Bill C-15 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in support of this government's first annual federal budget.

Just recently I was knocking on doors in my riding of Brampton East just to be accessible to the people who sent me to Ottawa. Many of my constituents expressed support for this government's investments to help middle-class Canadians succeed, investments that would not just help them today but investments that would lay the groundwork for the success of future generations of hard-working Canadians. These hard-working Canadians include our young Canadians, who are some of the best and brightest and deserve great educational opportunities and work experiences for the future.

Here at home and around the world dramatic shifts are taking place that represent both challenges to and opportunities for Canada's economy. Managing Canada's ongoing demographic shift means that we must do more to invest in young Canadians, specifically in post-secondary education, training, and innovation.

When I meet young people at community events, at the door, or at their school events, I see in them limitless potential to be the leaders of today and tomorrow, whether it be in the fields of science, law, business, the trades, or anything else they put their minds to.

I have had the opportunity to attend some of the best post-secondary institutions in this country. I have also had wonderful job experiences that helped me begin my career and prepared me for the honour of being a member of Parliament. Thus, I am a strong believer in the power of education and in training our young people to be the leaders of today and tomorrow. We must invest in this generation to ensure that we have support for our aging population and create economic growth to last generations.

Unfortunately, for far too many Canadians the rising cost of post-secondary education is making it less affordable. Fewer people are able to save for their education and those who receive financial assistance often find it difficult to repay their loans.

That is why budget 2016 proposes a package of reforms to the Canada student loans program that will make post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and ensure that student debt loads are more manageable. This includes a new flat rate student contribution to determine the eligibility for Canada student loans and grants. This will ensure that students are able to gain valuable work experience while not worrying about a reduction in their funding. This will also benefit adult learners who are working or have financial assets.

Budget 2016 would increase Canada student grants by 50%, from $2,000 to $3,000 per year for students from low-income families and $800 to $1,200 for students from middle-income families. Additionally, part-time students would receive $1,200 to $1,800 more per year as they aim to complete their education. This means that approximately 247,000 students from low-income families will benefit and 16,000 part-time students who work alongside school or care for their families will also benefit from the government's investments. This is a direct investment to meet the rising costs of post-secondary education. I cannot understate the impact that this will have for many ordinary young people who are looking to build brighter futures regardless of their family or personal income.

Also proposed is an increase in the loan repayment threshold to ensure that no students across the country will have to repay their Canada student loans until they are earning at least $25,000 per year. This measure will provide assistance of $131 million over five years starting in 2016-17. Finding a good job is hard for young people. We need to do better to ensure our recent graduates are not burdened by student debt until they are on their feet and earning a decent income.

Budget 2016 would also ensure our young people have the real life skills they need that can often only be gained from experience in the workforce. Our government is investing in employment opportunities for youth through the investment of an additional $165 million in 2016-17 for the youth employment strategy.

As well, we are creating an expert panel on youth employment to guide future investments in labour market programming. We are ensuring co-op placements and work-integrated learning opportunities for young Canadians through an investment of $73 million over four years, starting in 2016-17 for the post-secondary industry partnership and co-operative placement initiative. We would help young Canadians gain valuable work and life experiences through an investment of $105 million over five years to support youth services.

Additionally, there are numerous other provisions in our budget that would benefit young people. For example, by investing $3.4 billion over three years to upgrade and improve public transit systems across Canada, we would make it easier for young Canadians to get to and from work and school, and it is also more environmentally friendly.

By way of another example, with the millions we are investing in small businesses and innovation, such as through the industrial research assistance program, we will create new jobs in the future for our young Canadians to transition into.

In all, budget 2016 is a strong follow-through on the commitments that we made in last year's campaign.

We need to ensure that we invest and create the opportunities for young Canadians to succeed. The future of Canada depends on the quality and work ethic of our young Canadians. By investing in them, we are investing in a stronger and more prosperous Canada for years to come.

I ran to become a member of Parliament to ensure future generations had the same opportunity as me. As the son of a taxi cab driver and a factory worker, I got to attend some of the best schools across this nation. I got to graduate from Osgoode Hall Law School, join as an interior lawyer, be called to the Ontario Bar, and become a member of Parliament.

When I go to schools across my riding, I see the potential in young Canadians. I see that in Canada, if one works hard, one can achieve anything, and that education is the single most powerful tool to change one's circumstances and achieve one's dreams. Therefore, it is very important that in budget 2016 we are investing in young Canadians. We are investing in post-secondary education for all Canadians across this country. If one has the work ethic and the grades, financial assistance will be there to achieve one's educational dreams.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton East for his speech. We have taken a few flights together to Toronto.

