Bill C-15 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

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

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

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his excellent remarks. I was particularly struck in his remarks by the way he itemized the number of broken promises that this budget represents: the broken promise on a limited deficit, the broken promise to small business owners.

However, among the litany of broken promises that the member referred to, there was one that I will ask if he would care to comment on. A key promise that the Liberals made in the election was a return to a balanced budget, and that promise is completely out the window, without any plan that any of us can see for how we are going to return to a balanced budget.

We now have a structural deficit, as opposed to what most Canadians understood as being perhaps some limited borrowing for infrastructure. Would the member like to comment on the danger of structural deficit and the broken promise of a return to a balanced budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, and for all the people who are listening to understand, how could they imagine someone who has $50,000 as an income spending $55,000? That person will never achieve that balance.

Year after year, spending more money than we have is irresponsible. Anyone can understand that. Every father, every mother, and every chief of family can understand that if they continue in that way, they will face a wall. If not, they will face the deficit at the end and everything will collapse.

However, this is exactly where the government is taking us. Deficits are acceptable in extreme circumstances, but it is completely unrealistic and irresponsible to run a deficit when the economy is doing well. That is living beyond our means.

This reminds me of a question I asked the Minister of Finance, taking him back to the good old days when he was a financial advisor. I asked him what he would do if he had a client who had a household income of $100,000 but spent $110,000. Would he tell his client to keep up this lifestyle and that all was well, or would he tell the client to be realistic and responsible and live within his means?

That is exactly what we are telling the government. It needs to live within its means.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by briefly thanking the government for direct investments in my community of Beaches—East York specifically, with a major investment in Neighbourhood Link, now The Neighbourhood Group, which provides important employment services and settlement services in my community.

The government's first budget invests in productivity, people, and our planet. As a first budget, it follows through on many promises from October's election, from supporting veterans, to making post-secondary education more affordable, to investing in science and innovation, to restoring funding to the CBC, to increasing support for the arts, and to emphasizing data-driven government.

An essential plank of our platform was infrastructure investment. The budget proposes $3.4 billion for public transit infrastructure over the next three years, and $2.3 billion for affordable housing initiatives over the next two years.

It was especially encouraging to see $840 million recently committed to public transit in the city of Toronto. Importantly, the funds will go toward necessary maintenance and upgrades of the existing public transit system, often overlooked and unappreciated, yet critical work.

The commitment to invest in transit based on ridership figures is also important, as it commits our government to data-driven decision-making. More, there is renewed respect for local decision-making, and any unspent funds in a calendar year will be rolled into the gas tax transfer, giving municipalities the certainty of receiving the promised funds, no matter what.

I want to pause here to highlight the fact that the previous government also made significant investments in infrastructure. This is an area where there ought to be consensus in this House.

The budget also makes investments directly in families with children, and directly in seniors. These two investments are of particular note because they expand existing basic income programs. A basic income or guaranteed annual income is not a partisan idea. Those on the traditional left, who fight to end poverty, find common cause with those on the traditional right, who wish to see a less bureaucratic, more efficient administration of the welfare state.

A Canadian example of such cross-partisan advocacy can be found in our Senate. Former Conservative senator Hugh Segal has done much to raise awareness for the problem of poverty and has long called for the prescription of a basic income. Current Senator, Art Eggleton, also a long-time poverty awareness advocate, recently put forward a motion calling upon this government to establish a basic income pilot project. The Province of Ontario has heeded that call, and we should do the same.

I commend my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for bringing attention to the House, through the finance committee, the importance of a basic income. Of course, we already know the value of a basic income, a fact that our budget investments recognize through the Canada child benefit and the guaranteed income supplement.

As I said, in December, in my first speech in this House, our Canada child benefit is effectively a basic income for kids and families in need. It will provide a base amount of $6,400 every year for every child under the age of six, and $5,400 every year for every child between the ages of six to 17. It is targeted to those families who actually need the help. The more a family earns, the less it gets. In other words, it is fair. As implemented, it will raise hundreds of thousands of children, an estimated 300,000, out of poverty.

