Kevin Sorenson

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here. For the people who are watching from home, it is a bad day in Ottawa outside of this place. The snow is falling and they are predicting over a foot of snow here. Traffic has come to a halt almost, yet it is warm in here.

We are discussing Bill C-4, and it is always a pleasure when we can stand and debate the issues.

It is kind of a bad day in here as well for the governing party. One of the first things the Liberals did was take away the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The second thing they did was pull our troops out of the war against ISIL. Now they have Bill C-4.

The majority of people in my riding of Battle River—Crowfoot would oppose Bill C-4.

Bill C-4 is an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act. As we have already heard today, the previous Conservative government already passed amendments to the Labour Code and these three statutes.

The amendments improved two key laws on democracy and union transparency. Bill C-377 provided more accountability for union leaders. Bill C-525 required the holding of a secret ballot for the creation or abolition of trade unions. Now the Liberal government is saying, who needs secret ballots?

What about accountability? The Liberals have never liked accountability. That is why it was up to the Conservative Party to move the Federal Accountability Act as our first measure when we formed government.

As a government, we stood up on behalf of union workers. I remember the day the member brought this forward as a private member's bill. He came around and spoke to us. He talked about the union workers who had said they were having difficulty getting that type of accountability or knowing where their money was being spent.

Everyone knows that some Canadian workers are forced to pay union dues. Until the previous government took action, union bosses, those people who are in charge of the management of a union, did not consult the workers about decisions they had made on behalf of them. Union bosses were not held accountable for their management of the union dues they collected. There was a lack of transparency and accountability when it came to the actions involving where those dollars were to be spent.

There were no rules or regulations that said that the leadership was under any obligation to open the books so union members could see for themselves the various ways that the union leaders were spending union dues. Canadians could not see how much money was raised by any given union. Canadians could not see how any given union was spending its money. It was one big secret.

Sometimes the secrecy extended to union members themselves. They could not see the books of their own union. Some unions would allow members to see the books at a union meeting. Sometimes one had to ask to see the books of one's own union. Imagine anyone doing that. In all honesty, imagine a worker risking being blackballed by the union. The union could very well ask members why they wanted to see that, what they wanted, and what they were looking for. It could ask if there was there something that was bothering them or ask why they needed the information because nobody else had asked for it. Now all of a sudden the union member is the one who is almost guilty of wanting transparency. Too many union members could be intimidated to do whatever was necessary to try to see the books.

Not all union members are accountants. They do not all have commerce degrees. They are not all able to look at the books on the screen and have the union bosses stand over them, or take it home. They wanted the ability to see where some of their dollars were being spent. They may not be able to read the 100 pages of a document, while union bosses are standing over them trying to figure out what part of the document the member might want to see and for what reason he or she might want to see it.

I remember when Mr. Hiebert asked me to support the bill. He talked about the number of members who had come to him in regard to it. He had studied it. He had thought there must be more transparency than there was. He worked with opposition and government members, and he tried to drum up support for his private member's bill.

A lot of the new members across the way will find out about the process of a private member's bill. First, they will find out how difficult it is to be in that lottery and to get their name drawn, and then how difficult it is to actually work it through, especially in a majority government. I remember Mr. Russ Hiebert doing that.

I also remember union people coming in on both sides, questioning why we were doing it. I remember both union bosses and members thanking us, saying that it was about time.

The legislation he brought forward in that private member's bill lifted the veil of secrecy off the union spending. Any union member, from the comfort and safety of their home, could see their unions' books, could go through it line by line, and see where the money was being spent.

We simply made it so the leaders of the unions would make public their decisions concerning the expenditure of the union dues they had collected and any other monies that were given or raised by the union.

I think Canadians would agree that this was a fair measure. A union is a public institution. It is not a profit-chasing corporation competing in the marketplace where there may be some secrets as far as marketing their product. I think most Canadians realize that charities have to do it, as do many other different groups. It is reasonable.