As the member mentioned, it has been a theme today of the student loan and grant provisions in the budget. However, I wonder if he can comment on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York report that was written not too long ago. July 2015 was the revised edition, and in March 2016, there was Staff Report No. 733, which studied the relationship between the federal U.S. student loan program and how it actually contributed to increasing tuition costs in the United States. The relationship it found was that the subsidized loan effect is most pronounced for the most expensive degrees offered by private institutions, two-year degrees, and vocational programs.

We are trying to help students by paying for their education, but this is the latest data coming out of the United States where they provide significant contributions through loan and grant programs. I have a U.S. master's degree, and I am familiar with how expensive it is to get a post-secondary education there.

However, for these types of programs, when we increase them, the correlation is that we increase the cost of the programs of post-secondary institutions. In this case, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the relationship was mostly between expensive programs, vocational programs, and two-year programs.

Therefore, is the effect of this increase in the budget going to be that program costs in Canada might actually start going up in relation to how much they are being subsidized? I would like to hear the member's comments on this.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. and Canada are totally different when it comes to universities and post-secondary education. Here in Canada, the average tuition rate is a lot cheaper than it is in the U.S. In my humble opinion, the study is not relevant to what government is doing in 2016.

The government ran on a commitment to invest in Canadians, specifically to make sure that our young Canadians have every opportunity to succeed. I know that in this country if one gets an opportunity to go to some of the phenomenal post-secondary education institutions that we have across the country, that one can achieve one's dreams. One can become a doctor, lawyer, or engineer.

However, to ensure that path happens for our young Canadians, we have to ensure that the infrastructure is there. We have to make sure that they are not riddled with debt. No student in this country should be making the decision of whether they should go to school or into the workforce based on the cost of tuition. The government should be investing in young Canadians, and that is what we are doing in budget 2016.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure working with the member for Brampton East on the government operations committee.

He spoke very eloquently about the need to invest in post-secondary education. The main way in which the federal government invests in post-secondary education is through the Canada social transfer.

I am struck by the fact that this budget provides no increase at all in the Canada social transfer relative to the last Conservative budget. We have had a number of good speeches today about post-secondary education, but when it comes to actually funding post-secondary institutions, unfortunately, the current government is not doing anything more than the previous government did.

Could the member for Brampton East tell us when his government will be coming forward with an increase in the Canada social transfer?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo my hon. colleague's sentiments. It is an absolute honour and privilege to serve with him on the government operations committee.

I want to focus on the increases we are making to universities. We are directly investing through a post-secondary investment and research fund. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development is doing a phenomenal job, travelling the country, coast to coast to coast, speaking with the heads of universities to ensure they have access to this funding.

There are clear guidelines across the country to ensure that our post-secondary education institutions have the money to invest and to ensure that when young Canadians go to these institutions, they receive that high-quality education we are so used to in Canada. A lot of our hon. colleagues have had the opportunity and the benefit of getting good degrees and education from very good institutions.

It is our job and our requirement to ensure that future generations have the same opportunity we have had.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect that there are many New Democratic members of Parliament who are a little nervous about how to vote on what is one of the most progressive budgets we have seen in the last decade, and even longer than that. We can talk about the money that would be provided through the child benefit program, the increases that some of the poorest seniors in the country would get through the GIS, and the solid commitment to infrastructure dollars and building projects. I appreciate that New Democrats wanted to balance the budget, but when I listen to their speeches, they talk about wanting to spend more money.

How does the member feel about voting against one of the most progressive budgets we have seen in the last decade-plus?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my colleague across the aisle that I am not nervous at all about the way I will vote on this particular bill and that I have studied the budget extensively. While there are things that will help people in my region, there are gaping holes for others. Those who make under $45,000 in my community, in the small towns I represent with many minimum-wage workers, will not receive any type of tax benefit or help.

He talks about the money that will go to families. Of course, this is a benefit for families, but it does not address a huge issue in my riding, which is child care and the lack of affordable, safe child care spaces. He also mentioned seniors. Seniors are largely left out of this budget. Let us talk about health care, the gaping hole that exists for palliative care, the $3 billion that was promised to communities that simply does not exist. This is the reason I am looking critically at this bill.

Again, I promise my colleague across the aisle that I will stand with full confidence in my vote.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hearty congratulations to my colleague from Essex for her speech, which reflected the reality of the people she represents. She says that she is proud to represent her constituents, and I think that they can be very proud of their MP, who is so in tune with their reality. The member said that this budget does not meet all the needs of the people in her riding.

After making an election promise to reduce the small business tax rate, the Liberals decided to make them wait even though they are our most important job creators. I am guessing that was a real blow to the agricultural sector and entrepreneurs.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words about my representation for my riding. I am very proud and I take it very seriously when I am looking at an issue such as this omnibus budget and breaking it down into ways that are relatable.

