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

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my learned colleague how he feels, as a member of Parliament from Quebec, about remaining silent on certain economic files that are very important to Quebec, such as Bill C-10. The government is about to tell Aveos employees, 1,800 of whom are in Quebec, that they will be losing their jobs, even though the Prime Minister guaranteed that this law would require that all work done on Air Canada aircraft be carried out in Quebec, Ontario, and Winnipeg.

How does he feel, as a member from Quebec, about employment insurance, for example, given that all Quebec regions were excluded from the special program? How does he feel about the fact that the automotive industry received $1 billion and Bombardier is not getting a penny?

Is their only duty to serve the party and not to serve the interests of Quebec?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. I had plenty of opportunities to cross swords with him during the election campaign, and I have a great deal of respect for him. He is the dean of the House of Commons, so obviously, we always pay close attention when he speaks.

To answer his question, I must say that I am proud to be here on this side of the House and working with my Liberal caucus colleagues to advance issues affecting Quebec and promote the province's economic interests.

The member is well aware that in the last budget, we invested $30 million to help the pyrrhotite victims in Trois-Rivières, which is adjacent to his riding. That is a regional issue that also affects him. He knows that.

We also invested $500 million in high-speed Internet, which will help regions of Quebec like mine and his, which really need that service.

On the more substantive part of his question, I am proud to support the bill because we made important choices both in the budget and with regard to Bill C-10 on deregulation. This legislation affecting Air Canada will also create jobs in Quebec.

In closing, with regard to employment insurance and the fact that wait times have been reduced from two weeks to one week, I can say that from the discussions I have had with my constituents and his, people are happy that for once, they have a government that is thinking about middle-class workers and working for them.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today at report stage and speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

I would like to first of all talk about the context of the budget in terms of it going forward, where we have been, and where we are today, because it is very revealing. In fact, it is very disconcerting and discouraging for Canadians in many ways, particularly small businesses. It is outright disconnected, and the disconnect is happening because the Liberal government feels it has the right to spend whenever it wants, wherever it wants.

Let us go back to what this budget includes, and probably equally as important, what it does not include.

It includes excessive spending: $150 billion over the mandate of the government. Although promised during the election campaign, and I will talk about broken promises as another adjunct to my speech today, the broken promise of modest deficits of $10 billion a year and $25 billion over three years was, of course, thrown out the window. That was thrown out along with the fiscal anchors of trying to bring the budget back to balance so that Canadians can have the strong secure future they are looking for financially. The only fiscal anchor that the finance minister continues to hang his hat on is the debt-to-GDP ratio. However, in many ways it is questionable as to how that will happen because of the way the economy works, which has yet to be seen.

That said, what this budget does not include, and what is probably one of the most significant parts in my mind, is the broken promise to small business in this country. Every member across the way on the Liberal benches mentioned it during the election campaign. They mentioned it when they were in front of debate groups, such as the groups I am very familiar with, the leaders within the home building industry. Most communities have a home builders association. The Liberals sat beside their competitors in the election and were asked what their stance was with respect to small businesses. Most of these companies and individuals in the room would have been small entrepreneurs who were made a promise. The promise made by all parties was that everyone would follow through and reduce the small business taxation rate to 9% from what we had laid out: first 10.5%, and then down to 9%. What this budget does not include is that reduction in taxation for small business.

Who are small businesses? They are people who are represented by groups such as home builders, but also groups such as the CFIB. What was incredibly telling was the discussion at committee with the finance minister. He was questioned about whether he had met with Dan Kelly, the president of the largest group of entrepreneurs and small business people in this country, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who had reached out to the finance minister. Dan Kelly said that he would like to bring forward the concerns and thoughts of the small business people through that large network of organizations and thousands of members. The Liberals claimed over and over again that in the huge consultations that went across this country that they covered all of their bases and did everything. However, for some reason, the finance minister specifically missed meeting with one of the most important leaders of the small business community prior to bringing in this budget. That is hugely telling about what their priorities really are.

Small businesses were thinking that when they went to the debates during the election campaign that they could go back and do some planning with respect to their business, because all parties, no matter which party was elected, was going to take the tax rate down to 9%. Without that tax reduction, they will now have to reduce the planning of expansion and investment within their company. These are the people who employ 80% of Canadians. It is that important. They are the entrepreneurs, business creators, and small and medium-sized businesses in all of our communities right across this country. That, along with the dropping of the incentive to hire new employees, the new hiring credit for new employees as well, is a double whammy to small business. That is what is not in the budget, just so people know.