Now, there remains room for improvement. For example, the Canada child benefit should be indexed to inflation immediately. It should account for the total number of family members, not only children. As we continue to improve data collection in the future, we should assess whether we can account for differences in living costs between geographic regions within our country.

Still, when 25% of children in Toronto live in poverty, and well over 30% of children in the Crescent Town community in my riding, the Canada child benefit will make a real difference for many.

The guaranteed income supplement for seniors is another iteration of the same idea, with a different target group. The budget will increase GIS by 10%, or up to $950 more per year. It is estimated that it will mean increased benefits for 900,000 Canadians.

Both programs, the GIS and the CCB, are comprised of a single non-taxable benefit geared to income. As basic income guarantees, they are programs we should continue to build upon. A 2011 National Council of Welfare report tells us that the cost of poverty is greater than the cost of ending poverty. The answer is a basic income guarantee, or programs built on that idea.

As an aside, the cost of poverty is on full display in first nation communities, where we have underinvested in education, infrastructure, and overall support for years. We are witnessing the real costs of turning a blind eye to poverty, isolation, and a lack of opportunities. The budget commits over $5 billion to first nation communities over the remainder of our mandate. The investment is an important one, but more resources are required to close the gap.

Finally, the budget invests in clean technologies and sets funds aside for a low-carbon fund. Unfortunately, we are not currently on target to meet our 2° Celsius target.

I have sat in this House since December, wondering how members of the official opposition, committed as they are to free markets, ignore the consensus of economists who have identified carbon pricing as the market-based solution to fighting climate change. We need federal leadership on a carbon price. I am hopeful that a low-carbon fund will be used to provide incentives for provinces to increase their targets. We need to be more ambitious if we are going to meet our commitments in Paris.

My own view is that we should propose a carbon price based on federal privacy legislation. The federal framework, a minimum national carbon price, would apply unless provinces have substantially similar rules, in which case provincial rules would govern.

B.C. has a model for the rest of the country, as it is truly revenue neutral. All funds taken in through the carbon tax are repaid to citizens, lowering the taxes of the majority of the population. A federal framework should start at B.C.'s current level of $30 per tonne, as proposed by the citizens climate coalition.

Federal action is also required when one looks at the industry exemption that provinces have introduced into their own carbon pricing regimes. Provinces are rightly concerned that a carbon price will lead to increased costs on inputs for Canadian companies and could put certain industries at a competitive disadvantage with international goods. The federal government can resolve this dilemma. Border carbon tax adjustments can be applied on goods from countries without equivalent carbon pricing policies to protect Canadian industries, or at least to ensure a level playing field.

Carbon pricing is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Our focus should also be on innovation. On the World Economic Forum's ranking of performance of countries' innovation, Canada ranks only 22nd. Our clean-tech industry specifically has lost 40% of its global market share over the last decade. Many necessary innovations are coming, such as affordable electric cars, but they are not coming fast enough based purely on market forces.

Government has a role to play, and our innovation agenda will help. We will invest $1 billion to support clean tech in industries over the next four years, over $60 million to support deployment of alternative fuels for transportation, $130 million per year for clean-tech research, and additional millions to support new research chairs in clean and sustainable technology.

We must also focus on improving energy efficiency. Billions will be invested in improving municipal waste water systems, $570 million will go toward efficiency retrofits to existing social housing. While new builds can and should be subject to the passive house or net-zero standards, guidelines for retrofits and renovations need to be improved and better standardized.

The budget is not perfect. There is a glaring hole in the health agenda, which I hope will be rectified as a new health accord is negotiated with the provinces. I am a believer in the national seniors strategy, as proposed by the Canadian Medical Association, for example. However, in sum, it is a budget that is worthy of our support. It will improve the lives of millions of Canadians, and that is fundamentally what we are here to do.

There is a letter that was written by 350 economists that was released today. Given that it is important to our financial system, I would like to read an excerpt from it: “The existence of tax havens does not add to overall global wealth or well-being; they serve no useful economic purpose.” They serve to increase income inequality. Their “secrecy...fuels corruption and undermines countries' ability to collect their fair share of taxes.” They distort the “working of the global economy. [...] They also threaten the rule of law [...] There is no economic justification for allowing the continuation of tax havens [...]”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech, along with the other speeches from the Liberals and the NDP.

