Robert Gordon Kitchen

[Customs Act, May 9th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the bill gives the already overburdened CBSA officers the discretion to collect biographical data on travellers as they leave Canada. I have six border crossings on the south side of my riding and I know they are busy as all get out. It is not only happening with illegals entering the country, but it is a tremendous burden.

What does the government envision so as not to overload our agencies in taking too much data to the point where the data becomes useless?

[Customs Act, May 9th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member claimed that Bill C-21 would help crack down on people joining terrorist groups. Why, then, has the Liberal government reduced the penalty to as little as a fine for joining terror groups if it truly takes the legislation seriously?

[The Environment, May 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, during a debate on the carbon tax, the Minister of Environment stated that carbon capture and storage is a solution that will benefit everyone. This technology has existed for years at the Boundary Dam power station, where carbon capture technology has removed over two million tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere. The minister sings the virtues of this innovative, green, emissions-cutting technology yet is forcing a job-killing carbon tax on the people of Saskatchewan.

Why is the only minister from Saskatchewan, the public safety minister, not championing Saskatchewan's clean energy initiatives?

[Saskatchewan Leaseholders, May 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, recently the member for Yorkton—Melville and I met with 160 members of the Shesheep Cottage Owners Association and the Grenfell Beach Association. We were there to listen to their concerns about a nine-year process affecting their leases with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

Many of these 324 leaseholders and their families invested their life savings into the development of their future. Their leases have been increased 600 to 700%. They are consistently told that the issue is before the courts and there is nothing the government can or will do for them.

Decisions made by the court are appealed. Remedial resolution meetings are not kept or not made. They are frustrated at every step. In fact, some leases will expire this year. With no written leases presented, how can they determine their future? As with the pipeline, the government continues to kick this process down the road. The government is taking no action to help resolve this issue. The cottagers have not missed payments and they are reasonable people asking to be treated fairly. It is time for the government to step up and do the right thing.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear that the member has a company in her riding that is being innovative and creating jobs. I encourage that company to set that up in Saskatchewan, because no one is setting up anything in Saskatchewan. The innovative ideas the member is talking about on which taxpayers' dollars are being spent are not creating jobs in Saskatchewan.

She talked a bit about the four provinces that have already come on board. The argument is very simple. She said that four provinces have come on board and others have signed on to this agreement. Not one of the four maritime provinces has a plan. Saskatchewan has a plan. New Brunswick's plan is to call the gas tax it already has in place the carbon tax. P.E.I., Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia do not have a plan. Nova Scotia is negotiating how to open up a new coal mine under the ocean.

We in Saskatchewan have a plan, one that is workable, and we should have the chance to implement it.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question on the issue of the carbon tax is what the cost is. She talked about other people talking about it, but the motion today is asking for what that cost is. The government knows what that cost is. Canadians want to know what that cost is. My constituents want to know what that cost is, because if they are going to plan for their future, they need to know how it is going to impact them and how big an impact it is going to be.

The Liberal government presently wants to shut down coal-fired power. Tell that to the constituents of Coronach, Saskatchewan. There are 500 of them who work for either the mine or the power plant. If we multiply 500 by four, that is 2,000 people. Where are the people in that community going to go? Where are they going to live? They have no idea. They have no idea what money they are going to have. Their houses are worth nothing because of shutting that down. We need to know the cost of the carbon tax so they can make their plans.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on today's motion to produce the documents on carbon tax and to touch on a few sleights of hand and inaccuracies from the Liberal government in its claims of being transparent on the federal carbon tax.

First, the Liberals announced their planned carbon tax on Canadians on October 3, 2016, but for reasons unknown to me, my constituents and I still have not been told how much it will cost or how much it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, upon announcing the planned carbon tax on Canadians, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change promised Canadians that all revenue collected would be given back to the province. We all know this is not true.

Third, they convinced Canadians that if they were elected, they would support and champion initiatives for the middle class and those working hard to join it. Instead, they increased taxes on small businesses and want to impose a job-killing carbon tax that will damage all of Canada.

I stand here today to implore the government to end its carbon tax cover-up and finally tell Canadians how much more families will have to pay when it comes into effect.

Here are a few examples of concerns I heard from some of my constituents.

Joe from Carlyle commented, “I am a farmer in the Carlyle area and I have some concerns. We both know about the carbon tax issue, and obviously it is a major concern. We know it will affect us, but how badly? That is the question. I am afraid for my family's future.”

