Tracey Ramsey

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the member about something that came forward in this budget that was unexpected by the wineries in our country. This is a $9-billion industry in our country.

We import 67% of our wine already, and these imports will increase under CETA. Since 1980, the excise tax has increased 125%, from 28¢ to 63¢ per bottle. This excise tax rate is higher than in any other top wine-producing country. France is at 7¢, the U.S. is at 38¢, and Germany's is at zero. This increase of 2% in the budget is tied to our consumer price index and would rise indefinitely every single year, which would hurt our wineries and would do nothing to improve the economic standing of wineries tourism and everything that spreads out from the agricultural footprint of these important Canadian companies and small businesses. This excise tax will hurt that sector, and, shockingly, the Liberals had no consultation with the wineries in our country before raising it.

What are the member's thoughts on the negative impact to our Canadian wineries, and does he believe, as I do, that this measure should not be included in budget 2017?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Did I miss it?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

You closed it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about tax loopholes. The Liberals are putting the private interests of the wealthy few in our country ahead of ordinary Canadians who are working hard every day to make ends meet. In the last 16 months, the government has not managed to eliminate the tax loopholes that mainly benefit the wealthy in our country, the CEOs. They have subscribed to these huge tax breaks that were offered to businesses by the Harper government.

In the last two election campaigns, in 2011 and 2015, the Liberals clearly promised to “set a cap on how much can be claimed through the stock option deduction.” However, they backtracked on this promise once they were in power. Why did the government decide to renege on its promise to eliminate the tax loophole associated with stock options for CEOs in budget 2017?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most egregious parts of this omnibus bill, and it is an omnibus bill, is the changes to the parliamentary budget officer. We heard clearly from the PBO yesterday that he is not happy, and his office is not happy, with the changes that would be put upon them. They feel it would limit their freedom. It would limit their independence in reporting on the government's spending. That is not something Canadians support. Canadians would like to see transparency.

Let us be honest. The PBO often reports on the government in a way that perhaps is not positive for the government, so I can understand why the Liberals are attempting to silence the PBO and have the PBO actually answer to you, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to putting forward his own agenda on what the office would like to study.

Could the member explain to me how Bill C-44 would make the work of the parliamentary budget officer more transparent if the PBO would be required to submit to the will of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Senate?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly looking for the good in this omnibus bill, bringing to light some of the things she sees as benefits. One of the things that has been swept under the carpet in this bill, though, is the elephant in the room, and that is the infrastructure bank that would be created by this budget. The Liberals certainly did not campaign on this and they really are not speaking about in the House, although it would change and have a serious impact on the lives of Canadians.

The member spoke about affordability and the importance of working people and families to get a break, to be able to afford and make their lives better for themselves. Bill C-44 would establish the Canada infrastructure bank. Could the member explain to us what Canadians would have to gain from this bank, other than the privatization of infrastructure they paid for with their taxes and potentially the new user fees they would pay?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague spoke about was pay equity, but unfortunately women are going to have to wait another year. I am not sure why the Liberals think women in Canada need to wait to have pay equity addressed. Why we cannot have legislation now is beyond me. Why this measure cannot be included now is beyond me.

I appreciate that the budget has a lens applied to it that speaks of women, but let us be clear: the six economic sectors that are priorities in this budget are male-dominated sectors.

While the budget does provide some aspirational language on where we need to go—and gender being addressed in any budget is a positive step, and I am pleased to see it in this budget— the funding for status of women remains dramatically low, the lowest of any other ministerial portfolio, the lowest it has been. It stays at an amount that has been called “budget dust” because it is 0.1%. In a budget with a gender focus, why was there no increase to the status of women ministry?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He speaks about jobs and how there will be jobs in the budget. Does the member understand that the 2% excise tax that the government is putting on to wine in Canada will kill Canadian wineries, will kill Canadian wine jobs?

I have more than 18 wineries in my region. They are thriving. They have a complete supply chain, where they go from growing the product to retailing the product. They have tourism, they have restaurants, and they are providing jobs in many regions in our country.

Can the member speak to why his government has chosen to target wineries and Canadian wines, in particular because we have just signed the CETA trade agreement that will hurt them. Why are we costing jobs in our wine regions?

[International Trade, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to trade with the Liberals, secrecy appears to be the name of the game. Last week it was revealed that the government secretly walked away from a potential softwood lumber agreement with Obama. Thanks to Japanese news reports last week, we learned that TPP negotiations are back on and are happening today in a secret location in Toronto.

The Liberals in opposition criticized the Conservatives for negotiating major trade deals in secret and promised to do better. The TPP was a bad deal. Will the Liberals come clean with Canadians on why they are now leading the charge for TPP 2.0?

[Privilege, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, something we have all talked about today is respect for the rules of this place. When we came here as parliamentarians, we were provided with the rules of the House. We all understand that these are the rules we all must govern ourselves by when we take our seats in the House, however long we sit here as members. We are being told by members on the opposite side that we cannot use those rules, that we cannot continue to debate in the House on a question of privilege, when clearly, many of us on this side of the House would like to add our voices to this very important debate.

Can the member speak to how he thinks Canadians and his constituents feel when they see this lack of respect in the House of Commons, where they sent him to represent them?