Small businesses in the community have been seriously let down. I represent five small municipalities. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of Essex. There is absolutely nothing for these folks in the budget. The decrease promised by the Liberal government that did not show up in this budget is a huge letdown for small businesses. I do not know where their future lies without those extra funds, particularly in Ontario, with a Liberal government that is, unfortunately, raising hydro prices that are unaffordable for businesses in my riding.

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

Madam Speaker, I was really pleased to hear my colleague talk about short-haul railways. The role played by independently own railways across Canada is significant. We do not talk about them very much.

In the brief time remaining, I want to ask the member if she would agree with me that we should do more to help them own their own tracks, get goods from place to place, and reduce truck traffic on our highways.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, short-haul railways are integral to my riding. In particular, there are some that require attention. If we could do some improvements to two particular crossings that have small bridges, it would grow the economies of the small communities they serve. Of course, there is the environmental impact, which is incredibly important to all of us down in the sun parlour of Canada.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining the debate at this hour.

As I have done before, I want to share a Yiddish proverb, “One builds the house and the other lives in it”. I think it really applies to this budget. Today I want to talk about the fiscal house the government is building through its budget.

If we look at the “Fiscal Monitor” for March 2016, we see that the Liberals had a budgetary deficit of $9.4 billion of their own creation. They spent the money. They did not control the cost and it is really one that they own.

The March 2015 “Fiscal Monitor”, the house that was built by the previous government, had a budgetary deficit for March 2015 of $3 billion, and that house was built on sturdy foundations, based on the idea that this is not the money of the government and this is not the money of the House. It belongs to taxpayers and we are here as stewards on their behalf.

We see also in the March 2016 “Fiscal Monitor” that personal income taxes and corporate taxes were both down, $1.1 billion on the personal side, $2.1 billion on the corporate side, and $0.2 billion on non-resident income tax. Revenue was way down but spending was way up. Direct program expenses were up $1.5 billion.

If we look at the comments made by the former parliamentary budget officer, he said, “The (Conservative) government handed over a set of books that were, for all intents and purposes, in balance”. Furthermore, he went on:

Policy related changes include the Liberals booking $3.7 billion in future veterans benefits in the 2015-16 fiscal year, while tax changes, an Alberta stabilization fund, Syrian refugee costs and the cancellation of federal sick leave savings totalled $2 billion....

And their spending and tax measures are going to add to that deficit.

This is truly a budget that builds a fiscal house based on structural deficit, so there is no foundation. There is just an ample, large volumes of spending. Most of the spending is really being thrown away. It is done without any real, focused purpose. It is not really being done for the benefit of the middle class. In fact, one commentator said that this budget is “a giant meat grinder of taxpayers’ money”.

While for many of us it is kind of shocking to see how the concept of stewarding both the economy and taxpayer dollars has been thrown out the window with the budget. I also think about the obvious effects of just how little effort the government puts into cost control or this concept of stewarding taxpayer dollars.

When the government took power in early November 2015, it also began owning all of these spending decisions. As I mentioned, there is quite a few of them that the Liberals have made since then, and they have chosen to go down this path of deficit spending. During the campaign we heard that they would have small, reasonably sized $10-billion deficits. To me that seems completely unreasonable. That deficit has grown through $29.4 billion, $29.5 billion, $29.6 billion, to almost $30 billion.

We see that all of those promises the Liberals made during the campaign are not really worth the paper they were written on. They own this spending that they have done since they took power in November and it is truly theirs. The Liberal deficit has been reaching new heights since March 2016, and as in the budget, there is no end goal. There is no end to the spending. They will just continue to spend to new heights. They have no plans to return to a balanced budget.

When we look at the budget a little more closely, we also see that the revenue numbers are hard to believe. The Liberals believe that between this fiscal year and the next they will have an extra $10 billion just in personal income taxes. It makes one wonder how and from where will they get this money. They say they are getting it from Canadian taxpayers, but I just do not see the potential for an increase that is so high.

The borrowed money of today is really the taxes of tomorrow. If we binge borrow today, as the Liberals are doing, eventually we will have to pay it back. Binge borrowing today by the Liberals will require them, and they are already doing so, to squeeze the private sector in terms of the borrowing opportunities. The private sector has to go out and find dollars from regular Canadians, from businesses or from banks to borrow as well, so public sector borrowing squeezes private sector borrowing and costs go up.

The federal government is displaying and creating this type of environment where it will be more difficult in the long term for the private sector to borrow at reasonable rates. There is also an open question as to whether any of these budget numbers make any sense. A sizeable contingency fund was created. They have tagged the price of oil at $25, and at times they have really rosy revenue growth, which, as I said, especially on the personal income tax side, is just completely unreasonable and very hard to believe.

One other oddity I have mentioned in the House before and I have asked questions about to other members, today especially, is on the child benefit numbers. They actually start going down, starting in fiscal year 2018-19.