Jeff from Estevan wrote, “On July 1st, 2012, Australia implemented a carbon tax. Two years later, in 2014, they repealed it. A statement on the Australian government's own website says 'Abolishing the carbon tax will lower costs for Australian businesses and ease cost of living pressures for households' so what can we expect from a carbon tax in Canada? Higher business costs and increased costs of living for households. This is not something I want to see implemented from any level of government. All in all it is an incredibly bad idea and I definitely do not support it.”

Jake, from Weyburn, wrote to the Prime Minister, to me, and to all Canadians to say this:

Adding a carbon tax to my farm's cost of production will make it less profitable, and ultimately less competitive with my neighbours to the south and across the oceans. I can only take what price is offered to me; I cannot pass along a carbon tax to my customers.

He continued:

So, let's exempt farmers, right? Make it revenue-neutral? While that may seem a simple solution, how will you go about that? I still have to purchase fertilizer, crop protection products, fuel, machinery, and so on. If those industries are paying a carbon tax, you can bet they will pass along that cost.

In conclusion, he stated:

If a carbon tax drives up my farm's costs without creating an incentive for me to reduce emissions, why have one at all? It does not achieve the required goal of reducing emissions, and hurts my family in the process. I thought your government was going to help the middle class?

These are just a sprinkling of correspondence, and they make excellent points about how the families of Souris—Moose Mountain would be affected. The trickle-down effect they talk about would affect all business operating costs, as well as families, by increasing the cost of heat, electricity, and food, yet the government will not tell them what the cost is.

We know the government has the figures because access to information requests have been filed. The finance department memo produced says that there is an analysis of the potential impact of a carbon price based on household consumption data across different income levels. However, the actual data from the analysis is blacked out.

The government says the analysis can be withheld for two reasons: because it is advice to the government or because it is information that can possibly harm the Canadian economy. If it is the latter, then we can only imagine the cost is going to be even worse than we expected. How can my communities and the people within them plan for their future?

Canadians want the whole truth, not these half-truths they have been given, like the Liberals' promise that a carbon tax would be revenue neutral. In May of last year, Environment and Climate Change Canada posted this on their website:

Whichever system is implemented—federal or provincial—revenues will remain in the provinces. Revenues from carbon pricing can be used to lower taxes, like in British Columbia, or support low- and middle-income families, like in Alberta.

It sounds great, but too bad it is utterly misleading. The minister has stood many times in this House to say that all the money that would be collected from the carbon tax would be given back to the provinces. We know for a fact that not all the money would be given back.

Let me expand on that. I recently submitted an Order Paper question and asked the following:

With regard to the carbon tax and the statement by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change on CTV News on January 15, 2018, that “All the revenues go back to the provinces”: what is the projected amount which will be returned to each province as a result of the additional GST revenue collected from the carbon tax?

I know members are itching to know the answer to that:

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a broad-based tax on consumption in Canada that is calculated on the final amount charged for a good or service. The general rule that was adopted at the inception of the GST is that this final amount includes other taxes, levies, and charges that apply to the good or service and that may be embedded in the final price. This amount includes customs duties, federal and provincial product-specific taxes (e.g., on fuel, alcohol and tobacco products), as well as other environmental levies, including carbon pricing.

Here is the kicker:

The Pan-Canadian Framework includes the commitment that revenues from pricing carbon pollution will remain with the province or territory of origin. These revenues do not include those in respect of the GST charged on products that may have embedded carbon pricing costs in them.

Not only is the government going to tax on a tax, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change failed Canadians when she misled them to believe a carbon tax would be revenue neutral. This GST, on regular gasoline alone priced at $1 a litre, which it is not, will amount to over $2.4 billion per year for the Liberals to squander.

The Government of Saskatchewan has taken a firm stand against a carbon tax, arguing that, in addition to being somewhat ineffective in tackling global carbon emissions, a carbon tax will do substantial damage to the province's natural resource-dependent economy.

The Government of Saskatchewan has come up with a plan that suits Saskatchewan, and I agree. Other mechanisms, such as carbon capture and sequestration, are far more effective to reduce carbon emissions.

We have an incredible example of it in my hometown of Estevan. The work done by SaskPower and the Boundary Dam power station, with regard to their efforts in carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, has been a huge success. CCS functions to prevent large amounts of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere by large industrial and power plants.

