Bill C-86 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax and related measures by
(a) introducing rules intended to provide greater certainty with respect to various tax consequences arising from certain foreign divisive reorganizations;
(b) ensuring that the existing cross-border anti-surplus stripping rule cannot be circumvented through transactions involving the use of partnerships or trusts;
(c) introducing rules to prevent misuse of the foreign accrual property income regime through the use of tracking interests involving foreign affiliates;
(d) ensuring consistency between the trading or dealing in indebtedness rules and the investment business rules within the foreign accrual property income regime;
(e) ensuring that the at-risk rules apply appropriately at each level of a tiered partnership structure;
(f) providing that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness can determine international operational missions for the purpose of the deduction available for income earned by members of the Canadian Forces or police officers on such missions;
(g) amending the synthetic equity arrangement rules and securities lending arrangement rules to prevent the artificial generation of losses through the use of equity-based financial instruments;
(h) ensuring that social assistance payments under certain programs do not preclude individuals from receiving the Canada Child Benefit;
(i) ensuring that an individual who is eligible to receive the Canada Workers Benefit can receive the benefit without having to claim it;
(j) introducing a refundable tax credit for the purposes of the climate action incentive;
(k) providing allocation rules for losses applied against Part IV taxes;
(l) preventing the creation of artificial losses on shares held as mark-to-market property by financial institutions;
(m) revising the rules relating to the non-partisan political activities of charities;
(n) ensuring that a taxpayer is subject to a three-year extended reassessment period in respect of any income, loss or other amount arising in connection with a foreign affiliate of the taxpayer;
(o) providing the Canada Revenue Agency with an extended reassessment period of an additional three years, to the extent that the reassessment relates to the adjustment of a loss carryback for transactions involving a taxpayer and non-resident non-arm’s length persons;
(p) extending the reassessment period of a taxpayer by the period of time during which a requirement for information or compliance order is contested;
(q) requiring that information returns in respect of a taxpayer’s foreign affiliates be filed within 10 months after the end of the taxpayer’s taxation year;
(r) enabling the disclosure of taxpayer and other confidential tax information to Canada’s bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty partners for the purposes of non-tax criminal investigations and prosecutions of certain serious crimes; and
(s) providing a deduction for employee contributions to the enhanced portion of the Quebec Pension Plan.
Part 1 also amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to, among other things, define the term “agreement” as applying, among other things, to tax information exchange agreements and tax treaties to which Canada is a party, and provide for orders to produce financial information for the purposes of investigation and prosecution of certain offences set out in subsection 462.‍48(1.‍1) of the Criminal Code. The enactment also amends paragraph 462.‍48(2)‍(c) of the Criminal Code to provide that information may also be gathered under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act and under the Excise Act, 2001.
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) replacing the requirement that GST/HST be collected on a sale of carbon emission allowances with a requirement that the purchaser self-assess that GST/HST;
(b) extending the assessment period for group registered education savings plan trusts that make a special relieving election in respect of their past HST liability;
(c)  introducing GST/HST rules in respect of investment limited partnerships;
(d) clarifying the intended tax policy of excluding books that are sold by a public service body from the GST/HST rebate for printed books;
(e) introducing amendments similar to those to the Income Tax Act to extend the assessment period of a person by the period of time during which a requirement for information or compliance order is contested; and
(f)  introducing amendments similar to those to the Income Tax Act to enable the disclosure of confidential information to Canada’s bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty partners, or to Canadian police officers, for the purposes of non-tax criminal investigations and prosecution of certain serious crimes.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures by
(a) broadening the refund regime in respect of excise tax on diesel fuel to allow a vendor to apply for a refund where a purchaser will use excise tax-paid diesel fuel to generate electricity, if certain conditions are met;
(b) introducing an anti-avoidance excise measure relating to the taxation of cannabis in respect of the rules establishing the value of a cannabis product on which an ad valorem duty is calculated;
(c)  introducing amendments to the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and the Excise Act, 2001 that are similar to those to the Income Tax Act to extend the assessment period of a person by the period of time during which a requirement for information or compliance order is contested;
(d) introducing amendments to the Excise Act, 2001 that are similar to those to the Income Tax Act to enable the disclosure of confidential information to Canada’s bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty partners, or to Canadian police officers, for the purposes of non-tax criminal investigations and prosecution of certain serious crimes; and
(e) making housekeeping amendments to the Excise Act, 2001 in order to ensure consistency between the English and French version of the legislation.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff in order to simplify it and reduce the administrative burden for Canadian businesses and the Government of Canada by consolidating similar tariff items that have the same tariff rates and removing end-use provisions where appropriate. The amendments also clarify existing tariff provisions and make other technical amendments.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to modify the calculation of the amount to be attributed for a year in which a contributor is a family allowance recipient and their first or second additional contributory period begins or ends.
Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things,
(a) establish thresholds below which the acquisition of control of certain entities, or the acquisition or increase of a substantial investment in them, does not require the approval of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions;
(b) allow financial institutions to invest in the Canadian business growth fund; and
(c) ensure that customers can provide consent electronically to receive electronic documents.
It also corrects a reference to the Insurance Companies Act in the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.
Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things,
(a) make technical amendments to clarify the method of calculating insured deposits, to remove outdated references, to repeal certain provisions not yet in force and to clarify that withdrawals made following the amalgamation of two or more member institutions or the continuance as a federal credit union will be considered to be made from pre-existing deposits and that the separation of accounts following the amalgamation is limited to a period of two years;
(b) exclude amounts borrowed by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation under paragraph 60.‍2(2)‍(c) of the Financial Administration Act from the calculation of the Corporation’s total principal indebtedness; and
(c) clarify that the liquidator of a member institution of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation must not apply the law of set-off or compensation to a claim related to insured deposits.
It also repeals two sections of the Financial System Review Act.
Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, clarify that providing legally privileged information to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions does not constitute a waiver of the privilege.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to remove the right of persons to decide not to proceed further with importing or exporting currency or monetary instruments that are required to be reported.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act to, among other things, allow for the application, within the offshore area, of the provincial greenhouse gas pricing regime and to confer powers and impose duties and functions on the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for the application of that regime. It also amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to provide that the provincial regime does not apply if the offshore area is mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to that Act. Finally, it amends the Offshore Health and Safety Act to postpone the repeal of certain regulations.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to set out criteria for identifying individuals with significant control over a corporation. The Division also sets out a requirement for a corporation that meets certain criteria to keep a register of individuals with significant control and requirements respecting the information to be recorded in it. Finally, the Division includes applicable offences and punishments.
Subdivision A of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Patent Act in order to
(a) provide a regulation-making authority for the establishment of requirements for written demands relating to patents;
(b) specify that an act committed for the purpose of experimentation relating to the subject matter of a patent is not an infringement of the patent and that licencing commitments that bind the owner of a standard-essential patent or the holder of a certificate of supplementary protection that sets out such a patent bind any subsequent owners or holders;
(c) expand the rights of a person in respect of a claim in a patent who meets the requirements to be considered a prior user;
(d) ensure that patent prosecution histories may be admissible into evidence for certain purposes;
(e) clarify when a late fee must be paid in respect of divisional applications as well as when the confidentiality period begins in the case where a request for priority is deemed never to have been made.
Subdivision B of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things,
(a) add bad faith as a ground of opposition to the registration of a trade-mark and for the invalidation of a trade-mark registration;
(b) prevent the owner of a registered trade-mark from obtaining relief for acts done contrary to section 19, 20 or 22 of that Act during the first three years after the trade-mark is registered unless the trade-mark was in use in Canada during that period or special circumstances exist that excuse the absence of use;
(c) clarify that the prohibitions in subparagraph 9(1)‍(n)‍(iii) and section 11 of that Act do not apply with respect to a badge, crest, emblem or mark that was the subject of a public notice of adoption and use as an official mark if the entity that made the request for the public notice is not a public authority or no longer exists; and
(d) modernize the conduct of various proceedings before the Registrar of Trade-marks, including by providing the Registrar with additional powers in such proceedings.
It also makes certain housekeeping amendments to provisions of the Trade-marks Act that are enacted by the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 and the Combating Counterfeit Products Act.
Subdivision C of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Copyright Act in order to specify that certain information is not permitted to be included within a notice under the notice and notice regime and to provide for a regulation-making power to prohibit further types of information from being included within such a notice.
Subdivision D of Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the College of Patent Agents and Trade-mark Agents Act. That Act establishes the College of Patent Agents and Trade-mark Agents, which is to be responsible for the regulation of patent agents and trade-mark agents in the public interest. That Act, among other things,
(a) requires that individuals obtain a licence in order to act as patent agents or trade-mark agents and that licensees comply with a code of professional conduct;
(b) authorizes the College’s Investigations Committee to receive complaints and conduct investigations into whether a licensee has committed professional misconduct or was incompetent;
(c) authorizes the College’s Discipline Committee to impose disciplinary measures if it decides that a licensee has committed professional misconduct or was incompetent; and
(d) creates new offences of claiming to be a patent agent or trade-mark agent and unauthorized representation before the Patent Office or the Office of the Registrar of Trade-marks.
That Subdivision also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.
Subdivision E of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide that intellectual property users may preserve their usage rights when intellectual property rights are sold or disposed of in an insolvency proceeding or when the agreement relating to such property rights is disclaimed or resiliated in such a proceeding. It also amends the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to provide that intellectual property users may preserve their usage rights when intellectual property rights are sold or disposed of.
Subdivision F of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to provide that the head of a government institution may refuse to disclose, under either of those Acts, information that is subject to the privilege set out in section 16.‍1 of the Patent Act or section 51.‍13 of the Trade-marks Act. It makes a related amendment to the Pest Control Products Act.
Subdivision G of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to clarify that the National Research Council of Canada has the authority to dispose of all forms of intellectual property that it develops, including future rights to such property and to provide the Council with the authority to dispose of real, personal, movable and immovable property, complementing the current provision in the Act that allows it to acquire such property.
Subdivision H of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Copyright Act in order to modernize the legislative framework relating to the Copyright Board so as to improve the timeliness and clarity of its proceedings and decision-making processes. More specifically, it repeals spent provisions and
(a) codifies the Board’s mandate and establishes decision-making criteria;
(b) establishes new timelines in respect of Board matters, including earlier filing dates for proposed tariffs and longer effective periods for approved tariffs, and empowers the Governor in Council to make additional timelines by regulation;
(c) formalizes case management of Board proceedings;
(d) reduces the number of matters that must be considered by the Board;
(e) streamlines procedural steps across different tariff contexts, maintaining differences between them only where necessary;
(f) amends relevant enforcement provisions, including the availability of statutory damages for certain parties in respect of Board-set royalty rates and enforcement of Board-set terms and conditions; and
(g) modernizes existing language and structure for greater clarity and consistency.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, increase the maximum number of weeks for which parental benefits may be paid if these benefits are divided between claimants. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, increase the aggregate amount of leave that may be taken by employees under sections 206.‍1 and 206.‍2 if that leave is divided between employees.
Division 9 of Part 4 enacts the Canadian Gender Budgeting Act in order to state the Government’s policy of promoting gender equality and inclusiveness by taking gender and diversity into consideration in the budget process. It also establishes related reporting requirements.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to strengthen provisions that apply to a bank or an authorized foreign bank in relation to the protection of customers and the public. It implements enhancements in the areas of corporate governance, responsible business conduct, disclosure and transparency, and redress. It also amends the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to strengthen the mandate of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and grant additional powers to that Agency.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Land Management Act to give effect to amendments to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management respecting, among other things, procedures for obtaining community approval of a land code, the lands to which a land code may apply, the addition of lands to First Nation land by order of the Minister and the transfer of capital moneys.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to, among other things,
(a) enable more Aboriginal organizations and First Nations to benefit from the provisions of the Act in order to strengthen their financial management systems and give them access to long-term financing;
(b) address certain administrative issues identified by the bodies established under the Act; and
(c) provide another option for First Nations to access moneys held by Her Majesty for their use and benefit.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Export and Import Permits Act to give the Minister of Foreign Affairs the authority to issue an import allocation for goods that are included on the Import Control List under subsection 5(6) of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 enacts the Pay Equity Act to establish a proactive process for the achievement of pay equity by the redressing of the systemic gender-based discrimination experienced by employees who occupy positions in predominantly female job classes. The new Act requires federal public and private sector employers that have 10 or more employees to establish and maintain a pay equity plan within set time frames so as to identify and correct differences in compensation between predominantly female and predominantly male job classes for which the work performed is of equal value. The new Act provides for the powers, duties and functions of a Pay Equity Commissioner, which include facilitating the resolution of disputes, conducting compliance audits and investigating disputes, objections and complaints, as well as making orders and imposing administrative monetary penalties for violations of that Act. The new Act also requires the Pay Equity Commissioner to report annually to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the new Act.
Division 14 also amends the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to provide for the application of the Pay Equity Act to parliamentary employers with certain adaptations and without limiting the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate, the House of Commons and the members of those Houses.
It also makes the Minister of Labour responsible for the administration of the Federal Contractors Program for Pay Equity.
Finally, it makes related and consequential amendments to certain Acts and repeals the section of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 that enacts the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.
Subdivision A of Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) provide five days of paid leave for victims of family violence, a personal leave of five days with three paid days, an unpaid leave for court or jury duty and a fourth week of annual vacation with pay for employees who have completed at least 10 consecutive years of employment;
(b) eliminate minimum length of service requirements for leaves and general holiday pay and reduce the length of service requirement for three weeks of vacation with pay;
(c) prohibit differences in rate of wages based on the employment status of employees;
(d) address continuity of employment issues when a work, undertaking or business becomes federally regulated or in cases of contract retendering; and
(e) update group and individual termination provisions by increasing the minimum notice of termination.
Subdivision B of Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to allow the Minister of Labour to designate a Head of Compliance and Enforcement who will exercise most of the powers and perform most of the duties and functions that are related to the administration and enforcement of Parts II, III and IV of the Code.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to, among other things, increase the maximum amount that may be paid to an individual under the Act, expand the definition of eligible wages, expand the conditions under which a payment may be made under the Act and create additional requirements related to Her Majesty in right of Canada’s right of subrogation in respect of payments made under the Act.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act and the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act to harmonize the periods within which the reports under those Acts must be laid before Parliament in order to better communicate Canada’s international development efforts. It also repeals the definition of “official development assistance” in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act and confers the power to define this expression by regulation.
Division 17 also enacts the International Financial Assistance Act, which provides the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development with powers, duties and functions to support the delivery of a sovereign loans program, an international assistance innovation program and a federal international assistance program that promotes the mitigation of or adaptation to climate change through repayable contributions.
Division 18 of Part 4 enacts the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act which, among other things, establishes the Department for Women and Gender Equality to assist the Minister responsible for that department in exercising or performing the Minister’s powers, duties and functions that extend to and include all matters relating to women and gender equality, including the advancement of equality in respect of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression and the promotion of a greater understanding of the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors. It also contains transitional provisions. Finally, Division 18 makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 19 of Part 4 enacts the Addition of Lands to Reserves and Reserve Creation Act which authorizes a Minister, designated by the Governor in Council, to set apart lands as reserves for the use and benefit of First Nations. The Division also repeals Part 2 of the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and the Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends section 715.‍42 of the Criminal Code to require the publication of any decision not to publish a remediation agreement or order related to that agreement and of any decision related to the review of such a decision, to specify that the court may make the first decision subject to a condition, including one related to the duration of non-publication, and to allow anyone to request a review of that decision.
Division 21 of Part 4 enacts the Poverty Reduction Act, which sets out two targets for poverty reduction in Canada.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the protection of the marine environment from the impacts of navigation and shipping activities;
(b) authorize the Minister of Transport to
(i) make an interim order to mitigate risks to marine safety or to the marine environment, and
(ii) exempt any person or vessel from the application of any provision of that Act or the regulations if doing so would allow the undertaking of research and development that may enhance marine safety or environmental protection;
(c) increase the maximum amount of an administrative penalty that the Governor in Council may fix by regulation;
(d) authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pollution response officers and accompanying persons to enter private property in the case of a discharge of oil from a vessel or oil handling facility; and
(e) double the administration monetary penalties for certain violations.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to modernize the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, including, among other things,
(a) removing the Fund’s per-occurrence limit of liability;
(b) in the event that the Fund is depleted, authorizing the temporary transfer to the Fund of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund;
(c) modernizing the Fund’s levy so that the Fund is replenished by receivers and exporters of oil;
(d) ensuring that the Fund’s liability for claims for economic losses caused by oil pollution aligns with international conventions;
(e) providing that the Fund is liable for the costs and expenses incurred by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or any other person in respect of preventive measures when the occurrence for which those costs and expenses were incurred has not yet created a grave and imminent threat of causing oil pollution damage;
(f) authorizing the provision of up-front emergency funding out of the Fund to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for significant oil pollution incidents;
(g) creating an expedited, simplified process for small claims to the Fund; and
(h) providing for administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of specified or designated provisions under that Act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Dan Vandal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in today's debate. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on traditional Algonquin territory.

Our government is committed to renewing the relationship with indigenous peoples based on the principles of the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

We are also committed to growing the middle class by creating opportunities for people that will help them join it. Everyone knows that indigenous peoples have long been faced with some of the most severe economic disadvantages in this country.

This problem has deep roots in the history of colonialism, including in strict measures written into legislation like the Indian Act. Let me give an example. Ed Metatawabin is a residential school survivor from Fort Albany First Nation who attended St. Anne's residential school and became a chief in his community. After he became chief, he started a small sawmill business so that people in his community would have work and the sense of purpose that accompanies work. However, because it was illegal under the Indian Act for him to own the land, he could not get insurance on his business, so he had to keep his business small to minimize any potential liabilities. Any investment he made was a personal risk to him and his family. A lot of Canadians do not understand this. They do not understand the daily barriers first nations people face on reserve.

Today we have an opportunity to rectify some of these measures and to unlock economic growth for indigenous peoples. We have a chance to create an environment that supports self-determination. This will not only be good for indigenous peoples, it will be good for Canada.

The National Indigenous Economic Development Board has estimated that engaging indigenous people in the economy at the same rate as non-indigenous people would boost Canada's GDP by 1.5% and create almost $28 billion in economic growth. Several others have suggested that the number is actually much higher.

Today we are seeing a wellspring of indigenous-led innovation and sound business practices. There are now over 40,000 indigenous-led small and medium-size businesses in Canada. That is why I say we need to build on these successes. Let us remove barriers to further success and self-determination. That is the objective of the new legislative measures set out in the proposed budget implementation act.

I want to clarify that these amendments are not top-down solutions. We developed them in consultation with our first nations partners and by asking for their contribution and their participation from the outset.

The Government of Canada is proposing amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act that would provide greater clarity around language, streamline organizational operational issues, and expand access to the program to complement new budget 2018 funding of $50 million over five years and $11 million per year ongoing. The act is opt-in and enables first nations to implement taxation and financial management systems.

First nations are supported by three fiscal institutions operating under the act: the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Finance Authority, and the First Nations Financial Management Board. These institutions build capacity among first nations and bring them together to access long-term financing, and it has been a very effective approach.

For example, the First Nations Finance Authority fifth debenture of $138 million, issued in September 2018, brought its total bond issuances to $514 million. This bond is being used by first nations across the country to invest in community infrastructure and economic development, such as the new school for Siksika Nation, a power project in Chehalis, and housing for Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation.

The new budget 2018 investments would enable the fiscal institutions to work with nearly twice as many first nations to develop their capacity and have greater access to capital. To date, 239 first nations are scheduled in the act.

Access to funding is one thing, but we can all agree that access to the land is critical for economic empowerment. The Government of Canada is proposing $143 million in budget 2018 to strengthen the First Nation Land Management regime and support 50 additional first nations in becoming signatories to the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management over the next five years.

As well, the proposed amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act before us today would ratify changes to the framework agreement, changes that were co-developed with first nations. These fixes address voting thresholds and other administrative improvements that will better support first nations that are signatory members to develop their own land codes, or laws, to exit section 33 land-management-related provisions of the Indian Act. That’s one-third of the Indian Act.

The fixes will also eliminate federal oversight and enable first nations to “move at the speed of business” on investment and development opportunities.

For example, Stz’uminus First Nation, which has been operating under its own land code since 2014, has been able to create Oyster Bay Development—a 65 acre, multi-million dollar site that includes a hotel and a commercial area along the TransCanada Highway—without any need for Indian Act approvals.

Another mechanism to improve the relationship between Canada and first nations and move toward enduring reconciliation is the return of land that is owed to first nations under historical treaties and specific claim settlement agreements. With additions to reserves, ATRs, first nations can also add land to an existing reserve land base or create new reserves for the use and benefit of their members for community and economic development.

The Government of Canada is proposing this legislation to streamline the ATR process, building on the benefits of legislation that is currently only available to some first nations in the prairie provinces. These changes are long overdue. They are part of a number of actions the government committed to take when it adopted a new ATR policy directive in 2016, after several years of engagement and joint work with first nation communities and organizations. The biggest proposed change is that ATRs would now be able to be approved by ministerial order rather than by Governor in Council, which would result in significantly more timely decisions.

The proposed legislation would also speed things up by letting first nations pre-designate land being added to a reserve, similar to zoning in a municipality, and begin to put in place arrangements, such as leases or permits, prior to the land being added, a vital requirement for investment opportunities. This would help create reserve lands that are ready for economic development.

ATRs support economic development opportunities, self-reliance and growth in first nation communities. For example, in September 2018, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation added 79 acres of land to its reserve. The land is currently home to a gas bar and a convenience store, with future plans for a restaurant, a hotel, commercial space and an outdoor stage.

Collectively, these amendments regarding finances and land support reconciliation with indigenous peoples would result in greater long-term benefits for Canada. I encourage all members to support them.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I noticed in the budget implementation act is infrastructure spending. One of the things I also noticed was that the infrastructure spending has not gone out yet. Coming from northern Alberta, when the government made the big announcement about infrastructure spending, we were definitely looking forward to having a bunch of roads re-paved or paved and roads to some of our communities built.

Could the hon. member comment on why it has taken so long to get that infrastructure money out?

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, having been a city councillor for several years and a candidate in 2015, I can say that one of the policies that was most attractive to the city I come from, Winnipeg, and I imagine many rural areas, was the enhanced infrastructure spending our government was embarking on. Across the country, we are rebuilding cities, we are rebuilding rural areas, we are investing in rural municipalities. I cannot speak precisely to the situation where the hon. member resides, which I believe is northern Alberta, but I can say without a doubt that in Manitoba, in Winnipeg, the money has definitely flowed. Roads are being rebuilt. Water systems are being rebuilt. I think that some of the happiest constituents in Canada today are mayors, city councillors and rural aldermen.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are still going through this bill as it has many different divisions. Therefore, if the member cannot answer I would certainly understand.

Under division 17 of part 4, basically in order to better communicate Canada's international development efforts, it will be repeal the definition of official development assistance in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act and confer this power to be done through regulation. The Liberals are taking out the definition of one of the most important terms in that piece of legislation and simply allowing ministerial officials, through regulations, to then further define it. Does the member believe that puts this place, this House, in the driver's seat, or are he and his government simply deferring on such important matters as official development assistance to bureaucrats who will obfuscate and evade the proper scrutiny of this House?

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, my speech was about indigenous issues, northern issues and first nations issues. Therefore, I will take the information under advisement and get back to the hon. member.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day in Manitoba and in all of Canada. The Prime Minister is in Churchill as last night we had a train roll into the town of Churchill after a great deal of effort and concentration from individuals like the mayor, Michael Spence, MLAs, including Judy Klassen, and many different stakeholders, companies like Arctic Gateway, first nations and Fairfax, all working together in order to ensure that there is going to be a bright future for Churchill as a northern port. Could my colleague take the opportunity to give his insight on how important this is, not only for Canada but particularly for Manitoba.

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right. Today, is a wonderful day, not only for Churchill but for the entire province of Manitoba. After being abandoned by the previous railroad owner, the port and the railroad track have been fixed by a private consortium in partnership with the federal government and the Town of Churchill and the railway is back in working order. The community is extremely happy. The port has been rehabilitated and goods and services are going to flow to Churchill once again and jobs will be created. In fact, our Prime Minister was there this morning to announce, in addition to the literally tens of millions of dollars that we have invested to fix the railway, that we are investing close to $40 million on a series of projects in the Churchill area to create jobs and hope and vitality in the town of Churchill once again.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

I have been looking forward to this debate, because it gives me an opportunity to again highlight for Canadians the duplicity of the Liberal government in how it conducts the affairs of this nation and how it manages the finances of this country.

I will paint a bit of a background here before I get into the gist of my comments.

When the Prime Minister was running for election, members will remember that he promised he was going to run deficits of no more than $10 billion a year, and Canadians took him at his word. They thought he had never been the prime minister and they were going to trust him. He also said that he was going to balance the budget by 2019, and that we could take his word to the bank that he would balance the budget by 2019. What happened? Well, year after year with the current government, it is huge deficit after huge deficit, triple the size that the Prime Minister had promised.

This is in line with a field of broken promises that the Prime Minister has left behind. I am not going to regale members with all the broken promises, but I can say that history will show that the Prime Minister and his government have broken more promises than any government before it. It has been an unmitigated disaster when it comes to keeping their word to the Canadian people.

We had deficits that were supposed to be $10 billion. Today, they are $20 billion. The government has added $60 billion to our national debt. The worst part of it is that the Liberals said they were going to balance the budget by next year, but now we know that it will not be until 2045. Now, this is 25 years that we are going to be running deficits.

Just so that Canadians are very clear about this point, when we run a deficit what we are doing is spending more money than is coming in. Tax revenues come into the government, the government takes those revenues and spends them, but when it spends more than those tax revenues, it is going to have find that money somewhere. How does it do that? It borrows. Therefore, for the next 25 years, every single year, the government is planning to have Canadians borrow, whether it is $10 billion, $20 billion or $30 billion a year, adding it to the debt, which somebody has to pay.

Who pays back that debt, members might ask? It is my children and theirs. It is the next generation coming up, who we are trying to teach to manage their finances wisely. We are trying to teach them to balance their chequebooks, to live within their means and not incur mortgage debt or loan debt that is beyond their capacity to pay, because if, at the end of the month, they do not have enough money to pay for their expenditures, they have to go to the bank and borrow. It is either going to be on a mortgage or loan or some other way, such as a loan shark perhaps, which is the worst case. However, the bottom line is that we are teaching our kids not to do that, but to be respectful of their spending and to balance their books. Yet, we have a Prime Minister who grew up in the lap of luxury, a trust fund baby, who has no understanding of what it means to balance budgets. He has no understanding of the importance of balancing budgets. He has no understanding of what it means to pay down the national debt and act responsibly.

That is the context in which the budget implementation act is playing out. It is a sad story. What does the bill contain?

It really concerns me. I am the shadow minister for environment and climate change. What the Prime Minister is authorizing is the imposition of a massive carbon tax on Canadians. We know on this side of the House that Canadians do not support a carbon tax. They are suspicious of more taxes. Today, Canadians already pay $800 more in taxes than they did when the Liberal government was first elected. Whether it is payroll taxes or other taxes, their tax bill has gone up.

Here is a bigger problem. That amount does not even take into account the carbon tax they will now be paying. That carbon tax is on everything. It is on groceries, home heating bills and gasoline to tank up the car. Let me talk about that briefly. I am from British Columbia, and I know that today British Columbia has the highest gas prices in the country at $1.61 per litre. Why is that? The carbon tax is adding more to that, another 11 cents per litre that every single Canadian is going to pay to tank up the car. That is just for gasoline. It does not include any of the other goods that people are going to buy on which the carbon tax will be applied.

What is happening is carbon leakage, something that most Canadians do not know a lot about. I will explain it in layman's terms. We impose a tax in Canada, and the tax is so onerous that businesses and individuals, consumers will leave the country and find a place they can buy that product cheaper.

Do members know what is happening in British Columbia? It is something that has not happened for a number of decades. British Columbians are now again crossing the border into the United States, into Sumas, Lynden and Blaine, Washington, and they are tanking up there.

We are now depriving Canadian vendors of those gasoline sales and the jobs that come with them. On top of that, when those Canadians go south of the border, what do they do? They stock up on cheese, milk and other things. They may end up going to Costco. However, they are buying products in the United States, when they could have been buying in Canada.

By the way, the pollution is the same in the United States. In fact, I would venture to say that Canada's performance, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is superior to that of the United States.

I will go on to ask this. What is the actual tax that the Prime Minister is imposing on Canadians? By 2022, it is $50 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister says that he is doing this to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, to do our part for the environment. However, we know, by the Prime Minister's own admissions this week in this House, that he does not even believe that his carbon tax is actually going to reduce emissions. He admitted that in the House this week.

If we are not reducing emissions, then it comes down to a simple tax grab. The Prime Minister knew it was going to be a tax grab. He came up with something that he is calling a “climate action incentive”. What he is doing is he is taking a dollar out of one pocket of the taxpayer and saying, “By the way, as an election gimmick, just to make sure you are going to elect me, I am going to put that dollar back in the other pocket by way of a rebate.” That is what he called it, “a rebate”. Canadians would get it right after their income tax forms were filed.

The Prime Minister went further and he promised the taxpayers were going to get back more money than he took from them in the first place. Anybody who does the math will know that if a dollar is being taken out and more is being put in the other pocket, which by the way is a pipe dream, that difference has to come from somewhere. Someone has to pay for it.

It will not be the big emitters, because they have gotten all kinds of exemptions. There are big factories, refineries and cement plants that have all kinds of special deals they made with the Prime Minister. However, the average Canadian families, the ones who have small businesses, are the ones who are going to pay the difference. There are about a million small business across Canada, employing millions more Canadians. The money is being taxed on the backs of those small businesses. Let us just imagine. It will be the businesses that are least able to bear that tax.

This is a carbon tax scam. It is not about going after polluters. It is not about helping the commuters, the soccer moms and dads, and the seniors. It is not about helping those who need the help. It is about giving special deals to the polluters and doing absolutely nothing for the environment by the Prime Minister's own admission.

Everyone can tell that I am extremely disappointed by this bill and the budget it is supposed to implement, because it is an unmitigated disaster. It is a deception on the Canadian people.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, when the Conservatives speak in the House, we only get half of the story. The reality of the situation is that although the members opposite would like to paint a picture of Canadians paying higher taxes, what they always forget to mention when they talk about that is the increase in money that people are receiving through the Canada child benefit. As a matter of fact, when we calculate that into it, unlike the Fraser Institute that they quote all the time which did not bother to use that important part, Canadians end up ahead of where they were before. That is the reality of the situation.

Another fact where we are only getting half the story is the new price on pollution. What the member did not bother to say is that in jurisdictions like Ontario and the one he represents, but that will depend on the outcome of the next election, all of the money collected through the price on pollution is going to be given right back to the citizens. In Ontario, 90% of it will go back to each and every person and the other 10% will go to small businesses.

It is one thing to be critical of the plan, which Conservatives have been for some time, and that is fine, but they should propose something else. They have absolutely nothing. He talked about future generations and making sure they know how to manage their finances wisely. What about talking about the environment that they are going to be impacted by? What is their plan on the environment? They do not have one.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that we will be releasing our environmental plan before the next election, but it will be our timing, not the government's. I can assure everyone of that.

Here is the thing. The member's own words were, “Canadians come out ahead". Have we heard that before? It is a classic Liberal shell game, and let me say why.

In British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, a good friend of mine, brought in the carbon tax. It is the highest carbon tax in Canada. Today, it is $35 per tonne of emissions. When that tax was introduced, politicians swore up and down that it would be revenue neutral, that every dollar taken out of the taxpayer's pocket would be put back into the taxpayer's other pocket.

What happened? Two things happened. One, emissions kept going up and they are still going up today. Therefore, it did not fundamentally address the challenges of the environment. Two, the NDP was elected. It eliminated revenue neutrality and today it is a massive tax grab for an NDP government that is spending and spending, just like the Liberals are spending federally.

Canadians are not buying this shell game.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby raised a point of order about Bill C-86, which is more than 850 pages long and includes several bills. We were simply asking for this omnibus bill to be split.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the government's tactics. Canadians are losing faith in the government.

We are unable to properly debate in the House the various bills contained in Bill C-86.

I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my NDP colleague, because we share her concern about the size of this bill. It is called an omnibus bill. Members may remember that the Conservative government once brought forward what the Liberals called an omnibus bill of about 500 pages. The Liberals swore up and down it was the worst thing that a government could do and they would never ever do that.

At the beginning of my speech, I talked about the duplicity of the Liberal government. The Liberals say one thing when they are in opposition, but do quite another when they are in government. They have compromised the democratic process by lumping all of these things into one massive bill. They are hoping Canadians will not notice all of the details, the finer points, that are going to hurt them in the long run. It is a shame.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today and outline some of the failures of the Liberal government.

One of the things the Liberal government talks about all the time is that the economy and the environment must go hand in hand. However, I think we have to put the economy ahead of the environment if we want a clean environment. I would ask every member in this place to get out their phones and tablets and have a look at the island that contains both the countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic has a much better economy than Haiti has. We can see a clear line on the Google map and the Dominican Republic is literally greener than Haiti. That is because the economy works in the Dominican Republic, and the economy is struggling in Haiti.

That is the thing we see here in Canada as well. We need to ensure that Canada's economy continues to work into the future if we want to rely on having one of the nicest countries in the entire world. Right here in Canada we have some of the cleanest water in the world, most of the populace of wildlife, some of the most pristine glaciers and some of the greatest landscapes that people come from around the world to see. There are other things that are not necessarily attached to the landscape, but people from around the world come to Canada to see, such as the northern lights. Our economy is based a lot upon our landscape, but it is also required that we have a great economy in order to maintain the levels where we can protect our environment.

The signature piece of the government's ruling up until now has been the carbon tax. It has taken the Liberals three years to get it off the ground. It does the opposite of what the Liberals want it to do. It does nothing for the environment, and it takes money out of the pockets of everyday Canadians. When money is taken out of the pockets of everyday Canadians, the economy starts to falter.

The other thing the Liberals are doing is spending our children's future. They have this massive deficit every year, and that can only hurt the economy in the long term. When we hurt the economy in the long term, we will see that the environment gets more of a strain placed on it. When companies are unable to invest, a lot of times the first thing we see is their inability to do the cleanup, to hire the cleanup crews. That sort of thing does not happen. We are seeing that right now in Alberta.

Alberta, under the visionary leadership of Peter Lougheed, put in place the orphan well program. The liability for cleaning up abandoned wells in Alberta was placed on all oil companies in general and was funded by a unique system. Now, with the lack of investment coming into northern Alberta, we are seeing the multiplication of these abandoned wells, and because the economy is not functioning well, we are unable to go in and clean up some of these orphan wells across northern Alberta.

It is imperative that we have a good economy that keeps the cash flowing and allows us to do the things we need to clean up the environment. Our record is amazing on this kind of thing.

My uncle lives right on Lake Erie, and he said over the last 10 years the cleanup efforts that have happened in the Great Lakes have been visible for all to see. In the Slave Lake area up in my riding, the amount of investment the federal government put into the area to ensure the lake stayed full of water, with the weir on the end of the lake and that sort of thing, was very much appreciated. We have seen the cycle of nature come around. The lake still is backed up with water just from the fact that we have had a lot of rain over the last three years.

That said, the carbon tax is only going to take money out of the economy. In addition, the Liberals' deficit spending will also take money out of the economy in the future. However, today we would expect that if are expending all this extra money, we should see in this debt-fuelled economy a spike in GDP growth relative to the amount of deficit spending, but we have not seen that either.

