Ron Liepert

[Infrastructure, May 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the finance committee is currently studying the budget bill, Bill C-44, but this omnibus bill contains the Liberals' so-called infrastructure bank. We have had several witnesses appear before committee who have studied this scheme and are testifying that this bank is being set up to invest in high-risk projects.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why is he gambling with $35 billion of hard-earned taxpayer dollars?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what is even more outrageous is that most of those infrastructure dollars that have been budgeted are sitting there. They are not actually being deployed into communities. I cannot name one project in southwest Calgary that has been funded by the government that is under way. What is happening right now is that monies that the Conservative government allocated for things like the ring road are being used and the projects are actually taking place, and the Liberals are taking the credit.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more, and it scares me when I agree 100% with the member from the island, but I totally agree.

I think there is one factor at work here. I think the government wants to get this legislation passed and get out of here as quickly as it can, because it knows it is under attack and that the Ethics Commissioner is about to release her report on the Prime Minister's ill-fated Christmas vacation. The government is using closure, and I believe it will use it again in the finance committee, because when the member for Gatineau sat on the finance committee in the last go-round, he put forward a closure motion, so at the next finance committee meeting, I am expecting the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge to bring forward a closure motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member to come to Alberta during the summer break. I will take him to Bruderheim and ask him to show me where those two pipelines actually start. There is no shovel in the ground.

The federal government has given approval, which was already given by the National Energy Board, and it cancelled the one that was ready for construction that the Conservative government had approved, called “northern gateway”.

Be careful what you ask for, Mr. MP.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the opportunity to participate today. I consider myself fortunate because I am going to be one of probably some 50 members of this House who are going to be able to stand and speak to the budget, because of the government invoking closure. That means that some 289 members are not going to get a chance to speak on behalf of their constituents on this budget. We certainly feel in the opposition that it is unfair. After the Liberals campaigned on openness, transparency, not using closure, and not bringing forward omnibus bills, we see where all of those promises have gotten us.

I want to take a few minutes to address a few of the issues in the budget. After the Minister of Finance delivered the budget, I was asked by the media in Calgary for my comments. I said it was a Seinfeld budget, a budget about nothing. Yesterday, the finance committee had Department of Finance officials before it to start to go through the budget division by division. One of the things that became quickly apparent was that I was wrong. It is not a budget about nothing; it is a budget about tax increases and the removal and rescinding of a number of tax incentives that exist.

I want to focus, on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Signal Hill, on some of the taxation measures in this budget document. I know there are other issues that, if one had more time, one could certainly debate. I know some of my colleagues have already debated the division around removing the independence of the parliamentary budget officer. I know we are going to have a debate around the infrastructure bank, so I will leave those to other speakers.

I want to talk about some tax measures and the removal of a tax credit, which is really unfortunate. First, let me talk about the rescinding of the transit pass credit that the Conservative government brought in a number of years ago. The government likes to talk about the middle class and those who are attempting to join it. If there ever was a tax relief that appealed to either the middle class or those hoping to join the middle class, it was this tax credit on the transit pass. It is only $250 for the average user of a transit pass across the country, but that is not that one per cent on whom the government keeps saying it is increasing the taxes. That is a direct tax on Canada's working people and those who use public transit. I know that the bureaucrats have told the minister that this is just a nuisance for them to administer. We have to assume that the government is going to take the advice of the bureaucrats and not listen to working Canadians, who every day try to get to work on our transit systems, and not give them that tax credit. I think it is deplorable, quite frankly.

The second tax measure that is not in this budget bill, but was raised by the minister and is going to be taking place, is the reduction in the petroleum drilling incentives grant that has been in existence for a number of years. I was told yesterday at the finance committee that there will probably be some future consultations and it will appear in the fall budget bill. I would like to be part of those consultations today.

I represent a riding in Alberta that has taken the hit of the downturn in oil prices globally. Recently, with the uptick in oil prices, we have had an opportunity for a number of companies that are in the exploration business to resume drilling activities, which is putting Albertans back to work. With the removal of this drilling incentive, many of those drilling companies are going to do one of two things: they are going to take that drilling rig and park it back in the yard, or they are going to take it across the border and drill in the United States where the incentives and the bottom line are much better.

