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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. I just want to remind the hon. members that I am trying to listen to the hon. member for Milton and I really cannot hear her with all the back and forth here. If members do not mind, if they have to talk, and I know they get along just fine, just whisper to each other or go next to each other or sit together but do not speak across the floor.

The hon. member for Milton.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not hear you either, unfortunately, in that interchange.

What I would say with respect to the hon. member's question is this. In 2009 and 2010, at the time of the great recession, it was very difficult for then finance minister, Jim Flaherty, and the prime minister at that time to take the country into a budget that actually showed we were going into deficit because that is something that, as Conservatives, we are not comfortable with. However, the decision was taken after unprecedented consultations; and it was also taken in concert with our colleagues in the G20, who unanimously agreed it was time for stimulus spending.

Can members guess what happened two weeks ago? Our Minister of Finance went to Japan saying he is going to sell this stimulus funding, that we are going to go back into deficit, and only one member of the G7 actually agreed to it. Germany's representative, finance minister, and the chancellor indicated that it was the wrong path to take, that lower taxes matter, and that it does matter that we balance our budgets. That is what real countries do in this world.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Conservative Party finance critic, with whom I have the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to come back to what happened at the Standing Committee on Finance. I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on how disorganized the Liberals were in committee with regard to a very specific situation.

The bill proposes extending employment insurance benefits to claimants in 12 regions determined by a formula that seems quite arbitrary to me. In mid-May, the Prime Minister promised to extend this measure to three additional regions. Now that the clause-by-clause review of the bill is over, they are still talking about 12 regions. There is no clause that talks about three additional regions.

We proposed an amendment to correct this situation, but the amendment was deemed out of order. It seemed that the Liberal members did not understand what happened. They had such a poor understanding of their own promise that they had to correct this mistake here in the House at report stage.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the Liberals' level of disorganization on an issue that is so very important to regions such as eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question, and I am glad that he reminded me of what it is like to be in finance committee with that level of disorganization on the other side.

I can say that was not the only surprise we received at finance. That was very distressing. In fact, our side of the table did support the hon. member's amendments in order to ensure that what was being passed actually was reflected in the words of the government.

However, we also heard from a witness that there was a plan to index the child care benefit in a certain year. This was not included in the PBO report. This was not included in the forward projections of the government. Yet, this witness gave testimony that he was told by the Prime Minister's Office that this was in fact the case. We also heard from another witness who had heard from the minister's office that the small business tax rate was going to eventually be reduced again. Of course, we had not seen any of that in the costing, in the spending, or in any of the projections.

It would appear that there is a case with the current government where it may have, within the document, aspects of what the Liberals think they are planning to do, but they are also freelancing it whenever a camera appears.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have attended a few meetings of the finance committee that the member is on. One of the occasions that I was there, we heard from Dr. Jack Mintz, who raised concerns about, first of all, raising the upper bands with regards to income taxes, and also dealing with small business. He also mentioned that quite a significant proportion of higher income earners also own small businesses.

One of the things he suggested was that the CRA have the capacity to track the movement of entrepreneurs who are in both of those classes to be able to see if the Liberal plan would actually chase away those people, where they move to other jurisdictions outside of Canada or from a higher provincially taxed area to a lower one.

I would ask the member if she agrees that this evidenced-based decision-making is helpful for the public and members of Parliament to evaluate this policy a few years down the line.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member brought that point up in the House of Commons. It is a very valid and important one to be able to have benchmarks and measures against which we can actually take a look to see if the budget did what it said it would do. I think that is an excellent example of something that the government should be measuring, and I am sure that we will be asking questions about it in the future.

I would say as well that there is another example of data that I personally would like to see. I have raised this in the chamber before. It has to do with the percentage of women in the workforce. Those numbers are gathered by Statistics Canada and by Labour Canada as well. I would very much like to see whether there is going to be any change or movement in those numbers as a result of this new child care benefit that the government has introduced.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her great speech. I know the member is from Atlantic Canada, and I certainly respect her contribution to the House.

I want to focus on the member's comments about how the Conservative Party was such a great steward of the economy, on the balanced budgets, and that members on the other side and our party knows nothing about the economy. I take exception to that.

I went door to door in my campaign and the Conservatives' so-called balanced budget was a shell game. A balanced budget to me is not a balanced budget when it throws in the EI fund, the rainy day fund, and the sale of GM stocks. That budget was balanced on the backs of veterans, the middle class, and those living in poverty. Canadians know that, and they spoke on October 19 about that.

