John Nater

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member for Central Nova. When will the budget be balanced?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit on two key points: one, the challenges with the CRA, and two, the challenge of the infrastructure bank. I would even expand the infrastructure bank to include the Asian infrastructure bank, for which the government is sending half a billion dollars overseas to invest in infrastructure there. These programs are not benefiting the rural communities the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and I have in our constituencies. They are not providing the farmers and the farm families with the infrastructure needed to get their products and goods to market.

On the subject of the CRA, like many members on all sides of the House, I am often involved with casework with my constituents, helping them out when they face challenges with CRA. In the past couple of years I have been in office, I am finding that issues caused through challenges with the CRA have been steadily increasing.

I find this really problematic, because a lot of times those who are being faced with these challenges are those who are least able to deal with them. They are working part-time, working night shifts, or picking up extra hours to try to raise their families. Often, single parents are being faced with these measures from the CRA, and they are unable to deal with it. Dealing with these challenges is something we face in our office, because of the challenges the CRA is presenting them with.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up the concept of the WITB, the working income tax benefit, which of course was introduced by our former Conservative government and our former minister of finance, the Hon. Jim Flaherty. It gives me a great opportunity to talk about the record of Jim Flaherty, a man who, during the early years when we were in a strong economic position, paid off $40 billion of the national debt. He did that so that when we entered the global economic recession of 2008-09 we had the fiscal capacity, the financial room, to invest in key infrastructure projects that benefited the Canadian economy. It is because of the leadership of people like Jim Flaherty that we were able to come out of that recession stronger.

Now, in a time when the economy is growing, we have deficits. We have large deficits, meaning that if we were to enter another economic recession, we would not have the fiscal space or capacity to respond as we did in 2008-09 because of the strong leadership of Jim Flaherty.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hard-working member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition said it best when he said that never before in Canadian history had a a government spent so much to achieve so little.

As a member of Parliament, it is my honour and privilege to serve the people of Perth—Wellington and to represent their views in this place. When I rise in the chamber to speak, I like to do so with them in mind.

I think of the seniors in my riding who have worked hard all their lives and are now approaching their golden years, looking forward to their retirement. They have concerns because the government has left them without a minister responsible for seniors. They are concerned because the cost of living is going up and is sure to go up even higher with a carbon tax on everything.

I think of families, moms and dads in my riding who work hard, who put in extra hours so they can keep gas in the car, so they can pay their montage or their rent, so maybe they can put their kids into a sporting activity or sign them up for piano lessons or art classes, or maybe take a day off and go on a short family vacation with their kids. I think of those families that are working hard every day, but are not being listened to by the Liberal government.

I think of young people, people of my generation and younger, who are graduating from university, who are starting their first real job, who are trying to pay off their student loans and may put a few dollars away for that down payment to buy that first home. However, new rules and regulations are constantly coming out from the Liberal government that make it harder for those young people to get into that first home.

Especially in Perth—Wellington, where agriculture is the biggest driver of our local economy, I think of farmers, farm families that quite literally feed the world and yet we see nothing from the Liberal government.

It is even worse than that. We see a government that has over the past number of months, especially last summer with its proposed changes to corporate taxation measures, labelled farmers and farm families as tax cheats. I think of those people.

I think of seniors, of families, of young people, of farmers and farm families. This budget fails them.

In the short time I have on offer today, I would like to touch on four key points: the debt and the deficit; infrastructure; issues related to agriculture; and of course taxation.

For the third consecutive budget, the Liberal finance minister has blown past the Liberals' $10-billion deficit projection promised in the election campaign. They promised three years of teeny tiny deficits and then a return to balance by 2019. This year we see an $18.1 billion deficit and next year it will be $17.5 billion. The government's own finance department projects that the government will not return to balanced budgets until 2045. What is worse is that there is not even a plan to return to balanced budgets.

When the government is asked in this place and in committee as to when it will return to balanced budgets, there is no answer. There is not even an acknowledgement of the question. This leads to two logical conclusions. Either the Liberals simply do not know, which is entirely possible with the Liberal government, or they do know and they are keeping it from Canadians. Canadians deserve to know, because this affects their lives. This affects how they raise their families, how they invest in their businesses, and how they expand the economy.

The Conservatives do not just believe in balanced budgets because we like the concept of them. We understand that if we do not take care of our own fiscal house, we cannot invest in the priorities of Canadians.

In the next number of years, the financing of the national debt will increase by $8.7 billion. By 2022-23, that is $8.7 billion more that will not go to help families. It will not go to help infrastructure investments in our rural and small-town communities. It is not going to be in health care transfers. It will not go into public safety measures. Rather, that is $8.7 billion that will go to international financiers rather than being invested in the Canadian economy and in Canadians.

That leads me to the next point I would like to highlight, and that is the importance of infrastructure investment. I just mentioned the $30 billion over three years, $10 billion per year, that the Liberals promised their deficits would be. In exchange for these small deficits, they would increase infrastructure funding. However, here we see the government delaying its infrastructure funds to future years and yet we are still seeing massive overrun deficits. In fact, the budget forecasts that $2.2 billion in infrastructure funding will be pushed back past 2019 and an additional $2.4 billion will be pushed back past 2023.