The government can talk all it wants about creating jobs, but if it wants to create jobs in Alberta, removing this incentive is not a way to do it. If the government is listening and it is not part of the budget bill, I would strongly encourage the government to back off on this initiative before bringing forward its budget bill in the fall.

I know that a number of members have commented on and have raised this issue, having heard from their constituents regarding the increase in what is described as sin tax by governments, the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. It is hard to argue against an increase in sin taxes; however, what the government needs to take into account is the spinoff effect of the increase in alcohol taxes.

The Canadian restaurant association has been very public about saying that it was blindsided by this, and it is going to significantly impact small businesses in this country. Again, I am an Alberta representative, and we have an Alberta government that has been hammering the same industry with increases in sin taxes and minimum wage, and a carbon tax. Now the federal government loads on additional taxes. Small businesses involved in the restaurant industry, not to mention those in the wine and beer industry, are clearly going to feel the impact of this.

During their campaign, the Liberals promised to reduce small business taxes. In fact, they did that to match what the other parties were saying, and then once they formed government, they reneged on that promise. Now they are hitting small businesses with this additional tax.

Those are just three areas, because I have limited time. I want to focus a little on one other chilling aspect of the budget document. In committee yesterday we were going through the budget implementation bill. There is an important division to which I would draw all members' attention: part 4, division 2, under the title “Public Debt”, “Enactment of Borrowing Authority Act”. What this particular division does is allow the government to go out and borrow up to a maximum. This particular bill, and it is right here in the bill, allows the government to borrow up to $1.3 trillion. We are talking trillions here.

That covers the current debt, which is almost $700 billion today. It covers some $275 billion in debt that crown corporations have incurred. Then there is a bunch of provisions in there, the differential of some $300 billion for future debt and also for a contingency fund.

Let us just take a minute and talk about our debt situation. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has asked the Minister of Finance on numerous occasions—I think it is up to 25 or 30 times—when we are going to balance the budget. He refuses to answer that question. We have to assume that he is refusing to answer the question because his finance officials were correct when, the day before Christmas, they released a document that said we will not balance the budget until 2055.

What does that mean to Canadians? First of all, it means that we currently pay $25 billion a year in interest payments alone, and that is only going to go up. What does that mean to an individual Canadian? It means that each Canadian owes $17,563, and it means that, in the 10 minutes that I have been speaking, our debt has gone up by another $0.5 million. That is the seriousness of this particular strategy of the federal government.

I could go on for quite some time, but while I am up, I also want to put my stake in the ground, as the member for Bow River has done. Within the budget, the federal government has said it is going to consult on the proposed tax changes for the farming community. If this is the consultation process, let us be on the record to say that, clearly, this is not something that the federal government should be doing. I hope that when it comes forward in the fall, common sense will prevail and this is one that it will back off on, along with the petroleum drilling incentive that it is planning to cancel.

I will sum up with one—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I know that the minister does not excel at math, so I will do a little math for him. He said 39 members have spoken on this particular bill. When we subtract 39 from 338, it means 299 members of this House have not had a chance to speak on this particular bill.

I also sit as the vice-chairman of the finance committee, so I would like to ask the minister if the government can assure us it will not bring closure to the finance committee as it did in the last budget. If it is going to bring closure to the House on the budget bill, let the finance committee do the work that the finance committee, as the minister says, does so well. Will he stand in this House today and assure the House that the government will not bring closure to the finance committee's work?

[Privilege, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am moving a motion. I do not know whether I need unanimous consent.

[Privilege, April 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having the faith that I will bring some additional information to this. It is important, because I will address a couple of matters that I have not heard addressed today.

First, I will start by saying that it is not often that I get up in the House to make remarks. I do not consider myself to be a parliamentary orator like my friend from York—Simcoe. I do not consider that I know that thick green book anywhere near to that of my colleague from the London area. The reality is that I do not have a university degree. I did not even finish high school. However, I do have a degree in hard knocks. I was raised in Saskatchewan and have many of those Saskatchewan values, as does my family. Those values include things like working hard, respecting the law, and respect for institutions.