By the way, many of the people who own small businesses in this country are middle-class individuals. They are not rich. Their incomes, on average, are not at the six-figure level. They survive, in many circumstances, on very small margins.

I want to highlight that point today specifically, because what we continue to hear is a very weak argument from the finance minister and the present government. We continue to hear, “Listen, here's how we're helping small business. We're giving the family tax credit. That means that individuals will be able to spend more with small businesses.”

What a disconnect that is. That is such a weak argument that the finance minister makes over and over again. I think the average is less than $10 a week from the family tax credit that is going to the average family in this country, and that is going to have some huge ability to stimulate small business. That is not the case. It is absolutely a false assumption. It is one that is frankly looked upon by the commentators as one of the weakest arguments, lacking in credibility, that any budget has ever seen.

I would like to go on to talk, not only about the breaking of promises, especially to small communities, but also what the future probably holds from the indications from the government. The future for small business holds this. It has increases in small business taxation through CPP. That is going to happen. Canada pension plan payroll taxes are going to increase for small businesses, all businesses, across this country. That is not only for the businesses, their owners, and the people who provide the jobs, the job creators, but also for the people who work within those small businesses, who are going to be taxed at another level.

What is the prospect for the entrepreneurs, the job creators, in this country? They are going to pay more taxes. They are going to pay more taxes because of the spending of the present government, which has broken the promise to hold to what it said to Canadians would be a modest deficit.

Let me talk a bit about another argument that has emerged over and over again through the discussions at committee and here in this House on this issue. We continue to have as the response from the government, “Well, you know what? You guys shouldn't be talking about a story of Conservative values going forward because you left $150 billion of debt during your term.”

Let me clarify what happened in this country and the reason we went into deficit stimulus spending. The government uses it in the context of just throwing it out there. It is another political point that it thinks it is making with Canadians, saying, “The Conservatives can't talk. They left us $150 billion.”

Many of us were in this House during those times of the global downturn. I had a personal relationship with the then finance minister, Jim Flaherty. I can tell members from discussions with him that the world economy was in crisis. It was to the point that in 24 hours there could have been a global collapse if industrialized countries did not come together and make a commitment to put money into stimulating the economy. We, as a government, though we are not prone to wanting to go into deficit, agreed, and we saved the auto industry. We did projects across this country that pumped money into our economy. We literally saved the economy of our country, and of the industrialized world, to be quite frank.

When the government brings up this $150-billion debt, it is never in the context of what it was.

I will make one last point. We put in specific timelines to bring it back to balance. In 2014-15, we were $1.9 billion over, in surplus, in that budget, because we made investments that we had to make because of the world economy, the global economic downturn. Some people called it “the great recession”. It was definitely the second-biggest downturn in the world economy since the depression. That is our track record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I question some of the statements made by the member, and I will start with his concluding remarks.

He made reference to the $150-billion deficit that the Conservatives held. It is important to note that when the former prime minister took office, the member knows full well that they inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. They converted that multi-billion dollar surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit before the recession even began.

What really needs to be emphasized is this. If they had an ounce of integrity on the issue of balanced budgets or budget financing and could establish a priority, I would ask the member to please explain to the House how, in the first year or two prior to entering into the recession, the Conservatives squandered billions in surplus and converted it into billions of dollars in deficit.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer this question. The situation we found ourselves in was a surplus. The member is right. He is absolutely right. What did Conservatives do with it? We paid down the debt. We did not spend it, because it was not necessary at that time. The only time we undertook spending was because of the global situation that was happening in the world. We committed to spending to stimulate the economy, as other countries did. In doing so, we came through that period of time better than any other industrialized G7 country in the world. We came through it better, and everyone recognized that. Members on that side of the aisle have told me that they admired the way we handled those years.

I have one last point. When we were sitting on the benches in those days, that side was asking us to double the amount of money we were going to spend on stimulus. They kept saying it was inadequate and that and we needed to spend $300 billion, or $500 billion.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that last answer, the notion of having used the surplus to repay debt, was pretty strange. If that is all that the former Conservative government had done, then it would have had annual surpluses and continued to repay debt. I think the real answer as to why the former government erased the surplus was that it gave billions of dollars away through corporate tax cuts.

The question, though, that I want to ask the member for Brantford—Brant is to do with the whole notion of omnibus budget bills. In the last Parliament in which the member participated, the Liberals were very critical of the former Conservative government for omnibus budget bills. Now we see the Liberal government introducing a budget bill that goes far beyond fiscal measures, that modifies various other pieces of legislation. I wonder if the member finds that strange.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question begins with the fact that somehow it is wrong to pay down debt, that in good economic times it is wrong to use surpluses to pay down debt. Instead, the Liberals feel that they should spend that money. This is taxpayers' money. This is one of the reasons that many of us came to Ottawa. We were sick and tired of politicians thinking that it was their money and they could do whatever they want with it, which is the attitude of the government right now.