Sadly, the Liberals have not yet indicated if this innovative and green technology will even be exempt from the carbon tax. Given that the Liberals plan to phase out coal-fired electricity, CCS needs to be considered as a green solution to the emissions by coal-fired power plants.

Here is a novel idea: Invest in this program and enhance CCS. After all, it captures 85,375 tonnes of CO2 every month, the equivalent of 21,300 vehicles off the road per month. Over two million tonnes of CO2 have been stored since 2015. This is technology the world wants and needs. Taiwan, Japan, and the United States are interested. Why not promote CCS in India, instead of clothing? To use the minister's words, “Get with the program.”

I wish I were putting my energy into building upon their successes, rather than standing here and arguing against a tax when we do not even have tangible results or data to study.

Instead of imposing a carbon tax on provinces and territories, the Liberals should focus on improving Canada's competitive advantage to support Canadian businesses. The Liberals' uncertainty is causing businesses to stand on the sidelines and wait, discouraging investment and hurting the economy.

It gets worse. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's latest report, the government's carbon pricing plan will cause the GDP to drop, costing Canadians $10 billion they would otherwise have gained by 2022.

What my constituents want is simple. They want to be the masters of their own destiny. They want to feel confident that at the end of a hard day's work, at jobs where they contribute, that they are not coming home to a house they cannot afford to heat, an empty fridge, or a car they cannot drive because gas is unaffordable. In order to determine their future, what they need and what they want is to know the facts.

The Liberals love to study things. Well, this study has been done. The information is there. They should free the study.

Conservatives are the party of lower taxes, so I will always advocate that on behalf of my constituents. That is how we will help the middle class and those working hard to join it. The Liberals need to end the carbon tax cover-up and finally tell Canadians how much more families will have to pay.

[Visitability, April 30th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak to Motion No. 157 and discuss the important topic of visitibility in Canada, and the positive effects this principle can have on our communities when utilized. The concept is also of benefit to our seniors, aging individuals, as well as people of all ages and abilities. I would like to thank the member for Tobique—Mactaquac for his work on this motion and for bringing attention to this issue on behalf of many Canadians who live with a physical disability.

Disability is a concept that has the potential to be life changing for those who face mobility issues on a daily and even temporary basis. The basic definition of visitibility is “a measure of a place's ease of access for people with disabilities”. It includes three main components: first, a no-step entrance, meaning that at least one of the entrances to a building or home is accessible, a level entrance with no stairs, and has an accessible route to the driveway; second, a clear passageway on the main floor, which often means wider doorways and halls; and, third, an accessible bathroom on the main floor that can be used by people who require mobility devices.

A large part of the visitibility movement is to have the three components included in every new home build that occurs. It is much easier to integrate design features such as wider doorways during the building phase of a property rather than doing it after the fact. I am sure that many of us here know how expensive home renovations can be. By building homes that have visitibility features included from the get-go rather than having to retrofit at a later date, the homeowner saves a lot of money and effort, among the many other benefits.

Our previous Conservative government recognized some of these hindrances and introduced the home accessibility tax credit and home renovation tax credit. It also promised in the 2015 election campaign to make the HRTC permanent. These were steps that would help disabled and all Canadians to increase the visitability of their homes. In fact, I recall my parents taking advantage of this to make their home more visitable in their senior years.

One of the main aspects that supports the principles of visitability is that people should be able to age in their homes. Here in Canada, we have an aging demographic, with over 6.1 million individuals who are over the age of 65. As we age, our mobility tends to decline, and with it our independence. By encouraging visitibility features to be included in all homes, seniors would be able to live in their residences for longer and maintain more independence than they would, if, for example, the entrance to their home had a set of stairs leading to the door.

This also has implications on the cost of our health care systems across Canada. If senior citizens are able to age in place and live at home for longer, it avoids the necessity of their moving into a long-term care home and the costs associated with that. Studies have shown that it is less costly to the health care system to keep seniors in their own homes. They are more comfortable, more likely to eat and hydrate, more likely to take medication, and their socialization is increased. Provision of home care services is more beneficial and not as expensive as institutionalization. My wife Donna has spent the last 10 years as a case manager and nurse providing these exemplary services and can attest to this personally.

Statistics also show that the leading cause of injury among seniors is from falls due to stairs. By having a no-step entrance to a home, the costs associated with these injuries is saved and health care costs are reduced. This also applies to seniors who are hospitalized. Many times, seniors are able to return home from the hospital sooner if their home has visitibility features that allow them to live their lives more independently. It is yet another way that we, as a society, can curb the costs of health care while giving our seniors the chance to stay in their residences for longer periods of time.

