotiated. No wonder people think that the Prime Minister is napping on NAFTA, because Canadian competitiveness seems to be at the bottom of his priority list. Policies like this directly hurt our competitiveness and are yet another hurdle for producers and shippers to clear.

As it stands, there is simply too much uncertainty about the impact of the newly redesigned interswitching provisions. They need to be reviewable and timely.

Unfortunately, all of this uncertainty and unintended consequences stem from the Liberals' inability to actually consult and listen to industry experts and Canadians. The Liberals are quick to spend taxpayer money to travel around the country to consult and take selfies with Canadians, but when it comes down to it, the Liberals only listen to themselves.

Members from this side of the House have spoken to many stakeholders and experts. Many of these experts believe that what the Liberals are proposing is a convoluted remedy with unknown consequences.

[Agri-Trade Equipment Expo, October 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this November, my riding of Red Deer—Mountain View will once again host one of Canada's biggest agricultural trade shows. The Agri-Trade Equipment Expo is a joint venture between the Red Deer & District Chamber of Commerce and Westerner Park. From November 8 to 11, Agri-Trade will host over 470 exhibitors representing the very best in agricultural equipment, technology, services, and products not only from Canada but from around the world. This is an opportunity for everyone to see how our Canadian farmers and producers ensure that the food on our tables is the best in the world.

Our Canadian agriculture industry is vibrant and innovative, contributing more than $100 billion to our economy. I encourage everyone to come to the Agri-Trade Equipment Expo in Red Deer's Westerner Park to learn more about Canada's innovative farming techniques and meet the hard-working farmers and producers growing our food.

[Taxation, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is very little comfort in hearing some of the stories we have continually heard from the members opposite. Of course, about the only thing they have done is to say they realize they have made so many mistakes that the one thing they will do is go back to the Conservative plan of reducing the small business tax rate. That is an important point.

It is suggested that it was the Liberals who were listening to the tens of thousands of people who were up in arms about the way in which this was presented, and 75 days was the timeframe they would have to discuss it. The last time that major changes of this severity took place was about 50 years ago, and they took six years to sort out. To suggest that we should be able to manage this because we can manage it politically in 75 days does not mean that is what is happening as far as the economy is concerned.

Billionaire families like the finance minister's get a pass under the Liberal government while family farms and local professionals may be subject to ridiculous amounts of bureaucratic paperwork to prove in what ways their families contribute to the family business. We know that all Canadians work hard. They think they can assure Canadians with this announcement. Instead, what we see is the growing concern among farming families about this proposed tax change. It continues to be extremely frustrating for each and every one of them.

[Taxation, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I asked the finance minister about his misguided plans designed to unfairly target Canadian family farms. While Conservatives welcome the Liberals' decision to follow the work of the previous Conservative government, as it announced today that it will bring back their legislation that will lower the small business tax, we are concerned that it is not being clear with its entire plan for Canadian small businesses and family farms.

The Liberals' original unfair tax proposals included draft legislation aimed at discouraging the conversion of dividends into lower-taxed capital gains and measures that would restrict income distribution to family members through an incorporated small business, unless the payments meet a new and vague reasonableness test from the CRA. While the Liberal government suggests that it may not be moving forward with its proposed changes to limit access to the lifetime capital gains exemption, it will still be sticking with its plan to restrict income distribution, conveniently leaving out any detail that would establish how CRA will be able to accommodate for spouses and children genuinely contributing to the family farm or small business.

This morning, I was proud to speak on behalf of Canada's farmers and ranchers during the debate on Motion No. 108, initiated by my colleague from Bow River, that recognized the contributions of Canadian farmers and ranchers and the incredible promise of the next generation of farmers and ranchers. Farming is truly a family-run business, with farmers and their families putting everything they have into the family farm. Children who grow up on farms participate from an early age, and I know this because I was one of them. These young, aspiring farmers are some of the hardest-working and most innovative young Canadians one will ever meet.

The Liberals have treated farmers like tax cheats and young farmers as though they are spoiled trust fund kids, like the Prime Minister and the finance minister. Sorry, it is actually worse. If there will be no clarifications from the Liberal government, it will eventually create an arbitrary system with an unfair tax regime that will slap unnecessary barriers on farmers, small businesses, and their families.

Why do we worry? On July 18, the announcement was made that there were going to be 75 days of consultations. It was just two days later that I was able to speak with some tax advisers and tax lawyers, who talked about the three themes and the same concerns they have. However, what is important is that as two, three, and four weeks went by, they started to look at the all of the different levels and concerns, and that is where all the frustration took place. It was not just the three main things they were discussing; it was all of the different layers associated with the new tax procedures the government had in mind.

How will the Liberals clarify the new rules for income distribution for family-run farms and how can farmers feel confident when it is, indeed, the bureaucrats from CRA who will determine what is and what is not reasonable criteria? This is all so arbitrary. How will the Liberals make sure that their new changes will not, in fact, discourage the next generation of young farmers from being involved with family businesses?

[Contribution of Farmers and Ranchers, October 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing the closing remarks by the member for Bow River as he brings together the discussions we have heard here this morning. There were great comments from each of the members we heard.

Part of the motion speaks to our part of history, as far as farmers and ranchers are concerned. I just want to tie in some of the experiences my family has had.

My wife's grandfather came to Alberta in 1892 as a surveyor. He looked at some of the land in my part of central Alberta. The key reason he decided in 1903 to bring his family was the water. That was a key component of what he needed to have to ensure that he could be a good farmer and rancher. At that time, it was true horsepower people were looking at. They had draft horses and range horses. All these things were important to the community and to what was taking place, but water was the key component.

My family came up from the United States in 1903 to the same community. My wife and I lived only about a mile and a half apart. This was a community that looked at farming and at all the things that were important, and again, it was community and it was water. We ourselves have over 100 years of being in that community. When we look at the land we have, when we look at the way it has been managed as far as both farmers and ranchers are concerned, we have done some amazing things. It is important that we recognize the great work being done by farmers and ranchers in our communities.

The other thing that is important, and it was mentioned earlier, is the technology being used at this time. In the next month, we are going to have Agri-Trade in Red Deer, which is a massive gathering of farmers, ranchers, and business people who are looking at the way new technology will help our industry. It will help our industry in such a way that we will have less of a carbon footprint. It is the type of thing people talk about, but there is not recognition of the great work done in the agricultural industry. These are the sorts of things we are going to see there.

I taught school for 34 years to support my farming habit, and many people have done the same type of thing. Because of that, I have a great affinity for the things we are speaking about today.

Conservation is important. We also need to look at new farmers who are going to be coming in. I have had the pleasure, over the last nine years, of attending Outstanding Young Farmers presentations, not only in Alberta but also nationally, to look at the amazing things young people are doing. I am proud of that work. I am proud of the types of things we see and the technology that is there.

Again, there is the whole concept of water. I suppose that is one of the reasons people who live on the land get a little concerned when they see those who live in cities taking a run at them, while they are dumping their sewage and everything into the rivers, the lakes, and the oceans. As farmers, we are trying to make sure that we are putting fences around so that those things do not happen, yet we listen to others who feel that they can lecture us.

I look forward to the member for Bow River being able to bring this all together.

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers work hard to feed the world. Many gamble off farm earnings, cash out pensions early, and mortgage heavily to invest in their families' enterprises. They are constantly dealing with the volatility and the unpredictability of both markets and Mother Nature.

Unlike the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, these families cannot access million-dollar trust funds. Instead, they continually risk all they have to preserve the family farm.

Why are the Liberals willing to put our generational farms at risk for this cheap tax grab?