I have asked this question several times to the party opposite, but I never get a straight answer. I want to focus on the tax-free savings account, and that only 7% of Canadians maximize it. It does not make sense that the party opposite would double something that only 7% of Canadians maximize. Therefore, can the member opposite give me a straight answer as to why, because it is something that was going to double, that was going to cost this country billions and billions of dollars, that the finance minister himself said that the ex-prime minister's grandchildren would pay for? I would like to understand the member's philosophy on doubling the tax-free savings account when 7% of Canadians maximize it.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to his own Minister of Finance, because he wrote in his book The Real Retirement that the TFSA actually was a good start, and that was at $5,000, and that he looked forward to it increasing over time, because it made sense as a vehicle for people to save.

A real place where Canadians can save money these days and build equity is in the housing market. However, as members in the House are aware, it is becoming more and more difficult for young Canadians to enter into that market because of the costs associated with housing.

The TFSA is a great vehicle to help Canadians save for that first down payment, and having it at $10,000, if we understand what real estate prices are, we will know that this is a great way to save after-tax dollars so that people can get into another vehicle of savings, which is a house here in Canada.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say at third reading of this bill is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The Conservatives introduced omnibus bills that were around 175 pages in length and sometimes 500 or 600 pages. Now, we have a 179-page omnibus bill that amends or eliminates 35 acts.

The Conservative government systematically refused to accept any of the amendments proposed in the Standing Committee on Finance. Now, the Liberal government is systematically refusing to accept any of the amendments proposed in the Standing Committee on Finance. It is just more of the same.

I think this bill clearly shows why Canadians are so cynical about politics. The Liberals promised to do things differently, but they introduced this massive bill. If we had had the time to study it carefully, we could perhaps have gotten through it all and thoroughly analyzed it to identify its shortcomings.

However, we had only two committee meetings to hear from witnesses and examine the Liberals' 179-page budget bill. We were able to hear from only 17 witnesses in committee to discuss the various aspects of the bill. That is only one witness per 10 pages of legislation. I commend the Liberals for this so-called comprehensive study.

Some extremely important aspects of this bill were dealt with in a very cursory manner. I am thinking about the entire chapter on the mechanism for bank recapitalization in the event that our key or systemically important institutions break down.

First of all, I am not fundamentally opposed to that provision. However, it completely changes the way our banking system can get help when it might be in trouble, which we hope will never happen. It changes the way our banking system works.

When we requested a more comprehensive study, the Liberals told us that it was unnecessary because a department official had explained to them how it works. Yes, that is what they said. If we follow that logic, why bother hearing from witnesses in committee at all? Let us just ask department officials to explain the measures on which we have to vote and then just vote on them already.

I see that my colleague does not agree, and I am sorry, but that is the reality. The official in question, Glenn Campbell, did a good job explaining the technical underpinnings of the bill. However, the fact remains that we did not have a chance to hear a single witness talk about this important provision.

The other part of this bill that warranted closer attention is the issue of compensation for veterans. First of all, that should have been in a separate bill, but the Liberals decided to include it in the budget implementation bill. We heard from only one witness on that, the veterans ombudsman. That was it.

If it had been examined more thoroughly, first of all, it would not have been in the Standing Committee on Finance, but rather in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and second, at least two or three meetings would have been dedicated to examining precisely those points. Ultimately, we heard from only one witness in committee on something that should have been in its own bill.

To sum up, to study Bill C-15, we had two days of debate and a time allocation motion in the House at second reading, before it went to committee. It was so urgent that the committee began examining it before it even passed second reading. Regardless, we still only invited witnesses to two of the six committee meetings. The minister and other officials attended some of the other meetings.

On top of that, the Liberals rejected all the amendments proposed by the opposition. It is not as though we went too far. We proposed 15 substantial amendments to a 179-page bill. The Conservatives proposed three, and I know the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois also proposed some. One of the amendments proposed by the Conservatives came from a member who does not sit on the committee.

I will digress for a moment. Once again, this shows that the Liberals operate much like the Conservatives did before them. They even moved the same motion at a Standing Committee on Finance meeting to force independent MPs from parties not recognized in the House to present their amendments in committee so that they could be discussed for a minute instead of using their rights as independent members to move those amendments in the House. They did exactly what the Conservatives used to do.

We studied the amendments, and the Liberals listened to them. They are perfectly happy to listen to the opposition, but when it comes to really hearing, analyzing, and actually using what the opposition says, forget it.

I mentioned an interesting fact in the question I asked the member for Milton, who is the official opposition finance critic. The Liberal side was totally disorganized during the committee's work. Take, for example, the employment insurance provisions that the government included in the bill. Once again, the Standing Committee on Finance should not have been the one studying that issue. It should have been the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Nevertheless, it was included in the budget bill.