Going forward, whether the complexities of the budget are split out or part of the budget, they are part of the legislative agenda of the government. That is the reality. We have to get used to that.

However, the reality is that hearing my colleague from NDP say it was wrong to pay down debt does not surprise me. It is absolutely right to pay down debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege and pleasure it is to talk to one of the most important pieces of legislation we will see this year.

A vast majority of Canadians will see this budget for what it is, a budget that makes a lot of sense and that will deliver on some important campaign commitments made by our Prime Minister and by Liberals from coast to coast to coast.

I want to focus on one of the most important commitments the Liberal Party of Canada, headed by our leader, made last summer, and that was to focus on Canada's middle class and those who are trying to become part of Canada's middle class. The budget delivers in spades on that issue.

There are two significant incentives in the budget, the first being the cut to the middle-class tax and the second dealing with the Canada child benefit program, both of which I would like to comment on.

I would first like to talk about the importance of Canada's middle class. Economists always have pros and cons with respect to any policy, but I think we would find unanimous agreement that the middle class, in essence, drives the economy. If we have a healthy middle class, we will have a healthy economy. That is why an overwhelming number of Canadians understand the benefits we were talking about when we talk about the importance of Canada's middle class.

One of the first measures we are taking is to reduce the middle-class tax. Over nine million Canadians will benefit directly from this tax cut. This measure is supported by a tax increase to 1% of the Canadian population. We are asking those individuals to appreciate the many wonders we offer here in Canada and to pay a fairer share of the total tax going into the treasury. I believe that most of the individuals in that 1% recognize the value of what we are attempting to accomplish through this particular budget.

I hear Conservatives and the odd New Democrat talk about Canada's small businesses, which is the backbone of our economy. Members of the Liberal caucus and others have talked about the importance of supporting small business, but there has also been some unfair criticism of the government. There is substantial support for small business in the budget.

If we were to canvas small businesses today, we would find that what they want, more than anything else, is more customers. The former speaker mentioned that if we give an extra $10 a day or a week to an individual family, that would not necessarily help small businesses. The member is being very short-sighted. It is not about one individual getting a $10 weekly increase through a child tax benefit. Rather, it is about the cumulative total, the millions of dollars that would be given to 9.2 million Canadians. That money would be put back in the pockets of Canadians, and those Canadians would spend that money. That disposable income would assist small businesses in every region of this country. This government is supporting small businesses in a tangible way, and that is one of the ways it is being done.

Another initiative is the investment in infrastructure. When we invest billions of dollars over the next number of years in Canada's infrastructure, that work, in good part, will be done by small businesses. It will directly support small businesses. There will be many spinoffs. Small business will be hiring to build infrastructure and through building infrastructure will help Canada's export of products. In other words, by building the infrastructure, we will allow our products to get to market that much more efficiently. Whether it is directly or indirectly, we are seeing a great investment in Canada's small business.

Within the budget we also see a government that truly cares about Canadians. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has done a fantastic job of highlighting how this caring approach toward our veterans is taking place. For example, nine service centres are being reopened under this government.

I want to highlight two other things that I know are important to my constituents and Canadians. One is the Canada child benefit program. This will literally lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Families will have the money that is necessary to meet the needs of Canada's children, whether it is lifting children out of poverty or providing the things that are really important to them. We would have to go back to the days when we created health care in terms of the value, size, and introduction of a program. I take great pride in the fact that the Canada child benefit program is being instituted under this Liberal government. It is going to be one of those programs that will be reflected on as one of the great social programs Canada has brought forward.

The other program is health care. We have had a great deal of debate about health care over the last little while, with issues like palliative care and the cost of medicine. Let there be no doubt that this government, unlike the previous government, recognizes how important health care is to our nation. That is one of the reasons we have a Minister of Health who has entered into a consultation process that ultimately will achieve a new health care accord.

Earlier today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance made a declaration about $36 billion-plus, the highest number of dollars ever going toward health transfer fees. Not only does it take money, it also takes a plan. This is a government that is developing a long-term plan that Canadians want to see happen. This is something we took seriously many years ago when we came up with the health care accord of 2004. Once it expired, and the Conservative government did absolutely nothing.

It did not believe in consulting. It did not believe in the Canada health care system, as Liberals do. We are delivering, whether it is money or the effort toward achieving the health care accord.