The second change that the previous Conservative government made to the way that unions were run in Canada was to increase the level of democracy in how unions operated in Canada. We are a democratic country. We take very serious our democracy. We govern ourselves using the method of a secret ballot. This provides a voter with the highest level of democracy and the most freedom.

Canadians would agree that unions should also conduct their affairs at the highest level of democracy. We made the change to stop workers, union members, from having to publicly inform their colleagues whether they may actually support their union, or whether certain changes that they wanted within their union did not force them to stand up publicly when a secret ballot could really have them voice their concerns.

Our changes freed workers from pressure. Both before and during the election campaigns, unions spent millions of dollars to straight partisan ends. Union bosses can do that because they are under no obligation to tell anyone if they did. My wife is in a union; she is a registered nurse. She told me about the day, and I think it was before I was elected, when the union boss came from Edmonton to our little town and told the registered nurses how they would vote. She was sitting in the meeting. She questioned it. All of a sudden there were hums and haws, but it was intimidation. Union bosses can do that because they are under no obligation for anything.

Some unions do tell what they will do and how they are involved, but some union bosses proudly provide details of how they spend union dues fighting a political party that in some cases supported many members of that very union.

I believe, with all due respect, that the measure we are debating today is payback to the unions for them showing up when the now Prime Minister made announcements. We saw the emails. We saw them go out. They would say that Justin was in town, that they needed 100 people in the picture. I think we are now seeing some of that payback.

Other unions do say how their money is being spent. Again, we wanted to see transparency. We want to see measures brought forward so that democracy was enhanced even within the unions.

Our previous government gave union members the right to know what was going on within their union. It also gave them the right to vote. Why? Because the union is an important institution. The union, in some places, can intervene on behalf of their workers. When we do not have transparency, pretty soon we have an institution that crumbles.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member may very well be right in his comments, but let me tell him that in 2008, 2009, and 2010, the employment insurance dollars were in deficit. There was some catch-up to do in the last year or two and we had the plan to lower premiums so that it would better adjust. Conservatives lowered them once and we know that 2017 is the year that they will be lowered again.

The difference between Alberta and Saskatchewan right now is Saskatchewan has a government that will be able to take care of investment and jobs. Alberta, provincially, does not.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It is a question that is worthy: would we continue?

We had the largest infrastructure program that the federal government has ever been involved in. Those are the facts. The Liberals are talking about a larger one now. That is fine. However, at the time, it was the largest infrastructure spending that we ever had.

What did we do? We began by saying we would double the gas tax rebate to municipalities and get it out the door earlier so they could be involved in the construction period. Every municipality across this country applauded that measure. We did not tie it to any jobs. We said, “You can pick your priorities. You, municipalities, can take that money and put it where you want. We want that out the door. We're going to make it permanent. We're going to double it.”

We did that, doubling from what the Liberal Party had done.

Then we indexed it. Then, we said that we would continue to invest in the largest Canada building fund across the country. We did that.

Why did we do that? We did that because the world had moved into this recession. Prior to it, we had paid down close to $40 billion in national debt, we had lowered the taxes, lowered the GST. That is the record of the previous government.

Then, when the world moved into this recession, not created here in Canada, we started spending. We did not spend enough at the time. The Liberals felt we should have spent more, as did the NDP. However, we did not spend without a plan. We said, “We're going to invest in infrastructure, we're going to come out of that and back to balanced budgets.”

In this election, the Liberals have said they are going to spend up to $10 billion in deficit this year. Yet, now, everyone says, “There is no upper limit here” and they spend, spend, spend.

We worry for the economy, business worries for the economy, job creators worry for the economy, and they worry about the government that is a big-spending government and just straight big government.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, for 15 years in this House, I represented Crowfoot, and now with the boundary changes it is a pleasure to stand here and represent Battle River—Crowfoot.

