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.

[Herb John, President, National Pensioners Federation]

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of Canadian seniors, the fastest growing and largest segment of the Canadian population.

My name is Herb John, and I'm the president of the National Pensioners Federation. With me is our counsel, Susan Eng.

The National Pensioners Federation is a national, non-partisan organization of 350 seniors' chapters, clubs, groups, organizations, and individual supporters across Canada, with a collective membership of one million seniors and retirees devoted entirely to the welfare and interests of aging Canadians. Seniors and those who care about them will welcome the measures announced in the federal budget, which are contained in Bill C-15, but more needs to be done.

Bill C-15 returns the OAS eligibility age to 65, which will be welcome news to those who were facing having to wait two extra years for the OAS benefit after struggling in their careers. An estimated 600,000 seniors live under the poverty line today, and this is not expected to change unless more is done to provide better income supports and reduce their critical expenses like home care and drug costs.

Bill C-15 increases the GIS for single seniors beginning in July 2016. Single seniors, especially women, face a far greater rate of poverty compared to their counterparts in couples. That will benefit 900,000 single seniors across Canada. While absolutely welcome, it is a maximum of just $2.60 per day.

Much more needs to be done to prevent poverty among seniors. The budget announced a proposal to introduce a seniors' index for OAS and GIS to help seniors keep pace with their cost of living. While that is a welcome change, the index should help seniors keep pace with the standard of living and should be tied to wage rate increases.

Also welcome is the announcement in the budget of $200 million over two years to fund seniors' affordable housing without requiring a cost match from the provinces, which has been a major barrier in the past. Secure housing, as we know, is a major social determinant of health. The funding of the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement and the Canadian Institute for Health Information is a welcome investment, provided that the Naylor report's call for a patient-focused approach to innovation is the centrepiece.

Unfortunately, the budget and Bill C-15 do not address several important election promises. There's no mention of the promise to remove the requirement for a terminal diagnosis to qualify for the EI compassionate care benefit, or an increased flexibility in how the benefit may be used. The requirement for a terminal diagnosis has in the past stopped people from applying for the compassionate care benefit. In addition, the flexibility in using the benefit better reflects how chronic illnesses play out.

There's no mention of the promise to invest $3 billion in home care and palliative care. There is an immediate need for sustained funding and national standards on home care. The patchwork of palliative care must be addressed immediately, and this new funding will be a major first step.

The promise to join the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance will incrementally reduce the cost of many drugs, but a comprehensive national pharmacare system is necessary in order to ensure every Canadian is able to access needed medications regardless of income or postal code.

I will now turn it over to Susan Eng who has further recommendations for the committee.

[Joseph Galimberti, President, Canadian Steel Producers Association]

First and foremost, thank you, honourable members, for the opportunity to present in front of you today on behalf of the Canadian Steel Producers Association.

Our association represents 10 primary steel producers and steel product manufacturers in Canada, with member facilities located in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. These operations directly employ over 22,000 Canadians and support an additional 100,000 Canadian jobs through indirect economic impacts associated with our operations.

We welcome the government's budget 2016 commitments to taking steps to improve Canada's ability to effectively remedy dumped and subsidized imports, as this is an area in which steel is particularly exposed. In light of the increased frequency of market-distorting trade in Canada, the CSPA views modernization of Canada's trade remedy system as critical to ensuring that our members and their employees are able to compete fairly in the global marketplace.

I'd like to provide some context, if I may, for the importance of these measures. The global steel sector today is facing an unprecedented overcapacity problem. Put simply, more steel is being produced than is required by the global market. This phenomenon is driven largely by China, where demand has declined while state-supported production has increased significantly. Through the maintenance of more than 425 million metric tons of surplus capacity, which is almost 30 times the size of the entire Canadian steel market, China's state-owned and state-supported steel sector has disrupted established trade patterns and degraded the pricing of steel products globally.

The result is the significant increase in market-distorting dumping and circumvention practices, both from China directly and from a host of other global producers whose home markets have in many cases suffered as a result of Chinese competition. Left with no choice but to export, these nations begin doing so aggressively, dumping yet more product on the global markets and further degrading global prices.

At the recent OECD high-level symposium on excess capacity and structural adjustment in the steel sector, the CSPA was encouraged to see the development of a consensus position from the governments of the European Union, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, the United States, and, importantly, Canada that overcapacity and adjustment challenges facing the steel industry have an important global dimension that needs to be addressed through ongoing international dialogue. Unfortunately, China refused to participate in this joint statement or support its content.

The impasse here underscores Canada's need to fortify our domestic trade remedy system. Increasing instances of market-distorting trade in steel globally have been accompanied by an historic escalation in the number of new anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases initiated in 2015, with a continued escalation foreseen in 2016.

Understanding this trend, Canada should take immediate action to ensure that we do not as a jurisdiction become an attractive place to dump product. Our NAFTA partners in the United States have take significant action through the passage of the Trade Preferences Extension Act in June 2015 and the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act in February 2016 to discourage dumping and circumvention in that market. Canada needs to keep pace.

With this in mind, the CSPA would express our appreciation for the inclusion in Bill C-15 of amendments to the Special Import Measures Act ensuring that investigations will no longer be terminated at the preliminary stage, which will allow investigators to more fully consider whether dumping and subsidizing are harming Canadian producers. We also welcome amendments that will address the timing of and process around expiry reviews, resulting in measures remaining in place for up to ten months longer before a decision is made as to whether to extend or rescind that measure.

