Tom Lukiwski

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

I want to make a couple of comments and then ask a direct question. I think the comments I am going to make are important because we have approximately 200 new members in this place; and it seems there has to be a bit of a primer given to these new members on what actually occurred in years past, since I heard a bit of revisionist history being bandied about here today.

I know the member opposite is new to this place. I also want to make a comment based upon an exchange between the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt and my colleague the member for Durham. That exchange was based upon what happened in the global recession back in 2008. There seemed to be some criticism from the member opposite that we were running deficits. I would point out to all new members in this place that, during the time we were engaged in the debate on whether or not our government at the time should be running deficits, both the Liberals' and the NDP's main complaint was that the deficits were not large enough.

For any member of the opposition NDP and any member of the new Liberal government to complain that our deficit was some of the cause of our financial difficulties today is absolutely ludicrous.

My question is this. Why is it that the Liberals always seem to be wanting higher deficits when the Conservatives are the ones trying to get back to balance?

[Energy East Pipeline, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, do you remember the 1993 film, Free Willy?

The movie begins with a pod of orcas swimming near the coastline of the Pacific northwest. The pod is tracked by a group of whalers and one of the whales, Willy, is snared in their nets and taken away to a local amusement park to perform tricks.

Is that what has happened to Saskatchewan's only representative in the Liberal cabinet, the Minister of Public Safety? The trappings of power have snared him, and he is unwilling to stand up for the people of Saskatchewan.

During the election, the Liberals promised free votes. Saskatchewan residents will be watching closely tonight to see if the minister votes in favour of tonight's opposition motion calling on the government to stand up and support energy east. However, will he still be shackled by a Prime Minister whose real agenda is to promote and stop pipelines from being built?

In 1993, they freed Willy; in 2016, I say, “Free Ralph”.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange the member would make reference to the St. Lawrence, the environment, and beluga whales.

What I would point out to be quite a contradiction, and this stems from the government side, is how the mayor of Montreal thinks it would be environmentally proper to dump eight million litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence and, yet, oppose the energy east pipeline because, he says, it may not be environmentally sustainable. There seems to be a bit of contradiction in terms.

What we have stated, in essence, is that any energy project, any pipeline project, has to be proven, has to be demonstrated empirically, scientifically, and above reproach, that it is environmentally sustainable. Then, and only then, would we agree to approve and support such a project. That is the proper approach to be taking.

We want pipelines. We know it is the safest and most secure way to transport oil in this country. It is far better than rail, as the member would know, with the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. It is far better than tankers, far better than truck transport. Therefore, we want to ensure that not only does the transportation adhere to safety regulations, but it complies with a strong regulatory review process that we have established in this country.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments made by my friend and my colleague across the way. I would want to point out, however, his comments were factually incorrect. If members want to go back to check the record, which I have stated in this House on many occasions, with all the private members' bills in the 10 years that we were in government, our government, at that time, supported the government position 77% of the time. In other words, about 25%-plus of our members would vote against the government's private members' bills or government-sponsored private members' bills.

Contrast that with the voting record of both the Liberal Party and the NDP. The Liberal Party voted 93% of the time in favour of Liberal Party private members' bills. The NDP, 99% of time, voted in favour of one of its own private members' bills. In other words, they were whipped; we were allowed to vote freely.

However, the point that I was making here is merely to reflect the fact that during the election campaign the Liberal leader at the time, now Prime Minister, stated, without equivocation, he wanted to do things differently. The government wants to take votes differently in this new place, this new configuration. He is the one who said he would allow his members to vote freely. Clearly, saying one thing on the campaign trail does not reflect the reality in today's Parliament.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand today for the first time in this new Parliament to speak on what I consider to be an extremely important issue, but let me first talk about being here, for the first time in 11 years, as a member of a new riding. I now proudly represent the good people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. For the previous 11 years, I was the member for a riding called Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, but that consistency was eliminated during the recent boundary review. Now I have a brand new riding, which I am extremely proud to represent, and I thank the voters of that riding for their confidence in me and for re-electing me for my fifth term in this place.

I want to say a few things off the top about the debate we are having today. First and foremost, I honestly cannot understand why members of the government have stated that they will be opposing this motion today. I thought for a moment that they would at least have the ability to vote freely on this. I thought for a moment that perhaps some of the members from regions in Canada that are solidly in support of energy east, like New Brunswick, would be able to stand in the House and vote freely, according to the wishes of their constituents. That, at least, is what the Prime Minister had promised during the election campaign. Apparently, saying one thing then means doing another thing today.

The Prime Minister responded to a question during question period, saying that the Liberal government will be opposing the opposition day motion today. He did not reference the fact that he would allow his members to vote freely. He arbitrarily said that his government will oppose. That is his prerogative. I suppose he can change his mind about allowing free votes. I suppose he can change his mind about allowing his members to represent the views of their constituents. I suppose he can do whatever he wants, because Liberals have a majority in this place. However, what I do not understand is how Liberal members can come to the conclusion that the motion before the House today is something that they cannot support.

