Erin Weir

[Natural Resources, May 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the question that prompts this adjournment debate is with respect to the agenda for a premiers' conference that occurred months ago. I would like to broaden the adjournment debate to talk about the federal government's role in coordinating among provinces. Specifically, I would like to address the new Alberta government's proposal to slash its provincial corporate income tax rate to 8%.

The reason this should be of concern to the Government of Canada is that our federal corporate tax structure includes a 10 percentage point abatement to allow provinces and territories to levy their own corporate taxes. Currently, all provinces have corporate tax rates of around 12%. The only exceptions are in Atlantic Canada, where provinces have slightly higher corporate income tax rates. Therefore, that obviously accounts for the abatement from the federal government.

In proposing to slash Alberta's corporate tax rate to 8%, Jason Kenney is effectively asking the federal government to continue to provide a 10% abatement to companies operating in Alberta, even though they will only pay 8% provincial corporate tax. I do not think this makes sense and I want to suggest that the federal government should not go along with that. The federal government should require that to receive a 10% abatement, a province should be levying a corporate income tax rate of at least 10%.

Why would the federal government want to establish this type of a corporate tax floor for provinces?

The first point is obviously one of common sense. If the federal government has provided an abatement of 10% to allow provincial and territorial corporate taxes, those provincial and territorial corporate taxes should be at least that amount. However, a more fundamental reason is that the federal government should not want to encourage a race to the bottom on corporate taxes.

The federal government has wisely resisted the temptation to engage in such a race to the bottom with the United States. When confronted with the Trump administration's corporate tax cuts, the Government of Canada did not actually cut the federal corporate tax rate in this country. Instead it provided an accelerated depreciation for companies that were making investments in Canada.

Therefore, I do not think it makes any more sense for the federal government to be facilitating a race to the bottom among provinces on corporate taxes. That is exactly what Mr. Kenney is contemplating in proposing an 8% corporate tax rate for Alberta. He has specifically talked about achieving a competitive advantage relative to B.C. and Saskatchewan.

Clearly, the federal government needs to look out not only for Alberta's competitiveness, but also for the competitiveness of its neighbours. Indeed, in preserving our economic union, we should hope that industries will make decisions about where to locate among provinces based on real economic factors, not based on tax differences. It makes the Canadian economy less efficient if companies are moving around between provinces simply to take advantage of lower corporate income tax rates.

In summary, I believe the federal government should make its corporate tax abatement of 10 points contingent on provinces and territories levying corporate taxes of at least that amount.

[Party Membership, April 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Speaker ruled that he cannot enforce the Parliament of Canada Act rules for caucus expulsions, which are also not subject to judicial review. If neither the courts nor the Speaker uphold the law, party leaders are free to ignore it. A possible solution would be to empower an independent Attorney General, separate from the justice minister, to enforce the Parliament of Canada Act.

Does the government agree?

[Betsy Bury, April 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, last week, we lost one of Saskatchewan's great pioneers for medicare.

Betsy Bury served in the Royal Canadian Air Force in World War II before becoming active in the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. She was a founding member of the Saskatoon Community Clinic, which continued to provide health care after doctors withdrew their services in opposition to the CCF government's medicare plan. She was predeceased by her husband, John Bury, one of the doctors from the British National Health Service who came to Saskatchewan in support of medicare.

While the Burys and other Saskatchewan people succeeded in bringing public health care to Canada, their work remains incomplete. The best tribute we can pay them is to continue building our public system to include prescription drugs, dental care and all health services.

[International Trade, April 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the update from the parliamentary secretary about some of the talks that continue with China. I would really like to focus, though, on what the government is doing or is perhaps failing to do to support our canola farmers until this situation is rectified.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned the current parameters of the advance payment program; that is, loans of up to $400,000, interest-free on the first increment. However, the question he did not answer is whether the government is willing to improve that program, on a temporary or a permanent basis, in response to this crisis with the Chinese market being closed. I would reiterate that the Saskatchewan government has asked for the advance payments program to be improved to provide loans for up to $1 million, interest-free.

If the government is willing to do that, it would be excellent. If the federal government is not willing to make that change, it should be prepared to explain why, and to present some sort of alternative measures to support canola farmers who are currently excluded from the Chinese market.

[International Trade, April 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the closure of the Chinese market to Canadian canola seed has been a major blow to Saskatchewan's economy.

I am proud to have been the only member of the House to have risen in March to ask the government a question specifically about canola. On March 22, I asked what actions the government was taking to reopen the Chinese market and to support our canola farmers until this was rectified.

On the point of supporting our canola farmers, I would note that the Saskatchewan government has since called on the federal government to expand the advance payment program to provide loans of up to a million dollars, interest-free, while this crisis persists.

At the international trade committee meeting last Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the federal government was prepared to make that enhancement to the advance payment program. Her response was essentially that the government had a working group that would meet to consider options this past Thursday.

That meeting has come and gone, and we still do not have a clear idea of what the federal government plans to do to support our farmers during this crisis. Farmers need to make decisions about what to plant and how to manage their operations. Of course, those decisions would be informed by information about what the government planned to do, whether it would be to increase the loan amounts available under the advance payment program, whether it would be to change or, hopefully, eliminate the interest due on those loans or whether the response would be through some other program.

The second part of my question had to do with reopening the Chinese market. On this point, there has been a bit of debate between the opposition pushing for the government to escalate things to a higher diplomatic level and the government trying to deal with it as more of a technical issue, without escalating it into a bigger diplomatic fight.

