Ron Liepert

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 1st, 2017]

—With regard to the tweet by the Prime Minister on October 11, 2017, that “Let me be blunt: we are not going to tax anyone's employee discounts”: (a) are all employee discounts exempt from taxation; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, what specific discounts are subject to taxation; and (c) have specific instructions been given to the Canada Revenue Agency not to tax employee discounts, and if so, what was the exact text of the instructions?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2017]

Put some sunshine on it.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the member for Newmarket—Aurora has been very entertaining for the last 20 minutes. I know the strategy of the Liberal caucus is to fill time, and he did an admirable job of filling time.

Last week we had a break, and I happened to read in the paper where all of the members on the Liberal benches had been instructed by the PMO to go out and listen to their constituents that week. We did the same thing. We did not have to be instructed. We just do that automatically. I want to ask the member, when he was talking to his constituents last week, what were they telling him about the minister and his unethical behaviour? I can say what our constituents are telling us. If he is going to tell us something different, then I am going to suggest he is not doing a very good job of listening to his constituents.

[Committees of the House, November 22nd, 2017]

Yes, sunny ways.

I looked up the meaning of the word “coward”. It says it is the lack of courage to do unpleasant things. The PMO did not have the courage to tell the member for Cambridge that we are not going to support his bill. Despite all of the support of government members, it did not have the courage. The PMO is a coward by not telling him to his face. It made that member go to committee, waste everybody's time, and then handed the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge this piece of paper. The member for Vaughan—Woodbridge dutifully did his job by reading the motion, and here we have it before us tonight.

Because the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, on behalf of the PMO, would like a number of these questions answered, and so do we, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting the following:

That the 13th Report of the Standing Committee on Finance (recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-240, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit — first aid)), presented to the House on Thursday, February 23, 2017, be not now concurred in but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance with the instruction to hear from further witnesses on the Bill.

I would encourage all members on that side of the House to support the amendment.

[Committees of the House, November 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, who may or may not be in the House, to stand in his place after I am done, to justify why this bill is not coming back for third reading.

Let me read the motion from the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, written on a piece of paper that had PMO written right across it:

WHEREAS the Committee is generally supportive of the intent of Bill C-240 there are questions that arise: which Canadians would receive the benefit of the measures, as the tax credit is non-refundable and this can only be claimed if you have income;

We could probably get some witnesses before the standing committee that could answer that question.

the cost to federal, provincial and territorial governments to administer the proposed changes to the Income Tax Act;

We could probably get some answers to that question as well.

the extent to which federal, provincial and territorial tax revenues would be affected by the proposed measure;

I will not read the entire motion because it is before the House. The motion from the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge then said:

Therefore, in light of the above noted details of the proposal in Bill C-240, be it resolved that this Committee...recommends that the House of Commons do not proceed further with Bill C-240.

[Committees of the House, November 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, I am standing here tonight to speak to this motion. I would have been much more pleased to be standing to speak to third reading of this particular piece of legislation. This is a motion I am going to dub “the Liberal government's cowardly motion”.

A hard-working member of Parliament did a lot of work and research putting together the bill, and he showed that emotion here tonight in his speech. He was almost apologetic, because he almost felt like he did not do enough work on this particular legislation.

This is not a case of a member of Parliament not doing his homework. This is a case of the Liberal government, the front bench, stabbing a member of its own caucus in the back and not having the courage to tell that particular member, when we had the discussion at second reading, that those members would not support the bill. They did not do that. Instead, they went ahead and allowed a so-called free vote. We in the opposition supported the bill. A number of Liberal members supported the bill, but the front bench did not.

The bill went to second reading. Let me give the House the dates. The bill was introduced by the member for Cambridge on February 25, 2016. It finally passed second reading on October 26, 2016. There were 227 votes in favour and 81 votes against. If we count the number of cabinet ministers, and those hoping to join cabinet, that is the 81.

Let me read the Standing Order in respect of when a bill is referred to committee:

A standing...committee to which a Private Member's...bill has been referred shall in every case, within sixty sitting days from the date of the bill's reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor....

I happened to be on the finance committee, and so was the member in the House tonight from Vaughan—Woodbridge. There were days when the finance committee did not sit, because we had no business to deal with. We in the opposition tried to bring the member's bill forward to be studied at committee and were consistently refused by the Liberal members on that committee. Shame on them.

After 48 sitting days, the bill finally came forward to committee. We spent two hours. We had some finance officials telling us why it could not be done, and we had the member for Cambridge come forward, make a very passionate plea, similar to what he has done in the House tonight, to have the bill go back to the House for third reading and approval. Let me give members the circumstances that happened.

At about the end of the two-hour period at finance committee, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge was handed a piece of paper from behind, which we could see across the room had PMO written across it. Let me read what it said. If the member for Vaughan--Woodbridge wants to disagree with me, he should get in his seat and stand up and deny that this is what happened in that committee, but he is not--

[Natural Resources, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today is Hard Hats on the Hill day. The Progressive Contractors Association of Canada and the Christian Labour Association of Canada are meeting with many of the members of the House to share their story of collaboration and productivity. They have an unparalleled record of getting projects done on time and on budget. They have worked co-operatively in the Alberta oil sands for the past decade. This collaborative model of construction has allowed for the completion of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of projects critical to Canada's economic future.

However, it does not stop there. Nearly half of western Canada's major industrial and urban infrastructure projects are built by PCA and CLAC. Their record of success has made them a focus in western Canada and a force, partly due to their involvement with the local indigenous communities, youth, and new Canadians.

I encourage all members to stop by this evening to join the member for Cape Breton—Canso and me, who are hosting this group. Please come to our event.

[Ethics, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will take that answer as a yes, that he did inappropriately use resources of the House of Commons and no, that he did not clear it with the Ethics Commissioner.

The minister, besides being an MP, is also a minister of the crown and has additional resources. I would ask the minister if he can assure the House that there were no other resources, including that of his riding office or of his minister's office, that were used to further the efforts to get his father elected as a school trustee.

[Ethics, October 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Calgary Herald reported that the Minister of Sport inappropriately used House of Commons resources to support his father's campaign for election as trustee for the school board. In answers to my questions last week, the parliamentary secretary seemed to indicate that the matter had been referred to the Ethics Commissioner, but the answer was anything but clear.

I will give the minister another opportunity to clarify today to the House whether he cleared with the Ethics Commissioner the use of these materials in an effort to get his father elected as a school trustee.

[Ethics, October 27th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, when I asked the Minister of Sport about his inappropriate use of House resources to advance the interests of his father during last week's civic election campaign in Calgary, his parliamentary secretary said that “we will take responsibility for our actions” and deal with the Ethics Commissioner.

I would like to give the Minister of Sport another opportunity today to inform the House if he has in fact reported his unethical behaviour to the Ethics Commissioner and if there are any other potential conflicts that he disclosed at the same time.