Bill C-15 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) eliminating the education tax credit;
(b) eliminating the textbook tax credit;
(c) exempting from taxable income amounts received as rate assistance under the Ontario Electricity Support Program;
(d) maintaining the small business tax rate at 10.‍5% for the 2016 and subsequent taxation years and making consequential adjustments to the dividend gross-up factor and dividend tax credit;
(e) increasing the maximum deduction available under the northern residents deduction;
(f) eliminating the children’s arts tax credit;
(g) eliminating the family tax cut credit;
(h) replacing the Canada child tax benefit and universal child care benefit with the new Canada child benefit;
(i) eliminating the child fitness tax credit;
(j) introducing the school supplies tax credit;
(k) extending, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(l) restoring the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit for purchases of shares of provincially registered labour-sponsored venture capital corporations for the 2016 and subsequent taxation years; and
(m) introducing changes consequential to the introduction of the new 33% individual tax rate.
Part 1 implements other income tax measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) amending the anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act that prevent the conversion of capital gains into tax-deductible intercorporate dividends;
(b) qualifying certain costs associated with undertaking environmental studies and community consultations as Canadian exploration expenses;
(c) ensuring that profits from the insurance of Canadian risks remain taxable in Canada;
(d) ensuring that the dividend rental arrangement rules under the Income Tax Act apply where there is a synthetic equity arrangement;
(e) providing specific tax rules in respect of the commercialization of the Canadian Wheat Board, including a tax deferral for eligible farmers;
(f) permitting registered charities and registered Canadian amateur athletic associations to hold limited partnership interests;
(g) providing an exemption to the withholding tax requirements for payments by qualifying non-resident employers to qualifying non-resident employees;
(h) limiting the circumstances in which the repeated failure to report income penalty will apply;
(i) permitting the sharing of taxpayer information within the Canada Revenue Agency to facilitate the collection of certain non-tax debts; and
(j) permitting the sharing of taxpayer information with the Office of the Chief Actuary.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) adding insulin pens, insulin pen needles and intermittent urinary catheters to the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices;
(b) clarifying that GST/HST generally applies to supplies of purely cosmetic procedures provided by all suppliers, including registered charities;
(c) relieving tax to ensure that when a charity makes a taxable supply of property or services in exchange for a donation and an income tax receipt may be issued for a portion of the donation, only the value of the property or services supplied is subject to GST/HST;
(d) ensuring that interest earned in respect of certain deposits is not included in determining whether a person is considered to be a financial institution for GST/HST purposes; and
(e) clarifying the treatment of imported reinsurance services under the GST/HST imported supply rules for financial institutions.
Part 2 also implements other GST/HST measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) adding feminine hygiene products to the list of GST/HST zero-rated products; and
(b) permitting the sharing of taxpayer information in respect of non-tax debts within the Canada Revenue Agency under certain federal and provincial government programs and in respect of certain programs where information sharing is currently permitted under the Income Tax Act.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) ensuring that excise tax relief for diesel fuel used as heating oil or to generate electricity is targeted to specific instances; and
(b) enhancing certain security and collection provisions in the Excise Act, 2001.
Part 3 also implements other excise measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by permitting the sharing of taxpayer information in respect of non-tax debts within the Canada Revenue Agency under certain federal and provincial government programs and in respect of certain programs where information sharing is currently permitted under the Income Tax Act.
Division 1 of Part 4 repeals the Federal Balanced Budget Act.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to, among other things,
(a) replace “permanent impairment allowance” with “career impact allowance”;
(b) replace “totally and permanently incapacitated” with “diminished earning capacity”;
(c) increase the percentage in the formula used to calculate the earnings loss benefit;
(d) specify when a disability award becomes payable and clarify the formula used to calculate the amount of a disability award;
(e) increase the amounts of a disability award; and
(f) increase the amount of a death benefit.
In addition, it contains transitional provisions that provide, among other things, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs must pay, to a person who received a disability award or a death benefit under that Act before April 1, 2017, an amount that represents the increase in the amount of the disability award or the death benefit, as the case may be. It also makes consequential amendments to the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, the Pension Act and the Income Tax Act.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the sunset provisions of certain Acts governing federal financial institutions to extend by two years, namely, from March 29, 2017 to March 29, 2019, the period during which those institutions may carry on business.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to facilitate the continuance of local cooperative credit societies as federal credit unions by granting the Minister of Finance the authority to provide transitional procedural exemptions, as well as a loan guarantee.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things, broaden the Corporation’s powers to temporarily control or own a domestic systemically important bank and to convert certain shares and liabilities of such a bank into common shares.
It also amends the Bank Act to allow the designation of domestic systemically important banks by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and to require such banks to maintain a minimum capacity to absorb losses.
Lastly, it makes consequential amendments to the Financial Administration Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to change the membership of the committee established under that Act so that the Chairperson of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is replaced by that Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer. It also amends several Acts to replace references to that Chairperson with references to that Chief Executive Officer.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize an additional payment to be made to a territory, in order to take into account the amount of the territorial formula financing payment that would have been paid to that territory for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2016, if that amount had been determined using the recalculated amount determined to be the gross expenditure base for that fiscal year.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to restrict the circumstances in which the Governor in Council may authorize the borrowing of money without legislative approval.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the single rate of the guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income pensioners by up to $947 annually and to repeal section 2.‍2 of that Act, which increases the age of eligibility to receive a benefit.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Special Import Measures Act to provide that a finding by the President of the Canada Border Services Agency of an insignificant margin of dumping or an insignificant amount of subsidy in respect of goods imported into Canada will no longer result in the termination of a trade remedy investigation prior to the President’s preliminary determination. It also provides that expiry reviews may be initiated from a date that is closer to the expiry date of an anti-dumping or countervailing measure and makes amendments related to that new time period.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to combine the authorities for bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements into one authority for federal-provincial agreements, and to clarify that federal-provincial agreements may permit the application of provincial legislation with respect to a pension plan.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) increase, until July 8, 2017, the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants in certain regions;
(b) eliminate the category of claimants who are new entrants and re-entrants; and
(c) reduce to one week the length of the waiting period during which claimants are not entitled to benefits.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Canada Marine Act to allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make payments to Canada Place Corporation for certain celebrations.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act to authorize the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs to acquire the shares of PPP Canada Inc. on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada. It also sets out that the appropriate Minister, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, holds those shares and authorizes that appropriate Minister to conduct, with the Governor in Council’s approval, certain transactions relating to PPP Canada Inc. Finally, it authorizes PPP Canada Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries to sell, with the Governor in Council’s approval, their assets in certain circumstances.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act to modify the process that leads to the Governor in Council’s appointment of persons to the board of directors of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology by eliminating the role of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment as well as the consultative role of the Minister of Industry from that process. It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2007 to provide that a sum may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Foundation on the requisition of the Minister of Industry and to clarify the maximum amount of that sum.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise at report stage to speak to Bill C-15. In the seven minutes I have, I will try to be very economical and focus on a few points that have been mentioned by other members.

I have a very strong view about the improper use of omnibus budget bills, and I want to reflect briefly on the history of omnibus budget bills.

The mandate letter to the hon. government House leader makes it clear that he is directed to “end the improper use of omnibus bills”. Therefore, having fought very hard in the spring of 2012 against Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill, I want to canvass this because I think it is important for me to say out loud that this is not an improper use of an omnibus bill but it comes dangerously close.

Omnibus budget bills between 1993 and the 2000 were generally around 12 pages long. The biggest omnibus bill that I had seen was in the spring of 2005 under the previous Liberal government of Paul Martin, which topped 120 pages. People actually protested that the Martin government's 2005 budget bill, at 120 pages, was too long, including the leader of the official opposition at that time, who went on to become prime minister and became the champ of all inappropriate and improper uses of budget bills.

This budget bill, at 179 pages, is clearly the longest omnibus budget bill from a Liberal government. However, it is a piker compared to the abuse of democracy that we saw under the previous Conservative regime.

In the year 2010, we saw an omnibus budget bill that was 883 pages long. In the spring of 2012, we saw the first part of an omnibus budget bill that was 440 pages long, with a second part in the fall, which was another 400 pages long.

What makes an omnibus bill appropriate or inappropriate? If in one piece of legislation we are working toward a single purpose and all pieces of the legislation stem from that single purpose, it is an omnibus bill all right, but it is not improper. What happened in the spring of 2012 is that Bill C-38 destroyed our Environmental Assessment Act, which was not mentioned in the budget, destroyed the Fisheries Act, repealed the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, and changed the National Energy Board Act. No fewer than 70 laws were changed at that time.

Therefore, let us not muddy the waters. The warning to my friends in the Liberal government is that they should not tread too far. This one should have split out the commercialization of the Wheat Board. We needed to study that separately. However, overall, this one is not an improper use of omnibus bills; rather, it just flirts with the word “improper”.

What is good and what is not good about this? Obviously, there is much in this budget to like. I was disappointed because I thought there would be more to like, and there are two specific elements I must mention, before we move to Standing Order 31s, that are really unfortunate and, in fact, egregious.