Budget 2016 said that the deficit would raise the level of GDP by half a per cent and we have only seen GDP growth of only point one per cent. We are not even getting good value for the money when we are taking out a loan for our country's future. That is definitely one of the things I want to see.

The last thing I want to talk about is the whole idea of infrastructure spending. In northern Alberta there are several highways that run north-south. Highway 88 was freshly paved over the summer. It goes from Slave Lake up to Fort Vermillion. The highway is about 300 or 400 kilometres long. The people from Fort Vermillion, La Crete and High Level are immensely proud of their new highway. Five years ago, most of it was gravel road and members can imagine that 300 to 400 kilometres of gravel road was not an exciting drive. People are very excited about Highway 88 and the new pavement. We have seen Highway 60, Highways 43 and 44, which run north-south. The highway going up to Fort McMurray has been in the news often.

What is lacking in northern Alberta is an east-west connector. Currently, if one wants to go from Peace River over to Fort McMurray, which are about 300 kilometres apart, it is a 700 kilometre driving tour because people have to go down nearly to Edmonton and then drive back up toward Fort McMurray. It is a long drive. Going through my hometown of Barrhead would be the shortest way.

There is an idea called the N-55, north of the 55, connector. Most of the roadway is in place. it is either a gravel road or a logging road. There are still about seven kilometres needed to connect it through the middle. Sixty-six kilometres are already upgraded and ready to be paved. I have heard from hundreds of constituents that it would be a great economic corridor and it would eliminate several hours of driving if there were a connector from Peace River, B.C. to Fort McMurray. I have been calling it the N-55 connector. I look forward to getting some funding for that. However, I must say that the infrastructure funding from the Liberal government has been sparse in northern Alberta.

When I was first elected, everyone said the infrastructure plan of the Liberals was amazing and they were looking forward to having the funds to build these projects that would enhance the economic viability of many places in northern Alberta. They were looking forward to having that funding. Now I read in the budget that the Liberals are still struggling to get the infrastructure money out. I have a recommendation for them.

My constituency overlaps about 100 communities with about 1,000 elected representatives. Many of the town and county councils say that one thing that works amazingly well is the gas tax refund. If the government is struggling to get money out for infrastructure, it should put more in the gas tax refund. Funds from the gas tax refund are allocated out for several years in advance. They know where the money is coming from and where it is going. If the government were to double or triple the gas tax refund, communities would be able to get those projects out of their five-year plan and put them in their three-year plan or two-year plan. It would also be good for the economy in northern Alberta particularly right now. Labour rates have come down significantly over the last few years and it would be a great time to build some amazing infrastructure in northern Alberta.

I hope that the government is listening. I hope we can see a renewed effort to get the infrastructure money out to northern Alberta to build some of these projects like the N-55 connector.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question I am about to ask does not have to do with the BIA, and I apologize for that, but it does have to do with the speech by my hon. colleague, in which he referenced Haiti and the difference between it and the Dominican Republic. I would like to invite my hon. colleague to possibly sit down with me and have a fulsome discussion about the history of Haiti, which was destroyed by a revolution. Payment of reparations for 150 years caused a lot of destruction there, as well as three decades of American occupation, which atrophied its institutions, and large repayments to France. If he knows not what he talks about, he probably should not bring it up in the House.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously not as familiar as my hon. colleague is with the ins and outs of the history of Haiti. I encourage her to open her iPad and go to Google Maps, where it is undeniable that the economies of the Dominican Republic and Haiti are different and one is more prosperous than the other. One can see the difference on the environment just by opening Google Maps.

The histories of the two places are dramatically different. I have an elementary understanding of it. The basic point is that one needs a strong economy that works in order to take care of one's environment. I say this because if we are to take care of the environment, we all need to co-operate. That is what it takes to make sure that the welfare of the animals living on the landscape continues to be taken care of, that there is a habitat for them, and that the natural resources are not just being plundered.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly appreciate my Conservative colleague raising the issue of the rising liabilities from abandoned wells. We had 43 years of Conservative rule that essentially cared only for building an economy for the benefit of the oil industry, including small producers, many of whom then declared bankruptcy and landed this multi-billion liability on Albertans.

Could the member comment on whether he shares my concern that in this budget bill there was an opportunity to resolve this matter and change the priorities so that environmental reclamation would be given a higher priority in bankruptcy proceedings, rather than simply giving the money back to creditors, including banks?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to admit right off the top that I do not think the member and I would agree on a whole bunch of things, but this is one that we actually do agree on. The fact is that Conservatives have gone around the country and cleaned up a lot of major messes left through history. The issue of abandoned oil wells was something we were addressing already in 2015. We said that we had the expertise of those who had been laid off in Alberta and were now on EI, but who would like to be out there doing something. Perhaps there was a reclamation of some of the oil wells. However, most of the EI has dried up and these people have gone on to find other jobs around the world.

I was just talking with a friend of mine the other day and asked how business was. He works in the oil patch. He said they are doing business in every continent in the world, just not in northern Alberta. We have the expertise in Alberta to cap these wells and clean them up. I totally agree that it is something that needs a tangible environmental policy, which I could definitely get behind.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened to the member's speech and to the peculiar explanation of the physical conditions of Haiti compared with those in the Dominican Republic, and then heard the member opposite talk about that being a result of the Dominican Republic's economy and Haiti's inability to have positive environmental policies.

Is the member not aware of the earthquakes and hurricanes there, and of the deforestation caused by extreme poverty? Is he not aware of the historic realities Haiti has endured that have destroyed its capacity for independent economic development and left it a prisoner to international reparations for its act of freeing slaves through a rebellion 150 years ago? Is that not the reason Haiti's economy has found itself in the state it is in? It has nothing to do with the dictatorships that have developed the economy of the Dominican Republic.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think we are getting into a different subject matter. I appreciate that the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock did raise this comparison early on in his remarks. Therefore, we will certainly allow it. This is sometimes what happens when we get debate straying into another category. However, we will let the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock respond.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my point still stands. The point is that the economy of Haiti is not as good as the economy of the Dominican Republic. How each of those countries got there is not the question. The question is this: What does the environment in each country look like? We can see it plain as day in Google Maps. That is what this is all about. This is not a judgment of how they got there or their history. It is the raw fact that it takes a good economy to take care of the environment.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the privilege to speak in the House today about the legislative reforms to intellectual property that accompany this particular piece of legislation.

I would note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook this afternoon.

Our government unveiled Canada's first national IP strategy earlier this year, on April 26, World IP Day, after two years' worth of consultations. I know this is not exactly the most rivetting topic to consider this afternoon, but it is really important for businesses, and particularly businesses in Whitby. As a member of the INDU committee, the industry committee, I think it is really important to highlight some of these initiatives in the second BIA.

The objective of Canada's IP strategy is to help Canadian entrepreneurs better understand and protect intellectual property in order to strategically access and grow to scale. Business leaders from my riding of Whitby understand the importance of a strategy.

Jason Atkins, the CEO of 360insights, a great company in Whitby, has said that “IP is a critical component for businesses to scale, especially to a global level. If we want to create well-paid jobs in our country, we need to look at businesses with a global lens and leverage IP to compete globally.”

Also, Isaac Wanzama, founder and strategic senior strategist at geekspeak Commerce in Whitby, has said that “Intellectual property is the lifeblood of any innovation ecosystem, that is certainly true in Canada. As entrepreneurs, if we aren’t protecting the investments that we are make in our tech research, whether AI or genetics, then we’re not only doing a disservice to our businesses but to the Canadian economy as a whole. But, it’s not always that we don’t want to, often it’s because the process is difficult to understand and even if you can understand it, very expensive. Canada’s new IP Strategy, which aims to educate, simplify and reduce associated costs for startups and innovative businesses is a welcomed announcement.”

Innovative businesses in my riding are clearly excited about our government's plan. The IP strategy sets out to help businesses get the information and confidence they need to grow their businesses and take risks. It will help spur Canadian innovation and boost Canadian presence in the global marketplace through three key areas. It will increase IP literacy through IP awareness and educational programs, offer strategic IP tools for growth, and implement legislative amendments to strengthen Canada's IP system.

Today, I want to focus my remarks on the specific initiatives that will help improve IP awareness and education among Canadian businesses and innovators.

Along with a strong and effective IP framework in place, Canadian businesses must also, first and foremost, recognize and understand the importance of IP use in order to succeed in a global marketplace. They need to be able to understand how to protect their IP and use it effectively.

The statistics on Canadian businesses' IP awareness and use, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, are of concern. We know that small and medium-sized companies with IP in Canada are 64% more likely to be high growth companies and four times more likely to export, yet only 10% even hold some form of formal IP. Further, 83% of Canadian small and medium-sized businesses have indicated that IP was not relevant to their business when citing the reasons for not seeking IP rights. This is why, along with the other legislative changes we are bringing forward, we are also expanding our efforts in IP literacy.

The IP strategy is built on the Canadian Intellectual Property Office's IP awareness and education efforts that are already in place across the innovation ecosystem to ensure that innovators, entrepreneurs, businesses and creators recognize the value of IP.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office, CIPO, will continue to build on current learning tools and resources, and also develop new educational resources to better equip innovators and businesses with the knowledge they need to succeed.

The CIPO has a team of IP advisers located across Canada who work directly with companies and innovators to deliver seminars and participate in innovation and business-related events, such as StartupCanada's Canadian export challenge.

Over the last year, the CIPO has delivered 150 seminars across the country, reaching over 1,900 participants through its IP awareness and education program.

The CIPO will be increasing the number of its initiatives over the next year, which will include hosting up to 60 seminars on advanced topics, such as IP commercialization and strategy and enforcement, and is increasing accessibility to these sessions by offering webcasts and developing e-learning modules.

Our government will also conduct a survey to better understand how Canadians understand and use IP, including groups that have been traditionally less likely to use IP, such as indigenous entrepreneurs and women. The results of the survey will help us meet the needs of under-represented groups and help ensure that our efforts to support innovation are inclusive of all parts of our society.

In addition to CIPO's outreach efforts to businesses, our government will create a new team of IP experts to ensure that IP is considered across federal government programs. Program officers will have access to expert knowledge and capacity to address IP issues and help guide recipients to improve their IP knowledge and savvy.

The IP strategy also sets out funding for IP legal clinics to help businesses understand their IP needs, facilitating access to IP professionals for advice, while also enabling students to learn more about intellectual property.

A strong and robust IP strategy is a key driver for getting companies to grow in scale, create better jobs and spur innovation. We must ensure that all the proper elements are in place for Canadian companies and innovators to grow and that they have an environment where they can innovate and develop.

This consists of an effective education and awareness program and strategic tools, which are necessary components to legislative amendments tabled in the budget implementation act. This will help Canada to become a more strategic user of intellectual property to fuel innovation and economic growth.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the pay equity bill was introduced this week. We have been calling for that bill for several months now. There are even women's groups that have been calling for federal pay equity legislation for 42 years. I would remind hon. members that the Government of Quebec passed pay equity provisions 22 years ago.

However, this omnibus bill, Bill C-86, contains more than 850 pages. It is a very large bill and we have very little time to do a clause-by-clause review or a detailed study.

What does my colleague think of the fact that Canadian women who work in the federal government have to wait another four years before they can benefit from pay equity?

What does she think of the fact that are no concrete provisions to ensure that the bill goes forward and that businesses have the necessary means to implement the provisions?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this government taking substantial action on pay equity. We have heard the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour speak about this issue. She has been having consultations across the country to ensure that we get this correct.

One dollar does not equal 88¢, and for equity-seeking groups, the disparity between men and women with respect to pay is much larger.

For over four decades, women have been waiting for this. We want to make sure that we get this right and have equal pay for equal work.

There are many pages in this BIA related to pay equity. I would invite my hon. colleague to look at them.

This is not about putting pay equity in place for the sake of doing it. It is about putting it in place to ensure that we get it right.

Women have waited a very long time. Equity-seeking groups have waited a long time to ensure that we have this. This government is moving on it and we are going to get it absolutely correct.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed listening to my colleague's wonderful comments. As an entrepreneur and someone who knows about risk when going into business, it is heartwarming to hear the efforts that are being put into ensuring that as businesses start up and and grow, they will have these tools. One of the ways to mitigate risk is to make sure businesses understand that those opportunities and supports are available to them.

The strategy around IP is extremely important in the world we now operate in. I wonder if the member could expand a bit on what kind of game-changer this is for small and medium-sized businesses.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that as businesses grow and start to scale up, it becomes very risky and very scary for them. Before getting into politics, I was an entrepreneur, so I share the concerns of my colleague on this.

The IP strategy we announced on World IP Day includes comprehensive education and awareness, so that as businesses look for ways to expand and export to new markets, they are aware of what is available to protect their intellectual property.

I quoted some businesses in my riding of Whitby. They understand that a strong IP strategy and a strong focus on IP can help companies not only grow but become great players in a global market. That is what this strategy would enable businesses across Canada, in Whitby and I am sure in Northumberland—Peterborough South to do.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2.

As members know, the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is on the outskirts of Halifax-Dartmouth. It is a community where we have young families, fishermen, the largest black cultural centre and many Acadians. It is a diverse community that I am very proud to represent.

When we talk about budget 2018 and previous budgets by our government, it is clear that the path we are on is to build a strong economy for all Canadians. In my speech today, I want to touch on three major areas in this budget implementation bill: what it means for families, what it means for our veterans, and women's potential economic benefit when they are much more involved in entrepreneurship and building strong companies.

I cannot go into the text before talking about how our economy is doing now.

After three years, we have seen the Canadian economy grow and continue to prosper. Over 600,000 new jobs have been created. It is a strong sign of our government moving in the right direction when people want to invest and when we are creating good jobs for the middle class.

As well, we should note that the unemployment rate in Canada has dropped from 7.2% to 5.7%. Yes, members heard me correctly. At 5.7%, it is the lowest unemployment rate in Canada in the last 40 years. It is very impressive.

I also want to talk about the Canada child benefit. This is an investment in Canadians and in Canadian families. It is an investment in young families, which is extremely important. The riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is one riding out of 338 in Canada, and in my riding alone the families are receiving $5.2 million per month. That is $60 million per year in the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

I am not the only lucky one, because all 338 members of Parliament have this Canada child benefit going to their constituents, which means anywhere between $40 million and $80 million invested in families in their ridings.

Speaking about families in this budget implementation bill, I want to talk about the EI parental benefit. That is a very important benefit that recognizes some of the challenges in life. It is creating more flexibility for Canadian families. If they split or share those benefits, we are adding five extra weeks of benefits.

As well, when talking about families, we have to talk about pharmacare. Our government is moving forward. We have established an advisory committee that will report shortly. We also had the permanent committee present its report on pharmacare. I believe we will see some positive news on pharmacare very soon.

We are also introducing, of course, the new Canada workers benefit. This new benefit will add 300,000 Canadians to the middle class. That means over two million Canadians will now have access to this benefit, which is very important. With BIA 2, we will ensure that these individuals do not have to apply; it will happen automatically, once again making life easier for Canadian families.

I also want to talk about some changes in the labour code that will provide five days of paid leave to victims of family violence employed by the public service, as well as five days of personal leave, three of which would be paid. Those are major changes that will make life better for Canadians.

Touching on veterans, this is a very important topic for me. My riding has the largest number of veterans and military per capita, with 23% being veterans. We have introduced the option of a pension for life. Veterans already have a lump-sum pension, which we had introduced, but now they will have the option of a pension for life.

Depending on their pain and suffering, veterans could have up to $1,150 a month. If they have additional pain and suffering, they could receive another $1,500 a month, or a salary replacement of up to 90%. That is what our government is doing to support our veterans and their families. I hear when I am travelling around my riding how important it is for veterans to have access to that.

I have to talk about the ID card for veterans and a story, believe it or not, that I still have trouble with. When veterans tell me this story, it is painful to hear: The former Harper government cut the ID card for veterans. If anyone can help me understand that, please do so, because that is amazing.

Our government has just introduced a new ID card. The new ID card will have a veteran's photo and rank on it, as well as his or her service record and service number. It will not only recognize veterans' service, their hard work and what they have done for Canadians, but it will also help them access programs and services, which is extremely important.

Talking now about women, we have invested in a new entrepreneurial strategy for supporting women in industry. We have invested $1.65 billion over three years for new financing opportunities for women in industry, and we have also invested $150 million through regional tailoring of the needs in rural communities across Canada.

Also, pay equity is included in this budget implementation bill. That is extremely important. When the opposition talks about the 400 pages, it is because 200 pages alone talk about pay equity and all the consultation we have done. Our government will bring legislation forward in the very near future in this area.

In closing, I want to say that the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook and the province of Nova Scotia will greatly benefit by many of these investments.

However, talking about rural broadband, an Internet connection for rural communities is essential if we are going to allow those communities to prosper and grow.

We have seen also the investment in home care and mental health. Those are big investments that will help all Canadians, including Nova Scotians and of course the people in the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

We also support families with challenges such as dementia and autism. We have seen some investment in those areas as well.

This is moving forward. This is a strong budget that we are implementing here. It is consistent with the other budgets that we brought forward and I am very pleased to be a member on this side of the House supporting Canadians, supporting the middle class, supporting veterans, supporting families, supporting youth and so on.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is very excited about this government. I will remind this House and Canadians who are watching that it was his family who received a lucrative surf clam quota from the former fisheries minister. It was shameful, and it had to be reversed.

I will offer that it was not this government that introduced the veterans ID card. It was our hon. colleague, the former minister of veterans affairs, the member for Durham, who is sitting here and actually going to give a great speech. It is coming up, and I know he will have something to say about that.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask our hon. colleague how he has any ability to stand in this House and trumpet the talking points of that, when he was shamefully part of one of the biggest clam scams in Canadian history.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague really knows what a clam looks like, but it gives him something to talk about. It is too bad that his constituents do not have the opportunity to hear about other important issues for middle-class Canadians. He could be talking about the Canada child benefit and how much money families in his riding are receiving. Families in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook are benefiting by $5.2 million a month, $60 million a year.

The ID card was eliminated by the Harper government. It is sad. I do not understand it. Nor do Canadians and veterans understand it.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is aware of my concerns regarding the important role we must play to reduce poverty in Canada.

Despite the Canada child benefit, we still have 1.2 million poor children in Canada, and 38% of indigenous children are living in poverty. These statistics have not changed in 10 years.

Campaign 2000, which represents 100 national, provincial, and territorial organizations, finds that the government's objectives are not ambitious enough. The government wants to fix the situation by 2030, but these children are living in poverty right now. In 2030, they will no longer be children.

Unfortunately, we do not see any tangible measures in the budget implementation bill that would allow us to do more. The groups are saying that the bill falls short on ambition when it comes to meaningful action to reduce child poverty.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important question, and I am glad my colleague asked.

Our government has taken a number of steps to reduce poverty. We have not eliminated poverty yet, so we are open to suggestions. However, the Canada child benefit is one important way we are investing in young families.

We are also investing in building housing for low-income and struggling families. Another important investment in this budget is the Canada workers benefit, which will help 300,000 Canadians join the middle class. This measure will very likely help reduce child poverty too.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, one important measure was inspired by Quebec's parental leave system. The second parent will get to take five or eight additional weeks of leave. This approach promotes a better distribution of family responsibilities and greater participation of women, since women too often take on the bulk of family responsibilities. We are looking for a better balance.

I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of this very important measure, which has worked in Quebec and Europe, and which our government is very proud to be implementing across Canada.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his work on the budget, which includes some extremely important programs that will make a very direct contribution to the economy.

The program he just mentioned would give families greater flexibility over parental leave. It will enable parents to share their parental leave so they can both spend more time with their family.

This is one way our government is working harder to find ways to help children and families, including struggling families. We want to give them more flexibility to help them thrive.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Asbestos; the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on the budget implementation act.

This morning my friend John reminded me that there were dark clouds in the Liberals' sunshine environment, as Liberals said during election time. However, there is one issue that really bothers me, and that was what happened yesterday when the Prime Minister talked to students. He told them that the opposition parties liked to shout at respectful Liberals.

I am profiled in the grade nine high school book in Alberta, talking about democracy. I go to schools and talk about our great democracy and how our country is run. I never run down anyone. We are all here equally in this chamber to talk about issues for all Canadians. This is the chamber where we have democracy, yet the Prime Minister went to a school and partisanly told students that the Liberals were respectful and the opposition was not respectful.

May I remind the Prime Minister, if I recall correctly, that he was a member of the opposition when he first entered the House. Now suddenly he thinks that side is respectful. Should he impart this knowledge to young students? Shame.

I am splitting my time with my great Irish friend from Durham, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about the dark clouds since the Liberals became government. The last member who spoke talked about the veteran cuts. Cuts to veterans was brought forward by the Liberal government. My colleague was a former trade minister and he did all the legwork for the trade agreements that the Liberal government signed. The Liberals want to take credit for that.

It is interesting that the word “Harper” has become so common in the chamber. I hear more about Mr. Harper than when he was the prime minister. Every minute, the Liberals keep talking about Harper. They forget that they have been governing for three and a half years. It was interesting to hear the the NDP member say that the Liberals were worse than Harper. Harper is a great word in the House.

However, talking about the Liberals' record, it is terrible. As I said during my leadership race, the deficit is in the blood of the Trudeaus. Whenever they come into power, we end up having strong deficits and a deficit balance. Our taxes and our debt keep rising. As I already pointed out, the Liberals increased the debt by $60 billion.

Where do things stand today under these dark clouds? Since the Liberals have come to power, the last member who spoke said the business environment was great. It is not great. The business environment today is what is causing serious concern for Canadians, a concern about jobs, the welfare of their children and health care. It is a serious concern. The disastrous handling of the Trans Mountain pipeline and the bill that would stop the pipelines being built under a regulatory regime will take investors away from our country.

We must remember that we share a very long border with the south. We share an integrated economy. If south of the border creates a business environment that is far more appealing to investors, then money flows there. It is not just money, but jobs flow south as well. That is where the danger is.

When we were in government, and my friend sitting next to me was the minister of state for finance, I checked with him, we introduced a regulatory process. We looked at how a regulatory process in our country would stifle competitiveness. To do that, we set out to find out how many regulator processes there were in our country.

Let me go back and give my own example with my son. He wanted to go into an agricultural business, and he is still going into it with my grandson. We tied in with farmers in my colleague's riding to export a product. We are still mired in regulatory reforms. It is not ease of business to do that. It has taken one and a half years and we are still in the process of trying to meet all the regulatory conditions that are laid out across the country.

The important point here is this. If we ask the government how many regulations there are, which it is supposed to know, it will not be able to answer the question. If it does not know that, how will it reduce the regulations? Even there, it cannot do this thing, yet the Liberals are saying that they have policies that are helping the business environment grow.

I come from Alberta and it is concerned about what the government is doing to the economy of Alberta. Irrespective of the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources is from Alberta, we do not see any kind of action coming from the government. It is a big concern.

Now the Liberals say that they are going to put in a carbon tax. Our carbon footprint is 1.6% of global pollution in the environment, yet we are the country putting a carbon tax burden on Canadians. Like everyone has pointed out to the government, it is a tax grab.

I read this morning that because the Liberals have announced they want to give money back to the people, people are saying that it will not impact them. Therefore, how are their habits going to change if they are going to get their money back? The carbon tax is a tax grab, as everyone says. We need to have an environment of the economy moving forward, which the government is failing to do. It seems to have priorities that do not address the main concerns of Canadians, which are jobs, health care and a future for our children.

These are good statements made by the government. However, as everyone has pointed out, when the government says “trust it” that is like the Nigerian prince saying, “Your cheque is in the mail”. More and more Canadians are saying that they do not trust the government.

We are concerned. There are dark clouds in the sunshine environment of the Liberal government.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the Harper record. I would like to address that topic of his speech. Is he aware that for a decade Stephen Harper had the lowest levels of growth in 69 years? He had the worst job creation since 1946. His government grew exports by a meagre 0.3%, which is the worst in post-war history. Meanwhile, he was the best for the top 1%. He managed to foster inequalities like nobody's business.

Compare and contrast that to our government over the last three years. Last year we had the strongest growth in the G7. The OECD came out with a report this summer saying that Canadian families by this time next year would be $2,000 better off than they were under the Conservative government. A half a million full-time jobs have been created in the last three years.

How can he not see that for a decade Stephen Harper was the emperor with no clothes? Our government has taken real action that has helped the middle class and helped our economy grow and prosper for everyone.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a new member who came to the House three years ago, and he is trying to talk about our record 10 years ago. I do not know where he was in 2008 when the whole world went into a recession. We do not live on a separate island. It was because of our economic management that we did not have to bail banks out and survived that recession. It was through the good management of the Conservative government.

As I have said, the former Conservative trade minister is the one who led the groundwork for CETA and TPP, something the current government is now signing and trying to take credit for. The Conservative government did it, and the current government is reaping is based on what Conservatives did before it went into power. We are well known for managing our economy very well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way should not try to rewrite history. We have to remember Stephen Harper inherited a surplus of billions of dollars. Even before the recession came into being, that surplus was wiped out and turned into a massive billion-dollar-plus deficit. The Conservatives have been in power for about 38% of the last 150 years, yet have accumulated 75% of Canada's debt.

Why should the Government of Canada Liberal Party listen to Conservatives, who have been absolute total failures when it comes to managing Canada's economy?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is he talking about? The Conservative government brought down $40 billion of deficit and had a balanced budget when it left office, not $60 billion of deficit he is talking about. It was the Conservative government.

I remember the member sitting over there spouting all these things, and none of the ideas came through. Let me remind him of one thing. He used to say that there were too many pages in the budget implementation act. I remind him that right now the Liberals' budget implementation act is 800 pages long. What is he talking about? He should look in the mirror.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Winnipeg North, I had the honour of working in the oil sands prior to my time in Parliament, and it was just a hive of economic activity. I have heard now that the camps in the region I was working in are all closed and employment is way down.

I was on the environment committee when Bill C-69 was debated, and I thank my hon. colleague for bringing up the regulatory process. In fact, that bill is shutting down the Canadian economy right now. The resource industry is 20% of the Canadian economy and a big part of most pension funds. That is what the people across the way forget. Senior citizens, pensioners, investment funds all rely on the oil sands and the energy industry.

In the testimony in Bill C-69, Chris Bloomer from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said that Canada has a “toxic regulatory environment”, and that is why investment in this country is declining.

Can my friend from Calgary Forest Lawn talk about the effects of the regulatory environment on the Alberta energy industry and the ripple effect across the country?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good point. We were there only a week ago. The oil industry and even the NDP Government of Alberta have said that Bill C-69 is a disaster for the country. We are talking about the NDP government, so does that not tell the current government that its Bill C-69 is an absolute disaster for this country? Those regulations would stifle the energy sector in this country.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the dean of our caucus, the longest-serving member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who has been outraged on a few occasions by Liberal mismanagement of the economy. That is what I am going to spend a few minutes on in my remarks today on Bill C-86, the budget implementation act. There are a few aspects I am going to go through that should concern all Canadians, the biggest of which is the uncompetitiveness of our economy and how we are not ready for a global downturn. Many of the decisions of the government are putting us on a very precarious footing ahead of what could be uncertain times.

I have concerns related to the record debt levels under the current government and record deficits in a time of positive economic growth. I have called the Liberal track record on debt and deficits the Liberal double-double. Most Canadians are seeing the cost of their double-double going up, when they think of Tim Hortons. The Liberal double-double is deficits and debt. What is crazy about it is that it is being fuelled even with a roaring economy and despite the fact that Liberals are raising taxes countless times, making us uncompetitive. They are taking more money from Canadians and yet still cannot balance the budget.

Because this is a budget implementation bill and because my friend from Winnipeg North, the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party, is here, I want to remind him of the fact that when he says things in the House, they will come back to haunt him. I have mentioned many occasions in the previous government when, as a Liberal opposition member, he would almost howl at the moon. It is the day after Halloween. He would howl about the use of time allocation or omnibus legislation. He called them assaults on democracy several times. He has given me so much material.

I want to keep the member for Winnipeg North on his toes, so I am choosing a quote from this Parliament with respect to his comments. As a government member, he said this, on June 5, 2017, “Member after member has talked about this particular bill being an omnibus bill. Again, when I was standing up and the member made reference to some of my quotes, they were not 300-page documents, they were more like 600-page or 900-page documents, which affected laws that had nothing to do with the budget.” I thank him. This budget implementation bill is 850 pages, so it fits right in the sweet spot that he said was outrageous with the previous government. In fact, it is at the upper range of the outrageous levels he even talked about earlier in this Parliament. It is amazing. This bill is chock full of things that have nothing to do with the budget.

The Liberal member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook quoted the veteran ID card that I announced as minister, the extension of the NDI 75 card and making sure that all veterans got it, not just those serving after 10 years. I was proud to make that announcement in Fredericton alongside my good friend from the Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Military College, Brian MacDonald. He was an MLA in New Brunswick and I thank him for his service in uniform and in the assembly in New Brunswick. We announced that. I was there. I can send the minister the picture of the cards we were holding up. That is in the budget implementation bill.

When the member for Winnipeg North rises to ask me a question or make a comment, which he is likely to do, statistics show he likely will, I would like him to apologize to the chamber for feigned outrage in this place over the very type of omnibus legislation he is now being tasked by Mr. Butts in the Prime Minister's Office to defend. Even at 850-plus pages, it is at the outer range of what he said was clearly unacceptable.

Beyond that, let me go back to the double-double of the Liberal Party: the debt and deficits. There is $60 billion of debt accumulated by the government in good economic times in three years. In a positive economy, where there is economic growth, that is a Canadian record. Liberals should not be proud of that record, because that debt and the deficits they are running on an annual basis are future taxes for my children.

They are spending recklessly at a time when they should be putting some away for the clouds looming on the horizon. They are not, and virtually none of it was the infrastructure money they promised.

Members will recall, in the last election, when the member for Papineau changed his fundamental economic views halfway through an election to outfox the NDP. He started the election saying that they are the party of Paul Martin and balanced budgets. Midway through, he said they were going to run deficits, but Canadians were not to worry because it would be no more than $10 billion and they would be in balance by 2019. All of that was out the window within three months. The Liberals have run deficits in the $20 billion or $20 billion-plus range every single year.

What is more egregious is they received $20 billion last year in extra revenues because the economy is strong because the Conservative Party put the economy on a footing such that when the American economy recovered, which it has, we would be booming again. Therefore, when the Liberals quote how Canada's growth was tepid during the global recession, they should go and see how our G7 allies were doing. We were the only one with a balanced budget, the only one that balanced our budget without raising taxes. We lowered taxes. Even the tax reduction of the small business rate that we had planned to 9%, the Liberals cancelled at first. Now they praise it, as they are returning it to a level we had pledged it to go to back in 2014.

It is almost comical to hear members of the Liberal Party talk about the budget, competitiveness and deficits. Their policy and the underlying philosophy change by the moment, all based on opportunity for a photograph and the hope that they can grow the economy from the heart outward. Do members remember that one? The Liberals said that the budget will balance itself and that they will grow the economy from the heart outward. They can tell that to the Alberta oil patch workers or the engineers or geologists who are out of work, or property companies that now see high vacancy rates in Alberta because the Liberals have botched the resource economy.

In fact, the Canadians they failed the most in the resource economy are our indigenous peoples. The northern gateway pipeline was a one-third owned pipeline. Our country has a commitment to make sure first nations and Inuit play a role in our economy and benefit directly, and they would have benefited with northern gateway. The Liberals cancelled that on a whim and brought in Bill C-69, which led to the cancellation of energy east, and then they were forced to buy Trans Mountain when the company was leaving Canada because we are not competitive.

In fact, Jack Mintz, the leading tax authority in Canada, warned of a “competitive tsunami” because in three years, while racking up $60 billion in debt for our children and grandchildren, the Liberals have raised taxes on everyone. They have raised personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and payroll taxes and they have introduced a carbon tax, all in the middle of good economic times. In the last year, the United States has been going in the opposite direction. This is why there is a competitive risk. It is all due to the Liberals' mismanagement of the economy.

People are not to just believe me or Jack Mintz. Douglas Porter, the chief economist of BMO, the Bank of Montreal, said, “I think Canada has a very weak competitive position. I think we're going to get crushed in the next recession”. Crushed, because they have squandered the opportunity of good times. The Liberals have put us on an uncompetitive footing so that our small businesses are going to be paying a carbon tax that the Liberals are omitting large emitters from. They are making suburban commuters in Whitby, Ajax, Pickering, Uxbridge and Peterborough pay for their schemes that the parliamentary secretary acknowledged will make businesses uncompetitive, and will not lower emissions.

The very fact that our future competitiveness is hanging in the balance should concern Canadians. It should also concern them that this budget bill does not address the underpinnings of that competitive disadvantage and of our problems getting projects like pipelines done. I would like the Liberals to stand in this House and put forward a plan to get our resources to market.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, while it is always entertaining to hear my friend opposite own up to his experience in the chamber, I just want to put out a couple of factoids for him.

He lamented our economic record compared to the Americans. We have the fastest-growing GDP in the entire G7, which includes the Americans. He lamented the ability of our policies to generate economic growth in this country. We just saw the largest single foreign investment in Canadian history, $40 billion, in the LNG facility on the west coast.

He put out a proposition to Canadians to understand the double-double. What I would say to him is actually five-forty. Five is the 500,000 jobs we have created, and 40 is the lowest jobless rate in 40 years in this country.

Perhaps he could respond to those facts for the benefit of the House.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for providing me with an opportunity to talk about how proper budgeting and planning for the future happened.

What was remarkable about the Conservative government was that despite the fact there was a global recession, the worst since the 1930s, Stephen Harper did not want to raise taxes. We wanted to draw investment and jobs away from the United States, which was sputtering at the time. We did that. We did not raise taxes on households, either. We lowered taxes. In fact, we made small and medium-sized businesses the core of our economy, which is why almost two-thirds of Canadians work for those people, those people who are now being taxed with the carbon tax of the Liberal government.

What is remarkable is that we balanced the budget, despite stimulus spending and the global recession of 2008-09. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had a plan to get to balance by 2014-15, which we did.

The Liberals have changed the accounting rules to suggest that we did not balance the budget. Balancing the budget put us on a competitive footing so that when the American economy recovered, which it has in the last few years, we would benefit.

That member owes Stephen Harper a big thanks.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my friends impassioned speech, he referenced the fact that the House on Monday received a document 850 pages long, with literally thousands of clauses and subclauses dealing with budget matters, the guts of how we regulate our economy and other matters. Of course, it is not just about that. It is an omnibus bill covering much more.

It is said that a budget is the truest reflection of a government's priorities. I do not have a clue what they are.

Does the member share my concern that as parliamentarians, we cannot do our job when we are given a bill 850 pages in length on Monday and on Thursday are asked to dissect it? How can we possibly do our job as parliamentarians?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the MP for Victoria. We are the class of 2012 and were elected in the month of November back then. He has become a very good friend since.

He spoke about priorities, and it reminded me of what a former Liberal leader said in a famous leadership debate: “Do you think it's easy to make priorities?” Mr. Dion said that.

He is right. In this omnibus bill, we see the government meandering, to use a term the public safety minister has used to evade some of our questions on the Norman affair. It is meandering around the real issues. The real issue here is that we need to make sure that our small and medium-sized businesses are competitive. The carbon tax is not going to do that.

We need to make sure that seniors on fixed incomes and suburban commuters have the ability to work and have life be affordable. I do not see that in this document.

The member also pointed out the 850 pages of the omnibus bill, which the Liberals decried while in opposition but now seem to relish in government.

The good thing is that a year from now, there will be an opportunity to change. The government will see the Conservatives back on that side.

