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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I will just take a moment to briefly outline another matter that was raised earlier today.

During the debate on Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures—the bill that is currently before the House—I took under advisement a subamendment moved by the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I would like to thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his comments on the matter, and I am now prepared to rule.

Reasoned amendments allow a member to state the reasons for his or her opposition to second reading of a bill. Subamendments to reasoned amendments are permissible but, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out in citing O’Brien and Bosc at page 534, “must be strictly relevant to (and not at variance with the sense of) the corresponding amendment and must seek to modify the amendment, and not the original question”.

In the Chair's view, the original amendment was the list of reasons explaining why the House should decline to give second reading to the bill, and not simply the phrase indicating that the House decline to do so, as the latter could be achieved by simply voting against the second reading motion.

To be admissible, a subamendment should not simply relate to the lead-in “that this House decline to give second reading”, but should instead relate to the reasons stated in the main amendment, either proposing to delete some of the reasons or to suggest additional reasons different from, but relevant to, the main amendment.

Accordingly, I declare the subamendment out of order and debate will continue on the amendment.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beauce.

Second Reading

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the budget. I would like to point out that the Liberals confirmed in their most recent budget that, unfortunately, they still believe in the old Keynesian theory that governments can create wealth by spending more.

However, when the government injects money into the economy, one has to ask where that money is coming from. We know it does not grow on trees. The reality is that whenever the government takes another dollar from someone's pocket, it is a dollar that the person cannot spend or invest. When that happens, public spending increases and private spending decreases, and there is no creation of wealth.

Government borrowing does the same thing. Private investors who lend their money to the government will have less money to lend to private entrepreneurs. Public sector borrowing and spending increase and private sector borrowing decreases at the same time. There is no creation of wealth.

To be a bit more clear and explain it another way, it is like taking a pot of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and pouring it into the shallow end. As we know, this has no effect and makes no difference, except that a bit of water is wasted between the two. It is the same for the government. When it spends or borrows, it prevents the private sector from spending, and we know that the private sector is better at creating wealth.

What we find with the Liberal government’s budget is that it puts us in a difficult economic situation. The Liberals are going to run deficits and borrow money, somewhat like the Trudeau government of the 1970s.

It is important to tell the government that prosperity comes not when the government spends, but rather when entrepreneurs invest.

To kick-start the economy, the government needs to give entrepreneurs the means to create wealth. The government should put in place the best conditions to help entrepreneurs be more productive. To that end, it should reduce taxes for all entrepreneurs, reduce the regulatory burden on Canadians, and promote free trade.

Growth and progress are realized through more economic freedom and less government intervention in the economy. More public spending is not the solution to our social and economic challenges. On the contrary, it will drag us into a debt spiral. According to the government’s budget, we will be in that debt spiral for the next five years. Future generations will have to pay off that debt.

I would like to summarize the government’s economic logic. It is quite simple: if we are in a recession, spend; if we are not in a recession, spend so that we are in a recession.

That is the simplistic economic logic of this government. It does not understand that Keynesian spending logic does not create wealth.

I have a few questions for my Liberal colleagues.

What if the Liberal government's economics policy is deeply flawed and does not bring us prosperity? What if more government borrowing and spending are not the answer to our economic challenges? What if we wake up one day and realize that the deplorable state of Canada's finances is a predictable consequence of the current government's excessive borrowing and spending? What if the Prime Minister is wrong in his belief that the more the government spends and stimulates the economy, the less he needs to worry about the deficit? What if the Prime Minister is completely wrong and the budget does not balance itself?

What if the Minister of Finance is wrong and makes a huge mistake thinking we can spend our way to prosperity on borrowed money?

What if Canadians are right when they believe that we do not get richer when we spend money that we do not have? What if deficits do not create wealth but harm future generations? What if prosperity does not come from government spending but rather from entrepreneurs investing? What if more government spending and borrowing does not act as an economic stimulus but rather as an economic sedative?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing. However, what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good for Canadians.

What I am saying right now is very simple. We cannot borrow money and spend money that we do not have and do not need to spend when we do not have an economic crisis or a recession. That is what the Liberal government is doing right now, and it will harm future generations.

I am very happy to have been able to participate in this debate on the budget. We ought to have a smaller government in Canada, a government that lives according to its means and allows future generations to progress and live in a country that is freer and more prosperous.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his most interesting speech, which was resolutely focused on the economy. I have a great deal of respect for him.

My father was an entrepreneur, a plumber and electrician. He often served as a municipal councillor as well. He had dealings with the community and with industry. As he would often say, it takes money to make money. You have to invest to make money. If you do not borrow, you cannot invest, and the best time to borrow is now, while interest rates are very low.

Is my colleague saying that small and large businesses should not borrow to invest in their economy and their work, in order to create more prosperity in the local economy as well as in Canada?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that entrepreneurs are free to decide, and it is not up to the government to decide for them and interfere in the free market. If some want to invest, fine; if others prefer to wait, that is fine too. After all, they are the experts.

With regard to the government and the interest on the debt, my colleague says that interest rates are very low. However I would remind him that for every dollar of income tax sent by Canadians to the federal government, $0.10 goes to pay the interest on the debt. If we borrow and add more than $100 billion to the debt over the next five years, the $0.10 interest we are paying is going to rise to $0.11 and $0.12, and that is where the government loses its flexibility.

It is important to say this, because often people do not realize that today’s borrowing becomes tomorrow’s taxes. It is a shame that the Liberals want to tax future generations for today’s spending, which will not benefit people in the future.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by my hon. colleague from Beauce, although I was not particularly surprised at it. We are still in the imaginary world of libertarian phantasmagoria.

I would remind my colleague that while private enterprise has a role to play and creates wealth and jobs, that is also because there is public infrastructure and companies and entrepreneurs can benefit from an educated and well cared-for population that has roads, highways, and clean water in the morning.

All of that is possible because we have social programs, because we redistribute wealth, and because we invest in public services, which support economic growth in general.

I am aware of the ambitions of my colleague from Beauce. If he does not believe in government, why does he want to lead a government?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in the federal government. I am a member of Parliament and was a member of the government for the past 10 years, and I am very proud of that. I believe in the role of the federal government. Its role should be what it was back when we lived according to our means.

Under this Liberal government, we are not living within our means, and that will have an impact on future generations. I believe in an effective federal government that is strong in its jurisdictions, but lives within its means.

I would like to close by quoting Paul Martin, the former finance minister. On February 22, 1994, he spoke about deficit, debt, and living within one’s means. I quote: “The debt and the deficit burden pose much more than an economic challenge. This is a moral issue too. What right do we have to steal opportunity away from our children...?”

This is what the Liberal government is doing. It is borrowing at the expense of future generations and preventing future generations and our children from living fully according to their opportunities, as the hon. finance minister, Paul Martin, said.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague to be a strong advocate for balanced budgets and living within our means. I know he stays strongly connected to his riding in Quebec and has indeed been going across the country listening to Canadians. Could he tell us what he hears from those he has met in regard to the government's deficit budget?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share that. I was in my riding last week. People told me they thought it was irresponsible for the government to have a huge deficit. Canadians are working hard for their money and they want to keep their money in their pockets. They know taxes will go up in the near future and they will have to pay for that.

Also, they see that the federal Liberal government wants to shrink their paycheques and expand the role of the government and government programs. That is not what people want. They want to have a government that will respect them, and that is not happening right now.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

It is a privilege for me to rise today to speak in this chamber about the great riding of Surrey Centre. The city of Surrey is one of the fastest growing cities in the province of British Columbia. Each month, over 1,000 people move into it. At the current rate of growth, it is expected to eclipse the city of Vancouver in terms of population within the next 20 years. Because of the growth of Surrey, it is has become home to the most young people in the province of British Columbia as well as the most young families. That is why I am proud to return to Surrey and speak with my friends, neighbours, and colleagues about how budget 2016 will positively affect their lives.

Surrey Centre is home to young families who are keen on making their homes and lives in Surrey. As a national government, we have a duty and responsibility to support them when and where we can. The new Canada child benefit is our government's response to this. We are putting forward a more generous, simpler, and income-tested benefit that benefits more Canadian families than ever before.

I cannot tell members how many times in recent weeks I have heard from constituents in Surrey about having to pay taxes on their previous child benefits. I am pleased to see that our government recognized that this new benefit should be tax free, as it should. There will be no taxing of the Canadian child benefit.

On average, this new Canada child benefit means that nine out of 10 Canadians will receive more monthly money, more monthly benefits, than ever before. That means families in Surrey will receive more help toward child care and more money to put their children into soccer, hockey, or ballet.

The city of Surrey is also home to two of the greatest universities in the country. Simon Fraser University, the Surrey branch, celebrated its 50th birthday this year. It was designed by the eminent architect, Arthur Erickson, and was recently acclaimed as the best comprehensive university in the country. Along with Kwantlen Polytechnic University, both of these universities are helping to contribute to the excellence in research that Canada is known for.

Recently, I was able to meet with the presidents of both universities about our federal government's program for post-secondary institutions through the strategic investment fund, which will provide over $2 billion over the next three years to help accelerate infrastructure projects at universities and colleges across Canada. This means that universities like Simon Fraser can finally expand to meet the demand of a growing city like Surrey, and that Kwantlen Polytechnic can continue to offer more of the great programs that it is known for.

More than anything, I am thrilled to be a part of a government that recognizes that post-secondary education should remain affordable and accessible to all those who seek it. It means that when I return to Surrey, I can tell students that our government is taking action to ensure that post-secondary education is more affordable for students from low- and middle-income families, and that we will make it easier for students to repay their student debt.

However, I would be remiss to not speak about some of the many challenges and difficulties that Surrey faces.

As many in this chamber know, and have no doubt heard about in recent weeks and months, there is a violence and gang problem that has beset our city. Having been involved for over two decades in helping to ensure that at-risk youth in our communities have alternatives to a life of gangs and violence, I am honoured to be a part of a government that will champion a new strategy on how the federal government can best support communities and law enforcement in their ongoing efforts to make it harder for criminals to get access and use such weapons. Thus, it will reduce gun and gang violence in our communities. I am also proud of the exceptional hard work of the Surrey RCMP in addressing this problem in our community.

Being the fastest growing city in the province, Surrey also has challenges with meeting the growth in demand for public transit that meets the needs of our constituents. Our government recognizes that we must invest now and not later, and that is why we are putting forward $460 million towards public transit in British Columbia alone.

Canadians should be proud of our government putting veterans first. Budget 2016 proposes that we enhance service delivery for veterans by providing $78.1 million over the next five years. This includes reopening service offices in Prince George and Kelowna, and it also means opening an additional office in Surrey to ensure that veterans across the Lower Mainland can get access to the services that they deserve in their communities. We are reopening the veterans service centres the previous Conservative government closed. We are doing this not because we have to, but because it is the right thing to do.

Low-income seniors from my riding are happy to know that the guaranteed income supplement will now be increased by 10% for those single-income earners.

Surrey Centre is also home to British Columbia's regional headquarters for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, our E Division. Our government recognizes that the RCMP's forensic laboratory services play a crucial role in supporting law enforcement investigation through forensic identification and analysis of evidence from throughout British Columbia and across Canada. This budget provides $60.4 million over five years for a new RCMP forensic laboratory to be built and located within the RCMP regional headquarters in Surrey Centre, British Columbia.

My constituents are very happy to know that the initial infrastructure funding will inject billions into much needed repair, delayed maintenance, and upkeep of our community's infrastructure, such as our community centre, our rec. centres, and our swimming pools. This is money that is past due and will create better social infrastructure and good-paying jobs in the next building season.

I want to close today by sharing how proud I am to be part of a government that recognizes the realities of the constituents of my riding. Our government has put forward a proposal in budget 2016 that recognizes and addresses the high cost of raising families; a proposal that helps the constituents in my riding get what they need, where they need it, and when they need it; a proposal that helps to address violence by guns and gangs through a new federal strategy; a proposal that ensures that veterans across the Lower Mainland and the province get the services that they deserve; and a proposal that ensures that Canada is a more fair and prosperous place to call our home.

Budget 2016 is good news for the people of Surrey, good news for British Columbians, and most of all, good news for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. It is always lovely to hear from a fellow British Columbian in this chamber, speaking up for the province we know and love.

I would like to ask the member specifically about a provision to the budget implementation act pertaining to the bank recapitalization regime, otherwise known as the bail-in. That particular provision takes up about 20%, if not 25% of the actual budget implementation act. I would like to know, has the member opposite heard from his constituents? Has he heard concerns regarding this?

Obviously, it sounds like a very eloquent regime. However, would the member agree that this particular kind of measure is untested in the G7, and I would say probably in the G20? Does he have any concerns about this type of legislation, and does he feel that more discussion needs to be made on this particular provision?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the bank recapitalization regime is consistent with international best practices and standards developed following the financial crisis. I think it will help enhance the bank resolution tool kit. It will support resilience of our financial sector. I believe this bail-in regime would apply only to Canada's largest banks and would allow authorities to recapitalize a failing bank by converting eligible long-term debt into common shares.

The government is introducing a legislative framework for that regime, and regulations and guidelines will follow.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has a robust small business community. Ninety-eight per cent of our economy comes from the small business community.

The current Prime Minister, during the election campaign, denigrated the small business community and pretty well called small businesses tax cheats. He flip-flopped and then promised to reduce the small business community's taxes down to 9%. In this budget, he failed to deliver on that promise.

I wonder whether the member for Surrey Centre, who has a robust small business community in his riding, would join with the NDP opposition to call on his own government to make good on the small business tax cuts that the Prime Minister promised during the campaign.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I speak with my constituents and the small business owners in my riding, they say they want shorter travel times, better infrastructure, to get to and from their businesses faster, and a more robust economy. That is their first and foremost demand. They are very happy with the current budget, which is going to help them get to and from work and job sites quicker and allow their employees to get to and from job sites quicker through the public transit and transportation infrastructure investments that will take place.

That is what the small business community needs. It needs jobs and people to get to their jobs quicker. That is what they were demanding and that is the response I am getting.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have three children who were educated in their primary school years in Surrey, so I know the community quite well.

I would like to hear from the member what this budget offers, in his view, to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing and address housing prices in his riding and in the greater Surrey area.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this budget brings a lot in terms of social funding through CMHC.

My constituents were very happy to hear my answer to the very first question I was asked when I campaigned and got nominated, which was whether co-op housing agreements would be renewed and maintained. My understanding is that this budget will maintain and renew those agreements so that we can keep affordable housing in my great city and help those who are financially challenged or have lower incomes stay in my city.

I am very happy that this budget addresses the very first question that I was ever asked as a political candidate in this election.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the bill that I just asked a question about, Bill C-15, which will implement many of the measures contained in the budget that our government tabled on March 22.

In electing a new government, millions of Canadians signalled their desire for change. Our government was elected, in part, because we took that desire seriously. We offered Canadians an ambitious new plan for a strong middle class and a strong economy. We promised that we would do all we could do to help every Canadian succeed.

Budget 2016 is an important part of fulfilling that promise. It offers immediate help to those who need it the most, and lays the groundwork for sustained, inclusive economic growth that will benefit Canada's middle class and those working hard to join it. It helps reduce the income inequality gap while stimulating the clean economy.

For generations, Canadians worked hard, secure in the belief that their hard work would be rewarded. They trusted that in exchange for their honest efforts, they would realize greater opportunities for themselves and their families. This sense of optimism, paired with government policies that strengthen the middle class, as well as the robust immigration we have had that has created such a diverse country, has helped to make Canada the country it is today.

However, in recent years, the benefits of economic growth have been shared by fewer and fewer Canadians. Canada's wealthiest 1% have seen their income double in 30 years. Meanwhile, even though household costs continue to rise, most families' incomes have barely risen over the same 30 years, making it harder to make ends meet.

In Vancouver, we have the double whammy of a shortage of affordable housing and skyrocketing housing prices. That first started in my riding of Vancouver Quadra, on the west side of Vancouver, but it has now moved into our metro area.

I am pleased to say that I have met directly with leaders in CMHC, to make sure they understand the Vancouver situation, how hard it is for ordinary families and young people to buy a house and make a home in Vancouver, and the downside of that for our city. I am also pleased to have met several times with the minister responsible for housing, so that he can understand Vancouver's unique situation.

Our government has responded in this budget, not only with a massive infrastructure investment, social housing being a big part of it, but also through a half a million dollars being allocated for StatsCan to thoroughly research and understand the statistics, and bring the evidence forward about the housing price increases that I just described.

With budget 2016, our government seeks to help more Canadians and to restore the confidence of Canadians in a brighter, more prosperous future. I am going to speak about a couple of things that are near and dear to my heart. One of them is the environment, and another one is veterans.

The environment is actually the top issue for Vancouver Quadra constituents, according to the surveys and how they fill them out. Our government is operating on the principle that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. I used to say that 15 years ago when I was an environment minister for the Province of British Columbia, but that principle has not been in operation over the last 10 years. I am very pleased that our environment minister, our Prime Minister, and our cabinet see the world that way.

I would like to highlight some of the investments in the environment. Budget 2016 provides $3.4 billion over five years to address climate change and air pollution, ecological protection, and to restore public trust in the environmental assessment processes. It is a very important investment.

In addition to that, the budget invests $81 million to boost Canada's marine and coastal protected areas, from 1% today to 10% by 2020, a very ambitious program of improving protection for our marine areas.

In addition, $40 million a year has been reinstated for ocean science investments for research and science, so we can help protect our fish stocks, like our wild salmon that are so important to British Columbians.

The Kitsilano Coast Guard base, which is an absolutely necessary facility and was closed by the Conservative government, has been reopened. The announcement took place a week or so ago. This base will have a strengthened mandate to protect our environment, our ecosystem in English Bay and Burrard Inlet, and the beaches, by responding to oil spills. There is a lot of good news on the environment.

The other area where we needed real change to happen, and which Vancouver Quadra constituents see as a core responsibility of a responsible government, has to do with veterans. Veterans have dedicated their lives to the defence of our country and deserve our unwavering support. Frankly, they did not receive that from the previous government.

The Government of Canada, over the decades, has had a social covenant with all veterans and their families. However, the previous government had their lawyers arguing in lawsuits that it did not exist, and they tried to prevent the veterans from having a fair settlement for their injuries. That is a sacred obligation that we must and we will meet with both respect and gratitude.

As the defence critic for two years prior to the recent election, I met many times with veterans in town halls, in Legion halls, and meeting rooms across the country and in Ottawa, and heard their many concerns. I am delighted that our government will give back to veterans who have given so much to Canadians. We will respect the social covenant and this sacred obligation.

The bill restores critical access to services for veterans and ensures the long-term financial security of disabled veterans. Canada's veterans will receive more in local in-person government services, as well as better access to personalized case managers.

With this budget, we are providing additional funding to Veterans Affairs Canada, so it can reopen service offices recently shuttered in Charlottetown, Sydney, Corner Brook, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Saskatoon, Brandon, and in Prince George and Kelowna in my province of British Columbia. We are also planning to open a new office in Surrey, B.C.

To help veterans in their rehabilitation process, we will enhance front-line services by hiring additional case managers and reducing the client-to-case manager ratio to no more than 25 to one. We will increase the earnings loss benefit from 75% to 90% of a veteran's monthly gross pre-release military salary. The principle here is that veterans who have been injured should not have to live in poverty because the government is ignoring their needs.

There are many other aspects of the veterans' requests that are being satisfied in the budget, and the government will continue to consult with veterans toward the full package of support and respect that they have earned and they deserve. Canadian Armed Forces and veterans with service-related disabilities will see an increase in the benefits they receive, and they will see an increase in the services that they are provided.

The measures contained in our budget will not only benefit our veterans, but other groups of Canadians who deserve our support and our respect. This includes senior citizens and our children.

Unfortunately, I do not have time in this speech to elaborate on the groundbreaking investments we are making in seniors and children that will remove almost one million low-income seniors from below the poverty line and lift hundreds of thousands of children above the poverty line as well.

By boosting funding for the most vulnerable, we are reducing income inequality. We are investing for the years and the decades to come. We are investing in our children and grandchildren, so that they may inherit a more environmentally sustainable, prosperous, and hopeful Canada.

Simpler, tax free, and more generous, the child tax benefit is an example of the kind of good public policy that is in this budget. The bill is an essential step to restoring prosperity to the middle class and fairness to all Canadians.