In terms of the good things, there are changes to the employment insurance program that I welcome. However, as many groups have said, including those who testified before the finance committee, we need to go further and fix EI to get it back to the systems we had before the changes of the Conservative regime. Therefore, while it is certainly better to have the changes we just made, I tried in committee to make amendments to deal with the long-tenured worker, the idea that one has to work for seven years to qualify for those pieces. We have not yet seen the reversal of the changes to seasonal workers. We need to see that.

In the case of the child benefit program, I agree with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, which described it as a good first step to alleviate childhood poverty. However, I found this evidence from the Canadian Teachers' Federation really telling, and we should all take it on board as parliamentarians. It stated:

Each day in our classrooms, Canadian teachers engage with children and youth who are hungry, tired, and struggling due to poverty.

I talk to teachers all the time. We need to do much more for our children. This is just a very small first step.

With respect to veterans, I would say that the Liberals kept their promise to open the veterans offices across Canada that were wrongfully closed. They have done some things that will change the permanent impairment allowance and the grade determination. This is an improvement. However, we still need much more to be done for our veterans, just as we do for pensioners.

The National Pensioners Federation made the same point. The increase in GIS for pensioners is very welcome, but it is $2.60 a day. The maximum improvement for poor seniors in this budget is $2.60 a day. That is not enough.

There is more that I liked in the budget, such as cultural industries and better deals for students, although the money needs to be improved. However, there are two pieces that are completely egregious. One is found on page 221, where the fossil fuel subsidy to liquefied natural gas is left in place until 2024. This is a violation of the Liberal election promise to end subsidies to fossil fuels.

Also, at pages 166 and 167, we see a commitment to keep environment assessment in place under the Bill C-38 version, which as I just mentioned, destroyed our environmental assessment regime. Specific reference to continue to fund CEAA under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, is offensive to all of us who understand environmental law.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my thoughts on Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

I was the regional manager for the ministry of environment back in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. In total, I spent 32½ years with provincial governments in British Columbia and Manitoba, working with provincial budgets. I was also mayor of the City of Cranbrook for three years and responsible for municipal government budgets.

As anyone who has worked for government at the federal, provincial, or municipal level will know, governments always have money. This will not be news to anyone who pays taxes, which pretty much includes all of us except, perhaps, for the very wealthy putting money away into tax havens.

Since governments always have money, it always comes down to priorities and how government chooses to spend our money. While this budget does some things right it, unfortunately, falls short in a number of very important areas. Let us start with the good news: what this budget does right.

The bill contains some positive measures that were led and/or supported by the NDP, as follows: restoring the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, adding feminine hygiene products to the list of zero-rated products for taxation purposes, raising the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, and repealing the legislation to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67 years of age.

I have also heard from my constituents that they were pleased to see the increase in Canada student grant amounts by 50%, to a maximum of $3,000 per year for low-income families and ensuring that no student will have to repay their Canada student loan until they are earning at least $25,000 a year.

At the same time, they are not happy with Liberal cuts that eliminated the education tax credit and the textbook tax credit. For students, with one hand, the Liberals giveth and, with the other hand, they take away.

This is also true for the Liberals' Canada child benefit. While families will benefit with an increase in child benefit, the government is eliminating two very important tax credits, the children's fitness tax benefit and the children's arts tax credits. Both of these were important for helping to build physically healthy kids and to encourage our young artists. They will be sadly missed.

While the tourism industry will benefit with the provision of $50 million over two years, dedicated to Destination Canada for marketing initiatives, the rest of small businesses have been betrayed by the Liberal government. During the 2015 election, I participated in 12 community debates throughout Kootenay—Columbia. At every debate, the Liberals said, as did I, representing the NDP, that if we were elected, we would decrease small businesses taxes from 10.5% to 9%. This was not a “We will consider”, or “We will consult with Canadians” election promise. This was black and white. My Liberal colleague promised that if they were elected, they would reduce business taxes to 9%.

What happened to the Liberal mantra, “That's what we told Canadians we'd do and that is what we will do” on this one?

As I said, there were some good things in the budget, but I have to say that after 10 years of Conservative cutbacks that hurt so many aspects of our lives in Canada, it is not hard for any government that followed to look at least sort of good to Canadians. This is especially true if we do not mind spending an additional $30 billion a year over and above the revenue that we are taking in; $30 billion a year in added debt that will fall to our children and grandchildren to pay back. This is a concern I hear over and over again from my constituents.

I even heard it from school kids at the Kootenay Christian Academy in Cranbrook and the Crawford Bay School in Crawford Bay. They both asked the same question, “How will we ever pay back almost $700 billion in debt?”

I have to say I did not have a good answer for them, other than to say, “Perhaps we should be learning from countries like Norway, where its federal government petroleum fund has $500 billion in surplus money, and is expected to grow to $1 trillion by 2020.” Being half Norwegian, I have to say that is a rainy day fund and a budget process to aspire to and be proud of.

What do my constituents say they find most disappointing about the Liberal government? How much time do I have left? Possibly not enough time, but let me get started.

We are feeling left out in Kootenay—Columbia when it comes to employment insurance. The Liberal government's regionally based enhancements to employment insurance do nothing for my constituents, even though a number of them worked in the oil and gas industry in Fort McMurray. This discriminatory approach to EI must end and be replaced by a universal 360-hour eligibility threshold, and extended benefits should apply to all Canadians.

Too many seniors in my riding live in poverty. Seniors should not have to choose between food and prescription drugs. The government needs to keep its promise to immediately enhance the CPP and the QPP. Our seniors helped to build this great country of ours, and they deserve to be treated better.

On taxation, my constituents believe in tax fairness, which means that the Liberal tax cuts should have included Canadians who make from $20,000 to $45,000. It also means that the richest people in Canada should pay their fair share, which means closing tax loopholes, including offshore tax havens, and punishing tax cheats even if they are wealthy tax cheats.

Infrastructure funding is a major concern. Municipalities in rural areas of Canada expect to get their fair share of infrastructure dollars. As a former mayor of Cranbrook, a city with just under 20,000 residents, keeping up with replacing 50-year-old sewer and water pipes, and fixing failing roads was a constant challenge.

Many Canadians do not realize that for every dollar collected in taxes, 50¢ goes to the federal government, 42¢ to provincial governments, and 8¢ goes to municipalities. Meanwhile, municipalities are responsible for almost 70% of all infrastructure in Canada. While it is heartening to see additional money for infrastructure in this 2016-17 budget, we have yet to see when or how that money will be rolled out.

I can tell members that in 2014, the former Conservative government announced, with great fanfare, its build Canada fund. The reality is that virtually no money made it to municipalities in my region of British Columbia that year. My Conservative member of Parliament at the time put the blame on the B.C. Liberal government for dragging its feet on getting the program under way.

The approach to funding in infrastructure at that time was a one-third, one-third, one-third split, with each level of government having to come up with its share. I can tell members that it is extremely difficult for small rural communities to come up with their one-third. One cannot even get into the game without having the one-third, and having shelf-ready plans in place. Many small municipalities have a very difficult time having staff or contract money to even create shelf-ready plans.

Therefore, while it is good to see more money for infrastructure in the budget, in order for it to be effective, the government needs to ensure a number of things.

First, that there is money and a process in place to help small rural communities develop shelf-ready plans.

Second, the one-third, one-third, one-third funding formula needs to change. Based on the taxes collected, it would be more appropriate if the formula for infrastructure funding would be 10% municipalities, 40% provincial governments, and 50% federal government, and as much of the infrastructure as possible should go directly from the federal government to municipalities with an appropriate funding formula.

Third, the funding should be multi-year, with a minimum of four years to reflect the four-year term of a ruling party. This would give municipalities the opportunity to plan ahead.

High-speed Internet, sometimes called dark fibre, needs to be considered basic municipal infrastructure in the future, along with roads, sewer, water, and storm drains, and it should be eligible for annual infrastructure funding. My major dream is that aging infrastructure funding should come out of politics and just be a line item every year in the Infrastructure and Communities ministry's budget.

In conclusion, I would like to be able to support this 179-page omnibus-like bill, but it falls short of what my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia expected from the Liberal government, and I am unable to support it at report stage.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, yet rather surprised, to have to once again rise in the House to talk about the diafiltered milk issue. Everyone has been aware of this problem for months now. The problem is growing because nothing is being done. The problem is getting bigger and it is blowing up in our faces, here in the House of Commons, since 3,000 dairy producers came all the way to Parliament Hill to protest and express their frustration.

Dairy producers were not just here to mark World Milk Day. I heard a government member say that a few moments ago and it made me smile. Does the government really think that dairy producers took a day of their time in the middle of forage crop season to come say hello to their MPs in Ottawa, tell them that it is World Milk Day, and celebrate with them? Let us be serious here. Dairy producers did not come to Parliament Hill to celebrate World Milk Day. They came to protest against the importation of diafiltered milk. It is important to point that out.

I heard the previous speaker talk about a new government approach. The government is now taking the time to listen and talk.

This is not a new approach. Listening and talking is what the government has been doing for seven months. There is never any action or anything tangible. This is not a new problem. There was an election on October 19, and we had a change in government. It just so happens that during the election campaign, dairy farmers decided to meet with every candidate. What was on their minds? They asked us to resolve the problem of diafiltered milk. This was an existing problem and all the parties said they would take care of it, that they would resolve this problem once they were in government. We said the same thing. When we were in the previous government, we started working on resolving this problem. The Liberals came to power having made this big promise to our dairy farmers that they would resolve the problem. Seven months later, the Liberals are saying that they are going to consult, they are going to discuss, and they are going to negotiate.