One of the things that stands out starkly with all the speeches is the consistency. All that those two parties want to do is to spend money. Everything is about spending money. Take the issue of electric cars. I just looked it up, and the subsidy for electric cars in Ontario is $14,000 per vehicle. For both parties, it is all about spending.

The previous Conservative speaker for Louis-Saint-Laurent spent a great deal of his time talking about small and medium-sized enterprises, which is what Canada needs to create wealth in order to provide the social services that this country needs.

My specific question to my colleague across the way is this. Why does the Liberal Party never talk about creating a business climate for investment that will create the wealth, as a first step to creating a prosperous and healthy society?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but I am not sure he understands what it means to build a prosperous society and encourage investment in our communities.

It requires a commitment to protect our environment. It requires a commitment to affordable post-secondary education. It requires a commitment to innovation. It requires a commitment to lowering taxes for the middle class. It requires a commitment to making sure that everyone in the community feels included and does not fundamentally live in poverty.

I encourage the member to support the budget if he truly believes in encouraging business to invest in our community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member across with regard to the budget.

We on this side have expressed our deep concern that in fact the budget, while yes, it does have some positive components, does not actually get at dealing with the growing inequality in our country. One of the ways in which nowhere near enough ground is covered is the changes to EI. Right now many Canadians are hurting as a result of the downturn in the extractive sector. People in Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular as a result are hurting.

While this budget does include 12 regions in expanding the length of time where people can receive a benefit, it actually excludes areas like Edmonton and southern Saskatchewan where we know people desperately need that same kind of treatment.

Why does this budget not actually reflect the immediate needs of people in these parts of the country?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we could do more to ensure that people have support when they lose their jobs. Even when we look at the cities that do have coverage, the coverage for individuals is simply not adequate, which is why I spoke to the importance of a basic income guarantee.

I do not think our current EI system is fundamentally sufficient. When we look at the coverage it provides, the experts say it is insufficient. When we look at the administration of the system, it really does not provide the service that we should expect as Canadians.

I would encourage my government to do more and to expand the programs we do have, GIS, Canada child benefit, that prove a basic income support program works.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what is happening across the aisle, across the House? It is like me running my hockey team, ruining my hockey team, and then blaming the person who took if over.

We see what 10 years of regressive policies have done. We have seen what trickle-down economics have done: seven straight deficits, two recessions, and bad policy after bad policy

What the Liberals are doing is governing for the many, not the few. We have progressive policies that will make a difference in the lives of many people.

The members opposite talked about the cutback of the sports credit and the arts credit. There are people in my riding who cannot afford to pay for hockey. That is why our policies are for the many, not the few. I ask my colleague about the Canada child benefit and how that will redistribute wealth among people who need it, and how it will affect his riding.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada child benefit consolidates existing child benefits and it ensures that folks who make $500,000 a year do not receive a government benefit. They do not need it. They should not have it. It should go to folks who do need the help.

This benefit, targeted as it is, means-tested as it is, will bring over 300,000 kids out of poverty. It will address income inequality in a serious way.

To my colleague's point with respect to boutique tax credits, the economic consensus on these is that they do not encourage these activities. They are effectively a handout to folks who do not need a handout and government revenue can be distributed more efficiently and more fairly.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to hear the member across talking about $500,000-income families, yet a Prime Minister who is a millionaire, and earns over $300,000 a year, gets two taxpayer-funded nannies. What about the families who cannot afford the day care, and therefore cannot go to their jobs?

I stand today to address the House regarding the first budget presented by the government. This is a budget that was set to either meet the promises made by the Liberal Party or to show that the expectations set by the government are not in line with reality. Each promise to Canadians was broken, one after another.

From ballooning deficits to increases in taxes that they must have forgotten to mention to families, to an infrastructure spending plan of $10 billion that did not result in the budget, to a bold plan for the Canadian economy that included tax cuts for small businesses that were not given, the government has failed Canadians.