It is a pleasure to stand in this House on this topic. The motion we are debating is this:

That the House: (a) thank the independent non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidence based analysis; (b) acknowledge their most recent Fiscal Monitor which informed Members and Canadians that, for the period from April to November 2015 of the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the previous government posted a budgetary surplus of $1.0 billion; and (c) concur in its conclusions and express its confidence in the Deputy Minister and his team.

As the former minister of state for finance, I am pleased to advise the House that in my experience working with the finance department and the deputy minister of finance, past and present, the current and the former deputy minister, and all their officials, they provide a remarkable service to Canadians. I think most of us would acknowledge that the public service, and certainly the finance department, does that. They help keep Canada's government of the day implementing the policies that are brought forward in budgets, and in other initiatives at different times, or the different implementations of different measures as they are brought forward. The finance department officials are experts. The officials at Finance Canada worked to help ensure that the Government of Canada achieved a $1 billion surplus for the period of April to November 2015.

As the Liberals go forward, amassing huge budgetary deficits, Canadians will understand that these deficits are of the Liberals' own making. The report from the “Fiscal Monitor” produced by Finance Canada proves that the Liberals inherited a surplus from our Conservative government. The parliamentary budget officer has also substantiated this fact.

If the Liberal Party engages in deficit spending, it will be 100% as a result of its own actions. It did not take long. The Liberals began down the track of deficit spending very quickly. Only a few days after the election it became apparent what its agenda was. Balanced budgets were made possible for Canada because of our Conservative government's responsible approach and commitment to putting in place initiatives to foster job creation, to help build economic growth in Canada's economy.

We knew that we could not move the Government of Canada into a position of ongoing structural deficits. That would appear as a lack of discipline to investors and certainly to Canadians. Our economic action plan was put in place to move the government to a position of budgetary surpluses in 2015.

We accomplished that one year earlier than what was originally anticipated because of extra growth in the economy. That is one point that has been missed here today. The Liberals and the NDP's position is that we came from a deficit and left with a deficit. That is not what happened.

In 2014, a year ahead of schedule, we had a $1.9 billion surplus, and building on that surplus, from April to November, we had another $1 billion surplus.

The heated rhetoric by the Liberal government demonstrates that it is already feeling the pressure of its broken promises and its growing debt. The Canadian economy is not a game. Choices have consequences. The stakes are high. Budgets do not magically balance themselves. Jobs, families, and housing are all affected by the management or mismanagement of Canada's economy.

By voting against today's motion, the government would signal that it has little confidence in the employees at the highest levels of Finance Canada. These employees are experts who do not play the same political game as the Liberal Party. They are non-partisan. The Liberals are trying to deny the voice of those officials at Finance Canada when they come here and misrepresent those officials' findings in the “Fiscal Monitor”.

The Liberal government would be adopting what I call the Sergey Lavrov type of politics. We read about him today in the National Post. He is the foreign minister of Russia who basically made an announcement about Ukraine that was completely wrong. I will quote what it says about him:

He has not been foreign minister for 12 years because he is an idiot. He was lying. He knew he was lying, and he knew everyone knew he was lying and he did not care.

I would never use those words in Parliament about anyone, but let me say that we do not want the government to take the Sergey Lavrov position on how to deal with whether we had a surplus or deficit. Canadian officials at Finance Canada are not lying. The publishers of the “Fiscal Monitor” have no political axe to grind. They have no hidden agenda. They have no political agenda. They are not concerned with what other economists may say about the numbers, facts, and figures they publish. They publish the facts and the figures.

If the Liberals command that Canada be plunged into budgetary deficits, then the department will chronicle that and will help the Liberal government facilitate its measures. The department monitors closely how much the deficit will be. They know how vast and how large it is and how it is growing. They can tell the Minister of Finance anytime he asks how slow the economy is or how fast it is growing. That is what they will do. They have spoken about last year and it is very clear.