Will the problem be resolved with the motion before us? It says that the problem is recognized. It is rather surprising that it took the government seven months to start recognizing that there is a problem. The motion says, “That the House recognizes that the government strongly supports supply management”.

The government needs a motion telling it that it recognizes a problem. I have never seen that before. I never would have thought that the government would need the House to tell it that it recognizes a problem. Unbelievable.

There is more. The motion calls on the government to recognize “the magnitude of the economic losses to Canadian dairy producers”. Producers lost $220 million in 2015. It is done. It is over. There were complaints; there were losses.

The motion also urges the government to “recognize that the industry call for the problem to be resolved rapidly”. It seems to me that we have been hearing this for seven months.

Then, the motion urges the government “to meet with dairy producers and Canadian dairy industry, within the next 18 days”. First, there was a 30-day deadline, more than 30 days ago. Now, the motion calls for another 18 days, which will take us right into the summer, when producers will no longer be mobilized and will no longer be able to come and meet their members of Parliament in the House, because we will all be back in our ridings. This is a way of watering down the problem and spreading it out across Canada. This is yet another deadline with no action.

Further on, the motion urges the government “to propose a sustainable solution toward modernizing the dairy industry”. That is all we want. The government was not ready. It got elected on false promises. I am not just talking about diafiltered milk, but most of the files that the current government has brought here to the House.

This government said it had a plan, but we are realizing that it was not a plan to govern, but to prepare for its governance. That plan was to consult people to determine how it should govern. If that had been presented to the voters, I am not sure the result would have been the same. However, that is how the Liberals chose to present themselves to the voters and, of course, to get themselves elected under false pretences. The diafiltered milk case is rather telling in this regard.

The farmers who came to the Hill last week were from every part of Canada and Quebec. The farmer who made the biggest impact on me was in the aisle opposite the front door of the House of Commons. I was talking to the farmers and, at one point, I saw about eight pairs of boots on the ground. I went up to the farmers and asked them why they had put their boots on the ground. They replied that it was to make the government realize that it needed to walk the talk. They said that, since the government was all talk and no walk, they were going to provide some boots. In other words, they said the government was not keeping its promises.

I hope that government members will use those boots so that we can finally find a solution and implement the solution that has already been proposed many times by the dairy farmers. By the way, I salute those who gave up a day’s work on the farm to be here and give that message to the government.

When I walked around among the farmers, they said they did not understand why the government still had not taken action. However, the solution is quite simple: treat diafiltered milk as a dairy ingredient, period. The farmers are telling us that if that were done, they would no longer have a problem. So why are we not doing it? It seems simple, but you have to understand that it is complicated.

Since we started asking this government questions about agriculture, and particularly about diafiltered milk, we have not seen much action. The Minister of Agriculture himself is mostly absent from the debate on diafiltered milk. His parliamentary secretary has answered most of the questions, probably because the minister is not very familiar with the diafiltered milk issue.

In fact, the Minister does not seem very interested in agriculture. In another bill that we are studying here in the House, Bill C-15 on the budget, there is nothing about agriculture. There is no mention of agriculture in the last budget, which we are being asked to pass and for which the government was forced to use a time allocation motion to prevent us from talking too much about it and from pointing out the budget’s flaws.

When we ask the government why agriculture does not come up in Bill C-15, we hear that it invested to improve Internet access. That does not really feed Canadians. Yes, we need it in our regions, and it is an extremely important issue for all of our rural communities, but why does the government talk about the Internet when we are talking about agriculture? The government seems to have a profound lack of knowledge about agriculture.

I did a little research in Hansard online. I discovered that the Minister of Agriculture deigned to reply at least five times to opposition members' questions about the diafiltered milk problem. Here is a sample of the minister's answers:

In May 2016, he said, “...I appreciate [his] concern. We recognize the importance”.

On May 11, 2016, he said, “We recognize that this is an important issue for dairy farmers, and we are working to reach a long-term solution”.

On May 3, 2016, he said, “Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this government supports supply management, and we are fully aware of the industry's concerns about the use of diafiltered milk”.

On March 11, 2016, he said, “Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question... I can assure him that I have met with many sectors in the agriculture industry, including the dairy farmers”.

Another contradiction: the Liberals were aware of the issue, yet they are asking us for 18 more days to resolve it. Today's motion requests 18 more days to meet with people again. What does the minister not understand? Why does he need more meetings? Is the solution not simple? We have put it to the House and to the committee a number of times.

In March 2016, the minister answered a question as follows:

Just to make sure the record is straight, I am not negotiating with anybody. It's the industry and the manufacturers that are in discussions, but I am not negotiating with anybody. My job is to make sure that both sides understand the regulations.

We understand why the Liberals are not doing anything; it is because they do not want to. They are trying to teach us something. They are trying to explain why they do not have a solution and explain the regulations. The cat is out of the bag. They are not interested in negotiating or coming up with a solution. They want to make sure that farmers become fed up, and they are waiting for the parliamentary session to end so that they can avoid taking a position and have a nice, quiet summer. They will not get the chance, because we will not let them get away with it. They can count on all the opposition parties to ensure that that does not happen.

The parliamentary secretary is the one who has answered most of our questions on diafiltered milk. In fact, he has answered our questions 16 times, so here is the score: parliamentary secretary, 16, and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, 5. We see the importance the government places on the diafiltered milk issue.

What did the parliamentary secretary say on June 2, 2016? He said, “With respect to our commitment, we are still listening to the people in the industry...we are aware of the industry's concerns about the use of diafiltered milk in cheese production.”

The message was more or less the same as the minister's message.

On May 19, he said, “We are in regular contact with industry stakeholders, and we are listening to what they have to say about compensation. We are aware that compensation is important to the supply-managed sector.”

There is something I do not understand about that statement, but let us move on.

The parliamentary secretary answered 16 questions about diafiltered milk, while the minister answered five questions. We get the picture quickly of what this means. The best was when the parliamentary secretary said that he wanted to “act quickly”.

On May 9, he said, “I remind members that last Tuesday we committed to consulting with [the entire] dairy industry in the next 30 days”.

That was in early May and the deadline has now expired.

On April 21, he said, “We need to take action quickly. That is what we want to do, but first we need to take the time to come up with a lasting agreement...I understand the time crunch, but we are holding discussions.”

Blah blah blah: I just summed up in a few syllables what the Liberal government has to say about diafiltered milk.

I sincerely think that the government needs to take action. It needs to grab a pair of the boots that were left on Parliament Hill last week, put them on, and get to work. The government has to walk the talk. It needs to understand that this is urgent.

I could have shared the concerns of all the dairy farmers in my riding, and those from all the ridings in Quebec and Canada who talked about their major financial problems. The equivalent of their annual income is on the line.

These are not rich people, contrary to what many are implying. That money goes toward their wages. The dairy producers are often the only economic engines in our towns. While they struggle to make ends meet, the government spews its empty rhetoric.

It is important to remember that, basically, what we want is not complicated. We want the government to acknowledge that, in producing cheese, there is good cow's milk and there are dairy ingredients. The dairy ingredients have all sorts of names: concentrates, powders, isolates, diafiltered milk. That is clear. These are all ingredients produced from milk. It is not that these products are bad, but consumers have the right to know what is in the products they consume.

Unfortunately, this changes in the case of diafiltered milk, because at the border diafiltered milk is considered an ingredient. When it arrives at the plant, however, it is considered milk.

In front of the crowd of producers last week, the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, Mr. Letendre, challenged all those in attendance and all parliamentarians to sample a glass of diafiltered milk to see if it was really milk. He said he was sure that after trying it, no one would doubt that diafiltered milk is not milk. Milk is milk, and diafiltered milk is dairy ingredients. That is the way it is.

Once again, I will make myself the producers’ spokesman and invite the government members to sample a glass of diafiltered milk and take up the challenge launched by Quebec’s milk producers. They will tell us if diafiltered milk is milk. I advise putting it in the refrigerator for a few minutes before trying it. That might improve the taste a bit, but it will still be diafiltered milk all the same.

When we buy cheese and the label says that it is made of milk ingredients, we know exactly what we are getting. When we buy cheese that was made with diafiltered milk, the label merely indicates that the product is made of milk. The label does not indicate that the cheese was made with American proteins created to dispose of any surplus of American milk, which contains growth hormones that we do not want here in Canada. That is the reality and that is what Canadian consumers have the right to know. If we deal with this small problem, then we are resolving a big problem for consumers and a very big problem for dairy producers in Quebec and Canada. That is what the government needs to understand.

Many cheese factories in Quebec are currently having trouble competing and that is because of the unfair competition created by those who use diafiltered milk. There is a small cheese factory called La Bourgade in Thetford Mines in my riding. It uses only milk, which supports our dairy producers. The company is really proud of its cheese, but it costs $1 more at the store than the cheese made by producers who use diafiltered milk. One dollar does not seem like much, but it is a lot at a time when everyone is doing everything they can to keep money in their pockets.