Bill C-86—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the notice from the hon. government House leader.

The time has expired for questions and comments. There were only about 30 seconds left. We will have to go on to resuming debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond Hill.

I am proud to rise today as the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park to speak on behalf of my constituents in support of Bill C-86, legislation that would entrench, among other things, pay equity throughout federally regulated workplaces in this country.

My constituents in Parkdale—High Park are dedicated advocates of women's rights. They include many who work hard in the federal civil service, in Crown corporations, in the transport sector, in banking, in telecommunications companies and in the Canadian Armed Forces. These are women whose request is very simple: equal pay for work of equal value. This is not a complicated ask. This is not a controversial ask. It is an ask simply for fairness. It is an ask to be treated equally.

This is what Bill C-86 would deliver: equal pay for work of equal value. It would deliver, at long last, a system that compensates women in federally regulated industries at the same level as men. My constituents in Parkdale—High Park deserve no less. The women in this country who have been fighting for equality for so long deserve no less.

Importantly, this is not a zero-sum game. When women receive the salaries they have deserved for so long, that does not come at the expense of men. To the contrary, men and women both gain when salaries are paid equally. Canada benefits when fairness applies throughout our federally regulated industries. Indeed, pay equity will spur economic growth in which all of us will share.

Let us start with where we are now. In Canada, women earn 31% less than men. Extensive research has shown that women with the same experience and the same socio-economic and demographic background earn approximately $7,200 less than their male counterparts on an annual basis. Years of inaction in the field of gender equality have only compounded the problem. Policies implemented a decade ago are now outdated and limit our potential to effectively include women in our nation's growth. Our government is committed to changing this, and that is why we are moving forward with proactive pay equity legislation through Bill C-86.

It is pretty straightforward to get a basic grasp of how flawed the current system of pay equity in Canada actually is. For example, the model we currently use is based on responding to complaints. This has proven to be ineffective for current times, because it puts the onus on workers to challenge pay discrimination. Bill C-86 would remove the complaint-based reactive system and replace it with a new regime that was proactive and that placed responsibility on employers to ensure that their compensation practices were balanced.

Second, as an additional obligation, the proposed legislation would require federally regulated public and private sector employers to establish and maintain a pay equity plan. This is because we understand the necessity of redressing the systemic gender-based discrimination experienced by employees who occupy positions in predominantly female job classes.

Bill C-86 lays out two sets of requirements, one for employers with between 10 and 99 employees and one for workplaces with 100 or more employees. According to this bill, federally regulated public and private entities would be obliged to set out specific timelines for implementation and do a compulsory review of their pay equity strategies. The bill would also permit the government to apply accountability measures to ensure that the compensation practices were consistent with the new requirements.

Further, the proposed legislation would require federally regulated employers across the banking, transport and telecommunication sectors, for example, to review their pay equity plans every five years to ensure that pay gaps had not surfaced since the plan first came into effect. If a pay gap was created, the employer would be expected to retroactively pay those female employees who were making less than they deserved.

I want to turn now to a third important component of Bill C-86. The bill would create the position of pay equity commissioner, who would have a professional team to assist in enforcing the new approaches to pay equity entrenched in the proposed legislation. This pay equity commissioner would facilitate the resolution of disputes, conduct compliance audits and investigate objections and complaints. The pay equity commissioner would have the means to impose fines should an employer be found to not be paying employees equally, and he or she would then report annually to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of this proposed legislation.

Fourth, Bill C-86 would establish pay equity standards, from the Prime Minister's office to all parliamentary workplaces throughout Canada. This is part of our whole-of-government approach to addressing gender inequality. Through this bill, for example, we would formalize our commitment to promoting gender equality and increasing the participation of women in the labour force by establishing concrete reporting requirements for analyzing budgets through a gender lens.

As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, I am also proud of the whole-of-government work we have done under the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice to ensure that a gender lens is applied to efforts to increase access to justice and legal reform.

Bill C-78 is a case in point. That bill, as part of our whole-of-government approach towards gender, takes specific aim at the plight of middle-class women struggling to access spousal and child support they are owed after a marital breakdown. Via Bill C-78, we would be taking steps to facilitate access to information about a former spouse's assets via the Canada Revenue Agency and their records. That would prevent spouses from hiding assets and ensure that more women were paid the spousal and child support they rightly deserve. I say “women” in this context, because we know that in this country, over $1 billion is owed in enforcement arrears to those owed spousal and child support. We also know that among the entire group in an enforcement arrears situation, 96% of the people owed money are women who are owed money by men.

I outline this example of Bill C-78 as a further example of the whole-of-government approach we have taken on this side of the chamber in terms of our approach to addressing gender inequity.

Bill C-86 is clearly an example of such legislation. It would make Status of Women a full department, called the department of women and gender equality, or WAGE.

It is well established that gender equality creates economic growth, thus entrenching the department of women and gender equality would strengthen our capacity to advance gender equality and grow the middle class through policy, programming and the support of equality-seeking organizations and community partners. The mandate of this new formalized department would further promote gender equality by breaking down barriers in respect of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

Status of Women has been working on the issue of pay inequity for decades, but Bill C-86 would secure the department's place as a centre of gender expertise. It would recognize its work as a driver of economic growth and make it less vulnerable to alterations without widespread public debate and discourse. In addition, we are determined to formalize this new department to ensure that no future government ever again questions the importance of equal pay for work of equal value in Canadian society.

As I mentioned at the very outset, pay equity is not a zero-sum game. Giving to one gender is not about taking from another. To the contrary, pay inequity that has persisted for so long is actually limiting our growth. It is damaging to the development of our nation. I know this, my constituents in Parkdale—High Park know this, and our government knows this.

The “Global Gender Gap Report 2017”, from the World Economic Forum, substantiated that it will take approximately 217 years to close the economic gender gap worldwide if present trends are allowed to continue. They will not be allowed to continue, not under our government's watch.

It is essential for us to implement policies that will remove barriers that prevent women in the labour force from being fairly compensated for their work. It is critical that the Government of Canada uphold the basic principles of equality and fairness and continue to build a country and an economy that works for all genders.

From appointing the first gender-balanced federal cabinet and the first federal minister fully dedicated to gender issues, to tabling Canada's first-ever budget analyzed through a gender-based lens, to launching Canada's first-ever strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence, to an unparalleled focus on women and girls in our international development assistance, our government has demonstrated that it is committed to advancing gender equality within Canada and around the world.

Pay equity for women is long overdue. I am proud to support this bill, and I encourage every one of my colleagues in this chamber to do the very same.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, given my colleague's speech, I just wonder if he advocated for a gender-based analysis on the closure of the immigration office in Vegreville, which was done without consultation and without an economic impact assessment and which will, in fact, cost millions more to be relocated to Edmonton.

The reason I ask, of course, is that nearly 80% of the employees are women. In some cases, they are now having to drive to Edmonton. Others are not able to make that work. The impact on the community is wide-ranging, throughout the school system, for kids, for charitable organizations, and for multiple small businesses and farms that are owned by the women who work in those offices.

I would just like to ask if the hon. member insisted on that when he defended that decision. If he did not, how could the member be so hypocritical giving this speech today?

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that since we have taken office, all the government's decisions across every department have been subjected to a gender-based analysis and a gender equity lens. That includes decisions which relate to the Vegreville processing centre that was located in her riding.

I also emphasize for the member opposite that on a macro approach, as I mentioned, a whole-of-government approach, all our decisions, including the decisions taken at immigration, have a positive impact on women. Let me list some of them: speeding up spousal sponsorships so spouses are reunited within one year, reunifying families so parents are reunified with their children, and bringing in Yazidi refugees, including Yazidi women, who have been victimized by Daesh. We have brought in 1,200 and the previous government brought in three.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this bill, there are new measures that were not mentioned in the budget published last February, such as amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act so that commercial licence holders and corporations would basically be protected. I do not know where that came from and why it is in this bill. There has never been discussion on it, and I did not even know there was a problem.

However, what was mentioned in the budget was protecting Canadian pensions and that amendments would have to be made to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, but it has been omitted in the bill. Why is the government amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for companies but it is not protecting pensions mentioned in the budget?

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, our government treats the issues of pensions, retirement security and seniors in this country as significant priorities. We have recently appointed a Minister of Seniors. We have worked very hard over the last two years on pension reform, specifically addressing the gaps in the CPP and ensuring it will be sustainable for the future.

In terms of what we are doing for seniors, we have reduced the age of retirement from 67 years down to 65 years. Sixty-seven was the target for the previous government. We have also increased the GIS to take low-income seniors out of poverty.

These measures tangibly demonstrate our commitment to retirement security and pension security for the seniors in this country.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, pay equity is an important issue. The parliamentary secretary even decided to talk about it in his speech. Every step towards pay equity is important.

My question is this: if it is so important, why wait three years, and why bury this important issue in an 850-page omnibus bill? Why not draft a separate bill for this?

Earlier, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons indicated that they would be moving time allocation yet again, even on this important issue. Why not take the time to really discuss this by addressing the issue of pay equity separately? Why not draft a separate bill, so that this does not get buried in our deliberations and we can take the time to really dig into this important issue?

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for her question.

I can highlight two points. First of all, yes, this did take some time. We made a promise during the election campaign, and the minister made a promise here in the House. We did a study and consulted individuals and stakeholders across the country. We introduced the bill following those consultations.

Second, she asked why this is being included in a budget implementation act, why it was not given its own bill.

I would say it is because the budget represents our government's top priorities. If pay equity is included in a budget implementation act, that means we regard it as a very important priority. It also shows that we have confidence in our government and in our economy.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address this chamber on the provisions of Bill C-86 that amend the Canada Business Corporation Act, the CBCA, and to state my support for Bill C-86.

Corporations are a pillar of the economy. Despite drastic changes to the marketplace, they remain engines of economic growth, innovation and jobs. In almost all cases, corporations serve the legitimate commercial purpose of their owners, the vast majority of whom are hard-working Canadians. In particular, corporations are a conduit through which individuals can make strategic investments and take calculated risks without jeopardizing their personal financial security and that of their families. In return, this helps to ensure the free flow of commerce, innovation, employment and prosperity.

Even though the word “corporation” tends to make us think of multinational companies headquartered in giant office towers, the reality is that most corporations are small businesses with relatively simple ownership and governance structures. I owned one of those prior to becoming a member of Parliament in Richmond Hill, and 85% of the small businesses in my riding could fit into that model very well.

Unfortunately, as with many things, it is also possible for a few ill-intentioned individuals to use corporations for improper or illegal ends. For example, an individual could attempt to hide illicit activities, such as money laundering, tax evasion or even terrorist financing by concealing these activities within the operation of a legally separate and distinct corporate entity with a byzantine ownership structure. Needless to say, any abuse of this sort in Canada harms Canada's reputation as a safe, fair and competitive place for doing business and casts the exceedingly far greater number of legitimate Canadian businesses in an unjust light.

I am sure that members are all aware of the recent reports about snow washing, the practice of using Canada as a base for corporate criminal activities, hiding behind our country's solid international standing. Our government is committed to curbing and deterring this type of abuse.

Canada is a member of the Financial Action Task Force, the FATF, an intergovernmental body that has set standards on transparency for corporate control and beneficial owners, that is, those who truly and ultimately own or control businesses, no matter what intermediaries they may have in place. The FATF standards require that appropriate authorities have timely access to accurate and current information about who ultimately owns and controls corporations in order to combat those criminal activities that can be perpetrated through the misuse of corporations and their ownership structures.

While we have made important efforts to curb these bad practices through our financial and taxation regimes, neither our federal corporate statute, the CBCA, nor its provincial and territorial counterparts require corporations to assemble information about their beneficial ownership. It is important that we reinforce our efforts in other areas with these changes to corporate statutes.

I mentioned the provincial and territorial laws just now. Incorporation is an area of responsibility divided between the two levels of government and it so happens that the vast majority of Canadian corporations, some 90% approximately, are incorporated at the provincial and territorial levels, leaving only some 10% of businesses incorporated federally under the CBCA. The provincial and territorial corporate laws under which the 90% of corporations fall are very similar in substance to the CBCA, but Parliament cannot alter them.

This means that any effort to correct a gap in corporate law has to be a team effort. The government must collaborate with the 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions to make similar improvements in each respective statute; otherwise, we run the risk of asymmetrical regulation that can be exploited by wrongdoers.

Our 2017 budget recognized this, calling for collaboration between the levels of government to devise a strategy to shore up and strengthen our corporate landscape, and collaborate they did. A working group representing all 14 Canadian jurisdictions gave us an exemplary model of intergovernmental co-operation over many months, overcoming the idiosyncrasies of different legislation and operations to put together a viable plan to take an important first step in bringing more transparency to Canadian corporate structures.

Following on from the recommendations of the working group, in December 2017, all of the Canadian finance ministers agreed in principle to pursue legislative amendments to their corporate laws, with a view to putting them in place by the summer of 2019. These changes will require corporations to hold accurate, up-to-date information on their beneficial owners. Our 2018 budget formalized this commitment at the federal level.

That brings us to the proposed amendments before us today. These would only affect the CBCA, of course, but given the finance ministers' agreement, we expect the provinces and territories to follow suit in amending their constituent corporate statutes.

What the bill proposes is for privately held corporations to compile a list of those individuals who exercise significant control over them, whether through direct ownership, beneficial ownership, or other means. The law will set out criteria for who falls into this class of significant control, principally by way of thresholds as to how many and what kind of shares an individual controls.

Corporations will need to find some basic information about those individuals, some demographic data, and the how and when with respect to their exercise of control. They will take this information and put it in a register that they store in their corporate books, similar to what they do for their other shareholder information.

I would like to emphasize again that these new measures would only apply to privately held corporations. Publicly traded corporations already make numerous filings that promote transparency under provincial securities rules or stock exchange listing requirements, including about beneficial owners. These safeguards, combined with the difficulty in controlling a company with a diffuse ownership structure, mean they are not the main area of concern here.

Once this information is on hand, corporations will be required to update it at least once a year. This means doing their due diligence, taking reasonable steps to make sure the information is still accurate. As I mentioned, most Canadian corporations are small businesses with a simple ownership structure, and this should not be too difficult a task for them to handle.

We must take it one step at a time, however, and weigh our options at each stage to be sure that what we do makes the most sense for Canada and its provinces and territories. To that end, the important changes proposed by these amendments, and eventually those at the provincial and territorial level as well, set us on our path to making our marketplace safer and more transparent in corporate governance and toward maintaining our international commitments. These changes will help to enhance Canada's reputation as a place to do business and thereby further support the overwhelming majority of hard-working Canadians who own and control corporations for legitimate purposes.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member who spoke just now about transparency. I would like to ask him if he considers the following to be a transparent debate. We had a 850-page bill dropped on Parliament on Monday. Today is Thursday. There have been 4.5 hours of debate, only one speech allocated to the NDP, and the government has just announced time allocation on this bill of over 1,000 sections.

How is that transparent? How can we do our jobs as parliamentarians in scrutinizing such a mammoth omnibus bill?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the focus of my speech was on ensuring corporate accountability through transparency of control. That is the transparency I was talking about. Our government is committed to combatting tax evasion and avoidance to keep our tax system fair, making sure that money stays within small businesses, and focusing on growth and creating jobs.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I understand that my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie was very disappointed today that the government has decided not to allocate additional funding for the ambassador for women, peace and security. I know the government is seeking a seat on the Security Council. Clearly, this is the big topic of the day.

I wonder what the member thinks about the fact this is missing from this massive bill before us. Given that we have a Prime Minister who declares himself a feminist, we would have thought a matter like that would be given high priority in this bill. Would the member like to speak to that?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again, the scope of my speech was on ensuring corporate accountability through transparency of control. By the way, I am quite proud of the Prime Minister and the focus his continued focus on various issues. As part of this commitment, we are taking action to ensure that corporate structures cannot be misused to launder money, evade taxes or participate in other serious criminal activities.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems that New Democrats think we have too many pages in our budget and that we are doing too much for Canadians. I hear the Conservatives saying that we should not be investing in our economy and should focus on limiting our vision for Canada. This bill reflects the complexity of the challenge of making Canada fairer and the economy work for all Canadians. During the INDU committee's studies, the committee looked at Bill C-25 and the composition of boards. It also looked at beneficial ownership to try to make sure that women can participate on boards and in management. Other parts of the budget bill are supporting women in business.

Could the hon. member comment on the importance of proper governance so that women have a fair chance in our economy?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of serving with my colleague from Guelph on the INDU committee, as well as in regard to our joint initiative on mental health.

The hon. member is quite correct. When we were studying Bill C-25, the topic of ownership, specifically by women, came up in the study. We realized that whenever there is fair representation of females, corporations on average perform in the neighbourhood of 30% better. We welcome Bill C-25 and also the measures in this act that support female participation in corporate structures, as well as making sure we have proper representation.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Hamilton Mountain.

The first thing I want to address is the length of this bill, which is 850 pages long and has many clauses. We asked all kinds of questions about how many clauses and subclauses are in the bill, but we still do not have an answer. This is unacceptable and shows a lack of respect for opposition parliamentarians and the general public.

The Liberals are clearly hoping the opposition will drown trying to wade through this massive bill. This tactic is nothing new, as we saw the same thing with the former Conservative government. However, at the time, the Liberals were vocal critics of such bills. Now, they are doing the same thing. As I have said many times in the House, the more things change, the more they stay the same, unfortunately.

Omnibus bills subvert and evade the normal principles of parliamentary review of legislation. The longer a bill is, the harder it is for opposition members to do their due diligence, since they do not have enough time to study the bill carefully.

As an aside, I want to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for yesterday's point of order on this topic.

At any rate, this undemocratic strategy does nothing to improve the low regard Canadians have for politicians. I do not know how the Liberals intend to regain Canadians' confidence when they use this type of abusive tactic after promising a more transparent democracy. The way they are rushing through the study of Bill C-86 is anything but transparent.

When we examine Bill C-86 more closely, we quickly see that it fails to take bold action to address the injustices faced by thousands of Canadians. One of those injustices is pension theft. We have talked about that a lot over the past few days, and I know that my colleague from Hamilton just talked about it, but as the labour critic, this is an issue that I care about, so I wanted to take some time to talk about it in my speech.

We need to protect pensions. When a company declares bankruptcy, banks and investors make off with employees' retirement pensions through a clever financial shell game. We need to fix this major problem. This happened to Sears employees recently, and nothing was done.

There are people in my riding of Jonquière who worked for Sears. Unfortunately, they suffered a tremendous amount of stress because they did not know what would happen to their pensions and benefits. The store shut down overnight. There was nothing left. I have spoken with these former Sears employees, and they still have serious concerns.

Tolerating these dishonest tricks is a real moral failure on the government's part. The Liberals have the opportunity to make a real difference, but they refuse to do anything about this.

Another glaring example of the Liberals' lack of will is the missed opportunity to make drugs more affordable for Canadians and save billions of dollars by bringing in national pharmacare. Canada is the only country in the G7 to have a medicare system that does not cover prescription drugs.

For years, successive commissions of inquiry led by experts have urged Canada to include drug costs in our health care program. Despite these appeals, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have made little progress on drug insurance because they lacked the will to effect change. Unfortunately, that is still the case with Bill C-86.

Public drug insurance plans in Canada have evolved and now offer relatively full coverage, but only for part of the population. The problem is not insignificant: an estimated 10% to 20% of our population does not have any health insurance.

Even if people are lucky enough to have a private drug plan, they still have to pay the deductible.

The NDP is outraged that many Canadians are forced to cut up their pills or interrupt their treatments because of the cost of drugs. That is absolutely shameful.

Canadians deserve to get the drugs they need without putting their savings, wages or health at risk. That is their right and the Liberals have denied them that right by failing to include this key issue in Bill C-86.

Another example is compensation for dairy producers who were sacrificed in free trade agreements and for the steel and aluminum industry that has been hit for months by the tariffs imposed by the United States.

As I mentioned several times, dairy producers in my riding of Jonquière are waiting for compensation. In the last agreement, for example, dairy producers had to innovate and pay out of pocket to access a program, but that is another story. There has been a 10% breach in supply management, which will result in considerable losses. Generations of farm families will be affected. I hope that the government will do something for them. The Liberals had the opportunity to do something for these families in Bill C-86, but they did nothing.

Now I would like to talk about the steel and aluminum industries because a number of small businesses in my riding are being hit by the tariffs the Americans have not withdrawn. Companies are losing lots of business and laying people off because of those tariffs.

I had the opportunity to hear from witnesses in committee this week. They came to tell us about the impact of U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, and they all said the same thing.

The government is trying to do the right thing, but the reality is that the Liberals are taking too long to compensate companies for the unjust and unjustified American tariffs. Wait times are long, and it takes a lot of time and resources to fill out the necessary forms. As everyone knows, these businesses are crucial to economic growth, to the survival of good Canadian jobs and to the prosperity of our communities.

Now back to agriculture and supply management.

One after another, the government opened three breaches in supply management, but Bill C-86 is absolutely silent on the subject.

I had a chance to talk to people from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture who told me they are in dire need of cash. Farmers are not interested in programs. That bears repeating often to make sure the government here in the House of Commons gets the message and does something to safeguard our family farms and our food sovereignty.

The government is also putting our rural communities on the back burner when it comes to integration and development. The Liberals are showing once again that they do not have the courage to address the inequalities between rural regions and urban centres. Some very simple examples of that include mobile phones and high-speed Internet access. Here in Ottawa, it is very easy. When we turn on our phones, we have everything we need. We can access information and download things very quickly. However, things are very different in rural areas. The municipalities of Lamarche and Labrecque are being penalized and that is hindering their expansion and making it harder to keep people from leaving.

Time is running out, but I still have a lot to say about this very large bill.

A number of aspects of the bill, including pay equity and pensions, should have been dealt with separately. These are very critical, very important issues. My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby asked that the bill be split, and that is what should have been done.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if we look at the act, because of this government, there is an opportunity, through the Speaker's chair, to see the splitting potentially of the legislation when it comes time for voting. That was not there previously.

Over 100 pages of the legislation deal with the issue of pay equity, which is long overdue. It is a part of the budget process and it is one of the reasons why we have 800 pages, over 100 dealing specifically with pay equity.

Would the member agree that the time for studying, in good part, is over and we need to see some action? That is what we see in the budget. Would she not support that?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful question.

As he just mentioned, the bill has 850-odd pages. We have been talking about pay equity for more than 42 years. If pay equity is so important, why did they not split Bill C-86? Why not introduce a single bill on pay equity? That would allow all Canadians to follow the debates, read the bill and really understand it.

This is an omnibus bill. The government promised us transparency, but that is not what we are seeing. In committee, members will have 13 hours to ask questions. We have done the math. Given the number of pages, clauses and paragraphs—a number we cannot exactly pin down—we will have an average of nine seconds to read and understand each clause. We have also just learned that time allocation will be invoked. That is unacceptable.

Therefore, if the pay equity bill was that important to our feminist Prime Minister, the Liberals would have introduced it as a stand-alone bill and we could have debated it here in the House all in one go.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the environment is very important to my colleague and to her party.

I am wondering whether she has any advice to give regarding the carbon tax and whether she thinks the carbon tax is really the best way for the government to save the environment, especially in the budget, or does she think there is another way the government could save the environment?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for asking it in French.

I would have liked to see some environmentally sustainable measures as well as innovative, keystone projects in Bill C-86. The government is rather tight-fisted in that respect, and yet it had no problem buying a 65-year-old pipeline and investing so much of Canadian taxpayers' money in that.

Why are there no innovative, keystone projects moving towards green energy, projects that would bring people together and give them hope?

A couple weeks ago, I attended a conference organized by the Association forestière Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean around the theme of the boreal forest and climate change. All the researchers who presented unanimously agreed that we have less than 12 years. We are at T minus 11 years. Urgent action is needed.

In an omnibus bill that is over 850 pages long, I would have expected to find concrete measures as well as innovative, keystone projects to fight climate change and also to give future generations some hope.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-86, the government's budget implementation act. This massive 800-page omnibus bill contains thousands of clauses, and there are seven separate stand-alone pieces of legislation inside it. I am hoping Canadians can understand why this type of bill presents a real danger to our democracy.

Canadians elect us to come to come to Ottawa and debate issues and create laws that will help them and their families. Real debate requires that all participants have all the information they need. The facts should be accessible. Access to the information should be transparent.

I think most Canadians will understand that governments present these kinds of mammoth documents to make it more difficult to analyze what the government is up to. This of course makes it more difficult to have a full and informed debate. Who suffers? It is Canadians who suffer. It is the people who elect us to represent them who suffer. I hope Canadians and all our constituents can see through what the government is up to in dropping such a thick and complicated bill on the table.

This is a bill that is supposed to implement some of the measures introduced in the government's budget from eight months ago. On the face of it, that is not unusual. What is unusual and what is concerning is that the bill introduces new and additional measures not mentioned in the original budget documents published last February. This is very concerning. These are new measures that should at least be put into separate bills, introduced in the House, and then fully debated and considered by all of us right here. However, that is not what is happening here.

It is most sensible that Canadians would wonder what is at play when a government behaves like this. Are the Liberals afraid of having their measures and ideas debated? Are they afraid of criticism? Are they trying to hide something? The answer to all those questions is probably, yes, and I am willing to count on Canadians, our constituents, to decide for themselves.

Yesterday my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out just a few of the measures that we could not find anywhere in the original budget documents. These include clauses 461 to 462, which refer to some rather important legislation relating to protection for workers and workers' rights; and clauses 535 to 625, which deal with the Canada Labour Code and workers' health and safety. I am sure we will find more examples as we continue to examine this massive bill.

I want to point out that we are not necessarily against these measures. The point is that the size of the bill prevents us from being able to take time to study these new measures in-depth. That is unfair to all of us as members in the House and unfair to the constituents we represent.

Another example of measures introduced in this bill and not mentioned in any of the budget document is the proposed changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. These measures have been described to me as housekeeping changes, which I suspect they probably are. They would clarify some issues with Canada's bankruptcy laws to protect commercial licence-holders and corporations. I do not necessarily oppose these changes being made. However, I have two concerns.

First, these changes were not mentioned in any of the budget documentation I have seen, so why are they in legislation meant to enact that budget? It is very much like they were just slipped in, perhaps, with the hope that no one would notice, and that is wrong. All members of Parliament need and deserve proper notice of any change to Canadian laws being suggested through the House. Proper notice would allow us not only the chance to analyze and understand the changes, but also an opportunity to offer any amendment that would make those changes better or more effective. Sliding amendments into a massive bill robs us of all of our opportunity.

My second concern is why the Liberals decided to propose amendments to Canada's bankruptcy laws, which was never mentioned in February, while failing to take on the items they did mention.

In a section of February's budget titled, “Protecting Canadians' Pensions”, the government promised to take action using a whole-of-government, evidence-based approach toward addressing retirement security for all Canadians. It also promised there would be consultations so the government could decide on what its approach would be. I think we all expected those consultations would be done by now. However, as far as we know, they have not even started and there is no plan for when they will start. Why would the government not have completed those consultations and included provisions in this current bill? That is what we expected. That is what Canadian retirees expected too.

It sure seems that the government is happy to make changes to help big corporations and wealthy executives, but when it comes down to protecting people's pensions, the Liberals are not able to act. They say “sorry, it's too complicated”.

We all know that Canadian companies use our inadequate bankruptcy laws to effectively gain concessions from their employees and escape responsibility for huge pension deficits they themselves have created. Workers are then left with the threat of reduced pensions and health care benefits.

We all know that over the last 10 years there has been an increased focus on the problems with Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and insolvency laws. The cases of Nortel, Wabush Mines, Stelco and, most recently, Sears have brought into national focus the fact that workers at large companies that go bankrupt are offered very little protection, while investors, banks, and sometimes international hedge fund operators make out like bandits.

We all know that one of the most offensive things that happens during bankruptcy proceedings is that executives give themselves huge bonuses. The very people who ran the company into the ground get big rewards, and it is done because the law allows it to happen. Nortel executives got over $200 million in bonuses, Sears executives $9.2 million and Stelco executives $1.2 million while at the same time pensioners were asked to take cuts to their medical benefits.

When I go across Canada for town halls, I have tell the people this. They always come back and ask if I am kidding them, and I have to tell them that I am not, that this really happens, because the law allows it to happen. We know these abuses are not right and that our laws allow for the theft of workers' and retirees' pensions and benefits. Canadian workers and retirees know it is not right, and they are demanding that the laws be changed. Therefore, Canadians need to ask themselves why the government refuses to act to protect them.

It is not too late. The government can take action now. The NDP will be pushing the government to do the right thing, to amend the bill and put an end to pension theft. Canadian workers and their families deserve no less.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot about pensions, and justifiably so, from my friends on the New Democratic side. However, I want to emphasize that this government has taken a number of steps dealing with seniors.

The first thing that comes across my mind is that the government has increased the guaranteed income supplement significantly for the poorest of our seniors. Some seniors receive over $900 additionally every year. Here I also think of the agreement on the CPP, a retirement pension, that the Minister of Finance was able to reach in co-operation with our provinces and territories. It will help many of the individuals my friend is talking about today when it comes time to retire. One of the first actions the government took was to bring down the age of retirement for OAS from 67 to 65. My colleague across the way will recall what Mr. Harper did back then, and we were able to reverse that.

Would the member provide his thoughts on those particular policy initiatives?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for asking those important questions. We on this side give you kudos for making those changes, reversing what the previous Conservative government did.

There are good things, such as reducing the age of eligibility back to 65. The GIS is a good thing. The CPP, well, maybe in 50 years the changes will be good, though you and I will not be around then. We are thankful for that, but what we are talking about here is pension theft.

We know that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have had their pensions reduced because of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. If the Liberals want to be praised for helping seniors, why are they not protecting them from this pension theft that they know is wrong? We all know it is wrong. Why are they not taking action?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time is up now, but the member will have three minutes for questions and comments the next time this issue is before the House. I would also remind the member that he should have been addressing all of his questions and comments to the chair, and not to the individual member.

It being 5:58 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I should tell you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood.

I am delighted to rise in the House today to discuss an important element of Bill C-86, the budget implementation act.

The element I want to talk about is intended to strengthen a measure that we have already discussed, one that is especially important for low-income workers. I am referring to the Canada workers benefit.

With this bill, the government will make it easier for this benefit to reach workers who are entitled to it. Thanks to this bill, everyone who is entitled to the Canada workers benefit will receive it when they file their tax return.

Our government knows that Canadians are working hard to build a better life for themselves and their families. Some low-income Canadians are working two or three jobs. They work really hard. Like all Canadians, these workers deserve to be rewarded for their hard work with a fair chance to succeed.

With budget 2018, our government took a step in that direction. This is one more step towards growing our economy in a way that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

In its most recent budget, our government introduced the new Canada workers benefit, which will come into force in 2019. It is an enhanced version of the working income tax benefit.

This new benefit will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers. It will not only increase benefits for those who received it for their employment income, but also expand the income range to make more workers eligible. For example, with this new benefit, a low-income worker who earns $15,000 per year will collect up to $500 more in benefits in 2019 than in 2018.

That is the kind of real help that will benefit over two million Canadians. Most importantly, we believe this measure will lift about 74,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020. That is not all. In budget 2018, our government also increased the maximum benefit provided through the Canada workers benefit disability supplement by an additional $160 to offer greater support to Canadians with disabilities who face financial barriers to entering the workforce.

This benefit will also be issued automatically, which is good news.

However, it is possible to do even better. The bill that we are discussing today will make it easier for workers to access the benefits they are entitled to, as our government promised in the last budget.

Accordingly, the bill proposes to make changes that will allow the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the benefit for any taxpayers who did not apply for it on their income tax return.

It is not a problem if people forget or fail to complete the benefit schedule of their income tax return. The Canada Revenue Agency will still do the calculation. If the person is entitled to the Canada workers benefit, he or she will receive it. Thanks to the CRA's new automatic enrolment system, as of 2019, all those who are entitled to the Canada workers benefit will receive it, whether they applied for it or not. That is very good news for Canadians.

In closing, I would like to point out that this is not the only good news. The Canada workers benefit is just one of many measures to help those who need it most.

There is also the Canada child benefit, a key initiative for strengthening the middle class. Thanks to this measure, nine in 10 families now have more money in their pockets. Over three million Canadian families are entitled to over $23 billion in annual payments.

This money will help them give their children a good start in life by providing them a safe environment, healthy food, and the opportunity to participate in recreational activities such as music and sports.

The Canada child benefit has helped lift more than half a million people in Canada, including more than 300,000 children, out of poverty. In addition, this benefit has been indexed to cost-of-living increases since July, two years sooner than initially planned.

Another measure is the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors living alone. This increase improves the financial security of nearly 900,000 Canadian seniors, 70% of whom are women. This measure is very much appreciated in my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

These are excellent examples of smart, responsible investments made by the Government of Canada in the interest of families, communities and the economy. These investments leave more money in the hands of those who need it most, which helps increase Canadians' confidence in what the future has in store for us.

As the economy keeps growing and high-paying jobs are created, our government will continue to ensure that all Canadians share in the success and benefit from it.

This budget implementation bill will help more Canadians who could use a hand up by ensuring that everyone who is entitled to the Canada workers benefit receives this additional assistance.

I want to add that, for my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and Canadians across the country, our government has created more than 500,000 full-time jobs since we came to power.

The unemployment rate is at an historic 40-year low. Our plan is working.

In the 2015 election, Canadians had a choice between a plan offering austerity and cuts and our government's plan to invest in the middle class and build an economy that works for everyone. The outcome speaks for itself.

As I said earlier, wages are going up, consumer and business confidence is strong, and Canada's economy is among the highest-performing in the G7. That is no small feat.

Middle-class Canadians see first-hand that our plan is working. By this time next year, a typical family of four will have over $2,000 more in their pockets. Two thousand dollars is a lot of money to spend in our economy.

Budget 2018 is the next step in our plan. It supports our government's people-oriented approach and will ensure that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success.

As part of budget 2018, our government continues to work on building an equal, competitive, sustainable and fair Canada. In light of such positive results, I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this bill.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member speak about all the expenses and so-called investments the government is making. Certainly the Liberals are good at spending. We have seen that through the last number of budgets. What they are not so good at is balancing the budget.

The member said that Canadians chose the Liberals' plan over our plan. What they did not choose is to continue deficit spending into 2045, with no plan to balance the budget. In fact, the interest costs alone to Canadians are currently $30 billion. Just think of what we could do with those dollars that are going out the window for interest in terms of investments in infrastructure and health care. We could be investing that money in many other things.

I am concerned about the future. I am concerned about the future for my children and my nine grandchildren and what kind of debt we are leaving them. I am wondering if my colleague has no concern at all about the unbelievable costs we are simply kicking down the road to the next generation, forcing them to pay for the things we should not be spending money on right now.

We should be balancing the budget. We are in a time of economic growth. There is no reason to have deficit spending. Is my colleague not concerned about these things?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You mentioned your grandchildren as you are a grandfather. I would like to inform members that I have been a grandmother since—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would like to remind the member that she must address the Chair and not the other members.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, given that the member mentioned his grandchildren, I would like to inform the House that I became a grandmother on Wednesday.

To answer my colleague's question, yes, it is important to think about our grandchildren and to ensure that our economy will be very strong and that things will go well.

Since 2015, we have created 500,000 jobs, the unemployment rate is the lowest it has ever been and the debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest of the G7 countries.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully as my colleague talked about poverty, families and children, yet there are still 1.2 million children living in poverty in Canada, and 38% of aboriginal children live in poverty. Those statistics have not changed in 10 years. Once again this year, statistics show that, despite the Canada child benefit, there are still 1.2 million children living in poverty. We know everything that has been announced, but we need more than just half-measures to give families the help they need.