Similarly, we're encouraged by the recent initiation, which was also promised in the budget, of a public consultation on potential future changes to the Special Import Measures Act, and we are hopeful of near-term legislative action to address: the calculation of dumping margins in situations where data in a given export market understates the degree to which products are being dumped; the enhancement of enforcement options available to the Government of Canada in instances of circumvention; and clarification in regard to the type and amount of evidence the domestic industry is required to put forward to get cases initiated.

The CSPA supports trade. We believe that with our efficient facilities and innovative workforces we can thrive in a free trade environment, but in order for trade to be free, it also has to be fair. Bill C-15 takes important steps to ensure fairness in Canada's trade remedy system, and we are hopeful that the consultation process will generate additional positive near-term results.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress]

I'm here on behalf of the 3.3 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this budget implementation act.

The CLC brings together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy and in all occupations in all parts of Canada.

There are many elements of Bill C-15 that will affect our members, but due to the time constraints here, I will focus my comments on old age security and guaranteed income supplement changes, the Employment Insurance Act, and PPP Canada.

We're very glad to see several elements of this bill that will increase simplicity and fairness in taxation, and we expect the Canada child tax benefit to have a very positive impact on lower-income families with children.

With regard to old age security and GIS—I'm sorry I didn't write down their division numbers in the act—Statistics Canada's low-income measure shows that nearly 600,000 Canadian seniors were living on low incomes in 2013. The proposed increase to the guaranteed income supplement top-up for the lowest income seniors will directly help many who are struggling to get by. It's an important part of a wider strategy that includes affordable housing, home care supports, and an expanded Canada Pension Plan. Here I want to thank the government. It looks very much like something we put in the alternative federal budget, and we're glad to see that you're taking our advice.

With regard to employment insurance, we are happy about some things and critical about others. Reducing the 910-hour threshold for new entrants and re-entrants as of July 2016 will be a meaningful change in access for young workers, recent graduates, and new Canadians. Investments in front-line staff will reverse substantial cuts that had been made to administrative staff in EI, and we expect that will reduce delays and confusion for unemployed workers, improving access to the program.

Extending the length of work-sharing programs from 38 weeks to 76 weeks will help workers and employers who are facing tough times or who are going through some kind of structural transition. We encourage the government to work with employer and worker groups to increase awareness of this program because it can be very effective, but the take-up is often low.

Extending benefits to some workers was helpful, but the rationale for limiting benefits, the way that it was done, is difficult to understand. There was sufficient funding in the account to temporarily extend benefits to all unemployed workers in a fair and transparent way and that would have helped more unemployed workers.

Unfortunately some of Harper's changes to employment insurance remain in play. This includes the definition of the long-tenured worker, which Bill C-15 brings into the EI act instead of getting rid of it. Since one of the requirements to be long-tenured is seven years of EI contributions this automatically excludes young workers. The difference between benefits from a long-tenured worker and others is dramatic.

In 2014 the former government created additional regions for Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon. These new regions created significant discrepancies in access and duration of benefits for workers who are effectively operating in a single labour market. We would ask that the government immediately reverse these new regions.

I want to take this opportunity to repeat our long-standing call for a single national entrance requirement for employment insurance that will increase fairness of access to EI.

With regard to PPP Canada, we feel transferring responsibility to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities will improve transparency and oversight, and we're encouraged by that move. However, the budget contained further signals that Ottawa intends to open up public infrastructure to private ownership, including through pension funds and asset recycling.

Along with the Ontario government, Ottawa is laying the groundwork for a major expansion of private investment in and ownership of infrastructure assets. We believe that public infrastructure should be publicly financed and operated. Therefore, we call on the federal government to completely eliminate PPP Canada incorporated and redirect its funding to public infrastructure projects.

We would also like to see comprehensive P3 accountability and transparency legislation to protect Canadians from high cost and high risk P3 projects.

Thank you again for your time.

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on Bill C-15, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 1, as it pertains to Canada's veterans.

In my five and a half years as Veterans Ombudsman, I have met with and listened intently to the concerns of thousands of Canadian veterans and their families across Canada.

On October 1, 2013, I released my evidenced-based report on the new Veterans Charter and, for the first time with any report of this nature, it was supported by an independent actuarial analysis that pinpointed exactly where benefits were failing veterans, and would continue to fail them unless changes were made. In addition, on August 19, 2014, I published another evidence-based report on the permanent impairment allowance and the permanent impairment allowance supplement and recommended changes to better support our severely injured veterans.

Bill C-15 addresses several of my key recommendations in both of these reports. Although it is too early to provide you with an evidence-based analysis on the effectiveness or fairness of the proposed legislative changes—because we do not have all of the details yet—it is not too early to say that it is movement in the right direction.

Division 2 of the budget implementation act takes steps to help veterans and their families, first of all, by increasing the earnings loss benefit to 90% of an eligible veteran's military salary. According to Veterans Affairs Canada's numbers, this will provide increased short-term financial support to approximately 3,000 veterans while they participate in the department's rehabilitation programs. It will also provide increased long-term financial support to around 2,000 of the most seriously injured veterans.

The budget implementation act will also change the permanent impairment allowance grade determination. Although I do not as yet have the details of what this change will look like for veterans, I am hopeful that it will better support the more seriously impaired veterans with career-limiting service-related injuries. Also, I am pleased to see the program renamed “career impact allowance” in order to better reflect its original intent.