I look forward to hearing from colleagues from all sides of the House as we discuss the bill in the coming days. It is a very timely and very important piece of legislation for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her comments, especially in regard to our veterans. Being deputy critic for veterans on this side of the House and having the opportunity to serve on the committee, it is very clear that veterans are a high priority for all of us. It is important to note that the previous minister in the past government was making some significant progress on the initial charter, which was introduced by the Liberal Party with the set amounts for the disability award that were put in place at that time. We all want to see this program grow and our vets to be truly cared for in the way they should be.

We are hearing in the committee over and over again about how things were improving, and are continuing to improve as well. However, in my own riding, and with the many veterans groups I am meeting with, there are two things that are concerning. I would like the member to comment on them briefly.

The first is that our veterans are concerned that their services are being provided in a large deficit situation and they are concerned about the ongoing viability of these awards. They are also very concerned with what is happening with the Department of National Defence. Our veterans care very much about our soldiers and are concerned about the cutbacks that we are seeing there.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the two years that I was defence critic, no one ever came to me and said “Gee, our most severely incapacitated and disabled veterans are living below the poverty line when they turn 65, but it's a good thing because we need to cut our spending.” They were not saying that.

In fact, I want to point out that the previous government took $1.1 billion out of the funding for Veterans Affairs Canada. That has contributed to the shrinking of services, funding, and benefits for those who deserve it the most.

I am very proud that we are reversing that. If we are doing that in the context of a deficit that we will be eliminating over the course of the next few years, so be it. Our veterans deserve to be put first.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we heard during the campaign that the Liberals were promising more help to the middle class. In my riding, I have five neighbourhoods where the majority of people make $45,000 or less a year. We had heard that the so-called middle-class tax cut would benefit those earning $210,000 or more the most, which means that six out of 10 Canadians would not be getting anything from the tax cut.

Bill C-15 does not offer help through that tax cut to those who need it most. I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the source of the member's data. People making $210,000 and over will not enjoy any net benefits from the middle-class tax cuts, because there is an increase in their taxes. Nor would they enjoy any benefits from the new Canada child benefit because it will not be available to them.

Those who need it the most, at the lowest end of the income spectrum, will receive the bulk of the Canada child benefit. In fact, a low-income family with three young children could end up with about $19,000 of tax-free funding. It is almost like a guaranteed minimum income from the Canada child benefit. There will be nine out of 10 families who will benefit from the change. It is exactly what we need to address poverty and to reduce income inequality. Therefore, I am proud to support it.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to ask a question of my colleague, whose politics I have admired for a long time. She is a very authentic politician from Vancouver Quadra.

Having lived in her riding, and having cycled and taken the bus in that riding many times as a graduate student at UBC, what are her constituents saying about the proposed investments in public transit, and also in active transit, which is so important to our country?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pontiac clearly understands Vancouver Quadra, because the environment is the number one concern, as people express it to me. People in Vancouver Quadra are delighted at the investments in growing a clean energy economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions: $2 billion, I believe, over two years to help the provinces do that.

The huge increase in investment in infrastructure for public transit is very important; it will take a lot of cars off of the streets of Vancouver. There is a wealth of issues that this budget addresses in terms of the priorities of Vancouver Quadra.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Carleton.

It is a great pleasure for me to be here today to speak about Bill C-15. When I use the word “pleasure”, what I mean is that it is a pleasure for me to share my thoughts with my colleagues and Canadians, although not necessarily a pleasure for me to speak about Bill C-15 and the Liberals’ budget.

Before broaching this subject, I believe that my colleagues will allow me a moment to repeat the appeal I launched to all Canadians regarding the tragic events now unfolding in Fort McMurray. Yesterday the population of Lac-Mégantic began rallying with the mayor to launch a universal call for donations to the Red Cross. We know that the Red Cross was a huge help to us in Lac-Mégantic during the recent tragedy. It raised over $14 million. This was for the little downtown core of a small town in Quebec that was ravaged by fire. Of course, there were deaths. It was an extremely painful event. Recovery has been very difficult for us, and even today, the Red Cross is with us, providing support.

What is happening right now in Fort McMurray is massive, it is serious, it is horrible. These people will also need Canadians' support. I commend the government's commitment this morning to match the amounts that Canadians donate to the Red Cross to help the people of Fort McMurray. I think this is a wonderful gesture, and if we want this money to get there and help them as soon as possible, I hope that people will donate. It is easy. People just need to visit the Red Cross website to make a donation. If every Canadian donated the equivalent of the price of a coffee, the people of Fort McMurray could receive nearly $60 million. God knows that they will need it.

Now, let us get back to Bill C-15. I read the bill. I read the summary, and this is how it begins:

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...

Further on, it says:

(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;

There is also the following:

(i) eliminating the child fitness tax credit;

That is how Bill C-15 begins. The government claims to be the champion of the middle class, the champion of families, and when we take the time to read the summary, we see how these splendid changes are announced, this new Liberal approach. For a government that professes to be the champion of the middle class, the tone is set. I think that most people in the regions of Quebec will not be fooled by what is going on here.

That is especially true since most of those people work for small and medium-sized enterprises. Middle-class children are directly affected since the incentives for culture and physical fitness no longer exist.

In my speech, I will be talking about three subjects. First, as you may well have guessed, I will be talking about small and medium-sized businesses. Second, I will be talking about the agriculture sector, because we must not speak only about what is in the document. We could speak about that at length because there are a lot of things I would like to say, but we also need to speak about what is not in the document. The things that are missing from the budget make me very concerned for the people living regions such as mine. Third, we will, of course, be speaking about the Liberals' management approach, the Liberal way of piling deficit upon deficit.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister clearly stated what he thinks of small and medium-sized enterprises. He said, “small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes.”

We know why he said that. He said it because he himself has used small and medium-sized businesses to pay less income tax. During the election campaign, I wondered why he knew that. The Prime Minister created four SMEs in order to avoid paying income tax. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. He does not know what a real SME is. In a region such as mine, an SME is a small manufacturing operation.

It is a small business that employs 5, 10, 50, or 60 people. It gives people work and creates wealth, which is good for the entire Canadian economy. That is what an SME is. It is not some kind of subterfuge on the part of a prime minister. It is something real.

For years, the mining industry was part of my riding. We had one company. We were a one-industry town. Today, all the mines are closed down. How do we survive? Because of SMEs. Unfortunately, they have been forgotten in the Liberal government's budget.

I will now sketch the profile of an SME based on an analysis done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Some seem to think that the owners of SMEs are rolling in money, but the reality is quite different. Data obtained by Statistics Canada, the CFIB, and other sources show that the vast majority of entrepreneurs are members of the middle class. What a surprise. One-third of business owners earn less than $33,000 a year, and two-thirds earn less than $73,000 a year. In fact, 41% of business owners work more than 50 hours per week. There are far more earning under $40,000 a year than earning $250,000. The ratio is four to one. Are these the rich people described by the Prime Minister in the election campaign? Not at all.

The budget is a direct attack on small and medium-sized businesses, and thus on the middle class. The owners of SMEs in our regions are middle-class people. The Liberals have decided to keep the tax rate for small business at 10.5% instead of lowering it to 9%, as was anticipated. They had promised to reduce it. The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

In its platform, in a written letter to CFIB members, and in campaign stops across the country, the new government promised to reduce the small business corporate tax rate to nine per cent by 2019. That promise was broken today as it announced the rate will remain at 10.5 per cent after 2016.

Another promise broken. What is more, the Liberals have also put an end to the credit for hiring. Overall, the Liberal budget will cost Canadian SMEs more than $2 billion.

I mentioned earlier that SME owners are not rich and are for the most part members of the middle class. That means a new bill for $2 billion foisted on the middle class. Budget 2016 raises corporate tax and hence the tax on the middle class.

I cannot speak much about agriculture, as there is nothing on it in the budget. There are not even any measures to help those farmers who are faced with a serious crisis and are losing thousands of dollars every month because of imports of diafiltered milk. I will not speak about this, but I hope that the government will do more than just talk about it. The Liberals said they would talk about it, and we want them to take action since they know the solution. I hope that they will act now.

Finally, on the deficit, I am not the one who will be talking. I will let my constituents do the talking. I asked some of them the following question: what does it mean to you to know that the government’s budget is going to mean deficits and to not know when fiscal balance will be restored? In fact, with this budget, the Liberals have repealed the law that requires us to have a balanced budget.

This is what one of my constituents said: “It is crucial to reduce the Liberals' too often hare-brained spending and stimulate the economy through loans to SMEs. The SMEs will actually create jobs. First the bills have to be paid. Once everything is paid, we stop getting into debt, or at least run up as little debt as possible. Once there are no more bills to pay, real freedom will start for us. That is real wealth. How much will this cost future generations? We have to live within our means. Either the Liberal team is incompetent or it decided not to tell Canadians the whole truth in order to win the election. In any case, it does not deserve to govern Canadians.”

It is incredible to see the wisdom of our constituents. I had many comments from my constituents, and I could quote many more of them, but my time is passing quickly.

In conclusion, I will say that the budget is not a budget based on sustainable development or in favour of the middle class, but a very average budget of sustainable deficit. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-15.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I was a small business owner before I had my job as a parliamentarian. I knew tax decreases enabled my business, but what allowed my business to grow and prosper was getting customers through the door.

Through the budget, we have proposed decreasing taxes for middle-class families. We have added a larger tax-free Canada child benefit. We have increased digital infrastructure spending. There is much more in the budget.

Does my colleague not think that the changes we have made and the policies we have put forward in the budget will help middle-income families, many that own small businesses, and will likely help them to grow?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my hon. colleague did everything she could because people working in SMEs work very hard and put in long hours to earn every single penny.

For that reason, our Conservative government decided to lower their taxes so they could grow their business and provide more services to their fellow Canadians.

When money is in the hands of talented entrepreneurs, it yields much more than when it remains in the hands of government.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

As the proud representative of Quebec's agri-food capital, I was especially interested in measures affecting agriculture. I, too, was disappointed to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that the only thing in the budget that could be of interest to agricultural producers was access to the Internet in rural areas. That is of very little concern to them.

I would like my colleague to tell us what he would have liked this budget to do for agriculture.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member.

First of all, I would have liked to hear that agriculture makes an important contribution to our economy. That would have been a good start because in our regions agriculture is not just a farm and bad odours in the spring. It means jobs and purchases of tractors and supplies. It is the economy of an entire town.

Unfortunately, just like everything else that has to do with Quebec's and Canada's regions, it seems to have been ignored by the government. This budget makes absolutely no mention of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He was elected barely six months ago, but he nonetheless has excellent political experience, having been the mayor of a municipality.

As I believe I told the Minister of Finance yesterday, in Quebec, municipalities are not allowed to post a deficit. They may incur debt when they borrow to engage in development, but they are not allowed to run a deficit.

However, this government, which got itself elected on the promise of a small $10-billion deficit, is now imposing a $30-billion deficit on Canadians.

As a former mayor and city manager who was not allowed to run a deficit, could the hon. member explain the dangers that face Canadians due to a deficit three times higher than what the Liberals promised during the election campaign?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when a city in Quebec posts a deficit, the first penny from the following year’s taxes goes toward paying down that debt.

When a deficit is posted, citizens must be taxed in order to pay it down immediately, not in 20 or 30 years. Municipalities know that they cannot use money they do not have to repair streets and do all sorts of things. They cannot post a deficit.

I really appreciate this question, because that surprised me as well. The Liberals got elected saying that they would post a very small deficit, and in the end it turned out to be very big.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are told all the time that an activist government is like a gigantic fairness machine, transferring money from the wealthy to the needy. Why, then, does this machine seem so often to send money in the opposite direction?

The Bombardier bailout is a case study. The Liberal government has now offered a billion middle-class tax dollars to a company that paid $8 million to just one of its executives in 2015. According to Statistics Canada data, the lion's share of federal income tax that will fund this bailout comes from people earning between $45,000 and $90,000 a year. The federal government got more money from this income cohort than any other, money that it will use to bail out a company whose controlling family is said to be worth $1.77 billion.

In the same year, as the company began seeking that bailout, it had enough money to pay $32 million to eight named executive officers, an average of $4 million per person. That does not just make them part of the infamous 1% but the 0.01%.

A company has the right to pay its leaders anything it wants with its own money, but this bailout represents a massive wealth transfer from the working class to the wealthiest of the wealthy. Some will argue that rich pay packages are necessary to attract top executive talent, but Liberals explicitly reject that argument. They just won an election on a platform of raising taxes on anyone earning $200,000 a year, which is the Liberal definition of rich. Yet Bombardier paid 40 times that amount to a single executive. If executive compensation were capped at $200,000 a year in 2015, Bombardier would have saved enough money to fund 400 more jobs at $75,000 a year.

Of course, this is not about jobs. If it were, the budget would not have simultaneously raised taxes on small business job creators. Incidentally, it raised it by $1 billion between now and the next election, the same $1 billion that the Liberals want to give to Bombardier.

Taking money from job creators to give it to billionaires does not create jobs. If this were about creating jobs, the company would not have rejected the federal government's initial bailout of just a few weeks ago. It turns out beggars can be choosers. Nor would the vice-president of the company's C Series program have said that a bailout was not needed to save jobs, but merely “an extra bonus”. Is it really the responsibility of middle-class taxpayers to fund extra bonuses for the wealthy and well-connected? Unfortunately, it would seem so.

According to a recently leaked government report entitled, “Examining Ontario's Business Support Programs”, “Ontario’s business support programs favour the largest and oldest companies, the companies least likely to be in need of support.” About 200 companies, or 0.1% of Ontario businesses, got 30% of government subsidies, the report calculated. Why? Because the wheels of corporate welfare are greased with money, money for consultants to help navigate Ontario's 65 corporate aid programs in nine ministries, money for lobbyists to push an application along, and money for donations to the politicians who will make the final decision.

Postmedia's Anthony Furey recently revealed that companies that donated to the Ontario Liberals enjoyed massive taxpayer-funded grants. While Bombardier does not donate to federal politicians or parties, the lobbying commissioner's website shows the company met with designated federal public office-holders 54 times in the last 6 months.

All of this activity is legal, ethical, and properly reported, but it cost money. Therefore, those without money cannot do it. Because they cannot influence the government's commercial decisions, they rarely benefit from them.

The wealthy can afford to work the system and so the system works for them. Examples abound: Ontario's taxpayer-financed electric vehicle incentive program recently helped super rich car lovers buy the million dollar Porsche 918 Spyder, according to the CBC; Ontario's so-called Green Energy Act, which forces higher hydro bills on seniors living on fixed incomes in order to subsidize well-connected, so-called clean energy companies that produce almost no reliable power; and elsewhere, government-mandated taxi cartels shut out competition and empower millionaire taxi plate owners to exploit cab drivers and passengers.

It is not that government failed to stop these injustices, rather, it has caused them. It is like the Sheriff of Nottingham posing as Robin Hood. We should fight for social justice. We Conservatives believe in doing so. The best way to start is by getting government, and the wealthy interests that influence it, off the backs and out of the pockets of the middle class and the less fortunate. In so doing, we can truly champion the underdogs among us so they can be part of a better and brighter future for us all.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member's words, I do not necessarily agree with them.

I find it somewhat interesting that on the one hand, we have the Conservative Party say that we should forget about Bombardier, forget about trying to help the potential thousands of employees in a very important aerospace industry, not only in the province of Quebec but other provinces that are also directly or indirectly affiliated. On the other hand, the New Democratic Party and the members of the Bloc are saying that we should throw it all in, that we should give more, and that we should do this or that. The Liberal Party has had the right approach, which is to see what we can do to develop and enhance the aerospace industry in all regions of our country.

The member talked about tax fairness. Why would the member vote against a budget that delivers a tax decrease to nine million Canadians? That is what the member is voting against. Why would he do so if he truly believes the middle class should have more money? That is exactly what they would be getting.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget in question will give that member a nice big tax reduction, even though he makes $150,000 a year. However, single mothers who are earning $45,000 a year will get no income tax reduction whatsoever.

With respect to the second point on Bombardier, the Liberal approach on Bombardier has been to do $2 billion worth of harm to the company by blocking the expansion of the Toronto island airport, and in the process cancelling the order for $2 billion worth of jets by Porter Airlines, which lands at that airport. Then it comes forward, along with the Government of Quebec, to offer $2 billion worth of taxpayer help.

Our approach would be to do neither. We would let the company expand its operations and sell to another great Canadian company by landing in the heart of downtown Toronto, which has the simultaneous effect of cutting off traffic between Pearson Airport and the downtown business section in Canada's busiest city and giving a free enterprise solution that will cost nothing to taxpayers to a company that is seeking to attract new revenues. By contrast, the approach of the Liberals is to take a billion dollars from everyday middle-class Canadians to bailout a company that is controlled by a billionaire family, which paid $32 million in executive compensation in the same year that it was seeking handouts from the government.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We have not had an opportunity to debate for a long time.

I pinch myself a little when I hear a Conservative say he is concerned about social justice and the disadvantaged in our society after his government gave billions of dollars in gifts to big banks, big corporations, and oil companies all over the country.

I am also surprised to hear that the Conservative Party’s position on Bombardier is to do absolutely nothing and abandon Montreal’s aerospace sector. I will enjoy talking about that when I go back home.

I would like to hear what he thinks about the Liberals’ deception with respect to the tax cuts for the middle class. In fact, 6 out of 10 people will not benefit from this, including people who earn less than $45,000 a year and need it most. These people have been abandoned in the Liberals’ budget.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member just said in his conclusion is true. He is right: people earning $45,000 a year will receive literally nothing by way of a tax cut from the federal government. That is true.

However, I find it ironic that a so-called socialist—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

No, not so-called, a real socialist.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

He corrected me, Mr. Speaker, and said that he was not a so-called but a real socialist.

He wants to give $1 billion to a corporation owned by a billionaire family. It is true, as we now see, that socialists and leftists do indeed want to redistribute money, but they want to take it from the poor and the middle class and give it to the rich.

We want to do just the opposite: we want people to keep the money they earn through their own work, their investments, and their merit. That is what makes our approach to poverty different from that of the other parties on the left.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, The Economy; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Asbestos; and the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation bill.

Just a short time ago, I had the opportunity to stand and speak to budget 2016, which I referred to as a middle-class, or better yet, a growth budget. I spoke about a budget based on the fundamental principles of investing in and strengthening our middle class as well as revitalizing the Canadian economy with a historic $120-billion infrastructure investment plan.

I also talked about how the budget would help ensure a prosperous future for the residents of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and in fact, for all Canadians.

Most important, I spoke about how, as a father of two young daughters, Natalia and Eliana, budget 2016 puts in place a plan for economic growth not only for today, but for successive generations so that all our children will inherit a more prosperous and hopeful country.

Bill C-15 is the concrete foundation emanating from the budget 2016 blueprint. The bill makes real the principles and commitments laid out by our government, such as the principles of greater tax fairness for Canadians, the belief that we should be there for our seniors to ensure they have a dignified retirement, a firm commitment to families with the introduction of the truly transformational Canada child benefit, a large step forward to honour our commitments to Canada's veterans, and significant improvements to the Employment Insurance Act.

Bill C-15 also continues to work on strengthening our financial system with the introduction of a bail-in regime for banks, which ensures that Canada's banks remain the soundest in the world, and very importantly, that Canadian depositors and taxpayers remain protected.

Bill C-15 contains 15 divisions. It had to be substantial, because our budget made substantial commitments to Canadians, and the technical underpinnings of these commitments are contained in this piece of legislation. Because there is so much to speak about in the bill, I am going to focus on a few sections.

I have stated how proud I am of this government's commitment to families, and Bill C-15 makes good on that commitment by introducing the Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit will replace the current system of the Canada child tax benefit and universal care benefit. This transformational CCB will be simpler, tax-free, and paid monthly to eligible families beginning in July of this year.

Nine out of ten Canadian families will receive more under the Canada child benefit than under the current system. Overall, about 3.5 million Canadian families will receive this benefit, with the average increase in child benefits at almost $2,300 annually.

Independent analysis, and I emphasize independent analysis, indicates that 300,000 fewer Canadian children will be living in poverty in 2016-17 than in 2014-15.

I am proud to be part of a government that is taking this bold step to build a better and what I believe is a more just and inclusive society.

As I have stated repeatedly, seniors built this great country and we will always be indebted to them. Bill C-15 contains measures to increase the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, by providing up to an additional $947 per year to our most vulnerable seniors, single seniors, the majority of whom are women. Seniors with personal incomes, excluding OAS and GIS payments, between zero and $8,400, will see increased benefits. This step will help improve financial security for about 900,000 of our most vulnerable senior Canadians.