As a member from Quebec, my colleague knows very well that a universal, affordable child care program is the solution to help families. We can give them $2,000, but if they have to pay $60 a day for child care, what is the point? In this 851-page bill, there is nothing about child care and nothing about agriculture. There are a lot of things missing from these 851 pages, actually.

Perhaps the member could explain this to me.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a question about children.

Beginning in 2019, the Canada child benefit is going to be indexed annually to the cost of living. That is two years earlier than planned.

Some three million families are receiving $23 billion in annual benefit payments. This is already helping Canadian families immensely. Our economy is doing well. We have created 500,000 jobs in the last three years. Unemployment has never been so low. The economy is doing well.

I am sympathetic to what my colleague is saying. We are fortunate in Quebec to have more affordable child care, but the Canada child benefit is a measure that is having an impact on all Canadian families.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up where the member for Kitchener—Conestoga left off about expenditures verses being able to actually balance the budget.

Among all the new expenditures that have been discussed, is the member aware that the budget this budget implementation act is attached to predicted that the differential on Alberta crude would shrink to below $15 a barrel? This has a significant impact on future revenue for the government, and with the failure on pipelines, this has gone up to over $50 per barrel, not below $15.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague referred to Alberta.

I am going to talk about the price on pollution, which goes hand in hand with economic development. Members on the other side have not talked about this.

I personally believe that we have to provide for future generations. Our government has implemented some measures to ensure that every environmental consideration is taken into account.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. At times we do not recognize our blessings in our country for the way things are unfolding. I would like to attribute it all to the government's wisdom, knowledge and political acumen. That is, of course, a critical point. Nevertheless, as a nation, we do have many blessings and many things to be thankful for, and we do not recognize some of the things for which we should be thankful.

For the first part of my speech, I will focus on the issues of trade. The government has signed three trade deals in the past while, the most recent being the CPTPP, an acronym that is challenging at the best of times. It includes 16 countries, six of which are Asian countries. We only had one previous trade deal with an Asian country, so it is like getting six new trade deals simultaneously. It reduces our dependence on one market. We have seen what our dependence on one market can create for us, which is an unhealthy dependency. The last Conservative questioner talked about the gap between Alberta crude and other oils, and we do sell it at a significant discount because we are dependent entirely on one market for that product.

This is a good deal, and I am glad to see that we ratified it and moved it forward. Ironically, the U.S. is on the outside looking in. We have 16 nations that are now prepared to trade with each other on a fair trade basis, and it is a better situation for us all. In fact, if we are to pursue a trade deal with China, it is probably better that we pursue a trade deal with this collective rather than on an individual basis. There is significance to this trade deal, which has yet to play out.

The second deal was the CETA, which was the European deal. I will give credit where credit is due. The previous government did a lot of the heavy lifting with respect to that deal. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs completed the deal, and it is now in place. Access is something in the order of about 300 million to 400 million people in 20 plus countries. This is, again, a tremendous opportunity for us to diversify our market.

The third deal is the one that got all of the ink, namely, the USMCA. The USMCA deal is always going to be a critical deal for us because of our relationship with the Americans on the North American continent.

If there is a lesson to be learned out of all of these trade deals, it is that we need to lessen our dependence on one market and get into other markets. Hopefully, the combination of these deals will get us into other markets, at least a billion people, possibly as many as two billion people, and in the order of 40 plus countries.

One plus one plus one actually makes more than three, because the collective of being able to ship into and out of North America to Europe and the Pacific nations is of enormous benefit to those businesses that operate out of Canada.

Let me turn now to the state of the economy. As I indicated earlier, we are blessed. There have been some very prescient moves made by the Government of Canada, which have paid off. We have just signed the largest private deal in the history of Canada, the $40-billion LNG deal. That was done in a way that recognized a lot of the claims by indigenous nations along the length of the pipeline and at the terminus. That is, ultimately, a really good opportunity for western Canada.

On the monetary side of things, inflation is largely under control. That is entirely due to the stewardship of the Bank of Canada. Interest rates are creeping up, which creates some situations where debt, particularly private debt, is at risk, but by and large, the monetary side of things is quite good.

On the fiscal side of things, we have a fairly robust economy, the top-performing economy in the G7. We have, as I said, the largest private deal ever in Canada in the history of private business. We have historically low unemployment rates. At this point, the economy has created something in the order of 500,000 new jobs in the last three years.

The debt-to-GDP ratio is in a steady state. I, like others, would be keen to see debt reduction, but at the same time, I am concerned about the major issue of growing income inequality. In some respects, the government has rightly attempted to address the issue of growing inequality among Canadians. I think we can all agree that monetary or economic gaps among citizens are to be reduced in as many instances as possible. We started off with the middle-class tax cut, which was a significant reduction in income tax for middle-class Canadians, and in a very courageous political move, we increased the rate for the top 1% of tax filers.

Small business rates have been reduced from 11% down to 9%.

One of the most significant social initiatives ever taken by any government was the Canada child benefit, where nine out of 10 families with children will benefit. Those who need it most get the most. For my riding of Scarborough—Guildwood, which I have the honour to represent, that means $100 million a year. A lot of kids are growing up in Scarborough—Guildwood and there are also a lot of poor families in Scarborough—Guildwood. The combination of the two means that benefit is of real significance to those families.

That means there is money ending up where we want it to end up, mainly in the hands of people who need it. That money will immediately be returned to the economy in the form of food and clothing purchases, transportation, etc. It gets circulated back as opposed to giving tax breaks to those who possibly do not need them. Those monies generally go into savings. While not exclusively dead money, it is money that is “languid” as opposed to money going into the CCB benefit, which is active. This is all to reduce income inequality in Canada.

Those who want to live the American dream should move to Canada, because the reality is that people move out of the lower quartile of wherever they were born at twice the rate than if they were American. That is significant because it shrinks income inequality among Canadians and when we shrink income inequality among Canadians, we all benefit.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are certainly very blessed to be in Canada, but I take a little exception to the member talking about how great things are in this country, how the inflation rates are positive and all of these things. My riding and many ridings in Alberta have recently seen food bank usage go up. It is up 50% in the Edmonton area. I am being told by banks that this month people are making the choice between paying their utility bills or paying their car payments. It is a terrible situation right now and it is largely because of the failure to get access to foreign markets for our energy products.

I would ask the member if he has any comment on how we can bring this great economy back to Alberta.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member asked a legitimate question. Alberta is a resource-based economy and lives and dies on its resources. Ten years ago, Alberta was king of the hill and doing very well, because its resources were in demand. Regrettably, we have not been able to diversify the market, hence the TMX purchase and the attempt to bring some other market into play for the resources that Alberta wishes to sell.

I agree with the member that we should not be selling at a discount. As long as Alberta is selling at a discount and does not have access to other markets, I think that times will more difficult, unnecessarily, for Albertans.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, talking about the opportunities for Canadians and the security of Canadians is very important. Part of that security, I believe, is pay equity.

The current federal government and its predecessors fought pay equity in terms of women in the public service for decades, and now it is postponed for another three years. Where is the legal support centre for non-union women as recommended in the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force?

In 2004, there was a landmark task force. That was 14 years ago, and as I said, decades before that, there was pushing back against pay equity. I want to know when we will see proper pay equity for all women in this society.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked a question in the context of a government that has done more on the feminist concerns than pretty well any government in history, and that includes pay equity. It also includes moving status of women to a department.

These are issues that have been historical injustices. The government has moved massively in redressing these historical injustices, and I hope that in a very short period of time, the hon. member will not need to ask a question such as that.

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

Madam Speaker, although we have been debating this omnibus budget bill, many of my colleague's comments related to a false narrative, which has been spread so widely that I am quite certain my hon. colleague does not know it is false, and it is that there is a massive differential that costs Canadians money, because Alberta bitumen does not get the same price on the world market as crude. Of course, the reason it is not worth as much is because it is a solid. It has to be upgraded before it can be sold.

In fact, the Scotiabank report, which is the source of this false claim, ignored the reality. I will point out quickly that 40% of what we export, according to Suncor, is its upgraded synthetic crude. According to Steve Williams, the CEO of Suncor, “We have virtually no exposure to the light/heavy differential.” It is because it is actually getting a premium, because it is selling synthetic crude.

I ask my hon. colleague, would it not be appropriate, before the federal government puts $4.5 billion into buying a 65-year-old pipeline and promises $10 billion more to expand it, that we get an independent assessment of the costs and benefits of embarking on this project? There is not one yet.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague, but it seems to be settled at this point that Alberta crude sells at a discount. It does cost more to upgrade it. I agree with that. It does cost more to ship it. I agree with that. However, we are dependent on one market. That is where we sell 98%, 99% of the crude. When we are dependent on one market, we know we are going to be in a vulnerable position when it comes to sale.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Edmonton West.

I have had the honour over the last 10 years to speak to at least some aspect of every budget that has been presented in the House. Therefore, standing here this morning to once again present the views of my amazing constituents in my riding of Red Deer—Mountain View is truly a highlight of this fall session. It is especially memorable because it will be the last time that this type of debate will take place in this chamber for the next decade or more.

I would like to start by reflecting on some of the most important points of the last 10 years.

In the fall of 2008, the global economy as we knew it was collapsing. Global economists were clamouring about how countries were going to need to stimulate their economies by at least 2% GDP, no matter what, and that the consequences of the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression could last for years.

What did our government do? Having foreseen tough times ahead, it had reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, which along with other tax-cutting measures nearly covered the prescribed 2% GDP stimulus. Why was that important? Because it put dollars back into the hands of everyday Canadians for them to spend on their priorities.

The second phase of stimulus was related to infrastructure spending, which, amazingly, got out to the municipalities in record time so that it had the effect of keeping contractors employed and even resulted, because of the local economic downturn, in getting many projects done under budget. This is one of the most celebrated stimulus projects ever implemented. Not only that, the temporary home renovation tax credit was a godsend to local businesses.

I remember speaking to a gentleman from the U.S. who was amazed at how such a simple concept had created so much economic activity. It came at a high price, one which did add to the deficit as part of the economic reality of the time, but it also helped us move out of the economic malaise quicker than any other country.

I always like to bring this up when my friends from the Liberal Party crank up their rhetoric about nearly 10 years of our Harper government. I also like to point out that over that 10 years, we only had a majority for four years. Perhaps the Liberals, in a reflective moment, could imagine how much of their agenda would be carried out if they were in a minority. They might also find they would need to have other voices in their heads other than Butts'.

Alas, what transpired was that the member for Papineau, with his family name and his foul-mouth antics, rose to power as the Liberals' messiah. They chose a leader who did not know the difference between a decimal point and a decibel reading, who spent his time as a backbencher charging charities for speaking fees when he was supposed to be speaking in this chamber and who orchestrated, with an NDP member, fake outrage where he called our then environment minister a name, which I will not repeat, and ran out the door to the press to tell it that the devil made him do it.

It was at that moment that my impression of the member was forged. Therefore, when the Liberal leadership race was on, I would always say that the member for Papineau would not even have made the now transport minister's cabinet. However, no one on that side was a match for the 20-plus page coronation from Maclean's magazine. That adulation, so terribly misplaced, unfortunately continues to this day.

Therefore, here we are, dealing with a budget implementation act that shows just how far the government will go to force its will on the people.

My constituents are concerned about the tax that is being charged on medical marijuana. We are talking the non-THC variety, not the good stuff the PM brags about using. This is an issue that has people rightfully concerned.

The next issue that is so important to Canadians is trade. I have heard it said that our Conservative government had already hit the walk-off home run with both CETA and TPP and that all the PM had to do was to sign the ball, which was proudly presented to him on behalf of an amazing negotiating team. However, he and his cabinet team botched that so badly that our trading partners looked at Canada as being both bizarre and illogical. Thank God we have business people who were, and are, there to carry the day, because this government's political counterparts around the world had no idea what to expect from the government.

My next issue with the bill is the massive debt the Liberals are downloading to my children and grandchildren. We know that the words of the Prime Minister are never to be taken seriously. The path that the government has chosen could not be any more socialist than if the NDP had been victorious in the last election.

The most significant concern I have with the bill, beyond my normal lament as a former hospital board chair that these Liberals have shortchanged our health care system, is what they are doing to our global competitiveness through their insistence on a carbon tax.

Most Canadians see this as something in the future, but there are Canadians who are well on their way to the government's initial goal of a $50 carbon tax. The one I am most familiar with is my province of Alberta.

As the real climate leaders in our country, we have been reducing our carbon footprint for years. Long before the present NDP government signed onto the Liberal carbon tax plan, we Albertans were reducing our per unit emissions not just by legislation, but because we felt it was the right thing to do. After all, would having a technology fund that encouraged greenhouse gas reduction with the possibility of selling that technology to places in the world that need the help not be a logical business decision? The federal government said it did not care, that it was its way or the highway, which is what it is now telling those provinces that have chosen to stand up to its tyranny.

What are these numbers? I am going to compare the average Alberta crop land farm, which in the next few months will be paying a $30 carbon tax, to the average PEI crop land farm, where my good friend, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, is from, and I will use the same figures, recognizing Alberta's reality in our bid for this allusive social license will be P.E.I.'s reality in a few years.

Using calculations from the agriculture census 2016 and the National Inventory Report 2017, an average Alberta farm of 855 acres at $25 per tonne equals $6,631, while in P.E.I., on an average size farm of 323 acres, the cost would be $5,403. Adding the on-farm energy and transport emissions cost, again from the same reports, there is an additional $2,030 for Alberta and $820 for P.E.I. The total for this is $8,661 for the average Alberta farm and $6,223 for the average P.E.I. farm.

As I have said, Alberta will soon be paying $30 per tonne. The reality is that when we hit $50 per tonne, as is the Liberal government's initial figure, which is of course much lower than what its environmental guru activists envision for any country so inclined, the costs would amount to $17,332 for Alberta and $12,446 for P.E.I.

The occupants of the government front bench may not know this, certainly the PM and the finance minister do not know this, but these “tax cheating farmers” do not have the means to pass this cost on to the consumer. It is kind of the situation that exists in agriculture when one buys retail and sells wholesale.

Since I know this will come up, I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister of Agriculture just how much the carbon tax exemption for marked fuel will reduce the costs for farmers. I will be seeking those answers in the weeks ahead.

I was honoured to scrutinize budgets in the past from a prime minister who, as an economist, understood not only Canada's financial realities inside and out, but also how Canada fit into the interrelated financial global markets. I also admire our Conservative team that respectfully and responsibly pursued trade deals where Canada's economic future was always considered first.

I stand with Canada's farmers who are going to be greatly impacted by the governments blindness to the role our men and women of agricultural play in the preservation and conservation of the land that produces the safest high-quality food on the planet.

I am thankful for the privilege of being allowed to speak in the final days of this chamber on a subject about which I and my constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View are so passionate.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the claim that the previous government took steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and was proud of its record. If we look at what happened, there was a global recession and the economy effectively shut down. We can see that as soon as the recession kicks in, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions start to go down and then as soon as the economy starts to come back into gear, the greenhouse gas emissions start to go up again.

The second thing that happened was that Ontario got rid of coal plants, which also made a significant contribution. The Conservatives oppose that. In fact, they want to keep burning coal well into 2060, which is just not good for the planet.

However, the thing that really has struck me is that the Conservatives love this idea that recessions are good for the planet. In fact, they liked it so much they tried it twice when they tried to create a second recession as they were leaving office. Is that really the Conservatives' plan, a rotating set of recessions that unemploy Canadians as a way of getting rid of greenhouse gases? Is that the only plan they have for saving the planet?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, the comment that Canada created the recession of 2008 is the most irresponsible comment I have ever heard. Perhaps the member was not out there wondering how businesses were able to continue, because banks would not even lend to themselves. This was the scenario that had taken place. Maybe in the bubble that the member was in, he did not see any issues. However, the issues that had taken place back in 2008 were serious, and this was global.

For the member to suggest that this was caused by a Conservative government, perhaps he was not listening to the way people around the world were talking about Canada, as being the only one that was able to get to that 2% reduction just on tax and putting money back into people's pockets, then dealing with the situation where infrastructure funding got out, probably to his city as well, as fast as it possibly could.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member was virtually dictating what was no doubt some “hot off the press” Stephen Harper speaking notes.

It is absolutely amazing the degree to which there were so many falsehoods in the statement. We can talk about trading. He tried to give the impression that the government was not proactive on trade. Who is he trying to kid? We have CETA, TPP, agreements that Stephen Harper did not get over the finish line. If it were not for a progressive government being aggressive on the trade file, it never would have gotten across the goal line. That is not even mentioning the trade agreement with our greatest trading partner, the United States.

Could the hon. member explain why, under Conservative rule, which was 38% of the 150 years Canada has been a Confederation, 75% of the total debt was created by incompetent Conservative governments?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, cleaning up Liberal messes is what we have to do. That is exactly what happened in the old Trudeau era, as that massive debt continued on for years and years. That is how it had to be done.

Let us hope that we get a different government in here in 2019, so we do not have to worry about the rest of that. The member needs to look at the situation. Even the finance department is saying that the trajectory we have with the Liberals could take us to $1 trillion debt by 2050. Had we continued with the Conservatives' plan, by the same date, we would have been debt free.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, some members come to the House of Commons and bring tremendous experience. Some do not bring experience, but bring a lot of levity. That is why I love the comments from my friend, the member from the Toronto Island airport, who spoke earlier today about coal-fired plants.

I would like my colleague from Alberta to actually talk about the irony of his comments on coal-fired plants. Not only did Dalton McGuinty not meet his intended targets on coal-fired plants, this bill would exempt coal-fired plants from the carbon tax.

Residents in my area of the Durham region, commuters, single seniors, will be paying the carbon tax, and the Liberals are exempting coal-fired plants.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy under this situation is amazing. I go out to Sheerness, which is close to my hometown in central Alberta, and that coal-fired plant is running full bore. People do not even know it is on. That is the technology we should be selling around the world, instead of shutting it down because of some plans the former Ontario Liberal government thought were important.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2. The first one was a disaster, with its out of control spending, massive deficits, and the transparency and accountability killing vote 40 that is famous for being the $7 billion Liberal slush fund.

Like a sequel to a bad Hollywood movie, it makes us wonder if the first one was so bad, why would we bother with a second? Unfortunately, the government has bothered with a second, and Canadians are going to pay the price.

I want to call the bill the “Demosthenes bill”, after an Athenian scholar who said, “why nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.” That sums up the Liberals' belief in their actions so well. They sit and claim they have made record investments across the country, that there is employment growth here and there, that they have this and that national strategy to fix everything. Let us look beyond the hyperbole. Let us look beyond the self-deceit and see what is really going on.

Part 1 of the bill is an omnibus bill with four different parts and 23 different divisions—yes, 23 different divisions. Five different divisions of these 23 amend multiple acts, so even the omnibus bill has omnibuses inside the omnibus.

What does liberal.ca, the website say about omnibus bills? It says:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating proposals. We will...bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

Did it happen? Of course not. It is quite remarkable that the Liberal Party is so obsessed with the previous prime minister. If in every sentence of theirs they do not mention the middle class or feminism, they will mention Harper. It makes me wonder if Liberals go to bed at night and check under the bed for the Harper bogeyman.

We all know omnibus bills are bad, so I want to quote a few members from across the way. Here is one:

This omnibus budget bill is yet another example of Conservatives steam-rolling democracy to force unpopular, non-budgetary measures through Parliament at record speed without the necessary scrutiny.

Who was that? It was the current President of the Treasury Board, the very man behind the vote 40 Liberal slush fund, the largest assault on parliamentary accountability and oversight in history. This again is from the man who puts his hand over his heart and complains about accountability, yet the $7 billion will not show up in the Public Accounts.

The Public Accounts came out just last week and are detailed to the point of listing a $4 coffee purchased by a bureaucrat while overseas with the Prime Minister on his trip to Israel. How much of that seven billion dollars is going to be detailed as such? Not one penny. One-third of one billion dollars is set aside for Phoenix, supposedly to fix it. The government is negotiating behind closed doors for a payout of public servants affected by Phoenix, which I will probably support. Is the money going to be used for that? The Liberals will not say and Canadians will never know. All it shows is a lump sum line in the Public Accounts.

I want to mention some other comments on omnibus bills by the other side. The current Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said:

It is difficult, really, in the time available to do justice to a bill like this, because once again we have a bill that has a huge variety of measures. Some of them are new policy measures and some of them are not even in the budget speech. To actually do justice is very difficult.

Our colleague across the way from Winnipeg North, whom I am sure is going to ask questions about this, said:

When we take a look at this massive budget bill, as I said earlier, the government is making changes to dozens of pieces of legislation through the back door by passing it through a budget implementation bill, when in fact it should be stand-alone legislation.

Omnibus bills are bad, unless one is a Liberal, in which case omnibus bills are good, because they are the good guys.

I want to look at the Liberals' self-deceit about how good the economy is. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released his economic and fiscal outlook. I want to talk about the Liberals' self-deceit about their transparency. The PBO has asked repeatedly for access to the request for proposal for the combat ship program that Irving is doing.

Yesterday, we asked the President of the Treasury Board, who oddly is under a dark cloud for his interference on behalf of the Irvings with respect to the shipbuilding program, if he would release the RFP. The PBO has not asked for anything special. His office is allowed to access that information under an act of Parliament. When asked if his department would release it, the President of the Treasury Board said he would have to check with someone else.

In committee, we asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility if she would release it. She did not know.

We asked the Minister of National Defence in the committee of the whole if he would release it, and with hand over heart, he replied he did not know.

The PBO says this is going to cost taxpayers $60 billion. Other insiders say it could cost as much as $100 billion. Yet the government will not release what is required.

I am going to go back to the economic and fiscal outlook, which notes that the GDP growth rate is actually dropping. Next year it will be 1.8% and the years after that it will drop to 1.5%. That is half of the global GDP growth rate, so we are lagging behind the rest of the world by half. We are behind the U.S. We are behind our allies. We are behind the advanced economies, as noted by the IMF.

The PBO also notes that residential investment is driving our economy, but also expects a significant correction to residential investments in the coming years.

With respect to the labour market report, the PBO notes that workplace participation rate, the number of people who are working, has dropped in percentage terms since the Liberals came to power. Workforce participation by both men and women has dropped under the Liberal government.

Our unemployment rate is at a record low, but we our underperforming our allies. We are underperforming big bad Trump. The Liberal government is doing worse than him. We are underperforming our G7 allies and the other advanced economies. We are below the OECD average. The OECD covers a bunch of basket case countries as well, and we are below the average in terms of unemployment. Well over half of the jobs created in this country this year were in the public service. Public sector employees perform valuable work, but it is not a sustainable path. Canada's unemployment rate is 49% higher than the U.S. rate right now. We are 29% above the G7 unemployment rate.

From the government, we hear middle class this and middle class that. The PBO notes that when we look at wage gains, wages for in the bottom 10% have actually risen, which is great, and those of the top 10% have risen too, but for those in the middle class, the middle 50%, wage growth in percentage terms has stagnated. Therefore, in regard to everything the Liberals have said about things being great for the middle class, the fact is government has actually done nothing for them. This is more self-deceit.

The government talks a lot about its national housing strategy. I am going to quote from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy run by the former PBO Kevin Page. This again goes to the self-deceit. The government says it will provide $40 billion for a national housing strategy. It says it is going to do so much. This is the quote:

There is one concerning tidbit around the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, specifically regarding the back-end-loaded nature of the federal funding. The full 10-year plan outlines $15.9 billion for the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, yet only $1.3 billion is budgeted for the first 5 years. And by the end of the 10 years, only $5.1 billion has been budgeted....

This all begs the question: Where is the proposed $40 billion National Housing Strategy funding? By following the funding throughout the years and tracking what is “new” money, we have painted a picture of what the NHS looks like apart from the glossy document that accompanied its announcement.

This is what we see again, this self-deceit of the government, which repeats its mantra again and again, but it is only fooling itself.

The budget implementation act no. 2 is a mess and disgrace and will not serve Canadians, just like its forefather, budget implementation act no. 1, did not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments after question period.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-86, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we rise of course as the government is shutting down debate on its 851-page omnibus budget bill.

This fall, the government released its financial statement, in which it revealed that it had received a $20-billion windfall that resulted from factors completely out of its control. One, the world and U.S. economies are roaring. Two, oil prices have gone up by more than 100%. Three, interest rates, which are not controlled by government, are at near record lows. Four, there has been a housing bubble in Vancouver and Toronto.

All of these factors are, first, out of the control of government, and second, here today and potentially gone tomorrow. In other words, the government cannot rely on them permanently in order to fund its spending, yet that is exactly what it did. It got $20 billion in new windfall revenue, and it blew every penny of that. Plus, the deficit was twice what the government promised it would be in the most recent fiscal year.

The government said it would run three small deficits of no more than $10 billion and then balance the budget in the year 2019. That is only a few months from now. The minister has never once said when he will balance the budget, not since the election, when he promised it would happen in 2019. Will he please rise now and tell us in what year the budget will be balanced?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand before this House and talk about some of the things that our government has done over the last number of years. I am also looking forward to November 21, when I will be able to provide the fall economic statement and an update on the country's finances.

The good news we will be able to bring on November 21 is really a product of the work that we have done on behalf of Canadians for the last few years. We started out saying that we wanted to make sure we invested in the success of middle-class Canadians. That was critically important. We saw in the decade before that people were falling behind, that the previous government was not making the kinds of investments needed to ensure that our economy did well and that middle-class Canadians felt the benefits of that growth, so we started right in.

After getting into office, we lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. That was critically important. Then we moved forward with the Canada child benefit. Looking at 2019 versus 2015, the average middle-class family is going to be $2,000 better off. That is important for those families, because they can spend the money on the things they need to raise their children, but it is also important for our economy.

What did we see? We actually saw that people took that disposable income and put it back into the economy. What that led to was not a global economic change, a world change, but in fact a Canadian change, reflected most demonstrably in the fact that the Canadian economy grew at the fastest rate among G7 countries in 2017.

What does that mean for Canadians? That means we are in a better position, a more resilient position, to deal with what we see in the future. Most importantly, middle-class Canadian families across this country are better off, because they will have more money to spend on what matters to them. That is helping our economy.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if the minister is so proud of his 800-page bill, he would welcome expanded time to be able to discuss and debate it and give it the transparency it needs.

Women in Canada have been waiting 42 years since pay equity was promised by a previous Trudeau Liberal government, and finally we have pay equity legislation embedded within this 800-page bill. I was at the finance committee this morning, where a witness testified that this legislation means that women will have to go to court all over again. Other witnesses called the pay equity provisions unconstitutional. A further witness said that it offers less protection than existing provisions for part-time and temporary workers.

Given that testimony, why would we ever want to rush through passage of this vital bill? We have to get it right so that women are paid equally for work of equal value.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her advocacy in this regard.

We know that moving forward on legislation to ensure that women get paid equally for work of equal value is critically important. This is something we have been focused on since we came into office. Our government has been very focused on how we can ensure that outcomes for women are consistent with outcomes for men in this country. This has been an important and ongoing focus of our budget in 2018 and multiple measures.

The measure under question, the pay equity portion of the bill, is critically important. We know that women in our country are not paid at the same rate as men. In fact, for similar kinds of work, they are paid about 88.5 cents on the dollar of what a man earns. When we look at it more broadly, comparing women's pay with men's pay overall, it is about 68 cents on the dollar when we incorporate part-time work. We have made it clear that this is not acceptable, which is why we believe it is critical that we move forward with the pay equity legislation in federally regulated sectors, which we have included in this budget implementation act.

We are looking forward hopefully to seeing the member on the opposite side vote for this so that we can see this equity in future.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada sounded the alarm last week for all Canadians. Gone are the days of running deficits without a care in the world, because interest rates are rising and could rise even further over the next year.

We also know that investments are plummeting in Canada. Canadians prefer to invest in the United States. The government is reporting that Canadian investment in the U.S. is up by 65% while American investment in Canada has dropped by 52%. That is the current situation. This is why we need to have a full and thorough debate on the government's budget measures, but since it is limiting the time allowed for debate, my question is very simple. When will Canada return to a balanced budget?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important issue.

It is important to attract investment in our economy. Looking at the current situation, we find that business investments have been increasing over the past year and a half. We need to make sure that continues. That is why it will be my great pleasure to introduce our fall economic statement on November 21. That will be a great opportunity to explain how we can continue to maintain a high level of investment in our economy.

The investments we have made, of course, have been important for economic growth. We will continue to invest to ensure that people across the country are well positioned for the future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to clarify that in the rules it does refer to being “concise”, but does not state the exact amount of time. However, I appreciate people who are concise, and I want to encourage hon. members to be precise in their questions and answers.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record what the hon. member for Regina—Wascana, the current Minister of Public Safety, said about the Conservative's budget implementation act in 2012, which was 443 pages long:

It is a complete dog's breakfast, and deliberately so. It is calculated to be so humongous and so convoluted, all in a single lump, that it cannot be intelligently examined and digested by a conscientious Parliament.

I have two questions for the minister. Does he agree with his cabinet colleague, and does he not think it is the height of hypocrisy for the Liberals to engage in a practice they once railed against so feverishly in previous Parliaments?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been really clear, both before we formed government and now in government, that it is important that budget implementation acts implement what has been in the budgets that have been introduced. That is exactly what we are doing here.

As the members examine this budget implementation act, they can be confident that its measures are related to the budgetary measures that we put into effect in 2018, 2017 and 2016. That is critically important, and in direct contrast with what the previous government had a habit of doing, which was to introduce things in budget implementation acts that were not part of budgetary measures. We have committed not to do that, but to move forward in a way that demonstrates a continuous and consistent approach to getting the job done for Canadians through budgets that matter.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this budget implementation act there are three bills concerning important indigenous issues that should be separate and standalone bills.

First of all, when trying to go to the relevant areas of the document, there are no links. The document is so massive it takes 10 minutes to even get to one area of the bill. No hard copies were provided.

As well, we were shut down at committee when we wanted to look at the three standalone bills. After the mess the government made with Bill S-3, it is a travesty that the committee responsible for this area is not looking at these three pieces of legislation as standalone bills.

As the shadow minister, I will not even get a chance to speak in the House at second reading of this bill. This is absolutely shameful, and I would like the finance minister to stand up and justify how he can have three pieces of indigenous legislation not subject to proper scrutiny by the people best poised to scrutinize it.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since coming into office, we have been working to make sure that we deal with really important challenges concerning indigenous peoples, and have done so in budget 2016, budget 2017 and budget 2018. We continue to find ways to ensure that reconciliation is happening in this country. That continues to be critically important from our perspective. That has been demonstrated through the time we have been in office, and demonstrated again in budget 2018.

The budget implementation act will allow us to continue to make a difference for indigenous peoples and middle-class Canadians across the country.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at this legislation would realize that it is impossible for parliamentarians to study, appreciate and comment meaningfully on all of the provisions within this budget legislation. That is something the Liberals pointed out about the previous government's legislation in the last Parliament. Now they want to hang their hat on the idea that somehow it is acceptable to include in this bill anything that was given minor mention in the budget, or something that could be implicitly interpreted as having meant that legislation might be be amended as a result. In fact, the parliamentary assistant to the government House leader had the gall yesterday to get up and cite examples from budget 2017 as justification for why some provisions are in the enabling legislation for budget 2018.

How far back do the Liberals think they can go? Are they going to be taking budget items from 1956 or 1984? There has to be some meaningful constraint on what goes into a budget implementation bill, and the Liberals are pushing the boundaries so far it does not even make sense.

Can we please have the time to look at this instead of their ramming it through?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know how important it is to get the work done that we promised Canadians we would do. When we put forth the budget implementation act, built on the kinds of things we promised Canadians we would do in our budget, we needed to make sure we got it right. As we look at the page numbers, of course we need to think about its content and how important it is to have those technical details correct. It is not always perfectly straightforward.

However, I know that members from all parts of this House will agree that it is important to get it right. When we have the financial consumer protection framework in 75 pages, it means that we want to get it right. We want to make sure that we do protect consumers in the financial sector. That is critically important. As well, when we say that we are going to get the intellectual property strategy right and it is 96 pages long, it means it is a complicated subject that we need to be sure we get right.

That is what we committed to Canadians we would do and exactly what what we are doing in this budget implementation act.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was on the finance committee, I was adamant and always fighting for the people of my riding, as well as people across Canada, who are very poor. One of the issues was the Canada child benefit and how those benefits are clawed back from people on social assistance. I was very proud of our minister when he came to our committee more than two years ago and talked about how he would ensure there would not be a clawback from these people, our fellow citizens who too often fall through the cracks because they do not often have representatives here in Parliament who have been in those situations.

There is mention in the budget about ensuring that if one receives social assistance payments under certain programs, that will not preclude one from receiving the Canada child benefit. That is in the budget. However, I would also like to highlight that in Manitoba, there is a continued clawback by the provincial government of federal funds for young children who are in the care of the state in the child welfare system. The province is actually making a profit off the backs of our most vulnerable children instead of ensuring that those funds go to their long-term education and are built up in a fund so they can receive a long-term benefit. The Province of Manitoba continues to claw back that money to balance its budgets on the backs of our young children. I hope the minister could talk a little about that.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for pointing out that it is important for us to continue to think about how the programs that are making a difference for middle-class Canadians and all Canadians are actually having the desired impact. He points out that we need to consider looking at those things.

The budget we have this year has done exactly that in a number of ways, but there will always be more work to be done. For example, we looked at the Canada child benefit and realized there were some situations where people were not actually getting access to the benefit appropriately because of their family situation. We made sure we dealt with that, the “kinship” issue, as we call it. We also realized that the Canada workers benefit, which his so important for people who are trying to get into work, was not actually getting to everyone who was eligible for it because they did not necessarily know about their eligibility. We found a way to make sure that was automatically available for people.

Dealing with people who are at a stage in their work life where there are perhaps not the kinds of opportunities or income they expect is important. We need to think about how these programs interact with other programs. That is something we continue to address. It is one of the reasons why in this budget implementation bill we have some specific language to ensure that we deal with challenges we are faced with, either as a result of the way provinces are dealing with the programs, or because of emerging issues that must be dealt with.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, ironically, the government is moving forward with this heavy-handed tactic to ram through this 800-page bill without having proper debate in the House of Commons. We were in finance committee when we were interrupted by these heavy-handed tactics. We were hearing from a number of witnesses there, including one witness, an economist in fact, who was talking about the fiscal irresponsibility of the government. At a time when the global economy is relatively strong, running these kinds of massive deficits, as the government is doing presently, puts us in real danger if there were to be any kind of a downturn in the economy. It would endanger the fiscal position of the country. Instead of doing what is prudent, as the previous Conservative government did in times that were good, namely, paying down the debt and running surpluses, this government is running massive deficits. That obviously puts us in a terrible position.

This is a really easy question for the finance minister. It should not be difficult for him to answer it, but he has evaded and dodged it numerous times. I would ask if he would just answer the question. In what year will the Liberal government finally balance the budget?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I should start by correcting some facts. The previous government actually built up an additional $150 billion worth of debt. As we saw, that government, unfortunately, had among the lowest rates of growth we have seen in a hundred years. It has been an enormous challenge, of course, for us to deal with the challenges left by the previous government, but we took the responsible approach. We said that we would make investments so that we could get ourselves in a better position. The good news—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I am trying to hear the answer and I am having a hard time with the chatter that is going on.

I will let the hon. Minister of Finance continue.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that we are making responsible investments that are growing our economy and continuing to put ourselves in a position where we have the resilience to deal with the challenges.