It is incredible what three months will do in politics, from the time the government delivered a positive, enthusiastic throne speech, to the delivery of its first budget, which is riddled with debt and broken promises, and void of hope and opportunity.

The throne speech said:

The Government will undertake these and other initiatives while pursuing a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent and suited to challenging economic times.

This is a government that delivered a $20-billion to $30-billion deficit, depending on whether we believe the parliamentary budget officer or the government. It raised taxes, failed small businesses, and left families with children in arts and recreation activities without. This is a budget that has left the country wondering what happened to the optimism, to the opportunity that the Liberal Party promised to Canadians. What happened to the responsible transparent fiscal plan that was promised just three months earlier in this very House, with the throne speech?

When campaigning throughout the election, the Liberal Party frequently mentioned its tax increases to the top 1%, with the supposed corresponding tax cuts to the middle class. What it did not mention were two very important details. First is that the Liberal government was going to introduce a middle-class tax cut that benefited those in the top 10% of earners in Canada more than anybody else. Second is that the Liberal government would cancel tax cuts for families and children. These are tax cuts used by families to support healthy living and to fight obesity. They were used by moms and dads for hockey, soccer, basketball, volleyball, swimming, and many other activities.

My wife and I used the child fitness tax credit for mommy-and-me classes after my son was born and my wife was on maternity leave. They provided a financial incentive for new parents. Those are the same new parents that the government promised and vowed to support, only to remove their benefits just six months later.

The arts tax credit was used to introduce children and teenagers to the arts community, to grow the arts community from the grassroots. It was used by arts companies to develop day camps and other activities throughout the summer and March break weeks. These were credits that not only helped children hone in on already blossoming talents, but to discover new ones, new interests, new skills, new ideas that they never knew they had.

If that was not enough, the Liberals not only cut credits to families but they failed to deliver on the infrastructure dollars for municipalities, which they promised. The entire election, the Liberal leader campaigned across Canada on a small $10-billion deficit for investment in Canada's infrastructure, a large one of $10 billion. Not only did the deficit go up, but the investment shrank to less than half of what was promised to Canadians.

If we believe that the Liberals are going to create jobs through investing in infrastructure, our economy is going to receive less than 50% of the amount that we were promised. At the same time, the deficit is two to three times higher, again depending on who one believes, the parliamentary budget officer or the government, and that, my fellow Canadians, is about as close to a plan as the Liberal government has gotten for our economy.

Liberals love to talk about a plan in the House during question period, especially the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. In fact, the minister talks about the Liberal plan all the time.

On February 1, the minister told the House that the government had a plan. On February 3, he said, “We have a plan”. On February 18, he said, “We have a plan”. On February 23, does anybody know what he said? He said, “We have a plan”. On February 25, he said, “We have a plan”. On March 7 and 8, he said, “We have a plan”. Therefore, it is obviously surprising that in the budget there was no mention of an existing plan, not one to create jobs, not one to help families that are ailing, and not one to expand our economy.

It says on page 109 of the budget document that, the government will create “a bold new plan” over the coming years. That means no plan exists. It was merely a plan to create a plan. How could the minister consistently lead the House to believe that he had a plan for the economy when all he had was a timeline to create a plan?

His mandate letter reiterates what the Prime Minister said in southern Ontario about transitioning away from manufacturing. Since December 2015, I can honestly say that this government has followed through on that promise. Over 51,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector and it leaves us asking if this is according to plan. Obviously, one would hope not, but it leaves us with the next question, which is, exactly what is this plan?

While the minister did not provide a detailed copy of the plan to committee, we are left with only the little language provided in the budget document that a plan will be created over the coming years. In the meantime, the minister, the Prime Minister, and the government are spending tax dollars on projects without an overarching strategy.

The minister announced $9.7 million in Waterloo region a few weeks back. These funds were outlined in the budget as part of an automotive innovation fund. Obviously, we on this side of the House were excited to see the implementation of a new strategy, which the government failed to outline in the committee or the budget, about how it would create jobs. Again, we asked the minister, “How many jobs will be created with this $10-million investment?” The answer was zero direct jobs and perhaps five to 10 indirect jobs. Therefore, the answer is that either $9.7 million equals zero jobs or $1 million of investment equals one job.