Members should know that budget 2016 does not impact pension income splitting for seniors. This will remain in effect.

A large portion of the budget implementation bill addresses regulatory changes to our financial system. There is a very good reason for this emphasis in the legislation. The strength of our economy and the middle class in large measure rests on the stability of Canada's financial institutions. Canadians rely on our banks and credit unions on a daily basis for virtually every aspect of their lives.

While the failure of a large Canadian bank is very unlikely, it is still important that authorities have adequate tools to promote and preserve financial stability as well as to protect taxpayers in a crisis. Canadian banks are among, and I would argue are, the soundest in the world. They have robust levels of capital, lending practices that are sound, and stood out as pillars of strength during the 2008 global financial crisis.

I had a first-hand view of the global financial crisis. I know full well the benefits of the sound regulatory environment governing our financial system.

I would be remiss if I did not add that, while I worked in New York City during the 1990s, it was a Liberal government under Prime Minister Chrétien and finance minister Paul Martin that said no to the Canadian banks merging. I believe this decision is the major reason our banks came out of the 2008 global financial crisis with flying colours.

The bail-in regime contained in Bill C-15 would strengthen the tool kit and only apply to Canada's domestic systematically important banks and allow our regulators to recapitalize a failing bank by converting eligible long-term debt into shares.

More important, the bail-in regime makes it clear that the shareholders and creditors of Canada's largest banks are responsible for the banks' risks, not taxpayers. This way Canadians are not stuck with the tab in the event of an economic crisis.

This regime is consistent with international best practices and standards that were developed following the financial crisis of 2008 and although we have a robust banking sector, the provisions contained in the legislation would provide the legislative framework for the regime, with regulations and guidelines to follow.

I wish to make clear to all Canadians that insured and non-insured deposits would continue to be protected by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.

In addition to the bail-in provisions, there are also a number of technical changes in this legislation which would help strengthen credit unions and the CDIC.

Bill C-15 would also help Canadian families by putting into place changes to the Employment Insurance Act which would assist those Canadians impacted by the very unfortunate situation of a job loss. In fact, the changes our government would implement would increase employment insurance payments to unemployed Canadians by $2.5 billion over the next two fiscal years.

Key improvements include extra weeks of benefits for workers in regions affected by a downturn in commodity prices. In addition, the waiting period would be reduced from two weeks to one week and would provide unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more at the time they need it most.

Our government will work and create the conditions for all Canadians to find meaningful employment. That is what we want. However, we must ensure a system that would provide help when Canadians and their families require it.

During the election campaign, one of our key commitments was to greater tax fairness for middle-class Canadians and all Canadians. Our government has also introduced Bill C-2, which would lower the income tax rate for middle-class Canadians. Today, over nine million Canadians are benefiting from lower taxes, with a total tax reduction of approximately $3.4 billion.

Bill C-15 would provide even further tax fairness measures with amendments to the Income Tax Act contained in the first three parts of the bill. For example, we have added insulin pills and needles, feminine hygiene products, as well as catheters, to the list of items that are exempt from GST/HST.

The budget bill contains provisions that would increase the maximum benefit under the northern residents deduction, exempt taxable income amounts received as rate assistance under the Ontario electricity support program, and, quite proudly, introduce a teacher and early childhood educator school supply tax credit. This measure alone would provide a benefit of $140 million over five years in tax relief to our educators.

These are just a few examples of the elements contained in Bill C-15.

As I had previously stated, budget 2016, the middle-class or growth budget, provides a blueprint for a hopeful future for all Canadians. Bill C-15 is a solid legislative foundation for the future.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join with me in supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to offer congratulations to the member on his speech, make a comment, and then ask a question.

First, with respect to the bank recapitalization provisions of the budget, obviously this is a newer idea. What might be a good suggestion, and I would like to hear the member's comments on this, would be to have the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions make public stress tests so that the public and the people who invest in banks can know that the banks they are investing in or are trading on are of the highest standards.

I have heard a few Liberals mention today that this recapitalization regime meets international standards.

First, could the member name one country that utilizes it?

Second, since the recapitalization scheme has never been used, would he agree there is some trepidation that the next time there is a financial crisis where this may be used, that it would the first trial, I think, in the world of such a bail-in regime? Is he concerned about that?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the 2008 financial crisis, one of the impacts was, for example, the injection by the United States of capital or equity into its banks to boost its banks. The same situation also happened in Europe. From that, we had what were called contingent CoCos or bail-in securities created where taxpayers would not be on the hook.

This came out of the G20, the G8, FASB, and many international organizations, where it was determined that taxpayers would no longer face the risk in case of a too-big-to-fail situation where creditors and equity holders would face the risk of a recapitalization.

Contingent securities are in effect across Europe, Switzerland, the U.K., Italy, Germany, and France. They have been issued. They are traded in the market.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were in opposition, they called the Conservatives’ omnibus bills undemocratic and disrespectful of our Parliament. Today our colleague declares himself very proud of a voluminous bill. I do not understand how anyone can be proud of a 179-page bill that amends 30 separate laws, affects nine different departments and has an impact on many others, contains a bill already on the Order Paper, would retroactively repeal an entire statute, and also contains other retroactive legislative changes.

My colleague says he is very proud of the banks, but does he not think that a complex section on bank recapitalization is deserving of much more thorough study than what it will receive as part of an omnibus bill?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 contains many of the measures that were in our platform and obviously would come into effect through our budget. We are obviously producing a piece of legislation that would fulfill our commitments to not only members of the House but all Canadians across this entire country. I will leave it at that.

In terms of our banks, I am proud to say that Canada has the soundest banks in the world, which employ literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We want to maintain those banks and ensure that our financial system is still the soundest going forward.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given that last week all MPs were in our home ridings where we had the opportunity to speak with our constituents, I am wondering what my colleague heard from his constituents as to the greatest needs of young families and seniors and how the budget might actually help to solve some of the problems they are facing.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many young families in my riding are looking forward to receiving tax-free cheques on a monthly basis, beginning in July, with an average increase of $2,300. That also transpired into nine out of 10 families that currently receive the UCCB and the Canada child tax credit receiving higher payments.

For the province of Ontario alone over the next two years, the increased payment amount will total $4 billion. That is $4 billion going directly into the pockets of residents in the province of Ontario.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today to speak to this important piece of legislation. March 22 was an important day for Canadians. When the Minister of Finance introduced budget 2016, the first glimmers of hope were restored to Canadians who for too long had been made to work too hard, but just could not seem to get ahead.

Middle-class families, vulnerable seniors, veterans, and indigenous people were all given hope for a more secure tomorrow and a brighter future.

The Canada child benefit, a simpler, fairer, and tax-free solution to child benefits, will deliver more money to nine in 10 Canadian families and end the practice of sending benefit cheques to millionaires. More importantly, it will lift 300,000 children out of poverty and give them the start they need.

The rollback of changes to the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, from age 67 to 65, will allow people who have worked their whole lives to get the income security they deserve when they retire without having to wait.

For veterans who have bravely dedicated their lives to the defence of our country, we will enhance services and benefits in light of their dedicated service. This will help those veterans who have become injured and disabled and aid all veterans in the transition to civilian life, an all-too-challenging feat for those who have experienced the trauma of war.

For indigenous people who have suffered for too long from neglect and failed policies, the budget provided a new beginning. A first step in the nation-to-nation relationship with the fastest-growing segment of the Canadian population, our investments will contribute to improving economic prosperity for them, and for this country.

Today, it is my honour to rise in this esteemed House to speak in favour of the budget implementation act no. 1, a piece of legislation that will move forward many of the provisions contained in the budget.

The BIA is about many of the things I have already spoken to, but it also takes critical action in some areas that are occasionally overlooked in the fog of budget day. Importantly, it implements key measures designed to ensure tax fairness and a strong financial sector in this country.

As a matter of principle, our government is committed to tax fairness. We believe fundamentally that all Canadians, individuals and corporations alike, must pay their fair share of taxes so that all Canadians can benefit in return.

Tax evasion and avoidance put strain on this principle. They negatively impact the revenue collected through taxes, in turn compromising the services offered to Canadians.

The budget implementation act contains important provisions to cut down on the people's ability to use increasingly sophisticated means to avoid paying their fair share. This is combined with the budget's increased funding to the Canada Revenue Agency to hire additional auditors and specialists to undertake better-quality investigative work and improve its ability to collect outstanding debts.

As well, this budget addresses unintended tax advantages that businesses and high-net-worth individuals may be able to obtain through sophisticated tax planning techniques involving private corporations.

These actions are consistent with the principles of fairness, economic efficiency, and responsible fiscal management.

The government will continue to identify and address tax planning schemes to ensure that the tax system operates as fairly and effectively as possible.

We need to know that the system is working as it should, to ensure the economy is working for everyone. This is a critical part of strong fiscal management. Strong fiscal management also depends on ensuring our financial sector remains competitive and efficient.

Canada's financial sector is world-class and has remained resilient and stable even in the face of the great recession and throughout the slow recovery. However, we must keep the financial sector strong, especially at a time when new market forces like digital currencies and rapidly changing global regulations are precipitating equally rapid change.

Canada's financial sector remains the envy of many countries around the world. This reputation was the result of hard work and prudent decision-making by financial institutions and by the actions of the federal government in the 1990s and by our regulators. We want to keep it that way.

To ensure that Canada continues to benefit from a strong financial sector, the government proposes to introduce a bail-in regime for Canada's largest financial institutions, which would promote financial stability and reinforce that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank's risks, not taxpayers.

In the highly unlikely event of a system bank failure, we want to ensure that Canadians will not be on the hook and that banks will convert their debt into equity rather than force the government to bail them out.

It is important to add that this provision would not hurt depositors, as all insured and uninsured deposits will remain protected.

The budget implementation act is a critical step on the path to a fairer and more prosperous Canada. It brings into effect much-needed relief for Canadian families, for vulnerable seniors, and for veterans. However, it also takes action to close tax loopholes that hurt all Canadians and to ensure that our financial institutions remain strong, so that Canadians can continue to rely on them in the years to come.

For these reasons, I would encourage all members to support it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to hear that the hon. member praised the Conservative government's financial prudence in getting us through the recession of 2008-2009. If it were not for the prudent financial planning of that government, we may not have been able to come through that as one of the strongest economies in the G7, so I want to thank my colleague for highlighting our good work in the government we had.

We have heard a lot today about employment insurance and some of the benefits that will entail, but I ask the hon. member why those EI extensions would only be given to 12 specific areas across the country. Those 12 do not include Edmonton, which includes Nisku and Leduc, which is the heart and soul of Alberta's energy industry. They do not include southern Saskatchewan, also a very important oil and gas area where communities are feeling the pinch of the downturn.

Also, will something be done with For McMurray and what is going on there? Will there be some special concessions for that community as well?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke to the situation in Fort McMurray this morning, about special measures the government will be taking to take that into account.

Before going any further, once again, to reflect on what is currently going on in Fort McMurray, I can tell hon. members, as somebody who grew up in what I would term to be the sub-Arctic, along the same latitude as Fort McMurray, in Goose Bay, Labrador, that at a very young age I was confronted with a forest fire that almost hit our community. We were awakened by the RCMP at 4 o'clock in the morning and told to evacuate our house because we would not see it again, because it would have been taken down by a forest fire that was literally licking the lips of the hills of North West River, Labrador, only some 40 or 50 kilometres away from where I grew up in Happy Valley—Goose Bay.

The night before, watching the sky lit up pink from the flames that were just beyond that hill, inhaling the smoke from that forest fire, knowing that feeling of having to choose what items we would take with us and what we would leave behind is a feeling I will never forget, even though I was only at the tender age of 13 or 14.

I feel with all my heart for what is going on for those people in Fort McMurray, having had first-hand experience, and I know that our government will work together with those members on the other side of the House to ensure that everything possible is done for what is looking right now to be one of the most cataclysmic natural catastrophes that our country has ever faced.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we have recently had the opportunity to spend a week in our home constituencies, and budget 2016 and Bill C-15 contain some extremely positive measures that will benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including Canada's largest-ever infrastructure program and the Canada child benefit, which will benefit nine out of 10 Canadian families.

I am wondering if the hon. member can share with this chamber what his constituents are saying about both Bill C-15 and budget 2016.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, like many new members of the House who were campaigning for the first time in order to enter this honourable House, I was struck by how our constituents spoke to us and the concerns they held. Certainly, their ability to find some stability in a world that is so rapidly changing, to find some financial security for their children, and for them to have the choice on how to spend limited resources on their families and their children was something that was brought up time and again.

I am very happy that the Canada child benefit will come into effect on Canada Day, July 1. People will be receiving their cheques and families will be able to determine how best to spend the benefit on themselves and their families.

I am a big believer in efficiencies. To take three separate, very disparate family benefits and turn them into one tangible cheque is one of the most tangible and most important parts of the budget. It is not just something we use at the end of the tax year, but a tangible benefit that Canadian families can feel, use, and spend throughout the year on their children to make better lives for themselves and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

I would like to begin by noting that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon West.

Budgets should reflect priorities, and the priorities of any government governing at this time in history ought to be the growing inequality in our country.

Over the last 30 years, we have seen the gap between the rich and everyone else grow. The richest 100 Canadians now hold as much wealth as the bottom 10 million combined. Just this week, Statistics Canada released a study that showed that over the last 30 years it has been getting harder and harder for Canadians to move up the income ladder, but it has been easier for the wealthy to hold on to that wealth.

This did not just happen. It is the result of decades of successive Liberal and Conservative governments that have chosen not to support the middle- and low-income Canadians in our country. This budget is sadly no different.

Early into the Liberal mandate, they prioritized the so-called middle-class tax cut. However, a study from the parliamentary budget officer proves the Liberal tax plan will give nothing to 60% of Canadians. The biggest breaks will go to the top 30% of income earners, and those making $200,000 or more will receive the maximum amount. This is on top of no action to help minimum wage workers earn a fair living.

Another broken promise to Canadians made by the Liberals in the campaign that we have now seen is not taking any action to close the stock option loophole for CEOs, a loophole that costs the public $800 million a year.

When we talk about the growing inequality in our country and the kind of crushing poverty we know to exist, I think many of our minds go to the experience of first nations. Let us talk about first nations youth. Half of all first nations children in Canada live in poverty. In Manitoba, my province, 62% of first nations children live below the poverty line.

What about this budget? We saw the Liberals choose not to live up to their promises to first nations children. This budget shortchanged first nations education by $230 million. Following a historic ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, first nations child welfare saw $130 million less than was promised.

There is also no money for first nations health care, Jordan's principle, or mental health supports, while many isolated first nations, including communities in my own constituency, struggle with suicide crises.

We have also seen the Liberals choose to break their promise to invest in health care. After promising $3 billion over the next four years to help Canadians access high-quality home care, this budget has nothing.

We have also seen the way the Prime Minister, the self-appointed Minister of Youth, came up $170 million short on his commitment made to young Canadians. The millennial generation needs more than a selfie to help them grapple with the challenges they are facing: skyrocketing student debt, out-of-reach housing prices, and a labour market that is flooded with precarious, unstable, low-paying work.

Unfortunately, this is another missed opportunity by the Liberal government to reduce inequality.

When we look at the history of growing inequality in our country, we know that the 1990s, under successive Liberal governments, was the period of time in which the trend around inequality began to grow the fastest. We have heard from those who have studied that trend that one of the major contributors was the cuts to employment insurance.

On that note, let us look at the recent changes that were made to EI. The system left in place by the Conservatives was nothing less than devastated. However, let us be clear. The system the Conservatives inherited was already deeply troubled. The Liberals plundered countless billions of dollars, in fact $54 billion, from the EI fund for political purposes, and supervised the biggest and most thorough attack on our social safety net as of yet.

If the Liberals believe that the only reason the EI system is in shambles is due to the Conservatives' reforms, I recommend that they look into their own history and uncover the real reasons why a majority of Canadians who are out of work today are left without access to EI. In fact, regarding the changes implemented by Bill C-15, we can see that they do not go far enough.

We know that while some extensions were made, areas like Edmonton and southern Saskatchewan were completely left out of the government's relief measures. When we asked the government why, the reply was blunt and brutal. It was because of “cold, hard math”. Those words are certainly cold comfort to Canadian workers out of a job.

The cold, hard math rhetoric they are basing their policies on has apparently come out of thin air. When we have asked for references to studies and government reports, we have seen nothing. We call on the minister to correct this mistake and to include Edmonton and southern Saskatchewan in the targeted regions immediately.

The broader picture, though, is the failure that the regional thresholds have met in trying to achieve more fairness for the EI system. The regional thresholds have been described as inadequate by countless stakeholders. We in the NDP will continue to advocate for a universal 360-hour threshold that would be fair and adequate for all workers.

Canada's social safety net is broken. The government likes to place the blame squarely at the feet of the previous government, which certainly did its share of damage, but the Liberals should take a look in the mirror. What they are now framing as a victory for workers is actually a return to a difficult time that bears the scars of damage done to our social safety net under Chrétien and Martin.

I would like to talk about the term “social safety net”. What does that represent? In our current economic context, the professional lives of a growing number of workers are hanging by a thread. When that thread breaks, the social safety net can prevent people from crashing to the floor. When it works, the social safety net enables people to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again.

The safety net has made it possible for many workers to get back into the job market relatively unscathed, but over the past few decades, more and more workers have been slipping through the holes in the net. Government after government has failed to ensure the integrity of our social safety net. Worse still, successive governments have come to power brandishing their scissors and cutting all kinds of holes in it. They seemed compelled to cut swiftly and indiscriminately.

The holes in our social safety net are well known. One of them is the notorious black hole that swallows up so many seasonal workers. The government could easily have enhanced the employment insurance system by renewing a pilot project that added five weeks of benefits, but it forgot about those workers, and they are once again slipping through the holes in the safety net. We are disappointed but not surprised.

People can count on the NDP to keep protecting workers' interests from the old parties' attacks.

Before I conclude I also want to spend some time talking about how this budget left out major promises to my own constituency, including a commitment that the Prime Minister made during the election to partner on the construction of the east side road.

The east ride road is a legacy project that would have allowed 11 first nations that are currently isolated in my constituency to access something that so many Canadians take for granted, a road.

Climate change has made their existence in isolated communities more difficult and more precarious. We are talking about communities that have as high as 80% of the population on welfare. We are talking about communities that are struggling day to day.

On September 29, 2015, the Prime Minister, when asked if he was going to be a partner on the east side road, said, “The full answer is yes, the federal government will be the partner Manitoba needs in order to deliver the infrastructure that is required”. Sadly, there is no such commitment in the budget. Therefore, whether it is on the east side road or whether it is on the other broken promises, we will remain vigilant.

Much work needs to be done on the budget to understand exactly what it covers.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any order or usual practice of the House that Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures be amended by removing the following clauses: (a) Clauses 80 to 116 related to the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act; (b) Clauses 126 to 168 related to bank bail-ins and the bank recapitalization regime; (c) Clauses 188 to 191 related to the Old Age Security Act; and (d) Clauses 207 to 231 related to the Employment Insurance Act; that the clauses mentioned in section (a) of this motion do form Bill C-16; that Bill C-16 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs; that the clauses mentioned in section (b) of this motion do form Bill C-17; that Bill C-17 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Finance; that the clauses mentioned in section (c) of this motion do form Bill C-18; that Bill C-18 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; that the clauses mentioned in section (d) of this motion do form Bill C-19; that Bill C-19 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; that Bill C-15 retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; and that Bill C-15 be reprinted as amended and the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing this motion in order to give the full scrutiny that is required by parliamentarians on behalf of Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, when faced with social inequality, a cause to which we are just as committed as my colleague, we must help everyone, help the entire economy, and invest in our infrastructure, our communities, and our future. If that means that we have to borrow to make investments, then that is part of our role as the government.

Can my colleague explain how the NPD could have helped anyone by promising to never run a deficit, even though there was already a deficit under the Conservatives? Where would the NDP's austerity have led us?

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

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate efforts to change the channel, we are talking about an omnibus budget bill that includes broken promises to Canadians. I explained a laundry list, including broken promises to first nations children, among the poorest people in our country. It includes a failure to step up to important election commitments.

When Canadians were presented with the tag line of real change, that is what they expected. They did not expect broken promises. They certainly did not expect more of the same, including omnibus bills. That is unfortunately what they are seeing from the Liberal government.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member cited some of the challenges that she faced in her community, particularly on the issue of income inequality. In many ways there are some similarities between her riding and mine. The issue that troubles me the most with the Liberal budget is the income tax cuts and who that benefits.