What the member might not know about the issue he was referring to is that the Canadian balance sheet is the strongest among the G7 countries. We have a debt-to-GDP ratio that is less than half the average, in fact the lowest, in the G7 by a big margin. That puts us in a good position for the long term. Importantly, we have taken the right decision to invest in middle-class Canadians so they can have the opportunity to continue to benefit from economic growth in the future.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said earlier that the government wanted to take a long time to get this legislation right because there are important measures in the budget. Those are his words.

I am wondering why the Minister of Finance does not think there ought to be some sort of proportionate amount of time for Parliament to study these measures and ensure that the government did in fact get those things right. That is our job here. Our job is not just to take the government's word for it. Our job is to examine the work of the government and ensure that it has done the job properly.

If it takes a long time for the government to develop proposals, and particularly if they are lengthy and complex, why does the minister not believe that parliamentarians should be afforded the same amount of time that the government had to develop them in the first place?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to Canadians. We were elected in 2015 with an agenda to make a real measurable difference for middle-class Canadians. We laid out some important things that we wanted to ensure that we achieved over the time period that we are in government, and that is critically important.

We have moved forward in budget 2018 with measures that we told Canadians we would get at. We said that we wanted to get at pay equity to make sure that women and men have similar outcomes for similar work. That too was critically important. We know on an ongoing basis we need to ensure that we have an intellectual property strategy that allows innovation in our country. We know having protections for consumers in the banking sector is critically important.

There are measures in this budget implementation bill that would allow us to move forward in a way that is consistent with what we promised Canadians.

We have done consultations to get to an approach that makes sense. We are looking forward to all members in the House having the opportunity to vote on a bill that would make a real difference for Canadians.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has highlighted many things he does not know.

He does not know when the budget is going to be balanced, quite likely because he knows it is a structural deficit and that the government is not going to get out of deficit for a long time.

He does not know that capital investment is fleeing this country. We saw that in the announcement over the weekend. A company called Encana has basically given up on Canada.

He may not even know what he campaigned on in 2015, but I will remind him. He said, “Omnibus bills prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating [the] proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic process.” This is like a double whammy because one, we have an omnibus bill, and two, it is under time allocation.

The minister does not know when the budget is going to be balanced. He does not know that capital investment is fleeing this country. Does he know what he ran on in 2015 when it comes to his democratic policy platform piece?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were three comments in that intervention. What we should do is identify the issues that were brought forward.

First and foremost, we are in a situation where our debt to gross national product ratio is declining over time. That is a responsible way to manage our country's balance sheet and we will continue to do that.

We also know that business investment, which did go down as a result of the change in oil prices, has been going up for the last year and a half. This is not a situation where these facts are debatable. It is just, in fact, the facts.

Finally, we committed that our budget implementation acts would be related to budget measures. That is exactly what we have delivered.

With respect to each one of those comments, we feel that we have moved forward in a way that is appropriate, and importantly, it is having a big impact on Canadians. That is what we are really after.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion today about what is in this 800-page budget implementation act but there is one key piece of information that is not in the act. My colleagues have asked this question before. According to the minister's projections, in what year does the government believe Canada should balance its budget?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that it is important to have a fiscal anchor. We have said that investing in the long-term health of our economy is important. Investing in infrastructure is important. The investments we have made in middle-class Canadians with the Canada child benefit are critically important.

These investments have had the desired impact. They have grown our economy. They have also shown that we can do that while reducing the amount of debt as a function of our gross domestic product. That will continue to be important for us. What I can say is that our fiscal health is strong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Finance to reflect on the commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians. He indicated that the first priority was the middle class and ensuring there were tax breaks for the middle class. We have made wonderful progressive moves such as the Canada child benefit program which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned. We have made deep increases to our guaranteed income supplement. We have seen negotiations between territories and provinces on things such as the CPP and a price on pollution.

How does all this fit in terms of the important role government has in fighting to enrich Canada's middle class in every way and those aspiring to be a part of it?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really important question.

We need to think about how we make a real difference for Canadians who are trying to make sure they can raise their families in dignity. We started with some measures that deal with the anxiety Canadian families are facing and that was, importantly, a middle-class tax break. For those people earning between $45,000 and $90,000, we reduced the taxes in that category from 22% to 20.5%, a 7% decrease. We then added on the Canada child benefit which helped those families even more, raising hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

We realized we needed to do more. The increase in the guaranteed income supplement dealt with single seniors who found themselves in poverty. Of course, for Canadians anxious about their long-term future, we negotiated with the provinces to make sure we could actually enhance the Canada pension plan.

These are the sorts of measures that have made a real difference for families today. They make a real difference for families and people who are looking toward the future. We will continue to fight for Canadian families to make sure they have the capacity to raise their children and be confident about the future.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the Minister of Finance, a question he has been unable to answer. It is very straightforward. In what year will the budget be balanced?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that new question by saying that we need to make sure that our economy and our country are resilient to face challenges. We are not going to do what the previous government did and add $150 billion to our debt and have nothing to show for it. Instead, we are going to carefully manage the amount of debt we have as a function of our economy. Happily our economy is growing, unlike it was with the previous government. That is a very important factor in our ability to manage down that debt load. We will continue to do that because we know being responsible is important while we invest in middle-class Canadians.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's plan is to manage down the debt load by increasing the debt $20 billion every year. That was this year. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the amount of interest on Canada's national debt will rise to $40 billion per year by 2022. That is more than we currently spend on health care transfers. That might be very good for the wealthy bankers and bond holders that travel in the finance minister's circle, but working-class taxpayers will have to pay more in tax so that those wealthy bond holders can have more in their pockets.

One thing that could mitigate against that injustice and protect us against future economic difficulties that inevitably come is a balanced budget. The finance minister said the budget would balance itself by the year 2019. In what year will the budget balance itself?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we should examine carefully the issue around how Canadians are feeling with respect to taxes because this government has taken measures that have made a real difference in terms of their ability to take home more pay for their families. By lowering middle-class taxes, by increasing the Canada child benefit and by increasing the guaranteed income supplement, we have put people in a position where they actually have a greater amount of take-home pay. That is critically important.

By putting a price on pollution, something we do not want but by giving back a rebate to families so they will have more money, in 2019, middle-class Canadian families will find themselves more than $2,000 better off, especially if they are in the four provinces where the federal pollution pricing backstop will be in place.

We have been able to make the important investments to make our economy grow while we have been reducing taxes on middle-class Canadians to help people have more confidence about the future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #928

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

There are five minutes remaining in questions and comments following the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton West.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a wonderful opportunity to ask a question related to the budget implementation act.

Over the last few years, we have had consecutive budgets that have contained a lot of policy initiatives for the benefit of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. What I find interesting is that the Harper Conservatives across the way seem to be quite content on being critical of all aspects of this government's budget priorities, aspects that include things such as tax breaks and enhancements to child benefits and the guaranteed income supplement. There are a lot of positive things in the budget.

One thing I personally recognize in this budget implementation act deals with increasing the annual allotments for the Canada child benefit. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on the importance of the increase to the Canada child benefit?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone is sitting at home wondering what we are doing, this is a continuation from my speech on Friday.

The basis of my speech was built around an Athenian philosopher named Demosthenes. He is famous for a quote that says, “The easiest thing in the world is self-deceit; for every man believes what he wishes, though the reality is often different.” This is very much the world the Liberals are living in, a world of self-deceit.

Earlier we heard the finance minister, when discussing bringing closure or time allocation to the budget bill, talk about all the wonderful things the Liberals were doing for seniors, including the GIS.

I have a report from the Library of Parliament that shows, under the Liberal government, all three measures: the low income measure after tax; the low income cutoffs after tax, 1992 base; the market measure, 2011 base. Under every measure, seniors are worse off now than they were in the past.

The government talks about the middle class. The Parliamentary Budget Officer put out a report recently that showed the middle class income growth was stagnating. The government is living in a world of self-deceit.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so important for us as members of political parties, as people in the world in general, to be willing to challenge our assumptions, to be self-critical, to ensure we are not subject to self-deception.

The question we have asked the finance minister repeatedly is whether the Liberals have a timeline in mind to balance the budget.

Members will recall from the last election a Liberal promise to have the budget balanced in the final year of their majority mandate, the 2018-19 fiscal year. Now there is absolutely no timeline set on balancing the budget. If I remember correctly, even the Kathleen Wynne Ontario Liberals at least had a theoretical date in mind for when they said they would balance the budget, however much skepticism there may have been about that date.

Could my colleague reflect on the problem and the inappropriateness of having absolutely no plan to ever balance the budget?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a great point about the government's refusal to even address this.

If we look at the famous Liberal mandate tracker, it actually shows balancing the budget, which was promised by 2019, is in progress with difficulty. The difficulty we see is that there is no end in sight to the Liberal debt being added on. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is forecasting something like $40 billion a year, just in interest payments. We are going to be paying foreign nationals and rich Bay Street bankers to borrow money, because the government cannot get its house in order on spending.

Every province across the country, with tax-and-spend governments like the NDP in Alberta and the Wynne Liberals, can commit to when they will actually balance the budget. With the the federal Liberal government, it is dead silence, talking points and further self-deceit.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Guelph.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2. I want to talk about what I consider one of the most important aspects of the bill, which is the environment and climate action.

Canadians know that pollution has a price. Pollution has an impact on the health of our communities, the strength of our economy and the well-being of Canadians. The evidence is clear. There were floods in my region, the Outaouais, and more specifically in my riding of Hull—Aylmer and the neighbouring riding of Gatineau. Forest fires are causing more and more devastation, and storms are becoming increasingly violent. I repeat: six weeks ago, six tornados hit my riding, and they caused a lot of damage. This was unprecedented.

Climate change is real, and its costs are high. Studies show that climate change is expected to cost our economy $5 billion a year by 2020. Canadians want polluters to pay for this. This is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren, which is why our government has promised action.

Putting a price a pollution is an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help Canada meet its international commitments with regard to this extremely important issue. This means that the price of goods and services will reflect the amount of greenhouse gases that are associated with them. The more we pollute, the more we pay. It is simple. The less we pollute, the more we benefit.

Our government sincerely believes that it is important for business owners and businesses to make more money, but if they pollute, they have to pay. That is all. It is important that our economy better reflect the true cost of pollution and that is what this carbon pricing will do.

It is in that context that the federal government developed the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change together with the provinces and territories and in consultation with indigenous peoples.

This plan includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution and measures to reduce emissions across all sectors of the economy. It gives the provinces and territories the flexibility they need to use the system that suits them best, either a price-based system, or a cap and trade system, or a combination of both.

Our government has also committed to implementing a backstop in every province and territory requesting one, as well as in any province that does not adopt a regime consistent with the pan-Canadian framework. I would remind members that the provinces and territories had until September 1 of this year to announce their intentions. Our government was very transparent. We stated from the outset that the federal backstop would have two components. First, there is a charge on fossil fuels such as gas, diesel, natural gas or oil. Second, there is an output-based pricing system for large industrial emitters.

I am very pleased that several provinces have developed their own pricing system for carbon pollution. As Canadians, all of us must take action to reduce pollution, and these governments will be able to do so with a plan that is in keeping with their regional reality. To maintain the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, the federal carbon pollution pricing system will apply as planned in the other provinces and territories.

We recently announced the next steps in our environmental action plan. Some provinces have voluntarily decided to adopt the federal system to varying degrees and work hand in hand with Ottawa. Governments that did not implement the necessary measures will have to comply with the federal system. That is unfortunate, but we made our intentions perfectly clear to the provinces.

Let me be quite clear: in all cases, direct proceeds from the federal price on pollution will flow back to the provinces and territories in which they were collected. Let me repeat that: in all cases, direct proceeds from the federal price on pollution will flow back to the provinces and territories in which they were collected. I really want to emphasize that, because putting a price on carbon pollution is not about filling the federal government's coffers; it is about encouraging cleaner growth and a more sustainable future across this great land.

Provincial and territorial governments that joined the fight against climate change by voluntarily adopting the federal system will receive the direct proceeds and can use that money as they wish. For the four provinces that chose not to put a price on pollution, the federal government will put most of the direct proceeds back in the pockets of families in those provinces.

The government is also in the process of developing options for direct support to sectors of the economy that will be particularly affected in backstop jurisdictions. That includes small and medium-sized businesses, municipalities, non-profit organizations and indigenous communities.

Direct proceeds from the carbon price collected in New Brunswick will remain in New Brunswick. Direct proceeds collected in Ontario will remain in Ontario. Direct proceeds collected in Manitoba will remain in Manitoba, and direct proceeds collected in Saskatchewan will remain, as one might guess, in Saskatchewan. The climate action initiative payments made to individuals and families will help offset the increased costs associated with the price on pollution and will reward families that make cleaner, more sustainable consumer choices.

Since residents of small communities and rural regions have higher energy requirements and more limited access to alternative transportation options, they will receive a supplement to the base amount of 10%. Implementing this formula requires legislative changes.

Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2, would give us the tools we need to implement this important initiative. The bill proposes the changes required to enable the Canada Revenue Agency to offer this rebate to eligible taxpayers when they file their income tax returns.

In closing, we must all do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The pricing of carbon pollution is the most effective and efficient means of achieving that. For that reason, I am pledging my support for this bill and these measures, which I truly and very enthusiastically support.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member, in his remarks, spoke a fair bit about the government's environmental policy, or, we might say, its tax policy masquerading itself as environmental policy, yet the government also has a policy of giving a significant break in terms of the carbon tax to Canada's largest emitters. People in my riding certainly have a hard time understanding the differential treatment of large emitters and everyday consumers, who use a relatively small amount of energy resources in their daily lives but still very much need those resources to take the kids to soccer practice, pick up groceries and heat their homes.

I wonder if the member could share, from his perspective, why the government is providing special treatment for large emitters yet is putting the brunt of the pressure on everyday consumers, moms and dads, and small businesses in my riding and his.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alberta for his question. Before answering, I would like to look at the premise for his question.

First, he said that this is a tax and that the revenues will go into government coffers. That is not at all the case.

What we announced is very clear and I mentioned it in my speech. I know that the hon. member listened carefully to my comments. I clearly explained, as is set out in black and white in Bill C-86, budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2, that all revenues from pollution pricing will be returned to the provinces and territories where they were collected.

I am sorry for taking a little too much time to answer the question, but I guarantee the member that it is not a tax. It is a pricing measure that we will subsequently return to the province or territory where the tax was applied.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to debate with my colleague from the Outaouais about his thoughts on the federal budget. He is very good at expressing just how progressive his riding of Hull—Aylmer really is. It is quite clear that his constituents support putting a price on pollution, and I appreciate how articulate he is in communicating our government's perspective.

I want to ask the member a question I often hear when I am going door to door in the Plateau and in northern Aylmer, which are areas I represent in Pontiac. Many of my constituents support the historic investments in infrastructure, in particular with respect to light rail in western Gatineau, because we need to reduce greenhouse gases and make our public transportation services more affordable and more effective.

Can the member talk about how these historic investments in infrastructure in Gatineau are making it possible to look at light rail in the region?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by apologizing to my esteemed colleague from Pontiac. He is doing a fabulous job of representing the people of Pontiac, Quebec, the riding next to mine. In my speech, I mentioned the tornado and how it affected Hull and Aylmer, but I forgot to mention Pontiac, which also suffered serious damage. I want to recognize the member for Pontiac for all the work he has done to help his constituents.

I would like to thank him for his question about investment in infrastructure. My colleague and I have been working side by side on an innovative project that will directly reduce our region's greenhouse gas emissions. I am referring to the plans to bring light rail to Gatineau, especially the west end in phase one. The train will run right through his riding.

All this is possible thanks to our government's green investments, the last budget's historic investments in infrastructure. For these environmental reasons, and for the sake of our constituents' well-being, I am delighted to be working with my colleague on this project and I want to commend him for his leadership.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to have an economy that works for everyone, we need a tax system that is fair and we need all Canadians to pay their fair share. After all, the taxes we pay build the infrastructure that gets our goods to market. Taxes help create good, well-paying jobs and they fund the programs and services that enable Canadians to have a decent standard of living and an equal chance to succeed.

For the past three years, tax fairness has been a cornerstone of the government's promise to grow a stronger middle class. To that end, one of the government's first actions was to cut taxes for the middle class and to raise them on the top 1%. This measure is leaving more than nine million Canadians with more money in their pockets.

The government has also acted to support small businesses in Canada. They are, after all, the key driver of our economy, accounting for 70% of all private sector jobs. To enable small businesses in Canada to reinvest in their companies and create jobs, the government reduced the small business tax rate from 10.5% to 10% this year. As of January 2019, this rate will be further reduced to just 9%. Once this reduction to the rate of 9% is fully in effect, the average Canadian small business will have an additional $1,600 per year to reinvest in the business and to help the Canadian economy to thrive even further.

As our economy grows, we need to ensure that the benefits of that growth are felt by more and more people. This means ensuring that more people have the opportunity to work and to earn a good living from that work. That is why the bill we are considering today takes a major step toward fulfilling the government's commitment to ensure that all Canadians receive the tax benefits and credits to which they are entitled, so that they and their families have the resources they need to succeed.

In budget 2018, the government introduced the new Canada workers benefit, CWB. This is a strengthened version of the working income tax benefit and will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, giving people a little extra help they need as they transition to work. The new CWB will encourage more people to join the workforce and will offer help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class. It will also raise some 70,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020.

Starting in 2019, the government proposes to make it easier for people to access the benefit they have earned by enabling the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the CWB for any tax filer who has not claimed it. That would make the process automatic. Allowing the CRA to automatically provide the benefit to eligible filers would be especially helpful to people with reduced mobility, people who live far from service locations and people without Internet access. With the passage of the bill, an estimated 300,000 additional low-income workers would receive the new Canada workers benefit for the 2019 tax year.

By improving access to the Canada workers benefit and providing for more generous benefits under the program through the first Budget Implementation Act of 2018, the government proposes to invest almost $1 billion more in new funding for this benefit in 2019, compared to the year before. This will be a very good investment since we estimate that the new and enhanced Canada workers benefit will directly benefit more than two million working Canadians. It can then contribute to our economy even further.

Mr. Speaker, another important part of the bill is the measures it contains to improve tax fairness in Canada. In this budget implementation act, no. 2, the government is following through on a commitment to allow charities full ability to pursue their charitable purposes by engaging in non-partisan political activities and the development of public policy. Charities play a key role in Canadian society and provide a valuable service to all Canadians. They also provide perspectives that enrich public debate and help shape the formulation of public policy.

Under these proposed changes, charities would have a much broader scope to engage in public policy advocacy that advances their charitable aims. The proposed amendments accomplish this by removing the existing limits on non-partisan political activities from the Income Tax Act, including quantitative limits.

In the first Budget Implementation Act of 2018, the government stood up for our men and women in uniform. We extended tax relief automatically to all members of the Canadian Armed Forces and police officers deployed on international operational missions, determined by the Minister of National Defence, regardless of the level of risk associated with their mission.

In recent years, Canadian police officers have increasingly been deployed on international missions that are independent of missions overseen by the Department of National Defence. Accordingly, in this act, the government is now proposing to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to determine international police missions that would qualify for the tax deduction for Canadian Armed Forces members and police officers. Allowing international police missions to qualify for the tax deduction would ensure the same tax treatment for Canadian police officers deployed on international peace and stability missions as for those who are internationally deployed on missions determined by the Minister of National Defence.

I would now like to talk about other measures from this bill that would improve tax fairness by ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. The bill contains an amendment to the Income Tax Act that would preserve the integrity of Canada's tax base by ensuring that non-residents cannot use partnerships or trusts for tax planning techniques to inappropriately extract profits from their Canadian subsidiaries free of Canadian withholding tax. No one should be able to inappropriately extract profits from Canadian corporations tax-free and move the money offshore.

It is also known that taxpayers have engaged in aggressive tax planning in which they artificially combine their investments or activities with those of other taxpayers into one offshore entity, in order to inappropriately reduce or defer paying Canadian income tax. Taxpayers who use such tax planning strategies seek to artificially avoid having legal control of their investments or activities or to artificially satisfy a requirement for a minimum number of employees. This act proposes two new amendments that close two separate loopholes and ensure that the taxpayers' investment income is reported accurately. By restricting this tax planning, we would ensure that everyone gets appropriately taxed on their investment income and activities and contributes to Canadian society.

These amendments are directed at aggressive tax planning used to avoid or defer Canadian tax. Their aim is not to interfere with legitimate investments, but to prevent unjustified tax avoidance and to clarify the intended policy for both taxpayers and tax practitioners.

Finally, tax fairness is a key pillar of a growing economy. It instills confidence in Canadians and helps to create opportunities for everyone. The proposed tax measures contained in this legislation are important steps in the government's plan for achieving tax fairness and ensuring opportunities for all Canadians to succeed. I urge my honourable colleagues in this House to support this bill.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the time allocation debate, I expressed concerns about the fact that I would not be able to have a chance to speak to this budget implementation act.

What I would like to ask my colleague is this. This is a big bill. It is a complex bill and in division 4, section 19 there is an addition to reserve policy. Can my colleague tell us with regard to that addition to reserve policy what is being changed from what it was previously and why that change is necessary?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard comments from the other side that this is too big a bill to be debated and that maybe we are doing too much for Canadians in this bill. My speech was focusing on tax fairness and on the working tax benefit, which is something I am sure the NDP would be very interested in and want to explore further.

I am limiting my comments today to tax fairness and tax planning, in order to help raise people out of poverty into the middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote from Teamsters Canada:

For now, the government must continue their efforts to crack down on tax evasion. Teamsters also urge the government to eliminate the tax credit on stock options.... The write-off disproportionately benefits Canada's richest CEOs, who already earn over 193 times the average worker's salary.

I am interested in the member's comments on why the tax credit on stock options was not included in the budget. We have been asking for quite some time to have this eliminated.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have the member for Kootenay—Columbia in the House. He was in China a few days ago and has been travelling extensively on behalf of the House. I would like to thank him for the good work that he is doing.

The bill in front of us addresses a lot of our tax issues. We will need to look at a comprehensive tax review of all of Canada's tax laws in the future. This 800-page document does not address every tax eventuality that needs to be addressed.

I am sure that we will continue to work with Teamsters and with labour to make tax fairness an ongoing discussion in future debates around taxes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, our shadow minister for indigenous affairs, just asked an important specific question about measures in the budget dealing with indigenous issues. That was obviously not the focus of my colleague's speech, but it is part of the bill that we are debating today.

The member for Guelph did not answer that question. I want to give him a chance to answer that question again and if he does not want to answer this specific question, it might be worth asking if he has read this 800-page bill and if he is familiar with the indigenous provisions in it.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the investments that Canada is making in our indigenous communities. We have made investments in mental health and in education. We have also made water advisory investments with indigenous peoples. We are working side by side with indigenous peoples and making the appropriate investments as we go forward with them. We are working on the new relationship recognizing the rights that indigenous people have and reflecting those in our budget documents.

I am really proud with what we are doing in this budget. I hope to see further advances in investments in indigenous communities in the years ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Guelph talked about the measures in the budget which deal with making sure that there are no tax avoidance strategies, especially ones which would take money out of Canadian corporations and take it overseas. This is an important issue.

Could the member please speak to that part of the budget implementation act?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation act that we are discussing today would close loopholes. It clarifies some items that were in gray areas that needed clarification, so that tax planners understand what is legal and what is not. We are clarifying the issues around how tax must be paid on money that is generated in Canada.

It is really a matter of clarification so that going forward, people do not use aggressive tax planning techniques that are counter to the spirit of the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I wish to inform the hon. members that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion since the first round of speeches. Consequently, all subsequent interventions shall be limited to ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in this place, and today, in some ways, perhaps more than others, because I will be only one of a handful of members who will have the opportunity to debate this bill at second reading.

We have heard already today, as we debated the time allocation motion, about how this is an 800-page omnibus bill that will now be debated under the guillotine of time allocation. This is not a scenario where debate had become stale or an opposition filibuster was looming that the government had to move time allocation. This is an example of a government that is simply trying to ram through an 800-page bill without proper debate. There really is no other explanation for what is happening right now.

This bill is an omnibus bill. As was mentioned by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo during the debate on time allocation, it is a bill that contains within it three bills on indigenous policy. We understand it contains two transportation bills and changes to some 20-plus statutes, and that the government has allocated a truncated day today plus last Friday for debate on it. It is a shame.

It is shameful in particular because the Liberal government campaigned heavily on the issue of omnibus legislation. The Liberals promised they would never table omnibus bills. They promised they would change the Standing Orders to prevent any government from tabling omnibus bills, yet amid the debacle in the spring of 2017 over changes to the Standing Orders, the result was a change to the standing order that did give the Speaker some power to split a bill. Indeed, that is what is before us now.

We are debating this bill in the limited time that we have without knowing yet if the bill will be divided. With every minute that passes, we are closer to having to vote on this bill without clarity as to what we will actually be voting on. The NDP has requested to have this bill split and we do not know yet what the Speaker's ruling is going to be. It is difficult enough to digest an 800-page bill and here we are debating it without even knowing how the final vote will be put to the House later today. It is a shame that we are so hopelessly rushed on this bill.

This bill is a culmination of several Liberal broken promises. In my riding it came up fairly often during the campaign. People talked about omnibus legislation, and the Liberals promised never to table an omnibus bill. They promised never to invoke closure. They also promised that they would balance the budget by 2019. They actually went out of their way in their campaign to differentiate themselves from both the Conservatives and the New Democrats, who had in our own ways promised balanced budgets.

A key point of differentiation which the Liberals took to the doors was that they would run a modest $10-billion deficit for a maximum of three years and return to a balanced budget by 2019. They were elected on a promise to run a modest deficit solely for the purpose of funding an infrastructure program. This was not to be a structural deficit. This was not to be a deficit through which to fund ongoing program expenditure. This was a capital deficit that the Liberals were going to run in order to fund infrastructure and infrastructure only. This was what they took to the doors and this is the primary premise upon which the Liberal government was elected.

The Liberals have broken their promise on omnibus bills. They have broken their promise on closure. They are hopelessly and helplessly breaking their promise over and over again on the debt and deficit.

If we look at this bill, at 800 pages, combined with the 400-odd pages each in the spring BIA and in the budget itself, we are up to 1,600 pages of budget bills tabled in this House without mention of any kind of a plan to return to a balanced budget. This was a promise. This was not something that the Conservatives would just fixate on because this is what we promised in the election as to what we think the Liberals should do. They actually took it to their own voters. The people who voted for the Liberal Party voted for a party with an expectation of a balanced budget by 2019, and it has not happened and it is not going to happen.

We see now that the Liberals government has been lucky. The Liberals walked into a stronger than expected world economy. They have been lucky on interest rates. They have been lucky on real estate inflation. They have been lucky to receive another $20 billion in unbudgeted revenue that they have blown through as well without being able to balance the budget. We know that the finance department's own numbers say that the government will not balance the budget until 2045. How can the government and the governing party members possibly take this to the doors in 2019? The Liberals did not promise their talking points on maintaining a low level of debt-to-GDP. That is not what they promised.

As for this budget implementation act, which contains no plan for a balanced budget, the Liberals neglect to address an important issue in the budget itself. On page 290, the budget comments on the $20 price differential on Alberta crude. The budget addressed this as a concern. It said that a price differential of $20 a barrel on Canadian crude was a concern and a threat for revenue projections going forward. The budget claims that the differential would shrink in the year ahead from $20 to $15 and that this would be good. Their forward revenue projections assumed a reduction in the differential because new pipelines would be built and the Trans Mountain expansion would go ahead and would get Alberta crude to Vancouver. Then it could be taken to refineries in California, where the heavier oil would get a much better price than if taken by rail to Oklahoma or if it did not go anywhere for lack of any transportation capacity.

We all know that has not happened. Here we are today with a $50 differential. What is that going to do to the revenue projections? The Liberals are already expecting it to shrink. It has ballooned out to $50 per barrel. There is no plan for a balanced budget. We know that their revenue is threatened by the differential on oil. It is substantial. Billions of dollars in tax revenue are at stake in the differential. We have an 800-page bill on which we have a few hours to debate. I understand it has 300 complicated pages in its pay equity section. There are complicated labour code changes. There is an intellectual property component. There are new CRA components to this as well. All of that has to be dealt with somehow in a short period of time, yet this BIA gives us more spending, more deficits, likely more red tape and more difficulties for small business. There is no plan for a balanced budget. There is no plan to fix the Alberta discount and the threat it represents to Canadian governments, provincial and federal.

Therefore, I cannot support this bill and the current government because of its broken promises and shameful use of time allocation and omnibus legislation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention today. However, I take note of his repeated attempts to say that this particular government, and the Liberal Party, perhaps, has been lucky. It was not luck that led to Paul Martin making sure that the right restrictions were in place when he was finance minister so that we did not lead into the same housing crisis the States got itself into. It is not by luck that a country has the fastest-growing GDP among the G7 nations. It is fiscal, prudent responsibility.

It is not luck when a decision is made to invest in real investments in infrastructure that will pay off down the road. Rather than buying gazebos, for example, we would invest in roads and bridges, putting people to work and changing the environment we have so that people can continue to succeed. Therefore, I take great exception to that.

I imagine that the member has a great retort for me, but I thought I would provide that comment.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in invoking the previous Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin, the member seems to have forgotten that there was another prime minister in between for nine and a half years. The good luck I refer to is indeed that the Liberals inherited the nine and half year legacy of the previous government. The country's fiscal foundation is entirely the track record of the Stephen Harper government. Indeed, the Liberal government could maybe learn a thing or two from the Paul Martin government, while we are at it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member across the way that we are still trying to forget about those Harper days.

Conservatives stand up time and again on the budget, and what they like to talk about is the issue of deficits. When we look at Canada as a nation, with its history of 151 years, I believe that the Conservatives have been in government for just less than 40% of that time and the Liberals the other 60%. However, when we look at the total amount of debt that has been created, 75% has been as a result of Conservatives. If we look at Stephen Harper, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. Even before the recession, he turned it into a billion-plus dollar deficit.

Why would this government want to take any advice from the Stephen Harper Conservatives, when they did so poorly on the issue of deficit management?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the history of politics and the change of governments has been one of Liberals creating a financial mess that a Conservative government has had to come in and clean up. We will be there for Canadians in 2019.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge talked a lot about the accumulating debt and how there is no plan to even return to a balanced budget for the foreseeable future. I am wondering if the member could tell us what impact that is going to have on our children and grandchildren in years to come.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the impact will potentially be severe if we cannot get past this and reverse the track the current government is on. I want to add that every provincial and territorial finance minister in Canada has at least some kind of documented plan to return to a balanced budget. The only finance minister in Canada who simply buries his head in the sand and refuses to answer questions at committee and in this place as to when he will balance the budget is this finance minister. He is the only one in Canada who cannot even say the words.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the topic of getting advice from Stephen Harper, we might want to consider taking the advice of his former director of policy, who is currently out there defending a price on pollution. I would argue that yes, there are some folks from that previous government who have at least wised up when it comes to certain issues.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this very important piece of legislation. I will be focusing my remarks today on part 1 of the second budget implementation act that is before us today, but before I do that, I would like to read out a few jurisdictions: Alberta, Argentina, Australia, British Columbia, Beijing, California, Chile, Denmark, the European Union, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Massachusetts, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Quebec, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tokyo, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Ukraine and Washington state.

What do those jurisdictions have in common? I will tell everyone what they have in common. They currently have, or will have in the very near future, a price on pollution.

That is one of the things I am so incredibly proud of when it comes to this particular bill. We are taking the matter of our changing climate and how the world is going to respond to it seriously. The next time a Conservative member asks what Canada can do or what Canada's contribution to this is because we are responsible for so little in terms of pollution in the world, I will refer that member to the work Kazakhstan is currently doing. I can only imagine what its impact is, yet it still sees this as a very important matter to pursue.

We talk about why this legislation is important. Let me start with some of the impacts as they relate to health and how people in the world will be affected. These statistics are according to the World Health Organization. It has estimated that almost 12% of global deaths in 2012 came as a result of air pollution. The WHO also estimates that seven million people die every year from exposure to fine particles in polluted air, 4.2 million deaths as a result of exposure to outdoor air pollution and 3.8 million deaths as a result of exposure to various household pollutants. Ninety-one per cent of the world's population lives in places where poor air quality exceeds the WHO guideline limits. These are just the health reasons why this piece of legislation and doing something about pollution is so important.

Let us put that aside for a second and talk about the recent study the United Nations put out on climate change and what it means to the world. It means that in a very short time, we are talking about decades, we will change our environment throughout the world in a way that will significantly impact people. We might think, as Canadians, as I have said before in the House, that we live in a relatively safe climate and environment and ask what a difference of 1°C or 2°C will really make to us. That is fair enough, if we buy into that.

Perhaps we should consider for a second the migration impacts from climate change. When the world starts to make decisions, and people start to move around the world, those migration patterns will cause world disorder and lead to an environment that makes it a lot riskier for Canada to continue to participate on the world stage, as it relates to our economy and social issues, in the way we have come to know Canada can be great.

The way the budget implementation act proposes to deal with the price on pollution for those provinces and territories that have chosen not to participate, that have decided that they want to hold out, despite the huge list of jurisdictions I have listed that are participating, is by instituting a price on pollution. This would be a federal price on pollution that we would be collecting and immediately rebating back, sometimes in advance of collecting it, to individuals and households throughout the province in which it was collected. For example, in my home province of Ontario, 90% of the funds that would be collected through the price on pollution would be delivered right back to those households. The remaining 10% would be used to help schools, hospitals, indigenous peoples, universities, colleges, and small and medium-sized businesses deal with matters that pertain to becoming more efficient in terms of the impacts they are having on our climate.

We have had a lot of debate in this House about why a price on pollution is good and why some might think it would be bad. I stand by the well-documented economic theory that when we put certain prices on different mechanisms in the economy and the marketplace, we see the players in those marketplaces reacting differently. Therefore, when we put a price on pollution, those who are polluting will start to find ways to become more efficient. They will invest, they will create, and they will discover new ways of doing things that do not pollute as much so that they can increase their bottom lines. It is a basic economic principle. The fact that the Conservatives do not buy into this is astounding to me, quite honestly, speaking of which, I think it is an appropriate time to mention some of those who do support a price on pollution.

Let us talk about Doug Ford, the new Premier of Ontario, who our leader of the opposition is spending a lot of time with and becoming very close with. His chief budget adviser was quoted in an article, which reads:

Ontario's anti-carbon tax premier once told Canadian senators that putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is “the single most important thing that any government can do to transition to a low-carbon economy.”

That was from the chief budget adviser for Doug Ford. I have already mentioned Stephen Harper's former director of policy, who is defending a price on pollution.

Let us get out of partisan politics and talk about the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer, who said that a carbon tax is the only way to genuinely and effectively solve climate change, which is exactly what we have been talking about. As reported by CBC,

Americans William Nordhaus and Paul Romer won this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences for their work in adapting economic theory to take better account of environmental issues and technological progress.

According to the World Bank, international carbon pricing took off with the introduction of the flexibility mechanisms under the Kyoto protocol of 1997. I bring that up, because I think it is extremely relevant. It was a Liberal government at the time that signed onto Kyoto. However, shortly after, the Conservatives pulled out of it, despite the fact that we were on our way. We heard a little earlier about how the Conservatives fix the mistakes of the Liberals, but I think the exact opposite is happening right now.

In conclusion, I am extremely proud of this proposed legislation. I am extremely proud to see our government moving forward on this.