Without weighing in to that bigger diplomatic question, we did hear some optimistic things at the trade committee. One of them was that China would have a great deal of difficulty replacing the quantity and quality of canola that it received from Canada from other suppliers. That suggests to me that there is a good possibility of getting the Chinese market reopened.

The second reason for optimism is that Canada can try to develop some alternative markets for canola. We would be hard-pressed to really replace the Chinese market, but I would like to reiterate the call for the government to do everything that it can do to open other markets.

A final optimistic note is that while canola seed has been excluded from the Chinese market, exports of canola oil really have not been affected. It is a sealed product. It is really not subject to the same sort of phytosanitary objections.

There are many reasons to expand Canada's canola processing capacity, mostly to add to our economy and to create jobs in that processing sector. However, this latest trade dispute with China really underscores another reason to continue investing in canola processing. The finished product, the oil, is much less vulnerable to these diplomatically motivated phytosanitary types of concerns.

I am wondering if the government will take action on these fronts.

[Privilege, April 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for the interruption. I do just need to add briefly to what I said previously on the question of privilege.

In response, the member for Windsor West rose to reassure the House that the NDP caucus did follow the Parliament of Canada Act with respect to adopting or rejecting the model rules, including the one for expulsion from caucus.

I want to clearly put on record that what the act says is that each party caucus needs to hold four recorded ballot votes on each of those model rules at its first meeting after the election. The NDP caucus did not hold votes, let alone recorded ballot votes, on those model rules at its first meeting after the election or at any of its meetings in 2015.

Rather than just generally suggesting compliance with the act, it would be necessary for the member for Windsor West, or another member, to suggest that they remember actually holding recorded ballot votes at the first meeting following the election. I note that claim has not been made.

[Privilege, April 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add to the very same point of privilege.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has thoroughly explained how the Parliament of Canada Act applies to expulsion from caucus. The federal NDP leader expelled me from caucus without written notice and without a vote, so that evidence should also be considered in your ruling on this point of privilege.

The context for my expulsion was that another member of the House suggested that I was involved in some unspecified harassing behaviour. No complaints were ever brought forward against me under the House of Commons anti-harassment policy. No complaints were ever brought forward against me through the NDP staff union. Instead, the federal NDP leader invented his own process and appointed his own investigator.

It is very important to consider the Parliament of Canada Act in this case. It sets out a clear procedure for expulsion from caucus. Whether that procedure applies in the given caucus is to be determined by a vote of that caucus at its first meeting after the election. No such votes were held by the NDP caucus at its first meeting after the election. In fact, no such votes were held by the NDP caucus at any of its meetings in 2015. We cannot conclude that the federal NDP leader had the unilateral authority to expel me or anyone else from caucus.

[Natural Resources, April 2nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I would also like to apologize to him and to you, Mr. Speaker, for keeping you away from what was undoubtedly a very interesting Liberal caucus meeting this evening, but perhaps I have done a bit of a favour in that sense. If you want to thank me as well, I would accept that.

I really have just one question for the parliamentary secretary. Given that the retail price of gasoline seems to have increased much more sharply than the price of oil or the carbon tax over the past month, would he support an inquiry by the federal Competition Bureau into possible collusion and anti-competitive behaviour in the retail pricing of gasoline in this country?

[Natural Resources, April 2nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, on November 19 I noted that the price of western Canadian heavy oil had fallen to a record low, threatening employment in the sector as well as provincial government revenues. I noted that this was a major crisis facing our country and that the industry was considering a coordinated production cut in order to boost prices.

I asked the federal government to provide assurances that the federal Competition Bureau would not intervene to prevent such a production cut. Of course, what ended up happening is that on December 2, the Alberta premier announced that the provincial government would mandate a production cut of about 9%. Because this was required by the province and not just coordinated among companies, there was no role for federal competition policy.

I am pleased to report that the policy I raised in the House, which the Alberta government implemented, was quite successful in rapidly increasing the price of western Canadian select oil. The Alberta government also invested in railcars in order to help move its oil to market in the absence of sufficient pipeline capacity. That is also making a positive contribution to pricing.

These are a couple of very positive examples of what the Notley government has done to steward Alberta's oil industry, and I think all western Canadians appreciate those efforts.

I want to speak in a broader sense about federal competition policy. It is already the case that Canadian law does not try to sanction cartels or uncompetitive activity regarding things that are entirely for export, because of course Canadians benefit from being able to get the best possible price for commodities that we are exporting.

That logic largely applies to oil, but of course we also consume oil right here in Canada. We have had a recent kerfuffle about the application of the federal carbon tax to gasoline. In the past few days, we have seen photos of Conservative politicians gassing up over the weekend, ahead of the federal carbon tax coming into effect.

It is worth noting that the carbon tax is about 4¢ or 5¢ per litre, whereas the price of gasoline has gone up by something like 20¢ per litre over the past month. At a minimum, this tells us that there are many factors other than carbon pricing that influence the cost of gasoline. However, it also suggests that if there is a role for federal competition policy, it should be focused on markets that actually affect Canadian consumers.

There is a role for the federal Competition Bureau to look at collusion regarding the retail pricing of gasoline, because as much as we want a high price for the oil that Canada tries to sell on world markets, we also want to make sure there is a fair price for consumers at the pump here in Canada. The way to do this is to ensure that the Competition Bureau focuses not so much on the oil production but on gasoline retailing.

[International Trade, March 22nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, until today's breaking news, the only thing growing faster than the number of independent MPs was Canada's canola exports.

Now our largest customer, China, has stopped buying Canadian canola. Prairie farmers should not pay the price for an unrelated diplomatic tiff.

What actions is the government taking to reopen the Chinese market and to support our canola farmers until this is rectified?