Could the member elaborate on that and on how the government can make changes that will assist people in both of our communities, like so many Canadians who are in the greatest need?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is an incredible defender of issues that many people on the margins face, including in her own constituency, and her advocacy alongside many indigenous advocates who speak passionately about the issues of poverty and marginalization they face on an ongoing basis.

As the New Democrats have pointed out time and again, one of the first things the Liberal government came up with was a tax cut that it claimed would help middle-class Canadians. However, the parliamentary budget officer said that Canadians who made $200,000 or more a year stood to benefit the most. Despite the rhetoric, what is true is that the wealthiest Canadians continue to benefit more under the government while everyone else continues to lose out.

I can speak to a big issue that is on the minds of many people in my constituency, which is employment insurance, a program that should be there for Canadians when they have fallen on hard times. I referred to this as well in my speech. Unfortunately, this budget does not go nearly far enough in making EI more accessible to Canadians. Only 40% of Canadians are able to access it, so much more needs to be done.

Fundamentally, what this budget does not do is get at the structures that exacerbate inequality in our country. Under the Liberals, it continues to benefit those who have a lot already, while certainly not being on the side of everyone else.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2016 is indeed a missed opportunity to reduce the inequality in our communities. Therefore, it is a missed opportunity to actually create real change. However, as my mother taught me, I do want to start by giving credit where credit is due.

I would like to commend the government on its choice to make investments in affordable housing by way of confirming for the next two years the rental subsidies for social housing. I know the social housing providers and the tenants in social housing in my community are relieved that this support is continuing.

I welcome the increase to the guaranteed income supplement and the commitment to enhancing the Canada pension plan. Likewise, I applaud the budget's commitment to lift the punitive and unfair 2% cap on funding for first nations. The tax-free Canada child care benefit will assist many parents and families in my riding. Each of these commitments is a good first step.

That said, the bill and the budget, when we weigh its costs and its benefits to Canadians, does not remove enough of the tax burden for those hard-working Canadians who fall below the median income of those few lucky enough to receive the tax breaks. In fact, the so-called middle-class tax break offers nothing for more than 60% of Canadians.

With its first budget, the government had the opportunity to create real change, to invest in reducing income inequality in the country and to begin to really tackle inequality through the most effective and efficient way possible, through progressive tax measures.

I know for a fact that large numbers of people from communities in my riding will not benefit from the middle-class tax cut. According to the city of Saskatoon statistics from 2014, the median income for five of Saskatoon's poor neighbourhoods in my riding will not benefit from the tax break. Those are thousands of people in my riding alone.

These are folks working two to three minimum wage jobs, paying well over 30% of their wages for unaffordable housing, and living in what we have called a “food desert”. If they are fortunate enough to have money left over after paying rent, the cost of healthy food is often out of reach. Research done in my community saw an increase in the number of mothers going hungry in order to afford to buy food for their children. Put simply, good, healthy food is unaffordable. A tax break for those doing well will do absolutely nothing for these people.

Likewise, the budget does nothing for those who cannot find affordable child care, especially those working to re-enter the workforce or to get training to upgrade their skills and become employable.

Many in my riding are young people with young children, and they have dreams and aspirations. These dreams are not unreasonable. Nor should they be unattainable. We should support them in every way we can. One of the ways we can do this is by providing increased access to child care spaces that are affordable.

Right now in my riding it costs almost as much for a single child in child care as it does for rent. That is of course if there is actually a space. Where is the incentive to work or go to school in that kind of situation? Simply put, a lack of affordable child care spaces is a huge barrier to young parents being able to realize their dreams. It is in fact a deterrent. It inhibits the economic growth by reducing productivity, and we must remove this barrier. A government that is committed to women's equality can pave the way to realizing that equality by implementing a national, universal, affordable child care program. However, there is no mention of child care in the budget.

The budget has been called a betrayal of small business by none other than the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Canada's number one job creator is small business. Small business is a hugely important source of employment in my riding. In a city where there is limited primary industry, we survive on the strength of our secondary industry, our small businesses. Small business is central to the economic well-being in Saskatoon, especially during a downturn in the resource sector.

As a matter of fact, one of my campaign volunteers, a bright young woman and mother, started her own business while I was on the campaign trail. After spending her formative years in too many foster homes to count, Rachel is working harder than I have ever seen to make it, and she is, but where is the help? Where is the support for people like Rachel?

This budget also disappoints in another way. It provides no assistance at all for those in need of prescription drugs or home care. Right now, I have a veteran living in my riding who has to choose between rent, food, and the charge for the essential drugs that he needs. He pays his rent, which takes up to 85% of his pension, and uses the rest to pay for necessary prescription drugs. He has trouble looking after himself, has no family to help, and lives in a home that he increasingly cannot afford, which causes him to be housebound because of the physical inaccessibility of the building. How is he supposed to survive?

How does this happen in a country as rich as Canada? How is it that a country such as Canada does not have a national pharmacare program?

It is about choices, and this budget is about choosing to believe in a failed theory of trickle-down economics.

The government's thinking in this budget seems to be that if the Liberals give tax breaks to those who do not need them, eventually, and somehow miraculously, people living in poverty will somehow be lifted out of poverty. This is wishful thinking and proven time and again to fail in practice. It is anything but real change. It is pretty much same old, same old. Moreover, if that kind of thinking worked in practice, we would have eliminated poverty a long time ago.

That trickle will not get anywhere near being helpful to the poor, because the budget bill also does nothing to rein in the super rich who are hiding hundreds of millions of tax dollars in overseas accounts. People making $45,000 or less a year will not get a tax break, but the rich and profitable get a chance to avoid paying taxes altogether. That is plain wrong, and it is unfair. It costs us Canadians dearly, not only in millions of foregone tax revenue, but it also impedes our ability to make real change right now in 2016.

What makes the rich and the large profitable corporations better than those working long hours at two minimum-wage jobs just to get by? Why do they not have to pay their fair share? Why are they getting better and special treatment for their income?

Budgets are about choices, choices that say this is what is most important. Budget 2016 and the implementation bill chooses tax havens for millionaire CEOs and giveaways often to foreign-based corporations that take economic wealth from our country and profit off of our public resources, all the while being carried on the backs and the taxes of hard-working Canadians, the people who live and work and go to school despite all the barriers in my community. That is unacceptable. It is a long way off from real change.

Real change does not make first nation children wait for equality. Real change invests in health care.

Canadians need improved pharmacare and home care. Making health care accessible and affordable will save lives. Why not choose to save lives? Why has the Liberal government government chosen to break its promise to invest in health care? After promising $3 billion over the next four years, the Liberal government has provided nothing for home care in the budget.

Real change does not continue to raid the EI fund of almost $7 billion over the next three years. People need those dollars now. It is their money.

In my riding, we have a lot of talented, hard-working Canadians who are unemployed, thanks to an economic downturn in the region. Real change is using EI money for what it was intended: to help unemployed workers.

People are working harder than ever, but cannot get ahead. As my colleague mentioned, the recent Statistics Canada report demonstrates that income mobility is not happening. The rich are staying rich at the same rate as the poor are staying poor. Over the past 30 years, hard-working Canadians have helped grow our economy by 50%, but those same hard-working people have seen wages stagnant and retirement security vanish.

Budget 2016 makes some changes, but not real change. It merely tinkers, when there is so much potential to make bold, important investments, choices that bring real change, like equality for women, and more fairness and equity for everyday Canadians.

Unfortunately for them, budget 2016 is many deficits away from real change.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about child care and the NDP campaign promise of $15-a-day child care. I was very concerned about this particular policy during the campaign for a couple of reasons.

My background, for those who are not aware, is working with organizations like the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Club. In fact, my name was on the licence for one of the largest child care programs in the Niagara region. There were over 200 participants in the child care program with the Boys and Girls Club. Most of the people in that program were subsidized through the region and actually paid about $8 or $9 a day.

I had two problems with the NDP plan. One was that the $15 a day would disproportionately support those who truly did not need it and, two, there did not seem to a plan on how to pay for it. I know this question has already been asked of the previous speaker, but could the hon. member explain how the NDP was planning to pay for this plan?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that the member's background is in the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Club. I would like those in the House to know that the YMCA is the largest provider of child care spaces and services in Canada, so I obviously like the YMCA.

That is a very good question and New Democrats got asked about that. In my comments, I talked about the opportunity to make real change, to make the tax system more progressive rather than regressive. The corporate tax rate in Canada is at its lowest point ever since the year 2000. It is one of the lowest in the G7 countries. We had an opportunity to increase the corporate tax rate slightly in order to increase the government's revenue. I believe the government has an issue around increasing revenue, but that money would be available to fund programs like a national child care program, which is essential for a government that wants equality for women.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I am very concerned about the Liberals falling into bad ways with what we can only describe as an undemocratic omnibus bill. The fact that it is 179 pages long and addresses a significant number of ministries and statutes concerns New Democrats very much.

My question is twofold. First, I absolutely understand that child care is an investment. For every $1 that is invested, $1.79 goes back into the economy, so it is a smart investment. I am sorry that it has not seen the light of day with the current government.

Second, I am very concerned about how veterans are being treated. Bill C-12 has been incorporated into this budget bill and it deserves our full attention. It is a bill that addresses the needs of our veterans with regard to their pensions. It needs to be separate and I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the speaker prior to me, had asked for consent, through a motion, to separate out this bill so that some of the bigger, more complicated pieces could be referred to committee for study. Included in that, of course, were the issues surrounding veterans, and I fully support that.

This is my first time in Parliament, obviously. I was looking forward to more democracy and an opportunity to discuss and feel that democracy at the committee level, so I was disappointed that so much was included in the bill and that we are getting shortchanged as far as being able to really look at what is contained in this bill at the committee level, where parties are able to work together democratically to improve bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will just start off by expressing my prayers and best wishes to Fort McMurray, a community that is indeed in need today, and to do what the Prime Minister indicated earlier this morning, which is to tell the residents of that area that across Canada there is a very caring and compassionate mood, from all Canadians.

The federal government is going to be there for the community, not only for today but into the future, whether that is dealing with infrastructure, employment insurance-related issues, or the many other issues on which the federal government can be of assistance. I know, and I am confident that the government will be there for that community. All members of the House truly care about what is taking place in Fort McMurray today.

I have had the opportunity to listen for a number of hours to many members in the chamber speak to this particular issue. I suspect it is a bit of a challenge for New Democrats in particular. I have seen them kind of bend over or turn themselves into pretzels, trying to figure out what it is they should or possibly could be doing on this budget.

My best advice to the New Democratic members of Parliament is that they should vote in favour of this legislation. They can try to come up with all the excuses they want, but at the end of the day if they have a progressive mind and would like to see Canada move forward, they should be voting in favour of this budget.

Let me expand on a couple of comments. I listened to the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski talk about our first nations communities. If she truly cares about what is happening with the first nations communities, this is a budget that she should be getting behind.

I listened to the member saying one thing after another, being critical of the Liberal Party. There is nothing that could be further from the truth. She should look at the NDP government of Manitoba, a provincial government that four years ago intentionally flooded out reserve communities. Some of those reserve communities that were flooded out by the NDP government are still evacuated today, and that was four years ago. I am talking about the Lake St. Martin First Nation reserve and the Little Saskatchewan First Nation reserve.

We do see more co-operation today with Ottawa to try to assist, but let there be no doubt that the provincial NDP government abandoned those communities.

When the member talks about the poverty that is there, that is very real. There is no doubt that there is a significant issue of poverty. I would argue, and it is not with pride, that with Manitoba's percentage based on per capita, we should be concerned about poverty in the province of Manitoba. In the last decade, it has not gotten better, with the federal Conservative government here in Ottawa or the provincial NDP government in Manitoba. I could cite many different reasons why the NDP's performance in government has been a big disappointment in the province of Manitoba over the last number of years.

I say that for one reason, and that is that the member went on at great length to try to be critical of the Liberal Party, as if her party has the high road in terms of trying to fight for good social programs. That is not the case.

If we take a look at the budget, we can see a huge redistribution of wealth. We often hear the opposition members criticizing the tax cut to Canada's middle class. It is something they try make a mockery of. They say that only a small percentage of people will actually benefit from it, and that it is only the rich who will benefit.

The opposition members are wrong. They are dead wrong. There are workers from every region of our country, from factory workers to teachers to health care providers, who will benefit from the two-point tax break that is being given to Canada's middle class.

Then the opposition members cite those who make less than $45,000. They are very much aware of the Canada child benefit program.

Members should think of the individuals who will benefit directly from that program, such as a single mother with one child, and the hundreds of dollars extra that she will be receiving every year because we have developed a program that will give more money to those in need. When we look at the budget in its entirety with respect to what is being proposed, we see three very significant measures from a tax and redistribution of wealth point of view.

The first is that those who are making more than $200,000 a year will be expected to pay more in taxes with a special tax increase. I believe even those individuals would acknowledge that they want to continue to contribute to being a part of making Canada a great country. That is one tax increase. The monies derived from that tax increase will go a long way in providing the middle-class tax break, which is estimated to benefit nine million Canadians. The vast majority of those nine million people are not making the type of money that the opposition is trying to portray, of $170,000, $180,000, and so forth. We are talking about hard-working middle-class families making anywhere in the range of $45,000 to $190,000, or a bit more than that.

Then we have the Canada child benefit program. That is something that I believe is virtually revolutionary. It is quite significant that this particular program will kick in on July 1, Canada Day. I would argue that if there is one aspect of the budget that I feel the most proud of, it is that program. History will reflect on this budget to say that we created a Canada child tax benefit program that lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty in every region of this great country. That is something that we should all be proud of.

That is why I am suggesting to members that, from a tax and poverty-related issue, I cannot understand why any New Democrat would vote against this budget implementation. I do not know how many times I have heard the Conservatives stand in their place and say that they support tax decreases. This budget provides that tax decrease that they want to see happen, yet I suspect they will no doubt vote against this budget. I believe the New Democrats will end up voting against this piece of legislation because of the process. We have heard them talking about it not really being a budget bill.

I would suggest to them, because I have been here for the last five years, that I know what is and what is not a massive budget bill. When I look at this bill, every measure, every change is what is required to implement the budget that was presented to this House not that long ago. We know that Canadians from every region of this country are supporting this budget. They understand that what was promised during the election is being delivered in this budget. That is why I believe that the New Democratic members should seriously look at how they might want to vote on this particular budget implementation bill. If they believe that we need to put emphasis in areas that they have talked about, and some have spoken passionately about indigenous people, first nations, the Métis and Inuit nations and so forth, these are communities that this budget has allocated hundreds of millions, going into the billions of dollars, over the next few years to resolve many of the problems that the opposition members have talked about for years. If not this budget, I do not know what they would vote for.

I recall the election platforms that were presented, and there was quite a bit of difference. The Liberal Party was the only party that indicated right from the beginning that we were not going have a balanced budget. The reason is that we believe it is time for Canada to invest in our infrastructure, to do more for Canada's middle class. We believe that if we have a healthier middle class and we can allow for growth within the middle class, support the middle class, that we will have a healthier economy. A healthier middle class means a healthier economy.

A number of questions that have come forward from the Conservatives lately have been about small businesses. They talk about the small business tax. What they do not seem to realize is that the most important thing a small business wants is customers. They want business.

If we have a redistribution of hundreds of millions of dollars that goes into the billions, what do we think the middle class and the others—in particular, I am thinking of the Canada child benefit program—are going to do with the money? They are not going to be hoarding it. They are going to be spending the money. That means they are going to go to the retail outlets. That means they are going to be doing things, ideally within Canada, but whatever their decision, the point is that the disposable income of Canada's middle class is going to be going up under this budget. By doing that, we would see more money then being invested in our small businesses.

I, like everyone else, have many small businesses in the community that I represent. I can tell members that the small business community as a whole is very supportive and is encouraged by what they are seeing with respect to this budget.

When the Conservatives stand to say that this budget is not doing anything for small businesses, they are wrong. They are not recognizing the reality and the potential strength of the middle class in terms of driving Canada's economy.

We recognize within government that the backbone in terms of growth and creation of jobs is our small business sector. We recognize that fact. However, we also recognize the importance of that middle class. By supporting the middle class, we are supporting small businesses. We are supporting the Canadian economy.

From many years of sitting in opposition, I watched as government created deficit after deficit. In fact, it would have been about two weeks from now a year ago, when I stood in my place and indicated that I did not believe for a moment that the government had a balanced budget.

When the Conservatives first came into government, they inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. We know that because the books did actually show that. At the end of the fiscal year, the books actually showed that. They converted that multi-billion dollar surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit, even prior to the recession taking place, and they have not balanced the books since. Year after year, they had a deficit. Then, lo and behold, we were into an election year and the Conservatives said, “Now, we're going to get a balanced budget.”

I questioned that, and I indicated that there was no balanced budget, that they were just cooking the books to try to deceive Canadians. In fact, back in July, I think it was, the Bank of Canada governor indicated there was going to be a deficit, so no one should be surprised. Then the Conservatives said, “Well, for this particular month, it's a surplus.”

Conservatives talk a lot about small businesses. When we talk to small businesses, they tell us what matters is at the end of the year. We know at the end of the year that there is going to be a deficit. The good news is that previous Liberal administrations, whether it was Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin, were able to deliver balanced budgets. The only party in the last 50 years that has been unable to produce a balanced budget is the Conservative Party. That is the reality.

When we look at where the Government of Canada is going today, it is pretty straightforward. We understand and believe in Canada's middle class, therefore we are investing by giving significant tax breaks for them. We understand and appreciate the issue of poverty, and we are lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty as a direct result of the Canada child benefit program.

We understand that there are communities throughout our great country that are in need of infrastructure dollars, and we are providing those infrastructure dollars, not six or seven years from now, but in this fiscal year. We know and appreciate that by investing in Canada today, it is going to make a world of difference going forward. We have had independent stakeholders who have been clear on the fact that this is a progressive budget, that it will allow the Canadian economy to grow.

One of the issues I have always been very passionate on is the issue of health care. Within this budget document, we have seen a commitment to a health care accord. The last time we had one that was signed off by working with the provinces was in 2004. It expired in 2014, and the government then did absolutely nothing. Once again, we have seen a government demonstrate that it believes in a health care accord, and the Minister of Health is proactively working with provincial counterparts to see if we can come up with something going forward.

We have had a substantial commitment going forward in terms of palliative care. In the last couple of days, we have had a great deal of debate about palliative care. One of the ways that we can ensure there is good quality palliative care being delivered in all regions of the country is to work with the provinces.

I was a health care critic many years ago in the province of Manitoba. We had to recognize that if we were going to deliver a program, one of the best ways is by working with the different stakeholders, and that means the provinces. We have given a $3-billion commitment going forward to deal with palliative care, recognizing that it is an important issue. It goes beyond palliative care. I would ask members to take a look at the cost of medicine, at home care services.

As Liberals, we believe in our health care system. We believe that the federal government does have a role to play. We will work with the different stakeholders to continue to push forward a health care system that Canadians will continue to be proud of. When I ask constituents and others what makes them feel good about being Canadian, quite often they will respond by saying that they love our health care system. We want to develop a social program for health care because it is the right thing to do.

There is so much more that one could talk about, but at the end of the day, we are giving substantial increases to our seniors, in particular the guaranteed annual income. Imagine being a single senior living at a fairly low level, and getting somewhere in the neighbourhood of a $900 increase through this budget.

That is a $900 increase. That is a substantial amount of money for a senior who is on a fixed income.

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

Mr. Speaker, prior to coming here, I was a small business owner, working day and night with my husband, employing four other people, working very hard as a small business owner in Canada. As we know, small business is a huge economic driver in this country, and the way we do that is by being able to invest in our businesses.

The individual across the way indicated that people who are small business owners in his riding are happy. I just need to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business' responses to the government's budget:

In reacting to the 2016 federal budget presented today, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business...is deeply troubled that the federal government broke an election commitment....

I will not read them all: corporate tax rate promise; giant deficits with no exit plan; commitment to expand CPP/QPP payroll hike; youth employment hiring credit cancelled.

It does not sound to me as if small businesses in Canada are happy. However, I ask if the member across would be willing to give me the names of those businesses in his riding. I would be really pleased to get a balanced approach to this situation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to come out to Winnipeg North, and we could visit some small businesses together. She should give me a call, and we will see what we can make in terms of a connection.

I used to be a store manager. When I think from a store manager's perspective, with a number of employees, the most important thing I want is to see customers walking into my store, because I know if customers are walking into the store, they are buying products. If they are buying products, that means I need people to put that product on shelves.