There is also a social benefit to be considered. One of the key components of visitibility is to allow individuals with a physical disability to visit a place knowing that their basic mobility needs will be accommodated. For seniors, this is extremely important. Studies have shown us that seniors who have a robust and fulfilling social life live longer and stay healthier than those who are isolated. Being able to have visitors or to go to a friend's house are key to maintaining social engagement, which in turn is essential to our mental health.

Having an accessible entrance to a home is much more than just an entrance; for many, it is a connection and the ability to be part of our communities in a larger sense.

One of my roles here in Ottawa is as a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In my reading on visitability, I did not see veterans mentioned. However, I could not help but see how beneficial the features of visitability would be for the men and women who have served our country.

Many of our veterans live with physical disabilities. They come in a range of forms, whether that might be back issues for a fighter pilot injured when he had to punch out of a CF-18, knee problems for soldiers who have spent their career jumping off a tank, or those who have unfortunately suffered a debilitating physical injury, such as the loss of a limb, while serving in Afghanistan. I have heard many stories of how difficult it is for veterans to get their homes retrofitted to accommodate their disability once they retire from the Canadian Armed Forces. If the principles of visitability were present in all homes, our veterans would have a little more peace of mind knowing that their homes were not only accessible to them but also to their brothers and sisters in arms who would like to come and visit.

Socialization is not just important for seniors; it is at the heart of community for all Canadians, including our veterans. It allows them to maintain their feeling of self-worth and inclusion as they transition from a regimented life to one that is foreign to them, that of civilian life.

As I have stated before, visitability has wide-ranging benefits for everybody. Easy access to and within a home makes it more attractive for buyers, including those who do not have a physical disability. Families with strollers, movers with heavy equipment, people who have larger beds, and those with grocery carts all benefit from having a no-step entrance and wider doorways and halls. These features are also beneficial for those who might be dealing with a temporary mobility issue, such as a broken leg or other such injury. Almost every person in this country would benefit from having the features of visitability present in their homes at some point in their lives.

In my previous life as a chiropractor, my business partner and I made sure that the practice we built was as accessible and as visitable as possible. This included measures such as wheelchair ramps; no-step doorways; larger indoor spaces that allowed for manoeuvrability, such as wider hallways and washrooms; handrails; flooring that was not slippery but would still allow for mobility; and counters and sinks at accessible heights.

Most people would not think twice about the height of a toilet, yet it can be challenging. Motorized chairs were hardly thought of then, yet the steps taken during construction were able to accommodate most chairs today. This is progression, and it is proactive, not reactive. Even though this was 30 years ago, it was a no-brainer at the time. As health care practitioners, we understood the need to accommodate those with physical disabilities, and in my view, it is a best practice that all businesses should be using.

These people have homes and are more mobile today. Accommodating residences adds to their quality of life. There is essentially no downside to the principles and features of visitability becoming the standard to which new homes are built here in Canada.

This motion calls upon the minister to address the topic of visitability in the upcoming accessibility legislation that will be presented to Parliament, and I would like to personally encourage her to be an advocate for visitability and those who stand to benefit from it. As the deputy shadow minister for youth, sport, and persons with disabilities, I am aware that this legislation has been delayed. Therefore, I implore the minister to take timely, concrete action and get the accessibility legislation out there as soon as possible. Canadians need their government to take leadership on these issues, and I trust that visitability will be part of that legislation.

Finally, I thank the member for Tobique—Mactaquac for bringing this important matter to the House of Commons. By working together in a positive, non-partisan way, we can effect great change for those Canadians who need it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris, my neighbour to the east. We both have farmers and ranchers in our ridings, and they will be hugely impacted by this carbon tax the member mentioned.

The minister has stood many times in this House to say that all the money that would be collected from the carbon tax would be given back to the provinces. Now we know for a fact that the money would not be given back. The GST would not go back to the provinces. It would stay in the Liberal coffers.

My question for the member is on that aspect of it. The budget talks about $120 million to have carbon police. I wonder if the member could comment on this $120 million expense to police this aspect.

[Petitions, April 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by my constituents that calls upon the Prime Minister to defend freedom of conscience, thought, and belief and to withdraw the discriminatory attestation requirement for applications for the Canada summer jobs program.