The result is a $1-billion gap between their numbers in 2018-19 and the numbers in 2020-21. The only reason to explain this gap is because either they believe that Canadians will be making vast sums of new revenue somehow, families will be making vast sums more and therefore they will be eligible for a smaller child benefit only, or they have no intention of indexing it to inflation and over time, the child benefit will simply decrease in its real value. That is the only way this works and the budget document is simply unhelpful in pointing out how this will be done.

On the very next page we have an explanation for every single other line item. They have no explanation for this decrease on the child benefit side. On infrastructure, again Liberals are off to a bizarre start with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities wasting $800,000 on a new deputy minister's office. Is there truly no space available in Ottawa to fit a deputy minister's office? Is there truly no space available to start an infrastructure program but by building the Taj Mahal, by building, as a colleague of mine from Edmonton West called it, sky palace 2.0 for Albertans who are quite aware what sky palace 1.0 was, a huge waste of dollars.

On the infrastructure record, the Liberal record between 1994 and 2006, was $351 million allocated to Alberta. A pittance, peanuts. The Conservative record in comparison between 2006-15 was $3.4 billion of infrastructure spending, real money allocated to real projects, projects one can see in my community like the Stoney Trail bypass of the city of Calgary built with federal and provincial monies including the City of Calgary.

If we want a record of fairness and standing up for Albertans, the budget does not have that. The budget does not help Albertans continue to build in the fastest growing cities in Canada.

There is a measly $4 billion in the current budget to be spent on actual infrastructure. Another $25 billion is being spent and over 80% is being spent on a wish list of program spending, so there is very little infrastructure spending in the budget. The Liberals have plans to spend more, but in the budget they have tabled with this budget implementation act that would actually change the laws to make it work, they have almost nothing available for actual infrastructure.

If we look at small businesses and how they are hard done by the budget, they are losing out on a 1.5% tax cut they were supposed to get. That was another broken promise by the Liberals. I talked of a meat grinder for taxpayer dollars, but I am sure the Liberals have also a very well used industrial shredder for all those Liberal promises they are no longer willing or able to keep.

The PBO estimated that a reduction to 9% would reduce the federal revenues of $2.15 billion over the next four years and this is net. Put another way, this was $2.15 billion that small business owners would get to keep in their pockets so they could reinvest it into their business.

We talked about innovation. There is no greater innovator than small business owners trying to grow their business. They do not need the government to tell them how to do it, they can do it themselves.

When we look at the PBO's report even further, we also see the real GDP impacts. Employment numbers will go down by $1.24 billion. Again, it is a huge loss not to reduce the small business tax. I know when I worked for the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, we moved a motion at the provincial level to simply reduce the small business tax by 1% to match it with Saskatchewan. This was hugely popular in the chamber movement in Alberta.

I know the record that the previous Conservative government left to the current government: the number one most reputable and admired in the world, the Reputation Institute; the number one government net debt, GDP,G7, OECD, AAA credit rating; best country for business in the G20, according to Forbes; number one best G7 job growth since 2008 according to the OECD. All of this is at risk with this budget.

The list is no doubt a flurry of wasting tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars. To return to the concept that I started with, the Yiddish proverb, the house that we are building in the budget has no foundation. It is built on bingeing of debt, debt as far as the eye can see, structural deficits that it will take a generation to fix, and successive governments will struggle with it because they have to, there is nothing here. There is no plan.

We are talking about future generations and many of us have talked about the graduating students. There is nothing in it except debt and higher taxes in the future. I will oppose the budget and invite other members to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, I often ask Conservative members this question. I know it can be difficult to vote when there is something in the budget that I believe many Conservatives are glad to see, and that is the whole issue of the tax break. In excess of nine million Canadians, Canada's middle class, will receive a substantial tax break, adding literally hundreds of millions of dollars to people's disposable income.

We are talking about individuals like teachers, manufacturing workers, and bus drivers, so many individuals in every region of the country. This bill would deliver a tax break for those Canadians. Not to mention the Canada child benefit program, where we will see millions of dollars being delivered into the homes and literally lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

How does the member feel about those two specific issues? Does he feel this is something he would support?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have no problem voting against this budget. I have absolutely no problem voting against the Liberals on most of the things they put forward as part of their government agenda.

The simple reason is this, especially on the child benefit issue. The member must know that in the Liberals' budget, they cut $1 billion out of the child benefit program in the term of their government. It actually starts going down in total numbers. They are not being straight with Canadians about how they are going to run the program.

The next part is on the income tax issue. I have a constituent named, Cole. Cole works in a casino. He gets a smaller tax break than I do, because of the Liberal supposed middle-income tax cut. That is not a tax cut for middle-income Canadians. Cole is a middle-income Canadian. He deserves a tax cut, which he is not getting with this budget.