I started off by listing a number of jurisdictions and what they have done in their attempts to put a price on pollution. What I can also say is that a lot of those jurisdictions are reporting huge successes. For example, Sweden enacted its price on pollution in 1991. It was one of the first governments to do so. Sweden currently has GDP growth that is 60% higher than what it was in 1990 and at the same time has reduced its emissions by 25%. It grew its economy by 58%, which shows that growing the economy and decreasing emissions is possible.

As members can hear, my passion lies with the price on pollution. I am very proud to be part of a government that is bringing it forward.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's thoughts on one area of the bill, a bill that is 850-plus pages. When parliamentarians stand to vote on the legislation, with the very minimal debate time we have had, people will be very unfamiliar with many parts of the bill because they have not been given proper scrutiny.

I asked one of the member's colleagues about division 19 of part 4 on additions to reserves. I would like to ask the member about divisions 11 and 12 of part 4 on the changes to both the First Nations Land Management Act and First Nations Fiscal Management Act. Could the member describe what those changes are and why they have been put in place?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member started off by talking about how large the bill was. That has been mentioned a number of times by the other side of the House. I do not disagree with that. When we have a budget bill, it will be a comprehensive bill that includes a number of different parts, including the parts she mentioned.

Let us talk about some of the other parts in the bill, such as pay equity, improving access to Canada workers benefit and modernizing the federal labour standards. If the the Conservatives are against any of those, rather than just complain about this being a large bill, why do they not talk about what they are against? Are they against pay equity? If they are, they should just stand and say it.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this very limited debate, the government has invoked closure yet again on a vital bill of 800 pages. We are all still digging into the details of it.

I heard and appreciated my Liberal colleague's comments about the polluter-pay principle. I note one of the pieces that is amended in this 800-page budget implementation bill is the ship-source oil pollution fund. There are a number of measures. This is meant to be an industry-funded provision in the event of pollution in marine waters. My colleague across the way represents a maritime-reliant riding, as I do. Its jobs and the environment are dependent on a clean environment.

I am concerned that one of the measures proposed in the bill to amend the ship-source oil pollution fund allows the government to top up the fund in the event that it becomes depleted. My information is that industry has not contributed to this fund since 1976. If the member is so committed to the polluter-pay principle, why did his government not make that amendment to the bill?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are on the right path. The only thing the Conservative and the NDP members can really do is criticize the fact that they do not have enough time to debate the bill.

However, the reality of the situation is that the budget implementation bills are implementing measures that were already released in the budget. Therefore, members would have known about a lot of this before. Not only that, even with respect to this bill specifically, it is only at second reading. It still has to go to committee. Then it comes back to the House again for debate. It then goes to the Senate and goes through the same process at the Senate. There is a lot of time to be discussing this.

I look forward to seeing the member at the finance committee so she can be part of the debate on this.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to come back to an earlier question by my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, about the impacts this legislation would have on first nations.

It talks about the changes to the financial management system. Section 50 says, “On the request of any of the following entities, the Board may review the entity’s financial management system”, be that a band, a tribal council, an aboriginal group or a not-for-profit organization.

One of the things I have heard from people in my riding is that there has been some concern about the way the finances have been handled on reserve. Individuals have wanted to look at some of these things. There has not been any way for the federal government to allow individuals to have a look at some of these things. I would like to note that at the indigenous and northern affairs committee, our being allowed to tackle this was voted down by the Liberals.

Would the member not consider the fact that we would need a little more time just to study this and to get stakeholder feedback from our first nations communities as to whether this is legitimate legislation?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we need to do that work. However, we cannot bring members of the public before the House. We do it in committee. What happens when we pass this at this stage? It goes to committee and then at committee the various different stakeholders can come forward.

One of the committees that studies legislation in the greatest detail is the finance committee. When the bill comes before the finance committee, which is where it will go when we vote on it, the member will have the opportunity, and I am sure he will be there with the member from the NDP, to ensure these concerns are raised on behalf of the constituents.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill C-86, the second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

Let me start by acknowledging that I am speaking on the traditional land of the Algonquin peoples.

On this very auspicious day, I would like to wish all those who are celebrating Diwali a very happy Diwali. I hope all my constituents and all those in Canada who celebrate this very special occasion are able to see the light and overcome darkness.

Speaking of the light, the last three years the Liberal government has shone quite a bit of light on our country. A number of remarkable achievements are worthy of note, in particular on trade. We have set Canada on a course that will enable Canada to be one of the freest and most open trade markets anywhere in the world. These trade agreements include: the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU, also known as CETA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada and countries in Pacific Asia; and of course most recently, the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement with our North American allies. This means millions of new markets, billions of new dollars in trade and countless opportunities for Canadians today and for the future.

This unprecedented access to new and emerging markets will create unimaginable global opportunities for all of us. I know my constituents were quite worried earlier in the year about getting a good deal under the USMCA. They were worried about Canada giving in too much or Canada being shut out altogether. That is no longer the case. For close to 18 months, our negotiators have worked day and night to get not any deal, but a good deal for Canada. I want to thank and acknowledge our Minister of Foreign Affairs and her entire team for their tireless work. She has indeed made us all very proud.

There is more good news. Every time I meet employers, one of the issues they bring to my attention is the difficulty finding the people to fill good jobs in Canada. They complain that they are unable to hire people and retain them, regardless of the money they pay, and oftentimes these are high-paying jobs.

Right now, we have historically low rates of unemployment. In fact, it is the lowest it has been for the last 40 years. Our government has helped propel our economy forward, making it the fastest growing economy among G7 countries and one of the fastest in the world. This has led to the creation of over a half a million jobs since we were elected in 2015. Of course there is more good news for small business, as our tax rate will go from 11% to 9% as of this January.

There are many important initiatives in the budget, and I could talk about all of them. In particular, the establishment of the status of women as a full ministry, the implementation of pay equity legislation, along with legislating gender budgeting, are critical parts of our government's agenda. I know many of my colleagues have spoken about it extensively.

Today, I want to highlight two very important things and focus on them. First is the issue of poverty reduction. The second is the price on pollution.

Let me start with poverty reduction. Poverty is linked to a number of different socio-economic outcomes in our society. Whether the longevity of our life, or success in education or success in the workplace, poverty is one of the central determinants of success or limitations in our society. Our government believes that everyone deserves a real and fair chance of success. That is what drives us to grow the middle class and support people who are working hard to join it.

Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy sets new poverty reduction targets and establishes the federal government as a full partner in the fight against poverty. It also builds on the progress we have made together so far. These include the introduction of the Canada child benefit in 2015 and, most recently, the indexing of the CCB. This has lifted over 300,000 children out of poverty. My riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park alone has been given $76 million in just the last year.

The second is the reversion of the previous government's changes to the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, which basically restores the age of retirement from 67 to 65 years old and makes benefits for seniors more generous, lifting 100,000 seniors out of poverty each year.

The launch of Canada's first-ever national housing strategy last year will not only create 100,000 new housing units and renew and renovate more than 300,000 existing units, it will also remove more than half a million Canadians from critical housing need.

Since 2015, our government has been working hard to lift Canadians out of poverty with the help of programs like the CCB, the top up to the GIS and the Canada workers benefit. By 2019, the government's investments are expected to help lift over 650,000 Canadians out of poverty. The poverty reduction strategy, called “Opportunity for All: Canada's First Poverty Reduction Strategy”, is a bold vision that will build a Canada where every Canadian has a realistic chance to succeed.

“Opportunity for All” is a long-term strategy that builds up significant investments that the government has made since 2015 to reduce poverty altogether. There are three pillars to this strategy: first, dignity, lifting Canadians out of poverty by ensuring everyone's basic needs are met; second, opportunity and inclusion, helping Canadians join the middle class by promoting equality of opportunity and full participation in every aspect of our society; and third, resilience and security, supporting the middle class by protecting Canadians from falling into poverty by supporting income security and resilience.

I want to note one aspect of our government's agenda is the anti-black racism aspect, and I would be remiss if I did not address it. It is part of the work I do as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Our government understands that any plan for reducing poverty must also address systemic barriers, such as racism and discrimination, that hold some Canadians back. By removing barriers and levelling the playing field, all Canadians will be able to reach their full potential. To help address systemic barriers of racism, our government is launching, and is currently in the process, consultations across the country, which will establish a national framework for anti-racism. We will bring together experts, community organizations, citizens, interfaith leaders and others to work out a national strategy. A first step toward this is the recognition that anti-black racism is at the core of the discussions among other forms of racism and discrimination.

The second aspect I want to highlight is the price on pollution. There is no question that we have a problem with our environment. The disasters we have seen for the last number of decades seem to be getting worse every year. Whether it is the floods in Toronto or the wildfires out west, we see the challenges of climate change first hand.

Last year for Canada's 150th birthday, I had the opportunity to visit St. Anthony, Newfoundland, a beautiful part of our country where icebergs are prevalent. One thing the local folks told me was that the number of icebergs really spoke to the reality of climate change. We know the temperature is rising and it is hurting the environment and limiting our way of life, particularly for indigenous people. That is why it is important that this government address the issue of climate change by pricing pollution and ensuring that those who pollute pay a fair share to ensure pollution no longer is free. This is not a free commodity that Canadians or industry can take for granted. If people pollute, they must pay. That is the principle behind our pollution pricing plan.

With that, I would like to once again reiterate my support for Bill C-86.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, further to the member's speech, specifically regarding poverty and some of the barriers that exist, I think it is important to remember that poverty knows no skin colour. It reaches into all aspects of our society and is something that we all probably face in every single one of our ridings across the country.

Having said that, some demographics are more stricken by poverty than others. When we are talking about poverty, we are also talking about the cost of living. We are talking about which costs are increasing for those who have the least in society and how that affects them the most. In his speech, the member pushed for a carbon tax, which has also been called a price on carbon or a mechanism, or any of seven different terms, while at the same time speaking about poverty.

This tax is having the greatest effect on those with the least means to be able to live, so my question for the member is this. How can the government be proposing this tax at the same time it is trying to defeat poverty? This tax is going to further increase poverty in this country.

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, poverty is absolutely an important issue. My friend opposite is correct that it affects all of us in all of our ridings. Particular communities are affected much more deeply than others, such as those in northern and rural areas across the country. That is an important issue we need to address.

I know that in the past decades, we have failed to address the root causes of poverty. That is what we are really getting into here, particularly the shortage of housing, the lack of investments in public infrastructure and in transportation. It is those very important investments that are critical to uplifting people out of poverty.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the environment. It is critical and the way that our pricing on pollution has been undertaken, 90% of the money will go back to those families in communities who need it the most. That is our fundamental—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member used to sit with me at the northern and aboriginal affairs committee, and I know he was passionate about his work there. One thing we did was to try to pass a motion calling on the indigenous and northern affairs committee to study divisions 11, 12 and 19 of this BIA bill.

Seeing that the Liberal members voted that down at committee, could this member just elaborate on what the thinking was behind putting these particular divisions into this bill and how they are going to impact first nations communities?

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, of course, each and every committee operates on its own and its membership decides what to do and what kind of study to undertake. Therefore, I cannot speak to the particular point my friend opposite brought up.

Certainly, there will be ample opportunity, once Bill C-86 goes to the finance committee for study. If the finance committee requires additional support from other committees, they may well ask for that.

However, at this point, it is important that the bill goes to committee and a full and comprehensive study takes place before it comes back here.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech he talked about the Canada child benefit. Can the member please explain how the Canada child benefit is making an impact in his community and what he is hearing from families about how it is helping them in their day-to-day lives?

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I work closely together, as we represent ridings covering a geographically close area.

Of course, the topic of the Canada child benefit keeps coming up over and over again. Overwhelmingly, people talk about how it impacts them in a very personal way. In my riding the impact is worth $76 million. It has been put toward to buy food and pay for soccer and other things, such as extracurricular activities at school. It is a game changer in our communities and I am sure it is as well across the country.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have come together this afternoon to discuss Bill C-86, budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2. Simply put, for anyone listening, this debate is about the bill that implements the principal measures of the budget.

This debate is vital to Canadian democracy and crucial to ensuring that Canadian taxpayers know how their money is being spent. Unfortunately, closure has been invoked on this debate. Three years ago, the government told Canadians that it was committed to doing things differently, that it would never use closure, and that it would not introduce huge bills like this one. It is doing the exact opposite. Closure has been imposed over 50 times. This bill is not just 10 paragraphs long; it has 858 pages. It is what is known as an omnibus bill. Bill C-86 contains provisions dealing with labour code standards, for instance, and other things that have nothing to do with the budget. The Liberal way is to say one thing during the election campaign and do the opposite once they are in power.

Furthermore, when you look at Canada's budgetary situation, you see that it is exactly the opposite of what the Liberal Party had promised, with hand over heart, to win Canadians' trust. The Liberals did have their trust, but unfortunately they have squandered it.

Keep in mind that the Liberal Party promised to run small deficits for three years before returning to a balanced budget in 2019, which miraculously happens to be an election year. The Prime Minister came up with an interesting economic theory. During an interview with CBC, he said that budgets balance themselves, implying that deficits do not exist. I checked with every economic school of thought in the world and aside from the current Prime Minister of Canada, there is not a single serious economist who thinks that budgets balance themselves. The Prime Minister may see rainbows and unicorns when he looks at the budget, but people who know how to count certainly do not.

If budgets balanced themselves then we could expect the budget to be balanced in 2019, but the opposite is true. For three years the Liberals have been running deficits that are two to three times higher than expected. Today, 2019 is just around the corner and the government has absolutely no idea when it plans to return to balanced budgets.

It is certainly not for lack of trying on our part. Just today the official opposition finance critic, the hon. member for Carleton, questioned the Minister of Finance five times. He was in the House, where he could have clearly stated when the government plans to return to a balanced budget.

Our question was crystal clear: When will Canada get back to a zero deficit? We asked him that, not once, not twice, not three times, but five times in a row and, unfortunately, the Minister of Finance dodged the issue. Maybe the Minister of Finance will dodge the issue, but he cannot dodge reality, and certainly not his responsibility to Canadian taxpayers.

Why are deficits bad? They are bad because, ultimately, our children and grandchildren will have to pick up the tab. Running deficits is irresponsible because that is not our money.

I know that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development is a credible person. He is an honourable man whom I respect and hold in high esteem. The problem is the government saying that it is thinking of children in this budget. Sure it is thinking of children—it is forcing them to foot the bill once they hit the job market. That is the Liberal Party way, but that is not how a responsible government that got itself elected by promising small deficits should behave.

We all remember how the Liberals went on and on about making the rich pay more taxes.

The famous 1% of Canadian taxpayers will get hurt by the Liberal government. Oh yes, looking at the results and the figures, since those guys were elected three years ago, the famous 1% have not paid more taxes, but more than $4 billion less. That is the Liberals' economy. That is the Prime Minister's economy. That is the way those guys were elected, by saying, “No deficit in 2019 and the 1% will pay more”. They said that, but that is not the reality today.

Members will also recall that the Liberals promised to run very small deficits to stimulate the economy while investing billions of dollars in infrastructure. Once again, the results are not there. In one of his most recent reports a few months ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that there was no infrastructure plan. It is not the official opposition, members of the NDP or the Conservative Party of Canada who said that. Everything that has been done has boosted the economy by only 0.1%, so that is just one more promise this government has broken.

The Liberal government has completely lost control of the public purse. People need to understand something. It is only natural that government spending will go up every year for two reasons: population growth and inflation. If the population increases, the government has to provide more services, which costs more money. If inflation rises, the government has to spend more to prevent a freeze down the road. That is fine. However, the government did not take into account the combination of these two basic factors in its calculations. It has spent three times more than it should have based on the combination of inflation and population growth. Simply put, the Liberals do not know how to count and they are spending recklessly.

That brings us to the troubling signs we are seeing today. First of all, investments in Canada are in free fall, dropping by 5%. If we break down this sad and alarming reality further, we discover that unfortunately, thanks to the current government's ineptitude, combined with the new U.S. administration's solicitous approach to managing and stimulating investment, Canadian investment in the United States is up 65% and U.S. investment in Canada is down 52%.

The two indices that we use to determine whether the Canadian economy is getting sufficient stimulation from an investment standpoint suggest that Americans are investing less in Canada and Canadians are investing more in the United States. That is bad news on two counts.

Another concern is related to the announcement made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I am not referring to the Governor General, although former governors general have been in the news lately, some for debatable reasons and others for very bad reasons. The current Governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, made it clear that playtime was over last week when he announced that after modest interest rate hikes, we should get used to the idea of a minimum interest rate of 3%, or potentially higher.

This warning sign should to be taken into account when major budget checks or manoeuvres are being done, but unfortunately, this government is not doing anything about it. It does not care. Given that we will be paying $24 billion in interest on our debt this year alone, and that figure could soon rise to $35 billion and beyond, it seems obvious that we need to curb our spending. We need to stop spending three times more money than the inflation rate combined with population growth allows. We need to ensure sound management of public funds.

Canadians will have to contend with the Liberal carbon tax next year. The Liberals boast about their lofty principles. They are always ready to work with the provinces as long as the provinces work with them and say exactly what they are saying. When the provinces want nothing to do with the Liberal carbon tax, it is imposed on them by the government.

That is not how federal-provincial relations should be conducted. We must work together. If by chance the provincial governments want to have a carbon tax or participate in the carbon exchange, it would be their choice. However, if they are not interested and decide to opt out, the federal government will twist their arm. That is not the right approach.

The government is obviously talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says that there must be a price on pollution, which is their new slogan, but it is not for everyone. Under the Liberals, the big emitters will get a discount, not of 5%, or 10% or even 50%, but of 90%.

These are the same people who said that the rich would pay more, when in fact they are paying less. These are the same people who said that they want to tax carbon and polluters, except for the biggest polluters.

In light of this, we will be voting against the bill and exposing the Liberal government's contradictions.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is known for his bombast, but the problem is that his comments on pollution pricing mean nothing. He knows full well that our proposal is, I dare say, a Conservative principle. We want to put a price on pollution. The very concept of an economy involves putting a price on the production inputs required for our economic activities. Pollution is one such input.

Why is he against putting a price on pollution? I do not understand. I know the member to be an honourable man whose beliefs are generally consistent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say hello to my member of Parliament. When I am in the House, the member for Hull—Aylmer is my MP. I get his email updates regularly.

I have two things to say in response to his comments.

If he truly wanted to be consistent with the price on pollution, as he calls it, or rather the Liberal carbon tax, he would make it applicable across the board, to all those who emit greenhouse gases. Instead, Canada's biggest polluters will get a 90% exemption. This is the way the Liberals operate, and, I should mention, this applies everywhere in Canada.

Our approach was always to help businesses pollute less. This is a positive and constructive approach. The Liberals punish, but we help reduce pollution. The former government's results speak for themselves and cannot be ignored: greenhouse gas emissions fell by 2.2% under the Conservative government, while Canada's GDP increased by 16.9%. This was the Conservatives' record, and Canadians are proud of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I start off by congratulating my friend across the way for winning his award last night.

Having said that, I wonder if my friend could explain to me how it is that when we look at what I would classify as the bottom line of a good government, the number of jobs that have been created working with Canadians and small businesses from across virtually all regions of the country, we have been able to see well in excess of 500,000 new jobs to Canada's economy. That far exceeds anything even remotely close to what Stephen Harper ever did.

Can my friend explain why it is that Stephen Harper's government was never able to achieve the type of job growth that this government has been able to achieve in two to three years? I suggest that is one of the reasons that our plan is working. Canada's middle class is growing. It is healthier today than it ever was under Stephen Harper.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first let me pay my respects to my colleague from Winnipeg North for having been nominated twice yesterday for a Maclean's award. I also congratulate him for the award he got a year ago.

Let us talk about the facts.

The reality is that the current government arrived in midstream when the global economy is ticking along, our main economic partner, the U.S., is going through a remarkable economic boom, and the price of a key component of our exports, in other words oil, increased rather nicely over the past few years. These are all factors that are making the Canadian economy grow and that the current government has absolutely no control over.

I would remind hon. members that when our government was in power, we had to deal with the worst economic crisis of all time, even worse than the crisis in the 1920s. Despite that, our government managed to ensure that out of the G7 countries, Canada came through the crisis the fastest, the most effectively, with the most results, and the highest job creation levels. We can be proud of our record.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the sixth omnibus budget bill since the last election. It is 850 pages long and includes 70 pages of additions to the Income Tax Act, yet there is not one word about tax havens. Three years, six bills and 4,500 pages of budget bills, and still not a word about tax havens.

The Liberal government's record on taxation is a monumental failure. It is worse than failure, actually, because to fail implies that one has tried. This government is not even trying. It chose to leave the door wide open to tax havens and the people who cash in because of them. It is doing so knowingly and deliberately. Despite all the nice things it says about the middle class, it has picked sides and it is siding with Bay Street bankers. I cannot overemphasize that tax havens are probably the worst financial and economic scandal of our time. When it comes to attacking this cancer, Canada's performance is among the world's worst.

Canada represents just 2% of the world's GDP. Canada's three largest banks, the Royal Bank of Canada, Scotia Bank, and the CIBC, represent 80% of the banking assets in Barbados, Grenada, and the Bahamas. Canada has just 2% of the world's GDP, but 80% of its banking assets are in these three tax havens in the Caribbean.

That is not all. In the eight other tax havens that make up the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union, Canadian banks own 60% of banking assets. Canada is not an economic superpower, but it is a superpower in tax havens.

As social democrats, we cannot accept that. There is no social justice without tax justice. There is no justice at all when the financial sector hides its money in the Caribbean and ordinary people are left paying the bill. Ottawa is allowing that to happen and at the same time is cutting transfers. Left with a shortfall, Quebec is making cuts here and there, while Quebeckers made it clear in poll after poll during the recent electoral campaign in Quebec that their priorities were health and education.

In the meantime, bankers continue to grow their billions of tax-free dollars in the sunny Caribbean. This is not illegal because the government has introduced no provisions in six budget implementation bills to prevent it. For this reason alone, everyone in the House should vote against this bill. That is what the Bloc Québécois is going to do.

However, this bill also contains some good measures. It will establish pay equity at the federal level, both for the government and businesses operating under its jurisdiction. It is about time that Ottawa moved into the 21st century, especially since John Turner's government announced this measure in 1984, or 34 years ago.

I will now speak to the issue of consumer protection in banking, which is addressed in Bill C-86. We have to acknowledge that the regime proposed by Bill C-86 is a big improvement over the mess proposed two years ago in Bill C-29. I have to say that I am proud of the work that we did to make the government reconsider and go back to the drawing board.

The Liberal government trampled over Quebec consumers to accommodate Bay Street. I remind members that Quebec is the most advanced society in North America when it comes to consumer protections. The Quebec government sets the strictest guidelines to ensure that consumers are not swindled. This was one legacy left to us by Lise Payette, who passed away last month.

Bill C-29 sought to eliminate all of the safeguards that protect ordinary people but upset rich Bay Street bankers, including measures that ban misleading advertising and hidden fees, those that prevent unilateral changes to contracts, and those that prohibit banks from increasing the maximum liability for unauthorized credit card charges to more than $50.

The Quebec act provides for a simple, free and legally binding recourse mechanism, which is the Office de la protection du consommateur. This organization defends ordinary people rather than profiteers and has the ability to initiate class action suits so that David does not have to go up against Goliath alone. Ottawa wanted to eliminate all this, usurp all the power and use it to give the banks a nice big gift of vague requirements and non-existing recourse—essentially a paradise for bankers.

I will say that Bill C-86 is not as blatant an attack as Bill C-29 was. The obligations that the government is imposing on banks are real obligations. They are not written in the conditional tense as mere suggestions, as we saw two years ago.

The government is much less explicit about its desire to stifle Quebec and set aside its provincial Consumer Protection Act. It has eliminated the infamous clause about federal paramountcy. It seems the two regimes will be able to coexist. I say “it seems” because whether that will really happen is unclear. That is why this needs to be studied in greater detail.

With regard to consumer protection, the federal act has one massive shortcoming: recourse. In Quebec, the process is simple. If someone feels their bank has misled them, they can complain to the Office de la protection du consommateur, a consumer protection bureau that will investigate and, if necessary, take the case to court. There is no cost to the complainant, and the government helps the consumer assert their rights. That is not what Bill C-86 does. The consumer will have to contact the banking ombudsman, a kind of mediator who makes recommendations but has no actual power and, moreover, is paid by the banks. Would consumers trust a judge they knew was in the bank's employ? Of course not. What we needed was a government institution, not an employee of the bankers' association.

If the bank does not listen to the recommendations of its ombudsman, what other recourse do clients have? They can take the case to federal court alone and at their own expense. Does the government really think that a client who is charged $50 in hidden fees is going to take the case to federal court alone and deal with his or her bank's army of lawyers? Consumer protection is new in federal law. It would be in the banks' interest to limit the scope of their obligations as much as possible. We can be sure that they will do everything in their power to ensure that the case law does not come down too hard on them. They will fight. Taking a case to the Supreme Court can cost up to $1 million. No one is going to subject themselves to that to recover $50 in fees. The remedies contained in Bill C-86 are ill suited for an area like consumer protection, where it is often a matter of many small amounts of money.

Also, although the bill imposes obligations on banks, it does not provide any real recourse for clients, which means that the obligations may be more theoretical than real. Here is what I expect will happen. Since clients who have been shortchanged will not have any real recourse at the federal level, they will continue to turn to the Office de la protection du consommateur du Québec. That organization will take on the case and the banks, as they have always done, will defend themselves by claiming that they are above Quebec laws. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in a case such as this. It found that the Quebec laws applied to banks and that they could not claim to fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. However, the Marcotte ruling is a subtle one. One must read between the lines. Basically, what the court said was that banks are subject to Quebec law because the federal Bank Act does not include a comprehensive and exclusive consumer protection regime.

Would the court have reached the same decision if Bill C-86 had been passed? Would it have found that what we are debating here today is a comprehensive and exclusive regime? Incidentally, “exclusive” means that it excludes the application of Quebec's laws. I do not know. No one knows. That is why this legislation needs a detailed study, and not a quick glance as part of an omnibus bill. There is a real risk that Bill C-86 will eliminate the simple, free and binding recourse mechanisms we have in Quebec, and replace them with virtually pointless mechanisms. This will give the Toronto-based banks what they have always wanted: the privilege of being above the law.

To support Bill C-86 without understanding its impacts is tantamount to gambling with consumer rights in Quebec. It would be irresponsible. That is why I would like to move the following amendment to the amendment: That the amendment of the hon. member for Carleton be amended by deleting all the words after the words “other measures” and substituting the following: but that it be split and that clause 10 introducing the financial consumer protection framework be now referred to the Standing Committee on Finance before second reading.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Joliette moved an amendment to the amendment, but in this case, it is out of order. Page 542 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:

Each subamendment must be strictly relevant to, and not at variance with the sense of, the corresponding amendment and must seek to modify the amendment and not the original question. A subamendment cannot enlarge upon the amendment, introduce new matters foreign to it or differ in substance from it.

The time provided for questions and comments on the speech by the hon. member for Joliette will resume after question period, when we resume consideration of Government Orders.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking for the NDP, I rise to speak about Bill C-86, the budget implementation bill. I will run through some of the things we do not like, some of the things we wish were there and some of the measures that we have some qualified support for, particularly around oil spill response. I will then speak a little more in depth about pay equity, which is a long-awaited provision. We have been eagerly looking forward to it being brought into the House for three years, actually 42 years if we count the total sweep of time since it was first committed to by Liberals, and a lot of questions have come up about the mechanics of it.

However, first, there is one big missing piece. Although the bankruptcy laws would be amended through this proposed budget implementation act, they would only protect commercial licence-holders and corporations but fail completely to protect workers' pensions with those same bankruptcy laws. Our NDP colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, has been working for three years on this. When there is a bankruptcy, workers' pensions, which they have paid for, should be at the front of the line. How could the government, when it is for the middle class and all that jargon, have opened up that section of the bankruptcy laws but not introduced this amendment? It is so important, whether one is a Sears worker or Stelco worker. It is a major miss and a great disappointment. In fact, some have said it is a “moral failure”.

What is missing? If this were a New Democrat budget, we would have web taxation for the giant web companies. We would end pension theft. We would have universal child care. We would have closed tax loopholes. We would have much stronger measures against tax havens. A major way to fund our social programs in this great country is to close the offshore super-rich tax loopholes. We would have sick leave in EI. We would have universal, affordable pharmacare. We would have closed the funding gap for indigenous education and access to drinking water on reserves. There would have been more help for rural communities.

Here is one proposed provision that there is a mix on. We are glad to see an increased number of weeks for parental leave when divided between working parents, but, again, and we have made this argument every budget, it would only be effective for people who can afford to live on just 33% of their salary. It is not within reach or affordable for families who are not super well off. Also, as my colleague pointed out, six in 10 workers do not have access to EI. The program is still designed in a way that does not accommodate part-time and precarious workers, the people who most need the social safety net of EI. Therefore, it is a provision that although on paper looks good, and it is a good step I guess, it would not actually get to the people who need it. Of course, it does not get at the heart of the matter, which every gender-focused government and progressive government in the world has done, and that is invest in universal affordable child care. This proposed budget would not do that.

An issue I have been working on for at least 10 years in my role as Islands Trust Council chair and during the whole three years that I have been representing here concerns oil spill response. I represent a coastal community by the ocean. It has a lot of shipping traffic, a very sensitive ecology, fast-moving currents and big tidal fluctuations. A lot of jobs are dependent on the region; people are very concerned about oil spill response. Therefore, we were glad to see in the proposed budget a mechanism for the Coast Guard to receive upfront funding from the ship-source oil pollution fund.

Members might remember this fund from when I worked with the former fisheries minister, the member for Nunavut, to have the Viki Lyne II removed from Ladysmith Harbour. After four and a half years of trying, it cost $1.2 million, which was funded through the ship-source oil pollution fund. That abandoned vessel had been towed into Ladysmith Harbour by Transport Canada. The government brought it into our riding, and it took us that long to get it out, but that fund was used to remove the Viki Lyne II on the basis that removing that abandoned vessel would prevent an oil spill.

Therefore, it is good there is some conversation in this budget about how this fund might be used in a new and modern way. However, a provision in the budget implementation act that worries me is that it creates a mechanism for the government to put taxpayer money into the fund in the event it is depleted.

We have heard a lot of speeches in the chamber about polluter pays and making corporations pay for pollution. I agree with that, but this is the exact opposite of the intention of the ship-source oil spill pollution fund.

The following is part of a letter that I wrote when I was the Islands Trust Council chair in 2013 for the Tanker Safety Panel Secretariat under Transport Canada:

...this fund cannot be viewed as a “polluter-pay” arrangement, when industry has only contributed $34.86 million between 1972-1976 and none since then. On the other hand, I am told the taxpayer has contributed more than $424 million and the fund has paid out more than $51 million for industry's annual premiums to the international compensation funds. It makes sense to us

—that is, the Islands Trust Council—

that cargo owners and pipeline owners with marine terminals who profit by risking our marine environment and the health of our communities, should contribute to this fund to avoid the burden falling on the Canadian taxpayer.

That is how it should be. Industry should be paying for this fund. We really do not want to see the government opening up a mechanism to put taxpayer funds into this, even if it is only in an emergency situation. Rather, right now we should be asking the polluters to make contributions so that in the calamitous event there is an oil spill, we are able to have the funds right there that industry has already paid for.

Most importantly, I want to talk about the pay equity provisions. Going back in history, members will remember that it was 42 years ago that Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government committed to pay equity. In 2004, again under a Liberal government, there was a task force that had tremendous buy-in from all sectors and made very strong recommendations on pay equity that were never implemented. The NDP's very first opposition day motion in this Parliament was to have the government strike a special committee to find a way to implement those 2004 recommendations.

Here we are, three years later, and we wish it had not taken this long. However, we are glad to see the pay equity legislation finally tabled here. That it is buried in an 800-page omnibus bill is very discouraging. It means we cannot dig into the details, and there are a lot of them.

I have some questions about where this does not seem to align with the 2004 pay equity task force recommendations, which this Parliament's special committee unanimously said should be implemented. Pay equity is a fundamental human right, but this act's purpose clause defines it in terms of the employer's need. This is unheard of in a human rights statute in this country and completely contrary to the 2004 task force recommendations.

There will be no legal support centre for non-union women, as recommended in the 2004 task force. There will be no standalone enforcement entity as a specialized pay equity commission and tribunal. Again, that recommendation was ignored. The definition of “employer” is left out.

We had some testimony just this morning indicating that the finance committee ran through some of these mechanisms. We are getting good advice, but, again, we wish we had more time to debate and implement it.

A question was asked about why the new federal pay equity legislation would reduce the entitlements that women employed in precarious jobs currently have with that protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act. How could it possibly be that precarious workers would have less protection in this new bill than they do right now?

The timeline is a significant problem as well. Again, we have been waiting 42 years. It took the government three years to get to this point. The new pay equity act says that women could wait more than 10 years to receive a pay equity remedy: one year to develop the regulations, three years for pay equity plan development, and eight years for compensation and remedies to paid out in the case of workplaces with fewer than 99 employees.

This is not a situation where more consultation and more research is needed. Other countries have gone way ahead of us. Women have waited far too long. We really want to accelerate the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I will make two important points before I ask a question.

One point is that the NDP continually wants us to do things faster, but then to slow down once we start doing them. I am trying to reconcile that contradiction.

The second point is that in 2004, when pay equity legislation was on the table in the House and ready to be passed, as were the Kelowna accord and the proposed national day care program and an actual $2.7 billion for housing, the NDP chose to move to support a confidence motion rather than wait. The opposition controlled the timing of that. It supported the confidence motion first, rather waiting for those pieces to pass and then moving the confidence motion. The NDP have never explained to Canadians for why they gambled all of those things away. However, those things were gambled away.

My question is this. I think the member opposite raised an important issue around EI. She agreed that remodelling EI to reach more Canadians is necessary. If that happens, would she agree with what the Conservatives often say that it is a payroll tax rather than an insurance process? Would she support it even if it did have an impact on premiums?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of the seven questions asked, I will say that having waited 42 years, we want to get pay equity right. As for the closure that has been invoked on debate and the very limited committee time that it looks like we are going to have, I promise that we are not trying to slow down pay equity. We want it to be implemented more quickly and to have the time in committee and in the House to be able to get the details right. This has an enormous impact on women in all sectors.

Another piece that was not accommodated in the legislation was the question of intersectionality. Indigenous and racialized and immigrant people, not just women, should be accommodated within this pay equity act, and it looks that is missing.

These are all detailed questions that we want to work on with the government to get this right. I really wish the government had not waited until the third year of its mandate to bring the legislation forward. I wish it would give us more time to have this conversation right now.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as all of us in the opposition have discussed, this bill is is over 800 pages long. For those who objected to Conservative budget legislation, this is double the length of what we saw under the previous government. It is a comparison that should put those on the government side who railed against omnibus legislation utterly to shame.

I want to ask the member for her perspective on the indigenous consultation issue in the context of a budget bill that has implications for the lives of indigenous people in a number of its particularly important provisions. We have not had much time in the House to discuss those provisions, given the vastness of the bill and the limited time we have.

In this member's view, does the process conform to the requirements in UNDRIP for consultation of indigenous people on things that affect their lives?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to be able to answer that question. I am so proud of the work my colleague, the member of Parliament for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, did to bring the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People into legislation and have it bind future governments. Honestly, I have not even looked at that section. I have not been home since this omnibus bill was tabled. I have not heard from the Snuneymuxw, Stz'uminus, and Snaw-naw-as councils in my region.