If we look at the hundreds of millions of dollars we are giving, in terms of disposable income, we will have a healthier middle class going to stores like I used to manage, to restaurants, and to many other small businesses in every region of the country, wanting to purchase things, whether it is goods or services. That is healthy for Canada and for the economy. I will suggest that is what small businesses really want. They want more business, and this budget will deliver more business to businesses in every region of our country—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We will have to break. When we resume debate on this bill, the hon. member for Winnipeg North will have seven minutes and 30 seconds remaining, and the questions can be resumed then.

It being 5:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know colleagues have been waiting for this moment for some time. I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, two days of debate is all we have had on the budget. When the government House leader who moved the motion said this is the moment that all members were waiting for, I can certainly assure him that nobody on this side of the House was waiting for that motion. We were waiting for more opportunities to debate the bill.

I do not know why the Liberals are afraid of debating the bill. It is possibly because it is saddling Canadians with massive amounts of debt, that they are borrowing billions more than they promised during the election campaign. That is probably why they want to get it off the floor of the House of Commons and into committee. This is not a budget that they are proud of. This is a budget that breaks election promises. This is a budget that will saddle future Canadians with billions of dollars in debt. That is probably why they want to get it out of the House and into committee. That is terribly undemocratic.

I suspect that the Minister of Finance does not enjoy debating in the House because he gets questions that make him uncomfortable. He cannot control it like a media opportunity or a photo op. The Liberals cannot control the flow of the House, and that is why they want to get it out and into committee.

I ask the Minister of Finance why he felt that two days of debate was long enough, why he is not proud of this budget, and why he broke his election promise to only run a $10-billion deficit.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of debate and the speakers on Bill C-15 is either comparable or much higher than debates on budget implementation acts from the previous government. In most cases, those BIAs were close to double the number of pages that are in Bill C-15.

I can say that including today, our government will have provided for almost 19 hours of debate at second reading. If we look at the previous session of Parliament, the previous government shut down second reading debate on two budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-59, in under 10 hours. We have already nearly doubled the amount of time for debate at second reading on Bill C-15.

We are proud of the bill, and we are very much looking forward to putting it forward and getting it passed for Canadians so we can make a real difference in their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to use time allocation is appalling and disgusting. The minister just admitted that they allowed as much time for this debate as the previous Conservative government. I remember that during the election campaign, just six or seven months ago, Liberal candidates went all over the country saying that they would do better than the Conservatives, that they would change how things are done here in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening.

We have exactly the same tone now in this House after the last few weeks of imposing closure time after time, as we had under the former Conservative government, yet Liberals promised to do differently.

My question is very simple. Why have the Liberals betrayed their electors, and why are they bringing exactly the same tone back to the House of Commons that Canadians rejected last October?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that there has not been enough debate on the bill, yet just one hour into the second reading debate, the NDP finance critic moved a motion to end debate on the bill.

While the wording was judged inadmissible by the Speaker, the motion would have sent us into an election, of course. I know that is not what he really wants, and we all see this ruse for what it most clearly was.

I want to know why the NDP do not support veterans and their families receiving their well-earned benefits as soon as possible. Do they really oppose moving the qualifying age for the old age security back to age 65? Does the NDP really oppose the employment insurance benefits in the bill that are proposed? Our view is that we do not think so.

We want to get the bill to committee where it can be properly studied and where witnesses can be heard, so that we can move forward on helping Canadians in the way that they need and deserve.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find curious what the Minister of Finance said about the need to get the bill to committee. I do not know if the minister realizes that the committee has already set up the schedule of witnesses. The committee is starting the study of the bill today by having officials come in from various ministries within the Government of Canada. Therefore, picking up on my colleague's thoughts at the beginning of this period, I believe that what this is about is the fact that the more we shine light on the budget contents, the more concerned we become.

The best way to shine light on the budget content is by debating it here in the House, on the floor, and not sending it off to a committee to take a look at. It is an excuse to send it to the committee to work on at the same time we currently are, being respectful of the deadlines the government has with respect to these bills.

I mean, there are things we have found so far in the budget. First of all, it is assuming that we are in deficit when we know we gave the Liberals a surplus at the beginning. They took private-sector projections and manipulated them for their own good. They have padded billions in spending and deficit in there that have no real home and no information for Canadians on what it is for. It is exaggerating how many jobs could be created.

We have different offices here in the House, such as the parliamentary budget officer, who can shine more light on the budget, and we get that information. My colleagues in the NDP ask for more information, they get it, and they are able to talk about the effect on small business. This is the kind of debate that has to happen.

Why is the minister so afraid of more information coming out on the House of Commons floor? Why is he in such a rush to shuffle the bill through?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a little difficult to take my colleague from across the way seriously. In the previous government, the Conservatives used time allocation over 100 times in the last Parliament. Now that they are in opposition, clearly they seem to have a different point of view.

I want to reiterate that we have had almost 19 hours of debate on this budget bill; whereas, for Bill C-43, for example, a bill that had 478 pages, which is significantly more than twice the number of pages this budget has, we had a debate of under 10 hours.

We believe we have had a full and robust debate. We believe we should move forward so we can make a real difference for Canadians, so for example, we can get the benefits that veterans deserve to them in a timely and efficient way.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, I have been tested and I am a little red-green colour blind, but I can say that for the years I have been here, I am clearly becoming red-blue colour blind in all measures of the sense, because we are seeing exactly here what the Conservatives have done in the past.

It is interesting; if the Liberals want to measure themselves to the previous government, when it comes to the Senate, lobbying, ministers and fundraising, and all the issues that are so important for Canadians, they can set that bar all they want. However, my comment to the minister is that to suggest members of Parliament from any side of the House do not support our veterans is absolutely outrageous, shameful, and disrespectful. My grandfather died in the fall of Burma; my other grandfather served in the Royal Navy. We all support our veterans. For him to wrap himself around that element is nothing short of a disgrace to the House.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we think about what we are putting forward, we do need to reflect on the fact that our budget puts forth measures that would make a real difference for Canadians. We are going to make a difference for Canadians in many different ways.

We have identified for this House important measures that would make a huge difference for Canadian families. We need to move forward on them quickly, because we know we can make a difference for families with our Canada child benefit.

We know there are measures in our budget that could make a real difference for students by increasing student grants for them for the next school year.

We know that, yes, we are putting forward changes in benefits for veterans in our country, which would make a real difference for veterans. They would provide them with the service they require in order to actually get an understanding of what they are eligible for. Most importantly, they would change their situation so they could be better off in the future.

We are proud of this budget. We want to move forward rapidly to ensure that Canadians have the benefits they deserve and need. We look forward to the support of this House in order to do that in an expeditious fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to make a couple of, I believe, valid points. First, what we are really talking about with respect to the budget implementation bill is an election promise that was made in our platform and now is being delivered.

The Minister of Finance talked about the Canada child benefit and how it would be greatly enhanced. One of my personal favourites is the proposed increase to the guaranteed income supplement.

While I was in opposition I said that time allocation is necessary at times when the opposition is unable to work with the government or the government is not able to get agreement to get things passed in a timely fashion. That is what we are looking at today. We are trying to get the bill passed in a timely fashion, and that is why we sometimes have to use time allocation.

Would the Minister of Finance not agree that this is an important piece of legislation that was part of our election platform, and Canadians want to see it put in place and that is why we had to use time allocation to ensure it gets done in a timely fashion?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that we have put measures in our budget that are related to the election campaign that we put forward for Canadians. We have made sure that the measures in our budget implementation act are financial measures that would make a real difference for our country.

The member specifically mentioned the measures that we want to put in place for seniors. The top-ups for seniors in our country are focused on single seniors, seniors who are three times more likely to be living in poverty than other seniors. That top-up alone, which would be up to $947 for a single senior, would help 900,000 seniors in this country and put them in a better situation.

It is important to note that these measures would come into effect in July. Based on the current schedules, that would be on July 27, 2016.

We are looking forward to making a difference in the near term for so many seniors in this country. This is what people voted for, and we are proud to be able to bring this forward on a timely basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I quote the throne speech:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced.

Parliament shall be no exception.

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter....

Through careful consideration and respectful conduct, the Government can meet these challenges, and all others brought before it.

Could the finance minister tell me if he is looking to end debate just so the government can get access to the Canadian chequebook, to Canadian taxpayers' money? Is that the reason, that you just cannot wait to spend their money?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before going on, I just want to remind hon. members that they do go through the Chair, and I have no intention of touching any chequebook at all.

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we take respect for Parliament seriously. The way we start is by putting forth a budget that is really focused on how we can help Canadians. I would like to remind the member opposite of a few numbers that might be helpful for him to put that in context.

In 2010, the previous government put forward Bill C-9, which was a budget bill with 904 pages. I do not know how Parliament can go through 904 pages, but I do know that Canadians expect us to go through what we want to go through, which is the budget that we have put forward and which is a much more reasonable budget for people to understand.

I would remind him of Bill C-13, put forward in 2011 with 658 pages, again vastly more than triple the number of pages in our budget 2016. Maybe I can move to Bill C-43 from 2014, with 478 pages.

We will take no lessons from members on the opposite side about respecting Parliament. We have debated the budget for almost twice as many hours as they put forward in Bill C-43 and Bill C-59. We have had the time we need to reflect on this legislation, and we would like to move forward so we can make a difference for Canadians, which is what they elected us to do.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the comments of my colleague in saying how disappointing and unacceptable it is to hear the new Liberal government hold up the previous Conservative government as a barometer of respect for democracy. I do not think that is what Canadians voted for when they went to the polls last October.

This is the third time this session that the Liberal government has implemented closure on the House. To hear the finance minister suggest that those who are standing up for democracy in the House are somehow disrespecting veterans is absolutely shameful. If veterans fought and stand for anything in this country, it is that they stand up for the democratic rights of all Canadians and the people in this chamber to have the democratic ability to hold governments to account. That is what our veterans are there for. To somehow perversely suggest that we are not supporting veterans by standing up for democracy is the height of chicanery.

The government says that 19 hours is sufficient time for parliamentarians in the House to debate a budget that would spend somewhere close to $200 billion. I would like the finance minister to tell Canadians if he thinks that 19 hours are sufficient for all parliamentarians in the House to hold the government to account and whether he thinks that parliamentarians in the House have the right to stand and represent their constituents by having their say and their perspectives voiced on this budget, or if he thinks that just does not matter.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, the height of chicanery might well be the fact that the NDP finance critic, one hour into the debate, moved forward for closure of the debate, knowing full well that would not allow us in any way to have a proper debate.

We want to move forward. We have had 19 hours of debate on this bill. It is a bill that brings forward measures that we know the members opposite recognize would make a real difference for Canadians. We are going to find a way for Canadian families to be significantly better off. Nine out of 10 families with children would have an average $2,300 more per year. Those cheques would start to go out in July.

Students would have 50% larger grants. If they are in low-income families, it would go from $2,000 to $3,000 a year, a 50% increase, making it much more possible for 250,000 students from low-income families to be better off.

This is an important set of measures that would make a real difference for families struggling to get into the middle class and those already in the middle class who are anxious and struggling to figure out how to support their families. We are looking forward to making a real difference for Canadian families. That is what this budget would do.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the finance minister for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians he consulted on this budget.

To emphasize the benefits that this budget would have to my rural community and rural communities across Canada, the $500-million investment in digital infrastructure would go a long way to help small businesses grow and compete on the world stage. The infrastructure investments that were announced in this budget would greatly transform a number of rural municipalities in my riding that are looking for upgrades in their sewage treatment plants, which are about to break down, or expand the water filtration plant that is serving both a local municipality and the Mohawk territory. The filtration plant that exists today is already past its maximum use.

As for the guaranteed income supplement, when I knocked on seniors' doors, they said to me, “Mike, I'm trying to figure out, do I heat or do I eat”.

The Canada child benefit would lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including in my own riding.

I would like the minister to, once again, point out how much this budget would impact rural Canada and why we need to get to work to bring about growth in rural Canada.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's observations. We worked hard in budget 2016 to make sure we would create benefits for Canadians across the country from coast to coast to coast. That means helping Canadians who live in urban centres. It also means helping Canadians who live in rural or centres that are hard to get to. We have a number of measures in our budget that are going to make a real difference for rural communities.

The member correctly pointed out the measures that we are putting in place around high-speed Internet across this country. We recognize that for Canadians to stay linked to an increasingly global world, they need to have access to that global world. We know that applies not only in cities where it is often better to get that access, but also in rural communities where the last mile of fibre can often be very expensive.

We put in our budget a $500-million investment over the next five years in order to improve access for rural communities to link to the global community through high-speed Internet access. This is a real measure that can allow families, and the children of families who are living in rural communities, to see a future in the place where they have actually grown up and where people have brought up their families.

We also recognize that infrastructure, while critically important in big cities, can also make a real difference in rural communities. It is not only about mass transit systems; it is about roads and bridges. It is not only about waste-water systems in cities, but it is about recognizing that with climate change, what is happening to those waste-water systems across the country is that they often need to be renovated and upgraded.

That is why we put infrastructure money into transit, and into roads and bridges. That is why we put infrastructure money into upgrading our waste-water systems across the country. It is going to make a real difference for Canadians who live in hard-to-access places. It will make their lives better, and it will make our country better.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is something that we have not talked about today. In April, the job numbers for Alberta showed another 20,000 losses. There have been reports that due to the Fort McMurray fire, Alberta's unemployment rate will rise to 15%. What I am concerned about is that this bill does nothing to give the energy sector regulatory certainty. It does nothing to help retain labour in Alberta. If we want to see the economy grow again in western Canada, we have to figure out a way to keep people in Alberta through this economic downturn.

The bill alludes to a carbon tax, which is so detrimental to my province at this point in time. It does nothing for small businesses. In fact, it stalls a decrease in the tax rate that many people were depending upon. It increases debt to this country. Certainly, the minister's budget projections will be affected by the natural disaster that occurred this week in the northern part of the province.

I am asking a very serious question, one which I hope the minister will give more than his pat response to. I am asking with a deep level of sincerity. Why is the minister curtailing debate on this bill when the people in my province need something better than what is in there?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize there are enormous challenges today, this week, in Fort McMurray. The people of Alberta are going through some enormous stress that is, frankly, unimaginable for most of us. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the people in Alberta who are going through these challenges. We are committed to working together to ensure the restoration and renewal of Fort McMurray. We have started by ensuring that we will match donations to the Red Cross. As of today, those donations that we matched are in the order of magnitude of $60 million, which is an enormous tribute to the efforts of Canadians across the country to stand together with their fellow Canadians in a time of real need. We know that is increased challenge for people in Alberta at a time when they are already facing real challenges due to the change in oil prices.

In our budget, we have presented a number of initiatives that we know will make a difference, and there are other initiatives that are yet to come that can make a real difference.

Our initiative around employment insurance will make a difference for people who are struggling due to job loss. They can get into the system one week quicker. It provides people more certainty that they can get into the system faster for training dollars, for the opportunity to think about what their future would look like. That shortening of two weeks to one week in the employment insurance system has real and measurable impact on people in Alberta and people in other parts of the country, like Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, and northern Ontario, where they are facing real challenges.

By looking at places where we have had a sharp and sustained increase in unemployment and increasing the number of weeks that they have available for employment insurance, we know that we are creating a buffer against a challenge that is facing people in Alberta in particular and in some other regions of the country.

We are also looking forward to what we can do in the future. We put in our budget some measures around infrastructure that are long term in nature. We started with the first couple of years. We will be coming forward within this calendar year to talk about our long-term infrastructure plans which will have a material impact upon Alberta and other parts of the country that are looking to ensure that people get back to work and that their long-term productivity is higher.

We also, very importantly, put forward an agenda around innovation that we know can make a long-term difference in a place like Alberta. We put $800 million over the next four years into an innovation fund. We will be coming back to Parliament, to Canadians, to talk about how we want to set up an innovation agenda.

I am looking forward to this coming Monday when I will meet with my economic advisory council to talk about how that innovation agenda can specifically impact places like Alberta; how we can ensure that we take the enormous reservoir of talent in Alberta and ensure that we use that talent, not only in the resource sector, but in other ways that can be successful.

We will be focused on the resource sector. We will be focused on how we can be effective in Alberta. We will be focused on how we can make real improvements for the long term for people who are going through real challenges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to build on the finance minister's comments.

We heard about the heart-wrenching situation taking place in Alberta. The reality is that the budget bill before us, the omnibus budget bill, does make changes to EI. While some of those changes are welcome, they certainly do not go far enough. In fact, workers in Edmonton, southern Saskatchewan, Winnipeg, and other parts of the country who desperately need changes to be made to EI so that they can access EI are not able to. We are talking about workers who have been deeply affected by the downturn in the extractive sector.

While we hear comforting rhetoric from the minister, the NDP proposed splitting the bill so that we could get at fixing EI for Canadians who need it most, but the government disagreed.

We have to be clear that this omnibus budget bill, and that is what it is, does not go nearly far enough when it comes to making the changes to EI that are necessary for Canadians.

Furthermore, as my colleagues have reiterated, when Canadians voted on October 19, they were told by the Liberals that they were voting for real change. The cutting off of debate today is the opposite of that. It is certainly in line with the anti-democratic approach that we saw from the previous Conservative government. Not only are the measures inadequate in this budget, but certainly, the failure to give us the opportunity to scrutinize the budget properly certainly flies in the face of that commitment to Canadians of real change.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this budget implementation act is absolutely not an omnibus bill. The measures in the budget implementation act are directly related to budget 2016. Over 100 pages of the budget are related to tax measures, important tax measures that we know will make a real difference for Canadians. Tax measures are complicated. In order to be open and transparent, we have to help Canadians to understand them clearly, evaluate what we are doing clearly, and show that in our budget itself.

I would like to focus specifically on employment insurance. We took measured approaches in employment insurance in our budget bill in order to ensure that we make a real difference for Canadians as they face some challenges. I would like to focus first on some things that will impact Canadians across the country.

As I mentioned, we have changed employment insurance so that rather than waiting for two weeks to get into the EI system we will allow people to get into the EI system within one week. This is important. We have an increasingly volatile situation with the kind of technological change that goes on with globalization. We know that allowing people to get into the EI system more rapidly is critically important. It is important because the largest single bucket of training dollars in our country is actually through the employment insurance system. For people to get access to that training, they need to get into the system. We do not want to have people wait. We want to get them into the system as quickly as possible. In budget 2016, we increased the amount of training dollars in the employment insurance system, which will help Canadians to actually retrain once they get into the system. Those are measures that will be applicable for Canadians across the country.

In addition, as I have mentioned, in 12 regions we expanded the amount of time available for EI. We believe that will have a real impact in those regions by helping Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #50

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anothony Rota), Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City has five minutes remaining in his time for debate.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in continuing to address Bill C-15, it is not every day that I begin by speaking about feminine hygiene products. However, the redressing of unequal taxation of essential goods is an important issue for all Canadians. Currently, feminine hygiene products are subject to GST and HST as goods that are considered to be non-essential. I think we can all agree that this is a misguided policy, and if not sexist, it at least is based entirely outside the experience of Canadians. I am proud to say that Bill C-15 would rectify this disproportionate taxation of women by removing the GST-HST on feminine hygiene products.

The next measure of budget 2016 that I will address is division 2 at part 4, which amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. I wish to highlight five key improvements.

First, the bill would replace the permanent impairment allowance with the career impact allowance to better support veterans who have had their career options limited by a service-related illness or injury.

Second, it would increase the percentage in the formula used to calculate the earnings loss benefit. This benefit would provide income replacement of 90% of gross pre-release military salary for injured veterans who are participating in a Veterans Affairs Canada rehabilitation or vocational assistance program for those who have injuries preventing them from suitable and gainful employment. The benefit would also keep up with inflation and not be capped at 2% indexation.

Third, the act would specify when a disability award becomes payable and clarify the formula used to calculate the amount of a disability award.

Fourth, the disability award would be indexed to inflation, in line with other new veterans charter benefits, and higher awards would be paid retroactively to all veterans who have received an award since the introduction of the new veterans charter in 2006.

Fifth, the act would also improve the Last Post Fund to provide financial assistance to the estates of eligible deceased veterans toward the cost of burial and funeral services. The estate exemption for families of low-income veterans would also be increased from roughly $12,000 to $35,000.

Canada's veterans deserve our care, compassion, and respect. The above measures would greatly improve income support to disabled veterans, including both veterans transitioning to the civilian workforce and those with injuries preventing them from suitable and gainful employment.