Moreover, the act will replace “totally and permanently incapacitated” with “diminished earning capacity”. There is no definition yet of “diminished earning capacity”, so it is difficult to assess at this point. However, I am hopeful it will lower the threshold for access to certain benefits.

The disability award will be raised to $360,000. This change will align the disability award for veterans with what Canadians can receive through courts. It will also provide retroactively to approximately 55,000 veterans to receive a one-time increase to the disability award that they have already received.

Another measure will increase the death benefit to $360,000. Once implemented, this will provide better support to the family members of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

These changes, especially those to the disability award, will have a positive impact on all veterans receiving benefits under the new Veterans Charter. Other changes, such as those to the earnings loss benefit and permanent impairment allowance, will provide greater lifetime financial security to relatively few veterans, but they are the veterans who are the most vulnerable and have the greatest need of support.

I believe it is important for you in your deliberations to put veterans programs spending into context. Expenditures on veterans are approximately 1% of current federal expenditures, and current estimates suggest that these these expenditures will decline over the next year due to a decrease in the veterans population.

As the Veterans Ombudsman, my office evaluates fairness through the principles of adequacy. Are the right programs and services in place to meet the needs? In terms of sufficiency, are the right programs and services sufficiently resourced? On accessibility, are eligibility criteria creating unfair barriers? Can the benefits and services provided by VAC be accessed easily and quickly?

While it is difficult to evaluate the fairness of the proposed changes without more detail, as I said earlier in my remarks, they do reflect the recommendations I have previously made regarding the financial benefits in the new Veterans Charter.

In closing, I believe that the proposed changes represent an important step forward in Canada's support of veterans and their families. They deserve no less in return for their service and sacrifice to Canada and Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Order, please.

We are continuing our discussions under the order of reference of Tuesday, May 10, on Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

Welcome to our witnesses. We have quite a number this morning.

I'll just mention that the committee will be disrupted by a vote sometime between now and the next hour. When the bells go, I will ask if there is the unanimous consent of the committee to stay until we're down to 15 minutes before the vote. We'll come back after that to continue our hearings. We know that people have travelled a distance and put a lot of work into their presentations, and we certainly want to hear from them.

We'll start with the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec. Mr. Gaétan Morin is the president and chief executive officer, and Mario Tremblay is the vice-president.

The floor is yours.

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

To your comment, in my riding we ran some tax clinics. We did have some elderly folks come in, and there was that noticeable trend for specifically women.

Our government has introduced in Bill C-15 an increase to the guaranteed income supplement of up to $947. That will benefit folks who make up to $8,500 in the prescribed income level. I think that's going to benefit 900,000 people, the majority of which are single seniors and women. They tend to outlive us men, for whatever reason.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Wonderful. Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming today.

I want to spend a few moments talking about something that didn't come up in any focused way in the presentations, and that's the changes to EI in Bill C-15. This is obviously something we've heard quite a bit about. While there are some very welcome changes, they don't go far enough in terms of making a difference for many working Canadians.

I'd like to direct my first question to Mr. Battle. I'm familiar with some of Caledon's work around the ineligibility surrounding EI, and the fact that fewer and fewer Canadians are eligible. I'm thinking about the report you put out in December 2011, entitled “Fixing the Hole in EI”. Specific to Bill C-15, the concern has been raised that there are regions that have suffered significant unemployment in the last two years and that are excluded. We hear today that finally the Liberal government is seeing the need to include Edmonton as one of those regions. We're hearing some different reports in terms of southern Saskatchewan, which has also been hit hard by the drop in the extractive sector. But we still know that many regions that depend on seasonal work, including in Quebec and the Atlantic, are still ineligible, and it creates the black hole, or le trou noir, that we know of.

Many Canadians who are hurting have paid into EI and aren't able to access it. In your report you talk about 55% eligibility; I guess that was in 2011. Now we're down to about 40% eligibility. I'm wondering if you could speak to this. Is this a serious issue? Should we be taking it more seriously? Should we be fixing the EI program to make it more responsive to current crises that Canadians are facing but also a shifting job market, particularly the rise of precarious work? Any thoughts on that would be welcome.

[Céline Bak, President, Analytica Advisors Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee.

Madam Clerk, thank you for this invitation and for your team's support.

I'm a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, and I've published this year two peer-reviewed policy briefs on the global clean technology industry, as well as on matters to do with innovation. I'd like to ask that the two synopses, which we submitted in advance of today's hearings, be read into the record. They have been submitted in both English and French in advance of this meeting.

On April 19, I reported the findings and recommendations of Analytica Advisors' 2016 report on the global and Canadian clean technology industry, our fifth annual report. The global market for clean technology goods reached $1.1 trillion in 2005, up from $555 billion in 2004, representing a 7.5% annual growth rate. The industry is now globally worth two-thirds that of the automotive industry.

From 2005 to 2014, the market for clean technology goods nearly doubled.

Canada is losing global market share. In that same period Canada's ranking as a clean technology goods exporter fell from 14th to 19th place in the table of the top 25 global exporters.

During that period, our market share shrank by 35%, placing us third from last among exporters. For the first time in six years, we have noted a decline in revenues for the industry as a whole.

Up until two years ago we reported growth of four times that of the overall Canadian economy, but that growth has now stopped.

