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

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

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I was actually just in the member's riding at FCM. I was in north Winnipeg, and I talked to a couple of people. I gave them the breakdown for the middle-class tax break that was promised. They earn less than $23 an hour, their children are over 18, and they feel that they have been forgotten, been left behind and been lied to.

I agree that the best thing the Liberals could have done is to make sure that everyone counts in their so-called tax break for the middle class. They could have done their research to find out where median incomes lie in Canada, and in places like Winnipeg and especially north Winnipeg. We know it is certainly less than $31,000.

Also, who drives the economy? It is small business people. That promise was made to small business people. In Winnipeg north, in the member's riding, and in all of our ridings, it is small business people who are driving our economy. They are the people who are building our economy.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the attention he gave to small and medium-sized businesses.

On that note, I was wondering what he thinks about the attitude that this government and the Prime Minister himself have shown toward small and medium-sized businesses. The Liberals broke their promise to lower the tax rate for SMEs.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister was probably thinking about his own numbered companies when he said that Canada's entrepreneurs were using their small businesses to try to avoid paying taxes.

Can my colleague comment on the attitude of the government, and more specifically of the Prime Minister, toward SMEs, as well as their perception of these small businesses? The Prime Minister seems to believe that everyone uses these companies the way he does.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his strong values and for standing up for the people in his community. He is absolutely right. We hear rhetoric from the members from the government side, saying things like small business people are bad fiscal money managers, or they are tax cheats. About 80% of small business people earn less than $80,000 a year. Actually, 70% of them earn less than $60,000 a year. Therefore, this rhetoric is unacceptable. These people are the foundation of our community. These are the people who we should be celebrating and helping to lift up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, in a number of the member's comments, she is looking for issues that affect people. If we look at Veterans Affairs, I could talk about the nine offices we have committed to reopening. The budget allows for that to take place. There is substantial support going to the veterans.

Would the member provide a comment on what I think is a very progressive aspect of the budget dealing with some of Canada's very poorest seniors in all regions of our country? The budget puts into place a substantial increase. It could be as high as $900 for a single senior who is finding it very difficult because of a limited income.

I am wondering if the member would provide some comment in regard to how important a guaranteed income supplement is and recognize that the money flowing to that program is a positive step forward in helping a good number of Canada's poorest seniors.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly would have liked some answers to some of my questions followed by a question in regard to our veterans, as that is the area about which I am especially concerned. Being on the committee and being deputy critic for Veterans Affairs, I know these issues are very serious and a deep concern to them.

I represent one of the ridings in the country with the largest percentage of older people, and I communicate with them a great deal. They are concerned about a number of things. One of them is about the highest end of a possible increase in the GIS. Many of these people are facing situations where the amount they are being provided is minimal, not unlike our lowest and most vulnerable veterans. They receive the bottom end of potential support that really will not make much of a difference to them in the long term.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the definition of middle class used by the government.

In many communities, at least in my community of Sherbrooke, the definition of middle class is not necessarily the same one that could be attributed to the government, which is cutting taxes. In fact, those earning more than $160,000 a year receive the largest tax cuts.

My colleague from Courtenay—Alberni just said that he calculated that a full-time employee would have to earn $23 an hour to benefit from the government's so-called middle-class tax cut.

Accordingly, could my colleague comment on these facts and figures concerning the middle class, which seem rather high for the Liberal government?

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

Madam Speaker, this is of deep concern to me as well. Prior to being here, I was a small business owner. I still am, but I am not involved in the business. Watching our employees and the amount of money they are earning, they are certainly not what the current government deems the middle class. The vast majority of people in Canada who should be receiving support from the government, who truly do need it, do not fall into the categories that the Liberals have presented to us today. What this would do is again reward in circumstances where the need is not as great as those who truly do need that support in a truer representation of the middle class.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member will have one minute remaining the next time this debate is before the House.

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

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time on the budget implementation bill. I always call budget implementation the time when the tires hit the road, when we hit the pavement and decide what we will implement over the next little while. In some cases our budget implementation bill will undo some of the things we did not agree with in the last administration and it will put forward what we put into our election platform. These are details by which we debate.

I would like to highlight a number of things. A lot of this has to do with my riding and by extension my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to focus on two themes from the budget. A lot of it has to do with the individuals who I feel need a hand-up from the government, who need some help from the government to get by, through no fault of their own. It is one of the reasons why I ran for politics. It is one of the main reasons it has sustained me for the past 12 years. It gets me up in the morning and gets me to work every day. I feel that all 338 of us make a difference in our own sort of way, not just for our ridings but also in general, to further the dialogue of our country and enact elements of that dialogue into legislation.

The two themes I want to talk about are smart investments and a sense of fairness.

Smart investments come from the conversations we have had with people over the past couple of years. I remember when we were the smaller party in the House. There was a lot of discussion. There were good ideas from all parties at that time and there were great debates. I do not want to dwell on what happened in the last session too much, but I will dwell upon some of the things we looked at to create fairness within the taxation system. That is what we are talking about here.

As for fairness for the middle class, I know in many cases a lot of the tax credits we talked about earlier may seem like a wonderful thing by the day's end, things like the credits that the former government put in place. Some of them were for good reasons. They were good for fitness, for books and for many other things. However, we looked at all the credits and decided we needed to invest in the middle class. All of these could be encapsulated into fairness so we could invest in our middle class and so people could provide for their families. In turn, we could help create employment as a result of that.