However, our government's support for veterans does not stop there. Over the next year, in consultation with the veterans community, the government will work to find a way to better streamline and simplify the system of financial support programs currently offered by Veterans Affairs Canada and National Defence for veterans and their families.

In addition to helping young Canadians, middle-class families, and our respected veterans, the government is committed to supporting Canada's seniors.

Single seniors are at nearly three times the risk of living at a lower income than seniors generally, which is why budget 2016 aims to increase the single rate of the guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income pensioners by up to $947 annually. This enhancement would more than double the current maximum guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit and would represent a 10% increase in the total maximum guaranteed income supplement benefits available to the lowest-income single seniors.

Additionally, budget 2016 will repeal section 2.2 of the Old Age Security Act, which increases the age of eligibility to receive old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67. This is a good move.

Budget 2016 also addresses a concern that some of my constituents have brought forward, which is additional support for senior couples living apart. Many times senior couples have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, including long-term health care, which results in higher costs of living and an increased risk of living in poverty. The current system provides recipients with guaranteed income supplement benefits based on their individual incomes. However, budget 2016 would extend this treatment so that couples also receive allowance benefits.

Budget 2016 puts people first and delivers the help that Canadians need now, not a decade from now. It is an essential step to restoring prosperity to the middle class. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

Budget 2016 reflects a new approach for the government, one that offers immediate help to those who need it most and sets the course for growth for all Canadians. With the implementation of budget 2016, the Government of Canada is investing for the years and decades to come. We are investing for our seniors, our veterans, our children, and grandchildren, so that we all may enjoy a more prosperous and hopeful Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention on this very important bill, and would like to ask him a question with respect to the current situation of limiting debate.

I would also like to first pay tribute to Judy Wasylycia-Leis, who was in Parliament for many years as a New Democrat, for pushing for the elimination of taxes on women's hygiene products and for her ongoing efforts basically going back to the early 1990s. She deserves a lot of credit for what is finally taking place here today.

I would like to ask the member this. With respect to the budget bill and the time allocation that has been put on it, why is it necessary, when spending almost $200 billion in this budget, to limit debate to only a few mere hours? Would it not be a healthier and more wholesome debate if members from all ridings were allowed to participate in the House and chamber? The current circumstances eliminate that.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we heard this morning, Canadians have been talking about what is in the budget since the beginning of the campaign. We were elected to bring forward the many commitments included in Bill C-15. There has been a lot of discussion. Members have been talking about this over the last couple of days. Our government feels it is time to move forward with the implementation of the bill and the very important measures contained in it.

We made promises, such as the Canada child benefit, that are very important to Canadians. My constituents are looking forward to that. We need the bill in place so we can start paying those benefits to Canadians in July. Therefore, I support moving forward with the vote to get this bill in play.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that closure has been invoked on this bill. I did some research on the past traditions of parliament and in a 40-year period, closure was invoked 7 times. Unfortunately, under the previous government, in a four-year period, closure was invoked 100 times. I had hoped that in this new Parliament we would not see the use of closure, and I certainly hope it will be rare. I lament its use in this case because I do not see the urgency. We should be debating this properly.

Given that some measures in the bill are eagerly awaited and others could take their time, is there any one particular item that requires the risk of bringing back to this place a routine use of a measure that is an affront to democratic debate in Parliament?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted, there has been discussion on the items contained within the budget. For me, a really critical piece is the Canada child benefit. My understanding is that the legislation needs to be passed for that program to roll out.

In my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City, during the campaign and right through until today, the number one issue I keep hearing about is the cost of living for Canadians and trying to ahead, particularly families with young children. This bill would do great things for families that are struggling to make ends meet, or that want to put their kids in activities.

We need to move forward with the discussion, the vote on the bill, and the implementation of it, so we can get the funds flowing to families that need it the most.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, although this is the third time we have had a gag order imposed on us. I consider myself lucky to be able to speak in the House, considering the limited time we have left to debate it.

The first gag order was imposed when we were debating the bill to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which was an attack on aerospace workers. In that instance, not one Bloc Québécois member was able to speak, since we did not even make it to the 34th round of debate. I therefore plan to use my time wisely.

The first point I want to raise regarding Bill C-15 has to do with tax havens. The government prides itself on having made a significant investment of $444 million to go after tax cheats and crooks who use tax havens. Unfortunately, the problem of tax havens cannot be considered part of the criminal underworld. The problem is that using tax havens is actually legal.

The changes were made by regulation. We have $200 billion in Canadian investment assets in the 10 main tax havens, including $80 billion in the largest tax haven, Barbados. It seems like the government is pulling out all the stops to fix a leaky faucet when it should be focusing on the water heater that exploded.

I would add that the government knows a thing or two about tax havens. For example, the Minister of Finance has a company that has subsidiaries in the Bahamas and in Delaware. The minister also helped draft the regulations for the insurance industry in the Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, and Turks and Caicos. These are all tax havens that might attract Canadian and Quebec insurers who want to avoid paying taxes.

The government members have a thorough understanding of how tax havens work and of this problem. They should be generous and share their knowledge with the government in order to resolve this problem.

In fact, the former associate of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, whom he knows very well, also has dealings in the tax havens, in Turks and Caicos. The Liberals' vast knowledge of tax havens is nothing new. Hon. members will recall the story of former finance minister Paul Martin and his ships that are registered in the Antilles.

I call on the Liberals to use their knowledge to help the House fix the problem of tax havens. The crooks are not the problem. The problem is that the legislation and regulations were changed without the House ever addressing the issue or having a vote on the matter. I urge the government and its members to fix the problem of tax havens.

Bill C-15 contains 75 pages of amendments to the Income Tax Act and its regulations. However, it does not contain any measures to address the regulatory issue, even though there is much to be done. The government already knows that, so I urge it to take action.

Otherwise, the members of the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-15 for other reasons. There is the matter of tax havens, but there are also many other problems as well. Bill C-15 is 177 pages long. We read it carefully and conducted a detailed analysis. The bill is nothing new. It repeats what was announced in the budget, which we also carefully examined.

The budget and Bill C-15 do not meet Quebec's specific needs. There is nothing for cities to help leading-edge sectors, so the budget and Bill C-15 do not support Quebec's urban areas. There is also noting for rural areas, agriculture, forestry, or the fishery. Land use, economic activity, and regional jobs are important to us. The government should have taken concrete action in that regard.

There is also nothing or very little for unemployed workers, those who have been shut out of the job market. For example, the time limit extensions and enhanced measures target oil regions and exclude Quebec. We were very unhappy and disappointed with that. The budget and Bill C-15 are particularly focused on infrastructure investments, but these investments are not well-thought-out.

There is a funding model that can be used to quickly and efficiently transfer money to Quebec and the municipalities, and that is the gas tax. During the election campaign, the government announced that it would do that. What is actually happening? Three-quarters of the funding announced will come from the old building Canada fund. Members will remember that it took 27 months, or more than two years, to create a framework agreement. People argued about the size of billboards, for example. On average it took another 15 months per project to obtain authorizations. There were discussions about the size of the flag, or they wanted this or that.

Huge investments have been announced, but they will represent a significant amount of debt. Taxpayers in every province, and also in Quebec, will have to pay down that debt. In exchange, we should at the very least have quick access to the money borrowed in order to put it to good use and launch infrastructure programs as quickly as possible.

During the election campaign, the government made a commitment to do that. In Bill C-15, in the budget, the government is going back on its word. That is very disappointing. That is one of the things that I deplore.

Once again, I was very disappointed about the money for community, social, cultural, and sports infrastructure. The money allocated for these types of infrastructure was incorporated into the propaganda funding for Canada's 150th anniversary. The amount is two times higher than the amount for the sponsorship program, and who could forget that scandal. We have to wonder about these members' memories. They are falling back into their old patterns.

The transfers and funding for health care, education, and social services in this budget are also disgraceful. These are services provided by the provinces. There are huge needs in Quebec, and this is evident in my riding and across the province. There are huge needs. These days, it is all about austerity measures. The Government of Quebec is suffocating, as are the other provinces. They have no breathing room, because that breathing room is here, in the House.

The government must restore the health transfers to at least one-quarter of funding. I remind members that in the 1970s, Ottawa funded half of health care spending. Now, we are seeing never-ending cuts, and transfers will drop as low as 18%. Health transfers need to be increased by 6% a year, so that they cover one-quarter of funding. That is the least we can do. The public is getting fewer services. Things are not going well. There are problems.

The same goes for social services and education. The government needs to play catch-up to get back to where we were in the 1990s before the brutal cuts were made.

I briefly mentioned employment insurance earlier. Extensions apply only to certain regions. These measures are not unilateral, and Quebec is being left out. That brings me to the problem of black holes.

Workers are not seasonal; jobs are. Workers do not work enough hours in the summer. They collect their benefits for a period of time, and after that, they have nothing to live on. When people rely on employment insurance for their income, they do not have enough money to save up so they can make it through the black hole. This is a great injustice that must be put right.

The same goes for the employment insurance fund. Why is it still part of the public purse? It is not separate. Over the past year, the government has siphoned $1.7 billion out of the employment insurance fund and spent that money elsewhere on other programs.

Employment insurance is not insurance anymore. It is a tax on work. Not even four out of 10 workers who lose their jobs have access to EI. It is not insurance. It is a tax. For women, only one in three workers has access to employment insurance; two out of three are excluded. For young people, it is even worse. Employment insurance is no longer really playing its role as insurance, providing people with a transition period to turn around and find new work. It is a tax on work. It is deplorable.

I am running out of speaking time, but I still have a lot to say on the innovation economy. Canada falls short when it comes to measures for business research. Quebec depends on that. We have high technology. Quebec's needs are not met in Bill C-15 and the budget. That is why we are voting against the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in the budget implementation bill that Canadians want to see. Through the budget implementation bill, the Canada child benefit will be enhanced, and this will lift thousands of children out of poverty. For so many years, we have heard about the need to support our seniors. The proposed increase to the guaranteed income supplement will substantially support seniors on fixed incomes who need the top-up. It will be hundreds of additional dollars. These programs are going to take effect starting July 1. Bill C-15 is a progressive piece of legislation that will meet the social concerns of Canadians, along with a great deal more.

Would the member not acknowledge that a great number of Canadians will benefit from the passage of the budget implementation bill?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I agree completely that there are some good things in the budget. It is not all black or all white. We always have to look at the grey areas. We believe that the most essential elements are missing, but it does contain some good measures.

We completely agree that the new family allowance will have a positive and real impact on families. We asked that it be tax-free, and it is, which is fantastic.

The same can be said of improvements to the guaranteed income supplement, a cause that has been important to the Bloc Québécois for quite some time. We have been asking for this since 2007, so we are very pleased to see it in Bill C-15.

We visited seniors all over Quebec. We moved five opposition day motions in the House. We got the Quebec National Assembly to pass two unanimous resolutions on this issue. Now it is included in the budget and Bill C-15. We are very pleased about that.

The budget contains other good measures, such as reinstating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, which will help innovative small businesses. It contains some good measures.

However, as for the essentials, the needs of Quebec, particularly concerning health transfers, how infrastructure investments are transferred, employment insurance, innovation, and tax havens, the Liberals have missed the boat, and that is what we are denouncing here in the House. I hope all that will be restored.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I am glad that he mentioned that it was a privilege for him to rise in the House to speak to this issue. In my opinion, Quebeckers who thought they were voting for change by voting Liberal must be disappointed.

This government claims that it wants to be open and transparent, but the fact that it introduced an omnibus bill followed by a gag order clearly shows that nothing has changed. We are in the same boat we were in for the past 10 years while the Conservatives were in office.

I am also glad that my colleague spoke about the problem of tax havens because, by forgoing that revenue, the government is not playing its role as a distributor of wealth. We know that the gap between the rich and poor is widening. The 100 richest Canadians now hold as much wealth as the bottom 10 million combined.

Is the government failing to do as much as it could because it is forgoing this revenue?

Yes, the government is helping seniors, but it could have done a lot more. The government introduced measures to help lift seniors out of poverty, but it could have done a lot more in terms of employment insurance and support for regional economic development, particularly support for SMEs and innovation.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her question and her excellent comments. We completely agree that the government could have gone a lot farther.

Tax havens are the elephant in the room. The poor, the middle class, and even the upper middle class do not have a lot of breathing room. They are paying more and more and receiving fewer and fewer services. Money is getting tighter and tighter for some of these people, while special rules apply only to the wealthiest 1% or even 0.1%, who are ragging the puck, as they say.

That needs to change. It is not fair. The government could do a lot more. For example, Canadians who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement should receive it automatically.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although the budget was tabled in March, I rise today in the House to add my voice to those who have already praised it.

I would like to start by taking a moment to once again thank the people of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who put their trust in me. As I rise today, I am well aware that because of them, I have the privilege of representing them here in the House. Like all of my fellow MPs, I worked diligently and tirelessly in my riding to earn my seat here in the House. Of course, I did not take this long journey alone, and I had the help of many absolutely wonderful people. First and foremost, I got into politics because I am motivated by my constituents, who make me so proud and energize me. I am committed to helping them and representing them.

During my very first speech in the House, I said that my riding, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, was enriched by its people. I was blessed to witness these riches myself when I had the pleasure of being invited back home to Laval to celebrate the noteworthy birthdays of two vivacious women in my riding. These young centenarians are living proof of the essence and spirit of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, and their smiles are still contagious at 101 and 102 years old.

The Prime Minister and the government are committed to improving the quality of life for seniors, such as these two illustrious ladies from my riding who have seen this country grow through the years. Earlier this year, my hon. colleague, the member for Yukon, mentioned that one grades the success and efficiency of a country by how it treats its most vulnerable.

The government's budget helps build our society brick by brick. We are working on making our society one that looks after our seniors and the most vulnerable.

We should keep in mind the following Greek proverb: “A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” It is right and just. However, we can provide our mothers and fathers with the support they deserve. It is imperative that we treat our seniors with dignity and respect, as that is what everyone deserves.

Our government believes that this requires more than just talk, and that is why we are opting for real measures. For example, speaking of seniors' dignity, I would remind the House that the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, made a commitment in budget 2016 to return the eligibility age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 65 rather than leaving it at 67. The previous government had increased the eligibility age from 65 to 67. Because of this shameful and prejudicial measure, our seniors, the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society were going to be hit hard and could have lost up to $28,000.

Today, the government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, has a different and forward-looking vision, one that also puts seniors at the centre of these priorities. Instead of taking away money they earned after contributing to the community for years, our budget 2016 will return the eligibility age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 65.

Our government pledged to provide seniors with a secure, dignified retirement. This measure will give Canadians thousands of dollars once they become seniors. We will also increase the guaranteed income supplement by $947 per year for the most vulnerable seniors living alone. That is nearly $1,000 that will go directly into the pockets of the most vulnerable, who were, unfortunately, the first to be forgotten in the past. This measure amounts to over $670 million per year and will improve the financial security of 900,000 seniors living alone across Canada.

Nine hundred thousand seniors in Laval, in Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, and all over Canada can count on the federal government, which cares about their well-being. This government will uphold its end of the social contract stating that people who have made a life-long, honourable contribution to society should be able to relax and enjoy their golden years without constantly worrying about ending up penniless.

My colleagues and I and everyone working every day on the Hill have been pleased to see the nice weather and the return of spring and warmer days. We cannot look out at the green lawn in front of Parliament without seeing young people gathering together and having a nice time. Those young people who come out in the nice weather to the seat of Canadian democracy are part of that contract. They look forward to working and contributing to our society. We must respect their future and respect our seniors who once upon a time were the young people spending time in front of this place. We must assure these people that they will not have to be concerned about not having enough money. We must give them hope and peace of mind in their old age. When they come back to visit their Parliament, these older men and women who used to come and play here should not come back feeling bitter about this place, but feeling joyful and grateful.

For the young people and seniors of the past, present, and future, our society has to head in that direction. That is what our government promised, and thanks to budget 2016, we can proclaim loud and clear that our government took action.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants accurate information, and he knows that the previous Conservative government did not raise the age to 67. In fact, that was going to be implemented in 2020. I know he wants to ensure that is correct information.

The member mentioned very eloquently the trust of his constituents and how they and Canadians across the country have given him trust. I want to ask the member if he can comment on how his constituents feel about there having been a promise during the election of a $10-billion deficit and that it is now three times that amount with no plan for a balanced budget.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I need not answer that question because the budget is clear: we are here for our seniors.

I can assure hon. members that in my riding every senior will benefit from this very logical and well-received measure.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It seems that the translation was not working there.

Could the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin repeat the last 30 seconds of his comments?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that naturally, contrary to what members across the way think, the seniors in Marc-Aurèle-Fortin are very happy with the measures that our government is putting in place. They will benefit all seniors throughout Canada and not just those in Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in the House today.

In his remarks, he talked about the budget and the importance of supporting seniors and young people. However, the budget tabled by the Liberal government makes no mention whatsoever of agriculture, and yet we all know how important agriculture is to the Canadian economy.

The previous Conservative government had promised funding, specifically $4.3 billion in compensation for the dairy and poultry industries in light of certain trade agreements. This compensation is really important.

However, the budget tabled by the Liberal government makes no mention whatsoever of agriculture or compensation for those industries.

I would like the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin to comment on that.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

My speech this morning was really about seniors all across Canada. This does not mean that I do not support measures for farmers and measures in other areas.

Today I simply wanted to emphasize the support that we are providing to our seniors. This measure represents an investment of over $670 million a year. It will improve the financial security of about 900,000 seniors across Canada and lift 13,000 seniors out of poverty.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why my hon. colleague across the floor does not want to answer that and wants to focus on the seniors. Again, he did not answer my hon. colleague about the agriculture.

Another string of broken promises is what we are seeing with the Liberal government. The Liberals campaigned on following through with what our Conservative government laid the ground work for, lowering small business tax to 9%, and indeed, when they got into power, they decided they would keep it at 10.5%.

My question is this. Why is the government so keyed in on punishing small business? The parliamentary budget officer just tabled a report that this would cost millions in GDP and thousands of jobs throughout Canada. The Liberals are negligent toward small business, and I am wondering why they are punishing small business owners.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

It is important to understand that not only has the Minister of Finance often talked about it, but it is also included in the budget. I would ask the members to reread the budget. Maybe then they will change their minds and support it.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to the bill. I have spoken on the budget in the past, but the budget implementation act is something that I am going to address right now.

I will say at the onset that one of the things that came out of the last election was the fact that all Canadians have a voice in this place. Every single member, all 338 of us, we have the opportunity to use our voices to speak on behalf of our constituents.

Not being a part of the previous government, I understand that there were some procedural manoeuvres that were made, but the fact that the Liberals today have invoked closure on this debate has caused me, as the representative for Barrie—Innisfil, great concern.

As a new member of Parliament, I go back to something that the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte said this morning, and it relates to the throne speech. I think it is worth repeating at the outset of my comments that, in the throne speech, the Liberals stated that:

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

Let us not forget, however, that Canadians have been clear and unambiguous in their desire for real change. Canadians want their government to do different things, and to do things differently....

Through careful consideration and respectful conduct, the Government can meet these challenges, and all others brought before it.

By working together in the service of all Canadians, the Government can make real change happen.

Well, what hypocrisy that today, a lot like in the medically assisted dying debate, the Liberals would invoke closure and not allow Canadians to have a voice on this and the previous bill. I am fortunate to be able to rise on behalf of my constituents, as I was not given the opportunity to speak on medically assisted dying because of that debate being closed.

I want to focus, in the short time I have, on three things. One is what I referred to, in previous comments I have made in the House, as the middle-class tax fraud, or the reduction of the middle class in terms of tax implementation; the shell game that the Liberals are playing. I want to use some very specific examples of that.

The second thing is the innovation sector. I want to speak specifically on that, given the fact that Startup Canada was here last week and I had some very productive meetings, as did my colleagues. I want to speak on behalf of the innovation sector.

The third thing, if I have time, is infrastructure.

As it relates to the middle-class tax fraud, what we are seeing in the budget is that what the Liberals give, the Liberals take back. I use the example of the child care benefit. I would classify a firefighter and a nurse with a combined income of roughly $180,000 as middle class in this country. They actually would be worse off because of the child care benefit. In fact, under the Conservative plan, that same firefighter and nurse would have received almost $240 a month, but under the current Liberal plan, they would only receive $112 a month. In fact, those we could classify as middle-class Canadians would actually be worse off. Granted, there would be some Canadians who were better off, but I think the majority of Canadians, or a large part of Canadians, would actually see less.