Let me just briefly say that the clean technology industry added another 5,000 jobs last year, and it now directly employs 55,000 people, in almost 800 firms. Many of these people are young people working at the start of their careers in positions that range from finance to engineering to manufacturing and global sales. People in this industry are working in companies that are creating and scaling up technologies that protect our environment.

By 2030, clean technology enterprises will enable Canada to reduce emissions by 30% in relation to 2005 levels, which Canada committed to doing in the Paris Accord.

We'd like to make some specific recommendations in regard to Bill C-15.

We support the addition of $50 million, over four years, allocated to Sustainable Development Technology Canada for the SD tech fund and $82.5 million, over two years, to Natural Resources Canada to support research, development, and demonstration of clean energy technologies. However, we strong urge this government to implement programs for financing clean technologies where support is lacking for the rollout of the first commercial facilities. Addressing this financing gap is essential to stimulate the investments and create significant job opportunities, directly contributing to meeting the government's goal of generating economic growth through expanded green infrastructure while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We also support the expansion of eligibility criteria for accelerated capital cost allowances to include electric vehicles' charging stations and electric energy storage, but recommend that other sectors, including the advanced biofuels equipment and other carbon-reducing equipment, be included so that there is a level playing field.

We also support the fact that regional development agencies will double their annual aggregate support for clean technology to $100 million per year from existing resources starting in 2016-17 and urge that this government increase the overall funding allocated to these agencies to support clean technology. We'd like to note that the OECD has assessed Canada's subsidies to fossil fuel industries at about $3 billion per year, making quite a significant support to an industry that contributes 27% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. We note also that this budget does not establish a date for the phase-out of those subsidies to the fossil fuel industries.

With that, I'd like to conclude my remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll reconvene. I'd like to welcome the witnesses for the next session. We're scheduled until two o'clock, but I think about 20 to two we're going to have to go to committee business to decide on witnesses.

With us at this session on an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures we have as an individual Ian Lee, an associate professor; from Analytica Advisors Incorporated, Céline Bak; from the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Ken Battle; and from Fondaction, le Fonds de développement de la CSN pour la coopération et l'emploi, Julien Lampron.

We'll start with you, Mr. Lee; you have five minutes.

[Anders Bruun, Barrister and Solicitor, Canadian Wheat Board Alliance]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. I thank you, on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, for the opportunity to be here this morning. I can say that it is a special honour for me to appear before a committee that my own member of Parliament, Mr. Ouellette, is on. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

I make this presentation on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, a voluntary prairie-wide group of farmers, in place of Mr. Ken Sigurdson, who was invited but is unable to attend.

Farmers continue to deal with the fallout from the dismantling of the Wheat Board.

Section 38 of Bill C-15, budget implementation act, 2016, gives us a window into that process. Now, if you have had a look at section 38 and the provisions relating to the tax treatment to be accorded to certain instruments that are being issued in relation to the Wheat Board, you will understand my next comment.

Section 38 is a tangled mess of verbiage, maybe the most tangled I have seen in the 40-plus years since I started law school, and I say that with the greatest respect for the drafters in Justice, the Canada Revenue Agency, and so forth who crafted this. I am sure the provision does what it is intended to do in a competent and efficient way, but I want to get on to talking about the underlying units that whole section deals with.

On November 2, 2011, the then Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-18, which had just been introduced in October, and proposed to dismantle the Wheat Board, effective the following August 1.

At that time, Mr. Ritz stated, in answer to a question from Mr. Valeriote, “Mr. Valeriote, I fully believe in the strength of farmers. Yes, they will elect their own board after the interim period. After the interim period, where we control it as a government, yes, they will elect their own board, should they decide to do that.”

I have a copy of the transcript from that portion of that hearing, if anyone wants it.

Much has transpired since that date.

The government removed the farmer-elected directors a few weeks after Mr. Ritz made this statement, in mid-December, 2011, and the former government operated the Wheat Board behind that veil since. No financial information relating to the operations of the Wheat Board after July 31, 2012 has ever been released. Nothing has ever been released.

The government-controlled board even had a hand in finalizing the Wheat Board's annual report for the 2010-11 crop year.

Then, on April 15, 2015, Minister Ritz announced that the Wheat Board was to be transferred to a joint venture of Bunge Canada and Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Company (SALIC), called G3. You can see their website, g3.ca.

This brings us back to section 38 of Bill C-15.

G3 has promised to issue to farmers delivering to it wheat, in addition to the purchase price that is negotiated, $5.00 in trust units for each tonne of grain delivered to it. G3 will pay nothing for the Wheat Board and its many assets to government or to farmers, except for these trust units. That's it. That is all. There is a lot of value there. That is all anyone in Canada is receiving.

Section 38 deals with the applicable tax laws governing these trust units.

Now, what are these trust units?

A portion of order No. 7163, issued by the Manitoba Securities Commission on July 24, 2015, is attached to this submission. I have just taken pages 20 to 23 and attached them to the submission I have made to members. I have a copy of the entire order here, if anyone wants that.

This is all that farmers are getting. Not only are these trust units exempt from security laws, but farmers receiving the units must agree that they “will not have any statutory rights of action in the event of a misrepresentation”.