It is not just the Conservatives who are raising the alarm on this, it is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the same position the Liberals used to highlight when they were in opposition. In his most recent report, the PBO said, “Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Government's $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan.” The PBO requested the new plan, but it does not exist. He went on to say, “Roughly one-quarter of the funding allocated for infrastructure for 2016-17 to 2018-19 will lapse. Both legacy and new infrastructure programs are prone to large lapses.” How can they spend $180 billion on infrastructure without a plan? When it comes to the Liberals, they might try, but Canadians know better.

When I look at my rural communities, at the towns, small towns, and cities in Perth—Wellington, I see infrastructure projects that would have a meaningful impact on the local economy being looked over. I see important projects like roads and bridges, water and waste water. I have communities that have development freezes on because they do not have the wastewater capacities to expand, and yet we see delay after delay from the Liberals when it comes to infrastructure funding. This type of delay is unacceptable, but it is because the Liberals do not have a plan. When they have no plan, they will fail and that is exactly what we are seeing with the Liberals.

I want to touch on agriculture. Agriculture is the economic driver of our communities, yet in this budget, it warranted barely even a mention. On our rural communities, there was barely a mention. On our farm families, there was barely a mention. The farmers and the farm families I talked to have concerns. They have concerns about the future of NAFTA, yet there is no plan from the Liberals. They are concerned about the added regulatory burden, and yet more and more regulation is being layered on them by the Liberals. People are worried about the impact of carbon taxes, and yet the Liberals are going full speed ahead. People are worried about things like the Canada food guide changes that could diminish dairy and red meat as part of the food guide, and they are worried about the negative impact front-of-package labelling could have on healthy food choices, like yogourt for example. These are the concerns I am hearing from the people of my riding.

This of course brings us to taxes. We have tax after tax from the Liberals. We have the carbon tax, which in effect will amount to a tax on everything. Anything that is transported by road will have a tax on it. Anything from food to goods and services will be taxed by the Liberals. In last year's budget, we saw the excise tax on alcohol with a permanent escalator tax, meaning that in perpetuity, taxes will be raised on these products year after year automatically without the approval of Parliament. This is simply wrong.

This budget fails. It fails Canadians. It fails to restrain deficits. It fails to invest in rural infrastructure. It fails in its lack of transparency. This budget is not good for Canadians. It will hurt Canadians. People in our rural communities, like those in Perth—Wellington, will be hurt the hardest.

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member just said that the government has acted on every recommendation in the report, but there were no recommendations in the report. Could the member inform us if the Ethics Commissioner provided the Prime Minister with any private recommendations on his ethical conduct?

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Liberals saying that they want to debate the budget. On this side we are more than happy, ready, and able to debate the failed Liberal budget. We are willing to debate it right now if the Liberals would stop filibustering this motion, allow the debate to collapse right now, and put it to a vote. Then we could get on with the budget debate.

Will the member agree to let the debate collapse right now, so we can go to the budget debate right now?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 16th, 2018]

With regard to Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings related to succession plans: (a) how was Louise Fréchette chosen to be Canada’s representative at the meetings; (b) to which department, agency, or government entity does Ms. Fréchette report; (c) is Ms. Fréchette considered an employee of the department, agency, or government entity in (b); (d) what instruction has the government provided to Canada’s representative at the meetings; and (e) what is Canada’s official position regarding succession plans in regard to the Head of the Commonwealth?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 29th, 2018]

With regard to the agreement announced by the government in September 2016, related to the export of beef to China: (a) what are the terms of the agreement; and (b) is the text of the agreement available to the public and to Canadian beef producers and, if so, what is the website location of the agreement?

[Privilege, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and not on a question of privilege. To illustrate that, I would draw your attention to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 26(1) and 26(3), page 12 of the sixth edition, which illustrated, you would know, that you, as Speaker, can rule on points of order, but on a question of privilege, you are simply making a prima facie case, ruling on such, and then bringing it to the House for a motion.

However, I would draw your attention to page 147 of Bosc and Gagnon, which states, “The Speaker will hear the Member and may permit others who are directly implicated in the matter to intervene.” These members who are seeking the floor are clearly implicated in this matter.

I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to precedent on this matter to, first, May 18, 2016—

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 21st, 2018]

With regard to the Government’s response to petition 421-01929: (a) in respect of the comment that the “Government promised to bring real change to Parliament and remains committed to fulfilling that promise”, what changes remain outstanding and when will each change be pursued; (b) in respect of the comment that parliamentary secretaries “provide a direct link to ministers” by sitting on committees, have any parliamentary secretaries shared with ministers, their staff, or their relevant department, any confidential information from in camera committee meetings; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what are the details (without revealing the in camera information), including (i) date the information was shared, (ii) with whom it was shared, (iii) was the relevant committee notified; (d) what is each Minister’s policy regarding the provision of in camera information by their Parliamentary Secretary; and (e) in respect of the comment that the “Government is working with all Members of Parliament to implement these changes”, what are the particulars of these efforts?