The Liberals decided that only 12 regions in the country would benefit from the extended EI benefits. What is the formula? The formula seems somewhat flexible, but 12 regions are going to be included, mostly in western Canada and Newfoundland. We realize that these regions have been hit especially hard by falling oil and commodity prices. However, the random nature of the criteria that allowed those regions to be included on the list was never really formally explained to us.

In mid-May, the Prime Minister himself announced that three new regions would also qualify for the extension: Southern Saskatchewan, Southern Interior British Columbia, and Edmonton. In committee, we tried to explain that instead of having a random formula, perhaps all regions should be included in the formula. That was declared out of order, so I cannot blame the parties for that. However, I do not think the government would have been very receptive to that measure.

We decided to include only the regions that were benefiting from this five-week extension to fill what is called the black hole before the Conservatives and before 2012. The black hole is the period of time between the end of EI benefits and a return to work, for those who work in seasonal industries. Again, the government was not really listening and this was declared out of order.

Finally, we proposed our third amendment. This one sought to remind the government that it promised to include these three regions. In the House, I cannot explain succinctly the level of confusion that reigned on the Liberal side on this aspect because they seemed to have forgotten that promise. They did not seem to understand that this amendment needed to be added in committee. The Liberal Party made no proposal on the matter. Finally, we ended the clause-by-clause review without any such amendment. The Liberal government was forced to correct its mistake by introducing a motion here at report stage.

I should point out that the committee accepted just one amendment during its study. It was a Liberal amendment to fix a mistake that the Liberal government introduced into this bill. This was nothing new to me, since I saw this kind of thing go on for five years with the Conservatives' omnibus budgets. They would realize after the fact that the bill was poorly thought out and needed to be fixed. Conservative amendments would be accepted, but the opposition's amendments never were.

What we have here is a series of measures. I just talked about veterans and bank recapitalization. These issues should have been dealt with separately. I also talked about employment insurance. In fact, many measures should have been dealt with separately, or there should at least have been a more careful study than just 17 witnesses for 179 pages of text.

Since the start of debate, I have been listening to the government side claim that this is not an omnibus bill since all of the measures were in the budget. Indeed, there are lots of things in the budget, because in a 500-page document, you can have one little line about a forestry program, another line about the TFSA, and another line about a post-secondary education program for indigenous communities.

The government can include pretty much anything in a budget or a budget implementation bill by arguing that it appeared in the previous budget. That is not how things work. The Liberal members who were here during the previous Parliament completely agreed with our definition of an omnibus budget bill. I would like to quote a few of them.

At the beginning of this Parliament, in April 2016, the member for Malpeque, who is now the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, indicated that the Department of Finance had gotten into the habit of putting a lot of things in a budget bill. He said that his concern was that there could be an area in a bill that really required giving MPs the opportunity to debate that issue in the House, not as part of a budget bill, but as part of a separate bill.

We completely agree with him. That is the whole point of my argument. Let us look at what the member for Kings—Hants, who is now the President of the Treasury Board, said in 2015, in the previous Parliament. He said:

For years, the Conservatives have crossed the line in what is acceptable in a functioning democracy as a government in the area of respect for Parliament. It is not only how they have now normalized the use of massive omnibus bills, they regularly shut down debate in the House...

Lo and behold, the Liberals cut short debate in the House and introduced massive bills that we were not able to study in detail.

Do members want other examples? The current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and member for Charlottetown said:

...the government's use of omnibus legislation has degraded the committee review process and hidden important legal changes from public scrutiny.

That is not all. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and member for Vancouver Quadra said:

Liberals will end the abuse of omnibus bills, which result in poorly reviewed laws.

I challenge any Liberal member to state in the House that they kept their promises concerning transparency and are allowing this Parliament and this committee to carry out an exhaustive and thorough review and, ultimately, letting us fulfill our responsibilities as MPs on the committee.

If that is what the Liberal members are interested in doing, I urge them to explain how holding two committee meetings with witnesses qualifies as a comprehensive study of thirty or so acts in this 179-page bill. I urge them to explain why, in June 2015, they said they would put an end to these massive bills because they are not conducive to thorough and transparent study, yet now, they have introduced just such a bill. I challenge any Liberal member to tell me to my face that there was no time allocation, something the Liberals strongly criticized back then.