Again, the current government is one that says that the nation-to-nation relationship is the most important. We have the ability to lock this into law. If there are good provisions, I would love to be able to support them. However, this is such a rush.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's speech, she mentioned the bankruptcy laws, which in its budget, the government had promised it was going to have consultations on. It even campaigned that it was going to use every tool in the tool box. My colleague mentioned that the government is using this now to open up the bankruptcy laws for companies, but not for the workers' pensions. Can she tell us what her constituents told us at the town hall meeting where they expressed this concern?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I co-hosted a town hall in Ladysmith with my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, we had a lot of people come out. There were former Sears employees, who really liked the mechanism that had been proposed by my colleague to put workers first in the queue in the event of bankruptcies. They recognized that these are earned pensions that they have paid into all their lives. I am sure they will be dismayed to learn that the government chose to open up the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, but not to protect workers' pensions.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge our presence on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples, who have taken care of this place for generations upon generations.

I am standing in the House to speak to, and urge my colleagues to support, Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, part 2, more affectionately known in this House as BIA 2, and to speak to the measures that help grow Canada's middle class and support those working hard to join it. I firmly believe that, when passed, these measures will help support Canadians across the country and help to grow our economy.

I also need to acknowledge the work of the feminists who have come before us, those who have worked so hard, those effective trailblazers and courageous silence-breakers who have brought us to this moment in time when we recognize that equality is a driver of economic growth. In fact, this past October, we launched Women's History Month, with the first online gallery that captures the stories of Canada's women of impact. This particular website tells the stories of women like Elsie Knott, the first woman to be chief of a first nation in Canada; Louise Fish; and young women like Faith Dickinson, along with the more well-known trailblazers, like the Right Hon. Kim Campbell. I encourage my colleagues and Canadians to google "Canada's women of impact" and read their stories. There is a teacher's guide so that we may share those stories in an effective way. Of course, Canadians are welcome to provide their nominations for other women whose stories ought to be on that website.

I mention those women, because our government is committed to continuing their legacies. Advancing gender equality is the right thing to do, and it is indeed the smart thing to do. We would benefit to the tune of $150 billion in Canada's economy over the next decade if Canada's women participated equally in our economy. We would increase our GDP by 4%, we would fill critical labour shortages, and would ensure that Canada's middle class grows, and that we stay competitive.

There are several measures in Bill C-86 to close the gender wage gap and to build on our government's existing efforts. I would like to speak broadly to five of those.

The first is the introduction of an act that would ensure there is a new and full department with a broader mandate to help Status of Women Canada evolve. It would evolve into the department for women and gender equality, WAGE in short. There is proactive pay equity legislation. We are legislating the application of a gender and diversity lens to all federal budgets moving forward. There are provisions for shared parental leave, and there is also a new benefit of five days of paid leave for survivors of family violence.

I would like to speak to the enabling legislation that would ensure that the department for women and gender equality would be able to build on the good work of the small but mighty agency that is Status of Women Canada. I will take this opportunity to thank my predecessors, as well as the team at Status of Women, who, regardless of the whims and values of the sitting governments of the day, kept the work of gender equality alive, kept tools like GBA+ sharp and applicable in Canadian contexts, and worked tirelessly, with limited resources, to help transform an agency into a full department and help meet the additional demands on their expertise with a feminist government.

The department, to be called WAGE, the department for women and gender equality, will have a wide mandate for the advancement of equality, including social, economic, and political equality with respect to sex, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, rurality, indigeneity, immigration and immigrant status, as well as to ensure that we take into account the wide range of varieties that Canadians find themselves in.

The proactive pay equity legislation included in this bill, Bill C-86, is historic. It is a historic step that will ensure that women in federally regulated industries, whether in the public service or others, are paid equally for work of equal value.

In doing so, we consulted with employees and employers and advocacy organizations and worked to strike a balance between the recommendations that came from the Bilson report, as well as the hard work and the report presented to the House from the committee that worked on pay equity. Proactive pay equity legislation is part of our government's efforts to get our house in order, and to continue to lead by example, hopefully compelling other employers to do the same.

The third item I would like to speak to is gender budgeting. BIA2 includes legislation that enshrines gender budgeting in law. This will ensure that future governments apply a gender and diversity lens to their budgetary decisions. This is an important example of how our government is working to ensure that an intersectional gendered lens is applied to our decision-making, including the federal budget.

The fourth item I would like to speak to is a new benefit to advance gender equality. Our government's five-week EI “use it or lose it” parental sharing benefit which is available to two-parent families, including adoptive and same sex couples, proposes to provide greater flexibility, particularly for mothers to return to work sooner, if they so choose. It encourages the second parent to take part in the work that is caring for a newborn.

We know that it will help shape and change some of the gender norms around who provides the care. We also know that for mothers who experience postpartum depression, having that additional support in those early days will provide some relief.

The fifth item that I would like to speak to is a budget measure that is tabled by our government that will ensure that survivors of family violence receive five days of paid leave. Advocates, women's organizations and unions have told us that these five days will ensure that those who experience that violence will have some time to figure out next steps, to come up with a plan, to take a time out, whatever that may be. This is something that we heard from advocates across Canada and we listened.

Regardless of our political persuasions, we all agree that nobody should have to live in fear, in economic uncertainty, of not having access to a decent job, or being paid less for work of equal value. Everyone should have the opportunity to succeed in this great country, no matter their gender, gender identity, age, language, origin, race, abilities, rurality or other identity factors.

I encourage my hon. colleagues in this House to support this bill. The measures introduced, combined with our government's efforts, like support for women's organizations, like child care, like a national housing strategy that has a carve-out for women who are escaping violence, like the work we are doing to support women entrepreneurs and women leaders, like Daughters of the Vote, all of these measures combined will ensure greater equality in Canada, will grow Canada's middle class and will support those working hard to join it.

I hope that colleagues support Bill C-86. I am happy to answer any questions they may have.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in her speech, said that we need to tackle the problem of violence against women and girls. I agree. Then she went on to say that we need to tackle this problem, because it will mean that our economy will be advanced, that it will be good for our economy. What she is saying, in essence, is that in Canada we face a problem where women and girls are mistreated, and we need to make sure that we take care of that problem so that these women and girls can go back into the workforce, so that they can contribute to our economic well-being as a country, and so that they can pay taxes to the government.

My question is very simple. As women, do we not have inherent dignity, inherent value and inherent worth? Are we not worth fighting for, just because we are women, because we are human beings, because we belong to a country called Canada?

In this country, we believe in the security and the freedom of a human being. We believe in making sure that is preserved and protected. We believe that every single Canadian from coast to coast should be able to walk in this country freely, that they should be able to walk in this country knowing that their security is intact, that they should not be attacked or mistreated by others, including the Prime Minister, I might add.

My question is very simple. Why is the hon. member devaluing women by saying that they simply need to be looked after so that they can better contribute to the economy?

Violence against women and girls is worth going after just because it is the right thing to do.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. Advancing equality and preventing gender-based violence is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do.

I am sure my hon. colleague knows that domestic violence is costing us $12 billion a year. I am sure my hon. colleague knows that, if given the choice, many would prefer to be out and reaching their full potential and contributing to society and the economy.

This is why we have invested over $200 million in a strategy to address and prevent gender-based violence. This is why we are investing tens of millions of dollars in women's organizations that are doing this work. This is why our government was the first to introduce a strategy to address and prevent gender-based violence. I also would like to remind colleagues that our party is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we too, like my colleague opposite, believe in protecting these rights, protected and fought for by others who have come before us.

I would like to add that the Conservatives had 10 years to address the challenges around gender-based violence. I would like to add that they closed down regional offices across the country. They shut down and stopped funding women's organizations that were advocating for a better life and for the dignity that is now being mentioned. The Conservatives worked every step of the way to undermine, undervalue and underestimate Status of Women Canada and women in this country. It is good to see them come on board and see the merit in our plan. I look forward to any future collaborations.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my many years in Parliament, I have seen governments squander a lot of things, and one thing majority governments are dangerous about squandering is the word of the prime minister, through sheer arrogance.

We remember how the Prime Minister won, saying this was going to be the last election under first past the post. He said there were going to be new relations with first nations. On prorogation and the use of omnibus bills, we remember how he said that Stephen Harper used omnibus bills, but the Liberals would change the Standing Orders and they would not do that. Now we are looking at this ridiculously large omnibus bill that comes from a Prime Minister who figures that the words he said to get himself elected actually do not count for all that much.

What really concerns me in this is the Liberals have shoved into this massive budget implementation bill fundamental questions about first nations issues. They do not even believe they have to bother consulting first nations. It is the same old attitude of the same old government that goes all the way back.

How, in God's name, does the government have the gall to shove issues about first nations rights and land into an omnibus budget bill without consultation?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that we are open to engaging with all peoples of this land, especially the first peoples of this land, to ensure that we move together effectively in an era of reconciliation.

I can speak to pay equity. We are absolutely in consultation with indigenous communities across the country. I would be happy to provide my hon. colleague with an update on that.

I would also say that our government supported UNDRIP, the proposal that was placed in this House, and my hon. colleagues from the Conservative Party did not.

We will continue to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of race, ability, disability and gender identity, have the opportunity to reach their full potential in this great country. I urge my hon. colleagues to support this bill so we can continue to do that work.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise. As usual, I would like to say hello to the many people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching us live on CPAC or on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter later.

I would like to comment on the speech by the Minister of Status of Women. I found it somewhat hypocritical when she said that she hopes her opposition colleagues will support the bill and the budget's feminist measures, which she presented, when the Liberals actually and strategically included all these measures in an omnibus bill, the 2018 budget implementation bill. Clearly, we, the Conservatives, will not vote in favour of Bill C-86 because it once again presents a deficit budget that is devastating for Canada's economy and for Canadian taxpayers. It is somewhat hypocritical for the minister to tell us that she hopes we will support the measures to give women more power when she herself was involved in hiding these measures in an omnibus bill.

I would like say, as I often say, that it is a privilege for me to speak today, but not for the same reason this time. I might have been denied the opportunity to speak to Bill C-86 because this morning, the Liberal government imposed closure on the House. It imposed time allocation on the speeches on the budget. This is the first time in three years that I am seeing this in the House. Since 2015, we have had three budget presentations. This is the sixth time we are debating a budget since 2015 during this 42nd Parliament. This is the first time I have seen the majority of my Conservative colleagues and the majority of my NDP colleagues being denied speaking time to discuss something as important as Bill C-86 to implement budgetary measures. The budget implementation legislation is what formalizes the budget the government brought down in February. Implementation is done in two phases. This is the second phase and it implements the Liberal government's budget.

By chance, I have the opportunity to speak about the budget today and I want to do so because I would like to remind those listening about some key elements of this budget which, in our view, are going in the wrong direction. First, the Liberals are continuing with their habit, which has become ingrained in their psyches. They are continuing with their deficit approach. It appears that they are in a financial bind. That is why they are creating new taxes like the carbon tax. They also lack the personal ability to govern. You might say that it is not in their genes to balance a budget. The Liberals' budget measures are bad and their economic plan is bad. They are so incapable of balancing the budget that they cannot even give us a timeline. They cannot even tell us when they think they will balance the budget.

This is the first time that we have seen this in the history of our great Canadian parliamentary democracy, established in 1867, and probably before that, in the parliaments of the United Canadas. This is the first time since 1867 that a government has not been able to say when they will balance the budget. I am not one for political rhetoric, but this is not rhetoric, this is a fact.

The Liberals made big promises to us in that regard during the 2015 election. Unfortunately, the Liberals put off keeping those promises. They promised to balance the budget by 2019. Now, they have put that off indefinitely, or until 2045, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position that, let us not forget, was created by Mr. Harper. That great democrat wanted to ensure that there was budgetary accountability in Parliament. The Liberals also promised that they would run small deficits of $10 billion for the first three years and then balance the budget. The first year, they ran a deficit of $30 billion. The second year, they ran a deficit of $20 billion. The third year, they ran a deficit of $19 billion. Just a week or two ago, we found out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the Liberals miscalculated and another $4 billion in debt has been added to that amount. The Liberals have racked up a deficit of $22 billion. That is 6.5 times more than what they set out in their plan to balance the budget.

The other key budget promise the Liberals made was that the small deficits of $10 billion would be used to build new infrastructure as part of a $187-billion program.

To date, only $9 billion has flowed from the coffers to pay for infrastructure projects. Where is the other $170 billion? The Prime Minister is so acutely aware of the problem that he shuffled his cabinet this summer. He appointed the former international trade minister to the infrastructure portfolio, and the new infrastructure minister's mandate letter says he absolutely has to get on this troublesome issue of money not being used to fund infrastructure projects.

There is a reason the Liberals do not want to give us more than two or three days to discuss the budget. They do not want the Conservatives and the NDP to say quite as much about the budget as they would like to say because we have a lot of bad things to tell them and Canadians.

Fortunately, we live in a democracy, and we can express ourselves in the media, so all Canadians can hear what I have to say. However, it is important for us to express our ideas in the House too because listening to what we say here is how Canadians learn what happened in history.

Things are not as rosy as the Liberals claim when it comes to the economy and their plan. For instance, in terms of exports, they have not been able to export Canadian oil as they should. We have one of the largest reserves in the world, but the Liberals tightened rules surrounding the National Energy Board in recent years. As a result, several projects have died, such as the northern gateway project and energy east, and the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain project, which the Liberals managed to save in the end using $4.5 billion of taxpayers money. In short, our exports are not doing very well.

As for investments, from 2015 to 2017, Canadian investments in the U.S. increased by 65%, while American investments in Canada dropped by 52%.

On top of that, one thing that affects the daily lives of Canadians even more is the massive debt, which could jeopardize all our future projects for our glorious federation. In 2018, the total accumulated debt is $670 billion. That comes out to $47,000 per family. Not counting any student debt, car payments or mortgage, every family already has a debt of $47,000, and a good percentage of that has increased over the past three years because of the Liberals' fiscal mismanagement.

That is not to mention the interest on the debt. I am sure that Canadians watching at home are outraged by this. In 2020, the interest on the debt will be $39 billion a year. That is $3 billion more than we invest every year in health.

The government boasts about how it came up with a wonderful plan for federal health transfers with the provinces, but that plan does not respect provincial jurisdictions. What is more, it imposes conditions on the provinces that they must meet in order to be able to access those transfers. We did not do that in the Harper era. We are investing $36 billion per year in health care and spending $39 billion servicing debt. Imagine what we could have done with that money.

I will close by talking about the labour shortage. I would have liked to have 20 minutes so I could say more, but we cannot take the time we want because of the gag order. It is sad that I cannot keep going.

Quebec needs approximately 150,000 more workers. I am appalled that the minister would make a mockery of my questions on three occasions. Meanwhile, the member for Louis-Hébert had the nerve to say that the Conservatives oppose immigration. That has nothing to do with it. We support immigration, but that represents only 25% of the solution to the labour shortage. This is a serious crisis in Quebec.

There are many things under federal jurisdiction that the government could do and that, in combination with immigration, would help fill labour shortages. However, all the Liberals can do is make fun of me, simply because I am a member of the opposition. I hosted economic round tables in Quebec City with my colleagues, and all business owners were telling us that this is a serious crisis. The Liberals should act like a good government and stop making fun of us every time we speak. Actually, it is even worse; they want to prevent us from speaking.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very interesting comments. I have visited regions all across Quebec on behalf of the Minister of Innovation, and I have also heard the heartfelt appeals regarding the labour shortage.

Is the hon. member prepared to encourage his colleagues to promote innovation across Quebec and Canada?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is such a dishonourable question. He is doing exactly what I just criticized his colleague from Louis-Hébert for doing. That is fearmongering. The Liberals are doing exactly what they are accusing us of doing. They are making a mockery of what we are saying and the work we are doing as Her Majesty's opposition.

When we were in power, over 300,000 immigrants entered Canada every year, and there were no crises at our borders because we made sure that the our immigration system was orderly, fair and peaceful.

At an economic round table, the executive director of the Association des économistes du Québec told us that immigration was only 25% of the solution to the labour shortage. Even if we welcomed 500,000 immigrants a year, that would still not completely solve the labour shortage.

We need to help seniors who want to return to the workforce. We need to allow foreign students in our universities to stay longer. We need to make sure that fewer young men in Quebec drop out of high school. All kinds of action could be taken, but all the Liberals are capable of doing is launching completely false insinuations and hyper-partisan attacks on us.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who is also a young father. He talked a lot about the colossal debt that the Liberals are accumulating with their mismanagement. They talk a lot about the environment, but they are bringing in a tax that will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As a young father, does my colleague believe that the government racking up all this debt during a period of relative economic prosperity will put the country in a vulnerable position in the coming years?

What would he say is the right path for ensuring that we leave a sustainable tax environment and a lasting ecosystem for future generations?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government needs to be serious and show some leadership. That means being capable of making decisions for the future well being of Canadian society.

Why are the Liberals coming up with a carbon tax and bogus plans to fight climate change when they know a recession is coming? Everyone is talking about it. There will be a recession by 2020. What are they going to do in a recession with a $30-billion deficit? They have run up deficits or more than $100 billion in three and a half years. When the next recession hits, what are they going to do to get the economy moving again without any money?

We know what to do. From 2006 to 2015, the Conservative government managed to get through the worst economic crisis in history since the recession of the 1930s. We had the best result in the G7 and the OECD.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is brief and it relates to the member's comments on the deficit. If he is so concerned about debt, how does he explain the fact that in 150 years since Confederation, the Liberals have been in power for 60% of the time and the Conservatives have been in power for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

One moment please. I believe we have a problem with the sound system. Can everyone hear my voice? Let us give it another shot then.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. A 30-second question will get a 30-second answer.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I will start again, Mr. Speaker. When the member talks about debt, I am curious as to how he can rationalize the fact that in 150 years since Confederation, the Liberals have been in power for 60% of the time, the Conservatives for 40% of the time, yet the Conservatives have racked up 75% of the national debt.

How do the Conservatives square that away? Where do they get off lecturing this side of the House on not racking up debt?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is the expression that Conservatives times are tough times. Why is that? We always have to clean up the Liberals' mess every single time. They were in power more often than us because they do not have principles. All they want is power. We stand up for the people and principles.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, I want to remind hon. members that shouting across the floor is not parliamentary behaviour.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

[David Lametti, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about the changes the bill makes to the Copyright Board.

When we listen to music, it is rare that we fully appreciate all the people who contribute to our favourite songs. We certainly do not reflect fully on the legal and marketplace frameworks that make this listening possible, whether we are tuning into a radio station or streaming from one of our devices.

The Copyright Board is a very important part of this behind the scenes framework. It is a specialized, independent and quasi-judicial decision-making body that establishes royalty rates to be paid for certain uses of content, allowing rights holders to band together to allow for efficient access and payment. In doing so, the board facilitates the development and growth of markets that rely on copyright in Canada while safeguarding the public interest.

Copyright Board business is in a sense big business. The royalties it sets are estimated to be worth half a billion dollars annually. When one thinks of the many ways in which we experience content, the board has an impact on the lives of nearly every citizen.

However, over the years, as new technology has increased the use of collectively managed copyrights and made rights management even more complex, decision-making at the Copyright Board was hindered by significant delays, so much so that royalty rates are regularly being set years after copyright-protected content is used. Retroactive decisions by the board are a distinctive feature of doing business in Canada. This results in Canadians having less access to and creators less revenues from innovative services, including digital content services. This also delays payments to creators, creates challenges for royalty collection and freezes capital that could otherwise be put to more productive use.

When, at Parliament's urging, the government looked into this issue and consulted stakeholders, we found that significant and structural challenges in the the board's decades old decision-making framework prevented it from operating efficiently.

The government is now taking comprehensive action to address these issues initially in a budget 2018 initiative which saw a 30% increase in financial resources for the board, and now accompanied by legislative proposals. Along with several new appointments to the Copyright Board's core staff posts, these measures will set a new course and ensure that the board can once again issue the timely, forward-looking decisions that copyright-based markets need to thrive.

The proposed amendments fall into three broad categories: ensuring more predictability and clarity in board proceedings, improving timelines and reducing the board's workload. We are ensuring more predictability by codifying the board's mandate and setting clear criteria for decision-making. This will help parties streamline their argumentation and the board to structure its decisions.

We are improving timelines by making tariff filings earlier and making those tariffs last longer. We are also introducing case management to move proceedings more expeditiously, as well as a regulatory mechanism that will allow the government to set deadlines by which decisions will have to be rendered.

We are also reducing the board's workload by allowing more collectives and users to enter into direct agreements among and between themselves. This will ensure that the board's resources are focused where they are most needed and not in areas where there is agreement between the parties.

These reforms will have positive results for rights holders and users alike by reducing legal costs for all participants in board proceedings. They will better position our creators and cultural entrepreneurs to make, produce and reinvest in high-quality Canadian content and will support strong, vibrant and healthy creative industries for the benefit of all Canadians.

I believe these steps are important in making our copyright more efficient and effective and to enable our businesses to innovate to create good middle-class jobs and contribute to Canada's prosperity. There is widespread agreement across the swath of copyright stakeholders about making changes that improve the functioning of the Copyright Board.

These are not the only provisions going on in copyright policy in Canada. As some will know, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, INDU, as well as the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, CHPC, are currently conducting a statutory review of the Copyright Act. Such a review is required every five years, according to the law, to take stock of the overall effectiveness of the act in light of fast evolving technologies and to make recommendations to government regarding potential improvements when warranted.

During our consultations on the Copyright Board, some stakeholders recommended that the government clarify when board-set rates must be paid and that it provide collective management organizations with tools for their enforcement. They argued that there is uncertainty around the enforceability of board-set rates. Obviously, this argument touches on fair dealing.

Fair dealing has been part of Canadian copyright since 1921. A series of landmark Canadian Supreme Court decisions, in particular in 2004 and in 2012, have outlined the nature and parameters of fair dealing in Canada, in particular in a 2012 decision that applied to works in the educational context. This was coupled with changes to the Copyright Act brought in 2012, which allowed for education to be a unique heading in fair dealing, where previously the Supreme Court's decision earlier in 2012 had based the same kinds of rights under the heading “research or private study”.

There was an impact from that. We have heard diverse and sometimes conflicting accounts in that regard. Authors and publishers feel that they would like to be fairly remunerated for educational uses, while the educational community maintains that the current framework has begun to work well and that librarians, professors and teachers need the flexibility to thrive in a digital context, with new sources of digital materials coming online.

I would also point out that a Supreme Court decision in 2014 maintained that tariffs could not be mandatorily applied to users, as it went around the basic law of contracts and undermined fair dealing rights.

We have asked for clarity and more opinions on both sides of this debate. Consequently, the Minister of Canadian Heritage as well as the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development have written to the two parliamentary committees conducting the review and have asked them to provide specific insight on educational copying, including with regard to the applicability and enforcement of board-set rates.

The government's vision is to have a creative middle class, where authors and publishers are paid fairly and where educational institutions and students continue to have access to quality Canadian works. Educational institutions of provincial and territorial governments rely on the availability and affordability of quality materials to give our students a world-class education rich in Canadian content.

Although we may not always see the inner workings of the copyright framework behind the creation and dissemination of the content that surrounds us, the proper functioning of the Copyright Act and the proper functioning of the Copyright Board is of vital importance. That is what ensures that our enjoyment is sufficiently translated into fair remuneration for creators, and ultimately, returning to the beginning of my remarks, the making of our next favourite songs. With Copyright Board reform, we strengthen the virtuous circle for the benefit of all Canadians.

Finally, on another note on the copyright file, we also, in the bill, strengthen our notice and notice regime to make sure that it is not abused by people pretending or claiming that there is a copyright infringement and that they should be paid a certain amount of money as a settlement offer.

We heard, in the context of notice and notice consultations through INDU, good things about the notice and notice regime, as an initial response, to prevent abuse. It is the case that under notice and take-down regimes, copyright is asserted to take down content, even when the claim has nothing to do with copyright or the copyright is, in fact, legitimate. Our notice and notice regime will provide for a more standard form to prevent abuse in this context.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech brings back some fond memories of when I was working as a parliamentary secretary and assistant on the industry file and we were involved in some extensive consultations on copyright. Certainly, we never would have dreamed of rolling those consultations into an 800-page budget bill, as opposed to moving forward with stand-alone consultations, discussions, review and legislation.

Since we are talking about music, does the member think the government got a good deal from Netflix?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the hard work he did as parliamentary secretary. I can certainly speak from the same position and can appreciate the amount of work that has been done.

The question raised is part of an ongoing review. It is not just the Copyright Act that is being reviewed but also the Broadcasting Act and the telecommunications sector generally. That is where that question would be better placed.

As has been said a number of times in the House, the government subscribes to the principle that people who take a benefit from the system have to make a contribution at some point. As a government, we have tried to move forward on the Netflix file by ensuring that it contributes to Canadian and Quebec content, and we are continuing to monitor that situation.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said, “to make a contribution at some point”. Is “some point” in six years?

What a meaningless answer. The Liberals are just putting things off. Honestly, I completely understand my colleague from Quebec. I am not sure if that is the name of his riding, but everyone knows who I am talking about. He was getting very worked up listening to the government's petty answers. The government is clearly under the impression that the blue bloods, the members of royalty, know what to do. It is appalling.

There is something that really sticks in my craw. I have been a member of the House and vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for seven years. This year, we did not agree with the Conservatives, but at least they were doing things properly. When we began the copyright review, we knew it was a big deal. There was an ad hoc committee for all the parties participating. There were special clerks, analysts and advisors.

In order to get its own way, the government decided to revamp the Copyright Board of Canada without knowing what changes would be made to the legislation. It is like trying to build a Japanese car with American tools. The government knew it was not a good idea, but it did it anyway.

The government asked the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to examine certain provisions of the act here and there. Members did not have the slightest idea of the scope of the task they were being asked to do.

Did the government do that to be able to get its own way? Do the Liberals think it is right that universities and colleges pay for electricity and insurance but do not pay royalties to authors?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, two House of Commons committees are holding consultations. Both committees have very rich histories and include very effective members of all parties. The committees are currently studying the impact of changes brought by the Supreme Court and the Copyright Act in 2012 that affected the education sector.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Natural Resources; and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Housing.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the discussion today on Bill C-86, the budget implementation act.

It is well known by everyone inside and outside this House that we are going into an election year. I often think back to the last election in preparation for my plans for what is going to become the 2019 election for Canada. Of course, I look forward to being the nominated candidate, which I am, for the election in October 2019. Congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker. I see that you received your nomination last week.

In the last election, Canadians chose to elect the government with a plan to invest in the middle class and a government that planned to truly build an economy that would work for everyone, not just a select few. The results over the last four years speak for themselves. There are more Canadians employed today than in years and years. We have the lowest unemployment rate we have had the good fortune to have in well over 40 years, and that is a result of investments and the infrastructure and so on that our government has done.

Since November 2015, the Canadian economy has created nearly 600,000 jobs, most of which are full-time jobs. The unemployment rate, as I mentioned, is near historic lows, and that is something I know everyone in this House is pleased about. Canada has had the fastest-growing economy among G7 countries.

Wages are increasing. People are being paid a better wage, and then they are taking that wage and reinvesting it by purchasing things for their families. They are able to upscale to new homes or better cars. Consumer and business confidence is clearly stronger than ever. Middle-class Canadians, as I said, are seeing first-hand that our plan is continuing to work. By this time next year, a typical family of four will be better off, with more money in their pockets. If it is a family of four, we are talking about $2,000 more. If it is a family of eight, it will be reflected in the child tax benefit.

More money in their pockets is something that will be tremendously important to the families in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek. I have a particularly interesting riding. It is mixed, very multicultural, with a lot of new immigrants and a lot of people who are struggling to get ahead, find jobs, get decent housing and achieve the Canadian dream. What our government is doing is clearly going to help them achieve that dream. More money in their pockets means that the constituents in my riding can afford to buy additional things they need for their children. They can purchase school supplies and maybe even have the opportunity for a nice evening out with a loved one. They can have the ability to offer music classes to their children or enrol them in hockey or soccer or many activities that are quite expensive.

That all being said, for these things I have mentioned to happen, we must see Bill C-86 pass. Bill C-86 needs to pass to support our government's people-centred approach and ensure that every Canadian, from coast to coast to coast, has a fair chance for success.

Our government is taking the next step toward building an equal, competitive, sustainable and fair Canada. By making substantial investments and real progress for the middle class, our government is demonstrating its commitment to all Canadians, and especially to those who need it the most in our communities. My riding of Humber River—Black Creek is no different. There are a number of key measures contained in Bill C-86 that would have a positive impact for Canadians, but I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the measures that will impact the lives of the people of Humber River—Black Creek in a positive way.

Our government is taking the next step to help grow the economy in a way that would strengthen and grow the middle class by introducing the new Canada workers benefit. The Canada workers benefit will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers and deliver real help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

Canadians who qualify for the Canada workers benefit will be automatically enrolled, thereby ensuring that no worker will be left behind. We often hear that when the government initiates programs people are not aware that they have opportunities for support in various ways. Automatically enrolling people will ensure that people get whatever benefit they are entitled to. The Canada workers benefit will raise approximately 70,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020.

Our government's poverty reduction strategy is a really important issue for communities like mine that have a lot of new immigrants, a lot of people who are struggling to find jobs and settling in with their families. The first three or four years after moving into a new community are very much a struggle for them. The government's poverty reduction strategy will help many newcomers.

Since taking office in 2015, our government has been growing the middle class by helping those working hard to join it. There has been an increase in the numbers when we talk about the middle class today.

Housing is a very big issue in my riding. I know of three or four homeless people in my riding who are looking for housing. They are women and at the moment they share a room with a friend. They have their names on a list that contains the names of about 18,000 other people who are also trying to find safe housing.

The enhanced seniors benefit is important. Our government has done a lot on the seniors file. We now have a new Minister of Seniors whom we are thrilled with. She and our government will do a lot of work to deliver assistance to our seniors.

Thanks to programs like the Canada child benefit, the national housing strategy and others, by 2019, our investments will have lifted over 650,000 Canadians, including more than 300,000 children, out of poverty. All of us should be thrilled with that.

Guided by opportunity for all, Canada's first national poverty reduction strategy, we are establishing an official poverty line for the first time ever, and setting firm targets for reducing poverty to the lowest level in Canada's history. Opportunity for all represents a bold vision for poverty reduction that will build a Canada where every Canadian from coast to coast to coast has a real and fair chance at success.

Pay equity is another very important goal that we finally managed to see achieved. We have talked about it for well over 25 years and it is nice to see that it is finally going to come to fruition. We have been having discussions about pay equity for the full 19 years or so that I have been here.

I have appreciated the opportunity to say a few words today and I welcome questions.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been here a long time. She was here and was outraged when the previous government invoked closure. Granted it was a different time. There was an economic emergency and we had to get things moving forward.

As my colleague quite rightly said, our economy is doing very well, not because of the Liberal government but because we are right next door to the United States and its economy is churning like crazy.

The present Liberal government is the first government to have ever gone into so much debt in a time that was not a time of war or during a recession.

I have been here as long as you have, Mr. Speaker. We were first elected in 2004. I have always had the opportunity to do a speech for my constituents, but unfortunately, I am not going to get a chance to do that on this bill.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the fact that the Liberal government was supposed to be a government that was going to do things differently and here it is the same old same old.

This bill has 850 pages. It is an omnibus bill the size of which I think is unprecedented. Why does she support the government's action to invoke closure on this bill and not give us the ability to speak for our constituents here in the House?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to get a question from my hon. colleague. In many ways, we share similar points of view on a variety of things.

One of the issues that I have been working on for the last almost four years, which started when I was one of the members in opposition, is the issue of paying our bills promptly. One of the things that I find most aggravating here is the fact that it takes forever to get anything done. It takes years to get legislation through. It takes years to make changes. If the government has an omnibus bill and it is including a lot of things in that bill, sometimes that is a way of helping move certain agendas along.

Let us talk about the issue of protecting our marine environment. There are a variety of things in this bill that are important and need to get done, yet there were more delays as we progressed and moved along. There are complaints all the time that governments take far too long to get things done and, as the previous government did, sometimes the decision is to take a different avenue to get things done. At the end of the day, government is responsible to move legislation along and to move bills like Bill C-86 along as well.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation.

One thing she said was quite striking, to say the least. Apparently omnibus bills are now the way to help move certain agendas along. I have serious doubts about that, but supposing I agreed with that statement, why does this massive omnibus bill not include a clause about what happens to workers' pensions when their employer goes bankrupt? This is a file the NDP has been working on for years, and it certainly serves as an example of how things can take time. What will the government do to make sure that workers who have invested in company pension plans, some of them for their whole lives, will get the priority consideration they deserve and not be left high and dry when the company goes bankrupt?

If omnibus bills really are the way to move agendas along, then why is this legislation not in the omnibus bill? The NDP is not the only party talking about this. A growing number of bills on the subject have been introduced in both the House of Commons and the Senate.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have been doing a lot of work on this whole issue of what we can do when it comes to bankruptcy and insolvency. Sears is an example and Nortel is another example before that. There have been many debates and discussions in this House as to how we work forward to protect pensions. I think our government is looking at that and I know several other parties in the House are also looking at trying to find a solution to a difficult issue.

People's pensions have to be protected. People have to know they can count on the money that has been put in for their retirement. We all need to work forward to try to ensure that very much happens.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are drowning Canadian job creators in red tape and tax hikes. Whether it is the carbon tax, small business tax hikes or the many cancelled tax credits and deductions, the Liberals are driving businesses out of Canada and killing Canadian jobs, hurting workers and middle-class families across the country.

Every other day major oil and gas companies cancel future projects, stop expansions or completely sell their Canadian businesses and take their money to other countries. It is a crisis, and it is not a result of external factors beyond the government's control. In fact, it is a direct consequence of the Liberals' message to Canadians and the world that Canada is closed for business because of the Liberals' added red tape and imposed cost increases.

Context is important. The energy sector is the biggest private sector investor and accounts for over 11% of the value of Canada's economy. To put this in perspective, it contributes twice as much as agriculture and fisheries combined, sectors in which farmers and fishermen also often have jobs in oil and gas. It contributes more than the banking and finance sector and more than the auto sector. The benefits are shared across Canada. Every one job in the oil sands creates seven manufacturing jobs in Ontario. Every one upstream oil and gas job in Alberta creates five jobs in other sectors, in other provinces.

However, spending in Canada's oil and gas sector declined 56% over three years, from $81 billion in 2014 to $45 billion in 2017. More money has left Canada's oil and gas sector since the 2015 election than at any other comparable time period in more than 70 years. The equivalent value would be losing 75% of auto manufacturing in Canada, or almost the entirety of the aerospace sector in Canada, something no one rightfully would accept.

The biggest beneficiary is the U.S. where spending in oil and gas increased 38% to $120 billion in 2017. Today, U.S. investment in Canada is down by more than half. Canadian investment in the U.S. is up by two-thirds. The consequences of these losses are hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work and less revenue for core social programs and services at every level of government in every single province.

Over 115,000 Albertans are out of work and not receiving any employment insurance assistance right now and tens of thousands more have lost their jobs. The Liberals' anti-energy agenda is clearly both hindering the private sector from being able to provide well-paying jobs, but it is also risking the life savings of many Canadians.

Oil and gas companies are a big part of most people's pension plans, and whether through employer provided defined contribution plans or personal investments in mutual funds, chances are that most Canadians are invested in oil and gas. When oil and gas companies leave Canada, the value of those investments in Canada drops, reducing the value of everyone's retirement savings. Now CPP and the Ontario teachers' pension plan are also investing in the United States.

