Mark Warawa

[Taxation, November 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. What an incredible member of Parliament he is, if only he could be the minister of defence here in Canada. Hopefully, that will happen one day soon. What an incredible job he does.

The question today is about the fairness or unfairness of the taxation of Canadians under the Liberal government.

Approximately a year ago, the Prime Minister announced that he was putting in place a mandatory tax on carbon in Canada and that all the provinces and territories would have to put a price on carbon. There are diverse opinions on whether that should be happening. I live in British Columbia, where we have had a carbon tax for a number of years. Therefore, the debate is not about carbon taxation, it is not about whether our climate is changing, but about tax fairness. The Prime Minister, in justifying placing a price on carbon, clearly promised on October 3, 2016, the following:

Provinces and territories will be able to have a choice in how they implement this pricing. They can put a direct price on carbon pollution, or they can adopt a cap-and-trade system....

He went on to say:

Whatever approach is chosen, this policy would be revenue-neutral for the federal government.

Shortly afterward, through a request to the Library of Parliament, we found out that this was not true. In fact, the government, in its budget projections, was estimating an increase in GST revenue coming to the federal government from charging GST on the carbon tax. Canadians are always willing to pay their fair share of the goods and services tax. However, the government is now projecting that it will have millions of new dollars in revenue from Canadian provinces and territories by charging GST on the price of carbon. That is not fair.

I asked for input on this from a number of constituents, who said it should be stopped because it was not fair. In fact, it is not common sense. It shows a government with out of control spending that as a result needs to get more tax revenues from wherever it can. We are seeing that continue with the government charging increased taxes and taking away tax benefits for children with autism and people with diabetes, and the list goes on. This is a government that is out of control and needs to get tax revenue. The answer to the Liberal government's dilemma with budgets that are not balanced is to reduce its out of control spending.

Again my question for the government is this. Why does it believe it is fair to charge a tax on a tax when Canadians do not believe in that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions for the hon. member. It is very important that we have a budget that represents where Canadians are now, and takes us in the direction of prosperity for all Canadians. He is the parliamentary secretary for youth, and the Prime Minister is the Minister for Youth.

The first question is this. Does he think it is fair that previous governments had a minister for youth, but the Liberal government does not have a minister for seniors, who are the largest growing population? There are more seniors than youth. It is the largest growing demographic in Canada and yet it is being ignored by the government. Does he think that is fair?

The second question is about taxation. Does the member think it is fair that taxes are going up, but they say taxes are going down? Canadians are hard pressed, and it is a growing problem.

Third, does he think it is fair that the Prime Minister and the finance minister are not paying their fair share of taxes?

[Petitions, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights the fact that gender-based violence against girls begins before they are born through the use of sex selection. Ninety-two percent of Canadians call for this to be made illegal.

The petitioners call on Parliament to condemn the practice of sex selection discrimination against girls.

[Petitions, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today.

The first is a petition from an association called Families For Justice. It is a group of Canadians who have lost a loved one killed by an impaired driver.

The petitioners believe Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime called what it is, “vehicular homicide”. They highlight that the number one cause of criminal death in Canada is impaired driving causing death, vehicular homicide.

The petitioners call on the Prime Minister to keep his promise to support legislation that would have mandatory minimum sentences, and they oppose Bill C-46.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 3rd, 2017]

With regard to the new citizenship guide from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada titled “Discover Canada”: (a) why were the warnings against female genital mutilation removed; (b) why were the warnings against honour killings removed; (c) what specific actions is the government taking to ensure that new Canadians are made aware that female genital mutilation and honour killings have no place in Canadian society; and (d) what is the title of the individual who made the decision to remove the warnings in (a) and (b) from the citizenship guide?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 3rd, 2017]

With regard to government expenditures and payments for out of court legal settlements: (a) what is the total amount paid out between June 15, 2017, and July 15, 2017; (b) how many payments were made during the time period referred to in (a); and (c) what is the largest single payment made during the time period referred to in (a)?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 3rd, 2017]

With regard to lifetime non-disclosure orders for employees of the Privy Council Office, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many employees were subject to lifetime non-disclosure orders; (b) what are the titles of each employee subject to such an order; and (c) what is the maximum penalty for breaking the lifetime non-disclosure order?

[Petitions, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on conscience protection. There are physicians and nurses in Canada who are being forced through coercion to be part of assisted suicide and euthanasia against their will. They are calling on Parliament to protect their rights of conscience.

[Petitions, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today.

The first one is on gender-based violence. It highlights the fact that discrimination against girls begins even before they are born, that people are using ultrasounds to determine the sex of the preborn child and if it is a girl the pregnancy is often ended. In the world right now there are over 200 million missing girls. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through the use of sex selection.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member but I am surprised by the question. No, Canadians do not have to worry about alcohol being made illegal. If somebody is found driving a vehicle and there is an open bottle of alcohol, it can be confiscated by the police. What is being proposed by the Liberals is that people could have 60 joints sitting in that car. They could be smoking away, and each of the people in the car could have a bag of 60 joints in the car, and they are all happy, and the police could not confiscate the marijuana.

What is being proposed by the government is bizarre. Alcohol will remain legal, but people are not to be driving impaired. Bill C-46 is about impaired driving. We are not talking about the legalization of marijuana; we are talking about keeping our streets safe, and Bill C-46 would not do that. The bill does not have mandatory minimum sentences. A fine of $1,000 for killing somebody is not realistic. It is not just; it is not fair; it is not where Canadians are.