The only thing we're getting are these pieces of paper and, if there's a misrepresentation made somewhere along the line that induces someone to do business and they get this piece of paper and it doesn't pan out well, they have no statutory rights and no securities law protections with respect to these pieces of paper. The whole thing with these trust units is that they're exempt from registration. See section (j), which is on the second page of that attachment.

It is because of this total veil of secrecy relating to the operations of the Wheat Board—not a single number since August 1, 2012—and the uncertain value of the trust units—remember, you have no right to sue even if you're fooled into a transaction that gives you one of these things—that we recommend and urge in the strongest possible terms recommendation 48 of the final report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance regarding its consultations in advance of the 2016 budget, and that recommendation reads:

The federal government provide Western Canadian grains and oilseed farmers with a full and transparent accounting of the disposition of the Canadian Wheat Board’s assets since the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act received Royal Assent, and of the effects on the grain handling and marketing system since that time.

I submit to you that this review needs to be done externally, and it needs to be done by people who know what they're looking at. It almost needs to be a forensic sort of review; it cannot be the typical whitewash review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I would like to call the meeting to order please. Pursuant to the order of reference for Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, we're here to hear from a number of witnesses in two sessions today. Then we'll go to committee business.

To the witnesses, welcome.

We have from the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, Alex Scholten; from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Dan Kelly; from the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, Anders Bruun; and from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Hendrik Brakel.

We'll start with you, Mr. Scholten. Welcome, you have up to five minutes.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I have just four minutes, I will try to be brief.

I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C-15. This is probably not a surprise to the government, since we have already expressed our opposition to the bill for many reasons, which I will try to summarize.

Before I talk about the negatives, I do want to mention that the budget does have some positive points. For example, the money invested in infrastructure is positive, but we still do not know how the investments will be made. Will an agreement be signed with the Government of Quebec, and will it be signed fast enough for the Government of Quebec and businesses to benefit? We have some serious questions about this.

Another measure I want to highlight is the return of tax credits for labour-sponsored funds. This savings tool is very important and worthwhile for middle-class Quebeckers.

There is also the universal child care benefit, which will be non-taxable from now on. The government is also combining all of the old benefits because they were so confusing. That is very positive. Unfortunately, however, they did not take the opportunity to eliminate the taxation of enhanced benefits imposed by the Conservatives. That could have been done.

I also want to mention the middle-class tax cut, which is not actually going to help the real middle class, just the upper middle class. Those are the people who are doing relatively well financially but who might run into a few financial troubles. They are not the richest segment of the population, so cutting their taxes is not a bad thing, but the government did not cut taxes for the right people.

There are some things that we strongly condemn, such as the fact that health transfers to the Government of Quebec and the provinces will be indexed at just 3% per year even though we all know that health care costs go up by 5% to 6% per year. That represents an $800-million shortfall for the Government of Quebec, and once again, the federal government will benefit from that shortfall.

We could also talk about the changes, and the lack of changes, to the employment insurance fund. We have been fighting for over 20 years to get the government to stop dipping into the EI surplus. Yet again, however, it plans to take $1.7 billion from the EI fund for the 2014-15 fiscal year.

Using money that belongs to workers to top up the government's coffers is unacceptable, especially given that not everyone pays into the program. After a certain income level, people no longer contribute. Money that belongs to the workers should serve the workers.

There is one piece of good news regarding employment insurance: new measures will increase the potential number of weeks of benefits to 20 in certain regions that have seen a huge increase in unemployment numbers. However, the problem lies in the regions that were chosen. According to our information, the regions chosen are in the Northwest Territories, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Nunavut.

I am not sure if my colleagues noticed, but Quebec was not included in that list. This is because the unemployment rate was already quite high in Quebec and it did not go up as much as in some other areas. Quebeckers are suffering just as much as everyone else, but they will not benefit from those improvements to EI.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to this budget bill. Bill C-15 is very important to Canadians, but unfortunately, time allocation was imposed by the Liberals.

My eyes have been tested and I am red-green colour-blind, but I have been in Parliament for over 10 years, and I think I have become red-blue colour-blind, because I see the same things happening over and over again. It is difficult for me to try to make sense of all this.

Hon. members are heckling again, as usual, but that is okay. I know they do not like to hear any criticisms or complaints, despite the sunny ways and despite the ability to have a moment in the House. That is fine, I will give them that, but the reality is that every member will not have the opportunity to participate because of closure that was put on the debate.

When the Liberals were on this side, they would attack the government over and over about the use of closure. There were over 100 closure motions by the Conservatives. Lo and behold, the Liberals got the ring, put it on real quick, and sure enough, down came the hammer of closure of debate on a number of things, including this budget bill. We are talking about $200 billion; no problem. The Liberals do not want to hear from members of their own backbench. In fact, most of them actually will not be speaking. It is too bad.

I am sure their constituents would like to know how important this budget is to their ridings, all the popular things, the things they believe in. Members could talk about it, but apparently, they are not allowed. Closure has been put on it. It is unfortunate. I do not know whether it is because they cannot test their mettle in this place. Maybe they are afraid that the public will understand what is taking place as we move away from the so-called new Parliament that we were supposed to have, to the same old system.

It is interesting that the Liberals defend their use of closure by using the bar of the previous government. I can say that bar is much lower than this one here. That bar is so low there is no way anyone could limbo under it at any point in time. That is no defence. Promises were made and parliamentarians, including some of the Liberal members, want to engage in conversation about issues, whether at committee or in the chamber.

