Lisa Raitt

[Taxation, September 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in one ear and out the other; that is the kind of listening they are having. CFIB released figures showing that two-thirds of Canadians, small and local businesses, make less than $73,000 a year.

This just in: interestingly enough, yesterday, Morneau Shepell declared a cash dividend to shareholders. Why is the finance minister forcing small businesses to pay a 73% tax, when even the millionaire owners and shareholders of Morneau Shepell will not have that on their dividends?

[Taxation, September 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, for the last two weeks I have spoken with Canadians in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island. They have shared with me the stories of how they are going to be impacted by these tax changes.

I met Andrew, who is an apple farmer in New Brunswick. He explained to me that his problem is this. He will, at some point in time, because of this impact, choose between his employees and his family. I do not think, under the minister's plan, Andrew being in a case where he has to think about one or the other is very fair. I want to know why the finance minister is forcing Andrew to pay a 73% tax that not even millionaire owners of Morneau Shepell—

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2017]

With regard to government action to combat counterfeit art: (a) what is the official position of the government regarding counterfeit art; (b) does the government have any prohibition against using federal funds to rent or purchase counterfeit art; and (c) what actions are taken by the Canada Border Services Agency when counterfeit art or goods are discovered at border crossing or other point of entry?

[Taxation, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I was also in Cape Breton and Digby, talking to fishermen on the wharf there.

Fishers work hard, 14-hour days, and at the end of the season all they want to do after they pay out their insurance, the repairs to their vessel, and maybe pay their crew their full amount, is to hope that they have a little put aside for their retirement. We all know there is no pension in fishing.

I spent my summer listening, and I understand the impact of these reforms on Canadians. Will the Minister of Finance come down to earth with the rest of us mortals and listen to what is going on in—

[Taxation, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I was in Moncton talking to local businesses, and this past weekend I was in Perth–Andover talking to local potato farmers. These are not the wealthy Canadians that the government would have us think actually exist, the ones that the finance minister so glibly said he is going after.

We have only 10 days to have their questions put to the government in the House, and although it sure sounds like it has made up its mind already, based upon its answers today, I am wondering, out of decency, would it consider extending the consultation period?

[Foreign Investment, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public elected a government to do exactly what we are supposed to do here, which is to take the information from the public service and make sure that the right determination is being made. They have failed abysmally in this decision-making.

I have sat at this table, and I understand fully the importance of weighing so many different variables in making these decisions. They are hiding behind the skirts of the national security agencies, because they are afraid that they are going to be seen to not be appeasing the Chinese government because of whatever they want to do. This is wrong.

[Foreign Investment, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Prime Minister very carefully today. This is not a question about trust in our national security agencies. This is about the competence and the negligence within the cabinet of the Government of Canada.

It is simply this. They have many connections, which they laud all the time in terms of talking to the United States. Did any single cabinet minister on the other side give a heads-up to their counterpart in the United States and say, “Is this a good idea, because I want to do a gut check?”

Does he know who is doing a gut check? It is the Canadian public.

Who did they talk to, and what did they learn?

[Foreign Investment, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, then why did the minister not take the very simple step of requesting a full national security review? What is the anxiety on the other side in dealing with the Chinese? Is it trade matters? Does it have to do with something else that the Canadian Parliament has not been informed of?

The reason the Investment Canada Act was amended to include this part was to deal with these situations. The Liberals may be blind to it; we are certainly not blind to it. Are the Liberals going to do the right and proper thing, protect Canadian interests, and order the national security review?

[Foreign Investment, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the government gets a fail on doing its homework.

The act is very clear. When the government takes a look at an investment, it determines whether or not it takes that second step, which is to do a national security review. It determined it did not need to take that second step. Eminent people have been coming forward to say that the government should have slowed its role and should have actually taken that step to look further into the details.

I am going to ask the minister a very clear question. Why did he not order a national security review? Is this not in contravention of our defence policy interests?

[Points of Order, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order raised by my hon. colleague, I would also like to point out that the letter that was actually sent to Norsat said as follows, “there will be no order for review of the transaction under subsection 25.3(1)”, which governs national security reviews.

Further, it is important that we get some evidence from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness since this decision is taken only in consultation with him.