What is also disturbing with this shell game that the Liberals are playing with the budget is that we have heard the talking points, we have heard the Minister of Finance stand up in this House and talk about nine million Canadians and all of the rhetoric that goes with it, but there are certain facts in the budget that prove that this is a middle-class tax fraud.

The fact is that the fitness tax credit would be removed. Since 2006, Canadians have benefited to the tune of $1.13 billion in tax relief. Since 2011, there was the arts and activity tax credit, from which Canadians have benefited to the extent of $190 million; and income splitting would be gone for Canadians, at $2,000 a year. As I said earlier, what the Liberals give, the Liberals take back.

What are middle-class Canadians getting for that in this shell game? They are getting burdened with deficit and debt, not unlike my home province of Ontario. We are seeing services cut and taxes go up, and it is just an inevitability.

I know that the finance minister and the Prime Minister have stood up and said that now is the time to invest in infrastructure, and saddle on some burden and debt. There is never a good time for that. In fact, when I was in Washington recently at the National Governors Association conference, some of the top economists in that country were talking about a pending recession.

They were saying that we are actually six years into what is normally a five-year cycle for recession. When that happens, and when we are being crippled with debt, it is going to be awfully difficult, if we do enter into that recession—and this is why governments need to plan ahead—to do what we need to do to take care of the most vulnerable in our country, including many within the middle class.

Last week, as I mentioned earlier, Startup Canada was in town. Many of us in this chamber actually met with them. I had the opportunity to meet with the person I would consider is one of the brightest micro-entrepreneurs in this country, Chad Ballantyne, and his wife, Sandra. They talked a lot about the innovation agenda.

I asked Chad, if he had a couple of minutes to speak to Canadians, what he would say to them. Chad wrote me a long email, and I would like to share some of what Chad said. He said:

[The] Prime Minister...charged his leadership to “develop an Innovation Agenda that includes: expanding effective support for incubators, accelerators… These investments will target key growth sectors where Canada has the ability to attract investment or grow export-oriented companies.”

Startup Canada would merit a seat at the table when the advisory council for the innovation agenda is established. Startup Canada, with its vision of an innovation nation, has in place the only nationwide network to support, nurture, and educate entrepreneurs as they launch and build their companies.

Startup communities, like ours in Barrie, Ontario, are the connective tissue bringing together the entire entrepreneurship community, ensuring the healthy functioning and optimization of an economic and social ecosystem supporting every entrepreneur.

Startup also feels that an innovation agenda should include the entire startup ecosystem and ensure that it does not become too narrowly focused. The agenda proposes pouring investment into a handful of clusters. This is too narrow a focus, and limits the investment opportunity to only later-stage enterprises and R and D tech sectors, and ignores the early-stage startups in service-based companies, which are the foundation of our economic engine in Canada.

There is little, if any, funding for these communities in this budget, and companies that are post R and D, despite their sector focus, recommend to fund innovation throughout the entire ecosystem and support the more than 150,000 people who are a part of micro-entrepreneurs, the startup communities in this country.

Last, on the issue of infrastructure, I know a lot has been said with respect to infrastructure. I said this earlier, when I was speaking on the budget, and we heard it earlier today from the Bloc Québécois member. The easiest way to make sure that infrastructure money flows out that door is to do something with the gas tax, either double it or triple it.

The Liberals have put billions toward infrastructure. One of the things they said during the campaign was that infrastructure was not effectively a Liberal issue, a Conservative issue, or an NDP issue; it was a Canadian issue. The purest, fairest, and simplest way, in order to ensure that communities across this country get what they need in terms of infrastructure with criteria that are already in place, is to make sure we use the gas tax formula as a means to do it.

Over the last couple of weeks and months, we have been seeing a lot of announcements by the Liberal Party in Liberal-held ridings. We need to make sure the money gets to communities that need it. It does not matter whether it is Cariboo—Prince George, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, or Barrie—Innisfil; there is a need across this country, and using the gas tax formula to provide infrastructure funding, to me as a former city councillor, is the purest and only way to ensure fairness and transferability in that system.

In the past, the member for Spadina—Fort York has said that municipalities have used the gas tax funding to decrease taxes in their municipalities. I have not seen any evidence of that at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, in addressing the budget, the member brought up the really important issue of investing in Canada's infrastructure. He made reference to his previous role as a councillor. I agree it is important to recognize that Canada has a great deal of infrastructure that needs to be worked on and improved. That is why we will find that not only does the budget have the largest amount of money being allocated toward infrastructure but we are looking at investing today in Canada's infrastructure.

The member understands the importance of getting the money to the different communities. I am sure he would agree that by investing in Canada's infrastructure we are, in essence, building a healthier and more robust economy, because often infrastructure feeds into economic activity in creating opportunities for Canada's middle class and beyond.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the budget and the deficit that is being created, a lot of it goes to ongoing programs. Again, it comes back to the shell game.

As a former city councillor, I can speak to the infrastructure deficit. I was chair of the infrastructure committee, so I know full well what the infrastructure deficit was in the city of Barrie, and it kept growing every year. There is no question that an infrastructure investment is required. In fact, the previous government made significant infrastructure investments.

What I am talking about is not politicizing the fact that these infrastructure investments need to be made in communities. There is only one way to not politicize that, and that is to use the gas tax formula.

For example, the City of Barrie receives $1.8 million a year in gas tax money. If we doubled or even tripled that, it could improve the transit system in my city by being able to purchase six buses. It does not politicize the process. It gets the money to where it needs to go so that all of Canada can benefit from infrastructure investments, not just Liberal ridings.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the hard work he is doing in terms of industry and innovation.

In his speech he talked about another program that is being impacted by the budget bill. That is the children's fitness tax credit. I remember when the previous government brought in that tax credit in 2006. It was a huge benefit to my wife and me. We had a child in hockey, a daughter in volleyball, and another daughter in dance. I know how much that children's fitness tax credit meant to us as a low middle-income family.

As I was going around my riding this past election telling constituents that not only would we protect the children's fitness tax credit but we would double it to $1,000 per child, the feedback I got was overwhelming. It was absolutely phenomenal how many people were in support of that, how many people took advantage of it, and how important they felt it was to ensure that their kids remained healthy and active and could participate in some of these programs.

This is a program that benefited every single Canadian family with children. I would like to ask my colleague what he feels the impact is going to be on Canadian families and our children by eliminating the children's fitness tax credit.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my family is the epitome of a middle-class family. I have four kids and a beautiful wife. All of them have been active in sports. We have, as a middle-class family, used that fitness tax credit to our advantage. In the overall scheme of things, it may not have been much, maybe a $150 tax credit, but multiply that by four children and that meant $600 in tax relief for my family.

As I said in my presentation, the fitness tax credit since 2006 has benefited Canadian families to the tune of $1.13 billion. That is $1.13 billion that those families have been able to use to put their kids in sports.

From a fitness and health standpoint, we as members of Parliament should be encouraging families, not discouraging them by taking away these types of credits to put their kids into physical activities, because that physical activity helps in the overall health and wellness of the children of our country.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a pleasure for me to rise in the House today as the newly elected member of Parliament for Egmont to speak to Bill C-15.

Before I get to my comments on the budget, I want to acknowledge the situation that is occurring in our sister province of Alberta, primarily the community of Fort McMurray. After all, the oil industry of Alberta and Saskatchewan is the single biggest employer in my riding. We depend on this part of Canada for a lot of the jobs that are created there.

I want to acknowledge as well that islanders will be there to support the community of Fort McMurray in its time of need. We are a generous society; Canadians in general are generous, and we all reach out to those in Fort McMurray.

For the last number of weeks, since the budget was introduced, I have listened intently to the debate in the House and to questions in question period. I have listened to opposition members rail on at length with their comments on the government's deficit budget. Listening to their newfound concerns and their degree of anxiety over the deficit budget, I chose to take a look at the fiscal track record of former governments over the past number of years.

It is interesting to look back at the fiscal situation over a number of years in this country. In particular, I looked back to 1994-95, which was the first year of a new Liberal administration, following nine years of a Conservative government in this country. In 1994-95, the debt-to-GDP ratio was near 70%, after nine years of Conservative rule. By 2006, at the end of roughly 12 years of a Liberal administration, the debt-to-GDP ratio had been reduced to below 30%. Shortly after, the debt-to-GDP ratio under a new Conservative government began to climb, and climbed to over 30%, the number where it is today. When I compared the fiscal situation that was inherited by a Liberal government in 1993-94 and the fiscal track record of the previous Conservative government, we can see how the debt-to-GDP ratio ballooned under that particular government.

I wanted to look more specifically at the past years of the former Conservative government, now the opposition. In 2006-07, the government inherited a surplus of $13.8 billion, adjusted to $16.2 billion. In 2007-08, the surplus was at $9.6 billion, but by 2008-09, the Conservative government began to run a deficit of $5.8 billion in 2008-09. In 2009-10, it was $55.6 billion, adjusted to $61.27 billion. In 2010-11, it was $33 billion, adjusted to $36 billion. In 2011-12, it was $26 billion to $27 billion. In 2012-13, it was $18 billion. In 2013-14, it was $5 billion.

Obviously, the comments now coming from the opposition party, which was the government at the time, clearly show that the government they were a part of had no problem running deficits in this country, in fact sizeable deficits. I am told, but I could be corrected, that the deficit accumulated over that period of time was one of the largest this country incurred in any particular period.

Where are we today? Our party was honest and frank with Canadians during the election. We indicated that given the deteriorating fiscal situation, it was unlikely that in government we would be able to run a surplus. We indicated that given the fiscal situation at the time and the information our party had, we would anticipate a deficit in the $10-billion range in order to implement the programs that we wanted to implement.

My colleague the member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester gave me some good research material which indicates that with the drop in the price of oil per barrel, the federal treasury has lost in the vicinity of $18 billion since late last summer until now.

As a government we could have done a number of things. We could have reined in spending to do away with that deficit, but that would have forced us to abandon a number of the programs that we campaigned on, that we believed in, and that we felt this country needed.

I firmly believe that the government's fundamental role is to address the needs of the most vulnerable. For too many years this area has been neglected and significant effort will need to be made to address these matters. Over the last 30 years, Canadians at the top 0.1% have seen their income rise by about 155% and some 90% of Canadians have seen their income rise by only 33% over the same time frame. Clearly something had to change.

The platform that I was most proud to run on as a candidate in the last election and a key part of the budget that I am proud to support and defend is our position on the child benefit. The child benefit is simpler, fairer, tax-free, and targeted to those who need it the most, low-income and middle-income families. It is also much more generous than the former program. I can relate to one family in my riding that would benefit significantly by this program. There are 5,111 children enrolled in the school system in Egmont. The average family will benefit by $2,300. There are 4,150 families in my riding of Egmont. This adds up to $9.545 million for my constituency alone, which is a small constituency.

What had an impact on me the most during the election campaign was the financial distress that single seniors were feeling. As a candidate, that really had an impact on me. I was surprised at the extent of the financial hardship faced by single seniors, the majority of whom are women.

Our commitment to not only increase the GIS by 10% but to restore the age of eligibility to 65 is a significant component of our budget. I want to quote a fact. According to researchers at Laval University, the Conservative plan would have increased the number of 65-year-olds and 66-year-olds living below the poverty line from 6% to 17%. We in the Liberal Party felt that was unacceptable. We feel that we owe this segment of our population a reasonable living.

I am proud of these two significant changes that would be brought about by the passage of the budget. When the budget is implemented, people will see the benefits.

I want to close on another area where we have seen significant reform. At the same time, I will be a bit critical of my own government. This has to do the changes we have made to the employment insurance system. As a government, we should always target changes to address the most vulnerable in society. On this measure, we did not meet the needs of the short-term seasonal workers in my riding by extending their benefit period. We did it for some parts of the country, which I applaud. We made a lot of significant improvements to the system. However, on this one area, I feel we have a lot more work to do. I look forward to continuing the work on those issues in the coming sessions of Parliament and budgets.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clear up a few rather disingenuous comments made by my colleague with respect to past history.

The truth is that the Mulroney government inherited a massive deficit from the Liberal government. The deficits it ran were solely due to interest payments. It actually had a balanced operations budget. When the Liberals took over after that, they continued massive spending only until they hit a debt wall. They then balanced the budget on the backs of massive health care cuts to Canadians and to our military. Therefore, that is not a record on which I would run. Our previous government then balanced the budget, including the increases to health care.

The member across the way made a comment about the election campaign and his government being “honest and frank” about the finances. The Liberals then broke their promise with respect to the deficit. The $3 billion home health care promise was broken. There is no money in the budget for that. They broke their promise that their tax cuts would be revenue neutral. They broke their promise on cutting taxes for small business.

How is that honest and frank?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we were the only party that was candid during the elections. Given the fiscal situation we could see at the time, we were unlikely to balance the budget. In fact, we indicated that we would run a deficit that could exceed the $10 billion range, while the other two mainline parties, the Conservatives and the NDP, said they would balance the budget. Therefore, one would have to ask this question. In order to be at a balanced budget today, given what happened dramatically in the fall, and continues today with the decline in oil prices, in which areas would a Conservative or NDP government make cuts?

We have made it clear that we would invest in Canadians. We have brought in measures, such as a tax cut to the middle class, the child tax benefit, and an increase in seniors pension, all of which are investments in Canadians.

Small businesses need customers with money in their pockets to spend. That is the most important part for a small business. It has to make a profit before it pays taxes. To make a profit, it needs to have customers with money in their pockets and the ability to spend. That is what is most important for small business.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague spoke with pride about his last election campaign, but I am certain that the voters in his riding who voted for him voted for change and the promise of greater openness and transparency.

We agree that a budget is important. Now, the Liberals have introduced a 179-page omnibus bill. Parliamentarians are being gagged. Given that they were promised change, Canadians were not expecting such an undemocratic move.

The Liberals campaigned in Atlantic Canada and promised real employment insurance reform. However, the Atlantic regions are not among the 12 regions entitled to supplementary unemployment benefits. Can my colleague tell me whether that is what the people of Atlantic Canada were expecting in the way of employment insurance reforms?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, of course we delivered changes to things on which we campaigned. We changed the tax rate for the middle class. We changed the child benefit, which has a significant impact for those most in need. We changed the GIS for single seniors. We changed significant parts of the employment insurance system for the better. We changed the infrastructure program. In fact, we adjusted the criteria that the former government had put in place for the provinces on the east coast as it was impossible for them to spend money and invest in their communities.

I am proud of the changes we have brought in, but we have more work to do in some areas. My hon. colleague will see that in my comments I was equally critical of my own government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute all my colleagues in the House and everyone watching us debate the budget.

We are extremely disappointed with the turn of events. The government wants to muzzle the House and parliamentarians in this very important debate. I will come back to that at the end of my speech.

First of all, this budget is totally irresponsible because it confirms that the government has lost control of public spending and it will be our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who are not even born yet, who will have to pay for today's excesses.

On election day, October 19, Canadians spoke. We are democrats and therefore respect their decision. However, what was the state of public finances? The previous government, with the hon. member for Calgary Heritage at the helm, had the best economic performance in the G7. In fact, in economic matters, it won the G7 triple crown. We had the best debt-to-GDP ratio. The current government boasts that it has the best ratio, but members should not forget that we are the ones who generated it.

Second, our country bounced back from the economic crisis of 2008-10 more quickly than any other country. We also had the best job creation rate. Under the former government, Canadians had the lowest taxes in 50 years.

The Department of Finance found that in November, when the Liberals took office, there was a billion-dollar surplus. That is the situation. I am always pleased to quote the Department of Finance's well-known “Fiscal Monitor”, which I always have at my fingertips. We have tried to table it about 50 times, but the Liberals refuse to face the truth.

This is the Canada that the Liberals inherited: a Canada that had a budget surplus, a Canada that had the best debt-to-GDP ratio, and a Canada whose economic performance was recognized around the world as being the best in the G7. What is more, Canadians had the lowest taxes in 50 years. In short, everything was on track, economically speaking.

However, then the Liberals took office and started racking up deficits and debts left and right. Let us look at each of the promises that the Liberals made and broke concerning sound management.

First, let us look at tax changes. The Liberals bragged about wanting to be like Robin Hood by taking from the rich to give to the poor. They said that they wanted to make revenue-neutral tax changes.

They cannot say that anymore because those tax changes resulted in a $1.7-billion deficit. The money that they promised is money that they do not have. We too want to give money to people. We lowered taxes, but we did it in a realistic and responsible way, and we still managed to balance the books in the previous government's last budget. The Liberals were elected on the promise that they would make tax changes without going into debt, which is completely untrue since the changes that they made resulted in a $1.7-billion deficit.

The same is true for assistance for children. The Liberals are proud to say that they are thinking about families and children, that they want to bring children out of poverty, and that this will all cost nothing. However, that is not how it works. That is not reality. Their measures resulted in a $1.4-billion deficit.

They accumulated a $3-billion debt on these two commitments. That is the irresponsible management we keep hearing about. That is why we think these people have lost all control over public finances and that they are acting in an unrealistic and irresponsible way. It is all well and good to promise the moon and the stars, but you have to have the means. In this case, they do not.

What is most absurd is that the Liberal Party promised small $10-billion deficits, which have now become big $30-billion deficits. Not only was this a bad promise, but it also caused a real financial disaster. It was completely unrealistic and irresponsible.

The Liberals did not keep their promise to Canadians. The Liberal Party was elected by promising a small deficit and by saying that they would achieve a balanced budget in three years. This is completely untrue. This year, the deficit is $30 billion, and who knows if the government will even be able to balance the budget in the next four or five years. Some estimate that our deficit could hit $150 billion. That is completely unacceptable, unrealistic, and irresponsible for our future generations.

That is why, in this situation, we really have two contradictory visions, specifically the vision of a responsible government that made tough but necessary decisions, compared to the vision of the current government, which is governing as though nothing was wrong, has lost all control over public spending, and plans to compulsively run up deficits, one after the other.

It is not at all pleasant, especially given that this government's budget contains an appalling clause to abolish the Federal Balanced Budget Act. It is completely irresponsible, especially since on page 51 of the budget document, it states, “The government remains committed to returning to balanced budgets, and will do so in a responsible, realistic and transparent way.”

Two pages later in the same document, there is a statement saying that the Federal Balanced Budget Act must be repealed. They say one thing, and then two pages later, they say the exact opposite, which is so typical of the Liberals.

What is more, regarding this string of deficits, about two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance, an honourable man who had a distinguished, responsible, and exciting career in the financial world, said that we were stuck in this whole balanced budget thing.

Of course we are stuck on that. That is how to manage things properly. I am very proud to be stuck on balancing the budget. That is the Conservative Party's trademark, and we are very proud of that. Meanwhile, what are they doing on that side of the House? The Liberals are running deficits like mad one after the other, and that is totally unacceptable.

Let us talk about creating wealth. To the Conservative Party, the real creators of wealth are entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized businesses. They are the ones who create employment, wealth, and the necessary economic stimulus.

A government does not create employment. A government needs to support businesses in order to create employment, but not tell them what to do. We respect SMEs, unlike the hon. member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister of Canada, who said not so long ago that the wealthiest Canadians use small businesses to avoid paying taxes. Such behaviour is insulting to those who create employment.

When the Prime Minister said that, he might have been looking in a mirror, because the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Papineau in Quebec, filed his tax return in Ontario in order to save $6,000 in tax in Quebec. He had four numbered businesses to save on taxes. As the saying goes, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

In this case, the Prime Minister could tell us what he did and why he is contemptuous of small businesses, because he thinks that small business owners are people who want to reduce their tax bill. The Conservative Party believes that small business owners are people who risk their own money to create jobs and wealth, and we owe them respect.

What is in this budget for SMEs? Absolutely nothing. If it was simply nothing, it would not be so bad, but things are even worse. In fact, some measures directly attack small businesses. We were on a roll and had promised to reduce the corporate tax rate. Poof, no tax cut. Our government proposed tax credits to create jobs. Poof, they are abolished.

Consequently, according to the Department of Finance, these bad Liberal measures will cost SMEs another $2 billion. What I find insulting is that there is no respect for SMEs, there is no help for them, and some measures are detrimental. This Liberal attitude deserves to be condemned.

The same goes for retirement age. Yes it was bold, but it was a realistic and responsible move on the part of our government to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. Our prime minister made that well-thought-out, responsible choice, and he gave plenty of notice. He announced it in 2011, but it would not have come into effect until 2023. People would have had enough time to adjust.