In conclusion, enough with the Liberals' empty rhetoric. Let us take action now, not in 18 days. We are pleased that the government is being told by the House to recognize the problem. We did not think that the government needed a motion in the House to recognize a problem like this one. We will obviously support this motion, but I do not think that the producers, who are back home working hard on milking their 30 or 50 cows, understand the nuances of the motion before us.

Why did the government need a motion to recognize an existing problem? That is the real question. The government is not listening and is looking only to get an extension to find and implement a solution. I am reaching out. I am asking the government to act now and not to wait 18 days. Everyone, all the parties in the House, and especially all Canadian dairy producers will be pleased with the solution and the government's response.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in regards to Bill C-15, the 2016 proposed Liberal budget. I am beginning, actually, by expressing my disappointment and confusion as to why Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act was initially tabled in this House to deal separately with budget items that specifically apply to veterans, only later to be pulled from debate and buried in Bill C-15. Veterans were so pleased to learn about Bill C-12, encouraged to see that the government appeared to be committed to responding in a timely and inclusive way to improvements in their financial needs.

With the current attention in the media and within the veterans' community to the unfairness of the decrease from the lower corporal rate to the highest private rate as the base salary benchmark for the earnings loss benefit, perhaps the intent was to have less focus on the inappropriateness of this change that cast such a dark shadow over what was to be a victory for better care for our veterans, an increase of the earnings loss benefit from 75% to 90% of military pay prior to release.

The Liberals claimed that they are now increasing the earnings loss benefit; however, lowering the minimum benefit threshold to a senior private salary instead of a basic corporal salary will result in a significant reduction in the benefits received by the most vulnerable injured veterans. The increase in this benefit for permanently disabled veterans will be minimal for those who make the least, but as much as a 20% hike for the higher ranks.

The proposed increase to the earnings loss benefit will still be applied unequally to the detriment of those seriously injured former members of our Canadian Armed Forces who were at the low end of the pay scale or who were discharged decades ago, before military salaries climbed. This is discriminatory toward veterans who are unable to work because of their disabilities and who had to leave the forces at a young age before they had the opportunity to earn an ongoing living wage. It keeps them at a low income level until they reach the age of 65.

At the same time, those who were able to stay in the forces longer will receive more under the benefit, with bigger increases, a higher percentage increase than those who receive less.

Some disabled veterans have been making more than 75% of their pre-release salary through the earnings loss benefit because those salaries were so low that the previous Conservative government acknowledged the veterans were not getting enough to meet their basic needs.

In 2011, our Conservative government saw how inappropriate this was and adjusted the benefit so that no one would receive less than $40,000 annually, which was then, at that time, 75% of the salary of a basic corporal.

With the new Liberal minimum base, the end result is that those whose benefits rose under the Conservatives will now get only small increases when changes take place in October. They include those who were injured in places such as Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia, and those who were discharged before the government approved significant military raises in the late 1990s and over the past decade.

Meanwhile, those former members of the Armed Forces who were discharged at salaries higher than $49,449 that is currently paid to a senior private, such as majors, colonels, generals, and even high-ranking non-commissioned officers, will not be affected by a rank change and could see their benefits rise by tens of thousands of dollars.

This leads me to wonder how many high-ranked members of the Armed Forces have been discharged due to injury or disability in comparison to our lower-ranked soldiers who, I would think, are far more likely to be the ones in larger numbers facing the potential of high-risk situations where they could be injured severely, either physically or mentally, to require them to willingly, or unwillingly, be discharged from service.

Of the millions allocated by the government to earnings loss benefits in this budget, how many of those dollars will actually be spent on these most vulnerable injured soldiers who are unable to provide for themselves and their families because their injuries took away their commitment to serving in the military, fighting for and protecting the freedoms and lifestyles of all other Canadians?

Will there be unspent funds in this portion of the budget because of fewer claims by those in the higher income backet who do not leave prematurely due to injury? If so, why were these funds not implemented into other election promises made, such as the promised $100 million for more family caregiver benefits, or the post-secondary education benefit for all veterans, or the $20 million for two centres of excellence, or opening operational stress injury clinics where none exist for veterans needing mental health services?

The details of the budget in relation to veterans were only added to the Veterans Affairs website on May 9, after it was brought to the attention of the House that none of the details were available online for veterans and their families. Now that it is there, I would like to quote the following from the website: “In the interest of fairness, the increase is based on a Senior Private's salary. To do otherwise would mean that some Veterans receiving the benefit could be making more than their comrades on active duty.”

I cannot help wondering why, then, the approach was not used for a formula that provided a ceiling for those who could have ended up making more than their comrades on active duty under the existing basic corporal salary, rather than penalizing those on the low end of the benefit scale where the increase to 90% of the new senior private's salary will be as low as $100 a month. On the website, the government shared a slightly better bottom line example, stating, “a Veteran who was a corporal in 1996 could receive up to $2,000 more each year because of this proposed enhancement [or a total of $166.67 a month].

The veterans who needed the increase the most feel betrayed by this unfair approach to the earnings loss benefit in the budget. The retroactive increases in the lump sum disability award does improve on the original award set out by the last Liberal government. I believe the amount of $3.7 billion under financial support for veterans on page 193 of the budget, table 5.2, reflects the retroactive payments that need to go out to cover some 70,000 veterans who have been eligible since 2006 and were promised this retroactive payment.

That being said, it is important to note that with this $3.7 billion payout, that leaves $400 million per year budgeted for the disability award, and changes to the earnings loss benefit for each of the next four years, with a total commitment of $5.6 billion over these next six years.

We are all very aware that the budget is being presented as a deficit investment, which is an oxymoron and already a broken promise at best. This greatly concerns our veterans and Canadians who see a formidable future of debt repayment for their children and grandchildren.

Budget 2016 only partially addresses four of the 15 directives in the Minister of Veterans Affairs's mandate letter, and the earnings loss benefit falls short of what was expected for our most vulnerable wounded. Still to come are lifelong pensions, promised; guaranteed four years of post-secondary education, promised; two new centres of excellence, promised; improved education, counselling, and training for families, promised; increased survivor pensions, medical benefits for spouses married after the age of 60, and development of mental health and suicide prevention strategies. There are many, many promises.

Did the Liberal Party members who made these promises actually study and forecast the implications of their promises? Did they make them with true intent to keep them if elected, or were they made without adequate consultation?

In closing, I have deep concerns that the promises that were translated into new measures in the budget, coupled with the increased deficit spending over the remaining mandate of the Liberal government, will not be sustainable on a long-term basis.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise to speak on Bill C-15. As a spokesperson for the NDP on small business, I am going to focus on the small business tax cuts that are not in this bill, that are going to be deleted, and the false promise by the Liberals.

As a former small business owner, as a former executive director of a chamber of commerce, and as a member of Parliament who represents a riding that has six chambers of commerce, I understand small business and know how important small business is to our communities and we support it. Small business people are the builders of our communities. They are the volunteers who sit on our boards, donate to charities and local organizations, and sit on councils in local governments. These are the people who coach our children and are innovators. They build the culture of our communities and are the backbone of our local economies.

In 2008, I was a small business owner. I remember when the largest recession hit since the 1930s. Sales plummeted and people had hard decisions to make in order to keep their businesses alive. Some businesses did not make it. It was a tough reality, and that it is the way it goes sometimes. However, what was really hard to justify were the massive bailouts for Canada's largest corporations and nothing for small business. Many small business owners saw this as completely unfair.

In the last election, small businesses felt like they were going to get a break and have a little more fairness. All three parties, including the Green Party, promised to lower taxes on small business to 9%. I have the page from the Liberal platform in my hand, in black and white, which says, “reduce the small business tax rate to 9 per cent”.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to the amendment put forward to strike clause 34 from Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

Clause 34, as it stands, will amend the Income Tax Act in a manner that would increase the small business income tax rate to 10.5% instead of continuing its scheduled decrease to 9%. Right this minute, the Income Tax Act, as currently written, will continue to lower the small business tax rate down to 9%. The removal of clause 34 from Bill C-15 will be an important gesture to demonstrate the commitment that the government made to small businesses during election time. During the 2015 campaign, all parties promised to reduce the small business tax rate and continue the outlined reductions put forward by our previous Conservative government.

We understand that small businesses are the backbone of our communities and are essential for job creation and a robust economy. As a result, the government should be encouraging small business owners and ensure that they have access to low tax rates. However, the Liberals seem to think differently. This is exactly why clause 34 is so concerning. This clause seeks to break one of the key promises previously made by the current Liberal government. I strongly believe that this reduction is crucial to motivating small businesses to grow and prosper.

As the former coordinator of the small business programs at both the Vancouver Community College and Kwantlen Polytechnic University, I have trained many business owners in leadership and business development. There are many challenges that small business owners face, whether it is working long hours, sacrificing time spent with family and loved ones, or the personal expense. However, when it is time to mature as a business, and at the point of decision to expand or not, the ability to reinvest is key and perhaps the greatest challenge. The question is to expand or not to expand.