Our Conservative government asked the department to help balance the budget, to help us with the federal budget. They helped us keep tabs on our progress in our program. They always knew how close or how far we were from balancing the books. They say that before the Liberals formed government, Canada was in a $1 billion surplus. We were in the black. Canada actually had a budgetary operating surplus of little over $1 billion.

They will not say this is a good thing. They will not tell the Liberals that the massive budgetary deficits they will amass are bad. They will only tell the Liberals how fast they are spending Canadians' money, and more and more it is becoming taxpayers' money that taxpayers do not have.

They will keep accurate specifics on how much spending the Liberals are doing. They will help the Liberals understand many things that it would seem they do not understand today, including monetary policy, fiscal policy, the debt-to-GDP ratio, etc., etc.

The government's top priority should not be about changing history and bringing forward false facts. The government's top priority should be job creation. It should be focusing on economic growth. It should be focused on long-term prosperity for Canadians. The Liberals should take action on cutting taxes for job-creating businesses, investing in research and development, expanding markets for Canadian businesses abroad so that as an exporting country we can deliver our products around the world. They should deliver on support for job-creating infrastructure and establishing the framework for responsible development of our natural resources.

Canadians know that our previous government did those things. It steered Canada throughout the great recession and created over 1.2 million net new jobs from the downturn in 2009. These were overwhelmingly private sector jobs, full-time, well-paying jobs. According to KPMG, total business tax costs in Canada were the lowest among the G7 countries. We wanted people investing here in their country, in Canada. These costs were 46% lower than our chief trading partner and actual competitor at the time, the United States.

As I mentioned earlier today, Bloomberg ranked Canada as the second-best place in the world to do business. Why was this? Did this success just happen? Do budgets balance themselves? It does not occur overnight. It requires tough decisions, sound judgment, and a focus on priority.

Our government had that focus. I wish the Liberals well as they move forward with our economy. I want to see people working. I come from a province where right now there is a massive challenge in the oil and gas sector, with hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk.

We want job creation. We want balanced budgets. We want lower taxes because we know our record is a good record.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked at length about how the Conservatives had deficits, but she forgot to tell the House and remind Canadians that in 2008, the world went into the largest recession since the Great Depression. Prior to 2008, the Conservative government had surpluses and had paid down close to $40 billion of national debt. It then promoted a low-tax plan and an investment in infrastructure that drove our economy so that Canada was number one among the G7.

As we know, KPMG said that total business costs in Canada were the best. Bloomberg said that Canada was the second-best place in the world to do business. That was based on the economic action plan, the investment in infrastructure, and how the Conservative government encouraged and created jobs.

The member talks about the added billions in debt. Conservatives agree that there was some deficit spending, but it did not become a structural deficit. We came back to balanced budgets when we promised we would. We had said that it would be for a set time.

The Conservatives had a plan, a strategy, but we have seen no strategy put forward. All we heard during the election campaign was that Liberals would not run more than a $10-billion deficit. They acknowledged that there would be deficits. Now not just pundits but economists are saying that the Liberal government is going to have massive deficits, and that is based on their high-spending practices.

I would ask the member to at least reference the fact that the Conservatives paid down close to $40 billion in debt when we had a surplus. We did not have deficit after deficit and then, all of a sudden, last fall, say that we had a $1-billion deficit. In 2013-14, we ended up with a $1.9-billion surplus, and last year, we were building on a $1-billion surplus.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to stand to ask a question today, but the member's last comment troubled me when she said that they were going to give it to the poor or middle class who deserve it and not to the wealthier Canadians who do not deserve it.

That seems to be the Liberal philosophy, that if people have worked hard, if they have succeeded, if they have played by the rules, they do not deserve a tax break.

If we take all the workers in Canada and take the top 50% of workers and the bottom 50% of wage earners in this country, the top 50% of earners pay 96% of all federal, provincial, and territorial taxes. They are working hard. They are succeeding.

I would like the member to comment on why they do not deserve it.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, from 2006 to 2008, the Conservative Government of Canada paid down the national debt, paid down just under $40 billion. We lowered the GST. We lowered taxes so investors knew that Canada was the place to do business.