Let me explain, if I can, in a little more detail, by reading some of the elements of the Conservative opposition motion and then what the Minister of Natural Resources said earlier today during his speech on the motion.

The opposition motion states, “That,...the House: (a) recognize the importance of the energy sector to the Canadian economy and support its development in an environmentally sustainable way”.

What the Minister of Natural Resources said today in his opening address was, “Our government does recognize the importance of the energy sector in Canada and to the Canadian economy, and we wholeheartedly support its development in an environmentally sustainable way”. That is word for word what is contained in the opposition motion. The Minister of Natural Resources agreed word for word with what the motion contains.

Now the Prime Minister is saying that Liberals oppose the motion. One has to ask why. I can only assume it is for some political reasons. I cannot understand what they may be, since the government continues to say that it wants a fresh start. It wants to represent all Canadians' views. It wants to consult with Canadians and represent their views to the best of its ability. Yet when the Minister of Natural Resources said word for word that he agrees with the opposition day motion, how in the world can the Prime Minister then say that the Liberals would oppose the very motion presented today for debate?

I can understand all political parties wanting to intuitively and automatically oppose any initiative posed by an opposing political force. I know that when the Conservatives were in government, and we were for 10 years, the majority of times we opposed opposition day motions, but on occasion, we agreed with opposition motions if we believed and agreed with the content of the motion. For the Prime Minister, basically out of hand, to say that his party will reject today's opposition motion is something I just cannot fathom, because as we have heard here today, we are not just talking about energy east. We are talking about the energy sector. We are talking about what that sector and individual projects like energy east can do to benefit our economy.

We have heard from many eloquent speakers today relating to energy east, in particular, and the economic benefits that would accrue to Canada. We have heard about the jobs that would be created. My colleagues from la belle province have talked about 3,000 jobs that would be created in Quebec alone.

We know that provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, and New Brunswick are wholly supportive of this project because they know the economic impact and benefits that would accrue to their provinces. They know that jobs would be created across Canada because of this project.

We know that the economic benefits stem far beyond merely job creation in the energy sector. The benefits from energy east would support the manufacturing sector. It would support the construction industry. It would support a host of other industries in this province, and then indirect, ancillary benefits would support all of us, all of the social programs that we in Canada seem to take for granted, through tax revenues raised by this project.

This $1.5 billion privately funded project would bring untold tax revenues to Canada, which the government would then be able to use to support some of the initiatives, some of the health care initiatives and social programs, that we take for granted and depend upon.

It is beyond my level of comprehension to understand why the government today would oppose a motion that is merely stating the obvious, that we as a Parliament should be supporting projects in the energy sector, like energy east, if they can be proven to be environmentally sustainable.

All that the Prime Minister would have to say, even though he states he does not want to cheerlead or to pick winners and losers, to prove that the government truly supports the energy sector would be to stand up and say, “I support energy east if it can demonstrate unequivocally that it can be developed in an environmentally sustainable way. If that can be proven, then I will support energy east because of the benefits it would bring to this country.”

Did he do that? No. The Prime Minister simply stated, again, that we have to be responsible. I would suggest that responsibility takes many forms, and one of them is leadership, by showing the Canadian people that he respects all of the workers in the energy sector, understands the benefits that the energy sector can bring to this country, and appreciates the fact that this country, right now, is looking for ways to stimulate the economy that has hit hard times.

We have heard time and time again from speakers, both from the opposition side and some vague references from the government side, about the hardships being foisted upon provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan. Provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, who have proven time and time again that they want to be willing partners in Confederation and year after year after year that they are willing to contribute vast amounts of money, billions of dollars, to the Canadian economy through equalization programs, want to be heard. They want to be appreciated.

They simply want the new Prime Minister of this country to understand the fact that the project being debated today, energy east, is good for Canada. We all agree that it has to be developed in an environmentally secure and sustainable way.

However, to deny the very existence of the energy sector and its importance to the Canadian economy is shameful. I call upon the government to reverse its position and to please think about and support today's opposition motion, which is good for Canada.

[Shooting at La Loche, January 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my personal condolences to the people of La Loche. The recent tragedy has broken the hearts of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As parents and family members, we can all easily identify with the horror and the grief of this tragedy. I think it also breaks our hearts because we all know that life in isolated northern communities can be challenging but that, unfortunately, generations of politicians have ignored the depth of those challenges.

I would like the people of La Loche, all of those touched by this tragedy, to know that all of us in this House are keeping them in our hearts and in our prayers. Indeed, the entire nation is doing so.

May God bless the people of La Loche.

[Ethics, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on December 2, the Minister of Finance sent out a fundraising email in his official capacity.

This is a clear violation of the guide of conduct for ministers, which states:

Ministers...should ensure that fundraising communications issued on their behalf do not suggest any connection between fundraising and official government business.

This is yet another example of the government saying one thing but doing another. How is the Prime Minister planning to hold his finance minister accountable for this ethical breach?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if a revised response to Question No. 1,290 and a supplementary response to Question No. 1,300, both originally tabled on June 16, 2015, as well responses to Question No. 1,147 and Questions Nos. 1,324 to 1,333 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,334 and 1,335.