This is exactly true for female entrepreneurs. I have had the opportunity to witness the growth and prevalence of female-run businesses, through the British Columbia Women's Enterprise Centre. Tax burdens, whether personal or business, have always been a great challenge to creating access to the money they require in their own pockets to reinvest. Additionally, my involvement as one of the founders of the Ethno Business Council in B.C. and my personal business experiences both demonstrate that tax burdens weigh particularly heavily on immigrant entrepreneurs.

While I was completing my doctoral dissertation at the University of British Columbia, I focused my research on studying the business cycle of immigrant entrepreneurs. What I found then, and what I continue to witness, is that immigrant business owners require as much encouragement and assistance as possible, not as a handout, but real encouragement in low-tax policies and business development opportunities.

Over the past several months, I have continued to meet with business leaders in my own riding and from across the country. One concern continues to ring out most clear. Lower tax rates, whether federal, provincial, or municipal, are crucial to small business development. It is not for the government to choose winners and losers. However, that is exactly what we have seen. The current Liberal government has chosen small businesses as the losers.

On several occasions, the Minister of Small Business and Tourism has stood in this House and promised to reduce the tax rate for small businesses. She promised that she was working with the Minister of Finance and other colleagues to ensure that the voice of small business owners were heard. Unfortunately, that was all for nothing.

Instead, the Liberals have deliberately and blatantly left small business out of the budget and show no indication of following through on their promise. Small businesses across the country feel slighted and have witnessed first-hand the broken promises of the Liberal government. However, by accepting this motion, the Liberal government would be able to demonstrate to small businesses that it recognizes their worth and seeks to support and encourage growth for lower tax rates.

As research and data emerge regarding the government's decision to eliminate the tax rate reductions, we are gaining a clear picture of just how much this will cost our small business owners. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, this decision will cost small and medium-sized firms over $900 million, compared to the government letting the scheduled small business tax reductions stand. That is a cost of nearly $1 billion that the Liberal government is placing on our hard-working middle class. Instead of alleviating the burden on our middle class, the Liberals are actually adding to their burden.

There is no doubt that small businesses stimulate our economy and encourage growth. The president of CFIB, Dan Kelly, stated that “The simple truth is Canada's small business owners are overwhelmingly middle class. They are your mechanic, accountant, hair dresser, and landscaper, just trying to earn a living doing something they love.”

The Liberals are looking for a way to pay their debt by placing it on the backs of our small businesses. Our middle class is not responsible for the Liberals' reckless spending. This I have mentioned before. When small businesses are paying more in taxes, it means they have less money in their pocket to reinvest in their businesses. Whether these investments materialize as hiring new employees, seeking out new business opportunities, or expanding their market, each is important, and this budget will inhibit any type of growth.

I am proud to support this motion to amend Bill C-15, and I strongly encourage all members of the House to do the same. We need to invest in our small and medium businesses and provide them with tools and funding to help them succeed, not just in the start-up phase, but throughout their entire business cycle. Small business owners are counting on us. We need to demonstrate that we value their hard work.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the report stage of Bill C-15, an act to implement provisions of the Liberal government's first budget, which was tabled earlier this year, on March 22.

I would like to thank the NDP finance critic, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, for the incredible amount of work he has done on this and other files.

We have had a lot of debate in this place about the omnibus nature of Bill C-15. While the government claims that it is not an omnibus bill, New Democrats have pointed out many similarities between Bill C-15 and the omnibus budget bills we saw from previous Conservative governments. Bill C-15 is 179 pages long, amends over 30 different statutes, refers to nine different ministers, and impacts several others. It includes various retroactive changes in addition to a complex chapter on bank recapitalization. Clearly, the bill contains many more important elements that deserve proper study, which unfortunately it did not receive. Bill C-15 should have been split up so that changes to veterans benefits, employment insurance, and our banking system received proper study.

The NDP proposed amendments to fix and improve the bill at committee stage. We are also recommending changes at report stage, including a call for the government to fulfill its election commitment to small and medium-sized businesses. For many years, the NDP has called for a reduction in the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. It is part of our vision for job creation. The Conservatives agreed with us in their last budget, and in the 2015 election all three parties, the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives, pledged to reduce the tax rate to 9%. However, the Liberal budget misses the mark by only reducing the rate to 10.5%.

In my riding of Essex, small businesses create good local jobs and play an integral role in our communities. The Liberals' broken campaign pledge will cost small-business owners money and hurt their bottom lines.

There are several positive measures in Bill C-15 that I support. It would restore the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. It would add feminine hygiene products to the list of zero-rated products for taxation purposes, an initiative that my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, worked tirelessly to advance. The bill would also eliminate the income splitting scheme, raise GIS rates for seniors, and repeal the Conservatives' legislation to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67. All of these issues are important to the people of Essex I represent.

I am pleased to see that the budget fulfills the commitment to reopen nine Veterans Affairs offices closed by the Conservatives, including the Veterans Affairs office in Windsor. Make no mistake, none of these Veterans Affairs offices should have been closed in the first place. When people in Windsor—Essex learned of the imminent closures, they came together and raised their voices in protest. Their determination and hard work has no doubt led to the government's promise to reopen our veterans office. I will follow this file closely to ensure that it offers quality service for our veterans, including improved financial aid and mental health services.

On employment insurance, the Liberal government said repeatedly that it would reverse the unfair changes made by the Conservatives. These promises have, unfortunately, been significantly downgraded. It did not establish an equitable and universal eligibility threshold to put EI back on track and will not reduce the waiting period to one week until 2017.

Several months ago, the NDP introduced a motion proposing changes to EI that would truly improve access and increase benefits for those who need them most. I am disappointed to see that the Liberals voted against our plan. Instead, we see changes that will not achieve the strong EI system our country and its workers deserve.

I have met with many in our region who are deeply concerned about the future of Canada's auto sector, particularly in relation to the disharmonization that would be created by the trans-Pacific partnership. From the parts sector to the assembly line, where I used to work, people in Essex are worried about their jobs and the competitiveness of our industry.

The region of Essex, which I am so proud to represent, lost nearly 12,000 auto manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2013. It is a trend that started under the previous Liberal government and continued under the Conservatives. We must tackle these worrisome job losses head on. Instead, the new Liberal government has signed Canada on to what has been called the worst trade deal ever. It is a deal that puts thousands more auto jobs at risk.

The Prime Minister likes to proclaim on the world stage that Canada is back, but when it comes to manufacturing, this is unfortunately not the case. We desperately need an automotive and manufacturing strategy, now more than ever. If we do not create a strategy and aggressively seek new investment, we will continue to lose jobs to other jurisdictions.

I have heard an incredible level of support for the NDP's auto plan, which would make better use of the auto innovation fund and the supplier innovation program. Our plan would also make it easier for automakers to set up operations in Canada by creating iCanada, a one-stop shop with access to all three levels of government and dedicated staff who would be working to bring investment to Canada.

As an MP who represents rural communities across Essex, I welcome the government's commitment to improving access to broadband internet, but this commitment alone falls far short of the support farmers have asked for. The budget makes no provision for promised compensation for farmers who will be hurt by trade deals like the TPP and CETA, even as the government continues to push to ratify these deals. These trade deals chip away at Canada's supply-managed industries at a time when we should be strengthening family farms and ensuring that they have the tools they need to remain viable.

The budget shortchanges promises for new funding for agricultural research and value-added production and also for the Canada Food Inspection Agency by more than $130 million over two years.

I must also reiterate my call on the government to finally implement a PACA-like payment protection system for fresh fruit and vegetable growers. Producers have called for this for years, but their pleas fell on deaf ears under the Conservatives. They were so hopeful that things would finally change and were disappointed to see no commitment to PACA in the Liberal budget. The absence of a PACA-like system hurts farmers' ability to export and exposes them to unnecessary costs and great financial risk.

I introduced a motion calling for action and a resolution by the end of the year, which received support from the Windsor-Essex Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, and the Canadian Produce Marketing Association. My friends on the agricultural committee have also been studying the issue, and witness after witness has called for a PACA-like system. This should not be a political issue. Farmers just want to see the solution they are asking for implemented. I am determined to work with my colleagues to move this file forward for farmers so they can get the protection they deserve.

My riding of Essex is home to a short line rail service called the Essex Terminal Railway. This 54 kilometres of rail service runs from the east side of Windsor through La Salle and ends in Amherstburg. It is integral to the economic strength of our region and provides jobs and economic competitiveness while reducing congestion and pollution on our roads.

The short line rail industry has made several requests of budget 2016, including a seven-year capital funding program to help the industry improve existing infrastructure, expand its network, and meet new federal regulations. While they will be disappointed that the Liberal budget neglected their requests, I look forward to working with our local partners in support of the Essex Terminal Railway.

On a similar note, our Windsor-Essex region is excited about the prospect of high-speed rail. Rail investments such as this would usher in a new era of economic opportunity for our region. I urge Canada, the only OECD country without high-speed rail, to move forward and seize the potential of rail investments to stimulate economic growth in all of our communities.

As the member of Parliament for Essex, I am committed to working closely with municipalities in my riding to seek funding opportunities for improving and restoring historical and federally owned buildings. This will help our region protect and celebrate our heritage while creating new opportunities to attract tourism.