I see that my time has already expired, but I would love the opportunity to answer any questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last two Liberal speakers have both mentioned health care.

I was involved in the health care system back in the 1990s, when it was gutted by the Liberal Party. It was left on the backs of the provinces. I think that is something one has to keep in perspective when they speak about the way they cut the budget.

He talked about $36.1 billion. If the parliamentary secretary looks at page 240 of the budget, he will see that there are some years when it is even less than the 3% minimum the Conservatives had.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can explain his rationale for his argument that we now have the maximum amount for health care. He is adding to it and suggesting that it is going to be so much more, when it will actually be less than what the Conservatives had planned for the base amounts.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, by the time we hit 2002, we had an all-time high in terms of health care dollars in the budget. That was even prior to the $40 billion that was a part of the health care accord that took us from 2004 to 2014.

How many times did we stand in this chamber, when I was in opposition, and hear a government member say that they had a record number of dollars going towards health care? The reason they had those record health care dollars was because of a Liberal government agreement on the 2004 health care accord.

If we go back to the 1990s, which the member made reference to, I was a provincial MLA then. The fear then was that the government was actually, through tax credits, going to work its way out of health care. It was Jean Chrétien's government that gave the guarantee of cash going to provinces to finance health care. That was a huge relief at that time.

The Liberal Party has absolutely nothing to apologize for—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, but every time I thought of a question for him, he moved to another topic and then I had a new question for him. He touched on many things that are connected to the Liberal government's broken promises.

The first broken promise is, of course, about small and medium-sized businesses and the tax cut that the Liberal Party promised during the campaign. The Liberals have backtracked on that promise.

The second broken promise is the government's more caring approach to veterans, which my colleague mentioned. The Liberals took veterans to court, even though they had promised to put an end to the proceedings undertaken by the previous government. I have to wonder how the Liberals justify that.

At the end of his speech, my colleague talked a lot about infrastructure and all of the infrastructure money. I have to wonder how this money can be used for something when the government cannot even manage to sign agreements with the Government of Quebec. We are going to miss out on the 2016 construction season and it will be 2017 before we see any benefit from that money.

How does my colleague justify all of these broken promises, not to mention the fact that this is an omnibus bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we will have to agree to disagree.

The member can reference whatever he wants, but at the end of the day, there is enough in this budget that does support what he is asking us to support.

If we look at the importance of infrastructure, whether it is public transit or social housing, these are issues we have never before seen a government make such a commitment to, in terms of real dollars and working with different levels of government, to make things happen.

Contrast that to what we saw before we formed government. The Conservatives would talk about money, but they never delivered on the money.

In a relatively short period of time, the Liberal government has actually been able to advance the file to the degree that not only are we seeing record highs in infrastructure dollars being committed but we are also starting to see some of that money already being spent.

The NDP's promise last time around was that it was going to have a balanced budget. That was its primary promise.

I would suggest that none of these things would be possible if it were not for Canadians agreeing with the Liberal government's approach in using taxpayers' dollars and having a more robust approach to dealing with Canada's economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-15. As we know, the government introduces a budget, usually in the spring, then there are two budget implementation acts that turn it into legislation. Therefore, it is appropriate that I make some general comments about the budget, its fiscal implications, and my concerns about the direction in which the government is going. I will also pick out some of the very concerning elements in Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

It is important to note that the Prime Minister just returned from the G7. That should give him some cause to reflect on the direction he has decided to follow. He went there believing other G7 countries should agree that we should embark on a stimulus spending plan. It was very clear that he was met with a very cool reception to this idea by many countries.

As Brian Crowley from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute indicated, “a 'growth-friendly' agenda can't be written in red ink”, and they know that “today's deficit is tomorrow's tax hike”.

What came out of that G7 was a discussion that every country needed to reflect on its own current situation. He had a goal that was clearly not met in his conversations at the G7.

The Liberals often talk about the spending we did, but I find it quite stunning that they fail to realize that during 2008-09, we had a global recession. It was the biggest crisis in the world since the Great Depression. They seem to not reflect on that point very well. What we have now is slow growth. We have a little stagnation, absolutely, but we do not have a recession and we certainly do not have a global recession. Therefore, to go to other countries and feel they need the same response, the Liberals are not really looking at the current situation and adapting appropriately.

It is important to contrast this response during the Prime Minister's recent visit to what happened when we were in government, when Minister Flaherty, our colleague, played a key role in the response to the crisis. He was named the best finance minister in the world. When they talked about his record, they said was, “Our winner has earned a reputation for maintaining a sound fiscal policy. His country...has performed remarkably well”, and that he had played “a key role in the G8’s discussions”. This is a huge difference in the response to the global recession and the leadership role we played as opposed to what is happening right now.