Today, with this first budget implementation bill, this government is showing what the next four years will look like. It seems to have no remorse for breaking its promises. I am thinking of promises such as reducing the tax from 11% to 9%. The government swore that it would reduce the small business tax. That is not the only broken promise. It also said that it would fix Parliament so that it could do what it should do: analyze legislation and even help the government address deficiencies in these bills. Obviously, the government has its own idea of how things should be, but it may miss some things.

We do not expect the Liberals to accept or adopt all the recommendations or amendments that we propose, but we do expect them to listen carefully, to be able to realize that they may have been wrong or they may have forgotten something and, ultimately, to make changes.

I mentioned three parliamentary secretaries. I have other examples of Liberal members who, in the previous Parliament, said similar things. I think it is a huge shame that the government is acting in a way that it does not even seem to regret or repudiate.

If the government wants to change its tune and introduce omnibus bills to get legislation passed faster, like the Conservatives did, will it at least own that?

Whenever we bring up certain incidents, the government, in defiance of truth and logic, denies them.

Earlier, in response to a question about cutting small business taxes from 11% to 9%, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance asked why the government should keep that promise seeing as it kept others. He did not even attempt to answer the question.

He said that nine million Canadians will benefit from the tax cut, but he left out the part about how it will do nothing for 18 million Canadians.

He talked about the Canada child tax benefit even though the question was about small businesses. That benefit does not have much to do with investing in businesses, particularly if the owners of those businesses do not have children.

There is a group mentality, that this is the Liberals' theme and they can do no wrong. That despite what they said during the last electoral campaign, they are in government and totally justified in doing whatever they want, and that the opposition cannot say a word, especially with a majority government. I see some heads shaking no. This was the Liberal Party's thinking in the last Parliament when it was the third party, and now it is no longer good.

When we sit in Parliament, we represent all Canadians. I am proud to represent my riding. How can I go back to my riding and say that all the shiny promises that Parliament will work better and that committees will actually be able to do the work that they are supposed to be doing are no longer any good? I cannot, in good conscience, say that the government is respecting its promises.

The government boasts about all the nice measures in the budget. There are some interesting measures that New Democrats are glad the government is implementing, such as the elimination of the GST on feminine hygiene products, which is something we fought for in the last Parliament. There are some interesting measures, but there are some measures that would have deserved significant study and were not. We are in breach of our responsibilities in this Parliament.

Can any MP in the House explain to me what the 25 pages on bank bail-in provisions actually mean or will entail? I suspect not. Can any Liberal MPs in the House explain to me the mechanisms of the changes in compensation for veterans? Some questions have been asked on that specific point because it is not clear to everyone. It is not clear that it will actually achieve what the Liberal government says it will achieve.

Can anyone explain to me what formula was used to define the 12 regions that will have access to the extension of EI benefits? Before voting yes or no, members should think about what they know in this budget bill. If they do not know a lot, then I suspect members are victims of the group theme mentality of their team telling them to vote in this way or vote blindly, and trusting their team.

In the end, I expect and forecast that there will be some disappointments on the Liberal side. There will be some disappointments because more and more, maybe not right now, maybe not in two months, maybe not next year, people will eventually realize where the government has respected its promises and where it has broken them.

We have seen that this type of attitude toward the fundamental duties that opposition members have in committee and in the House has led to an atmosphere of mistrust, which led to the very tense situation that we witnessed a few weeks ago.

New Democrats are happy that there has been some co-operation on some of the files; namely, the committee on electoral reform, but that cannot be the only instance where there will be such co-operation. We need to work together and ensure that committees will be able to fulfill their duties of examining government bills and keeping government to account. We have not seen that in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with the general approach the member has chosen to criticize the government. I would invite him to go to a university, whether in Winnipeg or in Ottawa. I would love opportunity to debate the member on many of the assertions he has made.

This government has in fact been very open and transparent with respect to accountability. Most of the things the member has said are meant to mislead the viewers into something that is just not true. I understand the member might have a difficult time voting against a budget that is very progressive in its nature, and which delivers for our seniors and young people, for Canada's infrastructure, and for our middle class. This is a progressive budget that will have a very positive impact on Canadians.

It appears that the member's only justification is the issue of time allocation. I will debate the issue of time allocation with this member anywhere in Ottawa or Winnipeg, and possibly, if I can make arrangements, in his own riding. The NDP members need to refocus their attention on what we are debating, which is this budget.

This is a progressive budget. Why does the member feel the NDP cannot support and vote for a progressive budget, one that has been more progressive than we have seen in the last decade plus? How does he justify that to his constituents?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind the member for Winnipeg North that we have a university in Rimouski. Therefore, he could come there and debate me. I would be more than happy to go to Winnipeg to do it as well.