Speaking of tourism, I am also committed to being a strong partner for vintners in my region. Essex county is home to nearly 20 wineries, producing award-winning wines and attracting tourists from afar. The Canadian wine industry contributes nearly $7 billion to the Canadian economy and is working hard to increase international exports as well as their domestic market share. I have met with wine producers in Essex county, and I support their call for greater federal government support for the industry's continued development.

I have spent a lot of time looking at this budget and what it means to the people I represent.

I would like to end on a positive note. I am thrilled that the government has increased funding for the Canada summer jobs program. This will mean that more students in Essex will get valuable, paid work experience to help them build the skills they need to succeed in today's job market. It also supports local businesses and organizations with talented young people who are eager to learn and contribute. I look forward to working with the government on this file and will work hard to help the people of Essex access available funding from all government grants and funding streams.

I am honoured to serve as the representative for Essex and to stand up for their priorities each and every day.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no line item on the gold sale that the current government incurred right before the budget this year. It begs the question of where we would be and how much more in debt we would be had we not sold off the gold reserves already.

However, since the reference was made to the Green Energy Act, I do want to emphasize that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook, if we look at part 1 of Bill C-15, which would implement a certain income tax measure proposed so that it would exempt the taxable income amounts received as rate assistance under the Ontario electricity support program. It is because the rates are so high that not only do Ontario electricity consumers have to pay their own bills and others' bills; now they would have to pay it through their federal income taxes as well.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the good people of my riding. I thank them for the confidence they have placed in me to be their elected representative, and I in return promise to do my best to protect their interests.

People in my riding are concerned over the contents of Bill C-15, which implements most of the government's first federal budget. They are concerned about the huge, never-ending deficits contained in the budget and the legacy it leaves for their families.

I am proud of the Conservative government that left a budget surplus. In fact the debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than it was when we got in, despite experiencing the greatest global recession since the Great Depression. We balanced the budget, running a $1.9-billion surplus in 2014-15. The books were also $600 million in surplus when we left office in October 2015, which was confirmed by the non-partisan parliamentary budget office. We gave Canada a healthy financial balance sheet with rising revenues that could have been used to pay for the Conservative small business tax cut that was reversed by the government.

The difference between Conservative debt versus Liberal debt is that Conservatives will go into debt like a person getting a mortgage on a home, eventually owning a home and having a place to live while paying off the mortgage. The Liberal budget is like someone going into debt by using their credit card to buy groceries without the funds to make the minimum monthly payment on the credit card.

Under Conservative budgets, eventually the individuals own their homes. Under the Liberals budget Canadians are never expected to pay off the mortgage and go hungry. It is left to the next generation to keep paying the mortgage on the family home.

A budget document is supposed to inspire confidence in an economy. Only by inspiring confidence will consumers loosen their purse strings and entrepreneurs invest in their businesses. Unfortunately for Canadians, investors spoke with their actions before the Minister of Finance rose in the House to deliver his first uninspiring budget.

There is a profound lack of confidence in the government. That is evident from the day it was elected. These are the science-based facts. According to Stats Canada, in the fourth quarter of 2015, which was after the 2015 federal election, billions of dollars had been transferred out of the country by Canadian investors. This represents the largest recorded flight of capital since records began to be kept, stretching back before the Great Depression. For the first time, Canadians are net creditors to the United States, an unprecedented occurrence.

It would appear well-connected insiders got all their cash out of Canada while the going was good. What that means for Canadians is that those private investment dollars are not available to create Canadian jobs, forcing Canada to further increase the national deficit while becoming more indebted to foreigners to replace the lost capital.

In another development that is causing a lack of confidence in the government, Canada has sold off all its official gold holdings. The Bank of Canada on February 23, 2016, showed gold reserves at zero. This is in stark contrast with other developed countries that have seen their central banks become net buyers of gold since 2010. Canada now stands as the only G7 nation that does not hold at least 100 tonnes of gold in its official reserves. Out of 188 member countries in the International Monetary Fund, 100 countries hold gold as part of their monetary assets. Canada is now among the 88 countries that have no gold, countries such as Angola, Belize, and Tonga. Are these coincidences or a sign that Canada is headed for financial disaster?

Not since the disastrous budget of former finance minister Allan J. MacEachen, when five-year mortgage rates spiked to over 21%, have Canadians been more apprehensive about their own personal financial security.

It has to be a Canadian record for breaking promises. The first budget deficit is not $10 billion each of the first three years of the mandate as promised. It jumped to $30 billion each of the first three years with no plans to get out of debt and create jobs, if Canadians can believe the $30-billion annual figure. Is it really much higher?

No economist or institution recommended running deficits to finance government waste. In fact, most of the new spending in this budget has nothing to do with promoting economic growth. Any spending on infrastructure is a holdover from Conservative budgets. It was a budget intended to buy votes with the people's money based on election promises, promises that were made to be broken.

Is Canada preparing for a financial disaster? Are savings protected? Those are the questions now being asked of this uninspiring budget that is eroding investor and consumer confidence.

According to the former non-partisan parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, the budget is heavy on spending programs for government consumption and lacking in details, including when the federal budget would return to balance, which is how our Conservative government left the nation's finances. “It could be better in transparency...it's kind of a budget without a fiscal plan”, according to Page, who also said, “I think there’s going to be pressure to raise taxes with this kind of spending in the budget.”

Higher taxes drive down consumption and investment. This in turn chokes growth and leads to lower tax revenue, which in turn worsens an already out of control debt problem, and so it goes in a vicious cycle that leads to the need to keep raising taxes, credit downgrades, further loss of investor confidence beyond what this budget has already caused, more job losses, and the inevitable deep cuts to things like health care and defence spending that Canadians suffered from when Paul Martin was finance minister.

The non-partisan parliamentary budget officer observed that this is the least transparent budget, certainly when compared to Conservative budgets or even previous Paul Martin budgets.

An example of that lack of transparency is the bank recapitalization bail-in scheme, proposed in division 5, part 4, of Bill C-15, which is page 223 of the budget document. It has seniors, among others, worried. It allows the government to convert a bank's eligible long-term debt into common shares in order to recapitalize the bank. In addition to being concerned about bank deposits, any retirement savings that included the bank shares would be exposed as well.

Canadians entrust their savings to the chartered banks with the expectation of being able to access those savings when they need their money. I know that the people in my riding do not expect their savings to be redirected into common stock when a bank is in trouble. Canadians may use banks for long-term savings or to park money temporarily in what they thought was a safe place, for example, when they sell their home or a family business.

The Liberal government is scaring seniors about the safety of bank deposits. The question has to be asked.

A preliminary proposal was made by former finance minister James Flaherty regarding the charter bank solvency rules. However, under our previous Conservative government's plan, bank deposits were protected from seizure. In addition to financing the federal spending spree, Canada's banks are holding billions of dollars in debts from the oil sands. The depressed price of oil has already caused tens of thousands of Canadians to lose their jobs. Internationally, there are at least five countries with oil-depressed economies that are teetering on insolvency.

Another example of the lack of transparency referred to by the non-partisan parliamentary budget officer is the decision of the federal government to cover up the costs to Canadian taxpayers of the Ontario “greed” energy act. The greed energy act was brought in by the disgraced former government of Dalton McGuinty, and continues to drive electricity prices in the province of Ontario higher and higher. One of the consequences of that piece of misguided extremist-driven policy is the energy poverty that is now a fact of life in the province of Ontario.

It is important to point out to Canadian taxpayers that part 1 of Bill C-15 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2016, budget by exempting from taxable income amounts received as rate assistance under the Ontario electricity support program. The Ontario electricity support program was brought in as an indirect tax levied on all electricity consumers to provide rate assistance for people who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills. Of all the issues that I am contacted on, the cost of electricity in Ontario draws the most complaints. We call this the Liberal policy of “heat or eat” in Ontario. Federal taxpayers are expected to pick up the costs of this budget tax measure.

What I predicted before the last election is now happening, as we can see in Bill C-15. I predicted that Canadian taxpayers would end up with part of the bill for Ontario's policy disasters. That was predictable because the same policy advisers in Queen's Park, who wrote the greed energy act and fled Toronto, are now hiding in Ottawa as the most senior advisers of the federal Liberal Party. The cozy relationship between the Prime Minister and the Ontario premier is bad for all taxpayers, just as I warned Canadians before the last election.

Nowhere in the federal budget do we see a line for the cost of defending the greed energy act in an international court. Canadians should be shocked to learn that because Canada is being sued under the international trade rules for the activities of the Ontario Liberal Party and international trade is a federal responsibility, Canadians could be forced to pay almost a billion dollars in claims. Because of the lack of transparency in this budget, it is not being disclosed how much the budget must be increased to pay for the other hare-brained green energy schemes that do nothing to protect the environment and cost Canadians jobs.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is finally time for hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast to get a helping hand from their government.

Middle-class Canadians have been ignored for too long. Today is a day of change and hope. That is why I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-15, Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

When I participated previously in the budget debate, I recognized and applauded the government's work towards helping middle-class families through the Canada child benefit program, reducing poverty, strategies to reduce youth unemployment, and investing in infrastructure and seniors.

However, there are many other initiatives of this budget that I would like to speak about today. I believe they pertain not only to Canadians across the country, but also to the many tireless and hard-working residents of my riding of Scarborough Centre.