We need to first look at the Liberal government's first budget. I remember attending a number of all candidates forums, and a number of key promises were made. The first major broken promise was that the Liberals would run a small deficit of $10 billion. We now know that we are looking at a $30 billion deficit, and this does not include the $3 billion they have committed to home care. We see another announcement that was never in the fiscal plan, a very important initiative, global health, but it was not planned for. The Liberals seem to have a way of spending money that I have never seen before, money that has not been planned.

It is also important to note that as we go forward most economists recognize that unilateral stimulus is bound to have a marginal impact on an open economy. Canada is an open economy, so the money the Liberals are spending, which is adding to the debt of the next generation, is going to be very marginal in terms of its impact.

Another important fact to know, even as we engaged in our stimulus spending, is that we had a plan to get back to balanced budget, and we did that. During the worst of times, the net GDP to debt went from 34% to 31%. Right now the Liberals are on track to increase it. They left one marker, being the $10 billion. Then they said they would decrease the net debt to GDP. It now looks like they will blow that one out of the water. It is a really big concern.

It is interesting to contrast what is happening in Britain right now, which is seeing some reasonable growth. The following comes from its budget speech:

Britain can choose, as others are, short term fixes and more stimulus. Or we can lead the world with long term solutions to long term problems...we choose the long term. We choose to put the next generation first.

Unfortunately, that is not what our government has done. The Liberals have chosen short term to take care of themselves, and to make popular decisions rather than worry about their grandchildren.

When our finance critic gave her speech on the budget implementation act, she was able to look at the statements of the Minister of Finance during the pre-budget and when he was in the private sector. She pointed out that he had a really different perspective on the issues around debt and retirement. It put some real holes into his approach in the budget. I do not know how he can align himself or sleep well at night when it looks like the budget goes so contrary to what his fundamental beliefs are.

I will give members a couple of examples.

What does the U.K., Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, and the U.S. have in common? They have an old age security system that kicks in at the age of 67 or older. Australia is going into a system where the old age system kicks in at 67 or older. What have we done in the budget implementation act? We have moved in the opposite direction.

Sometimes the decisions a government has to make are not popular and they are not made lightly. We knew that it was a very difficult decision to make, but we also looked at the demographics of our country. We looked at the fact that people were healthier and living longer. I think there are many people we know who have lived their retirement perhaps longer than their working years. Therefore, it was a difficult decision, but it was not an unusual decision.

What is the cost of the change the Liberals are making? It is estimated to cost an additional $10 billion. It is also important to note for those who are not aware that old age security comes out of current revenue. It is not something like the Canada pension plan where we put money away for our future. Therefore, the Liberals have given my children and grandchildren an additional $10 billion of debt, and that is unacceptable. They have to be in a position to look at the long-term health of our country.

The small business tax rate is another example. The government sat at forums. I sat beside my Liberal counterpart at forums when the Liberals promised a 10.5% to 9% decrease. However, the budget implementation act would turn that around. It was a legislated change. It was a change the Liberals said they accepted, but they reversed it. The budget implementation act would move it from 9% back to 10.5%. It is absolutely unacceptable.

In looking at some of broken promises, whether it is the deficit or small business, my biggest concern is that the Liberals are not taking care of the next generation. They are looking at saddling it with a horrific debt.

The Liberals are also showing they are having a bit of a problem in delivering on their promises. Even when they commit money, they do not estimate it properly, and then they have trouble delivering. We can look at the cost of bringing in the refugees. They said that it would be $250 million, but it is now over $850 million.

The Liberals provided $8.4 billion for first nations, and we support that, but there is no plan for accountability. There is no plan on how it would be delivered. Even when there is money that we believe is well spent, the Liberals' plan for delivery and execution is lacking.

I have a big concern about the overall direction of the Liberals. I have a concern about many of the specific measures. I have a concern about the government's endless lust to spend taxpayer money, as exhibited by its recent March spending spree, where they took a surplus and in one month spent about $11 billion.

We are creating a structural deficit and someday we will have to pay the piper for the foolish choices of today.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions. I am curious as to whether the member is aware of the history of the ability of the Conservatives to balance budgets, going back over a century. The last time the Conservatives took the country from a deficit to a surplus without inheriting it from us was in the late 19th century. I wonder whether the member was aware of that.

I am also curious about the member's comments regarding seniors. How long should somebody living in poverty be required to stay in poverty? The member wants the age to go from 65 to 67 before people can get their seniors' benefits. At what age do the Conservatives say that people are old enough to stop being poor?