The industry committee does a very good job of having that healthy debate. Witnesses have appeared at committee, people from different departments and ministers, and now there is a new study with regard to manufacturing challenges in our country. That has been done very much in a positive manner. People expressed different opinions, but it was done with respect. There is a set of rules in that committee. We do not see committees closing down debate right now, but unfortunately, that is what is happening here.

There was a time when budgets would pass, but that stopped and became much more evident during the Paul Martin administration. That was the beginning of the era of slipping different pieces of legislation into the overall budget. In the United States, they call them riders, the things that tag along to get a particular budget or other legislation passed. They will attach all kinds of things for their ridings or areas to get it done.

What we have here is critical to democracy and was spoken about many times right here in the last Parliament about how it undermined legislation, democratic reform, the ability for members to have a place to state their cases for their constituents. This is supposed to be a country united, not divided by these tactics. We have lost that.

Here is the problem that we faced with the previous administration regarding some of the processes that it followed. Guess where they are? A lot of those things are in the Supreme Court. A lot of the issues get through here. They do not go to committee for vetting. There are no suggestions, whether the government likes them or not, and then they decide whether to move on, but at least they have had a chance to think about it.

I remember the days when we would find many technical and other errors in bills that even if we did not agree 100% with the bill, the bill was carried at the end of the day, through democracy. It was not held up because we did not do our business.

That is what we have in this bill, between the banking information that is going on, retroactive legislation going back in time to change things, and other areas that are affected significantly.

We look at that, and we have some very serious issues that are taking place in this House. One of ours is veterans. I was particularly perturbed by the finance minister this morning alleging that we did not support veterans because we did not actually support the budget bill.

I rose in this House to challenge that assertion because every single member, whether we like something or not, stands up for our veterans and their perspective. They fought for that. They are people like Earl Scofield, who has passed away. He was one of my heroes and mentors. He was an aboriginal senator. He flew 17 missions in the tail turret. They called him “Boots” Scofield because one time when they were taking off, they hit the trees and crash-landed. He woke up, ran from the plane, and then realized he did not have his boots on anymore. That is what he was known as. Guess what? He believed in his democratic rights and he was at the NDP founding convention because he believed in different things.

Many other people from my community have gone to war, to Afghanistan most recently, but all the way back to the War of 1812. We have personally been touched by this ourselves.

I reject at all times the insinuation, especially from a senior Liberal cabinet minister, that we do not support our veterans whether we are NDP, Liberal, or Conservative, just because we disagree on an issue. That is not going to be the case on our watch here. Our veterans are offended when they are put in that perspective.

This budget bill is going to cause a lot of significant problems.

I want to touch on a couple of things that are dear to my local community. The first is, most importantly, what we see taking place with the Gordie Howe International Bridge. It was in Conservative budgets previously. They are now approximately six months behind in the request for proposals for the consortiums that would build the bridge. They are blaming incompetence, mismanagement, and all those things, but at the same time, they are now the decision-makers. I am really concerned what message is being sent to industry and others about Canadian manufacturing, agriculture, and other types of investments that are very important to the busiest border crossing in North America. Basically, in my riding, 35% of our daily trade with the United States takes place every single day along two kilometres of our border. Very often Parliament has been united in getting this new border facility done, but we have not seen advancement for the RFPs.

We fought a lot for innovation, especially for manufacturing and other types of work. AUTO21 is one of those things. It's a network for excellence. It is being sunsetted and is not going to get the funding, despite bringing in over $1 billion of value-added revenue for innovation and financing from other institutions and also jobs for Canadians,. Basically, from 2001 to 2015, it has received funding of around $81 million but received about $70 million in actual net benefit derivatives directly attributed to it, plus $1 billion for the secondary work that is done. What has it done? Two thousand four hundred student researchers are trained. There are some 685 industry and public sector partners, 500 researchers across Canada, 200 research and technology transfer projects. Some 48 academic institutions evolved. There have been 6,700 publications and reports, 320 patents, licences, and commercialization agreements, and $141 million invested in auto research alone from this institution.

Unfortuntely, AUTO21 is being run into the ground because of an ideology set up by a previous administration which said that after 14 years and despite all of the building, it is done.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to send my thoughts to the people of Fort McMurray. A close friend of my husband lives there, and we all watched in terror as this happened, worrying about the well-being of all the people who were fleeing. It is moments like this that remind us to be grateful for all those we hold dear. It is a reminder of the privilege it is to give when the need arises, and to receive when the hard parts of life happen. I thank all those who have given during this painful time.

Today, the House stands to debate Bill C-15. Budgets are about setting priorities and confirming commitments made, and today I want to discuss some serious concerns I have about the budget.

Bill C-15 is 179 pages long. It amends more than 30 statutes and contains another bill, Bill C-12, which is on the Order Paper before the House of Commons. Now, the time of debate has been shortened. A promise of the Liberal government was transparency and openness. The bill before us has multiple complexities, which include repealing an entire act, retroactive legislation changes, and much more. This alone lessens the capacity for focused discussion in the House, and with a shortened timeline, there is less time for discussion of these important issues.

The people of North Island—Powell River have shared with me their concerns with omnibus bills, and with Bill C-15, the government is going in a direction that concerns many Canadians. I hope this is not what real change looks like.

I know that many people in my riding will feel some relief with the child tax benefit. It is a start; however, I also know that many of my constituents are looking for a real child care strategy.