As I have said before, my riding of Scarborough Centre is an extremely diverse community, comprised of Canadians hailing from across the globe. They are all here to work hard and provide lives for themselves and their children. We are not afraid of putting in long hours every day in Scarborough. However, for far too long, the costs of living for families, for things such as groceries and rent to other necessities, has continued to rise while paycheques have stayed the same.

At the same time, I always hear that youth are the future of a great Canada. While I do agree, I see the daily struggles that so many youth face, especially as they attempt to enter the job market and start giving back to society and their communities.

While we must assist youth all across the country in solidifying their future, we must also not forget about the many veterans in our communities. These are citizens who have gone above and beyond and provided the highest and most honourable forms of service to our country. Hence, these Canadian heroes must be provided with the resources and assistance they need in due recognition for their sacrifices.

We must also recognize the social, economic, and other invaluable contributions that small businesses provide to our society. Small businesses are the engine of our economy. I would like to bring attention to the issues affecting small business owners and the many dedicated Canadians that they employ. The effects of struggling small businesses are not contained to the owners and their employers. The ripples impact millions of Canadians. It should be of the utmost importance to ensure their prosperity.

Also, with a challenging economy, many Canadians are in need of a helping hand with regard to employment insurance. Budget 2016 addresses that.

Middle class families, youth, veterans, small businesses, and Canadians suffering unemployment have all been subject to unhelpful and sometimes even hurtful policies by the previous government. However, our government has promised change. I can proudly attest that with this budget, we are delivering on these promises for a better society, a better economy, and a better Canada.

The lack of affordable housing poses a great risk to millions of Canadians. As the budget itself states, when affordable housing is in short supply, Canada's whole economy suffers, from raising healthy children to pursuing education, jobs, and other opportunities. Affordable housing is the cornerstore of a strong Canadian family, and therefore of a strong Canada.

This is especially true in my riding of Scarborough Centre, where almost half of tenants spend more than 30% of their monthly household income on housing compared to the national average of less than one in five. Even more, the number of residents in subsidized housing is disproportionately higher in my riding. When it comes to quality of housing, almost one in five dwellings in Scarborough Centre is defined as unsuitable by the national household survey, compared to the about one in 20 nationally.

The need for action on affordable housing is clear, and this government is taking action. Budget 2016 proposes an investment of $2.3 billion over the next two years in affordable housing, with $739 million of that directed to first nations, Inuit, and northern housing. Additionally, a significant portion of this funding will be allocated provincially and territorially to ensure that resources are invested in the most pertinent needs. Much of this investment will be focused on green, clean, and sustainable economic growth.

Moving on, to support young Canadians in gaining the education and skills needed to compete in the economy of tomorrow, the budget proposes infrastructure investments through the Canada Foundation for Innovation. This program will support significant investments in research infrastructure at universities, colleges, and research hospitals nationwide, such as the University of Toronto in Scarborough and Centennial College, both institutions that many of my constituents attend. This will refresh and renew the current 25-year-old infrastructure and ensure that our nation continues to train, educate, and produce the brightest future leaders in the world.

In addition, budget 2016 would implement programs such as the educator school supply tax credit to help teachers and educators make ends meet in classrooms. As well, flat-rate student contributions will make it easier for post-secondary students to work and earn money without worrying about negative impacts on their financial aid eligibility. Initiatives such as these will ensure that Canada can attract young talent while boosting innovation and contributing to constructing a sustainable economy.

Our government is not forgetting about the countless veterans who have already made such a vital impact and contribution to Canada. Canada's veterans and their families deserve our care, compassion, and respect. With that in mind, budget 2016 is committed to reopening the staff service offices across the country that were closed by the previous government, and expanding veteran outreach services to regions that currently lack them.

Moreover, I strongly commend budget 2016 for increasing the maximum disability award for veterans to $360,000, and also increasing the earnings loss benefit to 90% of pre-release military salary. These policies, among several other implementations in this budget, clearly exemplify our government's commitment to each and every Canadian, especially veterans who have served the highest duties.

This budget also addresses the concerns of the millions of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on small businesses. With this budget, the government has introduced a lower small business income tax rate of 10.5% on the first $500,000 of active business income, allowing these hard-working businesses to retain more earnings that can be reinvested to support growth and job creation.

For those who are trying to re-enter the job market, I would also like to recognize the government's initiative of significantly increasing accessibility to employment insurance for thousands of Canadians through eligibility amendments. Not only that, but this budget will bring about a 50% reduction in waiting periods for unemployed Canadians who are in need of a helping hand to get back on their feet.

I must also mention that the government has been swift in its response to unforeseen and sharp rises in unemployment in certain regions by extending EI benefits in 12 regions across the country. Unlike the previous government, we are delivering on our promises. Budget 2016 is a testament to the delivery of these commitments.

As I have said before, there is much more to be done in the years ahead, but with budget 2016, our government has laid the foundation for future growth and prosperity. With this budget, we are investing in Canada's future, and today that future is extremely bright indeed.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I do some good work on the Kurdish file, and I am pleased to work with him on that.

What I will say is that I defer to what others have commented about infrastructure investments, whether it is the former federal reserve chairman Ben Bernanke or the current Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, which is that key investments in infrastructure, which is what this budget undertakes, are an enabler for long-term growth and maintain our standard of living. Therefore, our budget, part and parcel of which represents our platform, and Bill C-15, which is the blueprint, is one of the large first measures to implement our infrastructure program, which will help grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that we have made a large commitment to post-secondary institutions. We have made a commitment to individuals who are enrolling at post-secondary institutions. If we look at the Canada student loan grants and debt repayment schedules that we have put in place in the budget in Bill C-15, we see literally a multi-billion dollar investment into our universities, and our students per se, so that when students exit university and begin working they will have a time frame to accumulate some capital before they need to repay their student loans. Therefore, on the one hand we are helping in terms of investing in infrastructure in universities and on the other hand we are also helping with students enrolling in universities, particularly middle and low-income students who need that assistance when going to university so that they are not burdened by such a high debt burden when they exit university.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to Bill C-15, budget implementation act, 2016. I would like to focus my comments today on one particular area that is of great interest to me and that our government is dedicated to enhancing and that will lead to a stronger economic growth profile for our country, the field of innovation.

When I think of innovation, I look at my riding and in the city of Vaughan there are literally thousands of innovative companies. One that comes to mind is Mircom Group of Companies, a company that has been in existence for many years and whose owners are good family friends. The Mircom Group of Companies is the largest independent designer, manufacturer, and distributor of intelligent building solutions. It competes against U.S. giants like General Electric, Tyco, and Johnson Controls employing literally hundreds of Canadians. Over half of its products are exported outside of Canada to more than 95 countries. Mircom employs a highly skilled workforce, including scientists and engineers. It hires the best from Canadian universities.

This company is one example of a Canadian success story and it is an innovator. I would also like to add that I am proud to say that another company in my riding Vision Plastics, part of the Vision Group of Companies investing $150 million in Vaughan, will be employing literally 300 to 400 Canadians and is set to open this coming fall. I will have more to say on that in the months ahead.

Bill C-15 is a part of the legislative framework our government is attempting to put in place to encourage companies like this to start, to grow, to remain in Canada, and to succeed. That is what makes me happy about what our government is doing. In terms of its commitment to innovation, we are going in the right direction, a direction that will lead to better jobs, better benefits, a strong and growing economy, and a strengthened middle class.

What do we mean when we use the word “innovation”? Certainly it means different things to different people. I just cited an example of what innovation means in my community, but in the broader context, our government is daring to dream of doing something smarter, faster, and better to improve the status quo, to improve the quality of life in whatever way is possible.

Fundamentally we are trying to find solutions to the big problems, to the big issues that challenge us. That means social innovation, embracing the premise that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. It means understanding that some of our most important infrastructure is not only roads and bridges, but is also digital infrastructure in the context of a knowledge economy. It means moving beyond individual interests to see the collective opportunities.

Technology is fundamentally transforming the way Canadians access information, pay for goods and services, interact with each other, and build communities. At the same time, technology has now reached a new level. It is more than just communications. Technology has become a transformative tool in addressing global challenges like climate change and poverty. Where industrial progress once came at a cost to the environment, nowadays technology has emerged as our greatest tool in clean growth and healthy growth, and prosperous societies.

Our government has defined a new vision in 2016, a vision to build Canada as a centre of global innovation, renowned for its science and technology, creative and entrepreneurial citizens, and globally competitive companies offering high quality products and services, much like the Mircom Group of Companies. We are well positioned for this. We have world-leading research institutions, creative and innovative entrepreneurs such as the Mircom Group of Companies, businesses, and commercial organizations that can transform breakthroughs in the laboratory into products that enhance the lives of millions. That is the lives of millions of Canadians and also the lives of people around this earth that we inhabit.

Canada's innovative society already creates jobs for the middle class, enhances homegrown talent, and helps companies expand beyond our borders. However, we can and we will do much more. What is now an emerging economic opportunity will become the foundation of a modern 21st century Canada. We will transform our economy from one that depends on a few resources to one whose resources are as infinite as our diversity, creativity, and talent.