Let me go back to my origin, to Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the best things we can invest in are the skills for people. Back in the early 1990s, when the cod moratorium was in place, one of the biggest lay-offs in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador occurred. Thousands upon thousands of communities were affected by the shutdown of the major fishery. The government of the day, under former prime minister Jean Chrétien, decided it would invest in people by allowing them to re-educate themselves, retool themselves for something down the road. It took a while to do that, but it got done in several ways.

First and foremost, we talk about seafood as being a great export. We talk about our minerals and mines as a great export. However, one of our greatest exports that we have right now in our neck of the woods is skilled trades. My constituents travel the world: Norway, North Africa, eastern Russia, the Middle East; and even in our country into Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. Many of our people travel away for a period of time, return, and live in my province, in my riding and throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet they find themselves going around the world making a living. The investments we made many years ago allowed that to happen. We were able to build the capacity by which we could educate people and by the same token we could create a post-secondary institution that was nimble and therefore able to adapt to the skills market it required. To dovetail that, we have cut taxes for the middle class. As a result of that, we also believe in the investment in the people and the structures by which they live.

One of the best things I found about this budget was that it would benefit the smallest of communities. There are about 140 communities in my riding and each of these communities is now able to invest in infrastructure in a way they could never before. How they do that is by allowing the flexibility within the system so they can invest with other levels of government, with provincial governments and the federal government.

We now can make substantial investments in community infrastructure regarding recreation, heritage, tourism, culture. Beyond the industries I mentioned earlier, we also have a burgeoning tourism market throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Many have seen the commercials. They are enticing a lot of people to my area, but if there is nothing there for them, then it becomes very difficult to provide services and to create long-term employment as a result.

I also want to talk about some of the specifics when it comes to seasonal work, which is a big element for central Newfoundland in particular. Division 12 of part 4 of the bill would increase, until July 8, 2017, the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants in certain regions, and my region is one of those. It certainly would benefit in a great way.

It would eliminate the category of claimants who are new entrants and re-entrants, so it would not perplex people who are new entrants into the EI system to acquire the hours to get into the system for the first time. Before, it was rather unfair. Double the amount of hours were required for people getting into the system for the first time. Therefore, we are scaling it back to what everyone else has to do.

It would reduce to one week the length of the waiting period during which claimants would not be entitled to benefits. It is not just about the one week; it is also about processing. In some cases, some people who apply for employment insurance have to wait not one to three weeks, but six weeks to receive that first cheque. That is two or three weeks beyond the late mortgage payment or the late payment for utilities. That certainly becomes onerous. Therefore, we are going to do that, plus we are going to enhance the system by which processing takes place in the public service.

Budget 2016 certainly takes an essential step to grow the middle class. It puts people first and delivers the help Canadians need now, not in a decade from now. In the last session of Parliament, the emphasis was on the investment that was on the back end, as some people like to call it, meaning the latter part of the span got most of that money. We felt that investment had to be done now in many cases, certainly for Newfoundland and Labrador. In my particular situation, that had to be done soon.

One of the examples I can use is that soon there will be harder regulations regarding waste water, for environmental reasons and for all the right reasons. In 2020, we are looking at some very onerous regulations for the smallest of communities, not just the largest cities. As a result, we have to help bring these communities up to a standard by which they can satisfy those regulations. That is very important to us and to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to turn to the main text of the budget for a moment, because there are several areas I would like to touch upon. I mentioned small town recreation. Page 102 talks about investing in cultural and recreational infrastructure. Some of the best investments we have made are in things like playgrounds and ball fields. Recreational areas create jobs, yes, but more important, they allow communities to invest in themselves, and we want to be a part of that.

Our 150-year celebration is just around the corner and the local and regional economic development agency, more commonly known as ACOA, or Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provides an essential service for the smallest of communities. It tells communities that the Government of Canada believes in them and will be there. That is why I love this budget. I will vote for it, and I hope all members do.

Rural broadband is absolutely an essential service. When I first arrived in the House, Internet capability was something for those who could afford it. Now it has become absolutely essential. Building a road to reach a community now is as essential as the reach of broadband Internet as well.

I believe in tourism and investments in it.

Finally, I want to talk about the Manolis L, and the $6 million to come up with an assessment. It is a sunken ship off the coast of my riding. It had to be addressed, and was addressed in this budget.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about what the Liberals would implement with this budget. What are they implementing with the huge deficit they have budgeted for, with no plans to balance the budget? These are serious things to implement upon the Canadian public.

What is more concerning to me is on page 235 of this year's budget. It is the GST revenue projections. If we take note of these numbers, the GST revenue is projected to rise by 21% over the next five years. The government is certainly not predicting, nor are any of the economic indicators suggesting, that our economic growth is going to grow by anywhere near 21%.

I am concerned the government is planning to implement a GST increase. Is that the case?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's enthusiasm. During the campaign, there was never a commitment to talk about the GST or to increase it. I do not think—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I'm not talking about the campaign.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I am sorry if my answer is interrupting his heckling, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to keep going.

These are projections based on the economic growth. I mentioned the investment in our communities, and how that would benefit us. I certainly believe the projections are there. Our debt-to-GDP ratio allows us to eliminate this deficit a few years from now.

I would like to remind the member that this is nothing new. The idea of injecting money, investing in the economy, and investing for the sake of a stimulus measure is not new. Being in a deficit situation for a period of time was also talked about by the former finance minister, Hon. Jim Flaherty, God rest his soul. He said the same thing.

When the other side says that this is a rather wasteful way of spending, that is not what they used to say, as we get into a hashtag disingenuous conversation.