When I travel in my riding, I am sad to hear the stories of many women who have had to leave their work, because they cannot afford day care. They shared with me their concern that they would miss out on opportunities for their careers. One woman said to me that she just wanted to feel she had a choice in the matter. She loves her children, wants to spend meaningful time with them, and wants to have a career that promises a future for her family. However, the budget does not provide any support for the affordability of child care, nor does it address the reality that there are few day care spaces available.

I talk with single parents who are stranded without the supports for the child care they desperately need. More money in their pocket would provide some support, but if there are no child care spaces available, that is not a solution. Canadians are looking for a comprehensive strategy around child care, and the budget before us does not give it to them.

Veterans are also being shortchanged by the lack of mental health support, and there is nothing for suicide prevention. Veterans affairs have been badly mishandled by the past Conservative and Liberal governments. Pensions have been clawed back, and front-line service cuts have increased wait times for help and access to quality home care, while long-term care is shrinking. Soldiers with PTSD face months of delays before even getting referred for help, and even then, that help is hard to get.

A man from my riding, Dan Thomas, came to see me several weeks ago. A retired soldier with severe PTSD, he talked about how invisible he felt with his long-term issues. He shared with me the helplessness of not being able to receive the support he so desperately requires for his day-to-day life. When people serve their country, they should not feel invisible.

Bill C-12 was tabled in the House of Commons on March 24. The way veterans were treated by the previous government was indeed shameful. They deserve to have this legislation that would affect them discussed in the House, and not a unilateral decision by the current government. By killing Bill C-12 and incorporating it in this omnibus bill, the Liberals have chosen not to make space to listen to veterans' grievances and are playing politics.

Opening the service centres is one step, but it is not the only step required. What concerns me is that Bill C-12 largely fails to provide much-needed supports for mental health or increase support for spouses or caregivers of injured veterans.

We owe it to the men and women who have served our country courageously and honourably to ensure a proper study of these benefit changes to make sure they will address the needs of our veterans. We do not want to see veterans continue to be forced to prove that the leg they lost has not grown back.

This omnibus bill should be split up so that the changes to veterans' benefits receive proper study by Parliament. It is important that we serve those people who have served us so well.

After nearly a decade of Conservative economic mismanagement, middle-class families are working harder than ever yet falling further and further behind. At at time when Canada needs a government that will combat rising inequality, the Liberals' first budget is inadequate.

The Liberals are breaking their promise to reduce the tax rate for small and medium-sized enterprises, the biggest job creators in Canada. They are cancelling the legislation that allowed for any subsequent reductions provided in the bill. However, they made a commitment to lower the rate to 9% by 2019. New Democrats have been fighting for a long time for tax cuts for small businesses, which are the real job creators in Canada.

The Liberals have rejected our proposals to cap transaction fees for credit cards, and are doing nothing to facilitate the transfer of family businesses between generations. This is a direct betrayal of small business owners and will significantly reduce job creation in Canada. The parliamentary budget officer estimates that this cancellation would cost SMEs more than $2.1 billion over the next four years. Meanwhile, consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have given massive tax giveaways to Canada's most profitable corporations. The Liberals should keep their promise to small businesses by withdrawing the proposal to cancel legislated reductions in the small business tax rate.

More than a quarter of seniors are living in poverty, and some Canadians are wondering whether they will have a secure income when they retire. We welcome the Liberals' recommitment to returning the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 65. We also welcome their recommitment to increase the GIS for single seniors. However, we are disappointed that seniors have to wait until July, despite the Liberals' promise to help them immediately.

This is a useful start, but more can be done. Increasing the GIS by 10% for all seniors would lift nearly 150,000 additional people out of poverty. Income data shows that the median income for single seniors without employer pension income is below $20,000. With the low income measure for a single senior at $22,000 per year, this is unacceptable. I can tell members that there are many seniors in my riding who are living well below $20,000 a year. I have seniors in my riding who, in January, debate whether to purchase medication or keep their heat on. That is not a good debate for seniors who have worked so hard to create this beautiful country we have. These changes should be closely studied to see how we can improve them to help even more seniors, not pushed through in an omnibus bill. The government needs to keep its promise to immediately enhance the CPP.

Last week in this House I spoke to Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying. The bill refers to palliative care in its preamble, yet while introducing this bill the government made no new commitments to palliative care. We have a critically important opportunity to enhance services across the country, yet the government was missing in action on palliative care in the budget, even after promising $3 billion for home care during the campaign. Holding the government to account on the promise of that motion remains one of our top priorities as we assist in the legislative response to the Carter decision.

In my riding, there are many seniors. Home care and palliative care are of huge concern. Seniors living in remote communities want to hear from the government that they matter, that staying in their home is a priority. Many constituents have shared stories of feeling pushed to leave not only their home but their community for health concerns. Accessible services in my remote communities are important.

I cannot support this budget. It does not fulfill the promises made to Canadians. It has some positive steps, but leaves out too many key concerns that would make the lives of my constituents better. Whether it be actual dollars or respecting the process, this budget fails to follow through.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-15, the Liberal government's budget implementation act. I doubt it will come as much of a surprise to the House that I will be voting against this budget implementation act.

When I examine any piece of legislation, first and foremost, I look at how it will impact the citizens, taxpayers, and employers in my riding. I can say right off the top that this budget amounts to a tax increase on the hard-working families and taxpayers in my riding of Perth—Wellington.