Who agreed with that measure at the time? The current Minister of Finance. In a book, he wrote: “It would also alleviate any shortages in the workforce due to the aging of the population....Phasing in the eligibility age...from 65 to 67 is a step in that direction”.

That is what the current Minister of Finance said before he became a Liberal Party of Canada flag-bearer, unfortunately.

This budget is completely unrealistic and irresponsible, and it plunges us right into a disastrous deficit spiral. It always makes me laugh when Liberals talk about the Right Honourable Paul Martin. Paul Martin hated deficits with a passion. I think it is a bit unseemly of them to mention Paul Martin.

Most of all, we strongly condemn the fact that the government is going to shut down this important debate. Earlier, one of my colleagues pointed out that this is yet another broken throne speech promise. What was it the throne speech said?

It said, “[The government] will not resort to devices like prorogation and omnibus bills to avoid scrutiny”. That is exactly what is happening today.

That is why we are going to vote against this budget.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that companies need to create jobs and wealth, but the government needs to build trust. The previous Conservative government did not do that.

With regard to the deficit, if the deficit that we announced was any cause for concern, then the financial markets would have reacted negatively. However, they did not react to the announcement of a deficit. Who then is right, the hon. member or the thousands of investors who invest in the financial markets and did not react to the news of a federal budget deficit?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason why the markets reacted positively is that we have the best debt-to-GDP ratio, which was generated by the previous Conservative government. That is why it is too bad that the current government is squandering the financial legacy that we left. I would like to remind the government of that because it is important that we compare ourselves to the best and not just to two or three other countries.

Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio, economic recovery, and rate of job creation were the best in the G7, and Canadians had the lowest taxes in 50 years.

That is the Conservative track record and that is why the economy always did so well under the government led by the right hon. member for Calgary Heritage.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

He referred to the throne speech, but the change announced in that speech was in relation to the previous Conservative government, which kept introducing omnibus bills and imposing gag orders on parliamentarians. I know that my colleague was not a part of that government. As he said, we are democratic. I know how much respect he has for the workings of Parliament and this institution.

Does he not find it strange that the Liberals are perpetuating the Conservative practice of imposing omnibus bills and gag orders?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I will not forget the name this time. I have had the great pleasure of working with her on Bill C-14.

Six months ago, Canadians had their say. We are democratic and we respect their choice. If we had been perfect, we would not be on this side of the House. Each government has its own experiences. The reality is that these people got elected by making promises, and now they are doing the complete opposite. That is the reality. These people got elected by promising that there would be a small $10-billion deficit. How big is the deficit now? It is $30 billion. They got elected by promising that they would make tax changes without any cost to the public, but those changes will cost $1.7 billion. These people were elected on a platform, but they are not following through on it.

This is insulting, and it only adds to Canadians' cynicism about politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The throne speech said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when we all stand in the House, we are heard often. I would like to leave it up to the Prime Minister's words, for Canadians to judge. Here is what the throne speech said:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced.

Parliament shall be no exception.

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here in these Chambers the voices of all Canadians matter....

Through careful consideration and respectful conduct, the Government can meet these challenges, and all others brought before it.

I will let Canadians decide whether closing debate aligns with those principles within the throne speech.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments about the budget.

First of all, a budget must reflect the needs and concerns of our fellow citizens. The budget before us reflects those needs and concerns. As MPs, we are all conduits of the needs and concerns of our fellow citizens.

I would like to say a few words about my riding. There are three regions in my riding: Magog and Sherbrooke; Cowansville, Bromont, and Sutton in the centre; and Bedford, Farnham, and Lake Champlain heading toward Montreal. Of course, each region has its own unique characteristics. Around Magog, it is all about landscapes, seniors, tourism, and culture. In the centre, we have industrial parks, innovation, and new technology. Around Bedford, Farnham, and Lake Champlain, we have agri-tourism, agriculture, and the rural sector.

Before getting into why the measures in this budget matter to the three regions in my riding, I would like to talk about the main reason I came back to politics. I have been away for the past 10 years. I was here before that. As I said many times during the election campaign, I decided to come back because of two lakes. We want the water in those lakes to be as clean as possible for future generations. I am talking about Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog. As you may know, when it gets hot in the summer, the water in Lake Champlain is less like water and more like pea soup. The people of my region, particularly those living in Bedford, draw their drinking water from Lake Champlain. I am fed up with this situation.

Together with mayors from the Lake Champlain region, including Jacques Landry of Venise-en-Québec, Réal Pelletier of Saint-Armand, Renée Rouleau of Saint-Georges-de-Clarenceville, Réal Ryan of Noyan, and Yves Lévesque of Bedford, I will meet with the International Joint Commission to see what kind of solutions can be implemented to fix the problem with the water in Lake Champlain.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has visited Lake Champlain. Perhaps that contributed to the decision to invest $19.5 million over five years in four transboundary basins. This is water that we share with our American neighbours.

Here is what must be done. We need to stop conducting studies that only serve to find other problems. Let us come up with solutions and implement them so that future generations can have clean water.

The first region is Magog. It is so beautiful, with its incredible scenery and Lake Memphrémagog. I do not need to remind everyone how beautiful it is. That area of my riding has a lot of seniors. I must say, I am extremely proud of the measures in the budget that will help seniors. They include a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors. That is the increase to the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit that I mentioned earlier. There is also the elimination of the provision in the Old Age Security Act that raises the eligibility age to 67. These measures regarding the guaranteed income supplement top-up will benefit 900,000 people in Canada. This is an extremely important measure.

Tourism is also extremely important, not only for the eastern part of my riding, which includes the Magog area, but also for the two other regions in my riding. The budget allocates $50 million over two years to Destination Canada to strengthen marketing initiatives in important international markets, such as the United States, our neighbours.

Tourism and culture go hand in hand. My riding is home to one of the counties with the most artists and people working in culture per square kilometre. I almost said “per square inch”, but of course I meant “per square kilometre”.

The budget also allocates $105.9 million over five years to our national museums.

I am very proud, because there are two important museums in Brome—Missisquoi: the Missisquoi Historical Society and the Brome County Historical Society. These two museums will benefit from the additional money allocated in the budget.

In the middle, there is Bromont and Cowansville. This is a bit more of an industrial area. Bromont has a high-tech park, with General Electric and IBM. There is also a young company, Fabritec Group, which now has almost 500 employees and will soon have 1,500. It exports quite a bit to the United States. This is what the budget also does: it restores confidence in innovation and helps set us apart on the world stage through the use of new technologies.

As we have said many times, it is important to remove the gag order on researchers. The previous government muzzled researchers, so it is important to give them their voice back. It is important to strengthen innovation networks and clusters, and to strengthen Canada's network of incubators.

For the middle class, there is the Canada child benefit. We have heard a lot about this in the House. We are making post-secondary education more affordable by enhancing grants. We are increasing investments in green jobs and summer jobs. In the budget, we doubled the funding for student summer jobs.

I will quickly talk about the other region, which includes Bedford, Farnham, and Lac Champlain. I have talked about it a lot. It is a more rural area with all the vitality of rural life. I want to take this opportunity to say hello to the people in my riding who think that our budget in the House today restores confidence in Quebec's economy and restores people's confidence in investing.

Speaking of agriculture, I want to say a few words about the experimental farm in Frelighsburg. I will take the opportunity to congratulate Jean Lévesque, who was just elected mayor of Frelighsburg. The experimental farm was closed down by the Conservatives two or three years ago. The agricultural research we do in Quebec and Canada is important. In the budget, we invested in agricultural research. I told people back home that I would work hard, again, to ensure that the Frelighsburg experimental farm is reopened as soon as possible.

In closing, I want to say that a connected Canada is important to a riding like mine. It is important to have high-speed Internet. I have said it before and I will say it again, it is hard to believe that high-speed Internet is not available to all our small communities from coast to coast to coast. I was here in the House when Brian Tobin was industry minister. At the time, he promised to connect Canada from coast to coast to coast. We are far from it. Canada needs Internet connection.

A week ago, I was in Noyan, a small community in my riding where, together with Développement innovations Haut-Richelieu I was pleased to announce that the entire village of Noyan, the entire population and every house, was connected. The budget promises $500 million over five years to ensure that broadband service is provided to rural communities across the country.

In closing, I want to say again how proud I am to be the member for Brome—Missisquoi and how proud I am to be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of visiting the area my colleague represents. It is indeed a very beautiful area. However, I am afraid he is confusing the beauty of that area with the beauty in this budget, because there is none.

We were asked earlier if we could be positive about something in this budget. I would ask my colleague this. Is he not concerned that the agriculture sector was not mentioned once in the throne speech, and that the budget is virtually silent on it?

Also, there is the broken promise for the tax rate cut for small and medium-size businesses that was promised in the election. I remember sitting with my colleagues in other parties and they all promised this tax reduction for small business, but it is not in the budget.

Finally, there is nothing in the budget to fulfill the platform promise of the Liberal government that it would invest $3 billion in home care and palliative care. It is critically important at this time when we are discussing physician-assisted suicide.

However, the biggest disappointment is on page 234. Debt charges alone between this year and 2020 will rise from $25.7 billion to $35.5 billion. That is $10 billion more just to pay the interest. Is my colleague not concerned?

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, if there ever was a time to invest in the economy, that time is now, because interest rates are low and there are exceptional opportunities for stimulating the economy in all our ridings and across the country. It is crucial. As mentioned in the budget, we are going to invest in the Canadian economy because interest rates are low.

I quickly spoke about agriculture in my presentation. It is important for the agricultural sector across the country to be healthy. We recently discussed diafiltered milk at length. All Quebec members, rural Ontario members, and members from all corners of the country are standing up for farmers. It is important that we continue to stand up for them.

We also talked about the social and economic climate. I spoke about Bromont, where Fabritec will increase its workforce from 500 to 1,500 employees within two years. It is important to create an economic climate and that is what we are doing with our budget.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his environmental concerns.

When he speaks about pride, I find it difficult to understand how the Liberals can be proud of introducing an omnibus bill and imposing closure on parliamentarians. He said that MPs are the conduits for the people in our ridings. I do not see how I can be a conduit when I am prevented from speaking in the House.

I certainly agree that it is important to have an Internet connection. However, it is completely unacceptable for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to talk only about high-speed Internet when we ask him what is in this budget for agriculture.

It is not enough to say that they care about agriculture when the budget does not provide any compensation for agricultural producers who are affected by different international treaties. I do not see how they can say that they support farmers. I would like my colleague to explain that.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I invite her and all of my colleagues to visit the magnificent riding of Brome—Missisquoi, which, as another colleague was saying, is very beautiful. It is also home to the wine trail and many other attractions. I invite everyone to visit my riding.

Agriculture is a constant concern for the Liberal caucus, whether we are talking about agriculture in Quebec, Ontario, western Canada, or the Maritimes. I am part of the Liberal rural caucus. We are having open discussions about agriculture and getting Canada connected, and we are trying to find the quickest way to meet our objectives.

The budget provides $500 million to get Canada connected from coast to coast. That amount is not enough to solve the problem, but since we are here for at least four years, the caucuses that we belong to will be able to put pressure on the government to increase it.

In 2016, if we want young families to settle in our ridings and in rural areas, we need to make sure that every house and every business is connected to high-speed Internet.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by speaking about the aspects of the budget bill that are contained in Bill C-12. I am really disappointed that members of the House were not given the opportunity for debate and study in committee of Bill C-12 to make it a better bill. Veterans have been shuffled aside for so long, but apparently, according to the Liberal government, not long enough. Veterans and their families are in despair. We hear it every day in the veterans affairs committee. Too many are absolutely desolate.

It is no secret that Veterans Affairs Canada has been badly mismanaged by past Conservative and Liberal governments. Pensions have been clawed back, front-line services have been cut, and the result has been increased wait times for desperately needed help. Quality home care is simply not as available as it should be and we all know that long-term care services are shrinking. Soldiers with PTSD face months of delays before even being referred for help and then that help is hard to get.

The changes in the bill to the earnings lost benefit and the disability award for veterans are good first steps. I hope the changes will result in more veterans qualifying for benefits and that those heroes of our country see a positive improvement to their quality of life.

However, this omnibus bill lacks the full support that veterans need.

First, there is no support for mental health in the budget, and this is a huge concern. Many veterans are suffering from the trauma of combat, the stress of their service to Canada. Yet there is a lack of support for veterans and their families to recognize and care for mental health issues that result from their experiences in the field and beyond on behalf of their country. Let us not ever forget that the government asked them to do their duty and they did not fail, and we must not fail.

Sadly and unacceptably, the budget bill would not increase support for spouses or caregivers of injured veterans. Partners of CF members are often required to leave their own jobs to care for the injured veteran. Those caregivers are provided with little training and very little support. This not only impacts the current income of caregivers, but it impacts their own pensions down the road.

Every member of the House knows that pension benefits are largely based on the earnings of an individual's years of employment. Therefore, caregivers who give up employment pay are at a terrible disadvantage. They pay a terrible price in their senior years because their pensions are simply inadequate.

When Canada sends its women and men in uniform into conflict, they and their families accept unlimited liability, and there is the very real possibility that what they are ordered to do could cost them their lives. As a country, we have nothing less than a sacred duty to our veterans to care for them when they return. It is time for a new era in the government's relationship with veterans, one based on respect that ensures dignity, financial security, and quality of life.

If the government is serious about repairing the damage at Veterans Affairs Canada, it should take immediate action and ensure all veterans have the income support they need. We are calling on the government to prove this in a new era by working with veterans and to immediately review, update, and improve the new veterans charter, including addressing the issue of lump sum payments, those payments currently offered to seriously injured veterans.

It is crucial that the government develop a one veteran one standard policy that would ensure all veterans would be treated equally, regardless of when or where they served.

It is time to end the unfair service pension clawback for retired and disabled Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and show good faith by increasing the survivor's pension of veterans.

It is time to remove the archaic marriage clause restricting benefits for marriages that occur after age 60. Imagine in this day and age calling older spouses who marry, love, and care for veterans “gold diggers”. What a ludicrous and petty label.

The government should provide timely accessible care for veterans' health and well-being. We as a nation must improve and expand PTSD and mental health supports for veterans to ensure they get the care they need, and get that care quickly without barriers, without harmful delays.

The government should reverse the cuts to long-term care for veterans, and expand the veterans independence program to allow seriously injured and elderly Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP veterans to continue to live at home. It should not put that burden of care on partners, on spouses, on caregivers. The government must make sure that the veterans independence program is there, in addition to what caregivers and spouses provide.

I have spoken to this House about post-Korean vets who served Canada in times of great danger only to be turned away from long-term care in their time of need. It is disgraceful to say to a veteran that his or her contribution was less because it occurred after 1954.

Even though the wounds may not have been obvious at the time of release or active duty, they are wounds that come from dedicated service to Canada. Those who suffer those wounds must be respected. They deserve long-term care in a veterans hospital, if that is what they wish.

There must be increased supports for veterans' families and caregivers who are often the main support for veterans.

We have an absolute obligation to ensure that services are delivered with a veterans-first approach. This can be done by establishing a formal covenant for veterans' care that recognizes the government's moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation to care for Canada's veterans.

I submit it is also important that we eliminate the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which is staffed by government appointees who have too often been unresponsive to the realities faced by veterans seeking disability benefits. It is time to replace the old VRAB with a medically focused review process for appeals.

Unlike WSIB, the court cannot overturn a Veterans Review and Appeal Board refusal. The court can only refer the issue back to the same people who decided against the veteran in the first place. How can this result in fairness for veterans? It would seem to me that the appearance of arm's-length non-interference in the VRAB from government is actually a refusal of government to take responsibility. It is politics at its worst.

Finally, Canadians wish very much to show all veterans that they respect them and that these veterans deserve our support. This can be accomplished by a government prepared to expand eligibility and increase funding for the Last Post Fund to ensure that all veterans can be guaranteed a dignified funeral.

New Democrats value the work and sacrifice of our Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and personnel currently serving, whether they served at home, in war, or in peacekeeping missions. We call on the government to repair our country's relationship to one that is based on that respect, rather than on the current state of neglect.

We must ensure that our veterans and their families are well cared for from the moment they sign up to the moment they pass away, including that dignified funeral and burial I talked about.

Bill C-12 and the same measures covered in this budget bill do not come close to fully addressing the needs of our veterans. The manner in which we honour and care for our veterans and their families is a reflection of the integrity of this country. When we ask people to put their lives on the line for Canada, we must ensure that their sacrifices are recognized and their losses, monetary, physical, and emotional, are compensated, and that their service is recognized with grateful acknowledgement.

If we leave one single veteran living in poverty, one single veteran homeless, one single veteran suffering the agony of post-traumatic stress, or one single dependant of that veteran unsupported and out in the cold, we will have failed in fulfilling our sacred covenant.

I know we can do better. I have faith, hope, and optimism. I believe that we need, and can work towards creating, a system of comprehensive support for our veterans. This budget bill could have addressed the gaps we face in fulfilling our covenant to veterans, but sadly, it has missed the mark. We are capable of better. We cannot let anyone tell us it cannot be done.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for seeing, like the government, that there are a lot of things that need to be done for veterans. I appreciate her outlining some of the things that still need to be done.

When the member talked about the good things relating to veterans that were in this budget, which is probably more than a lot of budgets in the past, would she add the reopening of a number of offices that were closed for veterans, and re-employing a number of employees to help the veterans? As she mentioned, after what veterans have done for our country, the waiting times are totally unacceptable.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, I have profound concerns about the shortfalls of the budget when they relate to veterans.

I must remind members opposite that those offices have not been opened yet. They have been promised, and they are critical in terms of serving the needs of veterans, but they are not open yet. In terms of the extra staff, yes, there are promises for extra staff, but we have heard in the veterans affairs committee that that, too, is not enough.

There has to be a change in culture in Veterans Affairs Canada. There has to be a real understanding that if there are indeed programs and services available, then veterans and their families must be given full access to them, instead of playing the guessing game that has been going on for too many years.

I call it a computer surprise. Basically, if one can figure out where on the computer to access the program and decide how one fits in, then maybe, if the application is just right, one might get some of that benefit. I am tired of computer surprises.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for highlighting our veterans. Just this past Saturday, I had the honour of spending some time with a World War II veteran, Mr. Harry Watts, who worked as a dispatch writer in World War II in liberating Holland. What an honour it was to stand beside him and to hear his stories.

My question relates to palliative care. I had the honour in the previous Parliament of working with the member's colleague, Mr. Joe Comartin, a member of Parliament from Windsor. We worked on a report called “Not to be Forgotten”, which highlighted the sad state of palliative care in Canada. Recently, we just passed a bill at second reading to authorize physician-assisted suicide. The bill is currently before the justice committee.

My concern is that in spite of the Liberal platform promise to put $3 billion into home care and palliative care initiatives, there is not a penny in the budget for that. I wonder if my colleague shares that concern.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do recall the work that was done in the previous Parliament in regard to palliative care. It was very important work. Despite the fact that it was a Canadian doctor who came out with the idea of palliative care, we have done very little in the last 30 years to make progress on that. It is absolutely essential that, in terms of all Canadians, including veterans, end-of-life care be sensitive and appropriate, but above all, it needs to be available.

I would like to add concerns that are connected to this, which have to do with long-term care. Back in the 1970s, the federal government downloaded its responsibilities for veterans in terms of long-term care on to the provinces. Over and over again, I have seen post-Korean veterans who desperately have needed the support of their federal government to have long-term care, and those needs have been denied. That has to end, too.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members who come from British Columbia, particularly the Lower Mainland, are aware of the absolute crisis in affordable housing. In the city that I come from, Vancouver, the average house price is now well over $1 million, meaning that the vast majority of families cannot afford to buy a simple house with a backyard, which our parents and many of us in this chamber have done. I am wondering if there is a similar problem in Ontario.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether she feels that there are sufficient resources devoted in the budget to address the absolute crushing need for affordable housing, and a federal government that is once again a partner with the provinces and cities in building that essential resource for Canadians.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that no matter where we go in this country, the need for affordable, decent, appropriate housing is critical. When the Conservatives and Liberals cancelled and defunded the national housing program, we saw an escalation of the homeless. That includes homeless veterans. Imagine the travesty of their doing their bit for their country with integrity and honour, and then finding out there was nothing there for them, including a decent and affordable home.

I would say that the lack of a housing policy in this budget, and in the budget before that, and in the budget before that, going back to the 1990s, is a disgrace and we need to address it urgently.