Peter Kent

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this time allocation motion is for a highly imperfect piece of proposed legislation that deserves much greater debate and consideration by the Liberal government. It has been condemned by Canadians across the spectrum, by those who would demand the right to know how they are governed through access to information. It has been dismissed by the Information Commissioner herself as a regressive piece of legislation. She indicated quite clearly that the status quo would be preferable to the proposed law, which is being debated at third reading today.

The President of the Treasury Board has made excuses, and he urged Canadians, with a slight Churchillian twist, not to allow perfection to be the enemy of the good. Well, there is very little good in Bill C-58, which came through committee with some significant, but very few, amendments to correct a poorly written piece of legislation.

This piece of proposed legislation is beyond redemption. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board why he does not simply withdraw Bill C-58 and go back to the drawing board.

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 4th, 2017]

With regard to the decision taken by the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on July 7, 2017, to inscribe Hebron and the Tomb of the Patriarchs as a Palestinian site on the World Heritage List and on the List of World Heritage in Danger: what is the government’s official position on the UNESCO decision?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, December 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for another exceptional speech here in the House. I would ask him to elaborate a little on the finance minister's invitation to go to out to the lobby and restate what he suggested were allegations that did not refer at all to the fact that they were facts and questions. The other half of that invitation was that if my colleague did, and he did and the finance minister did not accompany him, he would face the full weight of the law and the legal proceedings that the minister's great wealth would enable.

I wonder if my colleague could speak about the fact that the threats that have been made from the Prime Minister and the finance minister, and the legal chill that they are trying to impose on the questions that are being legitimately, logically, and democratically asked in the House.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's enthusiasm, but I will pick up from the end of his remarks when he talked about the government's promises for infrastructure spending, many billions of dollars worth of those promises postdated until after the next election. How does he excuse the $2 billion committed already, which has had to be reprofiled because the government could not get those $2 billion out the door?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see my colleague drill down on a particular shortcoming in a piece of Liberal legislation.

It is true that the receivables are considered by accountants as assets. However, taxation before payment is yet another example of the theoretical application of the grasping that we have seen from the government. I think my colleague was quite correct in mentioning the abortive consideration of taxing benefits of retail employees.

This brings us back to the question that has been asked a number of times in the House. Given the government's focus on those who struggle most to perform a job, to raise families, and to pay their taxes, is this a case of a finance minister and a Prime Minister who have lived such rarified lives that they simply do not consider the impact they are having on those who have not?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, coming back to the matter of trust and confidence that every Canadian taxpayer must have in the finance minister of the day, as Canadians had in the legendary Jim Flaherty, confidence that has been shaken by this finance minister, with his conviction for non-disclosure, his crash divestment of shares, and his contribution to charity after he was caught, I would like to ask my colleague to explain again to the Liberals why our continuing questions are so important, particularly under the legislative guillotine of time allocation we are seeing with this important bill brought forward by the minister, Bill C-63.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I also want to congratulate him on his comparison between Bill C-63 and Lotto 6/49.

I am sure my colleague hears just as clearly as the official opposition the Liberal claims of all the wonderful things they are doing for the Canadian economy and for the middle class. However, at the same time, they are taking money away from diabetics. They are taking money away from people with autism. Taxes have actually gone up on 81% of the Canadian middle class. At the same time, the current Liberal government is exporting half a billion dollars to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to build infrastructure in Asia, while postdating the cheques for Canadian infrastructure and having to re-profile fully $2 billion in infrastructure commitments, because it cannot get the money out the door.

I wonder if my colleague could speak to the confused, dysfunctional priorities of the current Liberal government in spending Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to some of the discussion in the House earlier today when the official opposition and the NDP were raising questions about the finance minister's unwillingness to answer questions arising from his being found in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act, his willingness to accept guilt by paying a fine the Ethics Commissioner levied, and in returning to charity some of the ill-gotten gains he received from trades made during the past two years.

I would like to ask him this. Do his constituents have confidence in his ethical behaviour, performance, and ability as minister to continue with the presentation of bills, such as Bill C-63, which involve so critically the finances of the country and the hard-earned tax dollars returned to the government every year by hard-working Canadians?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will come directly to my question, which relates to the relevance of this minister presenting legislation in the House and his past behaviour in doing so. Why will he not answer these simple questions? Why is the Prime Minister allowing him to stonewall?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 28th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the finance minister cannot seem to understand why we still have so many questions, so let us come at it another way. Fool Canadians once, shame on the finance minister. Fool Canadians twice, shame on us.

The finance minister has admitted guilt by paying a fine levied by the Ethics Commissioner, as well as by surrendering millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains to charity. That is why Canadians' confidence has been shaken in the capacity of this minister. He now refuses to answer questions about major stock trades made before a ministerial announcement. He refuses to disclose information within—