I want to highlight an aspect of this legislation that will compound uncertainty and challenges for Canadian oil and gas proponents. On page 589, in the very last chapter of this 840-page omnibus bill, clause 692 implements sweeping new powers for the federal cabinet to impose regulations on marine transport. Included in these powers is the ability to pass regulations:

(j) respecting compulsory routes and recommended routes;

(k) regulating or prohibiting the operation, navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels or classes of vessels; and

(l) regulating or prohibiting the loading or unloading of a vessel or a class of vessels.

This means the Liberal cabinet can block any class of tanker from any route leaving Canada or from docking at any port the Liberals choose. In Bill C-48, oil tankers of a certain size will be prevented from travelling and from the loading and off-loading of crude at ports only off the northern coast of B.C.

This legislation, Bill C-86, would be a dramatic expansion, giving the Liberal cabinet the power to block oil exports from any port anywhere in Canada or to block oil tankers in general from entering Canadian waters. Places like the Arctic could lose access to the fuel tankers that keep power on during the winter. Offshore oil and gas development in Atlantic Canada could be blocked overnight. That is alarming in itself, and it gets worse.

This legislation authorizes a single minister to be able to make legally binding changes to these regulations for a year at a time and even up to three years, regarding “compulsory routes” and “prohibiting the operation, navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels or classes of vessels”. One minister with one stroke of a pen can shut down an entire industry with wide-ranging impacts.

This is a pattern. The Liberals repeatedly demonstrate their hostility to the oil and gas sector in Canada. The Prime Minister of course said that he wants to phase out the oil sands, and Canadians should believe him. He defended the use of tax dollars for summer jobs to stop the Trans Mountain expansion. The Liberals removed the tax credit for new exploration oil drilling at the very worst time.

Also, many Liberal MPs ran in the last election opposing the export of Canada's oil to the world. Since they formed government, the Liberals have used every tool at their disposal to kill energy sector jobs.

Canada is the only top 10 oil-producing country in the world, let alone in North America, to impose a carbon tax on itself. While there are significant exemptions for major industrial emitters, it will hike costs for operations across the value chain, and certainly for the 80% of Canadian service and supply companies that are small businesses. Moreover, individual contractors will still have to pay it.

The proposed clean fuel standards—which would be unprecedented globally because they would be applied to buildings and facilities, not just to transportation fuel—will cost integrated oil and gas companies as well as refining and petrochemical development in Canada hundreds of millions of dollars. Canada is literally the most environmentally and socially responsible producer of oil and gas in the world, oil and gas that the world will continue to demand for decades. We are falling dramatically behind the United States and other countries for regulatory efficiency and clarity.

The Liberals imposed the tanker ban, with no substantial economic, safety, or environmental assessments and no real consultation, and a ban on offshore drilling in the north against the wishes of the premier of the Northwest Territories.

The Prime Minister vetoed outright the northern gateway pipeline and then intervened to kill energy east with delays, rule changes and a last-minute double standard. Now, the Liberals' failures have driven Kinder Morgan out of Canada. Construction of the Trans Mountain expansion has never started in the two years since the Liberals approved it, and they have repeatedly kicked the can down the road for months. The consequence is that crude oil is now being shipped by rail and truck at record levels, negatively impacting other sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and retail.

The Liberals would add uncertainty and great expense for any resource project that has even a ditch on its property, by subjecting all water to the navigable waters regulatory regime in Bill C-68. Moreover, their “no more pipelines” Bill C-69 would block any future pipelines and therefore stop major oil and gas projects from being built in Canada.

Kinder Morgan is now going to take all of that $4.5 billion in Canadian tax dollars the Liberals spent on the existing pipeline and will use it to build pipelines in the United States, Canada's biggest energy competitor and customer. The consequences are that large companies are pulling out of Canada and investing in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Encana, a made in Canada success story, is selling Canadian assets to buy into projects in the United States. Gwyn Morgan, its founder, did not mince words. He said:

I’m deeply saddened that, as a result of the disastrous policies of the [Liberal] government, what was once the largest Canadian-headquartered energy producer now sees both its CEO and the core of its asset base located in the U.S.

It is estimated that the Liberal failure to get pipelines built is forcing Canadian oil to sell for $100 million dollars less a day than what it should be worth. That is $100 million dollars a day that is not providing for middle-class families, that is not fuelling small businesses, and not generating taxes to pay off the out-of-control Liberal deficit.

RBC recently reported that in 2008, taxes generated by oil and gas were worth $35 billion a year for provincial and federal governments. That is now down to almost $10 billion a year in 2016. That is more than $20 billion a year that could have gone to health care and education or to cover old age security costs, or be invested in building bridges and roads. Of course, the Liberals promised a deficit of only $10 billion a year and that the budget would be balanced by 2019, but none of that is anywhere in sight. They choose to spend recklessly: millions of dollars on perks like renovations for ministers' offices, a $5 million hockey rink on Parliament Hill that operated for a couple of months, or $26 million for vehicles. Never mind the billions of dollars spent outside Canada, building oil and gas pipelines in Asia with Canadian tax dollars or funding groups linked to anti-Semitism and terrorism.

Never has a government spent so much and achieved so little. The end result is Canada is trapped in a debt spiral. The ones who are going to pay for these deficits are millennials and their children, and it makes life less affordable today while federal government debt increases interest rates across the board. That poses significant risks to Canada and leaves us utterly unprepared for a global economic recession or worldwide factors that the government cannot control, unlike the Liberals' damaging policies. Future generations will find that their governments cannot afford services or programs they are counting on, and their governments will be in a trap of borrowing and hiking taxes. That is why Conservatives advocate balanced budgets, because it is the only responsible thing to do for Canada's children and grandchildren.

The out-sized contributions of the energy sector to the whole country's economy and to government revenue is also why the future of energy development in Canada is one of the most important domestic economic questions facing all of us. That is what makes the Liberal layering of red tape and costs on Canadian energy so unconscionable, and the consequences so devastating for all of Canada.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite whether she nevertheless agrees that the policies put in place by our government, particularly the infrastructure investments, were worthwhile. The IMF recommended this type of approach. When the economy is slowing down and interest rates are low, it is worthwhile making smart investments in our infrastructure to stimulate growth.

When we came to power in 2015, people wondered whether we were headed for a recession. Today, we are no longer in that situation. The economy is booming, in part thanks to the investments we made.

If the member cannot agree that these investments in infrastructure that communities across the country really need were worthwhile, she should look at the results in her province.

There have been tax cuts and the more progressive approach that we have adopted will provide more money to families. Consequently, in the spring of 2019, Canadian families will on average have $2,000 more in their pockets than under the former government.

Will this approach not yield very concrete results for the people she represents?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a lot to answer for in regard to their infrastructure commitments. Municipalities and rural and remote communities across Canada, as well as provinces and territories, deserve those answers because only 6% of the $180 billion the Liberals committed for infrastructure across Canada has flowed and 95% of it has not even made it out the door, just as it is with almost every single thing the Liberals talk about in budgets or when making promises to Canadians.

As the leader of my party said to me a couple of weeks ago, the Liberals are really good at “announcerology” and not so good at “deliverology”. That is certainly the case with infrastructure.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the very disturbing fictions that is being perpetuated by the Liberals every time they stand to speak, specifically about this bill, is how incredible the child tax benefit is, how many children are being helped and brought out of poverty by this government.

I do not know what it is like in my hon. colleague's riding, but I deal almost daily with single mothers who are suffering a staggering level of harassment from CRA. They have had their benefits cut off at Christmastime. We have had to get food baskets for children in my region because their right to the child tax benefit has been denied by the CRA. The minister sits here day after day defending the indefensible, the $1 billion clawed back from ordinary working class people, while Liberals ignore friends like the Bronfmans and friends of the Prime Minister, who keep their money in offshore havens.

In light of this level of scrutiny and the hoops the Liberals force single mothers and young working class families to go through so that the government can claw back money and show a surplus from benefit reviews at the end of the year, does she not think that is a really unconscionable way of raising money and taxes when the Liberals are leaving the super rich protected in these offshore tax havens?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hear the same thing from my constituents, especially families who have been decimated by the job losses and loss of investment in the energy sector, and indigenous communities and families throughout Lakeland who are also involved in oil and gas development and have suffered job losses in the same way as others across the riding.

I heard similar things from families in my riding about their dealings with the CRA, particularly around the disability tax credit that they, and sometimes their children, are dependent on. It is the Liberal way, is it not, to say one thing and do the complete opposite? The fact is that under the Liberals, the wealthiest 1% in Canada are paying fewer taxes, and the average middle-class family is paying more.

We are proud of our record as Conservatives, for having left a surplus to the current government while lowering taxes to their lowest level in 50 years. Also, child poverty in Canada dropped to its lowest level since records have been kept. All the while, we managed to increase transfers to the provinces for health and social services so that those governments could provide the programs their citizens value.

Yes, I would agree with the premise of the member opposite that the Liberals raise funds in unconscionable ways for their out-of-control spending.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what we will do now is talk about the realities of what has actually been happening over the last three years. Conservatives and the NDP want to come together at times. I have heard them saying that their enemy is their friend type of thing, and often I see them come together as they try to portray something far from reality. Let me explain to my friends across the way what that is.

Let me backtrack to the days when our Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party on the opposition benches, when there were about 30 or so Liberal members of Parliament way on the other side in the back corner, as someone pointed out. Even back then, the leader of the Liberal Party stated very clearly that Canada's middle class was priority one. After being elected, from day one this government has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

Day after day, we see opposition members consistently trying to change the track. I believe they realize there are a lot of good things happening in Canada under this regime. As opposed to discussing good solid policy ideas, they tend to make personal attacks.

I would like to set the record straight and go back to day one. What were some of the very first initiatives of this government? Members will recall that it was the tax break for Canada's middle class, something that the Conservatives and NDP voted against.

Another piece we brought forward was a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. Again, the Conservatives and the NDP joined hands and voted against it. Then we brought in the increase to the Canada child benefit program, and within this budget, we have proposed annual increases to that program.

We acted so that individuals making a lot of money would not receive as much and people who needed the money and support the most received the most. In fact, from the Canada child benefit program, Winnipeg North, the community I have the distinct pleasure of representing, receives over $9 million every month. Imagine what that does for the macro amount of disposable income, if I can put it that way, the amount of consumer spending that takes place as a direct result of that one initiative.

However, we did not stop there. We also increased the GIS for our seniors. Some of the poorest seniors in the country happen to live in Winnipeg North. In Winnipeg North, many of those seniors received a top up of over $900 a year. We literally saw tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of children and seniors being lifted out of poverty. Again, it was the NDP and the Conservatives who joined together to vote against that, as they have done time and time again.

It is interesting listening to their arguments. For several days, I have now listened to New Democrats and Conservatives try to come up with the best arguments against this budget. For the Conservatives, it is all about the deficit. They like to cry about how bad the deficit is. I would like to remind those who are following the debate about a couple of very interesting facts. Number one, Canada is 151 years old, and the Conservatives have been in government just under 40% of that time. During that time of theirs, they accumulated about 75% of Canada's national debt. When we point that fact out to them, in a twisted sort of way, they try to blame the Liberals. The reality is that nothing is further from the truth.

All they have to do is look at Stephen Harper. They all know Stephen Harper. We would think Stephen Harper is still sitting in those benches; the Conservatives are still operating on Harper's policies. When Stephen Harper became the Prime Minister of Canada, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. Within two years, even before the recession, he took that multi-billion dollar surplus and converted it into a multi-billion dollar deficit. For almost 10 years, Canadians had to put up with Stephen Harper. The Conservatives try to say that in their last year they had a balanced budget. They sold off those GM shares and brought in a billion dollars here and a few million more here and there, and they try to say that they have—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary is speaking. He has a good tone and it is very loud and very good, but even with that talent I am having a hard time hearing because there are some comments. It is nice, because he engages everyone, and it is nice to see but I do not think it is quite the way we want to see it here in Parliament. I am going to ask the hon. members to let him speak. I am sure he will tone it down if everyone lets him talk, and he can continue.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard the saying, “the truth hurts", and that is what is happening. I am trying to explain for my friends across the way the reality of the Stephen Harper era, which was not all that good for Canada when we stop and look at it. In the last three years, with the support of small businesses in every region of our country, and good government, we have seen over 500,000 full-time jobs and tens of thousands of other part-time jobs. Even in the best years, Harper could not even come close to that.

We have demonstrated very clearly that the biggest benefactor under these policies and under the budgets that this government has introduced is Canada's middle class. That is something in which we take, collectively, a great sense of pride because that was the number one commitment that we made to Canadians in the last election. Because we recognize the importance of the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, we recognized it was time that government gave them the attention that they deserve. We saw that budget after budget after budget. We will take that to the next election because of the many different initiatives that we have brought forward.

I do not want to leave my friends, the New Democrats, out. I listen to my New Democratic friends, and what do they have to say? They could never spend enough money. It is almost as though they live in some sort of a fairyland where they say we should have a national child care plan, even though, when they had the opportunity to vote in favour of it, they voted against it and caused the government to fall, along with other issues. They have wild, crazy dreams of spending billions of dollars, yet they cannot fool Canadians. We remember in the last election when Thomas Mulcair was their leader. Mr. Mulcair said that he would balance budgets at all costs. That is what the NDP said back then. They know full well that many of the things they say when they criticize this budget, they would never do themselves. That is the reality even with my New Democratic friends who try to give an impression, which I would suggest is a false impression.

In this budget, on some of those social programs that are so important to Canadians, such as health care, we see a commitment to look at how we can develop a pharmacare program that Canadians could be proud of. For generations, we have seen virtually nothing done on that file. Under this Prime Minister, in this government, we are addressing the high cost of medications. We are looking at ways we could take a national pharmacare working with different provincial entities, territorial entities and other stakeholders. We recognize how close to the heart Canadians hold our health care system.

I am so proud that one of the things we have been able to accomplish that Harper could not accomplish was getting agreements with all the different provinces and territories on a health care accord. This is a government that truly cares about Canadians. It understands that a healthy economy ensures that we have a healthier middle class. We strive day in and day out to work with Canadians to create the opportunities for our middle class and all Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Winnipeg North. He talked about fooling Canadians.

I remember, back in 2015, Liberals boasted about real change coming to Parliament. I remember, in my first term here in Parliament, when that member was part of the third party at that time, sitting in the wee corners of this wonderful House of Commons, how he railed against omnibus bills and how undemocratic they were.

The 2015 Liberal platform talked about real change. This is what it says:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

An 850-page omnibus budget implementation bill is unheard of. Is that the real change Liberals were talking about?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what real change means.

It means a tax increase on Canada's wealthiest 1%, a tax decrease for Canada's middle class, tax fairness, a small business tax cut from 12% to 9%, over $400 million invested to try to recover billions from tax evaders, guaranteed income supplement increases, Canada child benefit program increases, historic investments in infrastructure, a health care accord, a Canada pension plan agreement, an agreement on carbon pricing or a price on pollution that is something completely foreign to the other side, a public inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous girls and women, a gender-balanced cabinet, assisted dying legislation, labour legislation, access to information modernization from over 34 years, admitting Syrian refugees, restoring eligibility of old age security from 67 to 65, and so many things. The list goes on and on.

That is real change that we have witnessed. At the end of the day, the average Canadian is going to receive more money from the government than under Stephen Harper. We have seen incredible job opportunities that have come available, as I have indicated. Over 500,000, over a half million jobs in the last three years, and those are full-time jobs, plus tens of thousands of part-time jobs.

This government has put in real change, and we look forward to the challenges ahead in 2019.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his enthusiastic speech. It was truly amazing.

The member has announced many times how the Liberals are helping middle-class Canadians. One of the things that the Liberals ran on in 2015 was that they were going to help people and when it came to bankruptcies, people's pensions would be protected. The Liberals also said it at the Liberal convention, and made it a priority.

However, what we see here is nothing. Three years and there is nothing on it. You are going to open things up to help wealthy companies, but you are denying people's pensions being protected. People are tired of having their pensions stolen.

What are you going to do about it?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. members that I did not deny anything. I would like them to speak through the Speaker. I will let the parliamentary secretary answer that question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm is there because in 2019, we expect to see an election. I am actually fairly excited about it. When I look at the commitments that this government made in the last federal election, I look at the next election in a very excited way. I believe that Canadians as a whole will be very pleased with the many different accomplishments that we have been able to achieve over the last three years.

However, there is so much more to come. The member made reference to pensions. We can talk. I made reference to the guaranteed income supplement. The government increased it for the poorest seniors across Canada. I have talked about that. We have decreased the age from 67 to 65, so that in the future when seniors hit 65, they will be able to retire. That means a lot to a lot of seniors.

Most importantly, we also had negotiations and discussions with different provinces to increase the CPP, which means there is going to be more money in the pockets of seniors when they retire. That is something Stephen Harper could not get done, or refused to get done. We were able to bring everyone together to do that.

Is there more work to do? Absolutely, and that is one of the reasons why in 2019 we are going to go to Canadians and say, “Here is what we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short span, and we can do so much more with a new mandate.” I am hopeful that we will get that new mandate.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the show of enthusiasm, I know the members of the opposition are saddened that it is me before them. I am truly saddened that the hon. member from Kawartha has applauded that, but it is true.

The enthusiasm that the hon. member for Winnipeg North brings to this place is inspiring. I think one of my favourite stories of the hon. member is when he stood before the House with one word written on a piece of paper and said, “Mr. Speaker, I have in my left hand a 20-minute speech”, and, as always, made good on his promise with one word written on the piece of paper. It would be lovely to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North go on and on, but we will have to wait until the next debate, I am sure. I am certain he will have a question for us as well.

I am pleased today to rise on the budget implementation act. The first item I would like to discuss is the issue of a price on pollution.

Global climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity. It is a grave threat. Members of the opposition, members of the Conservative Party, both here in Ottawa and across the country, seek to deny that. We, as a civilization, are facing this great threat and they believe nothing should be done. They offer no plan. They offer no solution. They merely criticize. The plan that has come forward, a plan that has been supported, for example, by Stephen Harper's former budget chief, by Preston Manning, and by many other Conservatives as a plan that will work, as a plan that will allow market forces to move forward and reduce emissions, is rejected out of sheer politics.

Global climate change should not be an issue about a Liberal idea versus a Conservative idea; this is a threat facing all of us. It would be interesting to see, as we are coming up on Remembrance Day, these same individuals, in 1939, say, “There is this grave threat across the ocean, but we should not go. Here is this grave threat facing humanity and we should not do anything about it. The cost is too high.”

The interesting thing is this. We hear from the hon. members that they think this is a joke. People are dying.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

You're comparing World War II to a carbon tax? You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

People are dying and the hon. member is asking--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that the rules are that when one person is speaking we let that person speak, we do not interrupt, we do not shout or we try not to.

The hon. member for St. Catharines.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are heckling that they do not believe people are dying. They are seeing these super storms, these wildfires that are out of control. They can see the environmental phenomenon happening and that our climate is changing in front of us, and they are still heckling. They do not believe in this. It is climate change denial, and it is unbelievable.

Again, this was a group of people who in 1939 said that we should not do anything and that the cost was too high. However, we are facing a greater threat to humanity now. The potential catastrophe is even greater. Science has said so.

However, the Conservatives are scoffing because, again, they deny the science. They do not accept it. They pretend on occasion. They go before the media and say that climate change is real and they will vote every once in a while to fool Canadians, but there is no plan. They do not support a price on pollution. They do not support any plan. They do not have a plan. Their only plan is to make pollution free.

We all know pollution is bad. All of our constituents want clean air and clean water, and I think I can say that for all 338 of us. However, the Conservatives do not have a plan, and that is shameful.

We are the first generation to see the impacts of climate change and we are the last generation that can to do something about it. I have a young son who is two and a half years old and a young daughter who is four months old. It is unbelievable to hear the laughter from the other side about this. However, going forward, I do not want to be looking at my children when the situation is far worse and having them ask me why I did not do anything. It is time to stand up.

I tweeted an article out today, which is from a few months ago. The CEO of Suncor, Canada's largest oil company, supports a price on carbon. He calls on climate change deniers, like the members heckling me at this moment, trying to shout me down, to be brave, to stand up and have a plan. Again, the Conservatives refuse to do that.

Again, the heckling is fascinating. We are talking about a catastrophe that we can see with our own eyes. My riding has gone from floods to drought to floods again. My constituents know. They can see that the weather is different, that the climate is changing. We see the forest fires, flooding and hurricanes that have been stronger than ever before. Ocean temperatures are rising. However, all the Conservatives have is heckles. All they have is scoff and scorn. It is shocking, but they continue this to this day.

An interesting new argument has developed, which is that Canada only produces 1.6% of total emissions so we should not do anything. We should abandon any form of leadership on the subject, because it is 1.6%. Even though Canadians are only about 0.5% of the global population, we are contributing to this problem.

I will go back to another example, back to World War II. During D-Day, Canadians played a fundamental role. However, these are the same individuals who would say that this is an important situation, but we are too small a country to take part. We do not need to take Juno Beach. It is not something that we should do. It is the same argument from the Conservative Party on this case. However, we are presented right now with a great opportunity, not only to do right but to benefit our economy.

I had an opportunity, kind of out of the blue, to meet a couple of hours ago with a local company from Niagara, Walker Environmental. Walker Environmental is a waste management company in Niagara. We might ask what it possibly could do. It is doing some incredible work to divert waste from landfills into amazing new opportunities, for example, with railway ties. Millions of railway ties are sitting around in landfills across the country. The company has a plan to put it into the coking process to not only reduce that waste, but also to reduce the amount of GHGs in the steel process.

It has a plan and it is doing it right. Its plan is to take landfill waste and send it down to the local GM plant to reduce greenhouse gases and to make that GM plant one of the most environmentally sustainable in the entire GM chain. This is just one company that is a local example. It is creating jobs. As the minister has talked about, this is a trillion dollar opportunity ahead of us with the green economy.

The Conservatives are taking their marching orders from Doug Ford. When Patrick Brown was in charge, they were supportive of a price on carbon pollution. Now that Doug Ford is calling the shots, they are against it. It is shameful that we Ontarians are abandoning the green economy. We need to look forward, not only for ourselves but for our children.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not appreciate my colleague's comments, somehow equating what happened in World War II to what is going on now with the carbon tax. It is absolutely unbelievable and one of the most incredible arguments I have ever heard in the House.

My colleague talked about his riding having floods and droughts. However, that has been happening for hundreds of years. I take great offence at the suggestion that we are all climate change deniers. I absolutely believe that we have to address climate change.

I grew up in High River, Alberta. We have flooded dozens of times over the last 150 years. In fact, we had one of the worst floods in 1998 and, again, a horrible one in 2013.

My question for my colleague would be this. I want to go back to my constituents and tell them that the Liberals are telling me they have to pay this much of a carbon tax and that they will never have to worry about flooding again. How much does that carbon tax have to be?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is shocking. The Conservatives are willing to ignore the science. The member on one hand says that he supports the science, but he is against any action. The Conservative Party plan is fundamentally a denial of climate change.

The member started his comments in shock that I would compare this to the Second World War. This is potentially greater in terms of the loss of life that could happen by the end of this century. I am sorry the Conservative Party cannot plan beyond four years, but this is a crisis that needs action.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from St. Catharines for coming back to this topic when he had any number of topics to choose from in these 800 pages. I appreciate that. I think this is an important topic. I find it worrisome that our Conservative colleagues seem determined to deny the facts and reject the solutions. This is rather sad.

I have a question. With all due respect to our veterans, I think he was right to reference a war effort. Our enemy now is even greater than our greatest adversaries in the world wars. This absolutely calls for a war effort.

My question is the same as the one I asked the minister during the debate on global warming. In light of the Conservatives' denial, are you prepared to have the House appoint a super minister to combat global warming?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he must address his comments to the Chair and not directly to members.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have a Minister of Environment and Climate Change who has been appointed to handle this war effort and to start to galvanize Canadians behind this. Again, all our constituents want clean air and clean water.

I hope, at the end of the day, the Conservatives, who claim they believe climate change is an issue, will actually seek to do something about it and support a plan to combat climate change.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague compared the fight against climate change to World War II. It is a good thing his party was not in power then, because its solution would have simply been a Nazi tax. Our quarrel is not with fighting climate change. Our quarrel is with the silly way in which the government approaches the response.

Under Stephen Harper, emissions went down. However, the Liberal government wants to give a holiday to the biggest emitters while imposing a carbon tax on everyday consumers and businesses.

How does the government justify a totally unequal approach that gives a holiday to the larger emitters and puts all the pressure on the little guy? That is the important question about the Liberal plan, which is not a plan at all.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is singing from the Conservative choir book. He denies climate change, he denies any action upon it, and it is shameful.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-86, budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2.

As we have heard a few times already, this is a mammoth bill, an 851-page omnibus bill. We have to wonder when this is going to stop. Under the Conservatives we became accustomed to 400-page bills and now the Liberals are introducing an 800-page omnibus bill. It never ends. This is just wrong.

If you combine the two budget implementation bills, they total 1,400 pages. It is just wrong. As MPs who represent our constituents, how can we do our jobs properly and diligently?

That said, the bill does contain a few good points. The government is finally going to move forward on pay equity.

However, it is once again telling women that they will have to wait another four years before they actually get pay equity. This matter is extremely important to the NDP. I personally have presented several petitions on behalf of the people of greater Drummond, who are absolutely beside themselves when I tell them that pay equity does not yet exist at the federal level. They cannot believe it.

This is still a reality. It is a regrettable and preposterous state of affairs. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is still making women in our great country wait for equity. There is no doubt that we must act quickly on this file.

What else is in this bill?

I will talk about what we do not like in this bill.

There is something extremely important that the people of greater Drummond and Canada have been waiting for. For three years they have been waiting for the budget implementation bill to finally amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It is still not part of the budget. We have long been calling for measures to protect workers whose companies go bankrupt.

What does this legislation do? They go to the trouble of reopening the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, they protect commercial licence holders and corporations, but they do not protect workers. That is very bad news. We have been advocating for that for a long time. We have long been calling for action on this file. We are really disappointed.

Another thing we have long been calling for is EI sickness benefits. After three years, the Liberal government could have finally implemented EI reform that is worthy of its name. It certainly had the opportunity to do so.

Those notorious EI sickness benefits last just 15 weeks. It is mind-boggling. This policy is from 1971.

Since 1971, recipients have had just 15 weeks to recover. No one thought more time would be needed. Even though no one seems to have noticed, in 50 years, nothing has improved. The government needs to take action.

I want to acknowledge Marie-Hélène Dubé, who has been working very hard to make the public and also the Liberals and members of Parliament aware of this issue. She created the “15 weeks is not enough” campaign.

In 2009, she started a national petition calling on the government to extend EI sickness benefits beyond 15 weeks. She has collected 600,000 signatures so far, which is significant. This is a topic of concern to the people of Quebec and Canada. Marie-Hélène Dubé battled cancer three times in five years. She has had her share of problems. She experienced stress as a result of her illness. She had to deal with all of that on top of being a single mother.

She said:

The majority of people do not have insurance coverage. [Some people have private insurance, but that is not the case for everyone.] Women are often the most vulnerable. They sometimes earn less. And if they are single parents and have responsibilities, they can slip into poverty and never recover.

It makes no sense. The Liberal government needs to wake up. I have been receiving letters about this from the people of the greater Drummond area, such as Ms. Parent. Our EI system has not been reformed in many years. Ms. Parent told me that she underwent surgery on a cancerous brain tumour. She has to travel to Trois-Rivières for radiation treatment and chemotherapy. She has to say in a room that costs $30 a day. She says that she does not have much money. In addition to her treatment expenses, she has a house to pay for. It is impossible for her to recover from brain cancer in 15 weeks.

Could the Liberal government show some empathy and listen to Ms. Parent? Fifteen weeks is not enough to heal. That is why we must listen to people like Ms. Parent and increase benefits.

That is just one example, but I have others. It is shocking. I do not understand why this situation has not yet been resolved. Another constituent, Cynthia from Drummondville, said that, in 2016, her life was turned completely upside down. After a difficult pregnancy, she was diagnosed with spinal cord cancer. She had no choice but to claim EI sickness benefits, and 15 weeks later, she was left without any income. She was in physical therapy to relearn how to walk at the time.

That makes no sense. When will the government do something to help Cynthia from Drummondville get more sickness benefits? Fifteen weeks is not enough time to recover. More sickness benefits are needed.

These are just a few examples that show that the government could have done a lot more in this budget to achieve pay equity and defend workers. How is it that retirement pensions are not protected in the event of bankruptcy? Those contributions are paid by workers. They are the ones who made annual contributions toward their retirement. They forgo some of their wages so that their company will also contribute. Then, if the company goes bankrupt, they are told that they are last on the list. They may get little or none of their retirement savings back. That does not make any sense.

Getting back to the 15 weeks to recover, I can name other organizations, such as the Regroupement de défense des droits sociaux de Drummond, an advocacy group whose director, Joan Salvail, does excellent work defending people with employment insurance and income security issues. She says that nobody really understands employment insurance rules until they need EI. The fact is that 15 weeks of sickness benefits is nowhere near enough. The benefits people get are just a fraction of their usual pay, and those benefits run out before people have recovered. For many, it is the beginning of a long period of financial hardship.

What will the Liberal government do to address the needs Joan Salvail identified? It makes no sense. Fifteen weeks to recover is not enough.

The Liberal government took office almost three and a half years ago. Why has it not yet come up with solutions for this file? I do not understand. An 800-page omnibus bill with no solutions. Unbelievable. This 800-page bill does not even fix simple problems such as upping the number of sickness benefit weeks. We want those 15 weeks to go up to at least 50 weeks. Most serious illnesses take at least 50 weeks, nearly a year, to recover from. Let us hope the government will listen to Canadians and the people of Drummond and fix this problem before the election.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak about a number of different programs, and in particular the employment benefits Canadians have. There seems to be continual critique from the opposition parties, whether it is the NDP or the Conservatives. The NDP members say we are not doing enough, and that we need to do more and spend more. The Conservatives are saying we are spending too much.

I am wondering if the member can explain to me how the NDP would have been able to spend everything its members are proposing and that they criticize this side of the House for not spending, while at the same time balancing the budget, which they promised to do at no cost?

They continue to heckle me, but hopefully somebody will listen to what I have said and answer that question.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reply to my colleague. The EI program is independent. It is an independent fund. The government must not dip into it, as the Liberals did and the Conservatives continued to do after them. That money belongs to the workers, to those who saved it.

I would like to refer to Ms. Sabourin from Saint-Félix-de-Kingsey. She said she is at the end of her rope. She has had bladder cancer for two years and is forced to work because her 15 weeks have run out. Of course, she is talking about her 15 weeks of sickness benefits. She has been waiting for eight weeks to find out whether she can convert her unemployment to regular benefits. She currently has no income.

What are the Liberals going to do for Ms. Sabourin? What is happening right now is just wrong.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Drummond and I had a lot of really good debates back and forth in the environment committee, and I have the utmost respect for him. I was wondering if he could address the reality that the Liberals are now in a credit card economy.

The Liberals have been insulting the NDP all day, saying that its members just want to spend more and more money. However, the reality is that in the last election, the NDP had a costed platform and would not have gone into huge debt. The small, $10-billion debt the Liberals said they were going to run has now expanded immensely, over three or four times every year, and there is no plan to get it back to budget.

Could he please explain why Canadians really cannot trust the Liberals when it has anything to do with numbers, and what he thinks they should be doing in order to fund the proper programs he is respectfully bringing forward?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We had a lot of fun respectfully disagreeing with one another at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

He is right about one thing. The Liberal government could have taken actions that would not have cost anything. For instance, it could have fixed the fact that the EI program gives workers only 15 weeks to recover. It could have increased that period, which would not have cost anything. Another thing it could have done is amend bankruptcy legislation to ensure that workers get their pensions. Protecting workers when a company declares bankruptcy would not have cost anything. The government has not taken any of these actions, which are vital to improving the lives of Canadians. I deplore the Liberal government's complete inaction on those two issues, when it would not have cost the public purse anything.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, in regard to the last federal election, it is good to observe that the then NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, said that an NDP government would have a balanced budget at all costs. Does the member personally have any regrets? Does he believe the NDP regrets making that statement, or would he say he stands by it today?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is a shame that there is nothing in this budget to protect workers' pensions. There is nothing to protect the mothers I named earlier who have just 15 weeks to recover. What would it take to extend the benefits? We have been calling for this for a long time. When are you going to do this? That is what the people of Drummond want to know.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that he must address the chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Avalon.

I want to remind the member that he only has a couple of minutes to speak before time is up.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the budget implementation act, and specifically, the legislation establishing the college of patent agents and trademark agents. This is an important element of the government's IP strategy, a strategy that, taken as a whole, will ensure that Canada's intellectual property regime is modern and robust and supports Canadian innovation in the 21st century.

Patent and trademark agents are a key component of the innovation ecosystem, as they help inventors secure exclusive IP rights. Given the rising importance of IP in the innovation economy and the central role of patent and trademark agents, it is time to have a professional oversight body responsible for maintaining the high standards expected of trusted advisers. As a bonus, this would address long-standing gaps in the current framework for regulatory oversight, which lacks clarity and transparency and is without a binding code of professional conduct.

Given the importance of the profession, good safeguards here will ensure that agents do the jobs they do well and that they have the trust of their clients, and Canadians more broadly. While there is no evidence suggesting a large problem with agent conduct, the need for modernization is imperative, now that communications with IP agents are protected by statutory privilege in the same way as solicitor-client advice. This is an extraordinary right that requires ethical guidelines to prevent its abuse.

The college of patent agents and trademark agents act would establish an independent regulator, specifically a college, for the professional oversight of IP agents, in the public interest. The college would administer a licensing system to ensure that only qualified professionals were authorized to provide agent services.

As an independent regulator, it would also be responsible for enforcing a code of professional conduct to ensure that IP agents continued to deliver high-quality advice. The college would also be responsible for implementing requirements for continuing professional development to ensure that agents stayed informed about the ever-evolving IP landscape. Ultimately, these measures would raise the bar for IP professional services in Canada.

The college would have an investigations committee to receive complaints and would conduct investigations into whether a licensee committed professional misconduct or was incompetent. A separate discipline committee would have the authority to impose disciplinary measures if it decided that a licensee had committed professional misconduct or was found to be incompetent.

Finally, this act would create new offences of claiming to be a patent agent or trademark agent and of the unauthorized representation of another person before the patent office or the office of the registrar of trademarks. These offences are intended to serve an important consumer protection function to ensure that innovators receive representation from a qualified, licensed agent.

I would like to speak about the important features that have been built into the legislation to ensure that regulation is undertaken with the public interest as the priority. Careful consideration was given to ensuring that the legislation would support the public interest in a competitive marketplace of well-qualified and professional IP agents.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:53 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of amendment to the House]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #930

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment defeated.

Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the question is on clauses 535 to 625 concerning the head of compliance and enforcement in the Canada Labour Code.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt these clauses?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the clauses will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the clauses of the bill, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #931

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare clauses 535 to 625 carried.

The next question is on all the remaining elements of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt all the remaining elements of the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of all the remaining elements of the bill will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the remaining elements, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #932

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the remaining elements of the bill carried.

The House having agreed to the entirety of Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures at the second reading stage, the bill will now be read a second time.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Seamus O'Regan]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to remind members of the invitation they would have received from my office last week to the unveiling of the plaque commemorating Lieutenant Colonel Sam Sharpe at 12:15 tomorrow afternoon. While the Centre Block may be closing shortly for renovations, this plaque will find a permanent home here when it reopens. It is important that during Remembrance Week, we commemorate veterans and their visible and invisible injuries.