In 2008, the world went into the largest recession since the Great Depression. Around the world governments were investing in infrastructure and stimuli. Our government did the same. With great pride, we invested in infrastructure in our cities and rural areas. Although the member talks about unemployment, 1.1 million net new jobs were created from 2009 to 2015.

It was a massive recession worldwide. It did not start in Canada or begin because of what happened here. However, the government responded.

With respect to the tax-free savings account, we all know, including the finance minister, if we read his book, that the third pillar of pension funds and personal investments for their pension and that is what we need to improve. That was why we brought forward the tax-free savings account. That was why we brought forward the pool registered pension plan. That was why we brought all these measures forward. Through CPP, OAS and GIS, that pillar is strong. We want to ensure—

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we have an oil sector that is reeling under added environmental red tape. We have an oil sector, one of the largest contributors to our economy, struggling under a New Democratic Party in Alberta. We have a sector that is the job creators. The hon. member tells the oil sector that it should not worry about it, that the government will invest in green energy. That is not much solace for the people who are left with house payments and are now on the unemployment line.

That is wonderful. The former government invested in that, as well. However, I guess it is the Liberal way to turn its back on the gas and oil sector, the energy sector, and say, as the member said, that it will invest in green energy and social housing to help people when they are unemployed.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Battle River—Crowfoot. Battle River—Crowfoot is a new constituency. The boundaries changed in the last election, and I am fortunate enough to represent a new northern section. I want to thank them for their support in the last election. I pledge to work very hard for them in Ottawa.

I also want to thank my election campaign team and long-term supporters. In six elections, they were ready to campaign and help out, not just in my riding but around the country. Obviously I want to thank my family. I want to thank my wife Darlene and our children, Kristen and Ryan, and Kristen's husband Matthew for their love and support over the many years of doing this. I know all members know that without the support of their families and those they love most, they would be unable to do this. Whether it is my immediate family, my parents, or others, I want to thank them.

We are debating the Liberal government's destructive tax plan for all Canadians, including the middle class. It tears down many of the efforts that were developed to help families and workers, to ensure that taxes remained low for all Canadians, that there were balanced budgets, and that jobs were created for Canadians. These measures are affected by part of Bill C-2. The former government ensured that economic growth for Canada's economy was a priority.

I neglected to inform you, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Since this bill was tabled in December of last year, we are very aware that the numbers of the Liberals simply do not add up. The Liberals' assault on higher income earners will not work. This is a tax hike on those who traditionally create jobs and grow our overall economy. It is a tax increase on professionals and on the educated. It is a tax increase on those who work hard and succeed.

By increasing taxes on job creators, we would be discouraging their success and jobs for Canadians with the passage of this bill. Canada's higher income earners would immediately launch many measures to protect themselves from paying such high taxes. The Liberals will not realize the rise in tax revenue that they are counting on to finance their small increase in benefits to the middle class on which the bill is supposed to deliver.

Not only are the high income earners going to task their accountants with pursuing and implementing measures that will ultimately prevent them from paying higher tax increases, but some of them will abandon their lucrative endeavours in Canada to reduce their incomes so they do not have to pay the increase. They will move their projects, in some cases offshore, Canadians will lose jobs, investors will follow these business leaders to their new locations, and Canada will lose investments.

We have seen this under former Liberal governments. When I ran in the elections in 2000 and 2004 as a new young MP coming in, like many here today, the top issue of the day was what we called the brain drain. We asked ourselves what we would do to bring back Canada's young, to bring back those who had moved to the states or Europe with their potential futures. What would we do to solve the brain drain? Economists are again predicting significant brain drain from Canada as the result of Bill C-2.

The federal government will not have the tax revenues to fund the schemes put forward by Bill C-2. The worst part of Bill C-2 for my constituents is the reduction of the annual contribution limit for the tax-free savings account, from $10,000 at its previous level to $5,500 starting January 1 this year.

