Ted Falk

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saint John—Rothesay for his very well-written and well-delivered speech. I also want to commend him for his passion in looking after child poverty in his constituency. It is very admirable.

There is one point I would like to correct, and then I will ask a question. He indicated that there was no fairness in the universal child care benefit of the previous Conservative government. I suggest that the fairness is actually very similar to what the Liberals have rolled out in their Canada child benefit, because as individuals received the universal child care benefit, they were taxed at the same rate as their income tax. That was the fairness of it. Higher-earning people gave a portion of that money back, and people with low incomes kept all of the benefit. That was the fairness in the system.

A person could qualify for $533 a month per child tax free under the Canada child benefit. Is that perhaps too generous?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his presentation on Bill C-29, budget implementation act, 2016, no. 2.

I want to reference something that was mentioned by earlier speakers about the infrastructure bank that is part of the commitment of the budget, $15 billion, plus another $20 billion of debt the Liberals want to fund this bank, for a total of about $35 billion.

Today the Prime Minister is in Toronto meeting with lots of institutional investors, and he is trying to attract them to invest $180 billion in Canada's crumbling infrastructure.

I do not argue whether that money is needed. We do have lots of infrastructure that needs upgrading, but when we attract private money to the tune of $180 billion, those investors will want a premium of 7% to 8% on that money.

Currently our Canada savings bond rate is at 1%, 20-year municipal debentures can be had for 3%. Even if we increased our Canada savings bond rates up to 3%, the difference between 3% and what those institutional investors will want of 7% to 8% is 4% or 5% on $180 billion. That is between $7 billion and $9 billion that will cost Canadians extra every single year to fund these infrastructure projects, and that is not included in your budget.

What are Canadians supposed to think of that extra $7 billion or $9 billion price tag that you are putting on to this?

[Petitions, October 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I also have another petition, also signed by many individuals, asking the government to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.

[Petitions, October 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition signed by dozens of individuals asking the Canadian Parliament to establish measures to stop the Chinese regime's mass murder of innocent people for their organs; including, but not limited to: introducing Canadian legislation to ban organ tourism and criminalize those involved; taking every opportunity to call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong; and urging the Chinese authorities to bring former leader Jiang Zemin and his cohorts to justice.

[Taxation, October 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we thought the Liberals disliked tax credits after they cancelled the text book tax credit for students, the arts tax credit for families with kids in dance, and the sports tax credit for families with kids in sports. However, we recently learned that the Minister of Canadian Heritage was creating a new tax credit for friends hosting talk shows. Apparently, the Liberals only dislike tax credits when they help hard-working families, but they like it when it helps their Liberal elites.

Could the minister tell the House how much this retroactive tax credit for talk shows will cost hard-working Canadians?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for the economic welfare of folks who are retiring and to make sure they have adequate funds to retire with comfortably. However, she is wrong when she says an increased CPP is not an additional payroll tax. If something is being forced upon an employer to remit to the federal government on behalf of an employee, which is what this increased CPP will do, it is an additional tax legislated by the House and forced upon employers.

I know the member has a great appreciation for people's ability to retire comfortably, but at what point are we pushing the real job creator or our country, our small to medium-sized enterprises, too hard? At what point have they contributed enough?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I too am a small business owner, like my colleague from Quebec stated he was earlier. I have a partner who is running my business in my absence. I wonder if the member across the way could explain to Canadians how taking money out of the pockets of employees is going to help them to have a better standard of living today to better meet the needs of their children and their families.

Also, for every dollar that employees would be required to commit, the employer is going to have to contribute an equal amount. The Liberals already did not reduce the small business tax like they promised they would do. How would taking money out of the employers' pockets with additional CPP contributions help a business to grow and continue to create jobs and create wealth?

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital has considered the impact at all of this new carbon pricing that was announced earlier today on industries like farming and transportation. The city in which he resides has a project happening called CentrePort. It is the centre of Canada's transportation distribution centre, north, south, east, west. It is the centre of Canada.

Transportation burns diesel fuel and consumes a lot of jet fuel. There is going to be a huge impact on those two industries. I am wondering if my hon. friend has any answers for those people who are going to see astronomical increases to their cost of doing business.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Scarborough—Agincourt for his in-depth analysis of the way he perceives Bill C-22. I would suggest that Bill C-22 is a token gesture on behalf of the Liberal government to comply with the campaign promise that it made.

I was on the public safety committee last year when Bill C-51 came through and I think the Conservative government at the time did a very good job of presenting a piece of legislation that was effective and a useful tool for our security organizations. It better enabled them to do the job that they do, and as we can see, we have had very good results in Canada.

I am wondering if the member would agree that the committee could be strengthened in a couple of ways. First, I see a weakness in the fact that members are appointed by one individual, the chair is appointed by one individual, and one individual can redact any information provided by the committee by way of report. I see that as a weakness, and I am wondering if the member would see a benefit to there being more openness, more transparency, and more electability among parliamentarians.

[Petitions, September 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition signed by residents of Manitoba, which contains a consistent request with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion.

The petitioners ask that Parliament establish conscience protection for physicians and health care institutions.