Through 2016 and 2017, we will define a bold new plan, the innovation agenda. Bill C-15 is a part of that blueprint to get to the innovation agenda. This will be a plan for change. It will define clear outcomes and pinpoint milestones toward achieving them. It will be a cross-government effort, drawing on Canadian and international experts in clean technology, health sciences, advanced manufacturing, digital technology, resource development, and much more.

It is important for us to be leaders in this field. We all hear that word, ecosystem. The ecosystem is important. In prior periods there may have been an auto plant where suppliers would co-exist in the surrounding area. However, today that has changed. Today with an ecosystem, we may have many small companies operating in clusters throughout the world and we need to be at the forefront of that. We need to be a part of that. That is what is going to create a strong and growing economy and strengthen our middle class.

To help us realize this vision, budget 2016 proposes several interim measures to promote research and accelerate business growth. It would focus new federal support for science on world-class discovery research, maintain funding for the commercialization of promising scientific discoveries, begin to orient federal business support toward those firms with ambitions to grow, and build a better evidence base to identify gaps, evaluate performance, and inform future decisions.

The rules are changing around us. In the old bricks and mortar economy, a bigger factory meant not just more output in wealth but more jobs. That is not the case in the new digital economy. We need to enable and support this change. We also need to ensure that we do so mindfully and in a way that does not stifle innovation.

The innovation leaders are the future and must be equipped with the skills they will need to succeed. Post-secondary and other research institutions are the front-line agents in fostering science and research excellence. They help train the Canadian workforce of tomorrow today. They help train my young daughters. They also help to create the knowledge base necessary for the private sector and policy-makers who are looking to build a thriving and clean economy. To ensure that these facilities continue to support our researchers and innovators, budget 2016 would invest up to $2 billion over three years in a new post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund.

If investing in the spaces that enhance our innovative potential is the first step, the second step is most certainly investing in Canadian researchers themselves, particularly those on the cusp of new discoveries. In Canada, this funding typically flows from federal granting councils, which include the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. These councils already receive $2.8 billion annually to support research and training of highly qualified people at universities and colleges across the country. This year and going forward, I am proud to state that our government would provide an additional $95 million to support discovery research, the highest amount of new annual funding in over a decade.

To ensure that federal support for research, including through the granting councils, is strategic and effective, we will undertake a comprehensive review of federal support for fundamental science. We want to be sure that we are providing the right support to the right leaders and that fields of research reflect shared Canadian priorities.

Our government will also continue to support Canada's strength in genomics, the study of the entire genetic code that is fuelling innovations across a number of sectors. We would provide $237.2 million over the next four years to support the pan-Canadian activities of genomics.

Well before genomics, Canadians carved out a special expertise in stem cell research. It started over 50 years ago when two of Canada's own doctors proved their very existence. Since that time, stem cell research has evolved into one of the world's greatest promises, with significant implications for medical treatments, commercial products, and public policy. We would provide up to $12 million over two years in support of the stem cell network so it could continue to provide bridges that connect researchers and professionals through training and outreach activities.

To conclude, in the 21st century global economy, Canada needs to be innovative to be a leader. We need to be leaders. Our businesses need to be fostered and encouraged. We need to embrace the world of science, technology, engineering, and math. We need to diversify our economy to enable growth and prosperity throughout the country. We need to turn the page on the last 10 years.

In addition to these goals, I believe that Canada has a strong foundation to build upon. We have one of the best educated populations in the world. We have one of the highest university investments in research and development. We have one of the world's best investment climates. We are a leading edge of global trade.

Let us be proud of Canada.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

I have spoken to many of my constituents with respect to the budget, and to say there is some concern among my constituents of Barrie—Innisfil is an understatement.

I spent nine years on city council in Barrie dealing with various budgets. I was a member of the finance committee.

Budgets are typically forward-looking documents. When I look at this document, and when my constituents who I have spoken to about the budget look at the document, there is one underlying theme that comes up regularly: Who is going to pay for this? To use the Liberal narrative, quite frankly the people who are going to pay for this are the middle class and anyone working hard to join the middle class.

One only has to look at the situation here in Ontario, my home province, to see some of the parallels to the mindset of unbridled spending that the current federal Liberal government has embarked on. They are very similar situations. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that they are very similar situations, because the very people who were running the premier's office in Ontario are now involved in the Prime Minister's Office. The mindset of debt and deficit spending is very evident not just in the budget but in some of the policies we have seen come from the Liberal government.

I would remind Canadians that the Ontario government is the largest sub-sovereign borrower on the planet. It is not second, not third, but the largest sub-sovereign borrower on the planet The payment on the debt currently in Ontario is third only to health and education. It is an example of unbridled spending and debt that can occur. What we are seeing, quite frankly, is a 2.0 version happening federally that has happened in Ontario. The difference really is that there is just a bigger piggy bank for the Liberals to draw from. Add to that the green program, the unmitigated disaster and the costs associated with that. It is really something we are all going to be looking for. As I said earlier, budgets being forward-looking documents, the question for most Canadians is who is going to pay for this.

When we look at some of the promises the Liberal government made, it promised a small $10-billion deficit. We now know that this year that it is going to be $30 billion. We are looking at $150 billion as we move forward. We also heard about, for example, the revenue neutral tax breaks. We now know that those tax breaks are going to cost Canadian taxpayers $1.7 billion this year and $8.9 billion over the next six years. In fact, we are going to see taxes rise to the tune of $1.3 billion this year and $2.4 billion next year.

When the Liberals talk about the middle class and taxes, when they throw out the talking points and talk in platitudes about the middle class and how they are the party of the middle class, I would suggest, as I have before in the House, that what we are actually seeing is effectively middle class tax fraud. What the Liberals are imposing on the middle class is tax fraud. It is a shell game.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, to make my point. What the Liberals give, the Liberals take back. We only have to look at the budget to figure that out. The fitness tax credit that most Canadians have used, to the tune $1.19 billion since 2006, is gone. The arts and fitness tax credit Canadians have benefited from, to the tune of $118 million or $119 million, is gone. Income splitting for families like mine, a typical middle-class family, is gone. TFSAs are gone as an option for saving. What the Liberals give, the Liberals take away.

On the issue of the OAS, and I think this is critical to discuss at this point, one of the reasons the OAS age limit was reduced from 67 to 65 was a matter of cost and sustainability.

In 2011, almost $38 billion more would have been spent to sustain the OAS. It would be $108 billion by 2020, and by 2030 it would cost almost $266 billion to sustain. In 2012, the Conservative government chose, in keeping with OECD recommendations, to increase eligibility from 65 to 67. It did this because this measure alone would have an estimated annual spending increase of $11 billion. Again, someone has to pay for that. Baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, represented the largest age cohort in history. They retired. The cost of the OAS program was schedule to balloon, as I said, to $38 billion in 2011.

When the OAS system was originally designed and implemented, the average life expectancy was much shorter. Today the average Canadian life expectancy is 85-plus. Seniors starting to receive the benefit at 65 will live 20 years more, greatly increasing the costs for working taxpayers.

According to Statistics Canada, the most recent projections estimate that more than one in four Canadians will be over 65 by 2036. When OAS was introduced in the 1960s, the ratio of active workers to pensioners was 7:1. Today, however, it is 2.5:1. That is not enough to support the massive cost to Canadians.

The finance minister himself wrote a book advocating later retirements. In The Real Retirement, he wrote:

If we were to retire three years later than we now do, any concerns about having adequate retirement income would practically vanish. It would also alleviate any shortages in the workforce due to the aging of the population.

Again, we have a finance minister who on one hand understands this but on the other hand, as finance minister, reverses his position. It begs the question: would the Liberals and the Liberal Party run their households the way they are running the country?

There were also some other issues with respect to the small business tax cut. On the issue of infrastructure, and I spoke about this before, while money sits to be handed out, people sit, as jobs cannot be filled unless projects begin, and projects cannot begin until the funding has been received.

The government can now, today, get this money out in a fair and equitable manner. We have seen members of the Liberal Party out and about in their communities making funding announcements.

One of the things the Liberal Party ran on was fair and equitable infrastructure investment in the country. Granted, it has made significant investments, but there is one way we can get that money out the door quickly, one way we can get the money out that is equitable. In fact, Mayor Nenshi, this past weekend, at FCM, spoke about the issue of the gas tax being a way to get that money out the door.

If the Liberal government wanted to, rather than delay, and already we are starting to see delays in the construction season due to the fact that the money is not going out the door, it could use the gas tax revenue. There is an existing formula in place.

I know that in my city, the city of Barrie, we receive $8 million a year in gas tax funding. The criteria is already set. The accountability system is already set for that gas tax money. In fact two weeks ago when I was in Vancouver, I met with the president of FCM. I met with the president of LUMCO in my role as urban affairs critic. Universally, every single one of them has suggested that the gas tax is the proper source for ensuring that infrastructure money is put out the door in a fair and equitable manner.

This budget, as I said earlier, is a shell game. I have statistics. I can show third party assessments of this budget and how it does not benefit wholly the middle class. I would suggest, finally, that the ones who benefit the most from the Liberal budget are in fact parliamentarians with respect to tax reductions. I think the same thing that holds in Ontario will hold true three and a half years from now. My constituents are looking at this, and I know that others across the country who voted Liberal did not vote for this.