What I am getting at is that those are the values of my constituents, who entrusted themselves to me for the next four years when they elected me in October of 2015. It is my job to ensure, when I stand in the House, that I represent their views, but it is also important that I represent what this institution stands for.

Today we are debating a motion and an amendment to a motion, which were moved by two of my colleagues. The motion and the amendment to the motion were moved by two colleagues who sit immediately behind me. I happened to be here on budget day when my colleagues arrived, and I can say that they were hurt. They were hurt by the fact that they were not able to be here to represent their constituents in this particular vote.

What I have seen from the other side is that some of the points that have been made need to be challenged. I refer to the debate yesterday. I happen to have the privilege—and I say “privilege”, because that is what we are talking about here today—of sitting on the finance committee, in which I have the opportunity on occasion to listen to the member for Winnipeg Centre. I was not in the House when he spoke on this particular privilege motion, but I did happen to catch him on the television in my office. I am going to quote what the hon. member said. I will not quote his entire remarks, but I must say that some of the comments he made yesterday are pertinent to what we are talking about today.

As I said, I was here on budget day, when my two colleagues could not exercise their right to vote, and I can assure everyone that they were hurt by it. What did the member for Winnipeg Centre say? He stated, “We are not supposed to dilly-dally in our offices.” What kind of response to a privilege motion is that by the member for Winnipeg Centre? That shows an attitude. What Conservatives are saying here today, and have been saying for the last several days, and have been saying in other places, is that it is a prevailing attitude that we see day after day in this House.

He further stated in his remarks that he does not think this should even be referred to a committee. This is a gentleman who is an elected member of this House, a former member of the military, by his own admission in his remarks yesterday, and an elementary school teacher. He said that he did not think this should even be referred to a committee, that we have the bureaucracy to figure this out.

How can a member from that government stand in this House and say that our privileges, whether they have been violated or not, should be determined by a bureaucracy? That is absolutely absurd. The problem that many of us on this side have is that we see the actions of the government on a number of fronts, and, frankly, we do not trust it. We do not trust that the government is going to do the right thing. We do not trust that it is going to fix the problem we were talking about here today. For that reason, we need to ensure that there is a ruling that is fair. As the amendment said, it not only needs to go to a committee, but it needs to have the highest priority at that committee. That is what we are talking about here today. We have seen what the current government does in terms of priority. There is only one priority that comes from the government, and it is its own priority. It does not matter what the issue is, it is what they want to do, and they are going to get it done whether they have to roll over the opposition or not.

I know that there may be other members of this House who want to speak, but I have heard what you had said, Mr. Speaker, on a couple of occasions, so I am prepared at this stage to move the following motion, seconded by my colleague from Banff—Airdrie. I move that the question of privilege regarding the free movement of members of Parliament within the parliamentary precinct, originally raised on March 22, 2017, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Employment, March 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shameful that the minister will not stand up in the House to defend the energy industry of this country. If there is no drilling of new wells, what is going to go in those pipelines two, three, or five years down the road, when they are built?

Maybe I will ask an easy question that they can answer. Let us try this one.

The budget provides a $30-million no-strings-attached grant to the Alberta government. We know that the Notley government took $300 million of federal infrastructure dollars and put them into general revenue to pay down the debt for its uncontrolled spending.

Will the Minister of Finance stand in this House to guarantee unemployed Albertans that these dollars will be used for job creation and not to help the NDP—

[Natural Resources, March 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this budget and Alberta, we give on one hand and we take away more on the other. The budget provides Alberta with a one-time grant of a paltry $30 million while at the same reducing the petroleum incentive drilling credit by up to $140 million.

It is obvious that the finance minister was bullied by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Prime Minister, both of whom want to phase out the oil sands and phase out fossil fuels.

When will the Minister of Natural Resources start to stand up for Albertans and the energy industry?