What is quite interesting is that rather than giving us facts, he is replying with talking points. I stated the facts. It is a 179-page budget with over 30 laws that are either being added, amended or eliminated. We had two committee meetings with witnesses out of six committee meetings. We had 17 witnesses for 179 pages of legislation. We had time allocation, which the Liberals actually denounced at the last election.

Therefore, the Liberals cannot say that this bill has been fully debated in the House. It has not been fully debated in the House. It has not been fully debated in committee. The government is actually breaking any promise with respect to transparency. Transparency is not just showing us bill and saying that we can read it, that this is what they are offering us. It is also about having the time to go through very technical details to ensure that everything is right, that there are no perverse effects, and that there is no negative impacts with respect to what we vote on. This is the way the Liberals have presented this. The way they have forced us to work in committee makes us derelict of our duty of examining it carefully and clearly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting and instructive as usual.

The Conservative Party and the NDP are worlds apart, but we must admit that sometimes we have the same vision and we think alike. For example, in the last election campaign, during the debate on refugees, the current ruling party said that Canada had to welcome 25,000 refugees by Christmas. That made no sense. The NDP said that it made no sense. We said that it made no sense. In actuality, it made no sense. Therefore, our party and the NDP were in agreement.

When it came time to debate public finances, we said that a deficit made no sense. The NDP, which is on the far left, said that it made no sense. The Liberal Party said that it would ring up a $10-billion deficit, which turned into a $30-billion deficit.

My question for the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is the following: why, as a left-leaning progressive, does he believe that a deficit is a bad thing for the Canadian economy?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question.

I want to respond to what he said about refugees, because it is also important. It is an excellent example. The NDP was the first to talk about the need to welcome between 10,000 and 15,000 government-sponsored refugees. The Liberals promised to welcome 25,000. We regarded that as a bit of one-upmanship during the election campaign. They are claiming that they kept their promise in that regard, but I would remind the House that they said those 25,000 refugees would be government sponsored. We are now dealing with 25,000 privately sponsored refugees. This means they did not keep their promise, but at least we are helping refugees, which is good. The fact is, their commitments were unrealistic from the beginning.

I am an economist by training. I realize that a deficit can be a good thing. It all depends how the deficit is used. There is no denying that one of the Liberal Party election promises was to have a $10-billion deficit the first year, an $8-billion deficit the second year, and a $5-billion deficit the third year; in the fourth year, we would magically have a balanced budget.

We asked repeatedly during the election campaign how the Liberals were going to balance the budget, but we never got an answer. Now we are in a completely different situation, because now we have no idea when we will return to a balanced budget. The government seems to be improvising on this issue, which is extremely unfortunate.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the eloquence and the depth of the member's speech on the budget.

The member for Winnipeg North said just a few minutes ago that it was a progressive budget. We look at some of the things the Conservatives did, like stripping the Canadian Wheat Board. The Liberals said that they would not do when they campaigned last year, which seems like a long time ago. However, in the budget, the Liberals are enabling the Conservatives' stripping away of the Canadian Wheat Board and a whole host of other measures, and not just the omnibus nature and the closure the government has brought in. The government mimics all the bad practices that we saw under Conservative government for 10 years. Canadians wanted a change, but they are getting very much more of the same.

The budget would not address some of the major concerns. As we know, the debt load of the average Canadian family, which was at record levels under the Conservatives, has now gone up under the Liberals. The first eight months have been disastrous. The average Canadian family now is carrying a larger debt load. We have seen an erosion, even worse than the Conservatives, in manufacturing jobs, good-quality jobs.

I would like my colleague to comment on how the Liberal economic policy seems so close to the Conservative economic policies. The result for the average Canadian family is higher debt load, lower income, and of fewer job prospects.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

We are indeed seeing similarities in the Liberal government's practices, in how this bill was studied, and in other measures that have been brought forward as well.

I was thinking about another Liberal promise, the one to reinstate the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds immediately after the election. They did indeed reinstate it in this budget bill, but only effective next year and after lowering it to 5%.

The way the Liberals are currently operating, they might end up being just like the Conservative government. Hon. members will recall that in the 1990s, despite the promises made in one of the most progressive platforms I had seen at the time, the Liberal Party's 1993 red book, the government spent 10 years adopting a series of measures that truly went against what they promised they would do. This eventually led to extremely significant cuts in the name of achieving a balanced budget.

We hope that all these promises are going to work for the Canadian economy. If they do not work, we are going to end up with a very large deficit, few results, and a call for a return to balanced budgets that could undermine the economy, a bit like what the Conservatives did between 2006 and 2015, and specifically in 2009.