Right now many families are experiencing the pain of unemployment. Many of my constituents work for companies that service the oil patch, and their lives are being disrupted. Households are being disrupted. Savings are being used in an attempt, in some cases, to save family homes, or to make the next payment.

TFSAs have been a very effective tool for all Canadians, young and old. Tax-free savings accounts are being cashed in by many constituents of mine in Alberta right now. Families are using their tax-free savings accounts to try to reduce their economic vulnerability to the oil price and also, in some cases, to their pending unemployment.

Meanwhile, the Liberal government is refusing to help get our petroleum products to seawater ports so we can export our products to our customers who are waiting and wanting to buy our products. When that happens, unemployment climbs. We are seeing that right now.

Any family that is not suffering significant loss of jobs is looking to save whatever amount of money it can. Families are saving now for the coming hard times they know will happen under the Liberal government.

The Liberals have promised numerous budgetary deficits that will expand our nation's debt and ultimately lead to higher taxes. In other parts of Canada, places not yet suffering from the downturn in the oil patch, some Canadians are still managing to put money into their retirement funds.

Many Canadians are saving as much as they can. Many Canadians are simply trying to park their savings, because they know that the downstream effects of the current downturn in Canada's energy sector will soon hit them in their pocketbooks.

We found out just a couple of days ago that Japan adopted a negative interest rate policy. Now where money is being held in the bank, it is now looking at ways of taxing it. In an uncertain climate there, people are sitting on their savings.

The loss in federal revenue from the oil patch in the coming years is going to affect Canada. Make no mistake, it will affect how the Liberal government will operate. It will affect how the Governor of the Bank of Canada sets rates. It will affect all Canadians, in the rural parts of Canada, in big cities, and in the remote areas of Canada.

Already, after three or four months, Canadians have no faith that the government will help the people in business in Canada's once-prosperous sector. They know about the coming hard times their families will suffer during the failure of the Liberal plans. They know they will see massive amounts of tax dollars that the federal government does not have being spent on misguided efforts, job creation efforts, and token attempts at diversifying local economies. The way the Liberals will deliver on those is yet to be seen. We are still waiting for a budget.

All I know is that Canadians are disappointed with a lack of action from the government. Many Canadians know that the Liberal government is in serious trouble. Based on Finance Canada's estimates, the new Liberal tax plan amounts to an average of $6.34 per week for those individuals who qualify. Canadians feel betrayed; $6.34 to the middle class, and yet taxing those who are job creators.

We know this small tax break is not enough to stimulate our economy. Nor will throwing money at the middle class stimulate growth and innovation. It does not help create jobs. We have not seen anything from the government that is going to help with innovation, investing back into companies, or anything that is going to help create jobs.

Our Conservative government reduced taxes more than 140 times. This modification to the income tax rate that the Liberals are bringing forward is not significant tax relief and it comes with a high price tag in deficit financing. The policies of the government will be economically destructive. We know it will be for many decades down the road.

The Minister of Finance has already conceded that this tax plan is not revenue-neutral. In Bill C-2, it will plunge the Government of Canada further into deficits and debt. I guess that is what the Liberals deliver on. This is debt that will eventually put our social programs at risk, a debt that our children and our grandchildren will have to pay off. This bill fails.

Consequently, in representing my constituents, I will be voting against Bill C-2.

[Petitions, December 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want Parliament to know about the tragic story of Cassandra Kaake, who was 31 weeks pregnant when she was murdered in Windsor, Ontario, a year ago today. Tragically there will be no justice for Cassandra's preborn baby girl, Molly, who was also killed in that violent attack. That is because, in criminal law, pre-born children are not recognized as separate victims in attacks against their mother.

This petition calls on Parliament to pass legislation to allow a separate charge to be laid in the death or injury of a preborn child when that child's mother is a victim of a crime.

Canadians want justice for victims like Molly.