If we examine part 1 alone of this budget implementation act, we see tax increases. We see the elimination of the education tax credit, the elimination of the textbook tax credit, the cancellation of the children's arts tax credit, the cancellation of the children's fitness tax credit, gone is income splitting for families and with it the family tax cut, gone is the universal child care benefit, gone are so many programs that helped, benefited, and provided real value to hard-working Canadian families.

It is tax increase after tax increase after tax increase. With each of these increases, the Liberal government is making it harder and harder for families to make ends meet.

If I look at my own community of Perth—Wellington, it is home to some of this country's premier cultural and artistic attractions. It is home to the Stratford Festival, North America's largest classical repertory theatre. It has Drayton Entertainment, which has seven venues across the region, providing excellent entertainment options. It has Stratford Summer Music, which over six weeks will provide a wide variety of diverse talent, ranging from the Harlem Gospel Choir to Whisky Jack.

It is an honour to live in such a diverse, culturally rich community and I want more young people to get involved in the arts and culture. I want more young people to have the opportunity to take piano or dance lessons or learn the art of the stage. Under the former Conservative government, they could do that through the children's arts tax credit. In 10, 15, 20 years from now, I hope we will see some of the great artists and actors who grace our stages, some of the great musicians who perform in venues across the country. I hope to see these great talents and be able to say that they exist because we as a country and a community encouraged them to excel in the arts.

I have some of my own vivid memories from my childhood. Granted, my childhood was not quite as long ago as some of my colleagues' were, but I do have some vivid memories of my childhood. Among those great memories was learning to play a variety of musical instruments as a member of the Mitchell Legion Band. Learning to play a musical instrument was one of my great passions in life and being able to do that as a member of the band was a great opportunity.

I remember playing soccer behind Upper Thames Elementary School. I remember taking swimming lessons at the Mitchell Lions Pool. I can now more fully appreciate the sacrifices that my own parents made in ensuring that all four of their children learned to play a musical instrument and had the opportunity to participate in fitness and sports activities, like swimming lessons.

Now, as a father myself, with one young daughter and a second kid on the way in a matter of days or weeks, I want to some day see my kids play soccer, learn to swim, and participate in these culturally rich activities. In an era where we see an alarming rise in childhood obesity, I truly think this Liberal bill is taking us down the wrong road. Let us, as a community and a country, encourage a healthy future generation, not work against one.

This bill would also represents a tax hike for small businesses. For each of the next three years the tax rate on small businesses will be increased by half of a percentage point. By 2018, small businesses will be paying 1.5% more in taxes.

We all know the importance of small businesses to the Canadian economy. In 2011, small businesses represented roughly 30% of Canada’s GDP. Small businesses are not tax havens for the rich. Small business owners are simply trying to pay their fair share and provide jobs for our communities. The Minister of Small Business and Tourism was even instructed in her mandate letter to lower the small business tax rate. Instead, we see just another broken promise.

The government's own finance department says this tax increase on small businesses will cost them $2.2 billion over the next four years. Their own officials acknowledge this tax increase will only further burden small businesses in Canada.

I am proud that the Conservative government created 1.3 million net new jobs after the recession. Most of those jobs were full-time and in the private sector and were created despite the worst economic recession since the 1930s.

Another element of Bill C-15 that is very concerning is the repeal of the Federal Balanced Budget Act. This act was brought in to protect Canadian taxpayers by ensuring that federal governments do not return to the days of unnecessary deficits, as in the 1970s.

The Prime Minister might not understand the importance of a balanced budget, but Canadian families do. Canadians know how to live within their means. Working Canadians have mortgages, transportation costs, day care expenses, and many other expenses. They are responsible for ensuring that these expenses stay in line with their income.

Unfortunately, the government is not reflecting these values and is spending far beyond its means. This is unsustainable, this is irresponsible, and this will have serious long-term impacts. Quite frankly, it is galling that the Liberals take such glee in returning to deficit.

The facts are against this government. The parliamentary budget officer has confirmed that the Liberals were left with a surplus, and their own officials at Finance Canada have confirmed that they were left with a surplus. Every credible authority has accepted this. The only people who have not accepted this are the Liberals across the way.

Only months into its mandate, the Liberal government broke a major campaign promise to limit the deficit. The leader of the Liberal Party said they would run modest deficits of $10 billion. However, in his first budget, the Minister of Finance introduced a deficit of $30 billion. There is no other way to put it: this is another broken promise.

What makes this even more concerning is that the government has no plan to return to balanced budgets. During the campaign, the Liberals told Canadians that they would return to balanced budgets within their term.

The Minister of Finance is projecting deficits for at least the next five years. The government has shown no plan to return to balanced budgets.

The Minister of Finance has said one thing that is entirely accurate and that is that we as Conservatives on this side of the House are stuck on this balanced budget thing. Who else is stuck on this balanced budget thing? It is Canadian taxpayers, my constituents in Perth—Wellington, those who on a monthly basis have to budget and balance their own pocketbooks, their own monthly expenses and revenues, so they do not spend more than they take in. They know that in the long run they cannot spend more than they bring in.

I am proud to be voting against the budget. It takes away valuable tax credits. It breaks the Liberals' own promise to lower taxes on small business. It takes on billions in unnecessary and long-term debt. This is the wrong budget for the people of Perth—Wellington, and it is not the budget that Canadians need.