These are the results that one can expect to attain when the government is not following a plan, when it is floundering, and when it has no idea how to grow the economy. The Canadian people deserve better than a great marketing plan, better than endless clichés and speeches, better than half-truths and broken promises. The Canadian people deserve the opportunity for success and the hope of a better life.

It is amazing that the Liberal government is so focused on its political fortunes that it is willing to risk the fortunes of Canadians. The Liberal Party was the party that promised great respect for the House, yet now it shamefully mocks the idea of greater debate. It was the party that promised small deficits and gave us large ones. It promised great investment in infrastructure and delivered less than 50%. It promised help for the middle class and cut support for recreation and arts activities. It promised great debate and has constrained the House to 19 hours on a $20-billion to $30-billion deficit budget.

This is a government so unconcerned about the public purse that it does not even support an hour of debate for every $1 billion it goes into deficit. This budget has left Canadians with so many more questions and so few answers, questions such as, what happened to the small $10-billion deficit? What happened to the tax cuts for small business? What happened to the plan for the economy? What happened to the additional $10 billion a year in infrastructure spending?

This is a government that never added up its commitments, never found a group it could not pander to, and never intended to keep its promises.

Today I stand and plead with the government to stop stifling debate, subverting democracy, and disrespecting millions of Canadians who voted for it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even if I tried, I could not be nearly as negative as the member has just been. It has been my experience, with more than 12 budgets in the House, that when a member says there is absolutely nothing of value in an opposing party's budget, then the credibility of the speech is seriously eroded.

Of course, every budget has its challenges, and every party has its designs on how it best sees fit to spend scarce resources on behalf of Canadians.

I would like to ask the member if he could perhaps take off the cap of negativity and speak in a positive way and help our government. That is his job as a member of the opposition, as it is the job of a member of the government caucus, to improve things here. Could he help us understand how he sees opportunities for us to improve the way we are allocating those scarce resources, particularly when it comes to innovation? For example, with IRAP investments, startups, and venture capital, we would be investing massively in all these areas, both in the infrastructure and other sectors. Could he give us some positive assistance in improving things for the Canadian economy?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nothing makes me more positive or happy than to give the member an idea of what I think would make me positive and happy in terms of return on investment. If the government would invest some money that actually creates jobs, not money that does not create jobs, I would be very happy.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known that one of the primary responsibilities, if not the primary responsibility, of members of the House, the reason we are sent here in a parliamentary democracy to represent our constituents, is to scrutinize the spending of the government. The government, as the executive, has the ability to plan a budget and to authorize its spending, and it is the job of every single member of the House, from all parties, to carefully scrutinize that spending. That is our prime function as parliamentarians.

However, the government has imposed closure on debate after only two days, only 19 hours. For those who may be watching this debate, we can get about four MPs speaking per hour. That means about one in five MPs in the House will have an opportunity to represent their constituents on the budget. Eighty per cent of MPs in the House will not have a chance to stand in the House and make their views, and more importantly the views of their constituents, known about the budget.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on whether he thinks this is part of a democratic process, to have a government eliminate the ability of 80% of MPs to stand and have their views known on the budget.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members on all sides of the House, whether sitting in the government benches or opposition benches, were excited by some of the language that I quoted earlier from the throne speech, in terms of respect for members of Parliament, giving them opportunities, not silencing them. However, today, just four months after the throne speech was adopted, the government is doing exactly that. It is silencing MPs. It is preventing them from being heard. Unfortunately, that does not agree with my vision and idea of democracy.

Therefore, I share the member's concerns, and obviously will continue to request the government to open up debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of comments from the government on promises it is keeping, on openness and transparency. My hon. colleague expressed his dismay with some of the language we are hearing.

Very similar to this debate, not a week ago debate was limited on something that was probably the most transformative and important piece of legislation that the government and this sitting will ever see, physician-assisted dying. The government is again forcing closure on this.

For the purpose of being on the record once more, I would ask my colleague to please express his concerns, which are the same as ours, about the government's non-open and non-transparent ways.